Five axioms about gender and bodies
I want to riff off Cara’s post here, random and unfinished thoughts about female anatomy. My first thought is, like GallingGalla’s, that they are indeed unfinished. I don’t want to give Cara a hard time about it, since she’s careful to point out “these are just a few of my experiences, and so there’s obviously no way they’re universal or complete, and they don’t even begin to address experiences outside of my white, straight, cis perspective.” So, my problem is not with Cara (who posts regularly on trans issues and is in my opinion one cis feminist who tries very hard to get it), but rather with the language that we (yes, all of us) largely use to discuss bodies and gender.
Because like almost every discussion about bodies, there’s cis-normative assumptions through-out Cara’s piece and the comment thread. The problem is, the further a trans woman’s body gets away from cis, the more invisible it becomes in these conversations (and the same for trans men with cis male bodies).
So, I’m going to sketch out a few axioms, Eve Sedgwick style.
1. Respecting trans identities means rethinking your assumptions about bodies and gender and what they mean.
Fairly self-explanatory, yes?
2. Genitals do not of themselves determine gender
A penis is not inherently male, a vagina is not inherently female. If she has one, a trans women’s penis is female. Similarly, if he has one, a trans man’s vagina is male. Therefore, “female genitals” do not automatically exclude a penis, and automatically include a vagina. Though penis = male, vagina = female are often codified into law which determine a whole host of things from access to shelters to housing in prison, this is the cause of much oppression of trans people, because cissexist meanings have material social effects.
3. The meanings of “female” “male” and “genderqueer” are not reducible to bodies, but are not un-related, and we cannot know in advance how they intersect.
The meanings that trans people make from our bodies can be related to our bodies, but nevertheless stand apart from them. I know cis people often feel this way, and but this is not necessarily so. A person may feel that their genitals determine their sex, but they may not. In other words, identifications exist outside of genital status, desire for surgery etc, and they should be respected right now. Neither are the meanings reducible to appearance, passability-as-cis or hormone status, though they may be experienced that way.
4. Desiring a trans person is not inherently different from desiring a cis person, though it might be
What I mean by that is, the whole foundation of the “trans panic” defence is that having sex with a woman with a penis makes the cis male killer gay. No, it makes them straight (or bisexual if they also fancy men). And trans men are not kinder, softer men. If you conceptualise desired genders as binary (gay/straight/bisexual), desiring someone genderqueer identified may (or may not) problematise your orientation.
5. Trans ways of having sex may correspond with their cissexual counterparts, but they may not.
There’s a lot shame about trans people and what we do with our genitals. Classically, the diagnosis for gender dysphoria meant that if you masturbated or had sex before genital surgery, you were not trans. The theory goes, that trans people must be so cut off from our genitals that we can’t bear to use them unless after surgery. So besides, the originating gender dissonance, people had to manage their responses to gatekeepers that were always on the lookout for “signs” of an originary cissexuality.
Needless to say, this is bullshit. Some people might, and some people might not, but if we haven’t had surgery, the ways we have sex still do not ungender us—eg when a trans men is penetrated, he is not magically a woman.
Ok, so like Cara’s post, it’s still kinda work in progress which I might modify, if you have thoughts or I bollocks anything up.
So Heart linked to this as proof that “transgender ideology” works against women’s liberation, as if trans women aren’t women.
Of course, Emily’s post does no such thing. What Heart’s threatened by is challenging essentialist notions of what makes a man, a male, a woman, a female, or any other category you care to describe. Heart facilitates the ideology and system that says that the only way for cis white women to be truly liberated, they must be able to oppress others – in this case, trans people. That the very possibility of accepting that trans people are exactly who we say we are will enslave her to the patriarchy. In other words, it ain’t worth being equal to cis white men if you don’t get to be the oppressor too.
Lisa Harney
May 17, 2009 at 1:11 am
Harriet,
With all it’s flaws and though we should be a lot more flexible with this, society still uses a glance between the legs of a new born baby to stick on a label that sets expectations and influences how the kid is treated.
I’m also definitely not an expert, but just speaking my mind on the subject after I have been thinking about it a lot over the last year since having some new TS friends after me having been out, well as far as you can be out as one half of a lesbian couple, of the LGBT community.
From before I have more (ex) TS friends and have been active in the LGBT community with being a congress member of a lesbian and gay association and at a time running a T&T group for a year after the guy who did quickly wanted out as his new BF didn’t like it. His previous partner had transitioned.
In my idea a person enters the state of being trans (I will use/keep the short) after establishing the gender is not aligned with the sex as determined by that glance on the genitalia after birth, and runs untill all possible corrections made.
So, I think you’re right in that it is not the genitalia that “make you trans”; it’s the discrepancy with the mind/brain sex.
Obviously, that will result in a lot of hurtful situations while interacting with society, as a woman will be classified, and be approached, based on the specific masculine features the body will have developed, and a man would be in stead seen as a woman and treated/approached.
This all is secondary features, with quite a few being corrected with HRT, but by far not all and some might even be very unlucky when the old secondary gender features were too prominent or those who do not react much on HRT or can not have HRT due to whatever reason.
I think being misgendered is not an exclusivity to the T-community, but happens to a lot of natal women, either by choice or just because they are just unlucky and might benefit from FFS more than quite a few T-girls.
I have known many lesbians that would not have passed my filter as prospective mate and remember womens evenings at a local Lesbian and Gay centre where I just wondered if I had picked the wrong evening….
But, my ideas might adapt over time, though after I sort of tried to pick up on what seems to be new ideas and classification, a lot did not pass my BS filter. I’m pretty sure some of my ideas will give me wrath of some people, but then it’s my ideas and only serve as input to a discussion.
I have non whatsoever problem with the whole T-thing at all. I have been in love with a non-op girl long time ago where I didn’t stand a chance, but we all have that at times. I would have no second thoughts in starting a relationship with a T-girl if I ever would find myself single and available again.
Angela
May 17, 2009 at 1:15 am
Angela, we as trans people don’t need to be told on when and how we become trans. Trans people are trans – we don’t become trans. That’s a ciscentric myth that reinforces the notion that trans people are cis until we come out. It erases the possibility of having distinctively trans lives from childhood onward, whether you know at a young age, or you spend years coming to the realization. I did not become trans when I learned what the word meant, nor did I become trans when I first saw a psychiatrist. Nor did I become trans the first time I put on a dress. Nor did I become trans when the psychiatrist agreed with me and gave me the diagnosis. I’ve been trans my entire life.
Your reference to cis women getting misgendered is minimizing and insulting. Of course cis women get misgendered occasionally. So do cis men. But, cis men and cis women are not misgendered as part of a system of oppression that is devoted to characterizing their genders as falsehoods, and stigmatizing them as “freaks.” It’s not the same thing, and don’t even try to introduce it as if it is.
I really, honestly, don’t care what cis people say about their so-called “BS filters” and trans stuff because to many cis people, even calling myself a woman doesn’t pass their “BS filter.” To them, I was assigned male at birth, therefore I am a male and always will be a man, and nothing I do can change that in their eyes. I’m not interested in cis people explaining to trans people what makes us trans and how we’re defined as trans and what our bodies must really be. I don’t want to hear about the truthiness of trans claims about our lives and bodies, because that’s the kind of oppression that transphobia is made of.
Don’t speak for trans people.
I realize you’re not approaching this from a hostile place, so take this as criticism and not an attack.
