Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[emanymton]

There's an entirely valid point there about the experiences of growing up that might be being emphasised, but in other contexts the subtext of the above could be 'if you weren't born with a vagina we'll never let you in the club'.

And the statement you've put in quotes does subtly reinforce determinist (and I think reductionist) categories and boundaries of identity, by providing essential criteria for belonging to the group in question. People for whom the reality is more fuzzy round the edges are excluded by that in ways that may not be directly, intentionally hateful but may feel hateful all the same. A trans person may not share the experience of being born with a female body and having a female gender role imposed on them as a result, but may well have - often traumatic - experience of what it's like to be considered to embody aspects of that imposed gender role despite having the 'wrong' physical body for it. To simply say that having the wrong equipment at birth permanently excludes someone from 'becoming' a different gender does rather ignore that fact, because it assumes that one set of equipment makes you a privileged male and the other a disadvantaged female, full stop.

Isn't this the point, that by definition being a trans women will be a different type of experience to being a cis women? Are trans and cis not really two different identities within the wider identity of 'women'? The problem comes when some members of one of the two groups try and lay claim to the whole identity, either by denying the importance of lived experience or by deny trans women the right to be called women at all?

 

[andysays]

if you have no term for those who are not members of a group, the only way to discuss issues relating to that group is through a labelling of normal and other. creating a term that allows that to be discussed as 'group a' and 'group b' isn't redefining group a in my opinion. and insisting that group b are defined only inn terms of not group a, in terms of being not the normal, is exclusionary.

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).

 

[Johnny Vodka]

and if identity is socially constructed, then it can be reconstructed. or redefined by an individual. without reference to how anyone else defines that.

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...

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I'm not going to get this into words well, but....

I think that generally speaking in my life I've met far more women than men who I've felt 'think like me'. And while in terms of appearance mrs_bob and I (these days...) probably fit with fairly conventional gender norms, in terms of character I think we both have far more traits that supposedly belong more to the gender we're not. It's difficult to disentangle the extent to which gender identity is purely about how you see your self from the extent to which it includes what you think you should think, do and feel as a result of that. The trouble with the latter is that 'should' - because it's almost impossible to address it without buying back into reductionist ideas about what being one thing or the other entails (no matter how much of those ideas you believe is socially constructed and how much innate).

I think the difference between gender identity and gender traits/interests is interesting and complex. I'm also not sure I'm going to word this well but just in regards to the latter, I wonder if people who see themselves as having some gender incongruent traits/behaviours/interests have two ways* of making sense of this. The first is to reject gender essentialism and to interpret gender traits as socially constructed and irrelevant. The second is to interpret this as indicative of intrinsic gender characteristics and to see themselves as more identified with the opposite gender, or a mixture of the two. It's more relevant for the growing number of people who either describe themselves as "just not that feminine/masculine" or non binary rather than the less ambiguous cis or trans identifications. What I find an interesting question is what are the differences and similarities between those two groups, and indeed is there something more fundamental going on or how much does it relate to different ways of interpretation? But tbh I don't really think I'm qualified to say any more. It's just interesting because I'm not sure I know of many people who see themselves as all feminine or all masculine.

But then as someone else said, it's complicated because identify and personality/traits/interests, gendered or not, are so linked it can be hard (if not impossible) to pull them apart.

All I do know is that if my daughter aged 6/7/8 came up to me and said "I think I might be a boy because I prefer boy things" I would listen to them, let them explore it, and non judgmentally suggest that they then do whatever activities they want, dress however they'd like, hang around with whatever children they'd like etc. and see where it takes them. I find it awful when people tell children that they can't do or act in ways that are seen as opposite gender traits , yet at the same time the idea of labelling someone as trans before they're developmentally capable of abstract thought and pulling apart interests and identities really doesn't sit well with me .


*(Actually it's probably also possible to have a stance between the two, and that I would be really interested to hear more about from someone holding that view).

 

[Sirena]

Google just gave me these two definitions:

Sex:



Gender:



I think that it's a valid distinction to make - that social and cultural understandings of gender are related to a biological notion of sex does not mean that the former reducible to the latter (or vice versa).

Another, separate, concept is sexual orientation.

 

[SpookyFrank]

How? What other way is better than being inside the tent and sitting down to piss and getting actually told all our plans for world domination into your ear, rather than trying and failing to work it out from the outside?

