Shame on them. They seem to have picked an Oprah clip designed to portray the couple as animals and not people with the vet thing, putting the entire story wildly out of context and then peppering it with her going "this is disgusting" over and over again as she tries to not even listen to the facts. When did the tabloids get ahold of television, and where's a good liberal news source when you need one?

OK, I need to find an email address of the producer so I can let them know how "sick" and "grossed out" those 3 "news" anchors just made me.

They owe this couple an apology-- they insinuate that this man is pregnant with some half human/half parrot thing-- something I haven't seen ANY other news outlet try and do.

It's practically a rallying cry for 'gather up your pitchforks and go kill this freak!'

What is so gross about this? Really. I'd like to know. It's not that hard to understand that this is a man who was formerly a woman who still has child-bearing reproductive organs... how hard is that to understand?

Unless of course you are TRYING to make the case that trans people are HIDEOUS and DISGUSTING.

They make me sick.

I don't think it's disgusting, but I do think this "man" is now a woman, since she's pregnant. She probably can go back to being a man after the birth of the baby, but will she want to? It's a very interesting scenario.

What y'all said.

I'm curious, though, about the choice of title, which seems to be a careful attempt to avoid identifying Beatie by either name or gender. I don't think it's an appropriate response to the transphobic media frenzy to neuter Mr. Beatie.

tinfoil hattie: You are kidding right? Have you heard of the concept of gender identification? Just because someone is biologically female doesn't mean they identify as female. The man in question has a female body and identifies as a male. He did before he got pregnant, he does now he is pregnant and he will after he gives birth. At no point did he "swap" and your use of "man" complete with scare quotes is offensive.

They use male pronouns when talking about him. It is strange that they offer that bit of etiquette while calling him disgusting, ect.

dykelawyer, actually i was just trying to cut down on the amount of words in the title, there was no deliberate attempt to not identify Beatie by his gender. just trying to be short and accurate. but if anyone has a better post title, i'm all for it!

actually, thought of a better (and shorter!) one. changed.

tinfoil hattie: To add to what fatacademic said, I watched the Oprah thing, and he said that he, somewhat to his own surprise, felt no less of a man now that he's pregnant. Personally, I don't feel comfortable or capable of applying what I think about gender expression in myself and others to someone else's gender identity. I can think all I want, and sometimes even form opinions, about the way a person is acting, but I can't see inside her or his mind, so when it comes to identification, I think that's best done by one's self.

Dykelawyer, men can't get pregnant and they can't have babies. How do you decide you're a man and then decide, "Well, except for this one part where I want to get pregnant"?

I understand all about "identifying" as one gender or another, and I don't think there's one set of criteria that determines how one identifies. I just don't buy that "men" (and what do you mean by scare quotes?) get pregnant.

Sorry this offends you. I'm entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, if you get pregnant and have a baby, you're not a man, even if you call yourself a man.

Maybe this person is neither a "man" nor a "woman." Maybe this person is both. Maybe this person is neither. Maybe there aren't enough definitions of gender.

But if this person is pregnant, she's not a man.

The three anchors had different attitudes, and the woman was, I think, the worst. The lead anchor (sorry, I don't know their names) I only heard use a female pronoun once, and given the situation and the attitude of the others, I found that surprisingly good. The other two just seemed to think that if they were uncomfortable with the situation then they should take it out on others. how very 'high school' of them.

tinfoil hattie:
what exactly do you think makes a man a man? Or a woman a woman? Is it based solely on the in/ability to get pregnant/give birth? If so, how do you account for the infertile?

Wow, classy. I continue to find myself amazed that the same people who'll argue left, right and center to a woman contemplating an abortion that pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are lovely and wonderful will go on and on about how two people who desperately want and love their child and their baby are all sick freaks.

tinfoil hattie, our definition of gender and society's limited allowances for gender expression are definitely too limiting. The problem is conflating gender and biological/chromosomal sex, which is what you do when you say a person who carries a fetus and gives birth can't be a man.

Why not? Why are we so wrapped up in enforcing what makes a person a man or a woman? Biology is not destiny, and shouldn't determine our roles in the world.

"Sorry this offends you. I'm entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, if you get pregnant and have a baby, you're not a man, even if you call yourself a man."

That's all fine well and good for you, but how is it your place to apply your concept of gender identification to another person who has clearly articulated their own opinion about their own body? You're more than entitled to your own opinions but when it extends to disrespecting both the choices and identity of others, you're stepping into the territory of prejudice.

We live in a patriarchy, so we determine whether a person belongs to one of two genders. If you're not one, by default you must be the other.

Stretch this out: Why only two genders? Why not room for more than just "male" or "female"? Why insist on trying to fit a person into one of two pigeonholes?

If we were a society that does not shame people for failing to fit into one of two proscribed genders, upon whose definitions and determinants we cannot agree, we would celebrate and possibly even envy those whose bio/psycho/ emotional makeup encompasses more than one narrow set of gender traits.

Instead, we get hung up arguing over whether someone is a "man" or a "woman," because we can't agree on the definition.

Why try to make everyone fit into the "male" or "female" category, when clearly, human beings are not always so cut-and-dried?

Thanks for the update!! Here is my message sent to Morning Joe.
****

Was it really necessary to shout "disgusting" over and over while discussing the pregnant man? Frankly, I'd expect more elevated discussion in a middle school lunchroom.

At one point, you edited the Oprah segment to insinuate that this child is some byproduct of a vet visit and will be half-human/half parrot.

Shame on you. You owe that couple an apology.

Hattie you are the one saying that if this person is pregnant then they cannot be a man so they have to be a woman (which you designated him as by using the pronoun "she" when saying "but if this person is pregnant, she is not a man"). You are perpetuating the very thing you are seemingly arguing against...

uh, tinfoil hattie, then why were you arguing that he must be a woman while pregnant?

What is disgusting about Mr Beatie? What is disgusting about pregnancy in general that someone would make comments like this. I think it's beautiful and inspirational that he has gone ahead and done something outside the mainstream, all for the good of his family. His daughter will always know she was very much wanted by both her parents, and what is disgusting about that?

What I find most interesting about this couple is the media's reaction towards pushing the pregnant father towards a gender identity. In these comments, the same tendency is shown by tinfoilhattie, whose own definitions of gender apparently extend to the whole world in their mind. I think most of us with an even slightly nuanced understanding of gender and sexuality issues/theory can agree that one's self-identification is more valid than the projections of society. The pregnant man in this story is trying to live a fulfilliing and meaningful life without bowing to the pressures of gender conformation. The question is only whether our bodies must dictate our roles and behaviors as prescribed by the most dominant class in the sex-caste society. Any thinking feminist must, inherently, support all queer and transgender struggles if we are to have integrity. The struggles are inseperable.
It makes me proud of our queer and feminist communities, and excited for the future when (i hope) the spaces between poles of our gender dichotomy can be inhabited, lovingly and without persecution.
More power to him.

This reminds me of a movie that (ironically enough) I haven't seen yet (but it's on my netflix queue!) -- it's called "Southern Comfort" where a trans man is living with terminal cancer of the ovaries.

I've seen the preview, where he says something like, "ironically enough, the last part of me that's female is what's killing me."

Just because this man had ovaries and ovarian cancer didn't make him a man.

This whole discussion of "what is this person" is totally useless IMO.

The fact is we have a human being who's about to bring a child into the world and care for the child and love it.

If Thomas feels male or female is of no matter to me.

I have to say that I've been losing respect for Brzezinski since she went along with the whole "Obama bowls like a girl!" thing. This display, however, has totally turned me off her. Way to act like a third grader.

I just sent a little note:

"By your comments on the segment called, "Mr. Mom", I'm to assume that you're opposed to artificial insemination as a method of becoming pregnant. Specifically, the Oprah clips you used discussed only the use of a sterilized syringe and care of the sperm. Is it simply that you prefer one medical procedure over another, or is vaginal intercourse the only legitimate way for someone to get pregnant?

If you have a problem with this man's gender identity, then, by all means, take issue with it, and argue that it's impossible for someone to feel like a man when pregnant. (I assume you know from experience?) There is no need, however, to simply proclaim your disgust at what was calmly and rationally explained to be a normal medical procedure.

I'd also like to take issue with your conflation of sperm donation and fatherhood, but perhaps another day."

I'm afraid that we're all trapped in a horrible logical fallacy. Just because we've never known someone who identifies as a man while pregnant doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Pure, infallible proof exists only in mathematics, and all of the scientific research in the world can't account for absolutely everyone and everything. Is someone who falls outside the normal curve necessarily disgusting or evil? I don't think so. Maybe these people do.

FYI, there is a facebook group now against Beatie. The group description is written in a female voice, and is interesting because of it seems that the writer is mad that Beatie is treading on her role as a woman to reproduce... I noticed that some of those joining the group were also a part of feminist groups on facebook. I just think it's sad that some of us are trying to break down gender roles...but only as it benefits US.
I say rock on Thomas Beatie. If nothing else, this story is showing us who in the media are choosing to act immature and juvenille, and extremely uneducated ("Pregnant Dude on Oprah"---how creative and adorable you are!)

This is getting complicated.

For the ease of writing, I will ferefer to tinfoilhattie as "her", its just easier this way for me, I'm not with the times I guess. If hattie is actually a male, or identifies as such, my apologies.

Firstly, tinfoilhattie, IMO, is not contradicting her own statement.

When hattie identified a human as being female for its ability to bear children, you all ripped on her for somehow forcing her own limited opinions onto those who don't fit in.

She then proceeded on a mental exercise asking as to why we even limit ourselves to only 2 genders? Somehow this is seen by y'all as a contradiction of sorts.

What I keep failing to understand in all discussions of this sort this: why is it when somebody dares to have a remotely traditional view on gender, he / she is ganged up on and is basically presented as a tyrant.

This issue bothers me a lot, I've been reading this site for months but this finally drove me to get an account.

People who said I contradicted myself are right. I shouldn't have said "she" is a "woman." I did contradict myself, and I was wrong.

I am trying to muddle through this too, like everyone else. It's new, and it goes against our patriarchal paradigms, and I'm as caught up in them as anyone else. So I'm sorry for offending.

We definitely need to open our definitions of gender, if "gender" is even a concept that can exist beyond male and female.

It is, however, my opinion that calling a person who is pregnant a "man" is inaccurate. I don't think that's prejudiced. I think calling a pregnant person a "man" is limiting.

i think the uproar regarding this issue belies a lot of anxiety about how we classify ourselves and others, especially in regards to gender. i think the concept of a "pregnant transman" really challenges a lot of gender norms and beliefs that comprise our daily existence and are therefore taken for granted. i think we feel socially dislocated if we can't immediately categorize those we encounter, and the revulsion being expressed right now, as well as the debate about what it means to be a "man" or a "woman," are merely masks for fear.

It is, however, my opinion that calling a person who is pregnant a "man" is inaccurate. I don't think that's prejudiced. I think calling a pregnant person a "man" is limiting.

I think, tinfoil hattie, what a lot of people who have responded to your comments are saying is that it's not about what you or I think is limiting or right--it's about what each of us choose to call ourselves. This man has clearly said in many different contexts that being pregnant has not challenged his sense of himself as a man, and he continues to identify as a man. His voice is the one that needs to be heard and honored here, not ours, not the media's.

I only watched a small clip of the ultrasound on Oprah, and I'll admit I was surprised that they had found out the sex of the baby, and referred to it as "she" numerous times.

I think this issue is really interesting and I understand why many people struggle with the concept of a pregnant man.

Has anyone seen the movie "Transparent"?
(transparentthemovie.com)
I'm going to try and track it down if I can. I'm not quite clear from the synopsis whether the 19 transmen in the film gave birth and then transitioned or vice versa? Anyways, let me know if you've seen it and what you thought.

If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole! Kudos!

I NEVER watch TV news because I can't stand to hear the anchors pass really lowest-common denominator-type judgements on every single story. Who cares what you think! Shut up and let me see for myself.

I read this story in the Advocate. I couldn't get through the TV news thing. Those anchors are so annoying.

'This man has clearly said in many different contexts that being pregnant has not challenged his sense of himself as a man, and he continues to identify as a man"

As such, why did he choose to perform chest reconstruction surgery to make himself appear more like a man?

If bearing a child isn't a detractor from him feeling a man, why is having breasts?

If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole! Kudos!

I NEVER watch TV news because I can't stand to hear the anchors pass really lowest-common denominator-type judgements on every single story. Who cares what you think! Shut up and let me see for myself.

I read this story in the Advocate. I couldn't get through the TV news thing. Those anchors are so annoying.

a propos the facebook group...i wouldn't be too concerned about the feminists joining it (yet). as i know, its a pretty common practice on facebook to join groups opposite of what you believe in to argue/discuss in the forums with those who DO actually believe in it. so don't lose hope yet

GoodGolly!: "If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole!"

Of course any gay men who are "miffed" are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner. And, like Beatie, they would still be able to have biological children.

This is the e-mail I sent them:

I was absolutely disgusted by your comments on Thomas Beatie. He and his wife are doing what makes them happy, and their decision to have a biological child should never be subject to ridicule. Particularly by oversized fratboys who were lucky enough to score their own TV show. How about instead of giggling at the "freak," you congratulate him for actually doing what it takes to make himself happy in the wake of idiot "news" anchors who like to suggest that the father is a parrot, and that this couple will somehow be unable to raise this child because they both happen to have two X chromosomes. I would bet the rest of my college tuition on the fact that these parents are more fit to raise their child than you would ever be given the fact that you will surely raise your kids to believe the same intollerant drivel you spout so freely.

And that facebook group makes me sick.

This is the e-mail I sent them:

I was absolutely disgusted by your comments on Thomas Beatie. He and his wife are doing what makes them happy, and their decision to have a biological child should never be subject to ridicule. Particularly by oversized fratboys who were lucky enough to score their own TV show. How about instead of giggling at the "freak," you congratulate him for actually doing what it takes to make himself happy in the wake of idiot "news" anchors who like to suggest that the father is a parrot, and that this couple will somehow be unable to raise this child because they both happen to have two X chromosomes. I would bet the rest of my college tuition on the fact that these parents are more fit to raise their child than you would ever be given the fact that you will surely raise your kids to believe the same intollerant drivel you spout so freely.

And that facebook group makes me sick. However, it only has 27 members, wheras the group in support of the couple has 108 members (I'm the newest one).

GoodGolly!: "If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole!"

Of course any gay men who are "miffed" are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner. And, like Beatie, they would still be able to have biological children.

I'm reminded of how some conservatives out there seem to think stuff like "How do you decide you want equal employment opportunities with men and then decide, 'Well, except for this one part where my health insurance covers my OB/GYN care'?"

Jenikov, why is it your business to decide whether or not one's identified gender is valid or not? Mr. Beatie is a man. He was always a man, even when he had a female body. He transitioned most of his body to better match his self-identified gender. He did not transition his reproductive system, for his own personal reasons that are none of our business. This ended up being a good thing for he and his wife, as she is not able to bear children, due to a life threatening illness. He is now able to do what no other husband has been able to do for his wife before and take on the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. He continues to be a man, because he was never not a man. You're snide remarks and clear discomfort with that as a concept doesn't change it. The reason people are upset with TinfoilHattie, is because TH is being disrespectful to what Mr. Beatie's self-identification is, which is just exactly what transphobic people do. You do not get to decide whether or not Mr. Beatie is a man. He does. He has. He is. Get over it.