Lisa Harney
May 17, 2009 at 1:26 am
Angela,
You didn’t read my comment very carefully, did you?
“I don’t mean the odd person mistaking your gender, I mean systematically.”
I suppose that a cis woman or man could be misgendered systematically in a social context, but I mean in every aspect of your life. If your passport/driving license has *always* had the right gender on it, then you’re not being officially and systematically misgendered.
harriet
May 17, 2009 at 2:14 am
By passport I guess really I mean birth certificate, now I think about it.
harriet
May 17, 2009 at 2:15 am
I think it’s worth noting that Heart didn’t bother with commentary, simply a title “The Logical Outworking of Transgender Ideology and Why It Works Against Women’s Liberation” and a quote to the controversial bit about penis not inherently being male and vagina not inherently being female.
Because my thesis was apparently self-evidently harmful to (other) women. And the whole point is, the “common sense” that Heart’s relying on is the same sense that transphobic institutions and individuals rely on.
So, I want to clarify this.
Though “biologically male” is a phrase that scientifically encompasses a host of factors, legally and socially it *usually* comes down to one thing – genitals. Yes, Alma, I’m in danger of reifying this (though I’d like to point out that I made five points, and no-one’s very interested in the other four), but it needs to be addressed. Silence does not help us on this.
Broadly, if you have a penis, you’re “male,” and you’re killable. If you have a penis and you’re male, you don’t get the right docs, which puts you at risk for violence and rape. In law, it’s explicitly framed that way – that in the case of differing factors, genitals determine sex and rights.
This is a systemised meaning, and it flows seamlessly from one to another. Penis = male = man, vagina = female = woman. We *need* to stop the chain of meaning, legally, institutionally, personally. “Biologically male” ALWAYS appears in discourses about trans women (vice versa for trans men) and it needs to be de-fused. For the vast majority of people, having a penis means being “really a man” – the most basic of transphobic ideas.
And it doesn’t go by stubbornly hanging onto the idea that because objects are inherently sexed and/or gendered. That’s a dominant cis interpretation, and it doesn’t challenge very much at all.
I fail to understand how *any* of us can look at the broad picture and now see how the equation penis = male, vagina = female ACTIVELY HARMS US. It’s not about being subversive, it’s about trying to jam the particular array of medical, psychiatric and legal discourses that make trans people at risk.
This is not tremendously difficult, though some of y’all sure appear to want it to be.
queenemily
May 17, 2009 at 2:55 am
At the risk of sounding pandering, it’s “re not reducible to bodies, but are not un-related, and we cannot know in advance how they intersect” that actually meant most to me. I’ve spent a long time pushing and being pushed by a medical system where diagnosis is king and it’s vital to the system to have a label to pin on everybody, and then treatment is often haphazard or outright non-existent. Give them three data points, they tell you everything about you that they think matters, and that’s it.
To see that concept, as applied to gender and sex, challenged so very directly and fundamentally is a strong encouragement to me right now. I like the rest, but that’s the big one for me.
cericonversion
May 17, 2009 at 3:12 am
@Lisa.
It might indeed be the general view in society, but as I wrote I certainly do not see a trans woman who did not have SRS as inferior or tainted. Obviously, I am with you in that I don’t agree with the statement taken from ‘Dogma’.
I’m also opposed to the practive of enforcing gender based on the sex of a person as determined at birth, as is practiced by Zucker a.o.; I think that basically is child abuse and torture.
Quote: “You should have stopped right there, because this?
That if it is not something that happened to you, you just have to be glad it didn’t.
Is offensive. There’s nothing wrong with being trans, and trans people should not be positioned as objects of pity. This is no better than so-called experts telling us who we really are and how we’re allowed to label ourselves.” Unquote
Why do you see my remark as offensive?
It has nothing to do with being pittied.
It’s just a remark based on facts/reality; someone who doesn’t experience the discrepancy between gender/brain sex and their genitalia just should be glad, as I think it does bring up quite a few things that do not make life easier.
Just only think it does not bring up having to spend 14,500 US$ plus travel and other cost for having SRS (Suporn), and then the cost while staying in the US would be even more; I heard of 16,500 for McGinn, 19,000 with Bowers and 25,000 and more with Meltzer.
Or 10,500 GBP as it was in Brighton, GBR, though in the UK if you are lucky in the PCT Post Code lottery you can be lucky and have it done on the MHS.
Again; it’s nothing to do with pity, as obviously it also has ‘advantages’ in that you have experiences in life a natal woman will never have, this just due to the expectation society will have for you based on the label put on you at birth and the differences in how society treats men and women and in general in the difference women and men are raised and thought. Yes, this is just a fact on how our society works, whether we like it or not.
And how you label yourself, I really don’t care. It’s only handy if we talk on the same level and use the same definitions/understandings.
Just using fancy namings, or calling a penis a female organ just due that the object is attached to a woman, is not going to help in that.
Again, I agree in that society should be a lot more relaxed with sexe based on genitals and gender.
Just as that society should be relaxed when it comes to sexuality.
I’ve even seen remarks from the T-groups that a trans-lesbo would not be a real trans…. must have been a janice Raymond supporter who came up with that idea.. Such a ridiculous idea, I think.
Angela
May 17, 2009 at 3:30 am
Emily,
Thank you for your most recent comment, that more than anything really puts into perspective the importance of not classifying organs in such a manner.
I will admit, as much as I knew the statement was true, it does take some time to get used to – but I realised this was more due to another bit of internalised transphobia.
Your latest comment is vital, since it points out an irony – although there isn’t a pants police in day-to-day life, that assignment at birth does seriously affect access to resources and the rights and expectations placed upon people.
The more I think about it, the more I actually have to laugh at anyone who believes it is ‘feminist’ to be essentialist over genitalia – for as you point out, everyone is affected by this assignment for better or worse – it is very much an arbitrary division of rights.
Squigglefish
May 17, 2009 at 4:14 am
Angela,
So what you are saying is that although it is not to do with being pitied, the facts are that we should be? lol, please…
The costs involved with transition are artificially inflated – because society paints transitioning in a poor light, demand is kept artificially low, and gatekeepers know they can exploit trans people.
and oddly, you try and then support what you said – that cis people should be ‘glad’ they are not trans by pointing out that trans people get to experience things that cis people do not. Surely cis people should hence not be glad, but be miffed?
I don’t think you had really thought through that original statement you made.
I recommend you read queenemily’s comment and those by lisa again – you seem to have missed the point that it is important to not require that all penises be male and all vulvas female, as this association directly causes deaths of trans people, and indeed also causes difficulties to cis people also in terms of the rights they are granted.
Oh, and “I’m also definitely not an expert, but…” was seriously uncool. You were trying to play the status game in a discussion about theory, and if anything, it was shocking to see that someone who holds up some essentialist and transphobic views could hold any positions of responsibility. It’s an appeal to false authority, and quite frankly I tend to find it belittles most people who try and use it – when one’s gang is really better than another’s gang, you don’t feel the need to try and boast about it, and if your arguments are truly valid, there is no need to appeal to such things.
Squigglefish
May 17, 2009 at 4:25 am
The reason all those things are necessary, Angela, is because cis society constructs transsexuality as elective and probably perverted, which is why it’s not covered by most insurance in the US, and add that on top of the lack of nationalized health care in the US, and you have trans people forced to pay for our own trans-related treatments out of pocket.
