Trans Inclusion and Feminism

If folks would prefer this discussion be limited to women, I'll support that and bow out.

Until then, two tropes I have difficulty accepting is "Trans are X. If you disagree, you're transphobic" (or whatever nasty bullying term one can come up with). With a group as diverse as transgendered folks (I alluded to the Feinberg definitiion of "all who have at some point not conformed to gender norms", this attempt at generalization ("Trans are X...") seems unrealistic. For instance, I am definitely transgender by that standard. Is it just a matter of uttering the word?

The second trope I disagree with is more tricky. It is the bridge between trans' sense of identity (whichever) and other communities alleged obligations to them. It seems to me there is a disconnect there, as if there could not be negotiations between groups, with both entitled, but merely subservience to whichever claims of identity, as equal to entitlement. If the latter, and if the main group doesn't bow to a minority opinion that would claim non-negotiable entitklement for trans, the space where to resolve the issue seems to be the courts, no? (So far, women who resist such claims by M-to-F trans have been vindicated by the tribunals.)

Just my .02 - and I am out of here if you prefer... or posting no more than once a day. These are issues I am really working on and I am much appreciative of the reference posted by Maysie: My Gender Workbook of which I've read all I could on-line.

This might not be a conversation this board is capable of having.  This isn't even a conversation most people are capable of having.  If someone has a problem accepting trans people's identities - if anyone thinks cis women are entitled to cis women only space - they should KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES, at least on any board that pretends to be progressive.

Stargazer, you are absolutely correct, but most trans people do not identify as a third gender.

A person whose understanding of her/hir/his gender identification transcends society’s polarized gender system. OBGLTC believes that the dichotomized system of gender is limiting; therefore, OBGLTC encourages everyone to think outside and beyond this schema. THIRD GENDER Male-to-Third Gender (born in body of male, believe self to be another gender)* Female-to-Third Gender (born in body of female, believe self to be another gender)* * People who are third gender often prefer "transgender" to "third gender" * http://archive.uua.org/obgltc/resource/tg102.html From Transgender 102. I see that some prefer to be called third gender and others do not. Just a question - do you think men easily accept FTM people? I think, IMO, that men have a much much harder time in accepting trans people.

In fact, I do not believe they would ever allow a transgener to be part of their "men only" space. I would love to be proven wrong.

That makes me feel quite warm and fuzzy actually.  This thread is better without you in it.  If you think what I said is inappropriate then by all means, elaborate, or PM me if you have some specific problem with me, or else just take it to the mods.

Sweeping generalizations aside, you are probably right, and those men deserve to be called on it.

It might be worthwhile to consider the decision by the moderators on enmasse regarding the same topic on their forum. They asked all participants to abide by the following recommendations:

1. No defining trans people's realities for them.

2. Pay respect to and think about trans people's voices before you speak.

3. Take the time to educate yourself on a few very basic trans issues, particularly regarding social inequality, before you ask people to explain them.

4. Be respectful of all people who identify as women or men, regardless of birth gender, and ensure that all voices are heard in discussion.

5. Be able to disagree, but respectfully disagree, without putting down or insulting trans people in the forum.

I didn't know about Boze's ban from the feminist forum, but I would like to keep this thread as civil as possible, which means sticking with what people have said on the topic in this or the past linked thread. 

And Boze, if remind has said she's decided not to post here, please don't make comments like "This thread is better without you in it."

As for the ban, since Boze's voice has been respectful (except for that sentence I just quoted) I think it's fine to continue as we were.

Michael N, I saw those guidelines and think they're great. I'm happy to use them in this thread, giving full credit to the EnMassers who authored it. 

As to the issue itself, I disagree with the biological arguments.

Women don't share a common experience "as women". What can be argued is we share a common experience due to sexism and misogyny. Cis-women who don't conform to rigid gender roles, which is probably most women on babble, are punished in smaller and larger ways (depending on the extent of the lack of conformity) by society, our families, our co-workers, etc.

The same goes for men, by the way.

I actually don't believe there are "common experiences" of sexism and misogyny except in very broad ways, since all of our identities as women are also grounded in our race locations, our class locations, our ability, sexual orientation, education, and other factors. The notion that "we are all women and suffer from sexism" is so wide to be effectively meaningless. And I say this to this audience, which has a clue about feminism, not a mainstream one.

Some women don't acknowledge that sexism exists, or that they've ever experienced sexism. Such women don't speak for me. Some women are "protected" from more severe forms of sexism through class privilege and other privileges.

"Women-only" space was created during a certain moment in North American history (not that it didn't happen elsewhere, I'm only familiar with the NA context). Women's centres, women's bookstores, women's shelters and other spaces were created by women, in defense against a hostile world that erased women's experiences.

