Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[8115]

No.

I know, I looked it up. I don't know if its a common misconception or where I picked I up from.

 

[Epona]

I looked it up, it doesn't actually stand for that its from the Latin cis, on the same side as. Living in the gender you were born in.

Yep - like cisalpine and transalpine (terms completely unrelated to gender identity, but using the Latin terms for "same" and "opposite" to describe parts of Gaul depending upon their location to Rome in respect of the Alps)

 

[weltweit]

Now I am confused.

 

[bluescreen]

It may seem insensitive to wade in on an issue that's vital to some people here but doesn't affect me personally. Yet we all need to know how to use the language meaningfully and considerately.
Several things occur to me that haven't been mentioned:
A lot of noise is made by a few people, probably because the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends. Some of the loudest noise seems to be coming from allies rather than trans women themselves.
It doesn't make any difference to anyone's gender identity or anything else to accept someone else as the gender they say they are. (The equal marriage analogy is a good one.)
I don't know what the fuck gender means. I know, I know, I've read plenty but am still confused. (It certainly doesn't mean plaits!)
I know it means so much to some people that they go to heroic lengths for it.
Yes, as frogwoman says there is a need for gender specific toilets and washrooms in some sketchy places, and trans women are at least as much (if not more) in need of them as anyone else.
Caitlyn Jenner is not the only transwoman in the world and her way is not the only way there is of being trans. Plus she is rich and that makes a massive difference.
Stories like Mount Holyoake scrapping The Vagina Monologues as not being inclusive enough are not a good advert for the notion that (all) trans women understand that cis women have some commonality too. The idea that 'being pregnant is simply a bodily function' rather than gender-specific still takes a lot of getting used to. Treating cis women as people who may (or do) become pregnant has been the primary cause of historic discrimination - isn't this one of Greer's gripes?
People who complain about the cotton ceiling totally fail to understand how sexual attraction works and that there is no entitlement to sexual relations with another human being of whatever gender or orientation. (How many of these people are there, is it really a thing?)
There maybe needs to be a word other than uterus-havers for people who have shared certain life experiences both societal and biological. "Cis women" doesn't cut it as it doesn't include trans men (see above) and other AFABs without a uterus. BTW I've seen a lot of hate online directed to cis women as a whole group.
Would be grateful for any light to be shed on any of this. There is a lot of genuine confusion and ignorance, not all of it intentionally hostile, not all of it mine, and certainly not ineducable. Unlike us urban sophisticates, not everyone has ever heard the term TERF or would care even when it's explained. But it's not brilliant advocacy to shoot people down for being behind the curve, even on urban. Perhaps there is no debate to be had, as there is no debate to be had about other human rights issues like gay rights or torture or slavery, but language and definitions are involved so there needs to be persuasion that there is no debate; and there is education to be had.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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).

In terms of whether or not you think there is a spectrum, though, I think there are still problems. Within ideas of gender there are many that I think are bollocks. I don't think certain aspects of me are 'masculine' but that I also have a 'feminine side'. I think both of these as descriptions of traits are generally bollocks, demonstrably so given the exceptions on both sides within people who don't doubt their own gender. It's possible to reject many ideas of what is 'male' and what is 'female' without thinking that instead there is a continuum of gender identity. Rather, it is simply that such ideas have no place being described as gendered in the first place.

 

[bluescreen]

It's clear from my post that my understanding is fuzzy round the edges (Iranian football team?). I don't understand gender, certainly not as a binary and am suspicious of it as a spectrum if M is on one end and F on the other. Moreover, I'm beginning to suspect the argument is primarily not about patriarchy but generational.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Second para of this piece

The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism - The New Yorker

What about it? The second para of that piece sums up the rotten nature of identity politics.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

In terms of whether or not you think there is a spectrum, though, I think there are still problems. Within ideas of gender there are many that I think are bollocks. I don't think certain aspects of me are 'masculine' but that I also have a 'feminine side'. I think both of these as descriptions of traits are generally bollocks, demonstrably so given the exceptions on both sides within people who don't doubt their own gender. It's possible to reject many ideas of what is 'male' and what is 'female' without thinking that instead there is a continuum of gender identity. Rather, it is simply that such ideas have no place being described as gendered in the first place.

Gender norms are contested and contestable, but that doesn't negate their existence: they are embedded in cultural expectations, economic arrangements, the family, institutional practices, the legal system etc., whether or not you or I think they're bollocks or not.