This isn’t a problem with being trans, this is a problem that society imposes on trans people. I certainly don’t need to be educated about what it’s like to be trans or what it’s like to be oppressed as a trans person – I know all these things, they’re part of my life.
Emily answered why labeled trans women as female and trans men as male is necessary.
Lisa Harney
May 17, 2009 at 4:37 am
For now I only would like to put the question in how we basically are on the same side, but that I somehow feel slated for being the enemy…..
Just as if we all talk/write a different language and we use Babblefish to do the translations…
The only thing where my opinion differs is in that I do not agree in is definitions and naming objects in any way different from the biological and medical classification.
Tomomorrow I’ll see that I take the time to read the comments and reply on those.
Angela
May 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm
@Angela: I think you’re conflating constructs created through biology and medicine with facts; the labels aren’t value neutral, nor are they dictated by facts, they have are based on a system of value judgements that also serve to enforce a view of the world that doesn’t actually reflect reality (the idea of binary sex in the first place serves the culture in power, and goes against what actually occurs). By accepting a priori that biological classifications are correct, one cannot challenge the constructs created by an oppressive system.
So it’s a good bit different than just using a different language, as language means things. And it kind of prevents you from being on the same side as us (you may have similar positions on many issues), as, at least for me, both the rigid sex binary and rigid gender binary are inherently oppressive and need to go. You’re arguing that trans people need to be allowed to “move over” to the “other side” of binaries. I’m arguing that those binaries are unnatural, and that part of tearing down those binaries is allowing trans people full autonomy over their bodies, and the right to define themselves (including their bodies) as they see fit.
We both clearly want better treatment of trans people*, but, I would be really wary of being in coalition with someone who uses the language you do, as I wonder if you’re going to be against genderqueer people, or, when I work in solidarity with intersex people, you’ll be working against their goals.
*based on experiences with people who use similar language to you, your language indicates that I can be only sure that that is “for some trans people”.
When issues of oppression come up, language is inherently loaded, and the language we use is informed by and informs are views. At this point, I don’t want to waste my time on movements that don’t work at creating solidarity – and views that genitals are inherently sexed lead to racist and classist ideas on who is real, erasure of genderqueer people, and can be used to support the mutilation of intersex infants and children. If, when we talk about sex and gender, we can’t use language that allows the possibility of all struggles by people oppressed by sex and gender, we run the risk of some of us stepping on others to push ourselves up.
anarchafemme
May 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Angela,
I did not slate you as the enemy. I think you’re trying to be an ally, but I also think you’re saying a lot of privileged stuff here that’s hurtful and harmful to trans people and I’m taking time trying to point out how that’s the case.
I’m not questioning whether you, for example, are willing to date trans women and don’t even worry about surgical status, but the way you talk about that willingness bothers me, and leaves me feeling othered anyway. And the way you’re telling trans people how and when we get to be trans bothers me because it’s directly contradictory to my own experiences as a trans woman.
Or to put it another way: If I thought you just hated trans people and were the enemy, I wouldn’t bother to talk to you at all. But at the same time, it feels to me like you’re speaking for trans people rather than talking about trans people, in that you’re privileging your voice and definitions of our lives over our own.
Lisa Harney
May 17, 2009 at 7:22 pm
angela i’ll be blunt (and to be clear i am speaking for myself only).
you *are* my enemy.
because language like this:
Just using fancy namings, or calling a penis a female organ just due that the object is attached to a woman, is not going to help in that.
is not about differing interpretations of objective fact. it’s not like you and i are looking at a subatomic particle and you see its movement and i see its position.
no, what this is about is you asserting your cis privilege to predetermine the gender of this or that body part based on biological essentialism.
and in so doing, you are denying me my right to my reality, my right to self-definition, in favor of your pet cissexist theory. and that is a step down the road to othering me, seeing me as less worthy, and giving society a pass to continue to oppress me, deny me work, deny my safety.
you are erasing me, and every trans and genderqueer person on this thread. and that erasure means our deaths.
GallingGalla
May 18, 2009 at 6:22 am
I have some thoughts about #4 that I have been trying to muddle through. On my way through transition, I made a stop as a “gay man”. I was always open, always out, always confronting heterosexism and closeted gay peeps.
Now, in transition I’m “dating” men who feel the need to announce their heterosexuality as they are trying to court me. Alternately, these guys are having a sexual identity crisis based on their attraction to a trans* body.
On one hand – I’m a woman. Liking me is the same as liking a cis woman. On the other I have real trouble coddling these guys through their hetero angst. IF liking gals like me makes one not exactly straight… is that really so bad? Does not affirming the hetero-ness of my partner work against my own best interests as a trans* woman?
Ultimately, the root of violence against trans* women is rooted in both homophobia which in turn is rooted in misogyny. It’s really a damned if you do… bind. Have no truck with homophobic “fears”, or placate those fears and assure the guys they are the heteorest of the heteros. At least that’s how it plays out for me.
rioTgirl
May 18, 2009 at 8:43 am
For now I only read the most recent comments and will reply on these three.
@GallingGalla.
I’m living in a society that has flaws, and in quite some cases is outright anti LGBT, which uses medical and biological terms that have been defined at some point in time, quite often after lenthly discussions and discussions that even still go on, but though we might not agree, we have to live with and can only have an influence on be ‘joining the party’.
Trying to crash the party is not going to help in anyway, as they are with a much larger majority than we as LGBT community in which the LGB is sort of estimated as some 5-15% of the population, but where tha T might be less than 1%.
Again, you might like that, or not. But, without dealing and interacting with the whole of society, we are not going to have anything changed at all!
Yes, my thoughts are mostly related to full transsexuality leading up to full transition, but I do not exclude anything in between as I think, and what I might not have clearly stated, that gender is not binary, but has a sliding scale with variations on the binary genders, but whee, dus to existing medical and biological defiitions, we work with those extremes as base of referencwe.
Same for the sex of a person, as we have quite enough examples that this also is not binary, but that it has variations on the defined extremes.
Yes, sorry, but I am back on those extremes as reference.
I’m curious to your self definition.
So, how am I erasing you?
As I think I should have been clear enough, I am fully opposed to oppression; I’m appalled when it comes to equality for ALL.
Protection for all in our society is still a long way to go.
Though no law can protec t you, nor me, from encountering violence for who or what we are, it is without any doubt that quite a few laws protecting LGBT and all minorities have to be created or updated.
Like in the US the ENDA; it should be clear there is no space for ‘calculated losses!’…
Then a final point I want to make is that you should not make assumpions you can not prove.
In non of my messages I have claimed either cis, nor trans status/background!
I’m also not going to, as I think it does not make any difference at all. Obviously I am the sum of my experiences in life, together with things I’ve learned, so all that together is part in my opinion and how I express myself.
Besides that, whatever my background/history, you have created an image of me as your enemy which obviously is based on your experiences in life and possibly bias due to negative experiences you had.
@Lisa H.
With “privileged stuff”, do you mean a cis gendered stance?
When I have finished this reply, I will take time to properly read all previous replies and give my reaction on these.
As for my “willingness” to date a T-girl/woman; for me genitals are no part in whether I want to date someone or not. I’ll quote what I wrote somewhere else as my view on this.
:
Hm labels.. Partly I don’t like them, but on the opther hand I guess I quite easily deal with them as I am part of a society that for a large part doesn’t know how to deal with people if there is no label attached or if labels are broken, surpassed.
Though technically I should use the label bi, I chose to use lesbian just for sheer ease as I estimate myself on the 90% or more.
I’m clearly attracted to the feminine side of the spectrum, it is the combination of presentation together with the personality and as genitalia are normally not what we show off, genitalia simply don’t play any role for me in romantic attraction. When it comes to physical intimacy, that’s just a technicality.
As for my own presentation, I consider myself on the feminine side of the spectrum, even though I’m technical and do jobs that are considered male/masculine without any 2nd thoughts, have interests that are generally considered male/masculine and even might display a quite masculine side of my personality at times.
So, I guess I’m definitely someone to defy or surpass labels..
So, why does my ideas in this bother you?
My views on when someone is trans and when not or no longer are indeed mine and probably only partially shared with the medical professionals.
How does that contradict your experiences?
Obiously, as we are interacting on the subject, your ideas might influence mine, and vice versa.
As for speaking; I only speak for myself, though my thoughts and ideas are about.
And again that “privigeging” I’m curious to what you see me being privileged or using privileged ideas.
@Anarchafemme.
I’m indeed trying to work with the constructs as as created based on biology and medicine and with the idea that this is basically done by people who have no real experience with some factas of life, but where they did have an influence on the definitions that are currently seen as correct.
Though the system and definitions obviously have flaws and should be subject to updates/corrections and change of ideas, I do not see it as oppressive.
Again, I also have no problem at all to work with binary definitions and the variations on those.
The problem in this is that statistically, the binaries have a higher count than the variations.
Based on what I have seen in numbers, the binary sex is the natural norm, even though there are many different variations on these binaries; these variations do not invalidate the binary definitions.
I have the idea that gender is a lot less binary than biological sex.
It’s all on a scale between the binaries, but where it is most likely true that the majority of people are near the end on either side of that scale.
I don’t see it as that I’m advocating “allowing to move over”, but indeed the autonomy to decide for yourself.
After all, gender is not something we can use a test in the lab to determine where someone is on the scale between the binaries. Only the person involved can.
As for experience with genderqueer people, I do indeed not have much, but for me it is somewhere in the spectrum again between the binaries.
For myself I have been androgynous for quite a few years, but I consider full acceptance of myself as a lipstick lesbo in the late 80s as the full coming out as who and what I am.
As for intersexed children, it is my unchangable idea that nobody has the right to decide on ‘corrections’, but only the child when he/she is old enough to decide if, when and how.
Again, I’m trying to work with definitions and terms as used in biology and medicine, but also with society as a whole.
This as it is my beliefs that you can only make changes from inside and that going full ahead is not going to get you anywhere, but having a real headache.
Angela
May 18, 2009 at 9:22 am
Angela,
To paraphrase your reply to GallingGalla, “trans people shouldn’t be uppity! Maybe if we just knew our place better and didn’t speak out, everyone would treat us nicer!”
I can’t understand how you can say you are not erasing anyone by insisting penis = male and vulva = female. This is a denial of people’s own experiences with these body parts, and an attempt to undermine people’s identities over irreverent details. This insistence also makes ridiculous your claim that you want an end to all oppression – apparently genitals get a special exemption from that in your book.
“In non of my messages I have claimed either cis, nor trans status/background!
I’m also not going to, as I think it does not make any difference at all.”
In an ideal world, it wouldn’t make any difference – but we don’t live in an ideal world. Trans people have been subjected to their lives being made worthless in comparison to the theories of cis people for a very long time, and as such there is a massive difference to this discussion depending upon which side you are coming to this from. If you are cis, then you speak from theory not personal experience, and so continue the oppression you claim to oppose.
Your privilege is plain to see – you insist that arbitrary divisions based upon genitalia are valid, that surgery is required of anyone transitioning else their motives are in question, that being cis or trans does not matter in this discussion, that trans people are to be pitied… I could go on.
“Based on what I have seen in numbers, the binary sex is the natural norm, even though there are many different variations on these binaries; these variations do not invalidate the binary definitions.”
The major binaries are not invalidated, but the concept of a binary system clearly is. Not just in terms of the more visible outliers, but also those internal outliers and even just the natural variation in sexes that make a mockery of the idea of a perfect binary.
Curiously, your belief when it comes to intersex people differs from trans people – whilst trans people should just stick to the binary, damnit, intersex people should be allowed to remain with birth genitals until they get to pick, including to not alter them?
Squigglefish
May 18, 2009 at 10:59 am
Angela,
I have tried to stay out of this, because I’m cis and have a long long way to go before I can claim to be an effective ally, but I ask you, please listen to these people! If you can’t see what you are doing wrong, you really really need to sit down and think carefully. Read these comments carefully, go back and read the brilliant posts on this blog which have taught me so much. I think the posts about priviledge would be an excellent place to start.
Open your mind a bit, examine your priviledge. It’ll take time and effort, but it is so worth it.
harriet
May 18, 2009 at 11:21 am
Angela, just to poke at one point: Again, you might like that, or not. But, without dealing and interacting with the whole of society, we are not going to have anything changed at all!
In the world I live in, gays and lesbians didn’t accept the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, and pressed on both scientific and social fronts. And though the battle is far from won, the front line has moved waaaay toward where it should be. This couldn’t have happened if our activist predecessors had said, well, of course, we can’t challenge any fundamentals or we won’t get anywhere. Sometimes one just does have to set to on the foundations.
And that’s what we’re doing here. We know from our experience that the prevailing norms simply are wrong – wrong for us, and we (depending on cases) know or suspect, wrong for others, too. The fight to remove homosexuality as a mental illness wasn’t just about a label, but about who has the authority to label and the processes by which people formulate them. Same deal here. The natural world does not compel our particular taxonomy, and taxonomy does not compel prevailing moral judgments, or aesthetics.
Saying “It turns out that this is prejudice resting on a foundation that doesn’t support it” is engaging with the society. It’s just engaging on terms you’d prefer to avoid.
cericonversion
May 18, 2009 at 11:50 am
Since I’m fighting a sinus infection down and have time on my hands, another point:
Angela: Based on what I have seen in numbers, the binary sex is the natural norm, even though there are many different variations on these binaries; these variations do not invalidate the binary definitions.
Yes, yes in fact they do. Because the whole point of a binary is that there are no viable alternatives. But the reality is that trans, intersexed, genderqueer, and other people do exist, and any system that says “you’re just noise and errors” is wrong. We are, to swipe a Bible phrase, fearfully and wonderfully made, and even people who have never had occasion to think of themselves as anything but simply male or simply female are full of weirdness.
You’re committing perhaps the fundamental error of the modern world, being too impressed by numbers. Largely unconfusing experience as male or female is indeed most common, but it’s not a norm in the sense of being authoritative. The fact that a lot of people in the US are some flavor of white doesn’t mean that any person of color is doing it wrong; the fact that there are a lot of self-described Christians doesn’t mean that we should find something suspicious or strange in the existence of Buddhists. Be there ever so many people with brown eyes, my eyes remain blue, and my eyes aren’t defective in their color.
You’re reasoning from ignorance. One way to get a taste of the weirdness that is sex in the natural world is to read some good blogs. Check out biologist P.Z. Myers, who has a post up this very day on (among other things) developmental biology in the descendants of dinosaurs. Or check out Deep Sea News, which happens to be having a Sex Week with articles on strangeness in creatures of the deep. The prevailing norms about sex at the biological level are shaped by a culture we’ve moved out of, but the norms remain. Well, get some clues and de-norm a bit.
cericonversion
May 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Enh. Sorry for this stream of posts, but reading biology research reports reminded me that I wanted to write a little more about the context of judgments.
