And now, a few thoughts on this whole transgender thing that blew up while I was chillin’ in the sun…
I don’t get a lot of it. I don’t get a lot of folks objection to the term “cis”. I don’t get how folk who are so all about being women, yet warriors against gender-which yep, is largely constructed by society- but still, love their woman/female-ness and all, love, love, love it, get so riled up when some woman who might have been born with different parts, but felt that woman/female-ness all along just wants to be seen as who and what she is, and accepted as such. Then there are the lists of things that “real women/women born women” (puke) can do that those other women can’t…like have babies. Produce breast milk. Have periods. Except, you know, a lot of cis-women can’t do those things…they can’t have babies, or produce breast milk, and sooner or later they all stop having periods.
Does that make them “not women”? No one seems to want to answer that, but sometimes I feel like the answer out of some might be yes…
I also don’t get how some people who claim so much not to care about appearances get so angry at the appearances transwomen take on, be they gender ambigious or plain or “passing” or down-right girlie.
I don’t get how people who are so against gender turn around and attempt to enforce it themselves.
In short, I don’t get the hate on some folk have for transpeople. I mean, I’m fairly certain most of them don’t want in on feminist or women’s events so they can bully, rape, or “mack on” women. I’d rather think that, oh, they want to be in on those things because they are women? I mean, if we’re going to talk about constructs of female gender and “realness’ presentation…myself and other ciswomen are way more far gone than a lot of transwomen.
And you know, I also think transpeople go a hell of a lot further in challenging gender that other folk do. Wow, did I just type that out loud? I guess I did. But you know, a lot of the roles cis-women treasure and use as symbols of pride (like motherhood and the birthing of babies) are the same ones so many women and feminists have been challenging for years? Yes, biology dictates that the women have the babies. But gender dictates the mothering role. Lot’s of women would be hard pressed, even the most feministy ones of all, to give up their long hair or flowing skirts. Biology doesn’t dictate women wear these things…gender does. Biology does not dicate being kind, or nuturing, or loving or sisterly…gender does. I mean, isn’t that the oldest construct of them all? Man/Male- warrior/defender/hunter, Woman/Female- breeder/caretaker/peace-keeper? Man-Hard, Woman-Soft? (and wow I could go off on that one in different contexts, but that will wait…)
There are a lot of folk who go against all those gender grains, and a lot of them are trans folk.
And oh my in the oppression Olympics…well, I’ve always really liked what RosaRose said about that one, oddly enough, over a year ago when this same bullshit was boiling over everywhere:
“The Transgender issue. My roommate? M to F. I live in South Miami Beach, which is hugely accepting of all sorts of gender sliding and expression. It is, in many ways, a utopia for those of non-concrete sexuality and sexual identity and I love it. It is a festival of difference and tolerance in most circles. And transgender people are real people, with real emotions and experiences too, and I am sick of seeing feminists attack and degrade them. “It?” Where in the numerous Chinese Hells is it okay to call someone, a living, breathing, human being “it”? Mind then if I call you “stupid bigoted cretin?” Don’t like it? Too bad. No, trans women are not ‘biological, born women’. They have had the opportunity to suckle at the teat of the Patriarchy (Ha, the Patriarchy has teats!), but do you think, oh wise womb bearing feminists, that when they become women that the HELL they go through, physically, emotionally, in their souls, minds and bodies, and via society does not balance out the Karma just a teensy, weensy bit? Of course you don’t, that is evident, because your pain is far more valid and the only pain that matters! Most trans women I have encountered tend to be caring, soulful people who care about all women, which is more than I can say for some who were born that way. For all the boiled down whining that basically amounts to “It sucks to be a woman” you’d think some respect for women who have the intestinal fortitude to give up the “boy privilege” to BECOME women…who are subject to rape and discrimination and hate just like born women, is in order… but then again, I guess that would just give some people one less cause and thing to hate.”
I mean really, I can’t improve or expound on that too much, because I think it sums it up pretty nicely, really. Because you know, in my experience, the transpeople I’ve actually known? They get it bad. Worse than any cisperson I’ve ever known. Violence, being tormented, questioning themselves and depression, excommunication from friends, family, and community, constantly being questioned on each and everything. I hear people with kids say how they might be able to handle if their son or daughter were gay, but if they were trans? All bets are off. They don’t know if they could handle it. They couldn’t accept it. And you know, when you see a person looking at their toddler who they seemingly love more than life itself and saying that, well, it certainly says something.