Meh. If they want to rule the world they can have it. Their turn init.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I do think theres a point about the medicalisation of childhood and young kids being prescribed hormones and labelled trans when they're not but this is far more of an issue in the US rather than the UK where anything transgender related (or anything else) is being totally butchered by the government. Plus theres the issue of doctors prescribing drugs rather than offering therapies or surgery because its cheaper. But its like that with everything rather than just transgender people. The restrictive gender role thing and the idea that people who act like the opposite sex are assumed to be that sex is an interesting point but again this is not a reason to hate transgender people and surely wider social trends are a far bigger cause of this.

I had a big argument the other day with a radical feminist about all this as she seemed to be suggesting some sort of 'jewish lobby' type situation and when challenged even came out with 'but some of my best friends are trans' bullshit. One day I want to write a Marxist critique of radical feminism but id have enough material for a whole book. The entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it) seems to have become coopted by rich women (cis or trans) and despite radical feminists saying that the transgender issue overshadows other stuff such as the pay gap and abortion etc etc by banging on about a stupid conspiracy theory it doesnt actually do anything to address anything to do with the majority of women and actually helps to make life worse for everyone.

This has probably already been answered (haven't finished reading the thread) but there's a reason why hormone blockers are used from an early age rather than a) doing nothing or b) doing surgery - it's because they are reversible should the child decide it's not the right path for them at a later date. It puts puberty on hold, which has the dual bonus of allowing the child/teen to avoid the stress of developing secondary sex characteristics that are not in line with their gender, and allows that puberty to go ahead later if they decide they do in fact want that to happen after all. It gives them some breathing space, basically. I really can't see a single downside to it.

Then, when they're older, they can make the informed choice of what level of medical intervention is right for them, if any.

Anecdotal evidence suggests it's far easier to go through the process at an earlier age having never gone through that puberty stage than it is to try to reverse the effects of puberty, along with dealing with the psychological effects of having gone through it.

 

[billy_bob]

I think the difference between gender identity and gender traits/interests is interesting and complex. I'm also not sure I'm going to word this well but just in regards to the latter, I wonder if people who see themselves as having some gender incongruent traits/behaviours/interests have two ways* of making sense of this. The first is to reject gender essentialism and to interpret gender traits as socially constructed and irrelevant. The second is to interpret this as indicative of intrinsic gender characteristics and to see themselves as more identified with the opposite gender, or a mixture of the two. It's more relevant for the growing number of people who either describe themselves as "just not that feminine/masculine" or non binary rather than the less ambiguous cis or trans identifications. What I find an interesting question is what are the differences and similarities between those two groups, and indeed is there something more fundamental going on or how much does it relate to different ways of interpretation? But tbh I don't really think I'm qualified to say any more. It's just interesting because I'm not sure I know of many people who see themselves as all feminine or all masculine.

But then as someone else said, it's complicated because identify and personality/traits/interests, gendered or not, are so linked it can be hard (if not impossible) to pull them apart.

All I do know is that if my daughter aged 6/7/8 came up to me and said "I think I might be a boy because I prefer boy things" I would listen to them, let them explore it, and non judgmentally suggest that they then do whatever activities they want, dress however they'd like, hang around with whatever children they'd like etc. and see where it takes them. I find it awful when people tell children that they can't do or act in ways that are seen as opposite gender traits , yet at the same time the idea of labelling someone as trans before they're developmentally capable of abstract thought and pulling apart interests and identities really doesn't sit well with me .

I think I'm largely with you on the last para (as a father of a 7-yr-old boy). But would your approach/attitude be different if she said 'I think I might be a boy because I feel like I'm living in the wrong body and I hate it'?

Perhaps if society does become increasingly less determined to box people in with gender, those who don't feel theirs fits the standard-issue definitions would be able to deal with that more easily without going to the undoubtedly extreme length of reassignment. But on the other hand, having heard some people's personal accounts of the torment of living in what they feel is the wrong body, (e2a: and also in light of the kind of issues Vintage Paw posted while I was trying to write this) it's also possible that putting that off and 'seeing where it takes them' in the meantime could be really damaging for some people.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I wonder if this actually makes an argument for there being more than two genders, rather than trying to shoe horn everyone, with such different experiences, into a binary of two?

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.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Do you think that women who see their identity as people born with female bodies who had gender imposed on them, might feel it a bit hateful that you are trying to change or redefine their identity without their consent?

No one is trying to tell cis women they are not women. Some cis women are trying to tell trans women they are not women. No one is trying to tell cis women they have not had specific experiences growing up with a female body. Some cis women are trying to tell trans women their own experiences are not valid.

