Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[8ball]

which is also wrong

You mean it's wrong that it's a niche view?

 

[Sea Star]

You mean it's wrong that it's a niche view?

yes

 

[8ball]

yes

Yeah, seems like it to me too.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I have found cis women in real life to be nothing but entirely supportive and sympathetic, as I think most trans women I've spoken to also find. Online, things are slightly different and I've been actively campaigned against by TERFs, both male and female, who do not consider me to be a woman, including a group who tried to get me deselected as a candidate at the general elections.

This seems to play both ways, though. Online discussion is simply more unpleasant than real life interaction - which is why the suggestion that those feminists who view natally assigned gender as essential to gender identity "hate trans people" appears to be accepted here and elsewhere online.

 

[Sea Star]

The Joan/ John case is very illuminating as an example of how gender identity is innate and cannot be shifted with conditioning.
David Reimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know an intersex person who identifies as male (and indeed was born as a male with genital abnormalities) but was brought up as a girl and forced through a female adolescence. They feel strongly that the feeling of gender identity that they struggled with all through their life is the same feeling that trans people feel. We've compared our experiences and they are remarkably similar through parts of our lives.

If it is socialisation that makes men and women then it has yet to be demonstrated and all the evidence is to the contrary, that if you take a boy or girl and bring them up as the 'opposite gender' (I hate using that phrase but for the purposes of this post it will have to do) does not change their gender identity.

ETA - I was very much brought up as a boy, albeit in the less pressured environment of the 1970s, and with a very strong mother and a relatively hands off father. However, despite my upbringing and my conditioning, and the way society would try to shape me as a boy, I remained unrelentingly female!!

 

[Sea Star]

This seems to play both ways, though. Online discussion is simply more unpleasant than real life interaction - which is why the suggestion that those feminists who view natal gender as essential to gender identity "hate trans people" appears to be accepted here and elsewhere online.

I've had more positive and pleasant convos about this online than negative. Online just means the tiny minority who hate Trans are more likely to find you!

 

[Sea Star]

As I find more clear scientific or medical evidence i will post it up here. I've seen so much but remembering where it all is is a problem.

 

[andysays]

Self-identification is only feasible if/when the identification has some root in lived experience. Describing yourself as working class, when you have no experience of what "being working class" is, is fatuous. Describing yourself as "minority ethnic" when you're an obvious Euro-white is similarly fatuous. Describing yourself as a woman when you live and exist as a woman isn't fatuous. It's an expression of lived experience even if some women deny the validity of that experience.

For that to make sense, you would need to define what you mean by "living and existing as a woman".

The traditional, pre-identity politics definition of what a woman is/who is a woman is quite clear. though it's certainly problematic in various respects. But the new identity focussed one appears, to me at least, to have very little of substance and ultimately to boil down to someone is a woman if they identify as a woman, regardless of any external factors and regardless of what the word has traditionally meant and still does mean for most people most of the time.

I would really be interested to hear someone who supports the idea that a woman is anyone who so identifies or who "lives as a woman" to attempt to explain what they that actually means, and how they might reconcile the differences between the traditional and still general meaning and the recent identity politics meaning, ideally without simply attacking anyone who doesn't agree with the new def as being exclusionary or trans-phobic.

But I'm also rather wary of continuing this thread along the purely linguistic course it seems to be taking, because it seems to me to be something of a blind alley, and of little practical relevance to the very real issues of transgenderism and the exclusion and discrimination people face (that's just how it seems to me, BTW, it's obviously up to transgender people themselves to decide what's relevant and important to them).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For that to make sense, you would need to define what you mean by "living and existing as a woman".
.

It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."

Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined by them). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.

 

[toggle]

But again, is this really what is happening when you accept a person in their new gender role? A man who used to be a woman or a woman who used to be a man?

Gender is deeply embedded in our interactions with each other - in our language, we have to make a choice, there are no gender-neutral terms often. And because of that, what's the alternative here to accepting trans people in their new identities? I don't see one. But more than that, I don't see a need for one - accepting them is the solution.

actually, i think gender neutral language would be useful for us all, not the least of which is the necessity to stop using the masculine as default/normal.

 

[billy_bob]

It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."

Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined by them). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.

I was struggling over how to articulate my own response to the part of andysays' post which you quote. Yours is spot on.

I can't really see why anyone 'need to define what they mean by "living and existing as a woman" ', except to themselves, in coming to terms with their own feelings about their wish or need or compulsion to do so.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

actually, i think gender neutral language would be useful for us all, not the least of which is the necessity to stop using the masculine as default/normal.

Sure. One hell of a thing to change, though. I can't think of a European language that doesn't have gender deeply embedded in it. Would be interested to know if there are any languages that are not like that.

 

[YouSir]

I see your point, but most people will never have access to that sort of platform, to speak to large numbers of people and be presented as an authority in the field of x, y or z. Nobody is stopping Greer from sitting in the union coffee shop and talking to people in person. That's the biggest audience most of us have access to. It's also the level at which it's genuinely possible for the people she's talking to to tell her if they don't agree with what she says.

The duty of a speaker on that stage isn't to be debatable on a one to one level though, it's to offer ideas which trigger a debate that can flow before, during and after their talk. I don't think offering some sort of platform for that is a particularly bad thing. Nor would it be a particularly good thing to just line up people to argue personally with Germaine Greer because, ultimately, she as an individual doesn't matter. It's the ideas that are the important bit and finding ways to counter them in society and culture. And to do that you need to let them be aired. Winning an argument with one person in the canteen doesn't really do that, although triggering a debate which draws a load of people into those arguments on a personal level does.

 

[toggle]

I'm afraid I don't understand what this means, or what point you're seeking to make. Maybe you could try saying it again (if you want to of course).

it's the ability to discuss an issue without labeling one group as other/not normal. when discussing the issues trans people face, do we use the terms people and transeople, or cis people and trans people. one implies abnormality of the other group. the other implies difference, but does not lack equality

 

[toggle]

I don't want to get too involved in this thread because I know I'll say the wrong thing, but surely wider society does get to label people in certain ways, at least as long as we have gendered bathrooms and changing rooms (something that won't change soon)? Also putting a label on something isn't the same as judging...

it is possible to provide gender neutral facilities.

and yes, putting a label on something that implies they are other is judging.

 

[toggle]

I personally see absolutely no reason why feminism as a debate and movement cannot include binary trans women, cis women AND non-binary trans people... plus of course cis men and trans men.

I also feel that whilst it is ALWAYS wrong to preach hate and transphobic vile, it is still important for us to debate and consider the arguments and concepts put forward by radical feminists as we continue to move forward in the way we treat gender as a society.

There have been plenty of accounts of trans women of the shock of losing the male privilege they had before, and I think those women sharing those experiences is really valuable to us all as they have seen both 'sides' of that binary just in those terms. Those women are definitely welcome in my feminism!

this.

its been by listening to transwomen describing that expereince and the levels of gender expectations placed upon them that i've got more of an idea of how we internalise gendered behaviors

what does 'living as a woman' actually mean, because i don't think any of us that were assigned female at birth, that aren't part of a fundamentalist group that enforces absolute obedience to the patriarchy, could agree on any rules for being a woman. impression that handbook is more than a bit variable and depends on individual prejudices.

Exactly, that's why I consider it to be something feminists should be behind you on. Trans women are so important in MY feminism because A) we need to make things better for you B) we need to re-consider gender/patriarchy and the impact it has on lots of different people C) we can learn a lot about the impact our assertions about gender have on people by listening when you talk to us.

this basically.

plus, we need to support those who need it.

if we cannot use feminsm to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, then lets just pack up and fucking go home, because we'd be doing nothing worth a shit here.

 

[Sea Star]

it is possible to provide gender neutral facilities.

and yes, putting a label on something that implies they are other is judging.

I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.

 

[DotCommunist]

Sure. One hell of a thing to change, though. I can't think of a European language that doesn't have gender deeply embedded in it. Would be interested to know if there are any languages that are not like that.

esperanto?

 

[8ball]

Gender neutrality in genderless languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[billy_bob]

if we cant use feminism to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, lets just pack up and fucking go home

I've part-quoted that, but can you cut 6 more characters out of it without changing the gist, so it can be Tweeted repeatedly @ Ms Greer?

e2a: it would be a shame if it had to be the expletive!

 

[D'wards]

I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.

Plus I'd feel awful about having a noisy poo knowing a young woman was in the next stall.

 

[killer b]

Yeah, young women don't shit, so their delicate ears should be protected from such base activities.

 

[toggle]

I've part-quoted that, but can you cut 6 more characters out of it without changing the gist, so it can be Tweeted repeatedly @ Ms Greer?

e2a: it would be a shame if it had to be the expletive!

if we cant use feminism to support those who identify as women who as a group are among the most vulnerable, lets just pack up and fucking go home

 

[toggle]

I'm in two minds about this. Yes - there is definitely a place for gender neutral facilities and they should be available. However, a few years ago when London Underground tried to introduce gender neutral toilets at train drivers' accommodation buildings, the women there objected and the trade unions forced the project to be ditched.
I'm well used to the way men use toilet facilities (not all, I freely admit) and having access to women only facilities is a bit of a relief. Also, having to share toilets with men - who are far more likely to express any anti trans feelings than women - might lead to safety issues for women, not least trans women.
TBH - when we have more acceptance and awareness of trans issues I think the whole toilet issue will sort itself out anyway.

I agree.

but to add, i think that a lot of the stuff that makes me a fucking furious feminist will be deconstructed through aceptance and awareness of trans issues.

 

[D'wards]

Yeah, young women don't shit, so their delicate ears should be protected from such base activities.

99% of men would be embarrassed about loudly pooing next to a young woman, not many would care so much about doing it next to a hairy arsed bloke.

 

[Belushi]

99% of men would be embarrassed about loudly pooing next to a young woman, not many would care so much about doing it next to a hairy arsed bloke.

I'd be equally embarrassed man or woman

 

[killer b]

christ, is this real?

 

[andysays]

It's possible to overcomplicate this, I think. Treefrog's point is right - "It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist."

Without any reason not to, why not just accept that they feel their body doesn't match their feeling of gender and that they wish to live as and be accepted as a woman or man from now on instead (however that may be defined by them). I think some people are creating problems where there are none, and voicing fears where there are no grounds for them.

We're not talking about anyone's right to exist, we're not talking about people's right to behave as they wish free of discrimination, we're not even talking about people's right to identify themselves personally or collectively the way they wish (all of those are important, and I fully support all those rights for everyone, in case that needs saying).

What we are talking about is people's right (or not) to insist that everyone else accepts their personal self-identification as being the only thing which matters, even when it contradicts the generally accepted and generally used meaning of the word "man" and "woman".

To deny that there is a problem here, but at the same time to insist that this self-identification trumps everything else and to label anyone who doesn't automatically accept this new and contradictory use of the words as exclusionary or transphobic is, IMO, not only an act of identity-politics solopsism, but (far more importantly) a diversion and something which will ultimately drive away many (including some who have been attacked on this and previous threads) who are fully supportive of transgender people, but who see the insistance on the re-definition of the word "woman" as undermining their own identity, their own idea of what it means to be a woman.

All that's just my opinion, and people can accept it or not as they see fit. I previously stepped away from this thread because I felt it was getting too fixated on and too polarised by this linguistic business to the detriment of other things. I only came back because VP replied to one of my earlier posts, and I wanted to respond to him.

Maybe I should step away again, because although I'm sure all of you are well intentioned and have broadly similar views on the broader aspects of this issue, the insistance on this particular point from some of you is, again IMO, totally counter-productive.

 

[andysays]

it's the ability to discuss an issue without labeling one group as other/not normal. when discussing the issues trans people face, do we use the terms people and transeople, or cis people and trans people. one implies abnormality of the other group. the other implies difference, but does not lack equality

Sorry, I appreciate you coming back with clarification, but I'm stepping away from this thread now so won't be responding.

No reflection on you or anyone else, it's just not for me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Problems often occur when one starts thinking in terms of rights rather than simply what is right. The latter is often clear where the former can cause a mess.