"He was always a man, even when he had a female body."

Nitpick: except when he was a boy, right? I heard that most if not all transpeople realize they're trans very early in life.

I was completely disgusted not by the story of the pregnant transman (�Mr. Mom�, 4/4/08), but by your ignorant, bigoted, and offensive coverage of that story. I thought I was watching a group of junior high school students as you and your colleagues expressed such sophisticated opinions as “I’m going to be sick,� “we don’t want the facts,� and “I’m closing my eyes.�

As I sit here with my infant daughter in my arms, I am angered and saddened that you chose to heap your abuse upon a loving couple who have decided to have a child together. I am ashamed that I ever respected Mika Brzezinski back when I was growing up in Hartford, CT. Thank you, Ms. Brzezinski and co., for showing me how unworthy of that respect you are.

My letter to the Morning Joe show:

I was completely disgusted not by the story of the pregnant transman (�Mr. Mom�, 4/4/08), but by your ignorant, bigoted, and offensive coverage of that story. I thought I was watching a group of junior high school students as you and your colleagues expressed such sophisticated opinions as “I’m going to be sick,� “we don’t want the facts,� and “I’m closing my eyes.�

As I sit here with my infant daughter in my arms, I am angered and saddened that you chose to heap your abuse upon a loving couple who have decided to have a child together. I am ashamed that I ever respected Mika Brzezinski back when I was growing up in Hartford, CT. Thank you, Ms. Brzezinski and co., for showing me how unworthy of that respect you are.

Um, yah. Double. Oops.

I don't see how any of TH's comments were disrespectful. Differing opinion about a person's self perception is not disrespect. Furthermore, TH didn't come out and say anything pro or against, she merely stated that as a male, a human being can give birth. Therefore it must be the other gender - female. Mr. Beatie chooses to think of himself as a man, that's a-ok. How was TH, then, disrespectful?

That's absolutely my issue here.

I understand well that some people identify themselves of being different gender than they are biologically. I understand that.

I also understand that this is a very very unique scenario and does shake a lot of our definitions of gender - what it is, and what it isn't.

GoodGolly, thanks for bringing up an angle I think a lot of us are missing. I know, of course, this couple didn't go through elaborate medical procedures as a "loophole" to marriage, but I think this is really interesting. It sheds a whole new light on the gay marriage controversy that one needs only to be able to legally register as the opposite sex to legitimize it.

And I'm wondering now what everyone thinks the perception of this might be by the less liberal-minded. My boyfriend, who is wonderful except for the close-mindedness, doesn't really think to highly of gay men and most things "nontraditional." But he admitted to me that he has a lot of respect for someone like Thomas Beattie who are willing to make such a serious commit and change their entire life to fit how they identify.

So thoughts: will this example of loving couple "normalize" transgendered folks in society before gay couples get that same treatment?

"Of course any gay men who are 'miffed' are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner."

I appreciate your (justified) sarcasm here, rhowan, but your quip misrepresents the law in most states. The extent of surgical intervention required in order to have one's gender transition legally recognized (for marriage or other purposes) varies and is often unclear from state to state. In almost every state, a trans woman needs to have bottom surgery to get legal recognition. The situation is somewhat different for trans men, but I believe that in most states Mr. Beatie would not have recognized as a man legally and therefore would have been unable to marry his wife. And in a handful of states transition is still never legally recognized. This doesn't affect your point - that recognition of transition is certainly not a 'loophole' gay people are going to exploit - but folks environment is far from friendly for gender transition.

Edit: Furthermore, TH didn't come out and say anything pro or against, she merely stated that as a male, a human being can't give birth

"Of course any gay men who are 'miffed' are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner."

I appreciate your (justified) sarcasm here, rhowan, but your quip misrepresents the law in most states. The extent of surgical intervention required in order to have one's gender transition legally recognized (for marriage or other purposes) varies and is often unclear from state to state. In almost every state, a trans woman needs to have bottom surgery to get legal recognition. The situation is somewhat different for trans men, but I believe that in most states Mr. Beatie would not have recognized as a man legally and therefore would have been unable to marry his wife. And in a handful of states transition is still never legally recognized. This doesn't affect your point - that recognition of transition is certainly not a 'loophole' gay people are going to exploit - but folks environment is far from friendly for gender transition.

Appalling! Though I'm not exactly pro-trans (I find it sexist to change genders) I found this to be openly degrading, and offensive. This also helps to reveal how disrespected pregnancy is openly treated with in this country.

GoodGolly, thanks for bringing up an angle I think a lot of us are missing. I know, of course, this couple didn't go through elaborate medical procedures as a "loophole" to marriage, but I think this is really interesting. It sheds a whole new light on the gay marriage controversy that one needs only to be able to legally register as the opposite sex to legitimize it.

And I'm wondering now what everyone thinks the perception of this might be by the less liberal-minded. My boyfriend, who is wonderful except for the close-mindedness, doesn't really think to highly of gay men and most things "nontraditional." But he admitted to me that he has a lot of respect for someone like Thomas Beattie who are willing to make such a serious commit and change their entire life to fit how they identify.

So thoughts: will this example of loving couple "normalize" transgendered folks in society before gay couples get that same treatment?

Jenikov, I can't figure out if you're arguing in good faith here or not. You don't have to come out and say something blatantly negative for it to be disrespectful. If I am a woman, but have no uterus, and someone tells me, "No disrespect, but you have to have a uterus to be a woman, and since you don't, you must be a man." That's disrespectful. It just is. I say I am a woman, and you deny the validity of my womanhood. Dis.Re.Spect.Ful. How anyone can claim that it isn't is utterly beyond me, save for the possibility of their just covering themselves. In fact, I might have to go get my transphobia bingo card and see how many squares have been covered already on this thread.

she merely stated that as a male, a human being can't give birth

And yet in this situation, Mr. Beattie is male, and is giving birth. So tinfoil hattie's statement doesn't represent the full range of human experience. It erases the very real experience of Mr. Beattie and his wife, which is why it's disrespectful.

"If bearing a child isn't a detractor from him feeling a man, why is having breasts?"

I find that comment interesting because it reveals to me at least, a valid suspicion that transgender is a slight mental disorder. How is it someone can feel like the other gender if one isnt that gender? Isnt that simply based on gender stereotypes?

Personally I'm not willing to accept a former man (who no doubt engaged in misogynistic behaviors)as a woman simply because he took hormones.It takes alot more than hormones to make a woman - and I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women. Lets not forget that transwomen can still be rapists (or former rapists who never got prosecuted, like so many men in this country) and exploit womens oppressive circumstances in this country just as much as any testes man. I dont think any transwoman can ever leave her 'maleness' (that which is associated with misogyny) behind.

Meanwhile, I can actually understand stuff like "the gender that produces the larger gamete is the female one" when trying to figure out whether an organism is male, female, both, or neither...if the organism *can't* tell you.

For example, a lizard who's laid eggs its entire adult life may have felt male and related more to its male peers ever since hatching, but I wouldn't blame a human observer for not knowing this and mistakenly thinking that lizard is female.

However, most people *are* able to say what gender they are (although they may not be free to do so safely). Mr. Beatie says he's male, so if one cares which gender he is then why resort to his reproductive system instead of accepting his statement?

I would simply define a female as a person with two (2) copies of the X chromosome as opposed to the male which carries only one (1) X and one (1) smaller Y chromosome.

Identification aside, this seems simple enough to me.

purdueattorney: so how do you classify someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (who has two Xs and one Y), or any number of other combinations?

What about someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? Such a person has an XY karyotype, but does not react to androgen, and thus has a completely female outward appearance, but testes instead of ovaries and a uterus. Woman with CAIS rarely find out about their condition before they're seventeen (after they go to the doctor because they haven't menstrated yet).

And yes, there are men out there, with testes and a penis, who have karyotype 46 XX. It's a very rare condition, caused by a gene mutation/deletion, but it does happen.

Natural loves to resist our simple models in the most beautiful ways.

Some of you people are ridiculous. You're not PRO-TRANS because you think it's sexist to change genders?

What about XY people with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (who are born with female secondary sexual characteristics, but develop into males after the surge of testosterone in puberty)?

Or what about XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity who appear as females their ENTIRE lives, but just happen to be infertile because of their lack of ovaries, etc.

Even biologically speaking, there are a whole RANGE of other chromosomal abnormalities that can affect whether you appear male or female.

So please let's not define ourselves by our x or y chromosomes. We are all human beings with hearts and brains and all we ask is that we be treated equally.

If someone wants to call themselves male or female that is THEIR business.

The fact is, that there are many medical conditions which frankly boggle the minds of DOCTORS when it comes to classifying patients into traditional genders.

SO it's NOT cut and dry, it will never BE cut and dry, and if you think it is, look up those disorders, and EDUCATE yourselves.

If you want, you can generalize and say that giving birth makes you female, and you cannot be male, fine, do that.

Just know that you are marginalizing thousands of people when you do that--living, breathing people who don't fit into your narrow definitions.

I don't understand why this is so complicated for some folks. The key is gender expression: that is, one's gender related appearance and behaviors. If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns. If someone's gender expression is mixed, which could be for any number of reasons, make a guess. If that person corrects you, apologize and change pronouns. Most of all, be polite. You can never go wrong with being polite.

GopherII: "I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women."

That seems a bit... harsh.

(Also, thanks dykelawyer for your explanation of the inconsistencies in American gender transition laws.)

I'm not saying that there are not borderline cases. The very fact that DRC and spaceinjamonkey recognize that these are syndromes and disorders simply emphasizes that we are talking about special cases.

I am trying to set forth the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to be "male" and "female". I am not saying that every one person will fall into either/or one of these categories, but it does capture almost all individuals.

I would say that my having the XY chromosome, combined perhaps with my lack of a uterus, means I am a male. To paraphrase John Cleese from Life of Brian - where is the fetus going to gestate - in a box?

Perception does not override biology here. The fact that I may see myself as different from my gender does not make it so. I'd love to identify as any host of other individuals with characteristics I don't possess, but that doesn't mean I can have those traits no matter how hard I wish.

I am simply stating that males (i.e. those with an XY chromosome) cannot have children. I have yet to see a case otherwise.

Far be it from me to tell this couple how to have a child, and how they express their gender, but what I am saying is that this is not a pregnant male. Recognizing this biological fact does not mean that their political and individual rights should not be respected.

GopherII:
I see a parallel "a man can never be good enough to be a woman" and "a woman can't do 'man's work' and should, thus stay in the kitchen"

Also, there is a listing for "gender identity disorder" in the DSM. However, Homosexuality also used to be listed. The problem with listing such things as a "disease" is that it points to the idea that there is a "cure" and that these people should be cured because they are abnormal and hurtful to society. Calling it a disease will only lead to more shaming of transgenders, which really will lead to mental illness.

MLEmac has a good point. It's risky to define something as a psychological disorder unless it clearly is harmful to either the individual or to others (i.e depression, sociopathic tendencies). Something such as gender association does not seem to fit into this criteria. Also, the anchors don't sound juvenile to me, they sound infantile.

Actually, purdueattorney, scientists HAVE managed to transplant an embryo into the peritoneal cavity of a male monkey (macaque, I think) and had the fetus removed after considerable growth, so YES males can GROW babies but it is dangerous and does not happen through intercourse.

Anyway, we are talking about two different notions of gender: purely biological simplification and societal.

SECONDARY sexual characteristics, not primary, are what our culture uses to define maleness and femaleness, so even by our culture's standards, your definition of maleness would be lacking.

By this definition, yes, MALES can become naturally pregnant if they HAPPEN to have a womb and ovaries, if they identify as males in terms of their secondary sexual characteristics.

And besides, if that is your definition of a male, what is your definition of a female? Someone who CAN in theory have kids? The macaque experiment has also shown that EVERYONE in theory can incubate children. And if you mean naturally through intercourse, then MANY MANY women do not fall into that definition. If you mean someone that was born with ovaries...

The point is, YES, you can make generalizations in a lot of cases, but in cases like these, you should NOT bring those generalizations in.

He has ovaries. He has the secondary sexual characteristics of a male. He calls himself a male and not a female.

There is no need to pigeonhole people in a complicated situation like this. It's better to just let them speak for themselves, alongside the biological reality, and not let one's biological reality determine one's gender identity if a person is not comfortable with it for WHATEVER reason.

It's their choice, and it should be respected.

I wrote an email with the link provided... I don't have it anymore though. I basically just said, it wasn't their place to pass judgment on this man just because he wanted to have a child and had the bits to do it... and that transgendered people are people too.

I don't agree with GopherII because I think that man-hating is still sexism and gender equality is not the same as man-bashing. It's not sexist to change genders, in my opinion, because I've heard what people who changed genders have said about their reasons for the change, and none of those people (people I know personally) had reasons that were overtly (or even minimally) sexist.

For me, the story itself (not the awful news coverage) was very exciting. I wish that I knew what that guy was going through. That must be one of the craziest stories I've ever heard, and one of the most exciting.

Actually, purdueattorney, scientists HAVE managed to transplant an embryo into the peritoneal cavity of a male monkey (macaque, I think) and had the fetus removed after considerable growth, so YES males can GROW babies but it is dangerous and does not happen through intercourse.

Anyway, we are talking about two different notions of gender: purely biological simplification and societal.

SECONDARY sexual characteristics, not primary, are what our culture uses to define maleness and femaleness, so even by our culture's standards, your definition of maleness would be lacking.

By this definition, yes, MALES can become naturally pregnant if they HAPPEN to have a womb and ovaries, if they identify as males in terms of their secondary sexual characteristics.

And besides, if that is your definition of a male, what is your definition of a female? Someone who CAN in theory have kids? The macaque experiment has also shown that EVERYONE in theory can incubate children. And if you mean naturally through intercourse, then MANY MANY women do not fall into that definition. If you mean someone that was born with ovaries...

The point is, YES, you can make generalizations in a lot of cases, but in cases like these, you should NOT bring those generalizations in.

He has ovaries. He has the secondary sexual characteristics of a male. He calls himself a male and not a female.

There is no need to pigeonhole people in a complicated situation like this. It's better to just let them speak for themselves, alongside the biological reality, and not let one's biological reality determine one's gender identity if a person is not comfortable with it for WHATEVER reason.

It's their choice, and it should be respected.

To clarify the bit about changing genders not being sexist (I know my argument was a little wobbly)... I think it's just the opposite. Our society has split up the population into two camps of male and female... the females wear dresses, like pink, are "pretty", and the males wear pants, like blue and are "handsome." If one is not comfortable with the deck of cards society hands them (their role as a male or female) they should take every opportunity to change it in any way that they can, because the purpose of our lives is not to conform to society and do what other people tell us, it's to do what we feel is right for ourselves. Is it sexist not to feel comfortable in the role that society has handed you? I don't think so. I think just the opposite in fact. As for transwomen "not being good enough" to be women... well, that's just flagrantly sexist... it's plainly saying that women are better than men, instead of being equal.

"If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns. If someone's gender expression is mixed, which could be for any number of reasons, make a guess. If that person corrects you, apologize and change pronouns."

Listen, apologize, and change prounouns. Don't just accuse them of oppressing your accent...

"Most of all, be polite. You can never go wrong with being polite."

Totally! That reminds me of how at school the bullies (whose native language was English) used male pronouns for me...and then when I came home from school Mom used male pronouns half the time for me (in English-language statements). No matter how many times over the years I reminded her that English has separate male and female pronouns and that it hurt to hear my mother talk about me the way bullies who hated me did, she still picked pronouns at random.

