Transprose: An Open Letter
Posted here, reposted on QT with permission:
Dear Cissexual Queer/Gender Theorists, Feminists, and Trans Allies:
We need to talk. That’s not quite accurate, actually. I need to talk, and you need to shut up and listen for a minute. Because some of y’all have been talking about me, and you’ve been talking so loudly that you haven’t been hearing what I’m saying. Some of you haven’t even noticed that I’m in the room.
You probably don’t know me. But a few of you seem to think you know everything you need to know. Enough to fill up chapters in academic texts or pages on your blogs. Enough to make fetishistic jokes or webcomics. Enough to name my genitals for me.
To be fair, y’all probably didn’t even realize you were talking about me specifically, most of the time. Thanks to testosterone and chest reconstruction surgery, you couldn’t pick me out of a crowd. But, make no mistake—you’re talking about my identity and my experience, too. And I’m tired of being made to feel invisible, or like I shouldn’t speak up about this stuff. So I’m going to offer a few suggestions, and give you yet another chance to respect my identity, and the identities of other people that you’ve been (unintentionally, I’m sure) stomping all over.
Now take a seat, because this might take a few single-spaced pages. Maybe take a few notes this time, since you obviously forgot about the last thirty times we’ve had discussions like this.
First, in order to respect me, you need to work on completely deconstructing the conflation of masculinity and maleness. A lot of y’all have done some great and much-needed work around dismantling the bullshit idea that masculinity is the sole property of male people. But almost in the same breath, some of you seem to forget that there is nothing inherently masculine about maleness.
I’m male, but I’m not masculine-identified. At all. I don’t care how I look to you. I don’t care if you know that I’m trans. I don’t even care if you know that I identified as an andro dyke for a minute. I’m still not masculine. My experience is not a masculine experience. Period. If, for any reason(s) you think that I am, or if you don’t find it to be a big deal when my femme identity is invalidated, or if you know that I’m feminine, but—goshdarnit—you just keep forgetting? Then you need to check your shit.
Part of respecting me has to include calling bullshit on things that imply, whether directly or indirectly, that male people have inherent masculinity. At the very least, it requires that you notice when it happens. In case you’re confused, here are a couple of examples.
What about when people point out to y’all that it’s problematic to use the word “trans-masculine” to mean all female-assigned people who are masculine-identified, genderqueer-identified, and male-identified, and to exclude all male-assigned people—even masculine- or genderqueer- identified trans female people? I know, I know—“It’s impossible to find a word that will please everybody!” We’ve all heard that one before, right? Be quiet, you’re being divisive. Not to harsh your mellow, but I don’t want to be silenced any more than you do, especially when I can think of several alternatives to “trans-masculine” off the top of my head.
And, I know that lots of female-assigned-at-birth (FAAB) trans people use “transmasculine”. The trans community is only in the beginning stages of trying on new, accurate, and empowering language. We’re going to evolve, and you’re going to have to keep up, and listen to the discussions we’re having. But, while we’re working on that, how about you stop saying “transmasculine”, if what you’re really trying to do is build a community around what you assume is in the pants of “transmasculine” people (or rather, what you assume isn’t in their pants). And that is what you’re doing, 95% of the time.
It’s important to a lot of folks (for various reasons of variable worth) to have an umbrella term to unite butches to genderqueers to trans guys and everything “in between”. But to say that “trans-masculinity” necessarily encompasses trans maleness is to shoot your trans-feminism in the foot. Not all cis men are masculine. Many trans women are masculine, and there are many MAAB genderqueer folks who would fit comfortably under the “transmasculine” umbrella. And trans genders are as complex as, and deserve as much respect as, cis genders.
Of course y’all all know that in theory, but I need to see some action.
And when I say “action”, I definitely don’t mean like when “Top Hot Butches” showed up, and it included a metric shit ton of people who were assumed to be masculine, just because they’re male-identified? Oh, and one Riki Wilchins. I’m not sure what Riki Wilchins’ identity is currently, but how—when doing a project about “rejecting compulsory femininity”—is Wilchins the only MAAB person on that list?