Classical physics was for a long time king of the sciences. In classical physics, discrete units with well-defined boundaries interact against a background of absolute time and space. You can precisely determine things’ mass and velocity, and from that perform fundamentally simple mathematical calculations to derive precise and correct information of other sorts. A thing is at rest, or it’s moving on trajectory X with velocity Y and that’s all there is to it.
Biology isn’t like that at all.
For starters, biology happens in fluids. This is something people overlook a lot. Our cells are filled and surrounded with fluids, and because of this, no interaction is ever clean and free of history. (If you’ve ever noticed that you have to empty the sink from time to time when doing dishes, you’ve just touched the merest conception of what interactions in a cell are like.)
In addition, everything’s going on at once. While this molecule is replicating, that one’s busily synthesizing something, and that one is doing something else again. It’s not like a factory assembly line, it’s more like downtown traffic in terms of simultaneous operations.
Furthermore, organism-level properties are set not by a single toggle, but by many. This gene activates that, and then this other one modifies that and turns on one of these three other features, depending on whether the next four genes have already activated stuff way over there…it is, again, not so much like looking at a blueprint as trying to listen to every conversation going on within a mile of you.
Early biologists didn’t know any of that. But we do. We understand that life is fundamentally complex, constantly averaging and differentiating, synergistic, revising, tangled. We keep developing. We keep finding the importance of features that nobody had understood before. The kind of view that Emily is presenting here isn’t just morally desirable, it’s truer to the facts of life.
cericonversion
May 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm
(Sigh. One more. I don’t mean to suggest that a newer version of scientific insight compels moral judgments, either. Each of us here is a real person in any event, and law and practice should be about what are good and desirable, not what conforms to a technical spec. It’s just that I find the insights from biology interesting and relevant. Now I really, really am done.)
cericonversion
May 18, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Well, didn’t get to the older replies again. Also still a lot of other things to do, which should go first after this reply.
Actually my GF was making quite a noise reading the comments. She did read my previous reply and what I commented on, but I’m sure she didn’t yet read all my comments.
According to her I might as well write Chinese or Russian, though she also made the comment that both might be too easy to read compared to English.
@squigglefish.
I did make non whatsoever remark that can be explained as “better know your place….” etc.
In the older replies I clearly stated male ORGAN, just to make clear that I am NOT refering to a male PERSON.
Basically, we all have our self image and our ideas about how our body should be in connection with that.
If a penis can be either a female or a male organ, why would anyone want to change it to align the body to their self image. WHAT then actually would be that self image and what body parts go with that self image?
If I take my self image, I’m a woman, at least far on that side of the spectrum between man and woman.
In my self image as such, a penis is not part of my body and as such I would have it corrected.
Indeed, in that I would be on the full transsexual side of the spectrum.
Indeed, we don’t live in an ideal world, which is a statement as I have brought forward.
Transsexuality and all gender variations have been, and still are disapproved of in many places in our world and are even denounced by some, also in our Western world like the US.
What I have written as my opinion and ideas in this matter will not have ANY different meaning, and as such the obvious rejection of quite a few here, if I would now say that I have a trans history. So no matter again if I have a trans or cis history, what I have written does “continue the oppression I claim to oppose”.
Obviously I have been given the cis label and I can not get to a different idea than that seeing my texts written in a different light when I would have the trans label, than as pure hypocrisy.
So, it obviously does not matter from which background I come.
I have no privilege in this.
I do not insist on arbitrary divisions, but concluded that historically our society does label people based on a glance between their legs after birth. That in case of an overwelming majority that label is found to be correct, even though we have the discrepancies that show us that the system is not perfect.
There is no place I have written that surgery is required and even less linked that with motives.
Again I have to absolutely deny that I think “that trans people are to be pittied”.
I have stated that the binary system are the references on both sides of the spectrum. This means that there can be many variations in between the binary limits of that spectrum. Again, the binary is the reference, but not perfect.
As you would read my thoughts well, you would see that I do not hold different views for trans or intersex people.
@Harriet.
I have been familiar with the T&T (old more confined name, now more broadly transgender) world from the early 80s. Also for a while I did run one of the local T&T groups.
However, I have sort of been disconnected from the whole LGBT world for some 8 years due to work abroad and as I’d sort of settled in with my GF.
So, partly I have a fully open mind, but on the other side I am more rigid and focussed on the basics and not really open to a lot of what I see as modernistic thoughts. However, all well build arguments do influence my ideas.
It is all worth the effort.
Just look at how much has been achieved in many of the European countries. Many countries have arrangements in their health care system covering transition and SRS. Some full without restrictions, some where implementing it doesn’t fully work out, like in GBR with some PCTs just deciding to make it more difficult or even refuse part of the process to be funded.
Look at the countries that have equal marriage, not limited by sex or gender, with NL the first from 2001.
Then on the other hand we have Civil Unions in GBR which is just a 2nd discriminatory system as it is not open to opposite sex couples.
@cericonversion.
Yes, the DSM was changed after lengthy interaction with health care professionals by interacting with them and changing their minds via discussion.
So, yes, that’s the world I live in. The world I deal with and the world I have to deal with if I want anything I don’t like changed to what I like more.
And the battle certainly isn’t won.
Just look at that for the DSM-V we see someone in there, being part of the discussions and of what will be the final conclusion, who I would suggest should just be locked away for child abuse.
But, based on his ‘expertise’ in the field is obviously allowed to torture children that did not adhere to the label stuck on them at birth.
Again. Changes you work to from within the system.
Going for a head on collision with the system will only have the system drag their feet more deeper in the sand and you have not achieved anything in making your ideas heared the situation get any better.
Don’t try to teach society that black isn’t black and white isn’t white, but tell them there is a spectrum in between and get them to accept that.
Don’t try to tell society that a penis is not a male organ, but also can be a female organ… Society will just label you as delusional; obviously a mental case.
And, what did you achieve? Well, again nothing.
Remember that most people in society can not break the link that a body with a penis attached is a man; work on society to get them to understand that this is not a universal law, but that there is a spectrum between man/male and woman/female and that though the person that has a penis attached to the body can simply be a woman/female. get them to understand that the binary gender idea might be the base, it is not rigid.
Angela
May 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Oh, yey! Now we have “full transsexual” Bullshit being pandered! ¬.¬
You don’t seem to get the idea that 1) not everyone can have their body ‘corrected’ and such people do not deserve to be forced to live in self-hate, and 2) genitals do not make the sex, and are not a binary thing. You are seriously obsessing over genitalia, it is quite disturbing actually.
As for you continuing to insist that being trans or cis does not matter, you have missed the point. I actually did not label you cis until you decided to protest being considered anything at all. You just don’t get the idea that it does matter – cis people cannot meaningfully discuss trans experience in anything but theory, and attempting to do so and to shout down the trans viewpoints is oppression, pure and simple.
You say that you don’t insist upon arbitrary decisions, yet point to how these have been made by history so must be right? lol
As for pitying trans people, come off it and read your original comment again. If you had screwed up with that, you would have apologised, not insisted you were right.
You go on about “working within the system” – this is what not being uppity means! You seem to suggest that trans people cannot want(need?) radical change, because it just won’t be accepted! We should pick our fights to the ones the establishment allows us to fight!
“Actually my GF was making quite a noise reading the comments…” is exactly the same sort of stupid pointless crap you tried to pull earlier, except this time it is not just false authority, but obviously biased authority at that. Although I do agree – your utter inability to actually read what you actually wrote and to understand reasoned argument could be explained by a language barrier that you have no desire to minimise.
In fact, with you now saying “Don’t try to tell society that a penis is not a male organ, but also can be a female organ… Society will just label you as delusional; obviously a mental case.”, I am actually going to say that you really shouldn’t be posting here, as you fail to follow that up with any qualifiers. You are hence apparently both discriminatory against trans people, and highly ablist against people on different places on the mental health spectrum.
Squigglefish
May 18, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Angela,
You really don’t think you have any priviledge over trans people? Really? Really? Think carefully now.
“Society will just label you as delusional; obviously a mental case”
Well we will just keep saying it until society comes round and realises that we’re right. Because we *know* we are right. And although it may be dangerous, we’re not going to stop saying these things, because to not say or do anything to change society would be even more dangerous.
The idea that you fight for the “achievable” things is very seductive, but there is no reason to limit what we ask for. As one of my lecturers said, the world is changed by unreasonable people. So let’s be “unreasonable” and ask that people look beyond their own narrow perceptions to the richness and complexity of human experienc.
harriet
May 18, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Just a reply in general, as I do have some other things to do. and yes, I’ll re-read my earlier and original reply. I know there are typos and I might even have screwed up with something as I did write a few replies in between doing some work.
One of the things I noticed is that I’m getting replies that basically give the same stance as I have, though obviously different wording.
The other thing noticed is that I’m being attacked on arguments that are fully opposite to what my stance and what I did write.
Obviously my stance that sis people are ‘lucky’ for not being trans is explained as that I pitty trans people. Well, I have no reason for that.
And as for me personal. If I would state to have a trans past, would even anyone believe me?
I guess that would clearly make my point in that it doesn’t make any difference.
Well, time to close this window and put the prints aside; tomorrow I’ll see again..
Angela
May 18, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Angela, who are you to dictate how other people talk or think about their bodies?
CBrachyrhynchos
May 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm
*sigh*
There really is no other way to explain your belief that cis people are ‘lucky’ to not be trans, especially as you tried to explain it in terms of trans hardship. It beggars belief that you can think otherwise.
I see you really love these appeals to false authority – so much so that this time, you actually invent an actually false one to appeal falsely to! That’s impressive! A quick skim through the thread shows no real replies of support to you, only some separate discussions of similar ground. For the most time, those that disagree have been trying to reason with you, but it is understandable how, as you have repeatedly failed to respond to reason, these replies have became more strained.
I would believe you if you said you had a trans history (although to me, “a trans past” sounds more akin to ex-gay than anything else), as I, and I believe most people here, believe in the general right to self-define.
And if so, it would make some difference – it would imply thoughts stemming more from internalised transphobia (hint: even I admitted that I had some still, it’s no biggie if this is the case if you simply acknowledge it and its effects).
The fact you mention you have prints is a little worrying, but I’ll forgive that as a cultural difference between those more at-home with monitors and scrolling, rather than simply being creepy.
Squigglefish
May 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Society will just label you as delusional; obviously a mental case.
My obvious response is “so?” How is this different from the dozen other ways in which psychologists have defined us as delusional because the way we consider our bodies don’t match some prescriptive biological or developmental ideals? They said clitoral orgasms were crazy. They say that homosexual sex is both less satisfying and more intense to the point of addiction. They’ve medicalized both desire outside of a relationship, and the lack of desire within a relationship. We’ve seen dissertations and peer-reviewed research expounding on the natural mandates for lifetime monogamy, serial monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, and promiscuity in our species. Depending on the rhetorical flavor of the day, women either are hardwired for pair-bonding, or hardwired to turn on at the mere suggestion of sex. My own sexual orientation has been dismissed as an illusion, an artifact of the closet not confirmed by experiments involving pneumatic sleeves and dirty pictures.
And after all that cissexist and heterosexist wank which can be summed up as saying that a penis in the vagina is more natural, moral, healthy and biological than any other sex act, we are expected to consider their definition of crazy? Are queerfolk like me or transgendered people really supposed to care about a pseudo-scientific diagnosis that, in the last century, has been used to justify sterilization, mutilation, incarceration, cognitive-behavioral abuse, and a variety of experimental forms of extermination.
Which for the record, I am spiders-under-the-skin crazy. And I fucking hate it when people call others crazy over a disagreement.
CBrachyrhynchos
May 18, 2009 at 4:40 pm
[...] Thoughts on Gender and Bodies I just finished reading through Queenemily’s post, on Questioning Transphobia, titled “Five Axioms About Gender and Bodi… In it, five “axioms” are outlined that received a significant amount of attention and [...]
Quintuple Thoughts on Gender and Bodies « A Queer Performance
May 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Angela,
What I have written as my opinion and ideas in this matter will not have ANY different meaning, and as such the obvious rejection of quite a few here, if I would now say that I have a trans history. So no matter again if I have a trans or cis history, what I have written does “continue the oppression I claim to oppose”.
I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said so far (and I say nearly because I might have missed something). That wouldn’t change regardless of being cis or trans, because I disagree with the fundamental assumptions you’re espousing.
However, there’s something extremely problematic about cis people telling trans people how to identify, how to describe ourselves, how to think about gender that’s not present from another trans person. That something is cis privilege. It doesn’t mean that what you’re saying ceases to be problematic if you’re trans, but rather that you’re compounding that problematic nature by privileging your experiences and perspective as a cis person over the experiences and perspectives of trans people.
It’s also problematic because, as a cis person, you can’t speak from the perspective or experiences of a trans person.
So, please identify yourself – are you cis or trans? Don’t play the “You can’t tell over the internet” game, because that’s a privileged game. I’ve seen cis people play that game with trans people over and over again, and white people play that game with people of color over and over again. I have seen straight people play it with gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and I have seen men play it with women. What you’re saying is something I have only seen privileged people do, so if you refuse to define, that’s a pretty clear message to me that you’re cis.
It’s also pretty obnoxious, when someone disagrees with you, to tell them they really agree with you even though what you’re saying is right there on the page and they’re not agreeing with it.
Also, “delusional”? Find a better way to make your point without ableist language. And please don’t threaten us with consequences that we live with on a daily basis.
Lisa Harney
May 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm
(a bit OT, but I figured this mught be a good point to bring up)
wrt “I have a trans history” vs. “I’m trans”
I think those two phrases belong to two different contexts: the first is rooted in the cis-centric view where transness in itself is something of a disease, an aberration, a problem. It also reflects that if you start on the road of sex-change speak, you end up having people who really have changed their sex, and are no longer trans (“disease model”), or with people who are somehow deluded as to their real sex (“insanity model”), or, you have to start seriously questioning sex and gender because gender-as-essential doesn’t work any more.
If you can change your sex, i.e. if you consider yourself fully female/woman/male/man (I can’t think of a way to become fully queer in a ciscentrist worldview, but I may be wrong), sex or gender definitely isn’t essential to who you are. Which kinda sucks from a ciscentric POV.
On the other hand, if transness and cisness are attributes of sexed bodies in this ciscentric culture, saying “I’m trans”, or “I’m cis” in this context is stating a fact concerning the way this culture and society sexes your body in relation to yourself, but it can also imply the context, that is, that trans and cis are contingent definitions, just like point #3 says.
My point being that if one chooses the cissexist view one runs into contradictions with the actual, living people one can see – the ciscentric theory of sex and gender can’t explain the realities of trans people (and it likely can’t explain a lot more besides) – but a theory that uses cis and trans as descriptive words is a LOT better at explaining why the world is the way it is, and can fit in, AFAICS, a whole lot of trans experience without eliminating cis experience from the picture.
(I hope I come across – I’m not a native speaker and I’m trying to say difficult stuff. Oh, and I’m trans.)
Carto
May 18, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Angela, I think you’ll find, that if you look at the history of queer liberation, that stuff wasn’t accomplished through polite conversations. The Compton Cafeteria and Stonewall Riots did far more to advance queer liberation than homophile organizations did in the decades before.
Clearly, they were not polite conversations, they were riots. The Compton Cafeteria in the Tenderloin was the only place that would let trans people and gay street hustlers in, until the manager got annoyed and called the police. Then, the community fought back against the police and the establishment. That got organizational infrastructure put into place to address the conditions of trans lives, liason with the police, and supply hormones when public health services wouldn’t.
And we all know what happened at Stonewall – how it touched off a mass of radical queer action on the streets, where queers demanded their rights by any means necessary – and it the action at Stonewall was primarily trans people, primarily TWOC.
No one in the establishment was going to have a polite conversation with the people who rioted. Upper middle class, white queers who could be closeted in their day-to-day lives tried for decades to stop police raids with their homophile organizations that had polite conversations (though, at some points, they had some pretty radical political views – the Mattachine Society was Marxist in the McCarthy era). They couldn’t even get the police to stop raiding gay bars.
Compton Cafeteria greatly changed the availability of services for trans people in San Francisco; Stonewall set off a movement that took place in the streets, and took place through direct action.
ACT-UP didn’t have polite conversations to get then President Reagan to even say the word AIDS. They didn’t have polite conversations to get funding for AIDS research, and later to get anti-HIV drugs actually out there. They had direct action, they were in the streets.
I’m going to quote Audre Lorde, with probably the most misinterpreted thing she ever said, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. Trying to have polite conversations with the people in power does a few things. It divides us; they are only ever going to be willing to have conversations with the most privileged members of the group in question; those are the only concerns that have a chance to be heard. Furthermore, it’s ceding them everything; they get to decide on the terms of conversation, you play by their rules, and they can pretend to listen and go on about their lives. You’re giving them every advantage, and doing things their way.
And as far as being delusional? I, like CBrachyrhynchos, have a psychiatric label that means no one has to listen to me ever, that nothing I say has to be taken as rational. Furthermore, they’re saying all trans people are delusional, anyway. So what do we have to fear? They’ll say we’re crazy? They already say that. They’ll see us as less than human? They already do. They’ll kill us, especially the most vulnerable members of our community, while grinding us all down? They already do. To quote Lorde again (and to expand a bit on her thoughts), “your pacifism will not protect you”. Police didn’t raid the bars, they and society don’t still arrest and kill trans people (especially TWOC) with impunity because we’ve been violent and fighting back. No matter how peaceful and polite we are, no matter how much we play by their rules they still do it. Our community didn’t riot because we had been fighting back and needed to make it bigger, we rioted because being passive and not resisting just let them take us out at their leisure.
We started making progress when we stopped playing by their rules, when we stopped thinking that playing by those rules – being polite, staying in line, not resisting, begging for recognition – would get us anywhere. We got somewhere when we showed that we could not be ignored, and that as long as we existed, we would struggle by any means we had at our disposal.
I refuse to limit ourselves to their language and their terms; I refuse to hear my community told that we can only have polite conversations, that we have to work in the system that oppresses us, that exists on our blood and the blood of other oppressed peoples. Returning to Lorde’s theme, we cannot separate ourselves into people who can and have gotten surgery, those who haven’t, those who can’t, and those who don’t want it; those who have binary identities and those who don’t; those who can be acceptable to people in power and those that can’t; those that can use tactics you find acceptable (polite conversations using the master’s labels and the master’s definitions) and those that can’t (those who talk loudly using our own labels and definitions; those who use various forms of direct action; those that force the master to hear them), because, like Lorde brilliantly said, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”, and defining ourselves with the master’s language, dividing ourselves into the master’s categories, and using the tactics the master approves of are using the master’s tools.
anarchafemme
May 19, 2009 at 12:04 am
seconding anarchafemme above.
angela, you are digging yourself into an ever deeper hole of cissupremacism and ableism. you seriously need to examine your own assuptions, listen to what genderqueer and trans ppl are telling you on this thread, and stop throwing false authority around.
or better yet, just go, ok? just get out of this thread.
GallingGalla
May 19, 2009 at 12:02 pm
thirding anarchafemme and clapping my hands with glee.
Angela – I think you are coming from a well-intentioned place, but the more you explain the worse it gets. It happens like that and eventually gets ugly as privileged people try to explain their positions from a point of privilege. It doesn’t fly (swim, walk, motor) and just gets frustrating for everyone involved.
As a woman with a Trans* PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE I will say some of your assumptions and wording is just… well…off. I can appreciate that you have/had trans* partners and have a level of understanding from that perspective. In this context, however, I don’t think that perspective is going to be particularly useful in discussions of how trans* folks relate to their own bodies.
rioTgirl
May 19, 2009 at 2:21 pm
GallingGalla,
Well, I have too much work I have to get done, so didn’t even read other comments.
And actually, I’m not in the mood for discussions like this, so I might well take your advice…
I’m sorry to see so much negativity towards sis people and everyone that doesn’t fully see things as you and some others do. And in that I’m obviously in the 2nd group.
Tomorrow a M2F information evening from the gender team here, Thursday is a holiday with us away all day and Friday will be fully into work again. Also taking about and planning for Thailand later this year takes enough time.
So, I’ll see.
angie1206 on gmail dot com
Angela
May 19, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I’m sorry to see so much negativity towards sis people and everyone that doesn’t fully see things as you and some others do. And in that I’m obviously in the 2nd group.
Yes, there’s negativity toward negative characterizations, descriptions, and appropriation of trans people’s lives and experiences.
There’s not a wide spectrum negativity toward cis people in general, and I think that trying to make arguments with you about attitudes toward all cis people is definitely a huge exaggeration.
The negativity toward you isn’t that you disagree. It’s the way you position yourself relative to that disagreement, and the way you privilege cis perspectives on how bodies are sexed over trans perspectives, and calling us “delusional” when we disagree with you. You’ve already been insulting, so it rings extremely hollow when you complain that we’re all being too darned mean to you.
Lisa Harney
May 19, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Angela: at this point?
*sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs* *sparklebunnehs*
GallingGalla
May 19, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I’m sorry to see so much negativity towards sis people and everyone that doesn’t fully see things as you and some others do. And in that I’m obviously in the 2nd group.
Did you miss the part where we, as a group, have pretty much fucked up when it comes to trans people over and over again? Sometimes negativity toward oppressor groups is rather valid; hell, have you missed the systematic discrimination, devaluation of trans lives, rapes, and murders? Because I sure as hell haven’t. Anyways, i’d point you at a repeating list of our fuckups but somehow I’m sure you’d just insult what I’m saying and then derail like there’s no tomorrow. Good work furthering the ends of the oppressor, Angela. Did you get a special Bailey-Blanchard-Zucker Merit Badge for helping? Do you really think the favor you seek to curry with the oppressor will protect you? History shows that seems to rarely work…i’m sorry that you seem to believe it will.