"I don't agree with GopherII because I think that man-hating is still sexism and gender equality is not the same as man-bashing."

Right on!

"It's not sexist to change genders, in my opinion, because I've heard what people who changed genders have said about their reasons for the change, and none of those people (people I know personally) had reasons that were overtly (or even minimally) sexist."

Yeah, it's like the way my reasons for wanting to not change gender aren't sexist.

"Some of you people are ridiculous. You're not PRO-TRANS because you think it's sexist to change genders?

What about XY people with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (who are born with female secondary sexual characteristics, but develop into males after the surge of testosterone in puberty)?

Or what about XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity who appear as females their ENTIRE lives, but just happen to be infertile because of their lack of ovaries, etc."

spaceninjamonkey,
As one of those ridiculous people who believe its sexist to be transgender all of the examples you gave were medical conditions. Those people didnt choose to change genders (whatever that means) but went along with what biology gave them. They didnt "feel" one way or the other, but conformed to what their outer appearance directed for them.

"Don't understand why this is so complicated for some folks. The key is gender expression: that is, one's gender related appearance and behaviors. If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns."

DRC,
Isnt that just going according to gender stereotypes? If I like cooking I'm a female, if I love to watch rugby I'm male? Thats an old method for defining gender expression, which is based on outdated gender stereotypes and gender roles.

"GopherII: "I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women."

That seems a bit... harsh."

Rhowan,
I'm simply being a realist. Just because youre transgender doesnt mean you cant rape someone. Personally I feel a bit unsafe when I think about going to the Michigan Womyns Festival now that they took away the "female born," requirement. Why not just be a male born guy, come to the 'Womyns' festival and claim to be a woman. Who says a woman cant have a dick - or a full beard?

"Also, there is a listing for "gender identity disorder" in the DSM. However, Homosexuality also used to be listed."

Which is sad that homosexuality ever used to be listed. However, I have no clue what they mean by 'feeling' like the other gender. I have read some transgender autobiographys and havent had that question answered. In fact, one of the autobiographys I read which documented a woman transforming into a man showed the author swapping sexist remarks with the men all in an effort to be seen as male. I'm supposed to like someone who does that? S/he even wrote that when she was a female she wouldve been appalled at the comments - but (as she admitted)she did it to conform to her gender identity to be seen as a male. The book was, "Just Add Hormones: An Insiders Guide to the Transexual Experience" by Matt Kailey.

"but (as she admitted)she did it to conform to her gender identity to be seen as a male." (GopherII)
This seems to be more indicative of the problems we have with culturally defined genders, rather than something wrong with transgendered people. Also, in regards to having no clue what they mean by feeling like the other gender, some people (including myself) have no clue how people could like ketchup, and yet that doesn't mean that ketchup-lovers have a mental disorder.

GopherIIspaceninjamonkey,
As one of those ridiculous people who believe its sexist to be transgender all of the examples you gave were medical conditions. Those people didnt choose to change genders (whatever that means) but went along with what biology gave them. They didnt "feel" one way or the other, but conformed to what their outer appearance directed for them.

Actually, in 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, MANY men choose to go back to being women because that's what they were comfortable with. MANY other men choose to continue on as being men. So they do FEEL one way or another.

The point is, you don't know what's going on in their minds. So don't JUDGE if it isn't hurting you.

Even though every man has the physical potential to be a rapist, every woman AND man has the potential to be complete psychopathic assholes. And personally, I'm more afraid of what's in someone's heart than the presence or absence of a penis, thank you very much.

GopherII

A saying I've always liked is
"Sex is what's between your legs; gender is what's between your ears."

Pretty much the idea is that regardless of what your sex organs are, or what your chromosomes are, your gender identity is seperate from that.

So yeah, unless you're collecting DNA samples from everyone you see or peeking in their underwear, as far as you are concerned their gender is what they say it is. The only difference for Mr. Beatie is that he provided "proof" that his chromosomes are not XY. However, I certainly do not believe that doing this gives us the right to take away his man card or anything. His gender identity is his business and decided that you disagree is the same as me telling you that your religion or lack thereof is wrong and I "know" that you are actually a Quaker like myself.

Also, of course you have no clue what it feels like to think you should have been the other gender, unless you've experienced it, you wouldn't know. I can't imagine what that would feel like, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the feeling exists. And just because one transgender man started making sexist comments after becoming a man, does not mean that they are all guilty of it.

"Personally I feel a bit unsafe when I think about going to the Michigan Womyns Festival now that they took away the 'female born,' requirement."

That reminds me of this:

http://www.metafilter.com/70352/The-Patriarchy-like-the-Hotel-California#2063425

"'Being in this space which celebrates women and in which there is *no* chance of sexual assault by a man was liberating.'

"this seems like a somewhat specious argument, considering the fact that the festival organizers are allowing in ftm transmen. It seems to me that, from a biological/hormonal perspective, you should be more concerned about a T-taking transman engaging in the sort of stereotypical male aggressive/sexual assault type behavior, than the corresponding estrogen-taking mtf transwoman.

"I agree with the trans camp label of 'trans misogyny,' and it almost seems like the organizers are afraid that agents of the Patriarchy are going to put on dresses and attempt to subvert the festival from within. This may even be a legitimate criticism, up until the point where you allow transmen in, as there can very little physical difference between a well-passing ftm and a biological male."

Then there was also this:

http://www.metafilter.com/70352/The-Patriarchy-like-the-Hotel-California#2063419

"I went to MichFest about ten years ago. The trans-woman exclusion policy really bothered me, especially as there were so many trans-men..."

"Even though every man has the physical potential to be a rapist, every woman AND man has the potential to be complete psychopathic assholes. And personally, I'm more afraid of what's in someone's heart than the presence or absence of a penis, thank you very much."

Exactly!

DRC,
Isnt that just going according to gender stereotypes? If I like cooking I'm a female, if I love to watch rugby I'm male? Thats an old method for defining gender expression, which is based on outdated gender stereotypes and gender roles.

No, GopherII, gender expression goes quite a bit farther than stereotypes, although they do play a role. The legal definition that states (and the aborted gender-inclusive federal employment non-discrimination act) use for gender expression is almost always a variant of the one I stated: gender-related appearance and behaviors. I don't know about more theoretical or academic definitions, but this is the one that is usually used for practical purposes.

Notice that appearance plays a major role here, and because of that, secondary sex characteristics play a major role in determining one's predominate gender expression. While there are stereotypes about secondary sex characteristics that aren't always true, for the most part, this part of appearance goes well beyond outdated gender stereotypes.

As for your two examples, I very much doubt that cooking or liking rugby would do much, if anything, to one's predominate gender expression. Virtually everyone who use female pronouns to refer to a woman who likes rugby, even though liking rugby is supposedly stereotypically male. The important thing here is the sum total of one's gender-related appearance and behavior, and how these characteristics together usually (but not always) come together to form either a predominately male gender expression, or a predominately female one. Its this predominately male or female gender expression (or the lack thereof) that determines gender for the purpose of social interactions.

Wow, GopherII, tinfoil hattie, and Jenikov, congratulations. You've officially made me want to throw up.

Remember how now we all look back and criticize the second wave for being racist and classist?

What do you think we're going to be looking back and saying about feminism today in fifty years? That we are transphobic and that we seriously fucked up. Because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

I find your comments even more offensive than MSNBC's. Why? Because I expect that shit from mainstream media. I do NOT expect it from people I should be able to trust and feel safe around, i.e. OTHER FEMINISTS. Reading that was like being stabbed in the back. Read some Judith Butler. For an even more nuanced understanding, one that does account for the significance of what you seem to think is so cut and dried (biology/science) read some Anne Fausto-Sterling. And for now? Shut your mouth unless you are talking about your own gender identity. No one, NO ONE has the right to tell someone they are not "what" they say they are just because one's own definition of gender doesn't match theirs. By most patriarchal definitions of "woman," I'm obviously NOT one. I have short hair and and education and I own shoes and am nulliparous. But I identify as a cisgendered WOMAN, and they cannot take that away from me. You cannot take his gender away from him just because you are ignorant.

And to vent on another topic--I clearly picked the wrong university. I didn't know I wanted to study women's studies when I came to my school, and now I'm stuck with people like the professor for my graduate-level seminar who don't know the difference between the a lesbian couple and a couple that is a cisgendered woman and a transman. We were discussing this in my seminar last week, and after the student who brought up the discussion had finished explaining it, my professor said, "Well, I think an interesting debate we can get out of this story is the issue of whether or not lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to have children." Um, HELLO!? This is a heterosexual couple! The news doesn't think gay people having children is sensational anymore! The only REASON this is a big deal is that a transman in pregnant. This discussion could have been a way to critique the way transpeople are represented in the media, to discuss transphobia, to talk about whether or not coverage like this is helpful in general. But, no, my professor went to "How do we feel about the gays having kids, class?" Fucking disgusting.

If anyone on this thread feels genuinely confused about definitions and trans issues, etc., and is interested in learning more, I'd recommend checking out this thread on Feministe, which is a "trans 101" post for people to ask any and all questions. I found it quite helpful last year when I was learning about a lot of this.

Also can't recommend enough Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. Reading that was my "aha!" moment for understanding how to think about these issues from a trans perspective.

To me, the important thing to remember in all of these situations is that it should be in the power of the individual people to define themselves. We have no right to tell people their own self-perceptions are wrong (we wouldn't want others to challenge us on our gender/sex identity and orientation, would we?). That's the foundational act of respect. And all the rest of it is really none of our business, unless we're invited to think about it by the people whose lives are directly impacted.

I don't see how any of TH's comments were disrespectful. Differing opinion about a person's self perception is not disrespect. Furthermore, TH didn't come out and say anything pro or against, she merely stated that as a male, a human being can give birth. Therefore it must be the other gender - female. Mr. Beatie chooses to think of himself as a man, that's a-ok. How was TH, then, disrespectful?

I will assume, arguendo, that Jenikov (and tinfoil hattie, come to that) are in fact arguing in good faith.

What is fundamentally disrespectful about the TH/Jenikov/GopherII line of posts is that they have the right to gender others as they see fit. Even though Jenikov at least does the minimal courtesy of referring to Mr Beatty as "he", she does so in a "yeah, whatever" tone that indicates that it is more a matter of humouring Mr Beatty than our of any sense of respect.

What we have here is a classic example of what Julia Serano has termed cissexual privilege, the belief that one has the right to gender people as one sees fit and to determine who is or is not "worthy" of being considered to belong to one gender or another.

And, of course, the criteria being used are entirely arbitrary. The man we are all talking about has functioning female reproductive organs, which he decided to stop taking testosterone temporarily in order to be able to use.

If the presence and type of reproductive capacity is the true determiner of what pronoun one is entitled to, then are those of us who are sterile from birth perhaps Unwomen? Or will a "third sex" have to be conceived of - so to speak - in order to encompass us?

I suspect that TH et al. would immediately respond to an attempt to ungender a woman simply because she is sterile with the utmost indignance, and rightly so. It is the height of disrespect to define others without giving any deference at all to how they experience themselves.

Correction: that they believe they have the right...

Elise, you beautifully articulated what I was too angry to.

Elise, you beautifully articulated what I was too angry to.

Glad I could be of service. Thinking about it, "Articulating what you're too pissed off to" might be a nice catchphrase for my blog. :)

CarmelizedMe, you are my hero. could not have said it better myself.

It's difficult hearing insensitive comments from fellow feminists, but seeing all the kind posts gives me hope yet!

I hope all that hating will be erased by understanding.

I want to tie together and add my own thoughts to something that Elise wrote and something that annajcook wrote. Strictly speaking, I don't believe that we have an inherent right to gender ourselves in social interactions. Social interactions are commonly owned by those engaged in them, and when gender becomes important, it needs to be negotiated by those involved.

Normally speaking, we accept the stated gender of someone we respect, so among people we respect, we cede the power to determine their gender to them. It is only among those we disrespect that gendering someone becomes a problem.

Thus, the act of disputing the stated gender of someone with whom we are interacting is an inherently disrespectful act in normal social interactions.

What I've found interesting about the more heated comments I've seen about Mr. Beattie on more hostile sites is that this argument about disrespect is usually twisted around: Mr. Beattie, these folks say, is being inherently disrespectful towards them because he calls himself a man even though he has female reproductive organs. Mr. Beattie's gender is non-negotiable in their minds, and, more importantly, they believe that they have the power to make Mr. Beattie's gender non-negotiable. To negotiate Mr. Beattie's gender, to insist that he is a man, undermines their illusion of strength. That is why they fight.

GopherII,

Even if the Womyn's Festival were limited to cis-women only, that would not eliminate the risk of sexual assault. Women are still capable of committing acts of sexual violence. It is rare, yes, but it is ignorant to get up in arms over the loss of what you incorrectly believed to be a 100% safe space.

You seem to be drawing off the assumption that there is such a thing as a single authentic experience as a woman. As if there is some sort of checklist of universal things that all women must have or go through to be in the club. That assumption is based on essentialism and gender stereotypes. There is no universal definition for what it means to be a man or a woman in our world. Trying to keep trans people out of our supersecret society is prejudice.

I am surprised and disappointed with the transphobia on this thread.

Social interactions are commonly owned by those engaged in them, and when gender becomes important, it needs to be negotiated by those involved.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. If A and B are interacting, is A's right to label B equal to B's right to self-identify? If A's label differ from B's self-identification, must B simply accept A's label? Why should A have any right at all to contradict the only person who knows who B actually is?

This is of course where issues of power and privilege come in. Socially, cisgendered gender identities are considered more legitimate, natural, etc. than transgendered gender identities; thus, many cisgendered people see no problem with overriding a trans person's lifelong experience with their own opinions, much as men have historically had no problem defining the "essential nature of woman" without even the slightest consideration to the experiences of women themselves.

The outcome of "negotiations" of this sort generally will favour the party who has the power to define, which, in this case, is the cisgendered party.

Ultimately, this issue of "negotiating" is rather academic. We gender people every day based on virtually none of the information we have about Mr Beatty.

How do we manage to do this without any information or complex discussions? We look to secondary sex characteristics. If we see someone with facial hair, broad shoulders, and a deep voice, absent additional information, we presumptively gender the person as male. If, on the other hand, we observe a higher-pitched voice, a lack of visible facial hair, breasts, etc., we presumptively gender the person female. And we do all of this without knowing anything about whether this person might at some point in the past have transitioned in one direction or another.

"If we see someone with facial hair, broad shoulders, and a deep voice, absent additional information, we presumptively gender the person as male. If, on the other hand, we observe a higher-pitched voice, a lack of visible facial hair, breasts, etc., we presumptively gender the person female."

Actually, that facial hair detail is ethnic as well as sexual.

Actually, that facial hair detail is ethnic as well as sexual.

I should have been clearer. I was referring to a full-grown moustache/beard, rather than the dusting of dark facial hair that some women have.

"'Actually, that facial hair detail is ethnic as well as sexual.'

I should have been clearer. I was referring to a full-grown moustache/beard, rather than the dusting of dark facial hair that some women have."

Thanks for the clarification. :)

"Remember how now we all look back and criticize the second wave for being racist and classist?"

No. Being that they were coming out from the oppressive 50's I wouldnt hold them to expectations of being a perfect fully formed movement, instantaneously. Ive got nothing against the second wave. What they accomplished was monumental, especially in comparison with how slow the third wave is being in doing the same things.

"Read some Judith Butler."

Love to. You seem to think I am deliberately being offensive. I've read many transbiographys and am still left without answers.

"Shut your mouth unless you are talking about your own gender identity. "

Dont tell me to not ask honest questions in order to get proper perspectives on an issue that isnt discussed much in the media, or when it is, is not clarified in reference to what truly inspires someone to switch genders - (I still think its stereotypes).

"What is fundamentally disrespectful about the TH/Jenikov/GopherII line of posts is that they have the right to gender others as they see fit. "

I see Mr. Beattie as a man. If anyone wants to drag their knuckles, by all means youre not a woman. Personally, I hold subtle hostilities torwards any former man who wants to intrude upon my gender, and find the rejection of ones female identity appalling. We have to realize that someones going against their bio nature instead of expanding what that means. I'm all for abolishing gender stereotypes of what constitutes gender - but not for going against nature to define it. Truth be told these people arent men or women, theyre transgendered.

Very barely am I moved to post twice on a thread, but I need to pop in here again.

There's been a lot of talk about disappointment, anger, or revulsion caused by the people posting on this board. I can't tell you how sad this makes me. I think all of us here are aware of how difficult it can sometimes be to find feminists as dedicated to the issues as many on this site are. So I find it particularly disappointing that we are willing to give up on our brethren just for having some controversial opinions or misunderstanding an issue.

Feminists are allowed to disagree with each other. There will always be a feminist who doesn't support abortion, or a feminist who is unsupportive of gay issue. I appreciate that we're all trying to open our minds, but some people are not going to open up as much as others. And judging them for that is just as bad as whatever condemnation they're spouting.

Also, the people who posted the "disgusting" opinions here were merely sharing their own view and not trying to force it upon anyone else; jumping on them for this doesn't make this feel like a very welcome forum.

And finally, I want to mention that some people are still learning or in the process of discovery. I started reading this blog when I was 18, and god knows I didn't know then what I do know about feminism; more important, I hope my knowledge grows even more thanks to the efforts on this site. And to do this, people need to feel free to ask questions or explore ideas. I don't know when I first started learning about transgendered people, or who I learned, but I know my education has large gaps in it. I didn't know, for example, until Mr. Beattie's comments that keeping your reproductive organs was an option in gender reassignment surgery. Rather than jumping on someone's back for their beliefs, can we at least try to establish a common factual background? I bet learning more would fix a lot of the problems we've witnessed in this thread.

I'm wondering what happened to the mutual respect that used to appear here; if you disagree with someone, why do insults have to come into play? I've strayed away from forums for a long time due to the ignorance I saw in posters--please don't let our own comments descend to this level!

And on a final note, I want to thank everyone for the lively discussion here and for throwing out a lot of new information for me to sort through--like I said, my transgendered education is always growing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one!

First, I just want to say thanks to everyone who's made great, supportive pro trans statements. It really makes me happy to see.

Second, I just want to say that, as a transmasculine identified person, I find some of the other statements rather offensive. So, I just thought I'd chime in as a feminist transmasculine person speaking about trans issues. Maybe this would be helpful, as I could make "I" statements about my own understanding of sex, gender, and my body.

"I see Mr. Beattie as a man. If anyone wants to drag their knuckles, by all means youre not a woman."

This statement is blatantly sexist. Not all men are "knuckle dragging" and to think so only propagates stereotypes and misunderstandings and pushes forward a patriarchal view that men are and must be a certain type of hypermasculine ape-like being.

"Personally, I hold subtle hostilities torwards any former man who wants to intrude upon my gender, and find the rejection of ones female identity appalling."

A transphobic statement. Those "subtle hostilities"... that's transphobia... and those hostilities are what sometimes drive people to perform hateful, hurtful, and insulting acts towards trans people. Gender is not a place that can be defined by one individual. To say that a transwoman has intruded upon your gender... it's her gender, too, and she has every right to her own identity. To say that the "rejection of ones female identity" is appalling to you... from my personal transmasculine perspective I never had a female identity, therefore I can't reject it. A female body does NOT equal a female identity. As a teenager, I kept waiting... to feel like a woman? To feel female? I can't describe that feeling... anticipation for what I thought was a biological inevitability (that I would feel female), confusion over what I felt my own identity to be (male) up to the point where my body started manifesting itself as a female body, etc. There was a disconnect between body and mind and that for a long while I hated and hurt my own body because of it. For years, I would stare into the mirror wondering when I would start looking like a guy. Every time I heard my voice, I thought it wasn't mine. Etc. Etc.

Funnily enough, once I admitted to myself that I identified as a man, that I was trans, I learned to accept the body I was born into. I learned to stop hurting it, and learned to construct a positive future for myself. From this perspective, I can understand how Mr. Beattie could identify fully as male while being pregnant; I identify fully as male within a female body. In getting pregnant, Mr. Beattie is prioritizing his and his wife's desire to have a child over his desire to pass as a man (for lack of better wording. I feel like "passing" implies some sort of dishonesty when he is simply being who he is). In getting pregnant, he's accepting the capabilities of his given body and prioritizing his desires within those limitations.

"Dont tell me to not ask honest questions in order to get proper perspectives on an issue that isnt discussed much in the media, or when it is, is not clarified in reference to what truly inspires someone to switch genders - (I still think its stereotypes)."

It's possible to ask honest questions while being sensitive to their identity/beliefs/feelings and not insulting them. It's possible to ask honest questions without forcibly saying that your own opinion is the right one and thus precluding any discussion of the topic.

"Truth be told these people arent men or women, theyre transgendered."

Again, a transphobic statment. To say that they're transgendered to the exclusion of being a man or a woman is negating their identity. I am a man AND I am transgendered. But I am still a man. In a female body. And at the end of the day, Mr. Beattie is a man in a pregnant body. He's still a man, too.

Megan:I'm wondering what happened to the mutual respect that used to appear here; if you disagree with someone, why do insults have to come into play? I've strayed away from forums for a long time due to the ignorance I saw in posters--please don't let our own comments descend to this level!

No matter how ignorant another person gets, it would be nice to maintain composure and never go off on them. Sticks and stones, I suppose, and I very much agree with you.

GopherII:I see Mr. Beattie as a man. If anyone wants to drag their knuckles, by all means youre not a woman. Personally, I hold subtle hostilities torwards any former man who wants to intrude upon my gender, and find the rejection of ones female identity appalling. We have to realize that someones going against their bio nature instead of expanding what that means. I'm all for abolishing gender stereotypes of what constitutes gender - but not for going against nature to define it. Truth be told these people arent men or women, theyre transgendered.

Here's the thing. We've given you countless examples of medical conditions in which the BRAIN of an individual is different from the BODY. Just FYI, one of the KEY differences between male and female brains are the presence of certain enzymes that change the effects of testosterone & estrogen on the size of that part of the brain (aromatases, etc.)

So you cannot just make a factually incorrect statement like that because a) have you done a functional MRI of this man's brain to see the similarities and dissimilarities with a woman's brain?

Err, I don't think so. So you really have no way of knowing whether they are more male or female, according to their brain's anatomy.

Like we've been saying over, and over, and over again...

try not to

judge

unless it's hurting you

and especially when you don't have any hard evidence to back your opinions up.

because while I understand your anger towards men may be strong because of some bad experience, not all of us feel that way towards them. A lot of us love men. They're our brothers and fathers, our boyfriends and husbands...and care for them as human beings. They are our equals, not our inferiors or superiors. And it hurts when others insult them so.

wormulus--

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful post. I particularly like the way you put this:

In getting pregnant, Mr. Beattie is prioritizing his and his wife's desire to have a child over his desire to pass as a man (for lack of better wording. I feel like "passing" implies some sort of dishonesty when he is simply being who he is). In getting pregnant, he's accepting the capabilities of his given body and prioritizing his desires within those limitations.

I think it would do us all good to remember that, aside from all our own fears/anxieties/issues about gender identity, there are real people at the center of this--parents and a soon to be newborn baby--who are focused on doing what's right for them and their family. That's an incredible statement about the importance of putting people before ideologies and social norms.

I was both infuriated and disgusted by your coverage of the transman and his pregnancy. Rather than a rational, well-thought out and intelligent discussion of gender identity, your correspondents instead dived into the depths of bigotry. Their attempt to dehumanize Mr. Beatie with name-calling and personal insults only served to show both their extreme ignorance of transgenderism and their personal prejudices.

This issue is a controversial one, and while opposing views are expected to be expressed, this kind of juvenile, sophomoric denigration is simply should not be acceptable in an enlightened society.

Would such comments have been allowed if the topic had been homosexuality or race? I think not.

It seems that transgenderism is one of the last issues that the closed-minded and prejudiced can attack without the need to feel fear of public condemnation. This I find to be extremely sad. No matter anyone's opinion of transgenderism, like all of us, Mr. Beattie is still HUMAN- and as such, deserves the same respect.

In the future, I will not be watching this show or any other on this network. Nor will I buy any products or use any services that sponsor it- and I'm quite sure that I won't be alone.

Why is everyone arguing over what gender Mr. Beattie refers to himself as? The issue here is one of bigotry. This is the letter I wrote:

I was both infuriated and disgusted by your coverage of the transman and his pregnancy. Rather than a rational, well-thought out and intelligent discussion of gender identity, your correspondents instead dived into the depths of bigotry. Their attempt to dehumanize Mr. Beatie with name-calling and personal insults only served to show both their extreme ignorance of transgenderism and their personal prejudices.

This issue is a controversial one, and while opposing views are expected to be expressed, this kind of juvenile, sophomoric denigration is simply should not be acceptable in an enlightened society.

Would such comments have been allowed if the topic had been homosexuality or race? I think not.

It seems that transgenderism is one of the last issues that the closed-minded and prejudiced can attack openly without the need to feel fear of public condemnation. This I find to be extremely sad. No matter anyone's opinion of transgenderism, like all of us, Mr. Beattie is still HUMAN- and as such, deserves the same respect.

In the future, I will not be watching this show or any other on this network. Nor will I buy any products or use any services that sponsor it- and I'm quite sure that I won't be alone.

Perhaps the problem lies in our need to perform gender at all. It is as if humanity is stuck at some adolescent stage of development; awkwardly attempting to be adults - of the postmodern persuasion, of course – with the behavior and language tools of a child. We try to break down gender as a social construct; expose its shortcomings and inherent heteronormativity. But here we remain: clinging to those same categorizations that so plague us with their inability to accurately represent the full spectrum of human existence. Of course, analyzing those constructs is of paramount importance, but I cannot help but take that theory to (what seems to me, at least) its logical conclusion. The main problem of expressing our postmodern theory is that we have to do it within the confines of essentialist language. Gender-as-performance still falls within the limitations of a male/female binary, although certainly with a bit more flexibility as to who can wear those masks. Simply, we wish to do away with binding gender stereotypes by suggesting they are not objective categories; rather, they are performances. Yet we feel uncomfortable – or, god-forbid, “othered� – outside of them. It leaves us in an awkward state of limbo: we want to deconstruct gender, but have difficulty living completely outside of those categories. As the stories Hollinger approached seem to insist, to be outside of those boundaries leaves an individual less than completely human/female/male.
Simply replacing gender binaries with a new, more inclusive, lexicon seems to me to be just as problematic. As far off as it may seem, I think the only realistic approach to the matter is a complete deconstruction of gender: the more little boxes we try to put people in, the more little boxes we will end up needing… and humanity has shown how adept it is as accepting those new categories of existence. Yes its idealistic and highly unlikely... but nothing else seems like it would work, either.


(This was a response to an article by Veronica Hollinger... so the Gender-as-performance may be out of context, though I still think the main ideas are relevant)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ4vA2jUFmg
This is just a little vid I made about how we define "femaleness" and its repercussions on people.

I find comments that transwomen could be rapists because they might still have penises nauseating.

You don't need a penis, or XY chromosomes, or being raised male, to be a rapist. A man I know well was sexually molested by a woman when he was 7. I read a case study of two men who were violently gang-raped by women when I was in college (one of the men was tied down and the women held a knife to his penis, threatening to cut it off if he did not get erect; the other was an 18 year old who was physically restrained by male collaborators while two women engaged in intercourse with him against his will.) A woman in England was charged with rape because she collaborated with a group of men in a violent sexual assault on a woman; although she did not commit penetration, she held down the other woman for the other rapists, called her a "bitch" and a "slag" and physically assaulted her. A little girl in New York who was murdered by her mother fifteen years ago was sexually assaulted by the mother, using a hairbrush, before she died.

Women can be rapists. We do not avoid being rapists because we are better than men; we avoid being rapists because our biology doesn't make it easy for us, and our culture doesn't encourage us to be rapists. But that doesn't make it impossible for women born women to be rapists. Accusing transwomen of being potential rapists because they were born men is virulent sexism as well as transphobia; I would trust a transwoman with my safety long, long before I would trust a religious fundamentalist ciswoman who would judge me for doing things she thinks sinful and thinks I deserve to be raped for them.

Oh, and about Mr. Beatie:

A man taking on a woman's burden that the woman in his life cannot carry is a beautiful thing, a rejection of sexist paradigms. Unless, apparently, that man is taking on her burden of pregnancy, at least in some feminists' minds. If you don't think that taking care of a baby who is born makes a man not a man, why would you think gestating a baby makes a man not a man? Mr. Beatie is in a very unusual position; most men cannot carry their wives' pregnancies for them however much they might want to. And most men, if they could do it, would do it through surgical interventions on their born-male bodies and wouldn't have their very identity as a man thrown into question. But if there was an easy, painless way for a man to take a pill and physically turn into a woman for nine months so he could bear a baby for his wife because she couldn't, do you people really think he would cease to be a man for that reason? Why is Mr. Beatie enduring so much scorn and denial of his gender identity from FEMINISTS? Knuckle-draggrs like Joe Scarborough, I can understand; if Scarborough had the option to carry a baby for his wife and if he did not do it, she would die, I fully expect he would go out, get drunk and watch football while his wife and baby expire in a hospital. But why are we not celebrating a man who chose to give his wife this incredible gift? Against all social pressure, against legions of people who call him disgusting, Mr. Beatie is bearing the child his wife longed to have and couldn't. God, if we could all be married to a man like that (biological reasons why we can't be notwithstanding...) seriously, how many men would choose to be pregnant for their wives' sake if they could?

I see a lot of denigration of Mr. Beatie's gender because he has biologically female parts, as if he is rejecting his femininity. Your *brain* is your self, people, not your body. If you're a male brain in a female body, you're a man. And Mr. Beatie would suffer even *more* pressure than the average man to act in a masculine way, because he has something to prove... and instead he could put it aside to carry this child. He gives me hope for humanity.

"We've given you countless examples of medical conditions in which the BRAIN of an individual is different from the BODY. "

Sounds like youre a believer in natural bio differences between the genders?

To elaborate on my hostilities, it would be the same thing if we could change races. If I'm a white person and I change my race to black, a black person could be resentfull, and they'd have every right to be. I would have no clue what it means to actually be black, and I could see where they'd be pissed at me for identifying as a black person coming from and being raised with white privilege. The truth is that I would have no clue what it means to be black.Also what does outer appearance have to do with anything. Some of the mtf dont even look like women, but simply men with wigs on. So, Wormulus what kinds of sexist conformity have you expressed to 'fit in' with the other males?

While I don't have any hostility particularly towards transpeople, I can see where GopherII is coming from.

