Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[Mation]

I don't much like the idea of a spectrum for this particular subject, tbh, because it suggests cis is at one end and trans is at the other in some kind of 'opposite' position to one another. I don't think that's the case. I prefer thinking about it as a ball, I suppose: imagine a ball and you can draw a dot on it with a felt tip pen, and that is where you locate your gender. Someone else can draw a dot somewhere else on that ball and that is where they locate their gender. This ball can fill up with dots, and none of them have a more preferential position in relation to any of the others, they all just exist on this ball together, just not all in the same location. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it helps me to conceptualise gender locations in that way rather than a spectrum.

That's why I like the non-linear, 3d (or 3d+) spectrum idea. It would let you do just that.

 

[Santino]

Trans doesn't have to be binary in the way that you are a trans woman or trans man in the traditional sense of a cis gender binary (i.e. that there are women and there are men and that is that).

If we say gender is a spectrum, it means there are cis men and women, there are trans men and women, and there are people who don't quite fit either of those positions. That seems to be where Monroe is coming from, that they are trans but they are not part of the traditional cis/trans binary that we've been shown in the media so far. Agender people fall somewhere along this spectrum, as does anyone who calls themselves gender fluid, genderqueer, people who are intersex, and so on.

I don't much like the idea of a spectrum for this particular subject, tbh, because it suggests cis is at one end and trans is at the other in some kind of 'opposite' position to one another. I don't think that's the case. I prefer thinking about it as a ball, I suppose: imagine a ball and you can draw a dot on it with a felt tip pen, and that is where you locate your gender. Someone else can draw a dot somewhere else on that ball and that is where they locate their gender. This ball can fill up with dots, and none of them have a more preferential position in relation to any of the others, they all just exist on this ball together, just not all in the same location. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it helps me to conceptualise gender locations in that way rather than a spectrum.

You're saying gender is a load of balls.

 

[Vintage Paw]

You're saying gender is a load of balls.

Yes, and it matters not one jot whether you own a pair of 'em or not.

 

[Citizen66]

I'm unsure what their gender has to do with their stance on those other issues. We can critique anyone's feminism, and anyone's class consciousness, but how does Monroe's coming out as non-binary trans impact on that in this discussion?

(Incidentally, they have requested the they/them/their pronouns, not he or she.)

Seriously? Support for the ripper museum? Ew. That's... vile. But not (solely) attributable to any place on that 3d specturm, I don't think.

To address both points, more my annoyance at privilege theory where Monroe can now lay claim at being oppressed (more than being merely female) whilst also positioning herself besides the oppressors. This hasn't happened btw, I just see it as the next logical step in her politics.

 

[butchersapron]

No, sorry, I know you weren't. Just my previous comment about there being a spectrum reminded me of Jack Monroe recently claiming she's trans - but neither male nor female - and then I tie that in with her support for the ripper museum and her working class recipe 'advice' and then growl a bit.

I think you mean the cereal cafe rather than the ripper thing?

 

[Vintage Paw]

To address both points, more my annoyance at privilege theory where Monroe can now lay claim at being oppressed (more than being merely female) whilst also positioning herself besides the oppressors. This hasn't happened btw, I just see it as the next logical step in her politics.

You want to be careful how you phrase your concerns I think. It's dodgy ground to suggest someone might be trans in order to further their own political position. Like they chose it, or something. You know, like Caitlyn Jenner only 'became' trans to steal the limelight from the Kardashians.

 

[Citizen66]

I think you mean the cereal cafe rather than the ripper thing?

I thought she came out defending the Ripper Museum and then Class War revealed her links to the PR person of it and then the Cereal Cafe stuff is now because she has beef with Class War.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Problem with any spectrum idea is that far from minimising gender, it maximises it, seems to me. It's possible to think about this in a different way, I think, which is, simply, that many of the things attributed to/ assigned to gender are wrongly attributed/assigned.

'That's not manly, that's not womanly...' 'Well, I have my own idea of 'manly' or I have my own idea of 'womanly'. Or I think of myself as a mixture of the two or something.'

Is it not better (and simpler) just to take each of those roles/expectations one by one and say 'balls to using gender, whether binary or a spectrum, to define me in this way'? Surely it is the very existence of gendered expectations that ought to be tackled. Rather than attempt to renegotiate them, is it not better, where they are destructive, to try to go beyond them?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Problem with any spectrum idea is that far from minimising gender, it maximises it, seems to me. It's possible to think about this in a different way, I think, which is, simply, that many of the things attributed to/ assigned to gender are wrongly attributed/assigned.

