Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

By Julia Serano, AlterNet. Posted August 5, 2008.


The world's largest annual women-only event excludes trans women, sparking a debate among feminists about sexism and privilege.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women -- or those who play the female role -- are held."
-- Radicalesbians (1970)


In 1991, Nancy Jean Burkholder was expelled from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (MWMF), the world's largest annual women-only event, because festival workers suspected that she was a trans woman -- that is, someone who was assigned a male sex at birth but who identifies and lives as female. That incident sparked protests from a burgeoning transgender movement to challenge what eventually came to be known as the festival's "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, which effectively bars trans women from attending. The protests evolved into Camp Trans, which continues to take place just down the road from MWMF each year, and which has become a focal point for a much broader push for trans-inclusion within feminist and queer communities. Despite more than 15 years of petitioning, and a growing acceptance of trans identities in both mainstream society and within queer, feminist and other progressive circles, the festival still officially maintains its "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, and countless other lesbian- and queer-woman-focused groups and events continue to harbor dismissive, if not outright disdainful, attitudes toward trans women.

The history of the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate has been retold countless times -- often in an overly simplistic, cut-and-dry manner. The controversy is usually depicted in one of two ways: either pitting the supposedly out-of-touch, transphobic lesbian-separatists who run the festival against a more politically progressive transgender minority, or portraying transgender activists as bullies who selfishly seek to undermine one of the few remaining vestiges of women-only space with their supposedly masculine bodies and energies. In addition to being obvious caricatures, these sorts of us-versus-them portrayals obscure one of the most important aspects of the story: the fact that there are actually three "sides" to this debate, each driven by a different take on feminism.

Rather than rehash the history or delve into all of the details about the festival and the controversy, I will attempt to describe these three differing feminist perspectives and discuss how they have played out with regard to the issue of trans woman-exclusion at MWMF, as well as in lesbian/queer women's communities more generally.

For those unfamiliar with the subject, I will start by defining some of the trans-specific language that I will be using. Transsexuals are individuals who identify and live as members of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. A trans woman is someone who has socially, physically and/or legally transitioned from male to female, and a trans man is someone who has similarly transitioned from female to male. While the medical establishment (and the mainstream media) typically define "transsexual" in terms of the medical procedures that an individual might undergo (for example, hormones and surgeries), many trans people find such definitions to be objectifying (as they place undue focus on body parts rather than the person as a whole) and classist (as not all trans people can afford to physically transition). For these reasons, trans activists favor definitions based on self-identity, that is, whether one identifies and lives as a woman or man. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for all people who defy other people's expectations and assumptions regarding gender, and can be used to refer to transsexuals as well as people who are gender nonconforming in other ways -- for example, cross-dressers, drag performers, feminine men, masculine women, and genderqueers (who do not identify exclusively as either women or men), to name a few. Transgender people who defy gender norms in the male-to-female/feminine direction are said to be on the trans feminine spectrum; those who transgress gender norms in the female-to-male/masculine direction make up the trans masculine spectrum.

Unilateral Sexism and Lesbian-Feminism

MWMF is one of many women-only institutions that grew out of the lesbian-feminist movement during the 1970s and 1980s. A dominant ideology within that movement was the belief that sexism constitutes a unilateral form of oppression -- that is, men are the oppressors, and women the oppressed, end of story. While more liberal or reform-minded feminists of that time period focused primarily on the most obvious examples of sexism (e.g., wage and workplace discrimination, sexual harassment, reproductive rights, etc.), lesbian- (and other radical) feminists extended their critiques of sexism to include many taken-for-granted aspects of gender and sexuality. They argued, for example, that masculinity is inherently dominating and oppressive and that femininity is necessarily associated with objectification and subjugation, and that both forms of gender expression are merely products of socialization rather than natural aspects of people. According to this perspective, a first step toward overturning sexism is for individuals to distance themselves from ways of being that are associated with male domination and female subjugation and instead revert to more natural (and presumably androgynous) forms of gender and sexual expression.

Lesbian-feminist critiques did not solely take aim at the heterosexual mainstream; they also targeted other sexual minorities whose gender and sexual practices were deemed (in their view) to emulate unilateral sexism. This includes those who engage in BDSM (who were seen as reinforcing dominant/submissive sexual roles), and butch and femme lesbians, drag performers, cross-dressers, and transsexuals (who were all seen as reinforcing masculine/feminine gender roles). While lesbian-feminists derided many forms of what we would now call transgender expression, the bulk of their contempt was directed squarely at trans women and others on the trans feminine spectrum. This attitude stemmed both from the assumption that trans women are "really men" (i.e., oppressors) and that femininity is tantamount to a "slave status." Thus, according to this logic, trans female and trans feminine individuals were viewed as oppressors who appropriate the dress and identities of the very people they oppress. For example, feminist Robin Morgan claimed that trans women "parody female oppression and suffering," and Mary Daly equated trans feminine expression with "whites playing "blackface.'" Many (including Morgan and, most famously, Janice Raymond) even described trans womanhood as a form of rape.

While many lesbian-feminists today will concede that such accusations are beyond the pale, their unilateral perspective on sexism still leads them to insist that trans women should not be allowed to enter women-only spaces such as MWMF based on the assumption that trans women have experienced male socialization and privilege in the past, and/or because their bodies, personalities and energies still supposedly remain "male" or "masculine" on some level.

The Gender Binary, Queer Theory and Transgender Activism

Prior to the mid-1990s, trans women and allies typically responded to trans woman-exclusion by stressing the similarities between trans women (who live as women and thus experience misogyny in their day-to-day lives) and non-trans women. But this strategy of emphasizing similarities became less relevant by the mid-to-late 1990s due to the rise of "third wave" feminisms, which challenged universalizing views of womanhood and examined the many differences that exist between women. For example, "third wave" feminists embraced the critiques made by women of color over the years that the belief that sexism was the "primary" oppression, or even a unilateral form of oppression, ignores the ways in which sexism intersects with racism and classism in many women's lives. Additionally, many feminists (especially younger ones) around this time began reclaiming expressions of femininity and sexuality that had previously been considered taboo or repressive among lesbian-feminists. But perhaps no shift in feminism had such a profound affect on transgender-inclusion within lesbian and queer women's communities as the rise of queer theory.

Queer theory shares the lesbian-feminist belief that many aspects of gender and sexuality are culturally derived (rather than natural), but takes this notion one step further by bringing into question the very categories upon which sexisms are based. This is often accomplished by critiquing, subverting and deconstructing the "gender binary" -- that is, the assumption that there are only two legitimate genders: feminine women and masculine men. For this reason, many queer theorists became particularly interested in transgender people, whom they sometimes hailed for challenging traditional notions about femaleness and maleness. This view is in sharp contrast to lesbian-feminist perspectives, which claimed that these same individuals reinforced oppressive sex roles.

Queer theory both influenced, and was influenced by, the rise of transgender activism -- a movement to unite previously disparate gender-variant communities around the idea that these groups are all targeted for discrimination because they transgress binary gender norms. Activists such as Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg, Riki Wilchins and countless others mobilized many transgender spectrum folks, and won over many feminist and queer allies, by positioning the transgender community as the cutting edge of a much broader movement to shatter the gender binary. In 1999, Wilchins and other transgender activists took this approach to MWMF, where they revived Camp Trans (after a five-year hiatus) and challenged the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy on the basis that it is rooted in outdated, binary assumptions about gender.

The idea that transgender identities and expression subvert the gender binary did much to increase transgender-inclusion within feminist and queer spaces. However, this approach did not benefit all transgender people equally. Because transgender-inclusion was explicitly linked to gender transgression and subverting the gender binary, those individuals who did not identify within the gender binary -- for example, people who are genderqueer, gender-fluid, or who engage in "genderfuck" (purposefully playing or screwing with gender expression and presentation) -- tended to be most celebrated, whereas transsexuals -- especially those who identify within the binary and who appear gender-normative and/or heterosexual post-transition -- frequently still had their motives and identities questioned.

It is also common for trans feminine spectrum individuals to be called out for "reinforcing the gender binary" more so than their counterparts on the trans masculine spectrum. This is due, in part, to the fact that female and feminine appearances are more readily and routinely judged in our society than male and masculine ones. And because concepts like "transgression" and "rebellion" tend to be coded as "masculine" in our culture, whereas "conformity" and "conventionality" are typically coded as "feminine," there is an unspoken bias that leads masculine transgender expression to be seen as more inherently transgressive than feminine transgender expression. Indeed, such unconscious presumptions about masculinity and femininity have surely contributed to the tendency exhibited by many feminists to praise women who engage in traditionally "masculine" endeavors, while expressing anywhere from apathy to antagonism toward men who engage in traditionally "feminine" endeavors. In fact, one could make the case that historically feminism has been predisposed toward "trans-masculinism" -- that is, favoring gender transgression in the masculine direction.

Not coincidently, perhaps the biggest change in lesbian and queer women's communities since the rise of queer theory and transgender activism has been a growing influx of trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum, many of whom date and/or are partnered to non-trans queer women. While trans men are not officially allowed in MWMF, many still attend anyway (as the festival has essentially had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gender identity for much of the last decade). The significant attendance of trans male/masculine folks led one trans masculine attendee in 2000 to remark that the festival was "the largest female-to-male trans conference I have ever seen in my life." The festival not only accommodates such individuals, but has invited trans masculine musical artists who go by the pronoun "he" to perform on the festival stage. It has also become increasingly common for MWMF supporters to claim that the festival is a place for those who have grown up female in a patriarchal society, an interpretation that conveniently enables trans men to attend but not trans women. Indeed, this growing inclusion of trans men has not yielded a similar inclusion of trans women; in fact, many feel that it has only served to make trans women more invisible and irrelevant within queer women's communities.

Trans-Misogyny, Intersectionality and "Second Wave" Transgender Activism

I personally became involved in the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue in 2003 when I attended Camp Trans. This was a turning-point year for the protest, as organizers began to make a purposeful effort to focus specifically on working toward trans woman-inclusion (rather than "transgender-inclusion" more generally) and to try to shift the dynamics of the protest from one that favored trans men and others on the trans masculine spectrum to one that is equally welcoming of, and empowering for, trans women. It was there that I first had in-depth conversations with other trans women about how people on the trans feminine spectrum tend to be more routinely derided and demonized -- both in mainstream society and within lesbian and queer women's spaces like MWMF -- than our trans masculine counterparts. It was clear to many of us that this phenomenon was not simply the result of the fact that we "transgress gender norms" (something both trans masculine and trans feminine folks do). Rather, it seemed to be driven more by traditional sexism -- that is, the presumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, or less legitimate than, maleness and masculinity.

Over the last five years, trans feminine feminists have begun to articulate a new perspective on feminism and trans activism that better captures our own experiences dealing with sexism. This approach is not so much rooted in queer theory as it is in intersectionality -- a theory that grew out of the work of feminists of color, most thoroughly chronicled by Patricia Hill Collins, and perhaps first discussed in relation to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue by Emi Koyama. Intersectionality states that different forms of oppression do not act independently of one another, but rather they interact synergistically. Unlike queer theory and lesbian-feminism, intersectionality focuses primarily on the ways in which people are institutionally marginalized, rather than fixating on whether any given individual's identity or behaviors "reinforce" or "subvert" the gender system.

According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).

While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.

Trans feminine perspectives on sexism have shaken up the dynamics of long-standing feminist debates about trans individuals and inclusion. For example, lesbian-feminist critiques of queer theory and transgender activism have charged that focusing primarily on transgressing or blurring the distinction between "woman" and "man" does nothing to address the affect that traditional sexism has on women's lives. Trans feminine feminists typically agree with this lesbian-feminist critique and further extend it to address the many ways in which traditional sexism impacts our own lives, both as women and as trans women.

Trans feminine feminists have also taken issue with the ways in which others have defined and positioned us in the MWMF inclusion debate. For example, queer theorists and transgender activists often argue for inclusion on the basis that transgender people transgress or subvert the gender binary. Trans women have challenged this approach for being both masculine-centric (as it favors trans masculine individuals) and cissexist (as the presumption that we blur or subvert the gender binary is the direct result of people viewing us as "fake" and "illegitimate" women in the first place). Lesbian-feminists, on the other hand, typically argue that trans women should be denied entrance into women-only spaces such as MWMF because we were born and socialized male. These claims are also masculine-centric (as they emphasize supposedly "male/masculine" aspects of our history over our female identities and lived experiences as women) and cissexist (as they presume that our female identities are less legitimate than those of cissexual women).

Trans feminine feminists have also countered the way in which MWMF has increasingly co-opted queer/transgender rhetoric in recent years in its defense of its trans woman-exclusion policy. For example, a 2006 MWMF press release described "womyn-born-womyn" as "a valid and honorable gender identity." This statement seems to takes advantage of the transgender activist claim that there are countless possible gender identities, each of which should be equally respected. However, it fails to recognize who the privileged majority is in this case (cissexual women/"womyn-born-womyn") and who the marginalized minority is (transsexual women). Thus, MWMF's statement is analogous to the hypothetical situation of heterosexual women declaring that "straight woman" is a valid gender identity in order to justify excluding lesbian and bisexual women from an event in which all other women are welcome. Most MWMF supporters would undoubtedly recognize such an approach as being unquestionably heterosexist; by the same reasoning, MWMF's trans woman-exclusion policy is unquestionably cissexist. MWMF has also asserted that the festival is not "transphobic" because plenty of transgender people attend, or because it is "home to womyn who could be considered gender outlaws" (an apparent reference to Kate Bornstein's binary-shattering book Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us). While this strategy gives the appearance of accommodating queer/transgender perspectives, it does not address the concerns of trans feminine feminists, who believe that the festival's policy is primarily cissexist and trans-misogynistic/trans-masculinist (as it is excludes trans women while accommodating trans male/masculine folks).

A recognition of trans-misogyny/trans-masculinism -- both within queer and feminist settings, and in society at large -- has led many trans women and trans male allies to critique the growing numbers of trans men who, despite their physical transitions and the fact that they now live as men, still feel entitled to inhabit lesbian and women's spaces. Such individuals will often justify their continued presence in such spaces by citing their female history, or claiming that they don't feel 100 percent like a "man" (even though their appearance definitely reads "man"). Such claims reinforce the popular misconception that transsexual gender identities should not be taken seriously, and thus has had a direct negative impact on trans women's inclusion in these same spaces. In a sense, these trans men seem to want to have it both ways: being men in the male-centered mainstream and then being "not-men" in queer/women's/feminist spaces. This places trans women in no-win situation: We are treated as second-class citizens in the male-centered mainstream because we are women, and then further derided for supposedly being privileged, infiltrating "men" in queer/feminist/women's spaces.

This growing "gender gap" between trans masculine and trans feminine communities is not unique to the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate, but can be seen in other areas of transgender activism. While trans men used to be a minority in the trans community, over the last 15 years their numbers have significantly increased and, in many cities and college campuses, they have come to dominate transgender organizations and activism. This prominence is often enabled by the trans-masculinist leanings of feminist and queer activism (which tend to be suspicious of, or less welcoming toward, trans women both before and after our transitions). Trans men also enjoy significant social advantages over trans women, both because they physically tend to "pass" as cissexuals more often and more easily than trans women, and because of the male privilege they experience post-transition. Trans women -- especially those who transition at a young age and who thus do not benefit significantly from male privilege pre-transition -- have more difficulties finding and maintaining employment, are more susceptible to poverty, and are more likely to engage in survival sex work to make ends meet. There is a growing sense among many trans women that previous models of transgender activism have largely ignored these trans female/feminine-specific issues in a manner similar to how progressive movements during the 1960s largely ignored woman-specific issues, and how the gay rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s largely ignored lesbian-specific issues.

Trans feminine feminists are not the only group critiquing the "first wave" of transgender activism for ignoring the ways in which transgender issues are often intertwined with, and exacerbated by, other forms of oppression. Since the early 2000s, a number of organizations -- such as the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, TransJustice, Trans/Gender Variant in Prison and others -- have begun to focus specifically on the needs of trans people of color, trans people of low income, and those who are incarcerated -- all of whom are especially vulnerable to gender regulation and oppression due to living at the intersection of racism, classism and sexism. As a testament to the importance of intersectionality, a GenderPAC report on violence against gender non-conforming youth showed that the vast majority of the victims were of color, poor or on the trans feminine spectrum (and very often, all three). Activists like Viviane Namaste and Mirha-Soleil Ross have pointed out that trans sex workers -- typically poor trans women and trans feminine spectrum individuals -- receive little to no attention or support from mainstream transgender organizations, activists and academics, despite the fact that they are arguably the most marginalized segment of the transgender community. Other activists, such as Monica Roberts -- who blogs under the name TransGriot and who is one of the organizers of the annual Transsistahs and Transbrothas Conference -- have written extensively about how mainstream transgender organizations routinely fail to acknowledge issues that disproportionately affect trans people of color. Just as universalizing views of womanhood that existed within "second wave" feminism were challenged by "third wave" feminists, the universalizing view of transgender people forwarded in the 1990s (which tended to ignore differences with regard to race, class and direction of transition and/or transgender expression) have increasingly been called into question by this "second wave" of transgender activism.

Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.

Perhaps more importantly, this is about us being able to have a voice within feminism more generally. MWMF is not only the world's largest annual women-only event, but historically it's been a focal point for dialogues and debates on a wide range of feminist issues. As someone who has experienced firsthand the substantial difference between what it's like to be treated as a woman and as a man, and who now experiences both misogyny and trans-misogyny in my day-to-day life, I have found feminism to be an indispensable foundation for me to make sense of my experiences and to articulate the obstacles and issues that I face. For many of us who are trans women, this is about having a voice in a movement that is incommensurably vital to us.

For years, trans women have effectively had no voice in MWMF. During that time, many cissexual women and trans masculine attendees have tried to advocate on our behalf inside the festival. While their intensions may have been sincere, the fact that they entered into a space that excludes trans women, and that they claimed to speak for us (despite not having had a trans female/feminine life experience themselves), their actions further contributed to the erasure of our voices and perspectives. While the "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy remains in effect to this day, MWMF stopped formally expelling trans women from the festival in 2006 (although they still insist that any trans woman who attends is "choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this festival"). While the situation is hardly perfect, it does for the first time allow trans women to speak in their own voices within MWMF. And that's a crucial part of any feminist or activist movement: to allow those who have been marginalized, disenfranchised and excluded to be able to define themselves, and to speak in their own voices about the struggles they face and the way they experience their own lives.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, feminism, sexuality, identity, transgender, transsexual, trans women, trans men

Julia Serano is a writer, trans activist, and author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity (Seal Press, 2007). More information about all of her creative endeavors can be found at her Web site, www.juliaserano.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Glazed...
Posted by: Nebris on Aug 5, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though this is a subject I am deeply interested in, the vast amount of Gender Jargon caused my brain to overload about half way through, once again proving - to me, at least - that all these labels create more problems and more separation.

And, no, I do not have a solution for that...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Glazed... Posted by: nen
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» The Common Question Posted by: pdxjoe
RE: Trans-women are not Natural women
Posted by: funnyfarm12 on Aug 5, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FYI: I raised a little boy. At no point did he dress like a girl. After he grew up miserable (but without my knowing that) he was able to successfully become the woman physically that he had always known was inside. It is difficult for me now to even refer to 'him'. This is my daughter. The guilt I have suffered was for not recognizing the agony my child was going through.
All the while I was patting myself on the back for raising what appeared to be 'the perfect male' due to the fact that this child was domestic, kind, and sweet natured as well as handsome, athletic and talented both in music, and the kitchen equally.
She was indeed the most natural of women, however, a misstep in nature trapped her inside the body of a male. Now there is a struggle if I ever heard of one.
One small piece of unasked for advise: Open your mind and close your mouth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just look at these tears! Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: Trans-women are not Natural women Posted by: planet doomed
Bean
Posted by: Bean2939 on Aug 5, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some good points BUT undermined by the "We are more oppressed than you" argument.

Puhlease!

We old Lesbian feminists knew better than that, and would remind you of the just plain "bull dyke and cunt" bashing that goes on to this very day, the job exclusion, exclusion from birth family rites, and the unending physical and verbal assaults-- no better, no worse, than what others on the transgressive spectrum experience, all of it despicable in equal degree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glazed, take 2
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 5, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I found when I cut through all the verbiage was considerable distortion and gross oversimplication of feminist history and theorizing of the 1970s and 1980s. Rather than rebut Serano point for point, which would go on for pages and still not address the most important issues, I'll cut to the chase.

A Big Contradiction
Feminism and transgender ideology are uneasy bedfellows at best. Feminism says that women are as capable as men, and that the biological differences between men and women don't justify making women second-class citizens. Feminism says that women come in an almost infinite variety of sizes, shapes, strengths, and abilities. Women have been challenging notions of what "woman" means since (almost) forever, by doing things that supposedly only men could do and occasionally even by passing as men. Under the aegis of the feminist movement, so many women have smashed so many stereotypes that to some extent it's become socially acceptable.

Transgender ideology in essence says that men are men, and women are women, and that if you're born in a male body you have to live like someone in a male body is supposed to live, and if you're born in a female body you have to live like someone in a female body is supposed to live. Biology, in other words, is destiny, and the only way to change your destiny is to change your body. This is a huge kick in the face to every woman and every man who has struggled to expand what being a woman means and what being a man means in this society. It's an especially big kick to lesbians, and to every woman who's ever been accused of being a lesbian for stepping out of line.

Liberalism Has Its Limits
In a perfect society, everyone would be welcome everywhere they had a hankering to go. We don't live in a perfect society. We live in a society with built-in inequalities and oppressions. If we're not happy with the status quo, we have to organize to change it, or at least to get ourselves a seat at the table. When we organize, we are under no obligation to include everyone in our organization. Why is this so hard to understand? John L. Lewis didn't invite mine owners to help organize the UMW. Nat Turner and John Brown didn't invite slave owners to help plan their insurrections. If you're a white person who supports equal rights for people of color, or a man who supports equal rights for women, sometimes the most supportive thing you can do is to stop banging on the door.

When transgender activists demand entry to women-only spaces like the Michigan Women's Music Festival, they're forcing their definitions and priorities on other festival-goers. They are, in other words, acting the way privileged people usually act: "Our rights trump yours, no contest, get out of the way."

Binary-Shattering? Gimme a Break

The transgender movement doesn't shatter binaries; it puts them on a pedestal and worships them. In part, the transgender movement is part of the anti-feminist backlash -- a reaffirmation of "traditional" gender roles. It's also a sign that the feminist movement hasn't gone far enough. In a non-sexist world the phrases "a man in a woman's body" or "a woman in a man's body" will make no sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On That Note Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: coatsfh
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: Joni50
» In Other Words Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: nathanhj1970
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: klm68
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: mewenpup
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: planet doomed
» transgender != transsexual Posted by: AlexTM
» RE: transgender != transsexual Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: divadarya@pacbell.net
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: klm68
» RE: Glazed, take 2 Posted by: klm68
Repeated distortions becoming 'fact'
Posted by: GraceF on Aug 5, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi

I'm posting from the UK so cant comment on the specific events etc., referred to.

However, I am getting increasingly fed up with the misrepresentation of not only what is now called 2nd wave feminism (but used to be called women's liberation) and the basis on which women only events are important.

2nd wave feminism certainly did struggle with its own racism, ageism and so on, and the idea that it wasn't until 3rd wavers came along that anyone who was a feminist linked the oppression of women to the oppression of BME (sorry this is a UK bit of jargon standing for Black and Minority Ethnic) and working class communities etc is just revisionist rubbish. (Anyone who has been reading about the ongoing struggle of Southall Black Sisters to survive as a group based in '2nd wave feminism' will know this.)

Consciousness raising groups which were the foundation of women's liberation where based on what women had in common despite their race, class, sexuality or dis/abillity. ie the discrimination and oppression we suffered because we were born and raised female in a male dominated world.

What some of us thought the future might be would be a world where women who were more 'masculine' in interests and behaviour would be allowed to be that, and similarly men who were more 'feminine' would be allowed to be that, whether through dress, profession, etc., etc..

No one thought the solution would be a surgical one, particularly as this solution is the one fostered and perfected by reactionary and facist societies, namely white South Africa, Eastern Germany and some of the Southern States of America.

The surgical solution is the ultimate expression of a rigid hierarchial view of the world, where people have to 'fit in'. Women's Liberation and the other liberation movements of the 70s (eg Black Liberation which inspired and influenced the structure of Women's Liberation) was about breaking down hierarchies.

Unfortunately 3rd wave feminists seemed to have been brainwashed into even more rigid gender roles than some might say the 50s were. ie if you are not woman enough as a women you can be surgically 'cured' by breast implants, vagina repairs, etc., etc..

Whatever oppression men or women felt growing up because they felt they did not conform to the gender norms of the society they were born into, are not the same as a shared experience of being oppressed as a women or girl.

The ultimate sympton of how the surgical solution of transgenderism is ultimately male, is that of course they expect women to make way for their needs. Isn't it always the way that when women manage to create a space of their own, they are told they are in the wrong and shouldn't have it.

The argument for transgenderism is as riduclous as to believe that if you had been born white and then through some medical procedure appeared to be Black that you would share the experience of people who have been born and grown up black in a white racist society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once again us vs. them......
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 5, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article attempts to explain some points, but yet again this is an us "real women" vs. them "transgender" women. In this day when women (period) are still oppressed and subjugated, when there are sooooo many issues that we need to face not only as a society but as members of the world community.

What really needs to happen is: (1) we need to stop labeling "other", a label insists that we conform instead of just being the contributing individuals we are meant to be. (2) come together to tackle the real ISSUES that we can coalesce around. (3)For those of that want to quote scripture wrap your mind around this one: when the woman was brought before Jesus because they wanted to stone her - he said "whomever amongst you is without sin, cast that first stone". Maybe that's something we all need to think about!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again us vs. them...... Posted by: Elijah Nella
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
As a woman, my gripe with the "Trans" community...
Posted by: redceres on Aug 5, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is not about who is oppressed more than whom. I am painfully aware that issues of gender and sexuality--and that anyone who chooses to "buck the system"--lead to real oppression.

However, I find it insulting that so many born men who transition to women choose to promote some of the worst stereotypes that are forced on women in the way they articulate their femininity. How many "women" dressed in MArilyn Monroe getup and sleezy lingerie do we need? How many people forcing their voices unnaturally high and yammering about shoes do we need? How do these parodies of the feminine HELP feminists?

To my mind, these folks serve to attack women just as surely as the frat boys who like to dress us as and mock women in initiation pranks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» As A Woman, My Gripe With This Argument... Posted by: Nichole Weberring
» Okay, let's have at it, then. Posted by: redceres
» Thanks for your honesty. Posted by: redceres
» RE: Thanks for your honesty. Posted by: svomact
» No worries, no regrets Posted by: redceres
» And your suggestion. . . Posted by: redceres
» Nope, but I DO know. . . Posted by: redceres
» RE: And your suggestion. . . Posted by: premarachel
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» WHAT? Posted by: droscify
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
wow
Posted by: droscify on Aug 5, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was unaware there was so much discrimination in the feminist movement against the transgender lifestyle. I really don't think that keeping transgendered folks out of these events is conducive to building a more equitable society, which i thought was the point of feminism, not just airing grievances about the unjustness of it all. fuck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There isn't discrimination Posted by: jbitch
» Actually, i think there is. Posted by: droscify
» RE: There isn't discrimination Posted by: Jethro2112
» Yea... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Missing the point....
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 5, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those of you who cling to the notion that it is our birth bodies that identify us.......You are wrong! As a woman who experienced the horrors of boys boarding schools and a life growing up in body that was entirely alien to me, I can certainly tell you that it is not our bodies that direct us, but our minds. Is the deformed body of a newborn child the sum of him/her? Of course not? It's the mind, silly! I was surgically corrected the best that modern medicine could provide, many years ago.
Certainly at six feet, I am an unusual woman. But I am now both physically and mentally a woman, and that is all that matters to me. Certainly I face all the issues every woman faces, perhaps more. I don't know. I am well loved in my wide community and live as normally as any woman. The point for me is that our lives are what we make. We may not love peoples words or actions but we still need to love and accept people. There is far too much talk generated by ignorance and prejudice that is not helpful one way or another. It would be far better for all of us to open our minds to the infinite possibilities in life and recognize that at far as this subject is concerned that our bodies do not define us, we do not not all fit into a simple as XY or XX, as we should, in todays more educated world, well know. Things happen prior to birth and XY or XX can become XXY or XYY. So most of the conversations we have about whose view is right or wrong are already wrong before they start.
Accept, be in awe of, and inspired by the diversity of life and rise up to meet your own challenges rather that criticize others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for your sanity
Posted by: droscify on Aug 5, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thats all. this discussion definitely needed your viewpoint

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Irish Man Wants To Be A Somalian Woman
Posted by: pdxjoe on Aug 5, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if there are any examples of individuals identifying with the gender of cultures not their own (an Irish man wanting to be a Somalian woman, for example)? I can't find anyway. If there aren't, in what sense does one feel (which sounds implicitly biological) an imperative to be of the opposite gender as opposed to simply choosing to live their life in a way that is comfortable for them and non-harmful of others?

The thing is, on the one hand the transgendered person will affirm that biology does not underpin gender, while at the same time appealing to feelings or intuitions about how they are comfortable with their conventional gender. On the other hand, if there were no natural structure to gender in the first place (i.e. "being born a man"), why the gender to which one defers should be marked by a certain sense of biological inevitability (i.e. being born a woman in a man's body) makes little sense.

From the feminist writing I've read over the years, gender as such is a patriarchal concept/structure. I think the problem for many feminists is not that transgender women fail to critique (patriarchal) femininity, sneakily implying that feminists with a problem with transgendered women are themselves misogynists, but that they fail to critique gender itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitting trans males is not the solution
Posted by: AlexTM on Aug 5, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I read that article with great interest, and I really understood and agreed with it -- until the author started to hit on trans males. Wow!

Trans males have been pretty much invisible for decades, only being recognised as more than an odd footnote to trans females in the last few years. We (yes, I am a trans man) have not only suffered from invisibility, we also suffered from standards and procedures for transitioning explicitly set for trans females. We had to put up with trans females being annoyed when we even mentioned that we exist, too. We have been ignored by both our trans female sisters and about every cis writer out there, whether writing from a medical point of view or a sociological or a journalistic one. And now that we have finally achieved some visibility, what do we get? A whack over the head by -- our trans sisters. Wow! Thank you very much!

We are pretty much accused of having taken over the trans movement. Sorry, BS. Like every activist, we work where somebody has to work. I doubt there are many places where trans females are kept out intentionally. That would be slightly different from the situation for decades, where trans men were at best cute little pets for the trans female dominated movement, kept around as long as they were not to insistent that trans male matters were taken into account, too.

We are also accused of still having connetions to our lesbian/feminist past. There are a few things wrong with that accusation from the beginning:
- Not all of us have such a past. A very large number of trans males is gay, and never much hung around lesbian/feminist crowds. (Yours truly, for example.) Another even larger group sees themselfes as strikly straight, and no matter where they used to hang around, they would not be caught dead in lesbian/feminist circles after transitioning. (Actually, most never hung out there before, either.)
- And what's wrong with not severing all connections to the past? Just because many of those trans females who used to hang around in gay circles would not want to be caught dead there after transitioning, why exactly should we have to emulate this behaviour? Why should we forget all our friends and all of our values? No matter how male you look, you are still what you have been, and I really don't see what's wrong with sticking to feminist values and enjoying the company of like-minded individuals.

There also seems to be a lot of envy that those trans males are admitted to the MWMF. While I utterly agree that their exclusion policy for trans females sucks royaly, I sincerely doubt that hitting trans males is the solution to this problem. You should bring that fight where it belongs, that is, to those who support this exclusion policy, and not fight your own brothers, who most likely disagree with it, just as you do.

And we are accused of having "male privilege". Well, we don't have all that much of it, either, no matter how we look. I used to get stared at when I went into a computer shop and knew what I wanted to buy. Now the same happens to me at arts and crafst stores. The privilege is exactly where? Or the Old Boys Network? Works only if you have been "one of the boys" from the beginning, which very very few of us were. No privilege there. Safety on the streets? Differnt sort of trouble, but not less or more. No more guys looking for "company", but now guys looking for a quarrel. What an improvement.
There is nearly nothing I can do as a man that I could not have done as a woman (with the obvious exception being personal relations), and there are many things I was much easier able to do as a woman. The only thing that I could not was being me, which is why I transitioned. But male privilege? Still waiting to find out what that is supposed to be, even after more than 10 years with a beard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said, Alex. Posted by: redceres
» What redceres said Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What redceres said Posted by: AlexTM
trans women welcome!
Posted by: schnak on Aug 5, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trans women should absolutely be welcomed in feminism and women spaces. They go through some of the same horrible experiences that so many other women go through just because they are women. I feel just as connected to trans women as I do other women who are struggling to be free from gender discrimination and hate. You are welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sorry if i missed the point
Posted by: droscify on Aug 5, 2008 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought the purpose of movements such as this were to strive for equity. i guess i was wrong. fuck you too by the way

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: BS Posted by: MorganBlue
Wow!
Posted by: Cyberspice on Aug 5, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a lot of stereotyping is going on in these comments.

Yes some trans-women are charactures of women. But some women are charactures of women. If you see a woman completely inappropriately dressed in the street you may comment but you would never question her gender. Why is it that when its a trans-woman its immediately questioned?

We can take off our hair and our makeup and be men? Er, not me, I generally never wear make up. As for my hair its generally been at least shoulder length since my teens. I would never pass as a guy even with a crew cut. My arse and hips are too big, I have naturally large breasts. My housemate has a mohawk and doesn't pass as male. I can't remember the last time I wore heels. As a software engineer my work attire comprises t-shirt, jeans and sneakers.

I transitioned at University and built my career of the last 13 years as a woman. No one I work with knows or guesses so I still get all the same problems with misogyny. Yes I agree that society in general is geared towards the white male but the entire time society was bombarding me with this 'priviledge' my inner soul was fighting against it. I was an outsider, beaten up for being different, an object of derision from males and females a like.

I have never been a cis-woman so I do not know what it is like to have been born and brought up a girl. However many of you have never been trans so you equally do not know what its really like to be me. Show me some respect in the way I would show you respect.

I am a member of many women's groups and I identify as lesbian but if someone doesn't want me there, personally I don't want to be there. Its not worth my time and effort to fight for rights with a minority than be a member of the great majority. I will stick to the feminist groups that are happy to have me as a member...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree. Posted by: droscify
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Let me get this straight...or queer...or bi
Posted by: libgal on Aug 5, 2008 4:14 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gender exists and in some way defines us, so we can have a wymmin's festival to celebrate that thing that makes us us and not men. That seems self-evidence and in no need of defense.

However, we also like to say that gender doesn't really exist except as a limiting concept, so it makes no sense to say that someone was born in the "wrong" body.

We hate that patriarchy makes us dress up in stupid costumes in order to gain approval in the world they dominate. Women who thwart this by dressing as men are heroic. Men who want to wear these costumes themselves are cartoonish and mock us. Plus they are obviously insane because no in his right mind would choose to wear pantyhose. That's the thing that I don't get.

So we conclude that men who want to be more like women are to be rejected and women who want to be more like men should be embraced?

Huh? Hold the press. Wanting to be more like a women = bad? Wanting to be more like a man = good? We've somehow out-logicked ourselves here. Do we really believe that transwomen are only after the outer trappings? Or do we understand that those trappings are meant to be symbolic of something else? Do we dare articulate that something else lest it immediately be labeled inferior, smaller, weaker, more maternal, or godforbid, painted Disney pink? Ugh.

All women (bio or trans) have to figure out their own relationship to the male definition of feminine. They can revel in it, reject it, or operate with indifference to it. Or some combinations thereof. Lesbians may be able cut through that gordian knot quickly since they are not trying to have sex with men (by definition, anyway). Those who do try to have sex with men, may find it trickier to navigate. Maybe one day we'll feel safe and secure enough to articulate a female-defined feminine that underlies any kind of trapping. But don't look at me. I mean I can't even say for sure why I shave my legs--from the knees down, people! Do I like the way it looks, or is that just programming? Would stopping now just be reactive? I give up. It's just not worth the mental energy. Besides, I skip a lot of days.

Men and transmen also have to struggle with the definitions of masculine as defined by everyone. But that's an entirely different problem.

Anyway, I remember being out one night in San Fran and being taken completely aback by how beautiful the drag queens were (or should I say drag princesses because they were so young)? I remember thinking, with a mix of admiration, hopelessness, and envy, that they are better women that I could ever be. And then I realized, of course they are. They belong to the group that made up the construct! Seeing the construct apart from my womanhood was a huge insight. (OK, I was 25). If you want to call that mocking us, fine. But it can be instructional, like satire.

In the end, freedom means the right to act in a way that some people think is incredibly stupid and distasteful. I believe that transwomen are not just playing dress up. Their intention is something deeper. Plenty of straight men prance around in our undies. Especially if they're English! And somehow this does not affect their gender identity.

So why not let the hootchie mommas (born and made) play with the gals in sensible shoes? Especially the transwomen who channel Marilyn. After all, they have gone to a lot more trouble to be like us than we ever did. Is it so hard to take the compliment?

As for me, I think I'm a gay man trapped in a lesbian's body. And my husband is lesbian trapped in an English man's body. We passed so well, they gave us a marriage certificate.

I say that in fun, of course. But I don't mean to offend. I just think that we are all trying to figure these things out, and meanwhile, let's not give these labels the power to hurt and divide us. The haters take this dead serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Personally... Posted by: realmuzik
» RE:How exquisitely said. Posted by: premarachel
respect, please, and please don't assume
Posted by: klm68 on Aug 5, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a lot of the evil in this world stems from assuming we know and understand more about other people than we do, and reacting to our mental construction of them, rather than really listening.

i'm a transwoman. i think most people can agree that living as a man or as a woman in this society is a different experience. i don't claim to "feel like a woman", i only know that the social identity "woman" suits me a lot better than "man" did.

it's arrogant for people to tell me that instead of transitioning, i should just fight to change society, as if i don't already do that, and as if they somehow have a right to expect me to live my life in the way that best suits them. it's wrong to assume i grew up with male privilege. being who i am got me a lot of physical and emotional violence, at school and at home, and even as an adult i never had the personality traits that would have allowed me to claim male privilege. being male might be necessary for such privileges, but it most certainly is not sufficient.

i don’t pass well, so by simply living life as myself i "fight the binary" every day. i know that some people hate me though they've never met me. i would hope that people who think of themselves as progressive, who think that biology is not destiny, who want to challenge the social constructs that limit all people, would give me a little more respect, and not assume that they understand all about my life and my identity because they talked to someone once, or read something somewhere, or know someone who knows someone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Social constructs
Posted by: jbitch on Aug 5, 2008 9:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A man who wants to believe that he's a woman is still a man just as a white man who believes he's an African-American is still a white man. You don't give up your assumptions & entitlements of privilege just because you've decided you don't belong there anymore.

'Deconstructing gender' so that the 'identity' of woman is accessible to men is no different than deconstructing the identity of African-Americans to make it accessible to white men.

I am American and the only thing I need do to become an African-American is to go and get dual citizenship on both continents. It is that simple. Obviously though it still does not make me anything like a person who has been born black and raised in this country as less than a second-class citizen.

So should I be able now to require that African-Americans change how they see themselves and their history (since clearly it doesn't include me then it is and always has been discriminatory)? Should they now be required to acknowledge that they are/were wrong and have to drop the whole idea of who they think they are in order to accommodate me and others like me? After all we are an invisible minority in the African-American community and the only way we can come out to our true selves is through reconfiguration of our bodies although this might not be enough to enable us to pass. After all, who has seen an African-American with wild Irish red hair or straight Nordic blonde?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Social constructs Posted by: klm68
» RE: Social constructs Posted by: libgal
» RE: Social constructs Posted by: klm68
» RE: Social constructs Posted by: kjm80
876
Posted by: 876 on Aug 6, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I posted a harmless comment on this article although it was perhaps unsympathetic to transgender women and it was deleted. I can’t imagine why. It didn’t include profanity or hateful remarks. I’ve seen some of the most racist crap on this site yet such a remark would be deleted. This is why I’ve grown to feel only disdain for American liberals almost as much as the red necks. You’re all really the same at the core.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 876 Posted by: Elijah Nella
» Thoughtcrime Posted by: pomes
If the Shoe Doesn't Fit, Change the Shoe, Don't Cut the Foot
Posted by: Libertine on Aug 6, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to the experiences of people in the transgender community, I have a few misgivings to share.

First of all, "masculinity" and "femininity" are not inherent maleness and femaleness. The first two are sex roles; the expected personality traits society has assigned to people with male and female bodies, and they vary across cultures and eras.

I fully understand an individual feeling that the sex role they've been assigned doesn't fit their personality or inclinations. And I support people who eschew conforming to such stereotypical sex roles and live according to the dictates of their own personality and inclinations.

But what I think would be helpful would be to remove the gender labels altogether from personality traits. Thus a strong man is strong, not masculine, and a strong woman is strong, not mannish. A gentle man would be gentle, not womanish and a gentle woman would gentle, not feminine. And so on. Perhaps if our society viewed personality traits without gender labels at all, more people would not feel as if they were born the wrong sex.

But I'm afraid I don't really understand taking the drastic step of surgically altering one's body in order to live out the desired sex role. After all, surgery doesn't turn one into the other sex; it merely give one the cosmetic outer appearance of the desired sex. Hormones must be taken for a lifetime, as one would revert back to the characteristics of the birth sex if hormones were discontinued. And, of course, the skeletal structure and the DNA cannot be altered. And the key thing that women can do that men cannot -- to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term -- is not made possible by surgery.

That being said, I do support the right of anyone to do with their bodies and their lives as they see fit. And I suppose it makes life easier if one's body matches the sex role that society expects, but I know I couldn't do it if I had the same concerns as transsexual individuals. I'd just prefer to keep the body I was born with and thumb my nose at society and act as was natural to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, who is oppressing whom here?
Posted by: redceres on Aug 6, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have noticed that any attempt to stand up for the plight of women being, oh, the plight of WOMEN is to be taken as evidence that one is a bigot.

I have noticed that questioning the framing of the debate means that one is a bigot.

I have noticed that using terminology that even one other person disagrees with--even if that person questions his/her own response later in the same post--means that one is a bigot.

I have seen that expressing any doubt or concern about the debate being short-circuited means that one is a bigot.

I have seen that personal examples/experiences are perfectly fine as irrefutable evidence to bolster an entire group for one side, but even qualified personal examples/experiences from the other side are just. . . oh, let's stick with the same word. Bigoted.

I have one comment.

Get off your cross. Saint Cecilia.

This is a !@#!$ conversation, not a forum for one group of people to villify another for disagreeing on points--or even for questioning terms and limitations.

Now, who exactly is trying to shut down this conversation? Who exactly is trying to oppress whom?

Can we have an actual conversation here, not just a collection of questions and points each to be followed by holier-than-thou posturing that descends into "You HATE us!" before actually addressing any of the aforementioned points?

The people you are screaming at are progressives. Posters such as hagwind are sincerely trying to get some commentary on valid points. A response other than "I'm right because I FEEL like I'm right--and you're just a BIGOT!" would be helpful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh, for heaven's sake/ Posted by: redceres
Sex only matters in reproduction
Posted by: John Howard on Aug 6, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This brings up issues that i just wrote about at my blog yesterday:

There were some interesting articles in the New York Times recently about testing female athletes at the Beijing Olympics if they were "suspected" of being male. (article and op-ed)I agree with those articles that verifying gender is needlessly intrusive and problematic and should not be done for athletes, but disagree when the articles veer from athletics and try to assert the broader Postgenderist position that sex itself is needless and obsolete, malleable and fluid, and should not be fixed or determined by anyone for any reason. What does it mean to "live as" a gender, if not an offensive embrace of stereotypes?There is of course one area where sex matters: reproduction. People with intersexed conditions, XXY chromosomes, and fluid gender expression have always existed, but never has any person reproduced as both a man and a woman, never has anyone both fathered and mothered offspring. Every person has one sex which they are most likely able to reproduce as, and one sex (the other sex) with whom they are most likely able to reproduce with, and that never changes throughout a person's life. It might not match, and need not define, the legal or social or apparent sex by which a person lives or even believes themselves to be, but it usually does and always should (though its OK when it doesn't). But that "most-likely-to-conceive-as" sex is what matters when it comes to reproduction: people should only be allowed to conceive as the sex which they are most likely to succeed as. After we enact the egg and sperm law, labs would make that determination if they are hired to facilitate a conception. Obviously merely living as or legally being the other sex cannot be a way around the egg and sperm law, or the law will not shut the door on genetic modification. But that lab-determination would be private, the public wouldn't know why the couple was unable to conceive.On the other hand, if a couple is publicly, legally, a same-sex couple, but both-sexed by their most-likely-to-conceive-as sex, they would be publicly prohibited from attempting to conceive, even though their genes were in fact complementary. A lab would have to turn same-sex couples away at the door after looking at their legal sex, they wouldn't even get to the stage where genetic imprinting matters. If they were somehow able to do it naturally even though presenting as a same-sex couple, that should be cause to correct their legal sex (though not their gender expression).To sum up, these articles are wrong that sex is fluid and cannot be defined. A woman is someone who would most likely be able to conceive with a man, a man is someone who would be most likely able to conceive with a woman. People should only be allowed to conceive as the sex which they are most likely to succeed as, and should be assigned that sex at birth, and their fertility and sexual identity should be protected as they grow up so that they are able to marry and procreate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Could you clarify. . . Posted by: redceres
» RE: Could you clarify. . . Posted by: John Howard
» Er, no. Posted by: redceres
» You're confused Posted by: John Howard
» Same old Catholic crap. . . Posted by: redceres
» RE: Same old Catholic crap. . . Posted by: John Howard
» My website: www.eggandsperm.org Posted by: John Howard
Other reasons for exclusion? Competition? Fear?
Posted by: mcubed on Aug 6, 2008 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow.

This article exposed me to a controversy I wasn't aware of. The exlusion of trans-women from the festival is sad to hear about. It's also interesting to read about theory I haven't read.

It's sort of funny, that as a heterosexual woman, I have another take on possible motives for the exclusion, based on my own experience.

Three trans-women whom I've met or been aquainted with stand out in my memory. One is a friend who generally dresses and behaves the same as other average "women born women" in my community. She is someone I accept in my community, with no questions.

But, I'm embarrassed to say that the other two trans-women struck a nerve with me, and out of my own insecurity I could identify with the idea of excluding them.

The first trans-woman I ever met was in college. She was beautiful, and wore all the latest styles, and hung out with who I considered the "pretty popular girls" (in art school in the 80's). I found myself jealous of her at school dances, because I always felt she looked better than me in her cute mini-skirt outfits. These feelings were based purely on seeing her as "competition" for the fixed # of straight guys. Probably not realistic, but it was an emotional response that was pretty strong for me.

The third trans-woman that sticks out in my mind was part of an "early 60's retro-dressed couple" handling the Log Cabin Republicans Booth at a Gay Pride event. It was a bit surreal, as my friends and I approached- four (woman-born) feminists ranging from 36-70 years old, out to support the gay community through our participation in this event. And here we were, politely receiving info on a political party we strongly disagreed with, from a woman dressed like the throw-back time none of us wanted to return to. I wanted to support her right to be, but I hated the image she had chosen.

I wonder if some baser reasons, fueled by competition and fear, might also play into the exclusion of trans-women at the festival.

Michele

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry, Michele-- Posted by: redceres
» No Problem Posted by: mcubed
» Fest isn't about them Posted by: jbitch
» RE: Fest isn't about them Posted by: AlexTM
» Common Alternet practice. . . Posted by: redceres
» RE: Fest isn't about them Posted by: klm68
Spotting the Transsexual at the MWMF
Posted by: Dallas Suz on Aug 6, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The easiest way to spot the self loathing closet case post-SRS transsexual who has infiltrated the women's movement, lesbian organization or the Michigan Wymon's Music Festival is to look for the woman most loudly and viciously bashing women born transsexual. The one who sets the razor thin line of what WBTs must do to be accepted and then trashes those who manage to walk that line for conforming to it.

The self loathing closet case post-SRS woman who does this is the identical twin of the self loathing homophobic gays and lesbians who are the loudest anti- gay and lesbian bigots.

So next time some woman starts loudly bashing transsexuals look carefully at their hands and feet. Are they too loud, too aggressive? Examine them by the same standards they use to attack women with a transsexual history.

You might be surprised

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just sayin'
Posted by: duoseraphim on Aug 6, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a middle-aged lesbian and I firmly believe in equality for all. I am also a practical separatist who minimizes her time with men.

That said, I would rather spend the day with Julia and her friends, than angry fezbian lemonists, transmales, and straight women. Being a womyn-born-womyn just does not, in my experience, give you a special leg up on being a nice, evolved, kind, generous human being.

And, speaking from experience, I must contend that large outdoor gatherings of women are not something to which you want to get access. Not that much fun. Let's start our own indoor gathering of people who don't want to judge others, who want to have fun, and who want to stick it to the oligarchy. Just sayin.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are we still debating transsexual identities?
Posted by: eastsidekate on Aug 6, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a transsexual woman with passing privilege. I've been away from the blogosphere and web forums for about a month, and it's been one of the calmest, most pleasant months I've ever had-- despite a certain amount of upheaval in my life.

Discussions like this are one of the reasons I want to go back offline. In my day-to-day life, I'm accepted as a woman. It's a non-issue. When I talk to friends that are also trans, we take it as a given that trans identities are legitimate; they aren't any better or worse than any other identities, but they most certainly are legitimate.

I agree with Julia's analysis. I also think it's necessary for all of us, even those of us who can disappear into the woodwork, to start these discussions. That said, I find it deeply disturbing, nay, soul crushing, to see it playing out again online.

There's just not a debate to be had about the merits of transsexual identities-- no more than there's one to be had about sexual or ethnic identities. The continued existence of this debate, in and of itself, is the most personally offensive thing I can imagine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why some comments were deleted
Posted by: Elijah Nella on Aug 6, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet's full policy on comments is below and at the top of the page when you make a comment. It includes that AlterNet will not tolerate "racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language."

If you believe you didn't include hateful remarks or that you made "a harmless comment", and your comment or one you read was deleted, you might want to re-examine what you said and how that could be read (and how I or someone else read it) as transphobic (and harmful), which is one form of hateful language.

That being said, unfortunately we do not have the capacity to monitor and delete every single racist/hateful/homophobic/etc. comment (although we sure wish we could!).

I say this as a trans person who was personally offended by certain comments which were deleted and read them as overtly transphobic.

Love freedom of speech; could easy do without hate speech.

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

AlterNet will not tolerate:

* personal attacks on our writers or readers
* excessive profanity
* racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language
* comments that are off-topic or irrelevant to the story or discussion at hand

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do they ALL LOOK ALIKE?
Posted by: svomact on Aug 6, 2008 5:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the vitriol. name calling & presumptions different sides make (& there are NOT just 2 sides to these issues). One of my concerns here is that I feel of alienated from both the feminist camp & the transgender camp. I never felt that either bunch of folks was really much of a consistent group, yet, both are vilified or argued with, as if they "All looked alike" or something.

The Once-in-blue-moon , women's only dance in Dallas, had 2 or 3 incidents of people at the door having their ID checked, & in each incident it was a born woman. (They welcome trans-women).

I'm very bothered by people that try to claim *I* am somehow against them,or that *I* have done something they find crazy or stupid, or "against nature"

I don't identify, as male or female. I *DO* identify as "not male" & whats left? I was happy being androgynous (prefer word "gynandronous") A LOT easier being a tomboy, than a sissy.

I've considered myself , a feminist & transgender. I am both feminine & masculine & all of those brain sex & life tests. I measure more masculine than the average man & more feminine than the average woman. Seems ok to me. Bugs a lot of other folks tho.

I had some genetic or hormonal things going on, but as best I can tell , I was raised pretty much _like_ a boy,tho it never "took". How would I know if I had been raised _like_ a girl?

Hagwind? I don't think "transgender ideology" exists. AS best I can tell, pretty
much exclusively non-trans-folk (like yourself?) have defined & limited them until
only 3 or 10 years ago, & not even now do they define any ideologies. There aren't big
groups of trans* @ meetings (I've tried to attend some, seemed like the big topic was how
to get a job) where ideology is even a subject. Please DON"T TELL THEM WHAT THEY THINK!
It seems pretty ,sigh, _oppressive_.


Funnyfarm12? love ya to death, & you sound incredible but PLEASE, I beg you to not suggest people "shut up", open mind? yes, yes, but we *SO* need to talk! All of us. Trans, women, feminists of each & every sex /gender. Allies & Enemies.

Planet Doomed? "unless the person is mentally ill or has a fetish." So does this apply to natal people that get nose jobs, or lipo? or only trannies?

My feeling is all of these ideological ____s (feminists,trans*, etc) are doomed. All ideologies are wrong. Thats the deal. I work with people,not ideologies.

I think one of the biggest issues, in all of *MY* life, is NOT being oppressed like a
female, or being oppressed like a ___,but instead ,be treated like a _child_.



Were Ms Serano's ideas:?

1. MWMF has mistreated *some* trans-women. yep, I'll agree with that,but like SO FRIGGIN
What? I'm sorry, I can't imagine even wanting to Go there. It became a big piss*ng match, not really related to trans* or feminism, or women ,or music, a long time ago. I've also known a handful of trans-women that gleefully reported to me, how happy they were that they snuck in & fit in so incredibly well (with lesbian separatist?). This is what? 30 thousand women? or %0.003 of the worlds population? this is a real PROBLEM? most of the trans-women I know they are struggling to find & hold a job. Seems a lot bigger deal to me.



2. *SOME* Feminists mis-treat trans-women. doesn't every ideological mistreat somebody?


3.Resistance to trans-women is misogyny originating from women.

The people in my life that I've personally known that most dis-liked other women,were... uh,women. Maybe she didn't realize she was being welcomed to the club?



So, in terms of acceptance, shouldn't this be a positive thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do they ALL LOOK ALIKE? Posted by: jbitch
interesting discussion
Posted by: bluebirdella on Aug 6, 2008 8:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does sexism really drive discrimination against MTF transexuals? As a born-woman, I'm not convinced it does - not completely, although I'm sure it's half right. A number of years ago, a group I belonged to was planning a women-only event. There was a trans-woman in the group, who was born male - even if the community hadn't known from observing the transition, the big bones, big hands, etc. were a giveaway. She wanted to attend this event. Some born-women, (mostly straight, as I recall) were very critical of the idea (although the trans-woman was allowed to participate) on the grounds that this person was "not really a woman." If she had presented more convincingly as a traditional female, I don't think there would have been an issue (that's the transphobia part.) People knew she had been raised as a man, and had fathered at least one child in a former marriage - she was very open about it. Fine with me. But what didn't sit right at all was an unmistakable aura of male privilege and sexism against women. How can you be a woman and still be sexist against women? We all do it to some degree, as this article so painfully illuminates - but this person was condescending in a way a woman would never be to another woman. Born-women who are straight don't have dick-measuring contests - it's just not something we do. Part of what binds born-women in women-only environments is a sense of shared history and destiny, and I think it's hard to share the destiny and history of a woman-born-woman if one is not. Doesn't mean people shouldn't try, or that other people are justified in preventing them from trying - but I suspect it requires a willingness to give up male privilege in the process. That privilege which is a state of mind, more than a change of body or appearance or name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what male privilege is
Posted by: bluebirdella on Aug 6, 2008 10:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for anyone who might wonder what I'm talking about....Male privilege is when someone thinks his voice in the room is the only one that matters, that others exist to serve him socially or sexually, his perspective is the only valid perspective so he doesn't need to be bothered by trying to become aware of other perspectives, and that he knows more and better than everyone else about everything. That he has the right to claim ownership over every environment, to fill up every space. That he has the right to the best of everything available, and his needs should be met first. Women can't - in very real and practical terms - get away with that attitude. It just doesn't work. It shouldn't work for anyone - yet somehow, men CAN get away with it and be seen as more "masculine" and worthy because it. The ability to get away with self-centered, hoggish behavior and even get approval for it is what I mean by male privilege.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what male privilege is Posted by: AlexTM
» RE: what male privilege is Posted by: AlexTM
Fest is about women, not trans
Posted by: jbitch on Aug 6, 2008 10:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the first place the fest is all about women who were born female and lived all their lives under the burden of that. The festival is about us, not transwomen who lived most of their lives as men and who often display absoulutely no comprehension about what life is like for us.

We have the right to have our own space and time together in a manner that empowers and enables us to face a world that hates us. To frame this as an instance of discrimination/exclusion is wrong, manipulative and dishonest.

There are over 70 other women-oriented festivals that are open to trans participation but they consistently leave this info out of stories such as this one because they want to continue to bring pressure on us to 'include' them at the one festival we want for ourselves.

Fest is also overwhelmingly a lesbian space so to have people who are/were straight men there is horribly wrong and oppressive. Being a lesbian is a sexual orientation, not a gender orientation and we know the difference and we value the little time and space that we have as it is to get together and just be ourselves among ourselves.

Finally the ugly underbelly of the trans movement and their attitudes towards women is that they demand that anyone, ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, who "has at any time in their lives 'identified' as a woman be allowed access to lesbian/women's spaces." In a nutshell this is meant to destroy lesbian identity, our movement and make everything about us accessible at any time to any man who only need mouth the words "I feel like a woman today" and waltz on in to lesbian space.

Of course Serano is not going to say this in these slanted articles she puts out, this is the shit they keep under wraps all the while they put on a pretty face and make like they're the new minority being horribly oppressed by lesbians.

Young lesbians today and growing up with the message that there's something wrong with them and that they need to 'transition' because they're really men inside. This is a horrible distortion and reiteration of the message that lesbians are somehow really pathetic deformed men. This is a powerful reiteration and retrenchment of the heteropatriarchial view of men=strong women=weak gender binary. In Iran gays and lesbians are executed unless they agree to undergo state-sanctioned and blessed sex-reassigment surgeries.

Do we really want that here too? It's so blatently right-wing and institutional it's just too scary to comprehend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: AlexTM
» RE: Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: jbitch
» RE: Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: AlexTM
» RE: Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: jbitch
» RE: Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: AlexTM
» RE: Uhm ... who says that? Posted by: Dallas Suz
You want to know why some transwomen are not welcome?
Posted by: MgWade on Aug 7, 2008 4:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some transwomen are not welcome in womyn-only space because they are not yet socialized and socializing as women.

If you are brought up as a male in a male-privilege society (well, any society, actually), there is some unlearning and relearning to do. Different people do these things at different speeds; some will never get it.

I have known transwomen who integrated into their new world (for lack of a better way to put this succinctly) in no time; I have known some who might never seem female to other females. The analogy about African-Americans may be best. There are SO many unconscious behaviors and patterns that are SO different, yet subtle.

The easiest one to point out, in my experience, is the amount of time male-habit-patterned folks will speak in a group in which everyone is waiting to have a say.

Yes, this is a generalization. Yes, it is untrue for many. And, yes, it is one of the things that WBW notice sometimes in transwomen, and quietly look at each other and speak without speaking. There are more of these things; I am surprised this is not being mentioned much in this discussion. Perhaps I missed it in all the outrage.

The problem is so hard to clarify that it is easier to just disallow them all. After all, how do you fairly sort people by such subtle behaviors? Some of the WBW are not consciously aware of why, but they will say, this person doesn't FEEL female. It is because they are treading on the unspoken and unconscious boundaries of our WBW culture.

And, BTW, there are plenty of transwomen who are welcome anywhere as far as some of these same WBW are concerned. The difference is how they BEHAVE. Sometimes it just takes time and attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Are So Right Posted by: SueLiz
» RE: You Are So Right Posted by: ottawagirl
Ignorance is such an expensive waste of time.
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 9, 2008 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you are right from your own perspectives and all of you are wrong outside of those perspectives, so it doesn't make much sense to keep arguing.

I'll throw in something here that I think is very true. The medical profession, in spite of it's denials to the contrary, is creating much of what you see and are referring to. I have been a guest speaker at several group gatherings for MTF transsexuals and have been horrified by the vast numbers who will never, ever pass as women, no matter how much surgery the have. Before you start responding let me say I completely support the right of anyone to be whatever they wish. However, being a very empathetic person, I can spot a midlife crisis, a fantasy seeker, or unhappy reality escapist easily enough. The last group gathering I attended, there were about sixty MTF pre-op trassexuals. I do believe over two thirds of them were destined for a life of misery as there was no way they were going to blend in as women. That is not even to mention the very obvious lack of social abilities displayed or physical impossibilities. I blame their therapists and the doctors who perform the surgeries for exploiting what I considered to be disturbed people. Especially in Iight of the fact that these people have the highest suicide rate of any group in the country. I cannot speak for FTM's but I certainly imagine the scenario's are somewhat similar. I am entirely confident that I would not raise the slightest question going to a women's only event. I'm fortunate in that regard. However, I would not in the least appreciate seeing the specter of men dressed as women at a women's event. I just believe it stretches the bounds of credibility. One would have to live in a fantasy world to expect anyone to look at at a man dressed in women's clothes and accept them as a woman. My grandmama always told me, "you make your bed and lay on it" I made damn sure that my choice to transition from male to female would bring me both peace, happiness and authenticity. So I do wonder how someone with no hope of passing can expect peace, joy or authenticity. I have yet to meet the the authentic person who feels shunned. So back to the doctors and therapists and the lacks regulations that lead to far too much unhappiness and far too many suicides on account of their procedures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A small observation
Posted by: BobKincaid on Aug 10, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to Julia Serrano for opening this door to the deep and swift-flowing undercurrent of our reality. I initially opened the article because I recognized her name from hearing her on Peter's Godbold's "Strictly Confidential."

What we're witnessing here is a modern version of self-imposed Plessy-style "separate but equal."

We know empirically that there is safety in numbers, and yet we willingly winnow those numbers because we have dogmatic and doctrinal difficulties and differences.

The lesbians don't like the transfolk and the gay folk are disdainful of bi- people and straight people who try to be understanding are distrusted just the same and remain confused. People of faith are suspicious of atheists who just want to be left alone.

Separate but equal. Yep. That's gonna work out real well.

If I may point it out, the Right-wing doesn't engage in any of these finer distinctions. They just hate all of us.

The Nazis had a really cute color-coding system so they could tell which undesirable they were looking at and so the undesirables could tell why they were undesirable. Pink triangles and yellow stars and so forth made it all easily discernable.

Two weeks ago today (Sunday, 27 July 2008) a right-wing terrorist filled-to-bursting with the steady diet of right-wing print and radio hate on which he (like millions of Americans) had dined for years, walked into a gender/sexuality-welcoming church in Knoxville, TN and opened up with a shotgun. In the process, he killed the straight foster-father of a transteen. He meant to kill more and he wasn't checking to see how people were "born" before he pulled the trigger. Is that clear enough?

He didn't stop to ask where the lesbians were, or the transfolk or the "librulz." He just started killing. And that was good enough for him.

That's equally true in most of right-wing world. We are, all of us, distinctions without a difference to them. We are, all of us, "what's wrong with 'Murkkka." We are, all of us, better off dead.

When the next right-wing terrorist attacks one (or one thousand) of us, for whatever reason, be it lesbian, gay, trans, liberal, progressive, atheist or all of the above, will we take some level of comfort in being able to say "Well, at least no one was there who wasn't BORN to be there!" For the sake of all of us, I hope not.

"Separate but equal" doesn't work. It never has and never will. It artifically imposes distinctions where there are no differences in the commonality of our humynity.

All those color-coded folks in the death camps were ultimately distinctions without a difference, too. They found their common ground in the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A small observation Posted by: ottawagirl
Just curious..
Posted by: makncheese on Aug 11, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those in the "Michfest is for women born women only" camp, because only women who are raised as women understand other women...

What if I was born with ambiguous genitalia...but never spent a moment being socialized as male? In other words, what if I was raised as female? Would I still be excluded? What if I had transitioned as a baby, and, except for the first three years, spent my entire LIFE as a girl, and then a woman, would you still exclude me?

How about if I transitioned when I went into kindergarten? Would that be enough or do I still have to stand outside with everyone else who isn't female enough? If I did decide to attend, and I participated, and THEN told my story, would you throw me out, claiming I wasn't female?

Whats the cutoff line, so to speak? Is it an all or nothing proposition, no matter HOW one was raised?

If I attend MichFest, am I required to show a birth certificate to anyone? If I'm too masculine looking, will someone take me aside and ask me to "prove" my history? How is that handled? Do I have to provide references from my childhood to make sure that others believe me?Or, is it just an "on your honor" thing...and anyone who claims WBW can get in?

I'm just asking...in case I do feel like attending. I'm not an in-your-face kind of person, and I just can't stand the thought that someone doesn't want me near them because of all that. It really hurts me to think that it does.

I hope I'm not being to difficult, or trying to make others feed hurt too. I just want to know what I'm supposed to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do I have to be identified at all. What business.....
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 11, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why do I have to be identified at all. What business is it of anyones?
I am a MTF transsexual only because I wasn't born with the body I wished my whole life I had been born with. It would have been soo much simpler for me to have been born a woman, rather than go through all the hurdles and surgeries to become one. Now that I am a woman, and doing very well, thank you, do I have to identify myself a transsexual? That just seems soo pathetic. Just as it would be pathetic to prevent non Jews from attending a Bah Mitzvah. What is it with all this deplorable, angry and hateful segregationist attitude we are witnessing here? It seems as if there is just so much fear and anger. Don't we have enough of this kind of thing, racism, religionism, sexism, and on and on ad nausium. All that really matters is as Alice Walker so well put it, "Love is concerned that the beating of your heart should kill no one." Why even inch one iota away from that in separatist ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks for that post
Posted by: kjm80 on Aug 18, 2008 9:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank god I'm not the only one.

Hearing angry denials of my very existence from other oppressed groups is the sort of thing that really f'd me up.

I'd already internalized that sort of thing before being confronted with them, and I certainly don't need any help with it.

Usually, I just avoid comments on websites completely, and this was a considerable train-wreck. I wish I had kept away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Transwomen & Feminism
Posted by: CA NOW on Aug 20, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're writing about this on the CA NOW blog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i don't know...
Posted by: terrakitty on Aug 22, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i love "Whipping Girl" and i liked this article a lot. i have issues with some of it, of course, but i'm jaded by my love of the book...and because i identify as transgender.

i won't rehash any of the pain of going through transition, or the slams that you hear a lot about. or read here. thankfully i live in Seattle and i'm a social worker, so most of my circle are pretty cool about gender and approach me compassionately.

however, i get stumped about a lot of this stuff, especially about "natural" or "real" women. yeah, i'm not going to have a period, ever, or have a baby. being raised male, i was encouraged to never have anything to do with what was feminine (though my father failed at that).

see, i wasn't born male. i was born intersex. doctors and my parents made the decision that i was probably more boy than girl and i had some surgeries and then hey, lookit that, she's a boy! :) so i was socialized male, even though i could have probably gone either way, physically. what's funny is that my mom was a huge feminist, and lots of feminist writings were required reading around the house for me. :) but who knows...maybe i'm the sort that if i was raised as a girl (who couldn't have babies, or a period...like many other "natural" or "real" women) then i'd be a trans man right now. i have no idea, but i kind of doubt it...

but it seems to me that with so many "natural" variations in sexuality, it's pretty hard to just pin down what a "natural" man or woman is without turning to socialization, which then implies to me that the only way to determine a "natural" or "real" man or woman is to look at how they were raised. and since i was called "he," but i was queer, immersed in feminism, hung out mostly with girls, and did mostly "girly" things. so do i get to be maybe 33% natural woman? i don't know.

and before you say i'm an aberrant freak, please do a little research on how prevelant variations in sexuality occur. i claim the title "freak" because of the tattoos and piercings and the massive amounts of adolescent testosterone i took. but bashing otherwise is just plain mean, and i'm already pretty saddened by this forum.

anyway, it seems to me that it's not quite as easy as either looking at physical sex characteristics at birth or even socialization. so what and who determines a "natural" woman or man? and because i happen to have an intersex "excuse," do i get a pass while other trans women don't? or am i even more anethema because i don't fit the whole scientific paradigm without complex diagnoses? these days i'm not read as often as a couple years ago, and i'm treated like a woman -- for good or ill -- by most everyone. i'm out about it all, so it gets really funny shifting some people's paradigms when it comes up, but i still don't get to be a "woman." why? who says? the doctors? the Man(tm)? society? because we all know society is homogenous.

so i don't know. i won't say i'm right, because i simply don't know. i won't even support my claim to be a woman a lot of the time because people are SO ADAMANT i'm not. that's okay, my personal opinion is that gender is stupid in the long run, but sure a lot of fun to play with. but i do ask -- because people seem to be so sure what a "natural" or "real" man or woman is -- how do you determine that? i'd like to know, because in America, i don't get to be "other." (not that i want to claim that, either...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement