Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[ViolentPanda]

I've read a lot of this thread, though not all of it. What I see is the same arguments as on other threads that I have read in full. Forgive me if this has been covered here, but I haven't seen it elsewhere on urban (or have missed it).

1) I think it's uncontroversial to say that babies are assigned a gender at birth, based on their external sex characteristics. Sometimes these are ambiguous and what happens next (surgery, deferred decision, assigning a gender anyway) will depend, but in the main, this is how gender assignment happens. I'm not glossing over what happens in ambiguous situations because they're unimportant - they're clearly very important, especially for the people affected - but because I want to see if we agree that the above is how gender assignment happens when there are unambiguous external sex characteristics.

2) I think it's also uncontroversial to say that there are differences between the genders in brain structure and function in childhood and in adulthood. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Do we agree?

3) It's more controversial to say, but possible for everyone to understand, that gender-based brain differences in structure and function in childhood and adulthood can be a product of the socialisation that results from the gender assignment in point 2. Note the deliberate omission of a definite article in front of the emboldened phrase in this point, 3.

4) Accepting that gender-based brain differences in structure and function exist demands the very important caveat, imo, that any conclusions on the 'moral' or 'natural' rightness of particular power structures (by this I mean patriarchy) need to be treated with extreme caution.

5) Is everyone aware that some brain structures differ between babies depending on their external sex characteristics at birth? There is evidence. At birth being the salient information. Because unless we believe that gender conditioning begins in the womb, socialisation cannot account for these differences. Here's some evidence that differences are present at birth (key bits emboldened):





6) If these differences are present at birth is it not possible that they are the source of the knowledge that one's gender has been wrongly assigned and that one's body has come out all wrong?

Disclaimer: I'm a cis woman and so may be cisplaining; if so it's because I haven't read the thread in full (I think and hope!).

tl;dr: Some sex-based differences in the brain are present at birth which suggests it's possible to have a gender from birth that is different to external sex characteristics and independent of gender socialisation.

The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition.
So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tbh Mation you may well be cisplaining but I'm needing to check my cis privilege. Clearly. I've not wanted to engage with this thread particularly because clumsy. I'd come over as terf I reckon.. When actually not terf but very much gender as social construct.

In my opinion, an awful lot of problems reside in what people take "social construct" to mean. Many appear to believe that the concept means an idea constructed by society-at-large, for society-at large, in which case gender would map to "commonsense" perceptions based on already-established roles. Perhaps when we call something "socially-constructed", we need to bear in mind that it isn't merely a matter of the above, but that power - interest groups, historic precedent etc - also plays a part in social construction for its' own ends. It may be "commonsense" to accept binary gendering as predominant and even "right", but that doesn't mean there aren't influences at work for whom exploring gender multiplicity goes against their intentions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which means then there's a spectrum, so cis/trans also becomes binary as someone mentioned earlier.

There's a spectrum, and while cis/trans may be binary opposites, it ain't necessarily so, any more than male/female is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

You shouldn't simplify until after you clarify, so a maximalist approach to gender would therefore make more sense.

 

[Thora]

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

How long til she's getting death threats too?

 

[D'wards]

I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism

 

[wtfftw]

I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism

Yeah. No.

 

[toggle]

I notice Laurie Penny has retweeted anti-Greer stuff. I have a feeling this whole incident may be the end for Greer as a force in feminism

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You shouldn't simplify until after you clarify, so a maximalist approach to gender would therefore make more sense.

How does that work, though? I'm still not clear what a 'spectrum' gender identification would look like. And isn't the whole point that stella's been making that trans-gender people don't necessarily want a new gender classification for them, nor some spectrum idea, at all? They just want to be accepted as the *other* gender that they have moved over to. If anything, I could see the likes of Greer seeing spectrum-like gender identification as a good idea - she could then fit trans-people at somewhere on the spectrum other than alongside her concept of 'real' women.

 

[Thora]

Yeah. No.

Tbf Laurie Penny is the feminist voice of our times.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does that work, though? I'm still not clear what a 'spectrum' gender identification would look like. And isn't the whole point that stella's been making that trans-gender people don't necessarily want a new gender classification for them, nor some spectrum idea, at all? They just want to be accepted as the *other* gender that they have moved over to. If anything, I could see the likes of Greer seeing spectrum-like gender identification as a good idea - she could then fit trans-people at somewhere on the spectrum other than alongside her concept of 'real' women.