 

[Thora]

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

That's certainly a contested opinion.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Why exactly do you feel threatened by allowing trans people (probably specifically trans women, I don't believe you've aired your thoughts on trans men, I may have missed them) to be accepted as the gender they feel, Thora?

Because you do find it threatening. To you personally.

What is it about your own identity that will be lost or taken away if a trans woman calls herself a woman?

Do you think marriage between a man and a woman is redefined and made meaningless by marriage between same-sex couples? I mean, if we're treating all these identity issues as being utterly equivalent to one another (which they are not). Do you think someone adopting a child and calling themselves their parent makes your relationship with your biological children meaningless?

It seems to me that the scapegoating of trans women is the easy road, instead of doing the hard work - and it is hard work - of insisting upon nuance when discussing issues of gender and gender roles (arguably two different things), and when thinking about the ways in which cis women are acted upon by patriarchy and the ways that trans women are acted upon by patriarchy. It's not this or that, it's both. There is room for both. Patriarchy (more specifically patriarchy under capitalism) is the target, not the people who have to negotiate it in various ways. Do we blame capitalism and the government for a lack of employment security and the lack of discussion around the realities of class and poverty, or do we blame them dirty immigrants and scroungers? Do we blame patriarchy and capitalism for the way cis women's bodies are commodified and objectified and codified, or do we blame those dreadful imposter trans women, coming over here stealing our femininity?

 

[Thora]

I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward. And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.

 

[Athos]

No one is trying to tell cis women they are not women.

Whilst true on the face of it, by defining womanhood differently from the way some cis women define it, those women are being told they are not what they had previously defined themselves as, since that definition is no longer valid.

It's like someone who considers the fact that they are, say, tall, to be an important part of their identity; to tell them that they must now consider everyone over 4' to be tall, might, for them, rob that part of their identity of any meaning.

That's not to say that, given the real world facts of terrible things regularly happening to trans people, it wouldn't be better if all cis women accepted them as women. But I do think that it's not my place to tell them they must (particularly as a man). Nor do I think that cis women who define womanhood in a way that doesn't encompass trans women are necessarily motivated by bigotry or hate.

I do think Greer is way off the mark with the idea that Jenner changed sex to cash in on the attention given to the other Kardashian women. First, because it's inconceivable that anyone would take such a drastic step, and, secondly, becasue it seems to be recognised that this is something that Bruce Jenner was toying with for some time before the family found fame.

Also, whilst I don't buy the idea that the attempt to 'no platform' Greer is an attack on free speech, I don't think it's helpful at all. Far better would be to challenge her publicly to defend her views.

 

[DrRingDing]

It's a difficult subject. A man does not become a woman simply by saying so.

There is a long period of transition and, while that is happening, he/she can be still very 'blokey'.

But all it requires is a bit of give and take on both sides

Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.

 

[emanymton]

I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward. And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.

Can you be more specific about which theories you disagree with and why?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I think I'm largely with you on the last para (as a father of a 7-yr-old boy). But would your approach/attitude be different if she said 'I think I might be a boy because I feel like I'm living in the wrong body and I hate it'?

Perhaps if society does become increasingly less determined to box people in with gender, those who don't feel theirs fits the standard-issue definitions would be able to deal with that more easily without going to the undoubtedly extreme length of reassignment. But on the other hand, having heard some people's personal accounts of the torment of living in what they feel is the wrong body, (e2a: and also in light of the kind of issues Vintage Paw posted while I was trying to write this) it's also possible that putting that off and 'seeing where it takes them' in the meantime could be really damaging for some people.

Thing is I am sceptical that a child of 7 could say that and properly understand its ramifications. From what I know of child development, and also my experience of 7 year olds, they define things in concrete rather than abstract terms. This includes gender. It might be a clue where things will go but it isn't definite.

There are studies on children who were born intersex and assigned, and also of several children at once who were born after their mothers were exposed to high levels of hormones, who have always said they were the opposite gender but weren't allowed to live it and subsequently were able to reassign themselves. And yes many of those have said it was very damaging. But these people weren't raised in a gentle "do what you like and don't feel you have to define yourself" environment. They were very much pushed into traditional gender roles, even more so because of the concern that they were slipping. Of course that active denial of who you think you might be would be damaging. But who's to say that being pushed into an opposite gender role based on something you've said when you're 7 that you then change your mind about couldn't be equally as damaging? I would make an educated assumption that there's quite a few 7 year olds who do say they want to be a boy/girl and later retract. Not all tomboys decide that they want to later change sex.