'That's not manly, that's not womanly...' 'Well, I have my own idea of 'manly' or I have my own idea of 'womanly'. Or I think of myself as a mixture of the two or something.'

Is it not better (and simpler) just to take each of those roles/expectations one by one and say 'balls to using gender, whether binary or a spectrum, to define me in this way'? Surely it is the very existence of gendered expectations that ought to be tackled. Rather than attempt to renegotiate them, is it not better, where they are destructive, to try to go beyond them?

Yeah, I think we should. But that's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime why is it only trans people who have to 'transcend' gender while the rest of us get to keep our gender definitions until the hard work is done?

 

[Citizen66]

You want to be careful how you phrase your concerns I think. It's dodgy ground to suggest someone might be trans in order to further their own political position. Like they chose it, or something. You know, like Caitlyn Jenner only 'became' trans to steal the limelight from the Kardashians.

True. Neo-Liberalism co-opts identity politics (gay pride being an example) so coming from a social class position makes me shrug a bit, rightly or wrongly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, I think we should. But that's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime why is it only trans people who have to 'transcend' gender while the rest of us get to keep our gender definitions until the hard work is done?

Are trans people transcending gender, though? I certainly don't expect them to, and I'm not so sure they are trying to - they're swapping genders (going over to living as the gender they have always felt themselves to be), not transcending gender, no?

I do know someone who feels conflicted about their gender, in a way that means they're still not always sure that they want to be called the new pronoun for the gender they might be transferring to. Sometimes they identify as one, sometimes the other at the moment. No idea where that will go, but even that I'm not sure I see as a case of 'spectrum', more a bouncing between two poles of a binary.

 

[Vintage Paw]

True. Neo-Liberalism co-opts identity politics (gay pride being an example) so coming from a social class position makes me shrug a bit, rightly or wrongly.

Wrongly, I think. Because again the enemy is the system/state and not the people negotiating how to live within it. With some caveats of course: e.g. George Cunting Osborne. But you get my point I hope. When it comes to gender identity, rich people for example might have an easier time accessing psychological and medical therapies than poorer people, but they're just as likely to have the shit kicked out of them for 'not looking right' while walking down the street. That's just one rather crude example, of course. But this is a situation where -- and I know you all hate this so much and with a passion -- some of the things intersectionality goes on about is actually useful. We inhabit different spaces at different times, and being privileged in one respect doesn't mean we will receive the benefits of that privilege when we are inhabiting a space where we have less privilege than others in the same space. Hence a rich black person in America having more privilege in terms of wealth than a poor white person, but that same black person not having the same privileges as that same white person when it comes to their safety in the eyes of the police in a random altercation. And so on. Context is king.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought she came out defending the Ripper Museum and then Class War revealed her links to the PR person of it and then the Cereal Cafe stuff is now because she has beef with Class War.

Links to the PR person is not a very accurate way of putting it - that person ran some sort of award JM was up for or was on the judging panel (later removed). Nor 'is came out defending the museum' very accurate ("I haven't visited the museum & won't comment until I do."). The cereal cafe stuff is because she made some ridiculous comments about it months after any ripper stuff (by ripper stuff i mean false accusation of having shares in it, being involved in setting it up etc - this lie coming from firky, along with other lies about it from him).

 

[Vintage Paw]

Are trans people transcending gender, though? I certainly don't expect them to, and I'm not so sure they are trying to - they're swapping genders (going over to living as the gender they have always felt themselves to be), not transcending gender, no?

I do know someone who feels conflicted about their gender, in a way that means they're still not always sure that they want to be called the new pronoun for the gender they might be transferring to. Sometimes they identify as one, sometimes the other at the moment. No idea where that will go, but even that I'm not sure I see as a case of 'spectrum', more a bouncing between two poles of a binary.

No. I mean that the argument about 'let's just get rid of gender' comes up a lot when talking about trans issues, with the implication that trans people should just stop worrying about trying to be the gender they want, because gender is all bullshit anyway. But us cis people will keep our gender definition, thank you very much, until such a time as someone else has magically smashed it all down.

Cis people's gender identity isn't being stripped away from them in the same way trans people's is. Why should we ask them to accept that because the ideal is no gender? Why should they be the paragons lighting the way when all they want to do is get the fuck on with their lives?

 

[Citizen66]

Links to the PR person is not a very accurate way of putting it - that person ran some sort of award JM was up for or was on the judging panel (later removed). Nor 'is came out defending the museum' very accurate ("I haven't visited the museum & won't comment until I do."). The cereal cafe stuff is because she made some ridiculous comments about it months after any ripper stuff (by ripper stuff i mean false accusation of having shares in it, being involved in setting it up etc - this lie coming from firky, along with other lies about it from him).

