I wasn’t planning on doing any further feminism posts for a while, but last night something newsworthy blew up so I’m afraid here I am again.
It started with Roz Kaveney tweeting about a blog post by the prominent Australian “feminist”, Sheila Jeffreys. The post that Roz links to is an extended rant about the evils of trans people, including the allegation that gender reassignment is a massive exercise in eugenics and drawing a parallel with the Holocaust.
Men, a class which, by the odd definitions Jeffreys and her allies use, includes all trans people, are not permitted to post on the site, but at least one female-born, female-identified ally has tried to respond (and copied her comment to her LJ). Whether her comment be will allowed on the site is still uncertain at the time I’m writing this. Maybe she’s subconsciously male-identified, or has been brainwashed.
You want to know why all trans people are “men” don’t you? It is because trans women are male-born and trans men are male-identified. See, easy when you try.
The question that kept coming up on Twitter this morning was how people who identify as feminists could possibly have got to such bizarre and hate-filled beliefs. Isn’t feminism all about equality and diversity? (Let’s avoid the discussion about how feminists like me are vicious, man-hating harpies. I have had that explained to me here before, thank you.)
Well, who am I to know? I’m just a fluffy-headed pathetic dupe of the Patriarchy. But here are some ideas to play with.
Firstly most transphobic people seem to have odd ideas about the sanctity of “nature”. You often see them complain that what trans people do is “not natural” or “against nature”. I watched the recent documentary, All watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace, on the BBC and found it very confused and sloppy, especially as I’ve recently been watching the re-runs of Kenneth Clark’s Civilization. However, Adam Curtis does have a point in that some people do have a concept of “nature” that is pure, simple and unchanging, and therefore Right in some way. Feminists are often environmentalists too, so this may feed into the mix.
Then we should probably consider the origins of feminism. Let’s start with the idea that men and women are equal. There are no biological reasons why a woman can’t do a job that a man can do. There are some obvious exceptions — a woman can’t make another woman pregnant without artificial help — but broadly speaking most feminists would agree with that position.
But if there are no biological differences, how does one become a “man” or a “woman”? That is, a gendered person as opposed to a sexed person. A common feminist argument is that people are socialized during childhood. This is the “nature v nurture” debate. And if you accept that the only way to become a “woman” is to be raised as a “girl”, then naturally trans women are a logical impossibility. If your view of feminism is firmly grounded on such beliefs of the nature of womanhood, then you cannot accept trans women as legitimate without abandoning your belief in the theoretical basis of your feminism. Hence brain explosions.
Obviously a certain amount of flexibility helps here, and I’m sure that there are theoretical treatments that get around the problem. Hopefully someone will explain.
The eugenics angle is quite interesting in that it directly reflects something in The Female Man [buy isbn=”9780575094994″]. Russ postulates that in Manland boys who fail their masculinity exams will be required to become “half-changed” (transvestites) or “changed” (transsexuals). This has definite parallels to the “sterilization of the unfit” ideas that Jeffreys has. Now I’m not at all suggesting that Jeffreys got the idea from Russ, but it does throw some light on how such ideas might arise.
Another issue that has been highlighted by Julia Serano in her excellent book, Whipping Girl [buy isbn=”9781580051545″], is that much of the antagonism displayed towards trans women by feminists is not anti-trans as much as anti-feminine. The idea is that in a non-sexist world no woman in her right mind would waste time on fashion and the like. Women allegedly only take an interest in such things because they are forced into it by men. Trans women, who are often accused of being obsessed with gender performance, are an obvious target for people who are anti-feminine.
A related line of thinking is the psychiatric concept of “autogynophilia”, which holds that trans women are sexually obsessed with images of themselves in women’s clothing. Such ideas also preclude the possibility that a woman might “feel sexy” when she’s dressed nicely, because women are not supposed to be filthy, sexual creatures, don’t you know. But I think this is mainly a male-originated idea, not a feminist one.
Finally there is the whole question of the gender binary. The idea that there are only two legitimate genders is very corrosive, especially for those who identify as genderqueer, genderless, third gender and so on. But if your project in life is to destroy the gender binary then trans people suddenly look like very convenient shock troops. And if that is what you want them to be, then you need to make sure that they don’t conform to the binary after transition. Which in turn leads to feminists who are fully supportive of trans people provided they don’t have surgery, or provided they don’t try to pass.