Seriously, why there weren’t way more masculine-identified and genderqueer-identified trans female people on that list? If anybody’s strength and beauty should be celebrated for “reject[ing] compulsory femininity”, in my opinion, it’s them. How many masculine cis female people do you know who have had their femaleness challenged in a meaningful way because they choose to exhibit “intentional masculinity” (and, no, being called “sir” in the checkout line does not count)?I mean, if the primary criterion for “butchness” is “reject[ing] compulsory femininity”, I’m not sure why male people should even be on a list like that, since there’s nothing “compulsory” about male femininity. Even if the male person is trans. And there’s nothing necessarily “intentional” about trans male masculinity. I’m not even really sure what “intentional” means in that context, actually. How is FAAB masculinity more of a performance than any other gender expression (which can either be “not a performance at all” or “completely a performance”, depending on your views). If it’s not, then why is it mentioned?
The original “Top Hot Butches” appeared to be a celebration of what its author perceived as “butchness”. And—to me at least—it was damn clear that the author’s idea of “butchness” is about female masculinity—specifically, about FAAB masculinity. I hope I don’t even have to go into how fucked up it is to practically go out of your way to praise the masculinity of [trans] male people, while overwhelmingly ignoring the masculinity of [trans] female people.And, you know what’s not a good excuse? This:
I would love suggestions for more butch transwomen to include; I’ve been asking, and looking around, and I did include #84 Riki Wilchins, but surely there must be more than just her. I’m just not familiar with them. It’s so hard to include people you don’t know about, you know? Impossible, in fact. And who I know is completely related to my own standpoint. It’s a huge challenge to get a range of diversity on a list like this.
I find it hard to believe that they were personally familiar with all the FAAB folks they listed. And, even if they were, I think it says volumes about whose and what genders they perceive as “butch”, if they have just happened to never have stumbled upon the writings, activism, contributions, and hotness of masculine-identified MAAB trans people.
It’s a side step, and it avoids something that many folks in the “trans inclusive” queer women’s community need to own up to. If you don’t make space for MAAB trans people in your community, and none show up, whose fault is that? And whose responsibility is it to fix it?
But I don’t even believe for a second that “Top Hot Butches” was really about masculinity, anyway. Because no cis guy (feminine or masculine) would’ve been put on that list, but I have no doubt that—were I a semi-famous openly-trans guy—I’d have been considered for that list without a second thought. I think it’s a safe bet, since I’m pretty sure (at least) one of the guys included in the original list wouldn’t even identify his gender as masculine.
But trans genders are as worthy of respect as cis genders, right? Fortunately, I’m not naïve enough to have dared to hope that the Feministing community would back me up. Instead of calling out cissexism, y’all posted what seemed like a billion comments in which you didn’t notice that there was anything busted going on, or attempted to silence trans people who pointed it out, or—and this was my personal favorite—said shit to the effect of “I can see that this is problematic, but damn that list is hot”. Who doesn’t like their cissexism with a side of fetishism?
The link between masculinity and maleness may have been broken—but only for cis maleness and cis masculinity. I believe that a lot of y’all quietly believe that there is something intrinsically masculine about trans maleness—something that doesn’t exist in cis maleness. And, whatever that thing is, it apparently ties me to this idea of female[-assigned-at-birth] masculinity. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that it’s my hypothetical vagina.
That’s not respecting trans genders. That’s cissexism. And there’s no excuse for it. Not “we need more butch visibility”. Not “that’s not what they meant”. Not “[some] trans guys are a part of the community”. And definitely not “ think of it more as a celebration of bending gender norms, rather than a celebration of masculinity” (if you haven’t caught on, that’s fucked up, too). The fact that folks who consider themselves to be trans allies glossed over what amounts to blatant cissexist bullshit. . . it’s disgusting. Even more so because so many of y’all seemed to be overly willing to do so, simply because they liked the eye candy.
Why is it so important for y’all to claim a connection between “butchness”/female masculinity and trans maleness? Sure, connections often exist. But you never seem to be talking about individual people’s experiences, and their unique relationships to their genders. That is something to celebrate and honor within your community. Instead, you’re conscripting all trans male people into your ideas of “butchness”, “trans-masculinity”, and “female masculinity”, without even considering the identities of those of us who are not masculine.Just because you don’t see us, it doesn’t mean we’re not there. And it definitely doesn’t mean you can generalize the [valid] experiences and identities of the trans guys you know onto the trans guys you don’t.
And, yes, after the outrage, the trans men were removed from the list. Last I heard, they were being asked individually whether they’d like to be included. The non-consensual gendering was an important issue that was appropriately addressed. But the whole thing still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just because many of the trans guys listed happen to be okay with being included doesn’t change the facts of why they were included to begin with. Instead of being carefully chosen in a way that showed respect for their unique identities, they were chosen simply because they’re trans. They would’ve been chosen even if they wouldn’t have wanted to be.