“How is it someone can feel like the other gender if one isnt that gender? Isnt that simply based on gender stereotypes?�

See, I went to a college for a year and a half that had a lot of ftm transpeople. I felt that I saw and heard a lot in these communities that were basically perpetuating stereotypes. One woman who was dating a transman was talking about how she thought her little brother (of 13) was probably really a woman b/c he had a crush on one actor and liked to wear furry boots, or some such. I knew a couple of transmen who acted like frat boys, and liked to compete to see who could sleep with the most women.

I mean, I agree with GopherII, in that, gender is a flexible thing, so what is the importance of calling yourself one thing or another? If someone is 20 years old and going through a trans operation, because they've always felt they were more of a boy than a girl, well, isn't there something a bit sad in the fact that they never felt comfortable being who they are without having to go through expensive and potentially dangerous surgeries? Lord knows when I was a teenager I got harassed plenty for "looking like a guy", dressing like a guy, and in some instances "acting like a guy". And all this pressure definitely forced me more towards identifying with men in some instances. But I also realize, to feel like you don't fit exactly what your culture's idea of male or female is is a fairly common thing. Sometimes this /is/ naturally genetically/hormonally related, and sometimes it's environment. Either way, it's common enough that I think it's more empowering to acknowledge that and not feel like you have to take measures to better align within the false binary,.

“Here's the thing. We've given you countless examples of medical conditions in which the BRAIN of an individual is different from the BODY. Just FYI, one of the KEY differences between male and female brains are the presence of certain enzymes that change the effects of testosterone & estrogen on the size of that part of the brain (aromatases, etc.)�

“So you really have no way of knowing whether they are more male or female, according to their brain's anatomy.�

This is feeding right into the idea of a binary. If sex organs aren't a good enough indicator of gender, why should the size of certain parts of the brain (which have been shown to be in a range for both males and females) be a better indicator? I don't think this is good, to say that "if your female your brain should look like x" when plenty of people don't fit into narrow categories like that.

“A man taking on a woman's burden that the woman in his life cannot carry is a beautiful thing, a rejection of sexist paradigms.�

I agree that this is a nice idea, and no I don't have anything personally against this trans couple in the news, and agree the commentators are dumbasses.

GopherIITo elaborate on my hostilities, it would be the same thing if we could change races. If I'm a white person and I change my race to black, a black person could be resentfull, and they'd have every right to be. I would have no clue what it means to actually be black, and I could see where they'd be pissed at me for identifying as a black person coming from and being raised with white privilege. The truth is that I would have no clue what it means to be black.Also what does outer appearance have to do with anything. Some of the mtf dont even look like women, but simply men with wigs on.

Okay, I'm not black,but I'm Indian & I grew up in South Africa, & I think I can TRY to put myself in the situation.

My grandparents had to deal with British assholes (no offense, just the ones who lead bloodbaths are assholes) in the past, and my parents & I have had to deal with racist (white) Afrikaners that treated us like...

...how can I put it so that I don't sound too bitter?

NOT VERY NICELY.

Anyway, I've met white people that are fascinated by indian culture, food, wear saris, immerse themselves in indian philosophies, etc and...

I AM NOT OFFENDED.

I think it's cute and nice that people are interested in immersing themselves in other cultures, even though I am weirded out sometimes when they go even farther than regular Indian people.

What I am offended by is hating.

Ninapendamaishi: This is feeding right into the idea of a binary. If sex organs aren't a good enough indicator of gender, why should the size of certain parts of the brain (which have been shown to be in a range for both males and females) be a better indicator? I don't think this is good, to say that "if your female your brain should look like x" when plenty of people don't fit into narrow categories like that.

The nice thing about brains is that you can't just draw sharp lines between different patterns. Although you can say "men tend to have such and such" it would be awfully hard to say "this person is a man, therefore he has such and such" because of the enormous amount of variation between individuals.

It's one of the things we need to deal with as a society. Although there may be biological differences between males and females (brains) the fact remains that variation between individuals is SO much greater that making generalizations based on gender doesn't make any sense.

Although I don't doubt that there are a lot of idiots out there who will still use those generalizations to support their sexist POV. It's probably going to also be REALLY hard to phrase the research so that it can't be taken advantage of by those assholes.

But yeah, I definitely see your point about the dangers of stating things like that.

*sigh*

"I think it's more empowering to acknowledge that and not feel like you have to take measures to better align within the false binary."

Thats where I'm coming from. I think its wayyy more progressive to forge expansions on ones gender rather than simply transforming ones outer appearance. I thoerize that anyone who transforms their outer appearance is perpetuating stereotypes, not progression. I think theres a sense of pride in defining whats nature given, rather than attempting to be Mother Nature Herself.

"I think it's cute and nice that people are interested in immersing themselves in other cultures, even though I am weirded out sometimes when they go even farther than regular Indian people."

What would your take be if I took chemicals that altered my facial appearance to look Indian, and then took on the external characteristics of an Indian. Wouldnt you be somewhat suspicious? Is your race and culture really so superficial? Would you really consider that person Indian? It seems almost degrading to ones race and race in general. If I stopped taking the pill I would be '(whatever) YOUR RACE HERE.' What if changing my race meant having to be racist against another race to blend as whatever race I had chosen to adopt. For example (not to be cliche) but what if I had changed from being a black person into a white person, and a white person made a racist comment against black people and I laughed instead of being offended. That would piss me off if I was black, because it seems to make anti-racism almost a joke, and seem somewhat flippant. If I was a black activist I wouldnt support it, because it undermines anti-racism activism, and anti-racism efforts, and insinuates that racial efforts are all superficial and fascile.

Ninapendamaishi,
I also agree that gender is flexible and that the dichotomy is false and much more of a continuum. But I also think that asking the question "What is the importance of calling yourself one thing or another?" is a part of cis privilege. I struggle with this as well. But in the end, I do not think it is my place to deny someone else their identity. And I know that I will never truly understand what it is like to believe that your body is not you. To have that kind of disconnect between your mind and your body. I do not think it is fair for me to expect transpeople to continue to be trapped in the wrong body to challenge the dichotomy.
I also think that a lot more people are identifying as gender queer which will hopefully continue to challenge the false gender binary and that this is still separate from being trans. I have a strong self identity as a woman and I recognize that transwomen share that, being genderqueer is not the same.
I do necessarily agree that transpeople transition due to their need to align with the stereotypes they fit. If we think about it, many transwomen don’t “pass� so I don’t think it’s fair to say that they are taking the easier path. I think a “feminine� or “non-masculine� man is actually going to get a lot less grief than a non-passing transwoman.

Just wanted to add: thanks for the interesting discussion everyone!

That whole video was sickening. I don't see how this is any different than what got Don Imus yanked off the air.

Live and let live, so long as no-one is being harmed.

I think its wayyy more progressive to forge expansions on ones gender rather than simply transforming ones outer appearance. I theorize that anyone who transforms their outer appearance is perpetuating stereotypes, not progression.

GopherII, and other who are suggesting that trans folks are somehow reifying the gender binary . . . please, please, please recognize that ALL of us, EVERY DAY live within the current gender system. All of us perpetuate gender stereotypes to some extent. As a cissexual woman, my decision to wear my hair long, pierce my ears, put on skirts some days . . . hell, recognize my desire to be a mother . . . all of that "perpetuates" the gender stereotypes of "feminine," but they also happen to be--to some extent--who I am as a human being.

As a feminist I don't want anyone telling me I'm a bad feminist for the choices and compromises I make and live with every day as a woman in our society--and most of the time, I'm not. Trans people are no different in that they, too, have to live in the culture and make daily choices, pick their battles, and put together a workable life for themselves and their loved ones. It seems incredibly harsh to judge trans people by a completely different standard, and expect them to live their lives "outside" the gender system, just because you/we wish we could sometimes.

While I understand how this makes some sense on a theoretical level, please go check out some of the trans perspectives on this way of thinking--I posted my suggestions earlier on the thread, and there are certainly others out on the web. I don't think this conversation is furthered by continuing to talk about trans peoples' experience instead of listening to where they are coming from.

Just wanted to add, in regards to transmen being sexist,
The transmen I have met did espouse sexist stereotypes, were amazing feminists and did not seem to fit the common stereotypes society associates with men. I am sure there are some sexist transmen, but I just wanted to vouch that I can guarantee you there are at least 5 at my university who aren't.

annajcook,
Damn, I wish you had posted before I had because then I would've just added a solid agreement to your post, as you addressed everything that I did not take enough time to address in mine and said it better.
Very well said.
Ok, I'm going to shut up and listen now.

"It seems incredibly harsh to judge trans people by a completely different standard, and expect them to live their lives "outside" the gender system, just because you/we wish we could sometimes. "

I'm not judging them on a different standard, and I'm not saying I "wish" we could live outside the gender binary. I'm saying I /do/ live outside a gender binary, in many ways.

And I've often had thoughts along the lines of "well, with the way I act overall, things might feel more 'right' if I had the body of a guy" I've had all those sorts of thoughts. I'm saying, that I think it's our culture with its emphasis on a binary that even puts people in the position of having those thoughts...

I'm not saying I don't think people don't have the right to alter their physiology surgically, I think they do. I also think people have the "right" to get plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons. All I'm doing is saying that I wonder if these surgeries aren't reflective of a larger cultural problem.

That is, that there are certain behaviors, feelings, appearances etc. that are supposed to be defined as "masculine" vs. "feminine". And of all the trans people I've met some of those specific stereotypes absolutely influenced their decision to identify as one gender or another.

Personally, I hold subtle hostilities torwards any former man who wants to intrude upon my gender, and find the rejection of ones female identity appalling. We have to realize that someones going against their bio nature instead of expanding what that means. I'm all for abolishing gender stereotypes of what constitutes gender - but not for going against nature to define it. Truth be told these people arent men or women, theyre transgendered.
(emphasis added)

Skipping over the misandrist bit, we start with a clear assertion of cissexual privilege: GopherII arrogates to herself the right to act as a gatekeeper, and devalues the legitimacy of the gender identity and lived experience of trans people.

We then move on to the rather peculiar notion that a trans man rejected his "female identity". This indicates a rather profound confusion about what transsexuality is. Put simply, if Mr Beaty had a "female identity" in the first place, he wouldn't have felt the need to transition. That's rather the point of the entire exercise.

Then, we move into a few notions with which our oh-so-precious fundamentalist clerics would wholeheartedly agree. By transitioning, we are told, Mr Beaty is going against "nature". For nature, read "popular assumptions about nature that are in sore need of revision". Who is anyone to say that the life-long self-knowing that trans people describe, the knowledge that they are in fact male or female (or, in some cases, some intermediate gender for which we have no name) doesn't count as "natural"?

Restrictive, prescriptive notions of "human nature" are, of course, not new, and feminists are quite familiar with them. The fundamental problem is that these notions rarely account for the full range of human behaviour, and generally reflect nothing more than the preferences of the definer.

On a separate note, it is inaccurate to say that trans people are "so uncomfortable with who they are" that they feel the need to transition. Transition itself is an expression of who they are, and a repudiation of who they are told to be. It would be more accurate to say that trans people have to modify their bodies in order to actually be who they are, to exist in accordance with what they know about themselves.

Personally, I hold subtle hostilities torwards any former man who wants to intrude upon my gender, and find the rejection of ones female identity appalling. We have to realize that someones going against their bio nature instead of expanding what that means. I'm all for abolishing gender stereotypes of what constitutes gender - but not for going against nature to define it. Truth be told these people arent men or women, theyre transgendered.
(emphasis added)

Skipping over the misandrist bit, we start with a clear assertion of cissexual privilege: GopherII arrogates to herself the right to act as a gatekeeper, and devalues the legitimacy of the gender identity and lived experience of trans people.

We then move on to the rather peculiar notion that a trans man rejected his "female identity". This indicates a rather profound confusion about what transsexuality is. Put simply, if Mr Beaty had a "female identity" in the first place, he wouldn't have felt the need to transition. That's rather the point of the entire exercise.

Then, we move into a few notions with which our oh-so-precious fundamentalist clerics would wholeheartedly agree. By transitioning, we are told, Mr Beaty is going against "nature". For nature, read "popular assumptions about nature that are in sore need of revision". Who is anyone to say that the life-long self-knowing that trans people describe, the knowledge that they are in fact male or female (or, in some cases, some intermediate gender for which we have no name) doesn't count as "natural"?

Restrictive, prescriptive notions of "human nature" are, of course, not new, and feminists are quite familiar with them. The fundamental problem is that these notions rarely account for the full range of human behaviour, and generally reflect nothing more than the preferences of the definer.

On a separate note, it is inaccurate to say that trans people are "so uncomfortable with who they are" that they feel the need to transition. Transition itself is an expression of who they are, and a repudiation of who they are told to be. It would be more accurate to say that trans people have to modify their bodies in order to actually be who they are, to exist in accordance with what they know about themselves.

Nina,

I hear what you're saying, and I didn't mean to imply that you/we aren't making choices that put us outside gender stereotypes, just because we're cissexual. And I also agree that the questions you raise about gender conformity and bodily alteration are really, really important ones. Before I started looking more in-depth into trans issues, one of the hardest things for me to think about was the idea that, as a culture, we were "forcing" people to alter their bodies to fit cultural expectations.

However, a couple of (smallish) responses:

1. What Julia Serano's book (Whipping Girl) helped me to think about what the fact that, for many trans people, there's a distinct difference between gender conformity issues and the feeling of not matching what Serano calls their "subconscious sex," that is the sex they believe they ought to be. This is regardless of gender expression. This raises questions about how much a wider variety of acceptable gender-coded behavior would "solve" the dissonance trans people feel about their assigned sex. If their intuition about their sex identity is located somewhere other than gender expression, then greater fluidity of expression isn't going to fix the mis-match.

2. What I was responding to, primarily, in my earlier post, is the tendency to either blame trans folks for supporting stereotypical gender roles and/or to hold them to higher expectations to break those roles. When cissexual people talk amongst ourselves about trans issues, it's easy to bemoan the restrictive gender binary system . . . but that's not taking our cues from trans people themselves, who may or may not feel like the binary is restrictive. So I was suggesting that--for non-trans folks who are either interested in a) trans issues, or b) thinking more theoretically about gender performance, that maybe it would be a good idea to listen to what trans people themselves have to say about their own experience, before laying all our own shit out--at least in the context of this thread about a particular trans man and his particular experience.

Elise,
On one hand, the transgendered profess that gender is superficial, then they change genders physically. If gender is so flippant why feel the need to physically change ones appearance? If who you are physically has nothing to do with your gender identity then why feel the need to change your physically to express your gender?You arent chopping off your hair, youre taking hormones to look like the gender in order to conform to the mainstream representation. How do we know that its not a mental disorder. All wormulus did was say he felt like he felt detached from himself, and felt that it was because he couldnt 'fill in' the empty space with his preferred gender. That isnt rational, and it gives no validity to transgenderism - if anything it gives valid reason for suspicion. In difference to other movements such as homosexual, and feminism is that these people questioned themselves to define themselves, unlike transgendered. For example, these people would ask why is it I prefer women, why is it a man has the legal right to vote and I dont, ect in order to elaborate on themselves, and progress societal insight. I dont see transgendered ever questioning themselves to elaborate on the legitimacy of what they feel. To say one feels like a man is only believing in gender stereotypes, how could it not be? Why even bother naming the Michigan Womyns Festival a womyns festival? Why cant you be a woman with a dick and a full beard? The Michigan Womyns festival could be the set-up for some great frat pranks. I can see it now, ( five frat boys travel in a van to go hassle the feminazis during summer break)-"dude,...catch this on the camera for YouTube ha ha,...watch I'm gonna tell this dyke that I'm a woman in a mans body and I'm pre-op, ha ha, she cant deny me entrance!"-

I wonder if what society constituted what defined male or female were switched if wormulus would still feel like he was the opposite gender. If men wore 'dresses,' and women the 'pants' would he still feel he wasnt his gender?

To change physically ones appearance in hopes of being accepted as the gender you want to be seen as by mainstream society you are seeking approval, not actual expression. Its catering to the gender roles society, particulalrly patriarchal society designated. Its impossible that one can have to change ones outer appearance based on some detached neutral self-interpretation of what gender you are. I dont think Julia Serano could have an idea of her gender without gender role associations.What proof did she offer to explain her statement?If theres a neutral gender association then why feel like the opposite gender, if gender is so opaque.

If who you are physically has nothing to do with your gender identity then why feel the need to change your physically to express your gender?You arent chopping off your hair, youre taking hormones to look like the gender in order to conform to the mainstream representation.

Sometimes. But, let's not pretend that all trans people are perfectly alligning themselves with maintstream representations of gender. Some do, but some don't. Trans people are put in a tough spot. There's tremendous pressure to pass coming from all sides. If you pass, you're reaffirming stereotypes and reinforcing traditional gender binaries. If you don't, then you're not really trans. Because, right, if you were really trans, you'd be trying to pass.

In difference to other movements such as homosexual, and feminism is that these people questioned themselves to define themselves, unlike transgendered. For example, these people would ask why is it I prefer women, why is it a man has the legal right to vote and I dont, ect in order to elaborate on themselves, and progress societal insight. I dont see transgendered ever questioning themselves to elaborate on the legitimacy of what they feel.

Maybe because, you know... it's none of your fucking business. What are you? The arbiter of sexual identity? You think that someone wakes up one day and thinks "You know, I think I'm gonna take T now. Just for kicks."? I'm sorry, but how insulting. You think that transpeople have never considered "why do I feel this way? Why do I identify the way that I do?"

To say one feels like a man is only believing in gender stereotypes, how could it not be?

It could be that the person in question has thought about gender in ways that you, as a cisgendered person, have never considered, in the same way that many queer folks consider sexuality in ways that many straight folks never even consider, by virtue of having privilege on their side.

Why even bother naming the Michigan Womyns Festival a womyns festival? Why cant you be a woman with a dick and a full beard? The Michigan Womyns festival could be the set-up for some great frat pranks. I can see it now, ( five frat boys travel in a van to go hassle the feminazis during summer break)-"dude,...catch this on the camera for YouTube ha ha,...watch I'm gonna tell this dyke that I'm a woman in a mans body and I'm pre-op, ha ha, she cant deny me entrance!"-

Right. And the next thing you know, transwomen will expect to be allowed to use the women's restrooms. Who the hell do they think they are, challanging our understanding of what it means to be a woman and expecting to be treated with some measure of respect. It's true, they're no different from a bunch of asshole frat guys on a mission to mock and deride feminists.

"A saying I've always liked is
'Sex is what's between your legs; gender is what's between your ears.'"

Cool saying. :)

Meanwhile, sometimes it seems that there's 3 instead of 2 factors: what's between your legs (sex), what's between your ears (gender), and what your society says you are (what do we call this social construct?).

Personally, in my case my sex is female, my gender is female, and some of my classmates thought the kid who had a blonde beard and moustache at age 10 (I shoulda gone for the razor ASAP instead of taking Mom's bleaching advice) couldn't simply be female.

"You arent chopping off your hair, youre taking hormones to look like the gender in order to conform to the mainstream representation."

Do you realize that for those of us who didn't inherit enough real estate to live off the land, some conformity to the mainstream is essential for us to get food and not starve to death? Wanting to conform is not always a character flaw of superficiality.

Maybe you can cultivate/fish/gather/hunt/ranch everything you need for yourself directly, but a lot of the rest of us really need some other people tolerating us enough to hire us, pay us for the goods and services we offer, barter with us, etc...

"I can see it now, ( five frat boys travel in a van to go hassle the feminazis during summer break)-'dude,...catch this on the camera for YouTube ha ha,...watch I'm gonna tell this dyke that I'm a woman in a mans body and I'm pre-op, ha ha, she cant deny me entrance!'"

You say that as if the "watch I'm gonna tell this dyke that I was born in a woman's body and I'm post-op, ha ha, she cant deny me entrance!' version of the scenario isn't already possible. Hmm.

"You say that as if the "watch I'm gonna tell this dyke that I was born in a woman's body and I'm post-op, ha ha, she cant deny me entrance!' version of the scenario isn't already possible."

Well, why even specify that its for womyn only if it has no value anymore?

"What Julia Serano's book (Whipping Girl) helped me to think about what the fact that, for many trans people, there's a distinct difference between gender conformity issues and the feeling of not matching what Serano calls their "subconscious sex," that is the sex they believe they ought to be."

Well, I understand that's often people's feeling. But really? More trans people choose just to alter the secondary sex characteristics, since that's easiest. And even people who have their primary sexual organs altered really don't wind up with the organ of the opposite sex, they just wind up with something that /looks/ more like that, maybe functions /a little/ more like that.

So what you're dealing with here, is still mostly an issue of appearance, which mostly comes down to stereotypes as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'm already sexed female, but what if I wanted to look a little more female than I do (I look a little androgynous)? Would it make sense for me to take more female hormones?

This whole debate does remind me a lot of what happened to gay rights in this country, actually. For most of our history, "gay" had been considered an action as opposed to an identity, and of course their were cultures where homosexual behavior was widespread. Then in the 19th century some people came up with the idea that if they could say "gay" /was/ a person's identity, like it was ordained by god, then homosexual people wouldn't be persecuted by society at large as much. So then you have all this scientific speculation (and it really is just that, at this point) about homosexuality being a genetic thing, and about how men are either straight or gay but not /really/ bisexual (bisexual behavior aside).

And do I think that for some people homosexuality is probably very tightly wound up in their psychology and identity since they were a little kid? Sure. Just the way most of ours sexuality began forming when we were a kid. But have I seen evidence I took as conclusive that for every homosexual its a hard-wired identity since they were born? No way, I just know too many people who've loved members of both genders, and changed their sexual identity later in life /without/ claiming they'd always felt secretly repressed.
I think consenting adults should have the right to do what they want to do sexually, and I'm all for gay rights, but I just don't think all the stuff about it being an "identity" for their whole life makes much since when you look at the broader cultural/historical context.

Same thing with this trans thing. There have been many cultures where certain individual balked traditional gender roles, and even received a special label for it.

Let's see what else... oh yes, I read an interview of an 18 year-old transman once, who talked about how sex with a penis just felt more "right" than sex with a "vagina". Well, may I ask the ladies here who honestly could not imagine being in a guy's role in sex, and maybe enjoying that? I know I've talked to friends who agree with me that considering how much of our sexualized culture looks at things from a man's perspective, especially when I was younger I think I easily would have felt happier and more empowered being in a man's role in sex. But what this post-op transman was using to have sex was not really a penis, of course, it was an inverted vagina. So how can you know that that's more about having some biological need to "be" the other sex vs. some psychological thing regarding how this person thought someone with a penis was supposed to be?

And the same thing with transwoman. I've heard them describe how it just felt "right" to have a "vagina" and feel more passive during sex. Well, of course you all on here know there are plenty of ways people with male bodies can find to feel passive.

Again, /not/ saying I don't believe in people's rights to alter their bodies if they so choose.

But I will continue to question this idea that every transperson always felt they were always the other sex (whatever that means, anyway...)

GopherII: What would your take be if I took chemicals that altered my facial appearance to look Indian, and then took on the external characteristics of an Indian. Wouldnt you be somewhat suspicious? Is your race and culture really so superficial? Would you really consider that person Indian? It seems almost degrading to ones race and race in general. If I stopped taking the pill I would be '(whatever) YOUR RACE HERE.'

Sure, if they've lived in India long enough, then I might consider them Indian. Iranians living in India in Bombay are just as Indian as my family, and I consider them Indian. The best thing about India is that it has absorbed many foreign cultures over the centuries, and EVERY one of them is considered Indian. Unless they were only there temporarily to take advantage of us, like the British.

And Indian culture IS superficial at times, but what culture isn't? There are a lot of good things about each culture, and that's what people should be proud of.

A lot of Indians, as you may know, care a lot about being "fair" and "light," and they go to enormous lengths to do this. In the process, they alienate darker women and degrade them for their natural skin tone. Black people also have had a habit of preferring "lighter" women as more beautiful and guess what? It's NOT right. The reason it bothers me is because they put PRESSURE on people to conform, not that they conform themselves.

And when I see white people getting tans, it DOESN'T affect me.

People should do whatever they want to feel comfortable in their skins, and if it means taking a pill or getting a tan, go for it.

What I don't like is people being TOLD to do it. Women being TOLD that being fair is better, or that being tan is better. That's not right.

In the same vein, I don't mind that people want to become women or men, but I loathe anyone that pressures them to do it because they feel less than human as the opposite gender.

It's the pressure that leads to the psychological disorders, not the act of conforming itself.

Well, why even specify that its for womyn only if it has no value anymore?

It already doesn't. Trans men are allowed in, and trans women are not. Thus, the name is inaccurate on two counts. There are women who aren't allowed in, and there are men who are.

On one hand, the transgendered profess that gender is superficial, then they change genders physically. If gender is so flippant why feel the need to physically change ones appearance? If who you are physically has nothing to do with your gender identity then why feel the need to change your physically to express your gender?You arent chopping off your hair, youre taking hormones to look like the gender in order to conform to the mainstream representation.

More confusion. I did not know that there was only one opinion held by "the transgendered", and the fact is that you are the first person I've ever heard claim that anyone trans thinks gender is "superficial". As GopherII (correctly, for a change) points out, this would tend to obviate the need to transition.

Unsurprisingly, this is not how most trans people feel about gender at all. Rather, they report a lifelong sense of self-knowing that their subconscious sex/gender identity (depending on whose term one prefers, and there is a good case for both) does not match their assigned sex.

Thus, they do not "change genders" at all. In fact, "changing genders" is more or less the "therapy" that was once used to "cure" trans people of their transness. Instead, they modify their body to varying degrees in order to make it compatible with that underlying self-knowing.

All wormulus did was say he felt like he felt detached from himself, and felt that it was because he couldnt 'fill in' the empty space with his preferred gender. That isnt rational, and it gives no validity to transgenderism - if anything it gives valid reason for suspicion.

And, indeed, pre-transition trans people's intuition lacks any empirical confirmation that could satisfy an observe, like GopherII, who lacks any actual knowledge of what trans people go through. The confirmation comes post-transition, when this pervasive sense that something is fundamentally wrong gradually (or sometimes quickly) evaporates.

In difference to other movements such as homosexual, and feminism is that these people questioned themselves to define themselves, unlike transgendered. For example, these people would ask why is it I prefer women, why is it a man has the legal right to vote and I dont, ect in order to elaborate on themselves, and progress societal insight. I dont see transgendered ever questioning themselves to elaborate on the legitimacy of what they feel.

Perhaps this is for the same reason that GopherII is otherwise quite poorly informed on all subjects relating to "the transgendered", namely the profound disrespect she she declared at the outset.

Trans people are forced to question gender to a degree that "the cissexual" rarely attain, because they must seek to understand this self-knowing that they have in a social setting in which it is completely denied. Thus, trans people do not, indeed cannot take their gender for granted.

Trans people are forced to examine all manner of questions related to their gender, such as:

"Why are cisgendered people not required to provide any justification for their gender, but I am?"

"Why do I have to prove my gender beyond a reasonable doubt, often being forced to indulge demeaning stereotypes, in order to get medical treatment that I need?"

"Why is everyone else's sense of my gender so diametrically opposed to my own?"

Amongst many other things. People who lack the privilege that GopherII apparently thoroughly enjoys often face and answer questions that she hasn't even imagined yet.

For similar reasons, Ninapendamaishi's post also completely misses the point:

Well, I understand that's often people's feeling. But really? More trans people choose just to alter the secondary sex characteristics, since that's easiest. And even people who have their primary sexual organs altered really don't wind up with the organ of the opposite sex, they just wind up with something that /looks/ more like that, maybe functions /a little/ more like that.

It is hard to see why the limitations of medical technology and the enormous expenses involved (not generally covered by insurance) should give rise to any doubt to the legitimacy or sincerity of a person's identity.

Let's see what else... oh yes, I read an interview of an 18 year-old transman once, who talked about how sex with a penis just felt more "right" than sex with a "vagina". Well, may I ask the ladies here who honestly could not imagine being in a guy's role in sex, and maybe enjoying that? [...] And the same thing with transwoman. I've heard them describe how it just felt "right" to have a "vagina" and feel more passive during sex. Well, of course you all on here know there are plenty of ways people with male bodies can find to feel passive.

Here, Ninapendamaishi confuses one aspect of the experiences of trans people with the essence of the experience itself. First of all, trans people's sexualities (like their gender expressions) run the gamut. However, it is not the sexuality itself that feels right.

Most trans people are well aware (particularly because they hear it often from well-meaning, yet ill-informed people) that it is perfectly possible to have a male body and take a passive role in sex, or to have a female body and take a more active role. Indeed, quite a few try such things, in addition to other less drastic measures, before coming to the conclusion that they need to transition.

So, obviously, this is not it at all. This sense of "rightness" has much more to do with the anatomy one has and its consistency with one's subconscious sex/gender identity than it does with how one uses that anatomy. Sex with a penis feels "right" to trans men because it is consistent with what they know about themselves, in a way that sex with a vagina is not; conversely, sex with a vagina feels "right" to trans women for the same reason. The same people would likely tell you, as well, that going to the store to buy bread as a woman (or man) feels more "right" than engaging in the same activity in their pre-transition persona.

But I will continue to question this idea that every transperson always felt they were always the other sex (whatever that means, anyway...)

To put it another way "They're nutters and I think they're lying about themselves, but whatever". The "always feeling that they were the other sex" thing is a drastic oversimplification, more common in media accounts than in the self-descriptions of trans people.

GopherII, I would have to say, yes... if men typically wore skirts and women wore pants, I would still want to have a male body. It's not about the gender expression; I'm flexible about that, anyway. It comes strictly down to a dissociation that I innately have between my mind and what I expect to see in the mirror when I'm naked. Which, I guess would come down to the fact that my "subconscious sex" does not match my body. It's not a desire to fit in with any societal gender roles, nor do I want to conform to what is considered "male." Maybe another way to say that is... my gender is what it is; it changes and is flexible. The issue lies with my body and with the fact that my body does not match my conception of self in my brain.

"Well, I understand that's often people's feeling. But really? More trans people choose just to alter the secondary sex characteristics, since that's easiest. And even people who have their primary sexual organs altered really don't wind up with the organ of the opposite sex, they just wind up with something that /looks/ more like that, maybe functions /a little/ more like that."