Sadly, the world hasn't changed that much in the 30 or so years since the idea of separate women's spaces arose.

But, feminist ideas of oppression, intersectionality and multiple subject locations have changed. This is due to, I think, the few mini-revolutions within the feminist movement, mostly around inclusion issues. Lesbians and other queer-identified women fought to be included, and in fact fought to be counted as "real women". Poor women, women of colour, immigrant women, all have had struggles (some of them ongoing to the present) around inclusion. Many from all those groups gave up on fighting for inclusion and have created their own spaces. One could call this fractioning, but if there are service needs which aren't being provided, this takes precedence, imv, to some notion of standing together when that's not feasible or likely. 

An interesting point for me is that this discussion, as most discussions around trans issues, centers on transwomen. The bodies of transwomen are variously sexualized, exoticized and problematized and we here on babble have been no different. It's something worth thinking about which I'll continue to do.

Some random tales from my life and people I've known.

I worked in a women's space with a trans man, who I knew as a slightly butchy genderqueer non-gendered person with a female name. We worked together for a number of years, and he began taking hormones, eventually had breast surgery, and he changed a great deal. Physically. He was, and is, the same person, but this was his journey. He's a white man now, something that he really needed to come to terms with such as when he passes, how he's treated and what he responds to. He was queer-bashed about a year ago.

A few years ago I dated a transman for a few months. He was taking hormones but had not had surgery and wasn't planning to. He was a man of colour, and when I first met him identified as a butch lesbian. Transitioning and becoming a Black man had very different implications for him, compared with my co-worker.

I participated in the "Trans Inclusion 101" workshop that was offered to women's service organizations by the Trans programming at the 519 Community Centre. The program is no longer listed on their website, which is a shame. A transman and a transwoman did the training, and encouraged us to ask all our questions, that I would frame respectfully as dumb-ass, fairly non-informed and stunned. Including my questions. This was fine for the facilitators. It was 101 and it needed to get at all the basic issues, many of which have been touched on in the last thread, and every time we have a thread on this topic on babble. I learned tons. The biggest thing I learned is how little I know, and today, 4 years after that workshop I still have so much to learn.

Like most people, my struggles too have been with transwomen, and the idea that they had male privilege and didn't get what being a woman means, in all its sexist bullshit that we have to put up with everyday.

Tehanu in the EnMasse thread has listed some fabulous stories and links and resources which I strongly recommend people take a read.

Gender is fluid, for some people. Gender itself oppresses some people. This is separate from sexism and misogyny, which is oppression because of membership in an identified gender, not oppression because of lack of conformity to one of two narrowly defined genders.

For those of us who gender doesn't oppress, it's something we really need to think about, and open our minds to. I continue to struggle to do this, and use dumb-ass essentialist language all the time. It's not that we have to be "perfect" or anything, but we have to see where we've been, quite literally, brainwashed, about gender.

Final story. Gender matters. I do an exercise with myself sometimes, just walk down the street and look at people, and notice how much gender matters when I'm just looking at someone for 5 seconds. If I can't figure out the gender of the person immediately, I look some more, for cues, etc. It matters to me. It's completely fucked up that it matters to me, yet it does.

I did not get anyone banned anywhere.

I object to the "feminine essence narrative" as a definition of femaleness.  I'm no academic so I could be wrong but I do believe that the rejection of said narrative is pretty core to feminist thinking.  That is, no matter how positive the traits may be, women are not preprogrammed to behave in certain ways, like not be as good at math but be better in languages.  "Thinking like a female" is not biologically determined (IMO).  This is not a "non-progressive viewpoint".  The disagreement is being framed in such a way that if I disagree with the "feminine essence narrative" then I am imposing on trans people's right to self-identify.

I reject the premise that all trans-people agree with the feminine essence theory.  Apparently there are a few like Lynn Conway who have worked hard through lies and intimidation tactics to silence any trans-people who dare disagree with them.  How is that okay?

It is impossible to read this:

http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tm...

and not acknowledge that trans people were bullied and frightened into silence.  I was disgusted at the treatment of trans people by other trans people. Lynn and her buddies appear to have trained at Bush's feet when it comes to tactics.  Surely all trans people have the right to be heard not just the ones that fall into the "feminine essence narrative" theory.

I reject the premise that:

if I disagree with the "feminine essence narrative"as proof of womanhood

- I am imposing on trans people's right to self-identify. 

- I am transphobic.

- I am non-progressive.

- I am mean and hurtful.

(IMO) Women and/or the courts cannot be forced to officially agree that having a "feminine essence" is an inherent identifiable component that defines what it is to be a woman or that it's the same as being born with female body parts.  