Perhaps all’s well that ends well? But if you make a fucked up assumption about a group that I’m a member of, even if that assumption happens to be true for me? I’m still going to think you’re an asshole.
This might also be a good time to mention that I’m genderqueer-identified. Does that surprise you? It seems like it should, considering that FAAB trans people who object to this shit are often portrayed as binary-identified, male-identified, cisgender, not-radical, and “stealth” men of transsexual history. Many of whom don’t even consider themselves trans, much less queer.But, no. I’m genderqueer. I’m genderqueer, and I’m telling you there’s a fucking problem. And one of these problems is subversivism. This shit is said with an eye roll. It’s a way of recognizing, but essentially dismissing concerns. Because all those things—male identities, nondisclosure, cisgender/binary identites—are automatically assumed to be backwards. Or, if not backwards, at least less evolved.
Lots of y’all seem to imagine that cisgender transsexual men are all so wracked with body dysphoria and internalized transphobia that they couldn’t possibly understand or respect other trans guys’ non-binary identities. Of course those guys have a problem with “transmasculine”, or that stupid list, or the creepy bullshit Margaret Cho has been spewing, etc. Most of the time, even when you admit that what you said/did/wrote was fucked up, it seems insincere. As if dissenters should be humored and shushed, so that everybody can go back to universalizing the experience of some trans people at the expense of others.
I’m not saying that cisgender trans men are all innocent victims; cisgenderism is a prevalent and serious problem among binary-identified folks (cis and trans). But there’s a difference between cisgenderism and people being pissed that you consider respecting their identities less important than drawing the lines of community where you want them, no matter who it hurts.
Since I’ve got your attention, we also need to talk a bit about the way some of y’all have been treating the complexity of genderqueer identities. Since it’s still so fresh in everybody’s minds, let’s take the “Top Hot Butches” list, for example. Some genderqueer people have butch or masculine identities. But many genderqueer people—even FAAB genderqueer people (me, for example)—wouldn’t identify their genders as “masculine” at all.
I highly doubt that the author of the list took the time to check to make sure that the genderqueer-identified folks on they included actually identified as butch/masculine. What seems to have happened is that they looked at the confetti of identities that make up genderqueerness, and decided, “Okay, so I know that some of y’all identify outside the binary and all that, but in reality you’re presenting as masculine (or male, which is really just hyper-extended masculinity), so we’ll just say that you ‘present in a way that rejects compulsory femininity, and display some sort of intentional masculinity.’ For short, we’ll call that butch.”
Maybe it goes without saying that, when y’all say “genderqueer”, it’s usually pretty safe to assume that you mean FAAB genderqueers. You mean those genderqueers you pretend to humor, but quietly consider women/female (despite the fact that many explicitly reject those labels). I’ll start believing that y’all respect my genderqueer identity once you start respecting (or even acknowledging) the genderqueer identities of MAAB genderqueer people.
This shit? It’s Not Okay. What you’re doing here—it’s Not Okay. And you’re doing it over, and over, and over again. And it’s exactly why I find so much of gender and queer theory to be a bunch of appropriative bullshit. My identities, my experiences, and my life is not an illustration in some cissexual exploration of “radical” gender and sex. Y’all need to work your transmisogynistic, biological-deterministic shit out, and then we can talk about the social and political implications of my transition. Maybe.
With hope, but no love,
Caleb
There’s so much here that I’m cheering at, but let me just say:
“Maybe it goes without saying that, when y’all say “genderqueer”, it’s usually pretty safe to assume that you mean FAAB genderqueers. You mean those genderqueers you pretend to humor, but quietly consider women/female (despite the fact that many explicitly reject those labels). I’ll start believing that y’all respect my genderqueer identity once you start respecting (or even acknowledging) the genderqueer identities of MAAB genderqueer people.”
This. So. Much.
TrinityVA
June 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I can’t tell you how amazing it was to read this. Thank you.
Eli
June 30, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“Seriously, why there weren’t way more masculine-identified and genderqueer-identified trans female people on that list? If anybody’s strength and beauty should be celebrated for “reject[ing] compulsory femininity”, in my opinion, it’s them. ”
Oh FUCK YEAH
Amanda in the South Bay
June 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Being a cissexual person somewhere around “Trans 102″ level of understanding, I will say that I am a bit confused. Not about the basic point that a person is who he/she/zie says zie/she/he is, but I do have to unravel phrases such as “cisgender transsexual men”. Does this mean something like “FAAB transman who identifies strongly with stereotypical “masculine” behavior”?