So no. I don’t get it. I probably never will get it. I’m a ciswoman who occasionally has weird dreams about being a dude, a porn gal with a fake rack who a lot of people consider awfully butch or masculine or whatever in attitude. But I’m a ciswoman, and a straight one at that. And you know, if someone claims and demonstrates their ability to be a friend or an ally or a decent human being, even a woman? I accept them as that, no matter what genitalia they were born with or how they identify.
I mean, if you hate gender and assigned roles and a lack of allies, if you abhore alienation and discrimination, why hang on to these things so tightly in the case of transpeople? It makes no sense. At all.
And that’s what I have to say on that issue.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

24 comments:
Excellent post. So much so, that I referenced it and excerpted some lead comments here, with some good responses.
If people didn't respond here, I expect they will be cool with being quoted.
Yes, right on. I don't know where this "transgender thing" "blew up" while you were on vacation, but I think you are right on in this post. I'm a lesbian cis woman, and my partner and the love of my life is a trans and genderqueer female. She IDs as "female" but not necessarily as "a woman" if that makes sense. She was male assigned at birth, and I wouldn't normally mention that but I'm just doing so here for clarity. She doesn't entirely 100% identify with the term "transwoman" but her gender assignment at birth might make some people think of her that way. I know several trans women (just like a lot of cis women) who are pretty damn femme, but my gf is NOT. She's (one hot) butch, and she can be very masculine but it's this intensely female masculinity. If you've known a lot of butch women you might know what I mean. She can be soft and beautiful and many other things but in terms of the way she presents to the world (and also the way she wants to be seen)? Female masculinity.
Oddly enough, in certain circles she gets mistaken for a trans guy (FTM) fairly often. This one trans guy I know first came out to me (at least in part) because he thought I was dating a trans guy. The way he phrased it was kind of funny, though. When I corrected him on his pronouns, he said, "Oh, sorry, I thought maybe she was trans" and then went on the explain that he was trans. I mean, how do you respond to that? Haha. She IS trans, but he still misread her. Whatever. I found the whole exchange kind of amusing. I never out my gf though (I don't count this comment because she and I are both totally anonymous here). That'd just be shitty of me.
I think I'm getting off track, but what I wanted to say was this: anyone want to tell me that she's reinforcing gender norms? Seriously, anybody? Hah.
Nice work. The crux of the many reasons I don't get the transphobia out there is what you said here: "I mean, I’m fairly certain most of them don’t want in on feminist or women’s events so they can bully, rape, or “mack on” women. I’d rather think that, oh, they want to be in on those things because they are women?"
It strikes me that understanding the sensitivities of many of the women at the events and the subsequent reaction that they might have, it would take someone with a very strong conviction about being a woman and caring about what the event stands for to want to attend. Why not encourage this?
It's one of the many ways that some (not all) aspects of rad-feminism is destined to fail in its objective, which appears to be coalition-building. Alienating other women would appear not to be a successful strategy. So, why employ it? Food for thought.
I've heard of fuss about transgender women coming in to use the ladies room. Answer me this...if they look like women, and go into a stall to use the toilet, how do you know their parts aren't the same as yours, unless you're looking under the stall or making assumptions, in which case you're the weirdo, not them. Am I right?
I don't get the controversy here. How a person identifies is not anyone's concern. Why is it made into one?
Because those who have a lot invested in or have constructed their identity around "us vs them" are terribly threatened by those who blur the lines between us and them.
I see the hate generated as very similar to racism or homophobia. The intensity of it can be quite irrational but dressed up with any number of rationalisms.
Well said as usual Ren. I find that attitude incomprehensible and I'm a cis-woman and as straight and girly-girl as they come. It's all about feeling threatened by anything different I guess, but it's no excuse. People need to work more on their empathy.
Ruth
Mkay, I think I found the blog post you were talking about. All I can say about that is that's just stupid. Also, I think these people don't understand how huge body dissonance is to a lot of transpeople and how powerful and horrible it can be for people when the gender they are told they are is out of sync with their internal gender, or subconscious sex as Julia Serano calls it (my gf and I read alot of her book together, it was awesome). Honestly, I wonder how many of those women-born-women have stopped and pondered how much they would like to wake up the next day having grown a dick and lost their boobs or being constantly read as and referred to as male. And they'd have to be trapped in that reality too. I doubt many of them would like that very much. And that there are transpeople who do have an unconventional gender expression by choice. And those whose gender expression is more traditional for their gender? Feminine transwomen and masculine transmen? Why should they be singled out? Why not go after all the cispeople who don't have an unconventional gender expression either? I guess that's essentially what you were saying in your post.
My theory on the wbw thing is that it's exactly analogous to the "procreative principle" that the anti-SSM folks were trotting out when last I paid attention to the discussion. Their initial gambit was that marriage is "for" making babies. When it was pointed out that hets who biologically can't make babies are still allowed to get married, they started with the waffle about "roles drawn from the procreative impulse" or whatever, because if they admitted that they just want special rights for hets they would lose the argument.
P.S. I wanted to add that IMO there's nothing wrong with being femme, butch, whatever, no matter who you are. Just in case anyone thought that I was being anti- women who are feminine and men who are masculine because that wasn't my intention. Everybody's okay.
Amen sister!!
I love the term ciswoman! I love that WE have a label too. It's not "normal" and "other". Love, love, love.
And feminists should be ones to understand this. We should above others, because we WORK WITH GENDER. We study it and manipulate it and rail against it.
On that note, did you see the fabulous NY Magazine article on this topic recently?
I like the term "cis" because it reminds me of chemistry.
NK: yes, exactly. "Open to life."
All this reminds me of nothing so much as arguing with this slippery little weasel from some evangelistic Catholic website (who knew, right? but yeah, he was definitely Spreading The Word, albeit never quite admitting that that was what he was up to, and also failing dismally at persuading anyone).
The sophistry; the disingenuousness; the evasions, the bland brickwalling; the hatefulness often coded in dogwhistling (peppered with outright jaw-dropping expressions of bigotry, and insistence that those weren't REALLY hateful because...); the insistence that he was a being without any hate or particular animosity toward gay people, in fact, had a friend and so on...
and at the same time, the complete lack of empathy, never even mind logic. People would be pouring their hearts out and he'd follow it right up with yet another blandly callous appeal to his own weird boilerplate. Most insults and such bounced right off him. He was relentlessly on-point. It was a "point" from some other dimension, but...
Honestly, I found him worse than a lot of people who start out fighting but at least expressing -some- emotion, -some- sign of wanting to connect. He was a total 'bot. He made a great pinata, though.
There -was- one point I found sort of interesting. I gave up trying to persuade him by reason--he was immune to Earth logic--and instead just asked him baldly:
"You're married, right? How would -you- like it if you were told you couldn't marry the person you loved?"
His response was something like:
"I wouldn't like it at all, of course. But if I knew (the tellers, the Church) were right, then I would submit. And I would expect that anyone else would do the same."
After I picked my jaw off the floor, I said,
"And what if you didn't agree that they were 'right?'"
His response:
"Then one of us would have to be wrong."
It shed a lot of light on what, to me, was a completely alien mindset. Also kind of freaked my shit out.
lovely :)
i was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday as it happens! the weird theoretical flaw is, well, boggling.
cheers xx
What you said. And I'll also agree that its similar to the "arguments" against same sex marriage, for the reasons already listed and also because...who is it hurting? Why is it even anyone's business?
It's not like anyone is making *them* transition, just like no one is making those who object to gay marriage get divorced and marry someone of the same sex. (And that has always been a particular quandry for me, actually...you'd think that conservatives would *want* gay people to settle down and marry each other.)
I just don't get it, either. The concern about molestation at women-only events? Because "women-born-women" can't commit abusive acts? Now who's being a gender essentialist?
Because those who have a lot invested in or have constructed their identity around "us vs them" are terribly threatened by those who blur the lines between us and them.
Exactly. And trying to keep "them" out of "our" spaces is a much easier battle than actually trying to work in coalition to make women safer. I think it's an escape valve, frankly - it lets people who are frustrated at not having power in certain areas have power in others, while still proclaiming themselves as powerless and oppressed. And, as BD always says, SPECIAL. That part is also important.
like willt, i see the cis/trans terms and think of organic chemistry too. stereoisomery. that's why they make such great sense to me, and why i like them.
that said, i look at how often this teapot gets tempested and how nasty the tempests in it get, and i'm starting to wonder if i'm really all that weird for thinking transfolk aren't so weird as some seem to think they are...
i mean, i may be cis myself, but that's partly because transitioning is currently such a cumbersome, permanent process. if there were some magic switch i could flip and try out the other gender for a few days or weeks, i'd be all over it. does that really make me a freak? i can't be the only one who'd like to find out if it were only cheap and easy and reversible, can i?
because, once you get to that point, it's not too hard to imagine folks who might just want to flip the switch and then cut the wires to it... maybe not me, maybe not many people, but some. maybe some want it badly enough to put up with the shortcomings of modern medicine; is it really so hard to see that their position is possible and that it won't mean the end of the world if a few people hold it?
...stupid question. if it weren't so hard, we wouldn't be having semi-regular blogwars about it every, what is it now, five or six months or so? evidently i am a freak. *sigh*...
there's a great Neil Gaiman story about that, btw, some pill which "resets" your sex as a side effect (its real purpose is to get rid of disease), and the sociopolitical ramifications of it: unsurprisingly, it doesn't make prejudice just go away, although yes, there are indeed a lot of daytrippers. but, like, "change" becomes a dirty word, ayatollahs have witch hunts, some people prefer to die of whatever rather than change sex even with the ability to change back...
--hell, for that matter, I have no desire to be a man, but if I could do it for a day and then change back? Sure. Why not?
Er, anonymous...someone who hasn't transitioned medically or physically at all can still be trans. I see what you're saying but when you say that the only reason you're cis is the cumbersome burden of transitioning it really seems to me like people could take it as dismissive? Trivializing? I don't know.
'Course I should probably shut up about this now because all-cis discussions of transpeople are kind of like all non-sex-worker discussions of sex workers, eh?
As for the resetting the gender thing, I'd totally try it if it were reversible. Not to live out the day as a man (nahh), but for occasional sexual purposes, yes. :D
willt... yeah, sorry, i didn't mean to come off that way. i knew trans people are trans even before they begin the actual transition, and i shouldn't have implied otherwise. i meant to include them among the folks who would like to flip the switch permanently, even if they haven't yet done anything about it, but i guess i didn't write clearly enough.
nor did i mean to sound trivializing. the real reason i'm cis is that i'm pretty much 100% sure i'd be flipping that magic switch an even number of times, in the end. i meant to use that hypothetical as a lead-in to the concept of people who'd only flip it once, and to show how they're not monstrous or strange; i'm sorry if it came off as flippant.
but, yeah, we probably would sound pretty weird to any actual trans person, discussing this all from the outside... well, my excuse is that i'm a freak. please do correct me as and when i'm downright wrong; that's far worse than being a freak!
No worries. Also I meant "sex" not "gender." Anywho.
You know, I'm thinking that this "flipping the switch" thing is not really the best way to go about explaining trans stuff to people who are anti trans, just because the two things aren't really equivalent. Flipping a switch to have a sex change for shits and giggles? It's something I can get behind if it were possible but I doubt many anti trans people would, and it's probably just going to mislead them about who and what trans people are and what transition is for a trans person. Someone who flips a switch and has a sex change wouldn't be dealing with body dysmorphia, except maybe AFTER they've made the change. They might be discriminated against etc., but it seems like it would really be a very different experience.
interestingly, the "flipping the switch" idea first started as a way for me to try to understand body dysmorphia for myself. and come to think of it, it failed... that's one part of transpeople's experience this cis dude still doesn't grok. so i think you're right, it probably isn't as good an idea as it seemed like at first. oh well.
You def didn't offend me! :) I just read that and cringed a little. I can imagine my girlfriend being annoyed (of course I can't speak for her, but I know to some degree what kind of stuff annoys her), though I don't think she would be offended either.
I think there's something to be said for mentioning the throwing a switch thing to certain people, in the context of body dysmorphia. I mean, I think a lot of cis women very much dislike the idea of growing a dick, and you can see it in their reactions to the idea.
Post a Comment