So Heart, bless her heart, has taken up the mantle of saying ignorant things about transsexuality so recently abrogated by Yawning Lion, to wit:
So long as there is this idea that presenting or living in a certain way means a person ought to “transition,” or ought to “change sex,” or ought to “identify as” one sex or another, there will be no revolution. There will simply continue to be human beings conforming to gender stereotypes and identifying as “men” and “women” on the basis of how male heterosupremacy has defined those stereotypes.
I hear this idea a lot, that transsexuality solves nonconformity to gender roles. I don’t hear it very often from actual transsexuals. When I was coming out and seeking support, I was not told at any stage of the process that I had to behave a certain way or that behaving a certain way made me a “real” transsexual. My inability to pass and decision not to attempt to pass were met with acceptance; in fact, I found and continue to find plenty of transmen who proudly cherish a-masculine, anti-masculine, and openly transsexual/trans-historical facets of their lives and presentations. I consider these people valuable allies; they are some of our most revered, most vocal, most tenacious activists.
Nor were any of my doctors or therapists particularly interested in cultivating or screening for masculinity on my part. I received some candid feedback on how well I did pass, and what that would mean with regard to life in a sexist and transphobic society, but there was no implication that I should try harder, or that my refusal to try indicated a lack of real transsexuality on my part. Instead, they openly discussed support systems and safety mechanisms for queer-presenting people, and expressed the hope that they could protect all of the choices of all of their clients. They had my back. There are certainly sexist and homophobic gatekeepers out there–IIRC, Heart has in the past approvingly quoted one of the most abusive offenders–but they are trending into irrelevance and I have been lucky enough to escape them.
I have also encountered an evolving attitude towards masculinity in transmen themselves. Generally speaking, we tend to be masculine when we think we need to be. We react to the presence of sexism in larger society just as men do. When we are taught and pressured to adopt abusive, brittle masculinity, we do so. When we have access to alternative behaviors, we loosen up. It’s not that we behave a certain way, and therefore believe we have to become male. Rather, we identify as male and therefore may internalize to varying degrees social sexist ideas about male behavior. Masculinity is variable and extremely plastic among transmen, even when male identity definitely is not. Some of us also adopt stereotypical masculinity on a contingent basis, to cover for us until our bodies sort us reliably into “male.” When we start passing regularly, we can display behaviors sometimes described as “feminine” without ceasing to be men.
I have never been masculine, and probably will never be masculine. Moving through the world as male is undoubtedly bringing pressure to bear in one direction as opposed to the other. I don’t have any interest in conforming to that pressure, so I have developed a studied obliviousness to the ways in which I did and did not read masculine. I still display behaviors that are not masculine–things like inflection, smiling too much, eye contact, for example. As I slowly internalize the reality that people read me as gay or effeminate or feminine or different but still as male, it’s much easier for me to discard whatever residual self-consciousness I had about it. I make a lousy dude, but I have no problem with that, and neither do the ftms I know and love. I wouldn’t feel comfortable any other way.
Like I said, we don’t believe that behaving a certain way means you should just go change sex already. In fact, most of the times I’ve heard that myth–at least among People Who Should Know Better But Who Obviously Do Not, as opposed to the straight world–it’s been from feminists like Heart and Yawning Lion. Look at the Alix Dobkin essay. How many non-ex-butch, non-masculine, non-heterosexual transmen are represented there? We aren’t invested in the idea of transsexuality as a way of creating gender-role conformity where it cannot be enforced. They are.
Alas, what would Heart & Friends do if we were’nt around??
As I am not familiar with her work, does she always, well, overlook nontrans folks? I mean ought tos and shoulds are heard by nontrans folks, too, right.
So right on.
A hearty and resounding bah humbug to you, too, piny! I thought this was the day we were going to blog for radical fun, think about why we appreciate each other, kick back, party and so on, and here you are, being a total grouch. Gah.
You too, Jay Sennett. And nice to meet you, we haven’t had the pleasure yet, I don’t think. :/
It will be a very long time, if it ever happens, before I debate the feminist politics of transitioning again. I have done that to death, I have paid, in real and material ways, for having argued for and for having defended a currently-unpopular, not-trendy radical feminist, lesbian separatist position, and at some point, you know, it’s just enough.
But I want to say this to you. I will go to the mat for you, politically– for your civil rights and for your human rights. I will go to the mat for you, defending you, even if I do deeply disagree with you politically about some of these issues. In our online interaction, I will do whatever I can to evidence respect for you; I will not call you out of your name in any way, shape or form, not intentionally. If I flub up, I will sincerely apologize. Where there are efforts underway to enact legislation or ordinances which would discriminate against you, I will fight them in every way I can. I will stand up for you. I will be on your side.
This is all to say, yes, I disagree with you politically when it comes to issues around gender and transitioning, and I cannot with integrity pretend otherwise. I can’t keep silent, I can’t not speak up, use my own voice, register my own view. That’s what feminism is to me. That’s what it is to live out my politics and to use my own one voice.
That does not mean I don’t see or get your position, that I don’t have respect for you, or most importantly, again, that I won’t fight for you against haters, if and when it comes to that. I will. There is never any justification for discrimination of any kind against any marginalized group, or for hatred of any kind. I will never approve it, endorse it, or ignore it. I give you my word on that.
I know you’re going to bring up Michigan, and I don’t want to spend a bunch of time talking about this stuff today, so let me just cut to the chase and say what I have to say and get it out of the way. Yes, I have, and I will, also go to the mat in defense of woman-only space. I believe that my people — the people of women — have a right to our own spaces and to define and defend the boundaries of our own spaces. If you argue that with me, and if I decide to engage your arguments, I will defend my own position to the best of my ability and with all the energy I can muster (all the while doing my best not to disrespect you, personally). I believe my position to be an eminently defensible and eminently feminist position.
Having said all of that, you know what? Those who show up on the Land in August who share your views can expect to receive nothing but courtesy from me. Like a good woman on the Fest boards said about a different issue, “If they’re feelin’ it…” I am not your enemy, just as you are not mine, and I would will never ever argue that you are.
Heart
You know what? If I have to dance for you, I want no part of your revolution.
If you think that joyous appreciation should be the driving ethos of the day, don’t complain–even in a kidding on the square sense–when someone calls you on your radical failure.
Hah! I remember our last online “interaction,” Heart; I’m a transsexual, not a goldfish. All of this speech depends on ideas about what constitutes discrimination and respect that plenty of transpeople, myself included, do not share with you. And “in our online interaction” is a pretty telling qualification, given the things I’ve seen you say and agree with when transpeople are not present. You are not respectful. You are not my ally, my friend, or my supporter, and you do not get to arrogate those titles for yourself.
I didn’t bring up Michigan, but your assumption tells me a lot about where you’re coming from.
To their faces. To their faces, and that makes all the difference.
Also, this is not about honoring feelings or some vague, bloodless notion of “respect.” It’s about believing and repeating things about transsexuals and transition that are not true. You’re not being honest about anything but your unwillingness to listen. That’s the opposite of “integrity.”