NancyP
June 30, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I had the same question in mind as NancyP. I feel pretty sure I missed something early on, but ended up foundering.
Ceri B.
June 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Some transsexual people describe themselves as cisgender to indicate that they identify within the binary, that their gender is pretty much that of any other man or woman.
That is, a cisgender transsexual man identifies as a man.
Lisa Harney
June 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm
It has to do with how some people define cisgender & cissexual. Cisgender being you identify with a binary gender & cissexual being your body’s shape & your subconscious sex aren’t in conflict.
So there are cissexual genderqueer folks & cisgender transsexual folks as well as transsexual genderqueer folks.
(at least, that’s how I understand it)
Drakyn
June 30, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Lisa: Cool. Feel free to delete my fumbling nonsense. :’P
Claire
June 30, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Gotcha! Thanks, all with enlightenment to spare. It’s one of those things that makes great, almost obvious, sense once explained.
Ceri B.
June 30, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Caleb, thank you for this piece. It was pretty darn fantastic.
There is so much here I could comment on, but it is late and I’d only be paraphrasing what you’ve already said very well. Thank you for calling out about trans women and rejecting compulsory femininity/intentional masculinity.
A while back I cut the anchor, so to speak, and let my gender drift wherever life took me. Part of that has been a very conscious intentional masculinity, but that is rooted in me being a woman. It is not me “reverting” to whatever identity you’ve applied to me; It is me challenging the dominance of cissexist notions about gender.
The irony of certain scenes of dykes is that their inability to comprehend a trans woman who rejects compulsory femininity means my visibility as trans drops incredibly in those situations. I sometimes wonder if they subconsciously have such issues with having to admit their cissexist trans straw (wo)men they pretend not to know I am a trans woman.
Anyway, great post, and thanks again!
p.s. Because one of the basic elements of institutionalized or functional transmisogyny is an enforced sense of scarcity among trans women for any sort of acknowledgment from the dominant cis groups, thus leading to internal divisions and fighting for space (it’s like the boat’s going down and there’s not enough life rafts, you know? Meaning it’s very cruel) I want to make this clear: My experience of my gender as a trans woman is no more radical or worthy of note than any femme trans woman, or any binary-identified trans woman, or any other trans woman at all. It is how it worked out for me, and that neither challenges nor is challenged by how any other trans woman lives her life.
AKA I don’t really care what cis people think of my experience of gender, good or bad, and the way we get trans women on those hot lists is for people to be honest about the unspoken quotas or barriers at work in their own lives (and not just with trans women!).
gudbuytjane
June 30, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Yes, yes, yes, yes. Thank you, Caleb, for articulating this.
jack
July 1, 2009 at 2:04 am
this is absolutely, utterly awesome.
And, truthfully, makes me feel pretty good.
:D
Dyssonance
July 1, 2009 at 3:39 am
mind if I link this in the comments at sugarbutch or would that just be fishing for trolls?
Estrobutch
July 1, 2009 at 4:00 am
the way i used them ‘cisgender’ and ‘cissexual’ are about change vs. stasis. i’m cisgendered, because my gender has stayed relatively constant my whole life (not because i identify with any binary – i might have had a genderqueer gender my whole life and still be cisgendered). i’m transsexual because my physical sex characteristics have changed (well, are changing) pretty drastically. i guess this is a ‘what you do’ kind of definition rather than a ‘what you feel’ definition like the one above. but, i find identity labels are a lot more useful that way.
and, i know i posted this on transprose, but thank you so much, Caleb, for articulating this so well. you’re spot on.
ephraim
July 1, 2009 at 7:44 am
It seems that other folks have done the “cisgender” explanation already. I’ll probably make a note of that over at my site, since I realize that it is confusing, at first.
I started using “cisgender” to describe binary-identified trans people, simply because I needed a way to make the distinction between my identity as a transsexual genderqueer, and the identities of non-genderqueer transsexual people.
In some contexts, distinctions between genderqueer and cisgender trans identities don’t matter. But when discussing the gender identities of transsexual people, it can start to matter.