Cheers for clarifying. I even remember now that the claim was dodgy this is what happens when you read the net too much.

 

[Citizen66]

Wrongly, I think. Because again the enemy is the system/state and not the people negotiating how to live within it. With some caveats of course: e.g. George Cunting Osborne. But you get my point I hope. When it comes to gender identity, rich people for example might have an easier time accessing psychological and medical therapies than poorer people, but they're just as likely to have the shit kicked out of them for 'not looking right' while walking down the street. That's just one rather crude example, of course. But this is a situation where -- and I know you all hate this so much and with a passion -- some of the things intersectionality goes on about is actually useful. We inhabit different spaces at different times, and being privileged in one respect doesn't mean we will receive the benefits of that privilege when we are inhabiting a space where we have less privilege than others in the same space. Hence a rich black person in America having more privilege in terms of wealth than a poor white person, but that same black person not having the same privileges as that same white person when it comes to their safety in the eyes of the police in a random altercation. And so on. Context is king.

I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. I mean that the argument about 'let's just get rid of gender' comes up a lot when talking about trans issues, with the implication that trans people should just stop worrying about trying to be the gender they want, because gender is all bullshit anyway. But us cis people will keep our gender definition, thank you very much, until such a time as someone else has magically smashed it all down.

Cis people's gender identity isn't being stripped away from them in the same way trans people's is. Why should we ask them to accept that because they ideal is no gender? Why should they be the paragons lighting the way when all they want to do is get the fuck on with their lives?

Ok, fair enough. I'm not actually suggesting getting rid of gender entirely necessarily, merely the destructive bits, although I acknowledge that identifying and disentangling the destructive bits is far from easy. There is the great huge canard of sexual attraction to deal with, on both sides, where, to put it crudely, we live up to gender norms to get laid. Also there is a danger of being seen to be judging people who enjoy certain aspects of their gender role.

imo lots of this stuff is addressed by indirect means - a fairer socialist society, for starters. As ever, thinking you can tackle things like gender stereotyping without also addressing social justice is, frankly, fatuous. The sort of stuff Toksvig's reactionary new political party would think.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Further to my rich/poor people thing, this is why Caitlyn Jenner is an interesting topic. Not for the things Greer talks about, but because she's being held up as a symbol while at the same time there are thousands of poorer trans people who will never have the privilege of passing as she may because they can't afford to. And they'll never have the privilege of expensive psychological help. Etc.

I haven't really paid a great deal of attention to her since her coming out, but I believe she has mentioned that she is aware of and that it is a travesty that people without her privilege can't access the same kind of help. So that's something. But at the same time she supports a lot of Republican policies and beliefs that would further damage those same people. But in critiquing that, I'm not critiquing her gender or her being trans, I'm critiquing her political position and how she benefits from things that she would deny others. The same can be said of anyone, any gender, any race, any socio-economic background, when it comes to who they think is worthy and who is not.

 

[Citizen66]

I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.

This is worded terribly. Better is: those whose struggles I support won't always support mine once theirs is won.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I'm always on the side of the oppressed or try to be. But back to Marx etc, I don't waste too much of my efforts on anything that exists without a class analysis. I'm all for getting rid of patriarchy as long as those fighting it with me want rid of hierarchy too.

I agree with you... with the exception that it almost sounds like you think women who don't have a developed class consciousness deserve their patriarchy thank you very much. No.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Further to my rich/poor people thing, this is why Caitlyn Jenner is an interesting topic. Not for the things Greer talks about, but because she's being held up as a symbol while at the same time there are thousands of poorer trans people who will never have the privilege of passing as she may because they can't afford to. And they'll never have the privilege of expensive psychological help. Etc.

I haven't really paid a great deal of attention to her since her coming out, but I believe she has mentioned that she is aware of and that it is a travesty that people without her privilege can't access the same kind of help. So that's something. But at the same time she supports a lot of Republican policies and beliefs that would further damage those same people. But in critiquing that, I'm not critiquing her gender or her being trans, I'm critiquing her political position and how she benefits from things that she would deny others. The same can be said of anyone, any gender, any race, any socio-economic background, when it comes to who they think is worthy and who is not.

She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh.

That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.

 

[Vintage Paw]

She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh.

That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.

Yes, she's a Republican and can fuck off for her politics, absolutely.

But there has to be a nuanced and intelligent way of talking about this. Because if a rich woman is raped I am not going to tell her I don't care because she is rich. Not standing up for a woman who is raped makes all women more vulnerable in the long run. Likewise, with Jenner, if she is attacked (in the media, wherever) for being trans, I'm not going to laugh and say "whatever, Republican bitch" because every public attack against a trans person normalises attacks against all trans people. And while she may have the benefit of bodyguards (I don't know if she has, btw, but she can certainly afford them) most people do not, most people have to deal with the very bloody reality of it. This, to me, is where the critiques of identity politics without class politics fall short - they are all too happy to see everyone suffer ("everyone not like me" at least) because there isn't the right kind of class politics involved somewhere.

 

[Citizen66]

I agree with you... with the exception that it almost sounds like you think women who don't have a developed class consciousness deserve their patriarchy thank you very much. No.

Nah, I mean the opposite. That female equality for those without class analysis is Thatcher.

 

[Citizen66]

We've had a female pm so we're post feminism.

 

[Citizen66]

She's a Republican so she can fuck off, tbh.

That's where any identity politics fails if it isn't attached to something else. Like welcoming Thatcher because she's a woman.

Beaten to it. Obvious yet correct example.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, she's a Republican and can fuck off for her politics, absolutely.

But there has to be a nuanced and intelligent way of talking about this. Because if a rich woman is raped I am not going to tell her I don't care because she is rich. Not standing up for a woman who is raped makes all women more vulnerable in the long run. Likewise, with Jenner, if she is attacked (in the media, wherever) for being trans, I'm not going to laugh and say "whatever, Republican bitch" because every public attack against a trans person normalises attacks against all trans people. And while she may have the benefit of bodyguards (I don't know if she has, btw, but she can certainly afford them) most people do not, most people have to deal with the very bloody reality of it. This, to me, is where the critiques of identity politics without class politics fall short - they are all too happy to see everyone suffer ("everyone not like me" at least) because there isn't the right kind of class politics involved somewhere.

I would never do anything other than condemn an attack on someone for being trans or being a woman. However, condemning the attack isn't quite the same thing as defending the person being attacked. That's where id politics can lead you down the wrong road, imo, as it sees people holding up examples of x or y in the public eye and saying 'progress'. But no. It matters not just what someone is but also who they are. Thatcher's election was not progress for women in Britain. It was progress for a woman - Thatcher - but the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And if this trans woman is a Republican, the same thing applies.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I would never do anything other than condemn an attack on someone for being trans or being a woman. However, condemning the attack isn't quite the same thing as defending the person being attacked. That's where id politics can lead you down the wrong road, imo, as it sees people holding up examples of x or y in the public eye and saying 'progress'. But no. It matters not just what someone is but also who they are. Thatcher's election was not progress for women in Britain. It was progress for a woman - Thatcher - but the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. And if this trans woman is a Republican, the same thing applies.

I agree with you to an extent, but I do disagree slightly because not all things are equivalent. For example, seeing LGB people normalised on TV and in politics has gone a long way to seeing LGB people normalised in everyday life. Some of those LGB people in TV and politics are right wing, all are likely more privileged in terms of class than the majority of other LGB people. And yet their visibility and acceptance (acceptance as being gay) has made acceptance easier for other LGB people. Same will be true of trans people. This is different to expecting all women to become powerful or rich or even have oppressive gender roles become a thing of the past once Thatcher came into power. The difference is what outcome we're expecting. One is saying a woman is PM, therefore any woman can achieve a position of power, huzzah no more sexism, post-feminism woo. The other is saying look, it's normal to be gay or trans, they're just like us, see how they can walk and talk and not be weird and stuff... maybe we shouldn't beat the shit out of them. I'm being facetious obviously, but it would only be an equivalence if we were saying "look, this gay person is on tv, now all gay people can be famous."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I take the point, but I'm very skeptical about the power of the media in this regard. How much do the media and those in public life drive these kinds of social processes, and how much are they merely reflecting them? Hard question to answer, but I was always struck whenever Eastenders used to do 'issues' that a character would always adopt the most stereotypically reactionary position possible in order to be turned from it at some point as they recognised the humanity of their gay child, or whatever. Not sure whether that kind of thing has ever had much of an effect on people (and definitely not as much as I think many in the media would have us believe) - actually knowing people in your real life is way more influential.

And then there's the Joey Deacon effect.

 

[Belushi]

Thought this thread was lively then I saw the one on Lisa Mckenzie's fb page

 

[stethoscope]

Lisa posted a link to this on her twitter:
Comment: The attack on Germaine Greer shows identity politics has become a cult

Just to ramp things up a bit more