It's more a case of "how would it work?", and I'd answer that with "by keeping an open mind to any claims of spectrum-based gender identity". In other words, beyond what classification AuntiStella might want/find acceptable for herself, we also need to think about those who locate themselves beyond or between the male-female binary at the same time, otherwise the current arguments with reference to cis/trans will just be recreated elsewhere on the gender spectrum - something that is, IIRC, already happening mildly with regard to "born" vs "made" intersex.

 

[smokedout]

The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition.
So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.

this is really important to this entire debate. essentialism vs non-essentialism are both being held up as objective truths, as proved, and a further leap is being made that even if gender is entirely a social construct that precludes a biological basis for transsexuality. The interplay between nurture, nature, gender, physical sex, identity, hormones, and things that might be considered also in the mix, such a body mapping dysphoria, aesthetics, sexuality, is so complex it looks verging on chaotic. No-one can say they can present an absolute proof in the essentialism debate so all these arguments are largely being based in ideology, hunches and personal prejudices.

what we do have however is a phenomena that people experience in all times and cultures, that shares a great (diagnosable) commonality in how it is experienced and which has a huge impact on people's live. How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history. we have learnt to accept that non-heterosexual sexuality is a thing, despite no physical evidence of where it is under a microscope, we know less than fuck all about how or why it emerges, I'd suggest that the same courtesy is paid towards people's gender identity as well. That seems easier for some people to grasp when someone is noticeably physically intersex but claims a gendered identity, there isn't really much difference between doing that for someone who might be neurogically or genetically intersex in some way - or might even not be, i'm not sure it really matters or why nature should trump nurture in the hierarchy of what we deem acceptable.

and just as a by the way, researchers in this field do seem to be moving in the direction that transsexuality has some kind of biological driver.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's more a case of "how would it work?", and I'd answer that with "by keeping an open mind to any claims of spectrum-based gender identity". In other words, beyond what classification AuntiStella might want/find acceptable for herself, we also need to think about those who locate themselves beyond or between the male-female binary at the same time, otherwise the current arguments with reference to cis/trans will just be recreated elsewhere on the gender spectrum - something that is, IIRC, already happening mildly with regard to "born" vs "made" intersex.

I confess to ignorance generally to what and how intersex people feel. If some feel themselves to be neither male nor female, I see no problem with that. It doesn't so much negate the binary as say to me that there are people who sit outside it. Analogous perhaps to someone being asexual - not homo or hetero or bi, but rather not anywhere on any sexuality continuum (I do think sexuality is a better fit to a spectrum than gender). And here, surely, is where reducing the importance of gender, reducing the ideas associated with it, is only going to help - you're male, female or neither, but how you're treated isn't determined by that.

 

[laptop]

So is there an age cut-off?

We'll have to wait and see. As far as I know, there are few or no people who have been accepted as trans at an early age until very recently.

The argument as I see it is about history.

TERF

Eh? Ah! I'm soo glad that an accident of birth means I can never be one of these

I have known many feminists, almost all of them radical people. And some separatists - the world has been blurred for a while Almost none of the separatists were radical-feminists (and almost no-one seems to be defining "radical-feminist" as a radical-feminist would do so: which is to place gender as the root cause of all oppression).

I find it very easy to see how a woman who has spent 40 years being attacked for demanding women-only spaces would be ticked off. Not hating: annoyed.

She is confronted by a person who was offered the privileges of expecting to be heard everywhere that go with being male. Those privileges are her reason for wanting women-only spaces. Now this person is demanding to enter that space, to be heard about her experience as a woman...

It seems to me that it must be instructive that - mention of Jack Monroe's non-binary position apart - this is all about m2f folk.

True, any space that an f2m seeks to gain entry is one that men have maintained by patriarchal priviledge. But it's not one that's been fought for this past century. But I fear there's something going on about right-to-be-heard too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history.

Good post. Completely agree with this bit. And again analogous to the treatment of homosexuals. In the end it doesn't matter exactly what role nurture or nature has or hasn't played. That doesn't change how we should act at all.

 

[Athos]

How we respond to that ss society and individuals is largely a measure of compassion, and whether we trust the lived experiences reported by probably millions of transsexuals now throughout history.

I think this is pretty much spot on. I have chosen to embrace a definition of 'woman' that includes trans women. That choice is based more on compassion than on logic or science. Whilst I understand the views of some women who would exclude trans women, not only am I unconvinced by them, but, also I see little point in arguing about the definition whilst trans women are being killed, abused, driven to suicide etc. In my opinion, it would be good if this issue stopped taking up such a disproportionate amount of contemporary feminist discourse - better surely to focus on DV, wage differentials, etc., etc. And better to put to bed an issue that's bringing out the worst on both sides, and so is very divisive. I hope that a movement towards a more inclusive feminism can be bought about be a calmer conversation, which fosters empathy on both sides.