Besides, I think it’s a good way to illustrate that transsexual people’s genders have as much nuance as cissexual people’s.
transprose
July 1, 2009 at 8:36 am
What about when people point out to y’all that it’s problematic to use the word “trans-masculine” to mean all female-assigned people who are masculine-identified, genderqueer-identified, and male-identified, and to exclude all male-assigned people—even masculine- or genderqueer- identified trans female people?
you caught me.
it isn’t only cissexual people who do this. i’m a transsexual woman and i have used “trans-masculine” (and “trans-feminine” in the same way.
GallingGalla
July 1, 2009 at 8:40 am
I totally have done that too, with “trans-masculine,” often in quotes because I’m definitely aware, although it took me a while to put my finger on it, that it’s a problematic clumping term. Caleb, your piece really helped me get that finger on the right place in my brain finally, thank you. I have always had so much more discomfort with the term “trans-feminine,” even though it gets used much less often, because of exactly what you’re saying — I may be trans, and a woman, but that doesn’t mean I am into femininity.
This also reiterated exactly my problem with the Top Hot Butches list, as many other people have done, but it’s good to keep stating it: nonconsensually gendering other people is not OK. Essentializing trans men’s genders as an exemplar of masculinity isn’t ok. Wondering helplessly where all the not-exactly-feminine trans women are, even when you’ve almost certainly met a bunch of them, is just sad. Oh well.
Holly
July 1, 2009 at 9:20 am
@GallingGalla and @Holly
Most of the ones in common use are kind of busted in some way or another. But it seems like, with “transmasculine” and “transfeminine” in particular, folks with concerns are really minimized.
“FAAB” and “MAAB” don’t make me cry tears of joy, either. I hate reinforcing birth-assigned sex, but in certain situations, it’s relevant.
But what really gets me is when language like that is used to serve no purpose other than to point out what we “really” are. Or to gerrymander the lines of communities and identities to include certain trans people, and to exclude others.
The fact that not many people seem to be interested in finding or using alternatives is pretty revealing, I think.
transprose
July 1, 2009 at 10:02 am
Thanks for this, it helps me understand “cisgender transsexual” which originally had me stumped, and now I get it.
Kynn
July 1, 2009 at 1:25 pm
THe more I think about it, the more I like the use of cisgender to mean binary-IDed.
And yeah, I wish we could find a decent alternative to transfeminine/FaaB/ftm-spectrum/etc that didn’t suck. >.<
Drakyn
July 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
[...] Thoughts On Alliances, Identity, And “Transmasculinity” July 1, 2009 Via Questioning Transphobia, go read this incredible open letter to cissexual gender theorists, feminists and trans allies. [...]
Some Thoughts On Alliances, Identity, And “Transmasculinity” « Dear Diaspora
July 1, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I’m glad for the comments on this piece, which have helped me understand the original post better. Thanks for writing this, Caleb.
Samia
July 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm
This should be required reading before one is allowed to comment on boards.
Thank you,
Louise
melouise
July 1, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Yeah, the cisgender transsexual/transgender transsexual concept is growing on me every time I think about it. It’s useful, which is some of the best praise I have. :)
Ceri B.
July 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Some people have been using trans male and trans female in place of trans masculine and trans feminine, although it too is a bit problematic.
Whenever I see someone refer to me as “MAAB” I want to never deal with them again. I see its use, but I think that using it on people who have already identified their sex is generally a reifying “You were really born X” statement.
Lisa Harney
July 1, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I only tend to use “MAAB” and “FAAB” when I’m talking about a range of folks who may have nothing in common except their birth assignment.
I try to use “trans male/masculine” when I’m referring to masculine-identified people (including MAAB trans people) and trans male people.
But I would throw my shoe if anybody just felt the need to refer to me, specifically, as FAAB, unless they had a really fucking good reason. In most cases, it’s totally irrelevant. Talk about my specific identities if you’re talking about me in specific, not about an entire group of people to which I just happen to belong.
transprose
July 1, 2009 at 6:27 pm
But what really gets me is when language like that is used to serve no purpose other than to point out what we “really” are. Or to gerrymander the lines of communities and identities to include certain trans people, and to exclude others.
I loathe “FAAB” and “MAAB” for exactly this reason. Just about every time I see the phrase “FAAB genderqueers,” what follows is some ungodly bizarre rant about how we’re deceptive, want to have our cake and eat it too, etc.