There is no equivalent decision that a 7 year is seen to be able to consent to. We don't even let them decide what parent to live with when divorce happens. Most young people are Gillick competent and are seen as able to make health decisions by the time they come of age but it occurs a long time after the age of 7.

 

[brogdale]

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

Its interesting that in describing wo(men) who regard themselves as wo(men) you find yourself using the prefix trans in front of the descriptor wo(man). I wonder if it might be more logically coherent to refer to wo(men) that have transitioned?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Its interesting that in describing wo(men) who regard themselves as wo(men) you find yourself using the prefix trans in front of the descriptor wo(man). I wonder if it might be more logically coherent to refer to wo(men) that have transitioned?

I'll refer to people however they want to be referred to. It's my understanding that saying 'trans woman' in the context we have been discussing is appropriate and acceptable, but if a trans woman thinks it would be better to say 'woman who has transitioned' then I will say that instead. Please be clear that this is within the confines of this specific conversation. When speaking about a trans woman in a situation where her trans-ness isn't a part of the conversation, I would simply describe her as a woman if the need arose.

And what's all this brackets stuff?

 

[Vintage Paw]

Thing is I am sceptical that a child of 7 could say that and properly understand its ramifications. From what I know of child development, and also my experience of 7 year olds, they define things in concrete rather than abstract terms. This includes gender. It might be a clue where things will go but it isn't definite.

There are studies on children who were born intersex and assigned, and also of several children at once who were born after their mothers were exposed to high levels of hormones, who have always said they were the opposite gender but weren't allowed to live it and subsequently were able to reassign themselves. And yes many of those have said it was very damaging. But these people weren't raised in a gentle "do what you like and don't feel you have to define yourself" environment. They were very much pushed into traditional gender roles, even more so because of the concern that they were slipping. Of course that active denial of who you think you might be would be damaging. But who's to say that being pushed into an opposite gender role based on something you've said when you're 7 that you then change your mind about couldn't be equally as damaging? I would make an educated assumption that there's quite a few 7 year olds who do say they want to be a boy/girl and later retract. Not all tomboys decide that they want to later change sex.

There is no equivalent decision that a 7 year is seen to be able to consent to. We don't even let them decide what parent to live with when divorce happens. Most young people are Gillick competent and are seen as able to make health decisions by the time they come of age but it occurs a long time after the age of 7.

There can be quite a bit of difference between being a tomboy and being very deeply unhappy that you aren't what you really are, iyswim. A child may not have the tools to be able to describe or analyse how they feel, but the pain and alienation can be very real.

From the perspective of hormone blockers, they stop the need for a decision. Doing nothing and allowing puberty to happen is, effectively, doing something. It is making a decision - "live with this biological process, although we won't force you to act in a certain way, you're free to be who you want, but you will have to go through this biological process regardless of its harm. Sorry if it fucks you up, we'll deal with that later."

Hormone blockers are not a transitioning process, they are the removal of the looming biological determination so as to provide space for a child to explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while. It is a way of saying, "we won't force you to act in a certain way, you're free to be who you want, and you can do so free from additional stresses of puberty. We'll do what we can to prevent the things that can fuck you up, and give you space."

And at that age, it's highly unlikely a family would agree to their child receiving hormone blockers if they weren't already on-board with the idea of their child being who they want.

Hormone blockers don't take away anything, they prevent something from acting on their bodies to automatically start turning them into something they may not be. Once the hormones are blocked, it's down to the parents, the kid, the professionals involved, to give as much support as possible while the child tries to work things out for themselves -- but that's the case whether the child is on blockers or not. Being on blockers just removes something that can be very stressful and damaging from the equation until they're better able to deal with it.

 

[billy_bob]

I don't personally feel threatened by transwomen, but I do disagree with some of the theories about gender being put forward. And I very strongly disagree with the way any disagreement is silenced by accusations of transphobia or calling people terfs.

Can you be more specific about which theories you disagree with and why?

I second that request. You've put a question or two to me, Thora, and although I have strong views on this subject and disagree with some of the things you've said, I hope I've answered them more or less without resorting to silencing accusations. I would like to know, though, your own thoughts on a question you've asked more than once:

Is it only gender where you feel people can self identify or does this apply to any other identity/class of people?

The way you've phrased it, without giving away your own view, and the fact that you've not responded to my response ('of course it isn't only gender') gives the impression that you were hoping to triumphantly me in a little hypocrisy here. Please do correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick!

 

[Buckaroo]

Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.

Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.

 

[brogdale]

I'll refer to people however they want to be referred to. It's my understanding that saying 'trans woman' in the context we have been discussing is appropriate and acceptable, but if a trans woman thinks it would be better to say 'woman who has transitioned' then I will say that instead. Please be clear that this is within the confines of this specific conversation. When speaking about a trans woman in a situation where her trans-ness isn't a part of the conversation, I would simply describe her as a woman if the need arose.

And what's all this brackets stuff?

Seems reasonable. Brackets used to save writing 'women and men'.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Vintage Paw - but it's not common for 7 year olds to go to puberty. 10 year olds still think pretty concretely but their understanding is already very different to a 7 year old, and if the child has hung on to this idea of them being the wrong gender and puberty is looming then of course there's no reason why the decision can be made then. Even 9 is older than 7 yet will be likely to be be pre-pubescent if 10 seems too close to the edge.

I'm not talking about children not having the tools to describe things, I'm talking about children of 7 having a different cognitive structure than older children, a different way of making sense of the world, one that I doubt can really differentiate between gender identity and gender being about what boys/men and girls/women do. And honestly, I wonder if when parents of 7 year olds then say "live as your born gender" or "live as the opposite gender" whether it isn't more about the parents than the child. I wonder about the politics behind both of them tbh.

And at that age, it's highly unlikely a family would agree to their child receiving hormone blockers if they weren't already on-board with the idea of their child being who they want.

And there's just something about this that makes it sound like a parent of a 7 year old who doesn't want to jump straight into medicalization immediately isn't on board with their child being who they want.

 

[billy_bob]

Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.

Yes

Fuck sake. I cannot be bothered to read the thread but I hope somebody has ripped that shite post apart.

No

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Vintage Paw

Though actually on reflection, there's nothing incompatible at all with taking hormone blockers and still allowing a child to experiment with gender roles and not define themselves as one or t'other until they're older. That would completely allow the child the space, as you say, to "explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while", which is exactly what I am saying is important. I'm just suggesting that when a child is very young, any attempt to define them is taking away that space.

 

[likesfish]

tbf some people do claim to be trans for attention on tumblr but its tumblr home to otherkin and animekin( If you dont know dont google it the stupidity will cost you brain cells) which makes the worst of terf/cis argument look highly intelligent.

the funny thing is if you change sex form female to male nobody seems to have a huge issue

 

[sunnysidedown]

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

 

[Sea Star]

Not being a woman, I'm not sure I have the right to an opnion on this subject.

and that's what Germaine Greer would say about me which is why her views are the views of hatred. They seek to exclude trans women from the debate about their own gender identity.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Vintage Paw

Though actually on reflection, there's nothing incompatible at all with taking hormone blockers and still allowing a child to experiment with gender roles and not define themselves as one or t'other until they're older. That would completely allow the child the space, as you say, to "explore and consider and just exist as themselves for a while", which is exactly what I am saying is important. I'm just suggesting that when a child is very young, any attempt to define them is taking away that space.

I think we are essentially coming from the same direction.

The thing about 7, 9 or 10 years old... when I was talking originally about hormone blockers it wasn't with any kind of age in mind. I don't know at what age they are usually first prescribed. As far as the argument I was making that's somewhat immaterial, because it was to say that using the blockers to avoid puberty simply gives the child more space to breathe and think without having to make a decision. If puberty isn't going to start at 7 for a child, there's no point giving them the blockers at that point, so that whole argument was moot - the age itself was never a part of the discussion I was having.

But I agree, the ideal is to give the child space. To let them lead the way, essentially. If they want to wear their hair in plaits and be called a girl, then go ahead with that. If they decide the next day they want to be called a boy, then okay. It's not about forcing one particular identity on the child, whether that be a cis or trans gender identity, but rather giving them the space to explore free from any pressure to conform.

That's an incredibly difficult task because of societal pressures, but frankly we should be doing this for all children, not just those we suspect of being trans. But it's not enough to say "let's just work to get rid of prescribed gender roles entirely" because while it's definitely a good thing to move away from the idea that there are two binary genders and you're this or you're that and if you're not you're a freak or 'wrong' it's something that will take a lot of time and in the meantime - alongside that - we have to offer support to kids and others who want to transition or who don't fit their birth-assigned gender because it's unfair to expect them to suffer while we wait for gender to magically stop being a thing. And part of challenging binary genders and gender roles is in recognising that trans people exist and are as legitimate in their expressions of gender as anyone else. Which, of course, is something I know you're not denying... I'm going off topic, I do that.