Oh, and you and Jay have met. It doesn’t surprise me that you would have no idea.
very good post, piny. much respect to you for clarity in the face of singleminded wrongness (IMO). thanks for writing.
Oh so now we’re trendy? I’ve seen this assertion before, usually from MSM writers who have just discovered that there are out and happy trans people. It usually goes hand in hand with an observation that there seem to be a lot more of us then they thought. The idea that maybe we are more out in California and some other places is because we now have some legal protections seems never to have occurred to them. Or maybe I’m just being bitter and cynical again.
*sigh*
i find it so frustrating that some radical feminists, who i interpret as being people who are frustrated themselves at men who can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that men just don’t “get it”, just don’t get it.
for the record, i’m not interested in being part of a revolution, nor am i interested in conforming to any pre-defined gender roles. what i am interested in is living my life as i see fit, modifying my body as i feel it will most benefit me and my quality of life, and changing my legal identity so i can make the best of this way too short life i have here on this rock.
I think I understand that it’s not really about conformity or non-conformity to normative masculinity. But then, you say that for you it’s really about being perceived as male. I guess I just can’t see how that’s not about gender roles, unless the meaning of gender roles is artificially restricted. Otherwise, what does it mean to be perceived and responded to as a male rather than a female? Things don’t fit together.
The argument ought to be, what are transmen and transwomen doing in a concrete (not related to transition) fashion to improve gender balance of power and the ability of people to engage in non-gender-typical behavior without penalty. If a transgender person does something useful – they are allies of feminists. If they seek to restrict the lives of women in some concrete way – then they are enemies of feminists. In other words the answer to the question “Are transgender people feminist?”, the answer is “depends”. Just as with female-bodied women. Phyllis Schlafly, a “woman born woman” isn’t any ally of mine.
What’s the big deal about the Michigan festival? Do they have much attendance anymore? Why do a few transwomen want to go? Do their partners want to go, and that’s why they protest at exclusion? Does it have high-quality popular music for cheap, or is it mostly amateur night and hookup season?
I’d rather go to the Glyndebourne Festival (famous opera venue), myself.
Do you not know people who refuse to conform to gender roles and yet identify with the genders they are assigned to? How do you define a gender apart from a gender role?
What if I were not a transsexual, and rejected transition, and insisted on being seen as and honored as a woman? Would you have trouble separating my gender from my gender role then?
[...] njoy from what behavior will bring them the pleasure of greater status in the eyes of men. Trans Responses to Feminist Myths: I have never been masculi [...]
OK… so I guess I have to (rather fearfully, please don’t hate me) admit to still being very confused…
If it’s not about conformity to gender roles, then what is it? I mean, the way I’m understanding what you’re saying, Piny, is that I could today decide that I want to be seen as a man/male, regardless of my female genitalia/stereotypical female behavior. But… why exactly?
If gender and sex are meaningless, then why does anyone bother to transition or require others to regard them as the opposite sex from which they’re born?
I would say the same thing about myself, and I’m cissexual. Ex: I might stand squealing on a chair and let a man deal with a mouse that’s gotten in if he’s there, but if I’m on my own, I’ll catch it myself. My (rather irrational) fear of the mouse doesn’t change in either situation: only my response. I’m female regardless of what I do.
This statement confuses me. If transmen can act in a non-masculine manner and still be men… how did you make a lousy guy?
I hope this comment made enough sense for a response…
I can’t think why as a feminist I’d object to transsexuals as such. Where I do have a problem is with some popular narratives of what transsexuality is – ones that make it sound as if being out of step with the gender role for your sex makes you “a man in a woman’s body” or “a woman in a man’s body.” But that’s an objection to particular ways of describing transsexuality, not to people’s choice to transition.
If gender and sex are meaningless, then why does anyone bother to transition or require others to regard them as the opposite sex from which they’re born?
You know what? I’m not sure that feminism requires gender and sex to be meaningless. I rather like being identified as female. However, I don’t want my female identity to overwhelm every other part of my identity.
I’m guessing that most of us are looking for a world where being female or male is like being Irish in twenty-first century America: It’s something you’re proud of, and something you can celebrate, but it’s something that doesn’t have much impact on your daily life.
Lynn:
ones that make it sound as if being out of step with the gender role for your sex makes you “a man in a woman’s body” or “a woman in a man’s body.”
These are mostly gross oversimplifications of the condition that are meant for “mass market” consumption. It’s little different than any other stereotyping that goes on. If you get to know a few transsexuals, or read some of the more intelligently written biographies out there (Kate Bornstein is actually rather intriguing in terms of the identity that she has arrived at, for example), you quickly learn that the stereotype is something that fits into the sound byte, not the reality of people’s lives.
The problem that transgender people face is that the “bulk” of the population mixes gender and sexual identities up all over the place. (just look at the language we use) Consequently, a transsexual spends a huge amount of time and energy deconstructing those notions so they can understand themselves. It’s rather hard to then articulate that understanding to someone who hasn’t made such a deconstruction themselves.
My immediate guess, as a person who knows absolutely nothing about transsexuals, is that even in complete equality-ville, women and men are still physically different.
That right there would seem to be enough for some people to prefer one or the other, even in the abscence of defined gender roles.
But then, I’m just guessing. Any feedback from people who actually know what they’re talking about.
How is that transexuals can avoid the conflicts of gender that exist today?
I can understand, not from experience but more from abstracting thinking and empathy, transexuals having to deal with the gender conflicts in regards to their beginning physical construct vs. their mind/emotional/spirit construct, the change over which is (correct me if I’m wrong) bringing the physical inline with the mental, emotional and spritiual alignment, but once the change happens a new set of conflicts exists.
Most of the gender conflicts are based on physical attributes.
you quickly learn that the stereotype is something that fits into the sound byte, not the reality of people’s lives.
In fact, the mtf transsexual I know best has wound up as a woman similar to the way I am a woman – some “feminine” interests and some “masculine” ones – rather than a super feminine woman. Once we both took a quiz on gender roles and one on sexual orientation and both wound up in nearly the same mid-range spot. (Not that internet quizzes mean a whole lot, but in this case I actually do think we’re reasonably similar in our approach to gender roles.)
I can definitely buy that the stuff that bothers me is simplified for mass market consumption. I’ll have to look up Kate Bornstein.
You know what? I’m not sure that feminism requires gender and sex to be meaningless.
Yeah, that’s pretty much how I feel. It’s a matter of not wanting my gender to define my whole self (the kind of stuff that Dorothy Sayers wrote about so eloquently in Are Women Human?)
I don’t know what being “honored as a woman” means, but it sounds pretty gross. I’m none too fond of being “seen as a woman,” either, and again, I have this in common with most women I know. I would certainly be puzzled and displeased by anybody, be they ever so cisgendered, who thought their gender should determine my social behavior. Cisgendered people do in fact think this all the time, which I imagine is your point, but it’s not okay, not acceptable, and not even particularly normal (in many social circles) for them to do so.
And of course, if a man demanded that I “honor him as a man,” my response would be the same whether he were trans- or cis-gendered (and it would be, “Bite me.”)
Such feminist discomfort as I have with these arguments is not at all the kind of discomfort I think you’re pissed at, or at least I hope not: I don’t tell people what gender they are; they tell me. If they feel like it. If they have one. You are of course right that it’s obnoxious and unfair to hold transexual people to different standards re: gender identification. But if it feels wrong for you to be treated as a woman, because you’re not one, surely you don’t think that I or any other woman likes it or deserves it, just because we are?
Which is exactly what one would expect – few people are “hyper”-anything in their behaviour.
You might find The Sexual Spectrum by Olive Skene Johnson an interesting read. She does a very nice job of describing sexuality (and touches on cross-gender topics as well) using a “spectrum of behaviour” model.
After reading that, one tends to very quickly reject any argument that claims that there are “role absolutes”. (Such as what Dobson likes to claim)
I keep thinking of an article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine by Kenji Yoshino (who is a legal scholar at Yale) called The Pressure to Cover and which I thought was a very valuable conceptual tool, and wish it was more widely known (I have it in digital and could email it to anyone interested). It was in part about how people with “outsider identities” should shift future emphasis away from legal protections for groups and group identity, to an emphasis on legal protection for individual liberation and choice. It’s an article about self-censorship and assimilation among other things.
Defining “covering,” he writes, “…a subtler form of discrimination has risen to take its place. This discrimination does not aim at groups as a whole. Rather, it aims at the subset of the group that refuses to cover, that is, to assimilate to dominant norms. And for the most part, existing civil rights laws do not protect individuals against such covering demands.”
And, “The demand to cover is anything but trivial. It is the symbolic heartland of inequality — what reassures one group of its superiority to another. When dominant groups ask subordinated groups to cover, they are asking them to be small in the world, to forgo prerogatives that the dominant group has and therefore to forgo equality.”
Transphobic radical feminists want to exclude a small group of transwomen who ask for equal entry to events and places like the Michigan Women’s Festival, by defining them as not-women. Transphobic radical feminists promote suspicion of transguys by speaking of them and defining them as “butch women who are mutilating their bodies by becoming male and thus actually upholding the patriarchy’s rigid sex-roles, and who may want to accrue the privileges of men and try to dominate me.” Who is, exactly, who is upholding rigid identity roles? Lately I’ve been thinking, “Damn! I thought I was a radical feminist, but apparently, I’m not and don’t want to be! Or should I try to stay in the category and fight to expand the boundaries?” Ha! I’m a liberationist trapped in a radical feminist body! Ha! I’m a post-structuralist, post-feminist, post-queer kindergartner trapped in a loony bin! (Aren’t we all?)
I fail to see how these people—transwomen, transguys, genderqueers–are doing anything but making it easier for me, dharmadyke, to express myself, in fact, I see that my liberation is enhanced immeasurably by their fight. And if I were dharmadude or disabledstraightchick my liberation is again immeasurably enhanced. Because if I were dharmadude OR disabledstraightchick, I would want my range of identity expression to include the choice of public crying or wearing long hair or a manskirt safely and not getting the shit kicked out of me or sneering contempt smeared on me.
As far as understanding the interior experience of Piny, what I understand is that he is pursuing his liberation and expression, and that it feels as demanding, as fraught and as complicated, as simple and natural, as say, my own pursuit of coming out and being a lesbian. But different, and particular to him. Past a certain point, demanding to understand, in my own terms, someone else’s experience, is to try to distort it to be my own experience and emotions about that experience. All other people are radically other and separate from me and demanding that their experience be articulated and packaged for me to understand it is a common form of narcissistic grandiosity. This is not to say that we don’t try to speak to each other of our experiences. But in some ways, understanding is overrated and the demand that your experience be understandable to me is rigid, procrustean in its implementation; but, oops, I’m beginning to speak of both the dharma and D.W.Winnicott—and my feminism as a liberation movement.
I love Kate Bornstein because she is a wise and funny and compassionate teacher among other things. Anyplace that wouldn’t have her, is no place I want to be.
>I have paid, in real and material ways, for having argued for and for having defended a currently-unpopular, not-trendy radical feminist, lesbian separatist position,
…hey, that’s sooper! Can you pay us, too?! It doesn’t have to be material or anything; can you, f’r instance, play “Melancholy Baby?”
No, I mean, I think that’s awfully brave of you, being so stalwart in your marginalization. Really, props! Please keep telling everybody else what their own decisions do and don’t mean and what they should or shouldn’t do with their own bodies; YOU EARNED IT.
and I for one welcome our Evil Egalitarian Overlords. Viva la Revolucion! VIVA!!!
as per the Michigan Fest: as far as I’m concerned the wimmin are welcome to it. or any other campsite they might want, really. nothing says “safe space” to me better than a place where one might be eaten by bears.
of course, other people may feel differently about sleeping on a rock and eating tofuburgers; but, well, until they change their mind, there will be no revolution, so nertz to them.
(25 and 24 were meant to be one post, of course)
(and I object strongly to post 33)
Incidentally, couldn’t similar things be said about heterosexuals? That by choosing to conform to traditional gender roles we help uphold them and ultimately act to keep the patriarchy in power?
Well, if one is a “radical lesbian separatist” presumably one has already reached that conclusion, more or less.
why a radical lesbian feminist would appear to perceive transfolk-bashing (or at least patronizing and willfully misrepresenting) as more worthy of her time than SMASHING THE HETEROSEXUAL HEGEMONY is another question, of course.
i’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s rather easier to bar TG folk from the Wimmin Only clubhouse than to actually take on powerful people/isntitutions in any meaningful way.
“heteronormative,” I should say. or not. whatever.
(wandering off to light the soy non-phallic candles and write a deeply felt ode to the nurturing power of my womb and yoni)
“Ignorance” isn’t the right word here. Heart is familiar with trans people and various pro-trans and anti-trans arguments. It always baffles me when someone uses the word “ignorant” in this way — so someone that does not agree with you must be operating under myths that are based in ignorance? If you prefer, call her a bigot.
Also, not “passing” fully as a transman might actually make you more “acceptable” to laypeeps — to be “soft butch” after all is much less scarier than to be stone.
But I really like what dharmadyke has to say. It’s similar to how I feel, but obviously expressed 100 times better!
I was going to add something, but I’m too busy giggling at belledame’s last two posts.
The Wimmin Only Clubhouse is making me think of the Little Rascals and their He-Man Wimmin-Haters’ Club.
piny, you know i am exactly what drives you crazy, little baby learner on trans issues–so i have been just sort of hopping around different sites, reading what everybody has to say, drawing on my very limited experience of what women of color are doing around trans issues–but even if i am still scratching my baby head trying desperatly to bend my feeble brain, i must say that the idea of policing borders just isn’t something that i can support…heart, i must respectfully disagree with you on this–again, i am just a trans baby, but my organization (incite! women of color against violence) has put out a declaration, and i support it completly–that transfolks, regardless of how they identify–are subject to the same violence intimidation and denigration by an oppressive structure (that is, the nation/state)-just for different reasons. that is, a woman of color will be thrown in jail and raped because she is a brown woman, and as such, inherantly rapable(valueless)–a transwoman will be thrown in jail and raped because she is trans, and as such, must be violated to *prove* her “femaleness”. gender oppression on both counts, but the motivation behind the gender oppression is different. as such, because incite! recognizes that gender oppression is being played out against both groups of people by structural systems of oppression, just for different reasons, we are committing ourselves to organizing as allies and respectfully incorporating trans issues into our agenda…because if you can harm one group for gender issues, than you can harm another so if trans folks, regardless of how they identify, aren’t safe, than we aren’t either.
So i disagree that there is no place at a women of color event for transfolks–but i must say i *do* think i am having a hard time understanding the idea that we have to some how reject that the idea that transpeoples gender identities are so fluid they literally don’t have one. why can’t (or maybe it is and i, in my babiness, don’t know) trans identites be defined as fluid, and our jobs as women is not to be more like them or them more like us, or to pretend like our goal is to be with no discernable identities—but rather instead to create a world where nobody will be punished (structurally or personally) for having fluid gender identities or set in stone identities. so much of what i’m hearing is sounding like when the race card gets brought up–that we want a “color blind” society…in this case its sems that we want a genderfree society. i can’t advocate taking away or eliminating anybodies identity becasue i like my own identity and i would miss it if it suddenly idsappeared. so i assume others would too. anyways, i sound like a five year old, so i’ll stop. sorry if this is too baby trans piny!!!
Sorry I’ve been absent. I’m still under the weather. Thanks for all the commenters. I’ll come back when I feel better. Now, more nyquil and bed.
I didn’t say that gender and sex were meaningless. I said that I didn’t transition because of a belief in or post-transition conformity to gender roles. I can’t really explain why it is necessary to be male apart from gender roles–any more than cissexual people can explain why they’d really rather not transition. All I know is that that explanation just doesn’t work.
There was an implied, “…according to sexist stereotypes about how men should be,” in there. Sorry it was confusing.
Did you read the post about how I did not transition because of gender roles, do not adhere to them personally, and do not believe in them in general? To a transperson, “honored as a woman,” means, “not having people insist you’re a man.” It has nothing to do with someone attempting to impose some sexist code of behavior on you as part of seeing you as a woman, or accord you the converse privilege as part of seeing you as a man, and everything to do with transphobia. Of course I’m not arguing that women are privileged by being treated as women in a society that hates them.
“Willful ignorance,” if you like. I’m calling her ignorant because her arguments do not jibe with reality; they are based on premises that are just plain untrue.
“Passing” means “being read as male.” A passing transguy–particularly one who was never butch–doesn’t read as further butch or ultra butch or “stone” anything; he reads as a guy.
yeh, I read “honored” as maybe shorthand for “recognized as a man/having my choices honored and thus respecting my reality as valid.” I can see where “honored as a man” might have a slightly Gorean feel to it, tho’.
Ew. Heaven forfend.
It still seems to come down to being recognized as a man and treated as a man. Being perceived and responded to as a man. It’s not about how you see yourself but about how you’d like others to see you. It’s gender roles because it’s exactly about the different experiences and expectations that we have in society due to our apparent gender.
If someone believes they are a man, then why must it matter that eiverybody around them perceives them and treats them as a woman?
It matters because our culture treats men and women differently, not as individuals, but based on our sex. It matters because of gender “roles.” A person who wants to be treated as a man wants or needs to play the role of a man in the eyes of society.
I do think there’s a difference between the gender that one identifies with and the gender that other people identify/know you as, even if for most people it’s the same. Transitioning is about the latter and not the former, and that’s why I think it’s still about gender roles,
I think that playing the role involves doing whatever is necessary to provoke people to see you as man instead of a woman, or vice versa. Not as a ‘manly man’ or an ‘aesthete’ or whatever variety of man, but just as a male.
‘Aesthete’? Whatever you say, Mr. Burns.
Okay, and just what does that consist of? You’ve answered my question by rephrasing it. And you still haven’t answered any of the others.
I can’t really explain why it is necessary to be male apart from gender roles–any more than cissexual people can explain why they’d really rather not transition.
You know, I’ve banged my head against this question a few times, and that angle just never occurred to me. You don’t mind if I borrow it and run with it, do you?
As a way of explanation, I (and this is just me) would say that transitioning holds no appeal because, for one, I don’t harbor any ambivalent feelings towards my physical sex. I’m rather fond of my breasts and other girl parts, and don’t feel that I’m missing out because I can’t grow a beard (yet???) or write my name in the snow with my pee. It’s always been a sort of non-issue: I have a uterus. It’s about as noteworthy as having toenails to me, most of the time.
What I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is how/why one would feel uncomfortable in one’s sex for its own sake. I can see not feeling properly feminine or masculine, because sometimes sex and gender roles clash (dainty men and tough women). But gender is a societal construct.
Gender roles are most certainly socially constructed, but it’s not about those.
I have a fondness for hard liquor, dusty mountain trails, and martial arts. I can lift and throw a clothes dryer and, for all that I’m a pacifist by belief, get a high off of a brawl that I often don’t get from sex. I wear body armor to charge into riots with a first aid kit, I fix things around the house with my own tools, and until recently, drove a truck to make ends meet. I am a tough girl, by a lot of standards. And while I do like getting dressed up for special occasions and weekends out, and have certainly done my share of the make-up-and-heels thing, most days I’m in jeans, Docs, and t-shirts. I don’t see any of these as unfeminine traits, or traits that disqualify me from femalehood.
I also didn’t see them as particularly masculine traits when everyone approved of them much more–that is to say, when they were on the very successful guy that I, for all appearances, was. I don’t buy into a whole lot of gender-role nonsense, and I’m not transitioning in order to reify those roles or because I didn’t fit into them the way I was told to. I’m not a woman because I was no good at being a man, or because I was dainty, or because now and then I like to kiss boys. And while this is a one-sided picture in terms of stereotypes–I’m not all cowgirl to be certain–it’s there to prove a point. Do I like wearing skirts? Sure. Did I ‘become a woman’ for the opportunity to do so? Hell, no. It would’ve been much, much easier to be a boy in a skirt if that were the case, and let me tell you, as a feminist who’s all for deconstructing those roles and giving people the opportunity to express however they like, it was not only an option I considered, it’s one I tried very hard to make work. The gender role wasn’t the problem; the gender was.
I ‘became a woman’ because there was no ‘becoming’ about it. I would’ve been plenty good at fitting into a male role if that was an option for me worth considering, and having to deal with the bull surrounding transitioning into not just public womanhood, but unconventional, woman-loving, punch-throwing, assertive feminist womanhood doesn’t exactly grease the wheels for people being respectful of my gender identity.
I also happen to be a woman with some funny anatomical details, though. I can’t offer a satisfactory explanation, and I can’t explain it so it’ll make sense if it just plain doesn’t make sense to you, and I can’t fault anyone for not getting it, either. But it’s not about satisfying societally-approved gender roles–I’m queer either way–and that particular myth needs to go to bed sooner than later.
Piny,
I don’t understand what it is you don’t understand.
A person can identify as a man or a woman or neither or both or anything.
A person could identify as a man but be perceived all of thier life as a woman, and not have any surgery or take any drugs or even take any steps at all to get the people around them to also see them as a man.
But if that person does take steps to get the people around them to perceive them as a man, whether it’s asking their closest friends to refer to them by the male pronoun or having surgery, then that’s not about identity any more but about roles, the role that person wants to play in society. They might feel and have always felt like a man, but that’s different from asking to be treated as man. What else does wanting to be read or depending on being read as a man mean?
What if someone believed all her life that she was a man? She felt she was a man and knew she was a man, but she looked like a woman and everybody read her as a woman. And she was okay with that? Why not? To her, being a man wasn’t about other people seeing her as a man, ‘reading’ her as a man, treating her as man, but about who she knew herself to be. Wearing women’s clothes and being perceived as a woman didn’t make her feel like less of a man, because her knowledge of what a man was wasn’t about clothes and other people’s responses. Altering her body or manipulating her dress wouldn’t have been about her identity, but about embodying the role of a man, playing it in such a way that it would match *other* people’s views of what man is. If she did that, she would be playing other people’s idea of the gender role of man. If she believed that wearing women’s clothes and being percieved as a woman was incompatible with being a man and altered her body and clothes, then she would be playing her own internalized gender role of a man.
What does it mean to need other people’s affirmations of your gender identity?
I don’t think it’s necessarily bad or weak. Everybody’s weak and everybody needs affirmation in one thing or another. Gender is a fundamental characteristic in our culture. I think Zsuzsa was extraordinary in her ability to transcend gender roles and disregard the affirmation of others and I would never hold her up as standard by which other people could succeed or fail. But it’s still pretty clear to me that transitioning isn’t about one’s own gender identity but about affirmation from others about one’s gender identity, and thus it is about gender roles, and none of what you’ve written here, especially what you write about being read as male, challenges that.
I just wanted to add that I don’t hold myself above any of this. I also seek and value affirmation of my identity, including my gender identity, from others. But I *do not* see that as feminist, transgressive, or subversive!
But it’s still pretty clear to me that transitioning isn’t about one’s own gender identity but about affirmation from others about one’s gender identity, and thus it is about gender roles, and none of what you’ve written here, especially what you write about being read as male, challenges that.
but what i’m failing to understand here (and i am trying to understand everybody, believe ME) is why it is up to trans people to challenge anything. whether it’s about gender roles or just because, why is it up to transpeople to fufill non-trans women’s dreams of eliminating gender bianaries? why can’t we listen to what transpeople are saying and find ways to challenge our own movements to incorporate their issues as trans people rather than forcing them to comply to some weird definition of feminist movement?
is there truely NO place at all that the trans community and non-trans community could come together in an alliance that is respectful and works toward mutual liberation–while at the same time allowing each community to define itself??
Why are you assuming that these external cues are “*other* people’s views”? Why is it internalized, rather than internal? And why is this any different from identifying as a woman and being seen as one?
What kind of validation do you think I’m looking for? And as to the second part, do I even have to point out what a strawman this is? I guess so.
For this hypothetical “woman,” what would being a man have been about, for “her”? Given the extent to which you are willing to admit “her” identity, even when “she” is a rhetorical figment, why should I believe you have any respect for people like “her” and identities like “hers” at all? You’re incapable of distinguishing between “her” and someone who did not so identify in any way.
And if “she” had dressed or behaved or changed in any way that would make it difficult for people in general–and you in particular–to see “her” as unequivocally female, would you argue that as the opposite of “feminist, transgressive, or subversive”?
I would argue that point, but not as a terrible condemnation: virtually no one can be considered a hundred percent feminist. We’ve lived on this planet, so our roles have been internalized. I don’t walk around with my heels elevated 3-inches or better because I feel like a taller person inside: I do it because my internalized idea of a what it means to be woman tends to include high heels. I can’t ignore the backstory of feminine attire: those shoes are meant to symbolically (and if you misstep, I suppose, literally) cripple. But I wear them anyway because I’m brainwashed enough to value the aesthetic over the principle. I think that it’s unfeminist of me.
Transitioning strikes a raw nerve, I think, because it suggests that there is something about being male or female that makes us different in a way that goes beyond whether or not you can pee standing up. Which is what feminism, as I understand it, tries to refute.
We are talking about a group of people whose gender identities do not correspond to their assigned gender, do not correspond to stereotypically gendered behavior, and, if sustained via transition, permanently make them part of a class of people universally derided as gender failures and gender freaks. Therefore, transition is not analagous to wearing heels. The analogue would be someone who rejected transition and spent the rest of “her” life trying to learn to walk in heels, not someone who opted into a gender in the face of social convention.
That’s not what Tara was saying. Identifying as male–which would seem to necessitate believing that there’s something to being male apart from peeing standing up–is perfectly fine. You become un-feminist when you try to get other people to see you as male, or if your definition of “male” goes beyond the inside of your head.
Sayeth Kim:
Therein lies the conundrum that faces the transsexual, especially during the “coming out” phases of transition.
Among other things, one has to recognize that a transsexual’s discomfort exists at many levels of their being. It is not merely a physical/mental disjoin, but includes body image discomfort issues, social role discomfort, and lastly (but not insignificantly) also impacts intimate relationships profoundly.
One of the problems a TS faces in disclosing their transition to those around them is the very issue you raise. The TS has made a mental/emotional journey that few will ever comprehend beyond the most superficial sense. Consequently, one does hear (all too often) the pithy oversimplifications of the transsexual condition (a man in a woman’s body or vice versa).
In some ways, transsexuals are the embodiment of a metaphysics of gender, sex and roles in a way that would make Aristotlean philosophers quite envious.
This discussion not withstanding, I have to say that I am glad that the discussions of trans-life and perceptions take place here. Not having the opportunity to know many transpersons myself, I have and still am, largely ignorant of the many facets of such.
THat said, I was hit today by how much I’ve learned by reading Piny’s thoughts here. Upon entering a small cellphone store this morning for service, I noticed someone standing at the counter talking to the service person. I assessed the individual, attempting to judge the length of time this person would be there; my chances of getting prompt service and of course, the usual ‘checking people out’ kind of thing we all do.
From the back this person looked like a young guy and so my thought immediately was, “I hope that boy hurries up, i’m frickin’ busy.” THe dress and hairstyle told one story, the voice I heard from the body told another. A high-pitched female voice came out.
Just a couple of months ago I would have assumed this person was some kind of ‘poser’ lesbian girl trying to pass off as a guy. Inside thoughts: “Don’t you know you’re not a guy? Why can’t you just be who you are? I’ll bet you call yourself a feminist too and here you want to be a guy and enjoy guy priviledges.”
But instead, aware of the many facets and issues surrounding transpeople, I withheld that judgement and where I probably would have shamelessly held a stare on the person with curiosity (hoping they wouldn’t notice as their back was to me), I glanced and focused on the counter staff.
Who knows the gender identity of the individual or if they are mid-trans, or where ever they want to be right then? Who am I to make assumptions? And if someone’s presence or appearance challenges my socialized assumptions about what is or is not ‘normal’, does that allow me to judge them without impunity? Does the socialized standard allow me the right to invalidate that person’s right to be who they wish to be at any time? Do I have the right to judge that individual’s sexual preferences or identity? And most importantly, if there occurs a deviation from the ‘norm’ I have been taught to expect, am I to dismiss the individual as having less value or relevance than myself?
It was interesting at how differently I saw that individual and how suddenly my own homophobia and fear of the unknown made me aware of my potential (and no doubt active)propensity to dismiss those who do indeed deviate from the norm.
And is not such dismissal and/or stereotyping exactly what I rant against as a feminist? I tend to dress pretty androgynously most of the time due to my line of work and yet I am aware that assumptions about my sexual orientation probably float around with those that don’t know me well. Even then, I have been confronted with people who still want to see me define my gender identity with social markers traditionally presented. That I don’t is my own rebellion against what I see as captitulation to a gender role that places me at a disadvantage in my everyday working life.
So what a hypocrite I have been! This was but a small epiphany and I am aware my ignorance on the topic of transexual issues still abounds, but without Piny’s discussions, I would be that much less aware.
Thanks Piny, keep up the good work. And now I have to get back to work. I wanted to post right now while the whole thing was fresh in my mind.
What if someone believed all her life that she was a man? She felt she was a man and knew she was a man, but she looked like a woman and everybody read her as a woman. And she was okay with that? Why not?
…Wearing women’s clothes and being perceived as a woman didn’t make her feel like less of a man, because her knowledge of what a man was wasn’t about clothes and other people’s responses
y’know, there are plenty of people who *are* okay with that. (although many trans-identified, non-transitioning people wear clothing more commonly associated with the gender they identify as anyway, just because they don’t want to forego a general sense of comfort just to fit into stereotypes about what women are supposed to wear or what men are supposed to wear.)
for others of us, there are a whole bunch of reasons, many of which are pretty inarticulate, that can lead to discovering that transitioning is the right course of action. one in particular that seems relevant to your example is simply that it’s *tiring* to know one thing internally and to never have anyone reflect back your understanding or reality. if my internal monologue contains words like “he” and “man,” and other people use words like “she” and “woman,” i’m probably reminded every time i hear those words of that disconnect between my internal life and the rest of the world. and like it or not, humans are social animals, and we tend to be happier and more comfortable when what we perceive to be reality links up with what other people perceive to be reality.
this doesn’t address *why* the internal monologue differs from the external experience. but–given that i don’t actually know any transitioned transsexuals who have reductive and reactionary views about gender or who strive to reinforce steretypical gender roles, damn the torpedos–i don’t understand what reasons there would be for a person for whom this *is* exhausting not to take steps to make life a little more bearable for themselves. yes, to some extent it can include (but almost never is entirely about) wanting to fit in better into the world–or more accurately to change some aspects of one’s physicality so that the world better recognizes one’s internal reality–but nearly all humans adapt our behaviors so that we can get along in society. I don’t think transitioning is *inherently* good or bad–what’s good or bad is *how* we transition, how we act during and after transition, what principles we espouse, where we focus our energies.
What does it mean to need other people’s affirmations of your gender identity?
For the most part, transsexual people don’t particularly need other people’s affirmations of their gender–what we do tend to prefer is a lack of aggressive negations of our identities. i.e., we don’t go up to people to ask them to affirm our identities–we just like to go through life without having to have conflict and conversations all day long about our genders, or to have people decide based on some piece of information or another that they know what we “really” are and agressively and intentionally use words and actions that are bent on pointing out that they disagree with who we are.
(of course, some slow days at work, some of us to like to blather on on the internet, but that’s a somewhat different story. :) )
>What I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is how/why one would feel uncomfortable in one’s sex for its own sake
But some people do, and that’s that. Patrick Califia probably writes about this as well as anyone could: how for years and years he was as gender-fluid and gender-queer as it got, fucked anyway and anyone he wanted, wore what he wanted, acted how he wanted, wrote a whole damn book on transsexuality from the perspective of a woman who was *not* going to transition…and ended up transitioning anyway. Why? Because he literally didn’t feel comfortable in his own skin.
Personally? i don’t understand it on a gut level; I happen to be comfortable in the sexed body I was born with. *But other people aren’t.* And one of the primary tenets of feminism as *I* understand it is:
My Body Belongs To Me.
Period. End.
So *what* in Gydyss’ name is the problem, here??? Don’t like abortion? *Don’t have an abortion.* Don’t like or get the idea of changing one’s sex? *Don’t get surgery to change your sex.* Don’t like corsets and floggings? *Don’t put on a corset. Don’t go to the Hellfire Club and negotiate for a flogging.*
And, if another adult of sound mind (yes, I know, even those two qualifiers could open up fresh discussion, but for the sake of this particular example) tells you they feel differently about *their own body,* *believe them, and leave them be to get on with it.* That’s it. That’s all.
Except, perhaps, if a third party starts making moves to police someone else’s body, be aware that they may very well come after your ass next, so you might want to speak up on behalf of the someone who’s currently being harassed.
Seriously. Why is this so damn difficult?
(rantiness not directed at the person whose quote I led off with, btw; rather more general rantiness at the sentiment starting off the whole thing and its supporters)
belledame,
you made me laugh so hard I spit!
piny,
your rock dude! now let’s get to planning new ways to recapitulate the patriarchy…sounds like a blog name: I Recapitulate the Patriarchy……
Piny,
You make a lot of leaps.
First of all, there’s no way for me to defend myself against your charges that I secretly disrespect and loathe someone I claim to respect and love, and I’m not going to try because I think my point stands regardless of the duplicity you allege against me.
Secondly, I never said that trans people and feminists couldn’t be allies.
Thirdly, I never said that it was all up to to trans people to challenge gender roles.
Fourthly, I never sait that transitioning was unfeminist.
*You’ve* set me up in your head as an enemy in a way that makes it impossible for you to see what it is that I’m actually saying.
What I’m actually saying, and what I’ve said from the beginning, is that transitioning *is* about gender roles and it is not subversive or feminist, except in the sense that any woman’s personal quest for fulfillment is feminist. But not being feminist doesn’t make it anti-feminist and it doesn’t make the person doing it an enemy, any more than I all of a sudden become an enemy of feminism if I do any of the myriad of things that I regularly do or even more things that I could do and don’t that are about being accepted and affirmed as a woman in culture. But I try not to fool myself that these things have nothing to do with gender roles.
Secondly, I never said that trans people and feminists couldn’t be allies.
can trans peple be feminists? doesn’t this imply that ‘real’ women are feminists and trans people will never be real women?
There’s nothing secret about it; it’s made obvious by the language you use to describe “her.” I didn’t say you disrespected “her,” but that you have no respect for “her” identity and do not acknowledge it in anything but the most abstract terms. It seems like you are more comfortable around “her” because “she” doesn’t make any demands on you to see “her” as anything but female.
There’s no difference between “unfeminist” and “not feminist.” If you like, I’ll start saying that you’ve said transition is “not feminist.” Is that better?
Also, you’re doing it again:
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, then: I think that transition is neither inherently not feminist nor inherently not subversive.
Tell me why you think it’s necessary for transpeople to be “accepted and affirmed” as their post-transition genders. Tell me why, if it’s about what other people think of me, it wasn’t far more important for me to be accepted and affirmed as a woman.
One other thing:
Do not assume that my own preferences can be generalized, any more than your friend’s can. Some ftms want to be seen as male. Some ftms want to see themselves as male. Some ftms are very interested in physical transition but don’t have any interest in passing as either male or cissexual. Some ft? people physically transition but continue to identify as female or genderqueer. Some ft? people purposely physically transition into more androgynous bodies. Some ftms are interested in social but not physical transition. I don’t know how your gender roles theory will stretch to accomodate all of those different paths. I can’t wait to find out.
Earlbecke made a good statement on Trans Issues Are Women’s Issues. Unfortunately all the comments were accidently deleted.
If I might interject,
I agree with you, Piny, that Heart’s response is, by turns, both arrogant and contributive to the heteronorming standard against which she claims to rail. But so many people–myself included–trip up on this issue, precisely because we can’t agree on acceptable definitions of male/female. As a result, I think people who wish to transition between the two find themselves dropped into an uncomfortable netherworld, judged by both sides. And that is, of course, completely unfair.
But what IS male/female? And how do we fairly examine that concept for those caught between the two? If it isn’t about gender role, or about behavior script, as I think most of us can agree, then the only definition I can really come up with is thus:
“A male/female is a human being with x set of biological reproductive traits.”
Biology and aesthetics, nothing more. Nothing social, nothing about gender roles. It’s just about fleshy bits. And if neither set of bits is any better than the other, shouldn’t we be obligated to support those who wish simply to possess a different set? By this logic, those who try to box transpeople into gender-role preconceptions must automatically be full of shit, am I right?
I dunno. I genuinely think that you will know more than I.
I’m just a hetero male trying to find a stance on gender that includes all, free of whatever unknown biases I as a hetero male may unwittingly harbor. If the above proposition is true, then doesn’t that mean that “being a good man” or “good woman” simply means being the best human being possible while possessing X set of traits? I would think so. And again, if above proposition is valid, mustn’t that mean that transgendered individuals are unfairly saddled with gender roles and scripts that they didn’t create? Isn’t the state of being a transperson, then, evidence that all of the biases we may hold with regard of gender roles are now and forever fallacious?
Help me out here. Why is this issue so hard for so many people, and am I anywhere near a reasonable understanding of it myself? Am I merely groping in the dark? I claim no knowledge here but that of my own ignorance, but still I want to be able to contribute meaningfully to the dialogue.
Any essentialist line–”a man/woman is this/that”–will inevitably cut through someone’s flesh, to plagiarize Raven Kaldera. Just the observance of the binary itself delegitimates a few commenters on this thread, IIRC. If we go with “biological/reproductive traits” as those terms are commonly understood, I am permanently classed out of male. Like I said, there are transpeople who locate their gender outside of the “biological,” and who have zero interest in altering their “fleshy bits.”
Which is all to say, I understand what you’re saying–and I think this comment is a valuable contribution and not ignorant at all–but I’m not sure that imposing any objective gender standard, however broad, will be constructive.
Somewhat drifty, perhaps, but also: there are more people than is probably commonly realized who do *not* fit either of those chromosomal/biological categories.
http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex
http://www.itpeople.org/intersexed.php
Any attempt at an objective standard ultimately does box transpeople and gender-variant people into gender-role or biological preconceptions. Consequently, objective standards are not only meaningless, but hurtful. The only working “definition” is self-identification/self-definition. And yes, that’s subjective.
Indeed. Excellent post, Piny — sorry, I got here late.
–IP
You know what Piny… you don’t know anything about me or my family. Make all the assumptions you want, but don’t tell me that it’s me putting up barriers between feminism and transexuality. You can’t be allies with people who don’t listen to you and believe the worst of you.
For the third time: quote something directly so I at least have some idea of where the fuck you’re getting all of this. Okay? Thanks.
Also for the third time (or is it fourth?): you still haven’t answered any of my questions.
On to what you seem to be saying. This is a direct quote from you, although the emphasis is mine:
See? You say here that transition, in general, is not feminist. You don’t qualify this statement as applying to some kinds of transition, or transition in certain contexts. I am therefore justified in saying that you say that transition is not feminist. Because that’s what you’re saying. And since transsexuals tend to transition, and since “transsexuality” tends to encompass transition, you kind of are putting up a barrier between “transsexuality” and feminism.
Of course, this comment could also be a misattribution of what brownfemipower said. “Secondly” and “Thirdly” had sweet fuck all to do with what I wrote, too.
You’ve made assumptions about me and about transsexuals in general that I disagree with, despite never having met me. Like deciding that I think you’re an “enemy.” That’s what arguing involves. I’m using the language you’ve used here, and the statements you’ve made, to draw conclusions about how you feel about gender identity. I disagree with some of those ideas. There’s nothing out of line about that.
Finally, just fuck off right now with the demands for me to modulate my tone, all right? I say things because I believe them to be true, not because they might or might not hurt someone’s feelings. If you feel the need to shut me up for the sake of your own comfort, then you’re not worth much as an ally anyway. I haven’t threatened you in order to get you to stop pissing me off; I’ll thank you to do the same.
Of course, this comment could also be a misattribution of what brownfemipower said.
yes, it was me who questioned this “there’s feminists, and then there’s trans people” idea–while i see the point of cis women acting as allies to the trans community–the implication here seems to be that non of the trans community can be feminists and allies of feminists at the same time. this of course begs to question, why *can’t* trans people be both–and seems to me from your previous responses that the reason is because feminists are “women” and trans people are like men–they can act as allies, but they can’t *be*.
so if you have an issue with that thought, then maybe you should address the person who said it?
>You can’t be allies with people who don’t listen to you and believe the worst of you.
istm that that’s kind of the whole fucking point of this thread.
particularly the “don’t listen to you” part.
…and from way back up there, this is what drives me batshit:
>This is all to say, yes, I disagree with you politically when it comes to issues around gender and transitioning, and I cannot with integrity pretend otherwise.
It isn’t about DISAGREEING. It’s about his LIFE. It isn’t a fucking parlor game. And that is my exact same response to people who rabbit on about how they support me as an individual human been/whatever but “don’t agree with my (lesbian) ‘lifestyle.’”
There isn’t anything to “agree with.” It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It’s NOT YOUR BODY. It’s NOT YOUR LIFE. whether I have sex with this person or that person. whether piny transitions or not. NONE. OF. ANYONE ELSE’S. BUSINESS.
and if you truly don’t get that, (or indeed that there is indeed a direct parallel between that kind of patronizing hetsupremacy and this kind of patronizing femsupremacy) then frankly, your protests of being “on my side” aren’t worth so much to me.
Yes, belledame222, this whole debate does sound depressingly familiar. ‘You’re a lesbian because you had a bad experience with a man.’
‘That’s not true.’
‘Something must have turned you into a lesbian…’
‘No, I’ve always been a lesbian.’
‘You must have internalised some negative messages society sends about what it means to have relationships with men. You’re afraid of them and that’s why you’re a lesbian.’
‘No it isn’t.’
‘You’re so brave and feminist and you rebelled against society’s demands for compulsory heterosexuality.’
‘No, I’m not particularly brave. I’m just me. This is who I am.’
I have actually had all of the above exchanges at some time.
Those feminists who insist that the world can only be compulsory gender binary free when transexuality doesn’t exist don’t believe Piny exists as Piny. They can’t afford to believe in Piny because their political ideology can’t accomodate him. I suspect that they don’t answer some of his direct questions directly because they can’t from their position. I’m feeling seriously inclined to make a list of the unanswered questions before I lose track of them…I could be wrong about an actual inability to answer, and I’m ready to listen. In any case I believe Piny is owed – at the very least – the courtesy of a reply.
I’ll be back with a list of questions asked and unanswered that I’m genuinely interested in hearing responses to.
Piny asked – ‘Do you not know people who refuse to conform to gender roles and yet identify with the genders they are assigned to? How do you define a gender apart from a gender role?
I definitely know women who refuse to conform to gender roles and certainly (key word) identify as women. Doesn’t everybody? There is no dissonance within them, and it’s only the non-conformance to the role, however that’s expressed, that invites comments from observers. There’s no internal motivation whatso-ever to change sex *or* to adopt more gender conformant behaviours or whatever. Gender and gender roles are very obviously two different things. If we don’t identify our gender by our roles, how *do* we identify our gender – on its own – internally? What is the harmony that exists for cisgendered people and doesn’t for transgendered people? What is it ‘made of’? Or, what is the disharmony made of for transgendered people? No wonder it’s hard to explain. I can’t explain my harmony about being female. It feels right is about the best I can do. Can anyone else explain theirs? Give it a go…
When someone asks me why I’m homosexual I ask them why they’re heterosexual. What is their heterosexuality made of. They can come up with all sorts of things to support that it’s natural (for procreation) and common, but not what it’s made of any more than I can say what my lesbianism is made of. But both indisputably exist. Same with cis-sexuality and transexuality or cisgender and transgender. And all on their own. Nothing to do with socially determined roles in either case. This is demonstrably true and the opposite arguement just can’t be made in the face of reality. That isn’t to say that among transexuals as among homosexuals, some people don’t go about conforming to roles, just as cisgendered people do. But this is clearly not intrinsic to the state of being either transexual or homosexual.
I think this is a profoundly important point.
In this paradigm, with its unowned assumptions about biological determinism and its beliefs that somehow we all respond to gender uniformly, neither piny, myself, nor any other trans person exists in the way that we say we do.
In fact, we are duped and stupid. Our voices combined with whatever facts we want to muster will not change this fundamental paradigm as its root.
Having said that, I don’t know what to do about it.
And on a slightly different point, I’m not sure I agree that transition isn’t subversive. Unless we’re defining subversive as successfully achieving political revolution, the endless process of redefining people’s assumptions about my gender so that I can obtain: a new driver’s license; health care; a job; the correct name of all manner of forms (birth certificates; passports; transcripts; library cards; financial documents; health documents; etc.); is something I think.
Each undoing of a hook that has trapped my gendered body is a kind of subversion in my book. But then I’m passionate about transsexuals and transsexuality. So I’m opened to accusations of bias.
I think in the end what pisses me off about the whole transition-isn’t-subversive thing is the entirely dismissive tone. Like transitioning requires as much thought and effort as taking a shit after eating a big bowl of bran. It’s all over if you just push hard.
Transitioning is a verb for a reason what with all the actions and choices and revisiting of choices and recommittment of choices required to effect all that is necessary to achieve the desired results. Frankly I’ve come to believe that we trannies do ourselves a tremendous disservice by not talking about the details of transition. In retrospect, all of it, and all who accomplish it – especially those with fewer financial resources and less privileges – I find astonishing and amazing.
But, as I said before, I’m biased.
We were discussing this in a more meta way over at bitch | lab, btw. And while I’m using my various beefs with some of the stuff I’ve been encountering in the radfemblogosphere of late to crystallize what I’ve been groping for, this phenomenon is by no means limited to any one ideology.
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/05/09/ignorance/
Finally: this is what’s at the heart of my deep gut reaction to radfem dismissals like the ones we’ve been hashing over here and elsewhere: sexual transitioning means this, BDSM means that, “the pursuit of orgasm is inane,” “gender trumps race,” yadda yadda. Because they are, in the course of solidifying a framework that helps to reassure them that
>Reality is when something is happening to you, and you know it, and can say it, and when you say it, other people understand what you mean and believe you.
…*yes*, my experience was real, *yes* this really happened, *yes,* I’m not alone, I’m not crazy, other people get it…
…they are turning around and denying that very thing, that SO IMPORTANT THING, to somebody else. No, your reality doesn’t matter. No, your experience isn’t valid. Yes, you are alone. No, I don’t get it, and I can’t get it, and I won’t get it; there must be something wrong with you.
THAT is the problem. Not the orgasms (or lack thereof); not the arguments; not the name-calling and thrashing about. “I know you better than you. This is reality; I define it. What’s going on inside you *doesn’t count.*” And all in the name of a movement that was designed to counter all that in the first place! “You’re not alone…oh, wait, you do/think/feel *that?* Okay, NOW you’re alone.”
and that’s why people get even angrier at the supposed allies than at the “enemy.” Because one doesn’t expect any better from the “enemy.” This feels like…betrayal. On top of everything else.
***
and a follow-up thought to that, elsewhere: perhaps that’s what’s really going on from the other direction as well. Feelings of betrayal and abandonment. I could certainly speculate that that’s one thing that’s behind anti FTM sentiment from feminists, perhaps: you’re going over to the Other Side! after all we’ve worked for!
but ultimately, I just keep coming back to: ain’t nobody else’s business if he do. His Body Belongs To Him. you’ve got your own, to do with as you will, and no matter what he does with his, yours is not affected. honor that boundary or don’t; but then, if you insist on treating the other person as an extension of yourself, you’re probably gonna get a reaction.