While I certainly think that some people take advantage of the creepily exoticizing “coolness” that some dykes think that butches and trans men have (which totally runs together those two things in ways that are also really creepy), and it’s worth discussing that they do this… it really bothers me to see “FAAB” everywhere.
Whenever I see this I get the feeling, whether I’m right or not (and it’s very possible I’m not), that what’s being said is “we’ll deny you your gender, and call you girlish — in that usual misogynistic “oh, girls are just so troublesome!” sense — because you’ve done us harm.”
And… yeah, the harm is real, but… eh. I don’t know whether it’s only me who finds “FAAB” a really weird way to talk about people, or not. But it’s like “Look at these silly people that some other silly people thought were girls!” And I’m going “yeah, they’re silly people, but what does some other idiot saying they’re a girl have to do with it?”
TrinityVA
July 1, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I would id as transmasculine if it didn’t have a toxic level of trannychasing cooties all over it.
and Lisa what is your issue with trans male/female? because it erases most genderqueer trans ppl?
Estrobutch
July 1, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I know genderqueer trans people who identify as trans male and trans female.
My problem with it, and every term used to describe trans and genderqueer people, is that they will inevitably get used (and can get used simply because they reference trans and genderqueer people) to ungender or misgender trans or genderqueer people.
But yes, also, I can see many genderqueer people who would appreciate being identified as trans male or trans female just as much as I appreciate being identified as MAAB.
Lisa Harney
July 1, 2009 at 8:11 pm
You know, specifically w/r/t the FAAB/MAAB acronyms.. I rarely see MAAB trans/GQ people complaining about them, and I think there’s a reason for it. I get nothing out of using a term that describes me using the word “male” except a way to articulate a lived reality. Trans people who talk about power differentials between MAAB/FAAB trans/GQ people aren’t actually the ones reducing us to our birth assigned sex, just like trans people who use “cis” terminology aren’t the ones othering trans people. It just is.
Sophia K
July 1, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I’m not talking about trans people who use it.
But I don’t see the point of labeling someone who is a woman and female as MAAB, except to reiterate her history, which is then often used to erase her present.
Lisa Harney
July 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I appreciate this post and its questioning of terminology and gender politics, but I find it problematic that Caleb addresses the post to “Cissexual Queer/Gender Theorists, Feminists, and Trans Allies” and then doesn’t seem to cite any names, other than blogs and bloggers. In particular, f Caleb means “cissexual queer/gender theorists, feminists, and trans allies” in the academic sense, that is, as referring to folks who have academic appointments at colleges and universities and who publish in academic journals, then I’d like to know who Caleb has in mind. I guess I just wish I knew who in particular Caleb meant so I could check out their writings and figure out if I share a similar critique. I find that writings which name the sources they seek to critique, rather than just generalizing, to be more convincing.
David
July 2, 2009 at 12:13 am
David: It’s not a problem with one, two, three, five theorists – it’s a massive problem across the entire field with regard to it’s treatment of trans people. I majored in the area, and the amount of stuff along the lines the OP was criticising was staggering.
Rebecca
July 2, 2009 at 12:21 am
Hooray for this.
My take on assigned at birth terminology is similar to what Caleb says upthread: what utility it does have is limited to discussions where there actually is no other unifying characteristic other than birth assignment. Use of it in other contexts is to be avoided.
I do, however, think that the idea of assigned gender, (not assigned at bith, but assigned at some point in time generally) is a useful one, especially for talking about genderqueer experiences. I’m genderqueer and I get assigned male nearly all the time. That gives me a different experience than someone who is genderqueer and gets assigned female most of the time. Birth assignment is a different matter entirely.
sqrrel
July 2, 2009 at 4:16 am
@David
Rebecca is right. I wasn’t writing about specific people, but I was using specific instances to try to highlight the stuff I’m talking about.
I wanted to call out the folks who are doing it, and I wanted the folks who didn’t immediately notice how problematic it was to realize that they’ve got work to do.
I suppose I could have addressed it to all cis people in general, since it does still apply. But I’m tired of folks within those specific groups feeling that critiques like this don’t apply to them.
transprose
July 2, 2009 at 8:55 am
@TrinityVA
I haven’t noticed “FAAB” being used in the ways you’re talking about, but I’ll definitely be on the lookout. To be honest, though, I’ve seen very few people using it at all.
Of course, I can totally see how it is used that way. Especially considering the history (and present) of how queer [cis] women’s communities approach the inclusion of some trans people at the expense of others.
Like pretty much ANY word we come up with to describes our experiences, histories, and identities, it can be turned around to highlight our birth-assigned sex and question our authenticity.
I think that an overwhelming percentage of the time that CIS people use our words, they’re not using it to make useful distinctions in a specific discussion (like I hope I used it here). They’re using it to make sure everybody is aware that we’re not *actually* who we say we are.
transprose
July 2, 2009 at 9:06 am
David: start with Judith Halberstam’s extremely well cited “Female Masculinity” and the way it includes sections on trans MEN. She’s clever but she don’t half fuck up on that. And as Rebecca says, that’s a pretty standard position in queer and gender theory. Type “transgender queer theory” into an academic search engine like Project Muse and see what pops up.
queenemily
July 2, 2009 at 10:07 am
Yeah, as far as I can see all the major queer 101 -theorists (Halberstam surely, Ki Namaste and Butler, too) start from the MAAB/FAAB -dichotomy, and queer seems to be defined against that. As if no queering of later-than-birth-assigned genders was possible. AAB sexes and genders have an insanely high value in academia, too.
Carto
July 2, 2009 at 11:27 am
I agree with Sqrrl upthread.
I came across more militantly than I intended. What I meant is, frequently cis people learn new ways to describe trans people, and then use them whenever referring to trans people in all contexts. It doesn’t matter if it’s about going to the store, seeing a movie, or, really, anything that has nothing at all to do with being trans.
Lisa Harney
July 2, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I was pointed to this conversation via a friend – and I have to say – the original entry was REALLY great and the comments have been fabulous too.
Here’s my queer-ass question: where does desire fit into all of this?
Full disclosure: I truly appreciated the Top Hot Butches list. I know my desire for masculine women (who sometimes identify as butch and sometimes don’t) is a fetish. So is identifying as gay or straight – identifying sexually period is fetishistic, no? But, seriously, after seeing the AfterEllen.com list, this was a breath of fresh air. Hot, sexy air. Against my neck. That smelled like cologne…
But really – I think we need to take desire seriously. How our erotic identities play into and out of gender – and where that relates to a Top 100 list (which is inherently problematic because it prioritizes some bodies over other bodies – its ranking hotness and desire). There were plenty of folk on that list that I didn’t find hot – or even masculine (but for the fabulous photos chosen). But I appreciated the visibility that the list brought – because we don’t all desire femmes such as the AfterEllen list focused on. And that it was celebrating masculinity within queer community (including fat folk, POCs, and elders, in a world that typically has several specific fetish narratives for those identities and how they are allowed to be seen as desirable).
Desire and erotic identities are challenging – I like what I like. Butch women do it for me. (And to me.) I can deconstruct it and be told its horrible and its wrong. But its still where I feel the most comfortable and completely me.
So if we were to re-do this Top 100 list, what would it look like? How do we navigate desire in a way that allows more people to name themselves and yet be gazed upon? What would the name of that Top 100 list be? And is that website domain available?
Paps Blue Ribbon
July 6, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I think the concept of the top hot butches list was a good one. I think the primary problem in execution was the inclusion of trans men without their consent, as… well, not as “butch” being only a female lesbian identity, but that butch is primarily a female lesbian identity, and including men was degendering to them, and reinforced already existent assumptions that position trans men as “really butch women,” which I’ve seen a lot from some (not all) cis femme lesbians – plus a tendency to identify cis women as lesbians while they date trans men, but to deny cis women as lesbians if they date trans women. I am not saying Sinclair did this, by the way, but it’s an experience that makes what happened on the list particularly fraught.
But, when called out on it, Sinclair removed trans men and started checking for consent.
Another was a relative lack of butch trans women. There’s a certain language issue as well, in that a lot of trans and trans-related discussion tends to describe trans men as being part of a “trans masculine spectrum” and trans women as being part of a “trans feminine spectrum,” which tends to erase femme trans men and butch trans women, as well as transsexual genderqueers who are transitioning in any direction.
Although there’s certain dehumanizing elements in the way that trans people tend to get fetishized, which is why so many trans people (men, women, genderqueer)dislike the way we have been fetishized. I’ve never had a pleasant experience with anyone who, for example, openly admires how being trans might mean “I’m the best of both worlds” or what-have-you, and I’ve dealt with men and women who expressed that to me.
Lisa Harney
July 6, 2009 at 4:45 pm