P.S.  To the list of rules, lets add "no defining women's realities for them".

Your posts are transphobic, and also mean and hurtful.  I am sure this is not intentional.  I am trying to be civil.  It's not easy.  Your posts have played a part in making at least one person feel silenced (enough to self-ban) at another community, it would be nice if the same didn't happen here.  You can have all the reservations you want, just keep them to yourself.  Just like a person can have all the reservations about whether a same-sex marriage is really a "marriage" or not, but nobody needs to hear about them here.  It's the same thing.  You don't own womanhood.  Trans women are not horning in on your identity.  And nobody said all trans people believed in any feminine essence theory.  Some trans people identify as a third gender.  Respect that.  Some trans women identify as women.  Respect that.  Please.

If you have a better way to describe people who are not trans when talking about trans issues, I'd like to hear it.  I'm sure you didn't mean to say that the opposite of trans is normal.

The groovy fabulous gorgeousness of these rules, is that we can substitute in "women", "POC", "Aboriginal people", "lower income/working class people", "people with disabilities" and the rules hold, and make sense. 

The thing is that our realities are all interdependent and all informed by economic, social, and political realities. So no one can say, "This is my reality and you're not allowed to question it." I agree, though, about listening to people and about respect. But there's a moral imperative to question and debate, too.

Right. And any decision about common resources has to be based on acknowledging or negotiating common reality, leaving self-definition to selves.

Please quote where I said the opposite of trans is normal because I am pretty sure I haven't.

I think I found the perfect explanation of the conflict between feminists and trans people.  It hinges on the nature of gender-identity.

 from "The Fallacy of the Myth of Gender" from http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/elancane.htm

The totality of social adherence to the bi-polarised gender system has granted to the gender system the status of absolute; whereas the reality is that the gender system, as a social construct, can be dismantled as it was created.

The above is in accordance with feminist thinking.  Gender is not something we are born with, it is a social construct. 

I cannot agree with the argument that there are in existence a number of alternative unidentified genders, all just waiting in the wings to be discovered, because I do not accept that the identity has to be gendered, that is I do not accept that human beings have to be gendered as male, female or anything else in between or apart from. There are two accepted gendered roles which are appropriated according to the physicality and to state that one is neither male nor female but belonging of another gender (or more than one gender) is, I'm afraid, confusing the issue because the gendered status of the person is a socially accorded role and society has only appropriated validity to the gendered statuses of male and female.

I think the above is reflective of feminist thinking.  That is, gender is not inherent, it's not something we are born with.  It is a social construct.  It is one thing to welcome trans gendered people into womens spaces because they gender-identity as women, an entirely different thing to say that they are women because they gender-identify as such.  To agree with the latter is to agree that gender is not a social construct but something we are born with. 

The world health organization:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/index.html

"Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the great divide between trans people and feminists. 

Many trans activists are trying to redefine gender to be the equivalent of sex.  They are trying to claim that women's gender roles are inherent.  That is exactly what feminists have been fighting. 

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/whatisfeminism.htm

Feminists, as a rule, assume that there are few if any inherent, unchangeable differences between men and women; only a lot of individual differences and variation. Patriarchalists claim the existence of many universal and immutable differences between men and women, seeking to understate, marginalize and suppress individual differences in an attempt to create two universal gender forms or essences that everybody must be squeezed into. In other words, Lamont's claim that most feminists are polylogists is wrong. Only a minority of feminists are polylogists; but virtually all patriarchalists are polylogists. They follow a schema of rationalizations starting with biological, immutable gender essences that are used to justify polylogist beliefs about men's and women's minds, and from there they move on to justify different treatment and expectations of girls and boys, women and men, pretending that gender roles are natural, inborn and immutable.

Trans women who claim that gender identity is inborn and core to being female are promoting what most feminists that I know think of as partriarchal thinking. 

Trying to force us to define ourselves as only one kind of woman, cis woman, is trying to force us to accept the theory that a woman can be born with "female gender identity" but without the physical sex characteristics. 

Trying to shame me into accepting that theory, or trying to guilt me into because I am "hurting their feelings" feels very much like patriarchal manipulation and coercion.  That is not something I expect to face in a feminist topic area of a progressive website. 

I am not "transphobic" for not agreeing with the premise that gender-identity is an inborn sex-dictated characteristic.  I believe that it is a social construct.

What infosaturated is describing is not transphonia.So why not discuss the issues she raises?

But even if it were transphobia, it would be possible, surely, to argue against it. It would have no convincing rational or empirical basis. It would just be an emotional response. So, again, why can we not discuss the issues she raises?