 

[Mation]

The problem is that sex-based structural differences of brain don't necessarily map to gender at all. Our current state of knowledge on gender as it pertains to the interface between brain and mind is still mostly supposition.
So yes, it's possible, but we're still too deep in theory rather than fact to advance beyond possibility, sadly.

Oh definitely; I wasn't saying they map or that anyone knows how. Just that there is something, at birth, that is brain-based, that isn't about conditioning or constructs, that (imo) probably has some (at the moment black box) effect on how people feel about their gender, given that other sex characteristics have some effect.

 

[Mation]

I think this is pretty much spot on. I have chosen to embrace a definition of 'woman' that includes trans women. That choice is based more on compassion than on logic or science. Whilst I understand the views of some women who would exclude trans women, not only am I unconvinced by them, but, also I see little point in arguing about the definition whilst trans women are being killed, abused, driven to suicide etc. In my opinion, it would be good if this issue stopped taking up such a disproportionate amount of contemporary feminist discourse - better surely to focus on DV, wage differentials, etc., etc. And better to put to bed an issue that's bringing out the worst on both sides, and so is very divisive. I hope that a movement towards a more inclusive feminism can be bought about be a calmer conversation, which fosters empathy on both sides.

Are you trolling?

 

[Citizen66]

He's ever the contrarian.

 

[Athos]

Are you trolling?

No, there's nothing in the post you quoted that's inconsistent with my position throughout.

From the outset, I explained that I consider trans women to be women, and that I hope all people will come to see things that way. That's not lessened by the fact that I am reticent to force my opinion on all women, or that I try to understand the arguments of some women who would exclude trans women, if only because that seems to me to be the only positive way in which they could ultimately be overcome.

Sadly, in a discussion that generates more heat than light, it's often easier for others to try to shout down anything but the most extreme position on the same side of the debate as them. In the cases of some who have suffered terribly, and to whom this is a very real and very personal issue, I suppose that's understandable, albeit not very helpful.

 

[Athos]

He's ever the contrarian.

No I'm not.

 

[Citizen66]

Boom tish!

 

[lizzieloo]

I believe walking in high heels is the first skill m-f transexuals are required to learn in their quest to become a woman. If they fail at that hurdle, there's no chance of them ever being 'accepted'.

I'll never be accepted then

 

[Mation]

No, there's nothing in the post you quoted that's inconsistent with my position throughout.

From the outset, I explained that I consider trans women to be women, and that I hope all people will come to see things that way. That's not lessened by the fact that I am reticent to force my opinion on all women, or that I try to understand the arguments of some women who would exclude trans women, if only because that seems to me to be the only positive way in which they could ultimately be overcome.

Sadly, in a discussion that generates more heat than light, it's often easier for others to try to shout down anything but the most extreme position on the same side of the debate as them. In the cases of some who have suffered terribly, and to whom this is a very real and very personal issue, I suppose that's understandable, albeit not very helpful.

It wasn't that I thought you were being inconsistent (not read enough of your posts to know) it's just that the way you put it - I can't decide between oozed and dripped - droozed patriarchy.

 

[likesfish]

obviously the answer to terf vs trans is a contest of womanly skills
walking in high heels
baking
making sandwiches and tank combat

 

[Citizen66]

You even managed to shoehorn the military into this discussion?

 

[weltweit]

I thought I would post this here:
Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol

I don't know what she did to deserve prison

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I thought I would post this here:
Bath Magistrates, Prison Govenor of HM Prison Bristol, British Judicial System: Stop Transgender Woman Tara Hudson From Being Sent To An All-Male Prison in Bristol

I don't know what she did to deserve prison

It's in the article. 12 weeks for common assault in a pub fracas. Absurd sending anyone to jail for this kind of thing.

Pretty chilling the stats in that. She has a more than evens chance of being sexually assaulted. Fucking judge who sentenced her is the one who should be in prison. Cunt.

 

[bluescreen]

Just heard that there's an appeal against her sentence to be heard tomorrow. There are now over 100,000 signatures to the petition. A facebook page here for a support rally.

 

[Citizen66]

Seems there's some back pedalling happening.

Prison service considering removing transgender woman Tara Hudson from all-male jail