What I have tried to do here is to show how completely reasonable feminist ideas, if pushed to extreme, can lead one inexorably into transphobia. I probably haven’t caught them all, and I certainly don’t have pat answers, but given the discussion on Twitter I though it would be worth opening up the debate, because then we might all be better equipped to help prevent people falling into the black hole of hatred that Jeffreys has dug for herself.
You? A “a fluffy-headed pathetic dupe of the Patriarchy”?
That just make me spray tea all over my keyboard.
Oh dear…
*really* glad I wasn’t drinking my tea when I read that!
I’m not up to speed with all the feminist/trans differences of opinion, but I just wanted to say that what Jeffereys said was vile, and I hope it’s the voice of a small minority. Surely one of the abiding principles of feminism enshrines a persons right to choose what to do with their own body?
They are a fairly small minority but, just like the “regretters” they talk endlessly about, they have disproportionate access to the media. Any time a journalist wants to run a transphobic story they call up someone like Jeffreys or Bindel to provide the “feminist” view on such issues.
My mom who raised me in the 60’s in Berkeley used to tell me that while it might well be a good thing to burn one’s bra as a protest, it was wise to make certain one had taken it off first…
The rigid extremism you talk about has never made sense to me – which is probably why the violent attack on transgender issues clothed in the form of “protect the children” is not only beyond me, it strikes me as some of the most vile, hate-baiting, extremism I’ve heard in a very long time.
Gah!
I just re-posted Jeffrey’s piece on my blog, Roz Kaveny’s recommendation and my own personal opinions on the subject. If you are a “fluffy-headed pathetic dupe of the Patriarchy†what the heck an I?
I think it’s time we stopped letting these fake anti-human feminists be the voices that are heard. We need to protest as much and as loudly as we can – and damn the torpedoes!.
I will also note – if these are the “go to” feminists, those of us not on the fringe edge of hysteria need to be louder and speak with more authority – so they STOP being the “go to” feminists and are exposed as the fringe histrionics they really are.
Ah, no, you miss the point. They are “go to” feminists precisely because the journalists know they can be relied upon to spout bile. Modern journalism is all about generating controversy, not about informing the public.
What I find fascinating is that no one ever deals with the ‘real’ issue. (well, there are two ‘real’ issues that spring to my mind.)
The primary ‘real’ issue to me, is that patriarchy allows men to succeed where it tries very hard to make women fail. Education and socialisation has traditionally sought to make sure the male gets the top notch areas of work and status, and the female lesser. White middle to upper class male, at that. You can’t have gender and sexual discussions in terms of work and status, without discussing class, after all.
The issue there, is if you have a male born and male identified human being, who has excelled in the classical work/achievement paradigm, and who then transitions, there is a theoretical space where their male privilege is then added into a female dynamic. IIRC, this was Greer’s original objection to a transitioned female appointed within the woman’s studies department at Warwick. In a world where women have to fight three to four times as hard as males, to achieve academic appointment, giving a top female academic space to someone who had been educated and employed as a male academic, was problematic.
And to signal clearly on ‘problematic’: as in something that requires thought and resolution. Not something that is a bar to be applied, but something to be dealt with rationally and logically. Which is why I find it interesting that as a discussion of the issues around patriarchy and trans status, it’s almost completely ignored.
It should be grappled with, generically. It’s a ‘real’ issue, in terms of the application of status and privilege. But that’s purely in the macro: the generic. In the individual, I’m not sure how it could be approached, without doing an assessment of who had what privilege where. That’s why class is also an issue. A female born in a highly privileged educated and wealthy family, is going to have had more privilege in getting into academia, than a male from a council estate in the Rhonnda. ESPECIALLY if the male then transitions! That person hasn’t got anywhere on privilege, but damn hard work!
My point is, there is an issue to be discussed, in terms of privilege, hegemony and patriarchy. Not in terms of the biology. And that’s ‘discussed’. I’m not making any suggestion about the discussion itself. Just to note that as a discussion, it is often utterly ignored. Hidden by the phobia.
Just as… not every non-trans person can be identified as cis. As a generic term of opposition, cis is fine. As a blanket statement applied to someone else’s own sense of identity, not so fine. I once pointed out I was not a cis female, and was torn to pieces for being trans-phobic. When I pointed out that I was objecting to someone else labeling my identity for me, and that’s precisely what trans people object to as well, I was told, again, I was being trans-phobic. There is more spectra, than spectrum, and the discussion in the general, is the not the discussion about the individual. As female born, it took me over 30 years to come to terms with being biologically female. Well over. Being told by someone else I hold cis privilege as I’ve never had to doubt who I was, as a female, is not only not true, but liable to get you punched in the face!
I find it ironic that in a discussion about shades of grey being the actual status of human beings, trans and cis is polarised to black and white!
Likewise, there probably is room for saying, and looking at, that some human beings want to transition as they fail to be the male perfect and ‘regrade’ to being women. Who cares? How can anyone tell what someone’s ‘real’ reason is? Is there to be a trans purity test, where those who feel so uncomfortable in being identified as male in any way, want to transition, versus the ‘truly’ born in the wrong body person? On what planet does it make the least bit of difference? Again, in the general, room for discussion; something useful to look at in terms of what how society is doing in defining maleness. In the individual: their body, their choice.
You treat individuals with respect, end of.
The second ‘real’ issue, is the one that is likewise not discussed much. Although it’s the un-spoken threat rather than the unacknowledged issue. And that the issue of the functioning penis. In terms of female only spaces, some might see and argument. I don’t. In terms of power and control, I do.
Succinctly, if I’m ever locked up on prison, I never want to be left in a locked room with another human being that has a functioning penis. I don’t care who owns the functioning penis. I don’t care if it’s a priest come to hear my confession, a prison guard or a pre-op transitional person. I don’t care two hoots who has it: I’m a woman who lives in a world where male sexual power is often misused. Certainly, the view that all man are rapists, is both repugnant and destructive. And not one I subscribe too in a world where I have any power over who has access to my body. But put me in a world where I have no power who has access to my body, such as a prison cell, then you bet your bottom dollar I do not want to be locked up with anyone who could have a chance to exert power over me, with a functioning penis.
I imagine a female transitioned, may have the same fears.
I don’t feel I’m being trans-phobic by saying that about the prison cell. I know others will accuse me of it. I’m being honest about the rate of sexual assault towards women. Trans or not. And again, it’s not about them being trans: sexual assault women to women occurs, just like sexual assault male to male occurs.
But being sexually assaulted with an erect penis, is a different assault than being asexually assaulted with a hand, or an object. There is an added level of power and control. Women who are captive should not have to worry about that too!
So yes, there are some real, small, vital issues about transitioning that are relevant. Things we haven’t come to terms with fully yet, and need to work on. I just find it so appalling the ‘real’ ones are ignored, for the sort of sheer bigotry in that article.
Of course, as she’s just compared trans people to the Nazi’s she evoked Goodwin’s Law and thus lost. 🙂
As to it being ‘feminist’ to object to transitioning human beings… I’m attacked by feminists all the time, for being part of the patriarchal hegemony of repressing women… because I support women to breastfeed.
So yea, I’m just another fluffy headed tool of the
On the privilege issue, I understand exactly where you are coming from. When transition is fully supported at work I can see how it would be an issue. On the other hand, transition is often not fully supported at work. Trans women have horrific levels of unemployment, despite often being well educated. Those who have work are, like me, often self-employed. Sometimes the self-confidence you have from years of living as a male are all that help you survive. But of course that only applies to people who were able to live successfully as men; many are not. It really is very much a case of individual circumstances.
What is more general, however, is that most trans women get a very graphic and pointed lesson in the reality of male privilege. There’s nothing quite like suddenly finding your comments ignored in business meetings, and then feted when repeated by a male colleague, to make you a feminist.
Fairly soon, however, this issue will go away, because the higher visibility of trans people, and pro-trans legislation, is allowing young trans people to transition at or before attending further education, and consequently trans women will not have successful careers as men to fall back on. And if they have grown up knowing that they are trans, and being public about it, they won’t have the usual advantage of a male upbringing either.
I suspect that the well known narratives of people like Jan Morris, who were successful as men before transitioning, have given a rather distorted vision of the reality of trans women’s lives.
Penises are problematic, aren’t they. Again I see exactly where you are coming from, but this leads to all sorts of problems with access to bathrooms, rape crisis centers and so on. There are real issues for people in transition, who are unable to have surgery, and of course for those who do not wish to. And there’s a major issue with what constitutes a “functional” penis when someone has been on hormones for many years. I have no simple answers to these questions.
Dang. I just wrote a really long reply. I think the internet ate it.
Spam trap. Fixed now.
I remain permanently baffled and alarmed that “identity” doesn’t mean “you are who you say you are.” Thank you, again, for the very clear exposition. I am very sorry that events made it necessary.
It’s about POWER and it’s possession by the Male Upper Body strength of Dominant Force …we ARE Stronger than YOU ! ..and its about fear that some men and women of power have of losing their Power and Status ….of loss of that very basic source of self confidence that is their own masculinity/femininity. At its root it is – FEAR US for we are stronger than you!
Identity? Whatever you identify yourself as it comes down to the Political position of I/WE are stronger than you! … Bow or Die! Or be reduced to submission by gentle and Humane means … for your own good of course.
“Penises are problematic, aren’t they. Again I see exactly where you are coming from, but this leads to all sorts of problems with access to bathrooms, rape crisis centers and so on. There are real issues for people in transition, who are unable to have surgery, and of course for those who do not wish to. And there’s a major issue with what constitutes a “functional†penis when someone has been on hormones for many years. I have no simple answers to these questions. ”
An answer? I have none either and in so far as I am a .. ” cis privilege ” d ? man who, from time to time, is puzzled and saddened by the various definitions of sexuality that seem to be present beneath the banners of ‘Feminism ‘ and the hatreds that this definition-ism seem to generate.
All Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual, and so forth people have more than enough to fight against without battling against each other.
Back in the Bright and Shiny 1960s when I was a boy it was generally held to be a BAD thing for boys to be shielded from schoolyard bully’s for it was held to be self evident that if thus shielded the bullying would become worse.
In modern terms, of anti bullying policies I just can’t explain this view … anymore than I can explain the visceral hatreds of racism in anything other that simple Wolf/Ape Pack early – not so very long ago – mores and tropes of very simple Human societies.
When I was a boy I developed the simplistic theory that if you were a natural target of bullying then you had the choice of either running away ..and They would always be waiting… or you could become invisible. Invisibility wasn’t easy if you were naturally stroppy and disinclined to follow the advice of your friends that you should at least PRETEND to , say, like Football and lie about your favorite Team against your own belief that macho obsession with watching ball games was moronic.
Or there was the Third way ….you could become notoriously good at vicious hand to hand combat ..not as useful as you might think since that sort of reputation did call forth the demand that you should Fight on demand … and there is no end to the demand for ‘ Heros ‘
I chose a mixture of the three as the occasion demanded.
” It really is very much a case of individual circumstances. ”
I do heartilly agree with that but that agreement isnt going to do either you or any other trans person much practical good.
In actual reality and in fiction it seems to me that that my mixture as before still does hold good and that just it isnt comfortable for the naturally gentle and non combative of whatever their sexual orientation might be.
You just have to decide when it is appropriate to fight and then, when it is appropriate to fight, to use your own natural talents to fight like a maddened ferret for what you belive to represent a better society.
It’s a bitterly hateful article. I’ve registered a protest on the website, but so far none of the critical comments seem to have appeared. Still, at least we’re making the moderator think.
I read this, found it interesting, and feel more informed about subjects I won’t bring up with other people but have no problem participating in a conversation about.
Cheryl I was pretty stunned when you first said to me that some feminists had issues with trans people, and of course this is a fine example of how it arises. Thanks for the explanation behind it, which is always useful to know.
I’ve always felt that being a feminist meant that you should support and help everyone who has been marginalised by society.
I honestly don’t understand how a woman could fight for equal rights for women but not think that was just as important on the grounds of race, class, sexuality, gender, etc.
Anyone who has ever felt excluded should surely never want another person to experience that too. Well, that’s my opinion.
I’m glad that people are actively speaking out on this online. Things won’t change until we continue to challenge and examine these troubling ideologies.