It’s the job of my people to STOP FUCKING UP. Full stop. I no longer really care to debate the feelings of oppressor classes because if i wanted that, i’d read Feministing. (Hey, Miriam, any progress on discussing your fucked-up oppressive shit? Oooh, guess not, n/m.)
algormortis
May 19, 2009 at 10:40 pm
*raises hand* OOOooooOOOOooooo Pick me! Pick me! I got the answer! I got the answer!
Ok now we have all learned that a penis can only be a male organ because science says so, or something.
We also know that facial hair is a male characteristic, although I have seen cis women who have facial hair. So this means that these women have male chins, jaws, and upper lips.
Another thing we know is that a characteristic of women is that they have breasts. I think when a cis woman does not develop large breasts we must declare that she has a male chest.
I clearly stated male CHARACTERISTIC, just to make clear that I am NOT referring to a male PERSON.
The women who do not have facial hair and the woman who have breasts sized A cup or larger are in a much larger majority, sort of like the het people, they are with a much larger majority than the LGBT community in which the LGB is sort of estimated as some 5-15% of the population, but where tha T might be less than 1%. So like might makes right, or majority rules. So I think it would be really okay for us to unwoman any cis woman who has facial hair or a flat chest and make sure she knows that she has male body parts too as the icing on the cake. And you know, heaven forbid that this cis woman accept her male identified body parts, she must want electrolysis and breast implants or then she’s really not a real woman, regardless of the fact that she has the all important vulva! Because real women want to fit the exacting normative mold our culture insists upon for women.
Oh wait, now I’m kind of confuzzled, because in reality, many cis women with facial hair do shave or have electrolysis, and we are okay with that…but we are also okay with it if she says, “Fuck it. I’m going to just leave it be.” She’s still a woman either way! And and and the same goes for flat chested cis women, some do get implants, and we’re okay with that…but we are also okay if they leave their chests as is!!!! She is still a woman too!!!!
I guess I just don’t know diddly. I need someone to explain to me what the difference is with trans women and their variation from the norm? Why isn’t it okay for them to choose to transistion or choose not to transition or anything in between and no matter what…SHE IS STILL A WOMAN!!!!!!
Donna
May 19, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Beyond the snarkiness, come on, clearly a flat chested cis woman does not really have a male body part (chest) just because she varies from the norm. The same goes for facial hair, it’s still female facial hair. This is why the genitals, no matter the configuration, are female when they are on a woman.
You might consider when “science” decided to label the penis as a male organ, it was a cis scientist who only came across other cis people who did this? Perhaps if he was aware of trans women, he would have instead said, the penis is an organ that men generally have but that may be a variation in women also.
Donna
May 19, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Lisa on Heart: That the very possibility of accepting that trans people are exactly who we say we are will enslave her to the patriarchy.
Heart hedged her bets, though, and didn’t explain her title at all. (Also, comments off.) I was like, huh? Of course, that is my usual reaction to Heart these days.
I didn’t know what the hell she was on about. So thanks for the explanation.
DaisyDeadhead
May 19, 2009 at 11:40 pm
donna wins the nets!
GallingGalla
May 20, 2009 at 7:03 am
[...] “Five Axioms about Gender and Bodies” on Questioning Transphobia really got me thinking this week about the language I use on this blog [...]
Not Sure of This… « I’ll Follow the Sun
June 30, 2009 at 11:12 am
Its very possible that I’ve just internalized cis-centric garbage (as many trans folk can and often do) so if that seems to be the case, let me know.
I’ve always seen language as having a given use (describing, conceptualizing, communicating). Currently the definition of female and male are based on bodily structure (which probably is cissexist as hell, no doubt) but if we base it instead of self conceptualization, wouldn’t they just become synonymous with woman and man (and basically become redundant)
It seems to me that it would make more sense to just get rid of female and male entirely and just use woman and man (or even invoke a context based definition that accounts for both bodies and self conceptualization in different situations) instead of severing bodily terms from bodily description and making them redundant synonyms of woman/man.
Erm, another question too, if, for instance, a given individual’s sexual orientation was heavily bodily structure orientated, and the presence of a penis was unattractive to them, even on a woman, what would that be called under this naming system? Because it seems like sexuality is redefined here too, but not everyone fits the “attracted to woman/man conceptually” paradigm. Some people find certain bodies sexy.
recursiveparadox
August 18, 2009 at 8:17 am
A reaction that comes up after reading recursiveparadox.
Most in our Western society think we have gender equality, though I would say that to socially as well as legally not be the case.
If we would have, we should also have full marriage equality and basically the only need to know which body parts a person has would be medically, as there definitely is different care needed based on the ‘available’ parts.
Legally and socially there would be no need anymore to register a person based on a quick look between the legs of a new born baby and everyone could simply be happy as they feel they should be somewhere on the spectrum between masculine and feminine and we could just be attracted to and love the person we like without any stigma attached to it.
Angela
August 18, 2009 at 9:15 am
To be honest, even the whole marriage thing really screws over polyamorous people or even people who just don’t like the idea of marriage. For instance, why couldn’t I just make a list of the people I want to allow to see me in the hospital and they keep that on file? Why does it have to be spouse or blood family?
But that’s me getting off topic and all. I really think eliminating base categorization by “sex” (as sex is sort of a poor categorization system to begin with) entirely is a good idea. Redefining the words isn’t as helpful as cutting them out entirely, because we don’t live in a vacuum. You still have to contend with cultural context and cultural meaning. That’ll taint the efforts to redefine when the redefinition is as drastic as this one.
recursiveparadox
August 18, 2009 at 9:59 am
The whole hospital issue is terrible indeed and I agree with you that no matter what the bond is, you should be the one to decide who can visit you.
And no matter if there is a link, like marriage, between you and your partner, the partner should be going before family at all times.
If people consiously decide to go into a polyamorous marriage, I see no objections against that.
A declaration/contract between two (or more) people should be having the same rights as a marriage.
My GF and I are not married, even though we can in NL, but have a living together contract which defines each other as only legal partners, heirs and basically power of attorney, before any family would come into the picture.
I guess the US is a ‘little bit’ socially retarded compared to many other ‘civilised’ countries if we look at this sort of issues.
Angela
August 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Is there any law on the books that protects legal declarations like that? Because if I can use that to protect me and my partner (and any other partners we both fall in love with and draw into the group) then I would certainly like to do that.
Erm, also, using the word “retarded” like that is a little triggering for me. Could you please avoid it? Thank you.
recursiveparadox
August 18, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I assume you’re in the US, and though I have not enough knowledge of the US legal system, I would be inclined to think that something like this is not a possibility.
In the Netherlands it is a possible construction that has been around at least some 10-20 years.
Sorry about the word used, but I thought it the best fitting to describe a social overall attitude.
Mostly I try to avoid wording where I do have a feeling it might be interpreted differently than intended, but I did notice a different sensitivity when it comes to this between people in the US and our Dutch/English way of thinking.
I noticed I can be basically on totally the same side, but have a total row over wording and even have what I wrote being explained in a totally opposite way.
Angela
August 18, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That’s why I always ask that one not use that wording and provide some basic reason why, before I start arguing.
recursiveparadox
August 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm