Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[Sea Star]

We're not talking about anyone's right to exist.

Actually, we are. We're talking about trans peoples' rights to exist as the people we know we are, and not to be merely "tolerated" or having to live in seclusion, but to live full and productive lives in the gender we identify as.

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".

there is no generally accepted and generally used meaning of the words "man" and "woman", unless you consider it to be the entirely deficient forms that are defined entirely by genitals. And there are many reasons why such a definition does not work, not least because it feeds into the narrative of the most bigoted transphobes who seem to think gender identity can be summed up entirely by the naked people diagrams in a child's biology text book.
Gender identity is a much more complex thing than any of the current definitions and its only by listening to gender non-conforming people that we will know more about it.

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.

Well, who are you to tell a marginalised person that they're not actually marginalised? When you see the TERFs in their true colours, writing to have trans women sacked or deselected, or whatever, and baseless accusations of misogyny hurled at us. I had a Tweet from Cathy Brennan calling me Brian, and it was completely unprovoked. These people say bigoted things and behave like bigots, so I call them bigots. My female identity is being systematically denied by these people, and any attempt to try to improve my rights, or my place in the world is met with their aggression.

All that's just my opinion, and people can accept it or not as they see fit.

And can't you see how completely worthless your opinion is regaridng this matter?

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.

Maybe you should. Maybe this isn't your fight?

oh, and may I be the first to point out that you are clearly not "fully supportive of transgender people".

 

[butchersapron]

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.

I bet that sounded good in your head. The idea that what is right is uncluttered is sort of not historically proven.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I bet that sounded good in your head. The idea that what is right is uncluttered is sort of not historically proven.

Ok, sarcy. It was a response to andysays. I didn't quote him as he wanted out. It can be very simple to see what the right thing to do is - and I think this is an example of such a case - while turning that into rights can be very tricky, and not necessarily all that useful even.

That appeared to me at least to be part of andy's problem here.

 

[toggle]

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.

if our language contains inherent discrimination, then that needs fixing. not pretending that a problem doesn't exist because we're not personally affected by it. the discrimination in our language was constructed to create and maintain powr4e structures and in order toi recognise and deconstruct the power structures fully, we also need to deconstruct the assumptions that they are normal or natural. and we cna't do that without recognising that the normality of the power structures is written into our language



and arguments about changing the definition of women to include other women being a bad thing because it changes how other women feel about being woman is as much bollocks as the broadly parallel arguments about gay marriage.

i'm a woman. i fucking know this and including AuntiStella in the woman club doesn't change anything about who i am. im as much of a woman now as i was before stella said she was part of our club. but it sure as hell changes a lot for her. cause she gets to be publicly recognized as who she is. and that's more important, because it doesn't affect me.

and yes, i did make that personal, with apologies to stella, but as a reminder that this isn't something abstract, this is about a discussion where people are asking whether individuals who are actually here and part of this discussion have the right to be who they are, who they have always been rather than be forced to fit into something uncomfortable, because the dictionary says who they are and maintaining the integrity of a dictionary definition is more important than peole.

so bollocks to that.

 

[billy_bob]

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.

Sorry to harp on about the linguistic issue - I think you're right that we can get too fixated on that - but to talk about words 'getting redefined' by some people against other people's wishes doesn't make any sense at all, because it ignores the fact that, in a literal sense, that's exactly how virtually all language change has always taken place: there's no referendum on it - meaning gradually morphs, expands, contracts, etc. depending on how some people at some times in some places use a word, as a result of non-linguistic changes in the wider world.

Of course that process may stir up some controversy if it's a word with any significant small-p political meaning. But that doesn't mean there's an alternative in which certain words can be collectively agreed by one group to mean 'A and not A plus B' and in which that can in any way prevent or discourage others from using it to mean not only 'A plus B' but P, Q and R too if they feel like it.

If we agree that trans people who identify as women have the right to exist, to behave as they wish free of discrimination, and to identify personally and collectively as they wish, then the shift in the meaning of words around gender identity is not a subsidiary but less universal right - it's an entirely inevitable result.

 

[Sea Star]

if our language contains inherent discrimination, then that needs fixing. not pretending that a problem doesn't exist because we're not personally affected by it. the discrimination in our language was constructed to create and maintain powr4e structures and in order toi recognise and deconstruct the power structures fully, we also need to deconstruct the assumptions that they are normal or natural. and we cna't do that without recognising that the normality of the power structures is written into our language



and arguments about changing the definition of women to include other women being a bad thing because it changes how other women feel about being woman is as much bollocks as the broadly parallel arguments about gay marriage.

i'm a woman. i fucking know this and including AuntiStella in the woman club doesn't change anything about who i am. im as much of a woman now as i was before stella said she was part of our club. but it sure as hell changes a lot for her. cause she gets to be publicly recognized as who she is. and that's more important, because it doesn't affect me.

and yes, i did make that personal, with apologies to stella, but as a reminder that this isn't something abstract, this is about a discussion where people are asking whether individuals who are actually here and part of this discussion have the right to be who they are, who they have always been rather than be forced to fit into something uncomfortable, because the dictionary says who they are and maintaining the integrity of a dictionary definition is more important than peole.

so bollocks to that.

if I could have liked that more then I would have done!

 

[likesfish]

I think I'm going to start self identifying as a rad fem lesbian

just a really really bad one

 

[Sea Star]

by the way - this might be interesting to some of you. apparently TERF was a word coined by radical feminists who wanted to include trans people.

So TERF originated from within feminism, and was not made up by trans women to use as a slur against some women, as is often claimed.

TERF: what it means and where it came from

 

[ViolentPanda]

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...

Yes, wider society does get to "label" on the principle of the weight of (generally poorly-informed) opinion, but that doesn't mean that the labelling is accurate, fair or worthwhile - it's often the opposite.

And you're wrong. Labelling is judgement. It's the labeller either judging that an existing label is fine to use, or applying a new label that they judge is accurate - good practice if you're the person being labelled, but poor practice if you're merely using these labels (that you have decided are apposite) on others.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There do appear to be more than two genders. There are people who describe themselves as gender fluid, some as agender. What society calls them is a different matter.

None of that detracts from the fact that trans women are women and trans men are men.

I've only ever met one female-to-male transexual/trans man (way back in the late '80s) that I knew of. He hadn't had any hormone treatment or surgery at that time (although was partway through a counselling process), but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he was a man, even without the biological equipment. It was about the way he spoke about himself in relation to others, both socially and emotionally - it was a male perspective, and not just (IMHO) parroted, but a felt perspective.
I've had a similar but "vibe" from the handful of trans women I've met.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Does anyone have a rough figure for the percentage of mtf trans that define their new gender by wearing high heeled shoes?

0%

HTH

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think that the radfems do bring up some valid points but as there is no marxist/class analysis and much of it seems based on an appeal to emotion and a kind of nationalism where the sex/gender becomes the 'nation' and not the race.

Perhaps it's more of an attempt at cultural hegemony/policing the parameters of discourse with regard to sex/gender, as opposed to being a "nationalism"?

In the transsexual empire raymond says that genital surgeries and the like should be restricted but i cant see how thats a solution at all and would only lead to more misery and suffering. Even in a communist society where everyone had the same life chances, access to wealth etc etc and gender differences were eliminated completely, you would still get people wanting to change their sex. And it seems to me that in focusing obsessively on this one issue a minority of radfems are going down very dark roads tbh. Its the stuff about lobbies and the idea that 'they' will have certain words be 'banned' and predictions that seem very far fetched on the lines of the 'britain will have sharia law by 2050' sort of model, the arguments are structured upon lines that are very over exaggerated and like anti immigration or 'rothschild banker' type arguments, even if some of the critiques about gender etc are sound.

I dont think that no platforming people like greer is an answer though, some of this stuff does need to be debated as keithy says. I don't think silencing her will convince people already half convinced by that sort of conspiratorialism

TBF, you find extreme currents in every politics, and some modes of radical feminism might be considered to be analogues of Islamism in their narrow definitions of "what is what". There's also, unfortunately, certainly a mild current in rad fem of a male conspiracy to undermine the identities of so-called "born women".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why on earth are genders so important? It seems to be getting worse as well with all the pink and blue toys marketed to little girls and boys that i dont remember when i was a kid, must be hell if you already feel like your body/brain already dont match up. Not that that is trans peoples fault (quite the opposite tbh)

Genders categorise.
Our entire set of social structures are built around the assumptions made around certain categories. Those categorical assumptions have allowed patriarchy (another category!) to exert power through the hegemony of those categorical assumptions. There's the trope about the legal, moral and social "inferiority" of women, that feels like it has always been around, but there's also the trope that allowed us to destroy native populations, or enslave them. Genders are important because they're constructed to be important - to define you as A or B so that you can be "correctly" categorised and "operated upon" by power.

 

[frogwoman]

Perhaps it's more of an attempt at cultural hegemony/policing the parameters of discourse with regard to sex/gender, as opposed to being a "nationalism"?



TBF, you find extreme currents in every politics, and some modes of radical feminism might be considered to be analogues of Islamism in their narrow definitions of "what is what". There's also, unfortunately, certainly a mild current in rad fem of a male conspiracy to undermine the identities of so-called "born women".

Tbh the type of radical feminism stuff that is coming from the states seems to be a very black and white apocalyptic conspiratorial sort of world-view, 'the ultimate patriarchal plan to wipe out women', 'the transgender lobby' etc and it seems to be influenced by survivalism and a 'the government coming to take our guns' type of mentality.

You're right perhaps nationalism isnt the best way to understand it but that is what it reminds me of. I mean that stuff 'we owe it to our fore-mothers never, never to recognise a trans woman as a female' wtf is that all about? Its a populist appeal to myth making and a 'duty to your ancestors' its like saying 'my grandad didnt fight in the war to let all the muslims in'

 

[frogwoman]

I mean sure debate gender/gender roles/'brain sex' etc as a social construct that harms everyone, but thats an entirely different matter to saying 'never, never call a transvestive she as he walks down the street' it is just the sort of thing you can imagine donald trump or someone saying, 'letting muslims in is an insult to those that died to Make America Great'

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tbh the type of radical feminism stuff that is coming from the states seems to be a very black and white apocalyptic conspiratorial sort of world-view, 'the ultimate patriarchal plan to wipe out women', 'the transgender lobby' etc and it seems to be influenced by survivalism and a 'the government coming to take our guns' type of mentality.

You're right perhaps nationalism isnt the best way to understand it but that is what it reminds me of. I mean that stuff 'we owe it to our fore-mothers never, never to recognise a trans woman as a female' wtf is that all about? Its a populist appeal to myth making and a 'duty to your ancestors' its like saying 'my grandad didnt fight in the war to let all the muslims in'

It does come across a bit "blood and soil", doesn't it?

 

[Vintage Paw]

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.

Sweden recently legally introduced a third gender neutral pronoun into language. It was so recent, however, that there's no way to see how it will change things in the long run.

 

[goldenecitrone]

How did the swedes go so long without it?

 

[weltweit]

It seems Greer is no longer going to speak at Cardiff, but she has spouted loud in the media in support of her statement. Not for the faint hearted:
Germaine Greer defends 'offensive' comments about transgender women

 

[billy_bob]

It seems Greer is no longer going to speak at Cardiff, but she has spouted loud in the media in support of her statement. Not for the faint hearted:
Germaine Greer defends 'offensive' comments about transgender women

Neo-nazis are very fond of the phrase 'a dog can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse' to explain why it is impossible for black people to be English.

This is the second time I've invoked Godwin's law on this thread but fuck it: she can dress up as a feminist but that doesn't mean her comments aren't borderline fascistic.

 

[D'wards]

This is the second time I've invoked Godwin's law on this thread but fuck it: she can dress up as a feminist but that doesn't mean her comments aren't borderline fascistic.

On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.

 

[Athos]

On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.

On a simplistic level, yes. It appears to be a sub-set of a large, relatively privileged group (cis women) asserting that privilege against a smaller, disadvantaged group (trans women). But, that's becasue we see trans women as women. However, many TERFs see trans women as men; and so, to them it appears to be a disadvantaged group (women) resisting male privilege and the colonisation and domination of not only the female body, but also the very notion of womanhood, by men.

And, although it's not a defnition of womanhood to which I subscribe (not least of all becasue of the harm it results in for trans people), the idea that women must have been born and socialised as girls and women is no less logical than the counter definition i.e. that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman. In fact, the latter has some siginificant logical weanesses e.g. the idea that, in respect of almost everything else, just saying something doesn't make it true.

 

[D'wards]

The whole notion of privilege generalisations has always been an anathema to me.

If you are a middle class woman, black person or gay you will always have had more privilege than a working class white male. NWBTCW and all that.

 

[Sea Star]

On a simplistic level, isn't a movement that is designed to fight oppression and exclusivity demonstrating exactly that in quite stark ways.

These people aren't representative of feminism. They represent an extreme faction within feminism and have been driving women away ever since they managed to gain so much influence. I believe that feminism is in the process of being taken back by actual feminists.

 

[Sea Star]

The whole notion of privilege generalisations has always been an anathema to me.

If you are a middle class woman, black person or gay you will always have had more privilege than a working class white male. NWBTCW and all that.

its about time that class was recognised as being a trait by which people are discriminated against. It's fairly obvious to me why it isn't, but it should be!

 

[Citizen66]

Didn't the Tories try to argue that the upper class are an oppressed minority?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Neo-nazis are very fond of the phrase 'a dog can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse' to explain why it is impossible for black people to be English.

Ugh. I'd not heard that before. Horrible.

I think Greer's comments are deeply ignorant, and wilfully so - she deliberately trivialises the process by reducing it to 'cutting your dick off and putting on a dress'. She's being deliberately crass, seems to me, but all that does is make her look stupid.

But I don't really think the comparisons with racism are very useful. The above racist comment is a good example of one that is backed up by nothing other than the person's prejudices. Greer's position isn't really the same, and I don't think it can be dismissed in the same way.

 

[Sea Star]

Didn't the Tories try to argue that the upper class are an oppressed minority?

I see that a lot in arguments with right wingers - but it just doesn't hold up - they are so clearly not oppressed in any way!

 

[billy_bob]

its about time that class was recognised as being a trait by which people are discriminated against. It's fairly obvious to me why it isn't, but it should be!

In its draft stages there were plans to include a 'duty to promote socio-economic equality' in the overarching equalities act that replaced the old race/disability/sex discrimination legislation in (?) 2010 - which might have provided some legal levers to recognise discrimination on the basis of class alongside the 'protected characteristics' (albeit cloaked in anodyne New Labour-speak terminology). Surprise surprise, it didn't make it into the final Act.

 

[D'wards]

These people aren't representative of feminism. They represent an extreme faction within feminism and have been driving women away ever since they managed to gain so much influence. I believe that feminism is in the process of being taken back by actual feminists.

I hope so because I think its been a bad couple of years for feminism. If you follow Metro on Facebook everytime a feminist story is posted the vast majority of comments from women are anti-feminism.