It more comes down to the fact that 1)surgery can be prohibitively expensive and not everyone can afford that. 2) genital surgery (for transmen at least. The surgery options are generally much better for transwomen) does not give results that would be considered satisfactory by many. Each individual must figure out what sacrifices and compromises they're willing to make. For each, this is different, and for each, finding a comfortable home in their bodies comes at different times and with different compromises. Personally speaking of my own transition desires, I would be satisfied with top surgery and secondary sex characteristics which would lead to me being read as having a male body in most situations. I mean... the only person who's gonna care what's in my pants is my wife, anyway. If a surgery came along that was affordable and that gave good results, maybe I'd consider bottom surgery. But as things stand, I know that I'm happy accepting the limitations.

"On a separate note, it is inaccurate to say that trans people are "so uncomfortable with who they are" that they feel the need to transition. Transition itself is an expression of who they are, and a repudiation of who they are told to be. It would be more accurate to say that trans people have to modify their bodies in order to actually be who they are, to exist in accordance with what they know about themselves."

This is definitely how it is for me.

Also, GopherII, why would you assume that I would do any sexist bullshit just to try and conform? I've lived in my female body and dealt with all the sexism and discrimination that comes along with it. I know who I am and don't need the confirmation of others to validate my identity.

"Trans men are allowed in, and trans women are not. "

Elise,
News to me. I mustve misunderstood the new criteria. I thought transpeople of any gender were allowed in. I'm still not comfortable being around anyone who doesnt want to be a womyn. If you want to embrace your identity as a man then do it and MEN arent allowed at the womyns festival. It is disgraceful to allow those that reject their female identity to be around those that embrace it. It feels like some harem or something when a FTM is allowed to bolster their male identity only by comparing themselves as opposite to all the natural womyn there.Its chauvanistic.

"Also, GopherII, why would you assume that I would do any sexist bullshit just to try and conform? I've lived in my female body and dealt with all the sexism and discrimination that comes along with it. I know who I am and don't need the confirmation of others to validate my identity."

wormulus,
Have you never read any transgendered biographys? "Just Add Hormones," is a very good example of a former woman putting up with and cooperating with misogyny in order to 'fit in,' among her chosen gender. Theyre countless examples.Even 'feminist' men go along with misogyny, why wouldnt a former female who wants to be seen aesthetically as a man?

On another note, I dont know why a FTM would want to go to the womyns festival? They would be called 'she' anyways, and i thought they want to confirm their 'male' identity? No 'he's' at Michfest, or youre not supposed to be there.

Personally I could never in good will change my gender to male being that I know I would get preferencial treatment, and would find that to be aligning with the oppressor. Also, transexuals identify and perpetuate misogyny so they dont appear as outsiders for inciting possible fear by men of being beaten and killed. So a FTM could perpetuate it in order to risk not seeming manly in the eyes of their male peers. Its like playing straight and swapping homophobic slurs if your gay in order to fit in. Its a complete betrayal, and is the Uncle Tom version of gender.

"Trans people are forced to question gender to a degree that 'the cissexual' rarely attain"

Indeed.

Meanwhile, what does the "cis-" prefix come from? I got the impression that it means "not trans" but I didn't want to use it before being sure I was getting it right.

"It more comes down to the fact that 1)surgery can be prohibitively expensive and not everyone can afford that. 2) genital surgery (for transmen at least. The surgery options are generally much better for transwomen) does not give results that would be considered satisfactory by many."

And 3) sometimes someone has yet another medical condition which makes getting that surgery even more risky, right? I heard that's also the reason some people who would like to be sterile and can afford it still don't get tubal ligations and vasectomies.

"'Trans men are allowed in, and trans women are not.'

"Elise,
"News to me. I mustve misunderstood the new criteria."

I thought that was the old criteria, not the new.

"Also, transexuals identify and perpetuate misogyny so they dont appear as outsiders for inciting possible fear by men of being beaten and killed. So a FTM could perpetuate it in order to risk not seeming manly in the eyes of their male peers. Its like playing straight and swapping homophobic slurs if your gay in order to fit in. Its a complete betrayal, and is the Uncle Tom version of gender."

You know they'd be beaten and killed if they don't try to hide, and still accuse them of betrayal for hiding?

That makes as little sense as knowing a rape victim's family would kill her in the name of "honor" if she told them about the rape, and still accusing her of betrayal for not telling them.

Meanwhile, what does the "cis-" prefix come from? I got the impression that it means "not trans" but I didn't want to use it before being sure I was getting it right.

It's a lexical borrowing from chemistry, where you have compounds prefixed with cis- where functional groups are pointed in the same direction and trans- where functional groups are pointed in the opposite direction. In the TG/TS context, "cis" refers to "not trans".

You know they'd be beaten and killed if they don't try to hide, and still accuse them of betrayal for hiding?

Reminds me of the claims that the Iraqi resistance is "cowardly" and "treacherous" for taking a clandestine route rather than standing up publicly to be slaughtered en masse.

Meanwhile, what does the "cis-" prefix come from? I got the impression that it means "not trans" but I didn't want to use it before being sure I was getting it right.

Hey Mina,

"cis" is a Latin prefix literally meaning "on this side of," as opposed to "trans-" meaning "on the other side of." "Cissexual" is one of the ways to talk about we folks whose assigned/anatomical sex match our subconscious sex/gender. Our bodies and our minds (or wherever the subconscious sex comes from) are in agreement.

"It's a lexical borrowing from chemistry, where you have compounds prefixed with cis- where functional groups are pointed in the same direction and trans- where functional groups are pointed in the opposite direction. In the TG/TS context, 'cis' refers to 'not trans'."

"'cis' is a Latin prefix literally meaning "on this side of," as opposed to 'trans-' meaning "on the other side of.' 'Cissexual' is one of the ways to talk about we folks whose assigned/anatomical sex match our subconscious sex/gender. Our bodies and our minds (or wherever the subconscious sex comes from) are in agreement."

Thanks! :)

It seems to me that denying transexuals the ability to define themselves is a lot more patriarchical and misogynistic than accepting that they know more about their life experiences than you do, and that maybe they're in a better position to determine what their lived experiences are than you are. By denying them the ability to self-define and by denying their experience of self, you reinforce a traditional gender-binary based on a flawed conception of sex and gender as biologically determined and ignore the realities of intersexed/ambiguously sexed/transexual people.

Which, yeah... not okay.

It seems to me that denying transexuals the ability to define themselves is a lot more patriarchical and misogynistic than accepting that they know more about their life experiences than you do, and that maybe they're in a better position to determine what their lived experiences are than you are. By denying them the ability to self-define and by denying their experience of self, you reinforce a traditional gender-binary based on a flawed conception of sex and gender as biologically determined and ignore the realities of intersexed/ambiguously sexed/transexual people.

I'm reminded of an experience I had a few months back.

I'm an avid chess player (bear with me, the relevance will soon become apparent). I generally play several games a night online at chess.com.

A few months ago, a friend of mine on the site alerted me to a forum thread on the site entitled "Why don't more women play chess" (or somesuch - I forget the exact wording).

The majority of the participants in this discussion were male, and it went more or less as follows.

"Women find chess boring."
"Women are crap at chess. It's too logical for them."
"Women just don't like chess. I've heard it's biological".
"Yeah, plus they're crap at it. Am I right, guys?"

Occasionally, I (or one of the other women) would suggest an alternative explanation. That perhaps the "boys' club" atmosphere one finds in organised chess, combined with the instances of condescension and hostility we'd all experienced from men we'd played (especially the ones we'd beat), might make women more reluctant to play chess in an organised setting where their presence would be visible. We pointed out that men we beat would often refuse to play us again, and that when we started winning a game, they'd just let it time out to give us a win with an asterisk next to it rather than play the game through to its conclusion.

In short, we supplemented the men's speculations with what we - women who do play chess, do enjoy it, and are, to varying degrees, good at it - had experienced in the chess world as it pertained to the question posed by the thread.

The response:
"Yeah, but you neglect to take into account that women find chess boring, and are crap at it because they're insufficiently rational."

(that is, when our comments - which we had assumed to have at least some prima facie validity - weren't ignored altogether)

The dominant members of the community in which the discussion took place had already created a reality that was to their liking - in part because it exonerated them from any responsibility - and refused to allow that reality to be in any way informed by those of us who had "mere" first-hand knowledge.

“Unsurprisingly, this is not how most trans people feel about gender at all. Rather, they report a lifelong sense of self-knowing that their subconscious sex/gender identity (depending on whose term one prefers, and there is a good case for both) does not match their assigned sex.�

This gets at the crux, I think, of why some of us have trouble reconciling our feminist beliefs with trans theory (note: I didn’t say /trans rights/, I said trans theory). Because as you’ve pointed out, a lot (note: not all, a lot) of trans people /do/ belief in innate gender identity, which goes pretty strongly against feminist theory.

“ The "always feeling that they were the other sex" thing is a drastic oversimplification, more common in media accounts than in the self-descriptions of trans people. “�
Actually, that is exactly the point I was making (not that “trans people are all nutters�). But plenty of people in defense of trans rights make that claim, including a couple posters on this thread.
““It comes strictly down to a dissociation that I innately have between my mind and what I expect to see in the mirror when I'm naked… The issue lies with my body and with the fact that my body does not match my conception of self in my brain.��
Okay. But if you’ll just go with me for a minute here. I feel like I can imagine having a male body, and being male. By the same token, I could imagine looking more female and living that way. So to me, it isn’t just that big of a stretch to imagine that someone could identify very strongly with the opposite sex and feel like they should have a body like that, without it coming down to some sort of innate/biological issue. That doesn’t make them “nuts� per se –I mean heck, we all have our tightly-ingrained psychological quirks.

““It more comes down to the fact that 1)surgery can be prohibitively expensive and not everyone can afford that. 2) genital surgery (for transmen at least. The surgery options are generally much better for transwomen) does not give results that would be considered satisfactory by many. Each individual must figure out what sacrifices and compromises they're willing to make. For each, this is different, and for each, finding a comfortable home in their bodies comes at different times and with different compromises. Personally speaking of my own transition desires, I would be satisfied with top surgery and secondary sex characteristics which would lead to me being read as having a male body in most situations. I mean... the only person who's gonna care what's in my pants is my wife, anyway. If a surgery came along that was affordable and that gave good results, maybe I'd consider bottom surgery. But as things stand, I know that I'm happy accepting the limitations. “�

And here you just gave an example of how changing your physical body was largely for other people’s benefit (at least this sounds like what you’re saying). Of course it’s for your own benefit just as much, but it’s mainly for your own benefit as it pertains to how other people will react to you, given your appearance. You say you’re happy without the bottom surgery, yet biologically, expression of secondary sexual characteristic varies pretty widely within people born XX and XY, and the thing that remains more consistent is actually the possession of the primary sex organs. (I understand that you would prefer to actually have a penis, if the surgery was better. But the fact that simply altering secondary-sex characteristics seems to make a big difference for you. Well? To me this just sort of reinforces my original feelings about the whole issue. A lot of us aren’t happy with our bodies for a lot of different reasons, many of which definitely affect the way other people react to us. This can be related to race, body shape, etc. I’m just not seeing where wishing to look/be treated like the other “gender/sex�/feeling like you /should be/ the other “gender/sex� is definitely different in cause than any of those other feelings people can have about their bodies/identities. And I’m not seeing where it can’t be argued that our society’s strong differentiation of the “genders/sexes� wouldn’t at least contribute to someone’s desire to alter their physical appearance. And in a society in which appearance /is/ so inextricably linked to how we’re treated (whether we’re talking about sex, gender, race, shape, etc.) I don’t see how any one of us could completely separate the experience of looking a given way, to being treated a given way, so it seems to me a desire for one would /have/ to be linked for a desire for the other, even subconsciously)

I know for a long time growing up, I didn’t really think of myself as a “girl� or a “boy�. I just thought of myself as a “person�. It was in jr. high, when sex first became an issue, that I was confronted with all these different ideas about those identities. I think I remember reading a story of a person writing in the earlier part of the 20th century, when racism was even more prevalent, and this person was black but they thought of themself as white. Many mixed people who were light enough to pass did so and sometimes even thought of themselves as white, but of course society at large would have shamed them and called them liars. I’m sure you’d say it is fairly ludicrous to suggest that people who have dark skin but think of themselves as white do so because of innate, biological reasons. But in this case it’s quit obvious to see how the desire to be white could arise, in a culture that looked down upon and “othered� blackness. I just think with sex/gender, subtler but strong forces could be at work.

This gets at the crux, I think, of why some of us have trouble reconciling our feminist beliefs with trans theory (note: I didn’t say /trans rights/, I said trans theory). Because as you’ve pointed out, a lot (note: not all, a lot) of trans people /do/ belief in innate gender identity, which goes pretty strongly against feminist theory.

This is more because of a misunderstanding of the concept of gender identity than anything else. For one thing, it's worth pointing out that it's more than a belief; it's the only causal narrative that comes close to accounting for transsexuality and the only one that has been shown to be an accurate predictor of happiness post-transition.

Much of the difficulty people have with the idea of an innate gender identity (or subconscious sex) seems to be related to the belief that this innate gender identity is supposedly behaviour determinative. People think that if they accept the notion of gender identity, that they've essentially agreed to biologise all forms of gendered behaviour.

This is not the case at all. No one is asserting that gender identity is determinative of gender expression. In fact, the sheer diversity of gender expression amongst trans people all across the spectrum makes it clear that all we are actually talking about is the mind's sense of being male or female.

When there is no conflict between one's socially assigned gender and one's gender identity (as in cisgendered people), it might as well not be there, just as most people would be hard pressed to tell you where their spleen is, unless it's inflamed or otherwise hurting. When there is a conflict, it becomes glaringly obvious (ask David Reimer).

Most people who try to point to a supposed external social cause run into a number of problems. For one thing, trans people have existed throughout history and in the most diverse cultures (though they are often erased by arbitrarily limiting the definition of transsexuality to require the use of modern technology). There is no one identifiable "trans background" in terms of parenting or other such influences. Moreover, gender identity, as the David Reimer case shows in particular, is extremely resistant to external pressures. Even after being told in every possible way that who they are and are supposed to be is not what they know themselves to be, the identity remains.

By the way, I was unaware that "feminist theory" was so monolithic that it could be said, without further specification, to unanimously reject gender identity, though, if it were true, it would simply be a case of needing to reconcile old theory with new (well, not all that new anymore) data.

"When there is no conflict between one's socially assigned gender and one's gender identity (as in cisgendered people)"

OTOH, what about when one's anatomical gender and mental gender do match (like what makes me cisgender) and one's anatomical gender and socially assigned gender don't match (like when bullies assumed I was somehow part male)?

GopherII,

I think that there's a misunderstanding that's contributing to your confusion. In the context of trans discussions (and most others I've seen) "gender" is like "subconscious sex" - just an attribute of you. Not something derived from external gender performance, but something you just have, like your sex.

That is as distinct from the definition of gender as a social construct that's used in other areas, like some feminist theory.

On another note, I don't think that's problematic or necessitates any essentialism. If I think blue is a nice colour then that can stand on its own as a fact without it meaning I have some biological destiny along with everyone else who thinks blue is nice. I don't see why someone's gender is necessarily different to that. If it's how they feel in themselves and how they're comfortable as being seen then that can stand on its own as a fact independent of any others, just like liking blue (or whatever colour you like).

OTOH, what about when one's anatomical gender and mental gender do match (like what makes me cisgender) and one's anatomical gender and socially assigned gender don't match (like when bullies assumed I was somehow part male)?

That doens't make you trans. It just means you get beat up by the same people.

"'OTOH, what about when one's anatomical gender and mental gender do match (like what makes me cisgender) and one's anatomical gender and socially assigned gender don't match (like when bullies assumed I was somehow part male)?'

"That doens't make you trans. It just means you get beat up by the same people."

Yeah, I knew it doesn't make me trans and can still get me targeted by transphobes (hence my worries about not looking "feminine" enough, my anger when Mom keeps telling me to cut my hair short and wear baggy clothes and exercise away the rest of my breast and hip fat "because she cares about me," etc.). I just wanted to point out that anatomical gender/assigned gender mismatches can happen to cispeople too.

"You know they'd be beaten and killed if they don't try to hide, and still accuse them of betrayal for hiding?"

Elise,
What I meant by the comment below was that they CHOOSE to engage in misogyny to reinforce their male identity. They dont HAVE to anymore than a homosexual has to engage in homophobia among non-interested straights simply to erase any doubt in their minds theyre not who they want to be seen as. This behavior is in complete opposition to feminism, so why would I support it?

"Also, transexuals identify and perpetuate misogyny so they dont appear as outsiders for inciting possible fear by men of being beaten and killed. So a FTM could perpetuate it in order to risk not seeming manly in the eyes of their male peers. Its like playing straight and swapping homophobic slurs if your gay in order to fit in. Its a complete betrayal, and is the Uncle Tom version of gender."

I find transexualism misogynistic. Youre either a FTM who denys being a woman, or a former male who has the absurd belief he can be a woman. Hes also less likely to self-examine his misgynistic origins for what actually inspired his transformation, and to avoid self-examination about his behaviors as a MTF (concerning misogyny) because he doesnt want to ever admit to formerly being a man. So, now we have the problem of men defining what a woman is all over again! WHY they allow transgendered at the womyns festival is absurd. If youre a man - be a man and know that the festival is for womyn only. You dont have the privilege of straddling both territories. Even if they allow a MTF at Michfest he may still be highly influenced by misogyny and avoid self-examinig his beliefs and still be a threat to safety - like any normal man. Could somebody explain why a man is at a womyns only festival? I believe the right to define what a female is should only be defined by nature born womyn - not former men who are now transexuals.

"It comes strictly down to a dissociation that I innately have between my mind and what I expect to see in the mirror when I'm naked. Which, I guess would come down to the fact that my "subconscious sex" does not match my body."

wormulus,
How do you know that your mirror reflection wasnt shaped by misogyny? If you are by nature a active assertive female who does not conform to the gender roles (like myself) your subconscience assigns a physical gender to align with ones character traits that society assigned to the genders, but it doesnt give any validity to it. It simply means you suffer from misogynistic gender roles and not being able to see yourself because society has wrongly pounded these gender roles into your head. The fact that gender roles negatively effect all of us makes me suspicious that it was really some neutral gender idea that inspired your feeling of needing to transition. Weve all suffered from it, why would you have some special magic that enables you, and other transgendered to avoid it? One should trailblaze new representations of woman, not change ones physical gender to conform to societal assumption associated with gender traits.

I mean, why is it a MT"F" can write a book about what it means to be a woman and how to be one? I find this no different than any other misogynistic handbook written by a man telling woman about what it means to be a woman. Its offensive.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434813223/ref=s9k2a_c6_at2-rfc_p-2814_g2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-6&pf_rd_r=1JME4DND7CKNZ177420Z&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=292859201&pf_rd_i=507846

That's so weird! It's, like, ironic, because I find transphobia misogynistic!

GopherII,

"One should trailblaze new representations of woman, not change ones physical gender to conform to societal assumption associated with gender traits."

People who are trans aren't "changing [their] physical gender to conform..." They are changing their physical sex to align with their mental sex. That's it. It's not something you have to worry about, since your mental sex and physical sex are aligned already. It's not about stereotypes in any way, shape or form, and many (most?) transpeople don't conform to the conventional societal gender roles.

You have a very loud, offensive opinion about something you don't understand at all.

I really hope you can work through this, because there is enough ill will floating around the world already, and enough things to be properly angry about without adding misunderstandings on top of them.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

I find transexualism misogynistic.

I find diarrhoea anarchocapitalistic.

Sorry about that multiple post.

"They are changing their physical sex to align with their mental sex."

So they believe that there are inherent differences in the brain between the genders? Essentially theyre pushing this viewpoint. You cant feel the need to change your outer body unless you believe that who you are inside would be better expressed in a different gender - which is why its gender conformation. I keep getting responses back noting that theyre attempting to change their outer bodies to fit with who they feel they are inside - thats impossible without gender stereotypes.

You cant feel the need to change your outer body unless you believe that who you are inside would be better expressed in a different gender - which is why its gender conformation.

Sure you can. It could be more about feeling comfortable in your own skin than about feeling comfortable with the ways that other people view you. Given the rather significant transphobia in our society, it's not like being openly trans is a safe proposition. And then people like you make it harder by taking what should be a safe and accepting place and replicating the patriarchical exclussionary tactics that you object to when directed against cisgendered women.

I keep getting responses back noting that theyre attempting to change their outer bodies to fit with who they feel they are inside - thats impossible without gender stereotypes.

No, it's just that you choose to ignore and argue with other people about their lived experiences. It also pretends that all transpeople make strong efforts to blend in or hide the fact that they're trans- that all of them "pass". But, that's simply not true.

No, it's just that you choose to ignore and argue with other people about their lived experiences. It also pretends that all transpeople make strong efforts to blend in or hide the fact that they're trans- that all of them "pass". But, that's simply not true.

To which I would add that it also ignores the fact that quite a few trans people would say that it was before transition that they had to make major efforts to blend in, whereas life becomes much less taxing once they are finally able to get rid of their carefully constructed pre-transition personas.

I honestly don't think there's any point in arguing any further with GopherII on the subject. She doesn't like trans people. She dislikes them, in fact, so much that she can't be bothered to inform herself even minimally on the subject before spewing invective at people who are just trying to live their lives. She has decided that transsexuality is misogynist (though how a condition that no one asks for can be misogynist is anyone's guess), and therefore it is. End of discussion. The idea of even attempting to understand the perspective of trans people, let alone to accord it as much weight as she accords her own a priori beliefs on the subject, is unthinkable to her.

Whatever elise. I still dont get why they dont make Michfest for everyone now that transmen can go. Why cant I bring a nature gven male born boyfriend? Do they have something against nature born men? Isnt that just as discriminatory as not allowing transmen and women in - especially given that MTF were born men? Isnt that misandrist? Are we encouraging the societal view that there is something wrong with men if they choose to remain in their nature given gender, that they cant go to Michfest because they are men? Why cant nature born men celebrate womyn as well?

In essence, why even state its for womyn only?

Nobody seems to answer my above questions. I quess its easier to avoid it, and just hide under the claim that I'm transphobic, right?

Now GopherII, surprised to find she was so completely wrong about a policy she was defending earlier (in apparent unawareness of its actual content), is apparently criticising us for failing to leap to its defence.

The fact is that it's no more defensible than the ill-considered and worse-informed transphobic drivel that GopherII has been derailing this discussion with.

However, on the off chance that GopherII actually wishes to become informed about what transsexuality actually is, I would suggest that she check out psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's page at www.genderpsychology.org for the 101 course.

Now GopherII, surprised to find she was so completely wrong about a policy she was defending earlier (in apparent unawareness of its actual content), is apparently criticising us for failing to leap to its defence.

The fact is that it's no more defensible than the ill-considered and worse-informed transphobic drivel that GopherII has been derailing this discussion with.

However, on the off chance that GopherII actually wishes to become informed about what transsexuality actually is, I would suggest that she check out psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's page at www.genderpsychology.org for the 101 course.

Now GopherII, surprised to find she was so completely wrong about a policy she was defending earlier (in apparent unawareness of its actual content), is apparently criticising us for failing to leap to its defence.

The fact is that it's no more defensible than the ill-considered and worse-informed transphobic drivel that GopherII has been derailing this discussion with.

However, on the off chance that GopherII actually wishes to become informed about what transsexuality actually is, I would suggest that she check out psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's page at www.genderpsychology.org for the 101 course.

Now GopherII, surprised to find she was so completely wrong about a policy she was defending earlier (in apparent unawareness of its actual content), is apparently criticising us for failing to leap to its defence.

The fact is that it's no more defensible than the ill-considered and worse-informed transphobic drivel that GopherII has been derailing this discussion with.

However, on the off chance that GopherII actually wishes to become informed about what transsexuality actually is, I would suggest that she check out psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's page at www.genderpsychology.org for the 101 course.

Elise,
I dont know what your talking (technically writing, but whatever) about. I think there ought to be a place where woman can go and be womyn without male interference. There are practical reasons for this, female comradery being one, which is so often deterred because we live in a patriarchy. If youre going to let men in, then let all men in. Of course the womyns festival is no longer the womyns festival if you do this - but I guess thats what feminism should chop off for the sake of catering to transgendered chauvanism, right?

BTW, youre still deflecting my questions and it seems like youre pretty much avoiding answering my question which is if men can be let in, why not let all men in? Technically I can show up with my nature born male BF and walk right on in, cuz were actually lesbians, hes just pre-op. Why cant he be a womyn and have a penis and five o'clock shadow, right?

BTW Elise, the site you offered just reinforces my belief that transgenderism is all about stereotypes. The home page essay authored by a MTF has the author saying he was always told to "quit crying and act like a man," and that everyone else was taught how to be a boy or girl and he felt left out of that. Thats blatant gender stereotyping, and being upset because he does not fit in with it. I was never taught how to be a girl, the author mustve had a misunderstanding of what most people felt about themselves concerning gender. I also dont understand that simply because he cryed, that hes a girl?

"On the other hand, perhaps this is no more surprising than the discovery of sex differences in the structure of the human brain, and there have been several such reports over the last decade. If we can discern differences in brain structure between men and women, why not between transsexuls and other genetic males?"

....aaaand it supports innate gender differences. How feminist of you Elise.

"Nonetheless. I am bruised, humiliated, angry, ashamed and confused. I feel defeated, regretful, and sick at the haunting thought that, for the rest of my time on this planet, every two weeks until I die, this is something that I must do. I feel disgusted and repulsed that for some reason no scientist as of yet can discern, I feel the need to mutilate my body, inject foreign chemicals to simulate something I will never be, and cause myself this level of mental and physical trauma as a result.

And for what? All for what? To feel normal? To fit in? To feel, for just one moment, like everyone else? How then, exactly, do all those other people feel? How can I know that not everyone feels as I, and that perhaps I am simply incapable of suppressing it?

Isn’t it possible, just maybe, that the disorder I claim to belong to does not in fact exist? That I am merely insane?

I recall watching a documentary once wherein an individual was comparing transsexuality to anorexia. His argument, as he presented it, was that if anorexic people, believing with all their soul that they are overweight, were to be allowed liposuction and other surgeries to the result of making them feel thin enough, we would essentially be unnecessarily medically treating a condition that exists only in the mind. Most people who are anorexic are not truly fat, but they certainly feel that way.

Isn’t it at all possible, then, that treating people believing themselves to be of the wrong gender could be unnecessarily acting on a mental delusion? Is it not possible to suppress it? Is there no other way to cure me than this?

Why me?"

Elise,
I'm not the only one that questions the validity of transgenderism. Transgendered do it too. I think you just look for sites that echo and bolster your theories rather than examining what transgendereism really is and how it applys to feminism. What does trransgenderism have to do with Michfest ( a feminist festival) anyways? No men allowed, whats so unclear about that?

http://geekbynature.wordpress.com/page/4/

"Product Description
Finally available! - THE MUST HAVE Guide that every TG/TS/CD woman has been looking for! "The Transgender Companion" - The Complete Guide for Transitioning. A book written by a transsexual for transsexuals. This all-encompassing book is the only book you will need for transitioning. Have you always wanted to be a woman, but didn't know how to start? This book will show you! Do you want to know how to look, act, and sound more like a woman, but don't know how? This book will show you! Are you frustrated at not having a single reference on how to transition? This book will give you all the information you need to have a healthy, safe and fun transition to becoming the woman you want to be!"

Wow. And all in 198 pages. And to characterize it as "fun." That IS offensive. As offensive as a self proclaimed know -all, tell-all book written on how to be a man, regardless of author.

I don't agree with her, but I can see why Gopher II would ask the questions she does. OTOH, I have seen the same viewpoints put forth by antifeminists, eg, why do transpeople find it necessary to take hormones, wear clothes of the opposite sex, or have surgery, if gender is only a construct? But again, allowing people the freedom to express themselves as they wish (whether or not it is an active decision to conform to stereotypical gender roles), means they have the freedom to do so in ways one does not agree with. I see the decision to be misogynistic as a problem in itself, not a desire to be pass as male, or the result of being born male.

I'm not the only one that questions the validity of transgenderism. Transgendered do it too. I think you just look for sites that echo and bolster your theories rather than examining what transgendereism really is and how it applys to feminism. What does trransgenderism have to do with Michfest ( a feminist festival) anyways? No men allowed, whats so unclear about that?

To question the validity of something, one must have at least a passing familiarity with it. One can easily select the most easily misinterpreted and dismissed quotes from any text, present them out of context, and provide an "interpretation" that will leave a false impression with those who are unfamiliar with it.

I do believe, however, that this is the first time I've been called a bad feminist by someone who derides women for not fitting into patriarchal definitions and stereotypes. I think further comment is unnecessary on that score. Though it seems that GopherII's concept of feminism is something more akin to a religion than a perspective from which to gain insight about (and change) society, characterised as it is by an almost-fundamentalist zeal to ignore anything that might not fit into her own narrow perspective. This is, of course, the charitable interpretation, which assumes, despite all accumulating evidence to the contrary, that GopherII is in fact participating in this discussion in good faith, rather than simply trolling to derail an otherwise good discussion.

The Michfest policy, of course, does allow men. Trans men are allowed. It is trans women, and only trans women, who are excluded.

"The Michfest policy, of course, does allow men. Trans men are allowed. It is trans women, and only trans women, who are excluded."

How is identity (sex) confirmed, and this policy enforced?

I don't agree with her, but I can see why Gopher II would ask the questions she does. OTOH, I have seen the same viewpoints put forth by antifeminists, eg, why do transpeople find it necessary to take hormones, wear clothes of the opposite sex, or have surgery, if gender is only a construct?

At this point, I seriously doubt that GopherII is asking the questions to do anything other than monopolise the conversation.

Part of the problem is that there is something of a rift between feminist philosophy and the experiences of trans people, in particular trans women. This is due in part to the witch hunts of the seventies and eighties, in which Germaine Greer and others sought to exposes and humiliate trans women wherever they were found. Janice Raymond's Transsexual Empire, which reads like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and puts forth the notion, based literally on nothing, that trans women are some sort of organised fifth column, also did not help matters.

The result of all this was to push a lot of trans women out of the feminist movement, and to engender a deep distrust of feminism that is only gradually healing. In addition, it has meant that trans perspectives are virtually absent from much feminist theory.

To give one example, Ellen Kaschak's otherwise very good Engendered Lives spends about one page in the entire book on transsexuality, and manages to completely misdefine the relevant terms, mischaracterise the condition, and not to cite any of the relevant scientific work on the subject.

This rift is quite unfortunate, as there are rather obvious benefits, in a movement that seeks to examine and deconstruct things such as male privilege, to having access to the perspectives of people who have lived life both with male privilege and without it.