 

[frogwoman]

Would be grateful for any light to be shed on any of this. There is a lot of genuine confusion and ignorance, not all of it intentionally hostile, not all of it mine, and certainly not ineducable.

Certainly agree with that and its not helped by amount of extremism and hostility that there is surrounding this, as i said i am not fully decided on my stance on this as a political issue as i think both sides have valid points, the most you can do is by treating people with respect really. And i think too often, thats not happening

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Gender norms are contested and contestable, but that doesn't negate their existence: they are embedded in cultural expectations, economic arrangements, the family, institutional practices, the legal system etc., whether or not you or I think they're bollocks or not.

That's not quite what I was saying. Various traits are gendered in various ways. To be simplistic, but this process is, by its nature, simplistic:

Being good at languages is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'female' trait.
Being good with numbers is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'male' trait.

Neither of these things is remotely true, yet they still permeate various discourses, the ways children are treated, etc. You will still hear, despite the evidence to the contrary, that girls are not as good at maths as boys, for instance, and you will still see girls guided away from maths in lots of subtle ways. 'Gender norms', as you put it, exist despite the evidence that they are the wrong way to look at things, that they are not what is going on, that they are not the explanation. Again, simple example: why do fewer girls do maths at uni than boys? Is it because girls are not as good at maths as boys (it's a 'male' trait)? No. It isn't. All the evidence is that this is not true at all, and the reasons are in fact far more to do with the self-fulfilling nature of the gender norms themselves.

 

[frogwoman]

I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he daresto think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

That is nationalism, that is what I mean about the structure of a lot of their arguments being similar to anti immigration and conspiratorial views about jews or other groups. That is a pure argument based on emotion its like for instance a zionist looking at another group claiming to be oppressed and being like how dare they say they are this when we were the most oppressed through history we owe it to our forefather's blah blah blah.

I think that the main cause of womens oppression was and still is sex based and in terms of the expectation of getting pregnant, and that gender roles a social construct that harms women but why the fuck cant they also realise the fact that these stupid ideas about gender harm everyone and they actually help perpetuate them. The myth that men are all automatically dangerous and that therefore trans women are all automatically dangerous as they used to be men, feeds in to that whole concept of womens behaviour needing to be restricted and controlled for 'their own good' because most/every man is a rapist and unable to control their urges.

And lets be clear there are trans-activists who think similar stuff on their side too.

 

[smokedout]

A lot of noise is made by a few people, probably because the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends. Some of the loudest noise seems to be coming from allies rather than trans women themselves.

I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.

 

[frogwoman]

I get equally annoyed with both sides of this 'argument' tbh, still dont really know what is the right (as in 'correct') position to take over it but i am leaning towards the conclusion that as far as things that effect feminism it isnt really the most important issue and there are lots of things that we should be working together on. All you can and should do is go by peoples wishes as to how they see themselves and treat them with respect unless theres a good reason not to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The thing about gender norms is that they may be defined as the cultural manifestation of ideas based on biological sex, but they are invariably framed by those that reinforce them as actually due to biological sex. You can't neatly separate the two.

 

[Epona]

I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.

The problem is though, that a lot of people who aren't affected actually say similar things about feminism - that it's not really an issue now and that sexism has fallen off to a point where it isn't really relevant, and anyone who claims that it is needed is some sort of dinosaur who wants to 'take it too far'. I've heard similar things said about race, there's a black president of the US so racism isn't a problem in the US.

It's a lovely idea that trans people don't experience prejudice because there is a soap actor and a woman in your local Tesco who you haven't seen suffering abuse, but that is hardly a firm basis for a socio-political discussion about the issue, is it?

 

[Humberto]

I don't see why urban can claim some elite high ground on this, there's been a trans character in Corrie, Kellie Maloney's transition has been well if not warmly received even by the tabloid press, there was someone transitioning who worked in my local Tesco with barely an eyelid batted - thats not to say discrmination does not still take place and theres a long way to go, but most people seems to be broadly accepting of trangenderism and just getting on with things, its only lefties and liberals tying themselves in knots over it.

Depends. It ranges from back handed comments to verbal and physical threats and attacks. I hope thats very rare though but I'm learning as I go along here so don't have a list of stats.

 

[smokedout]

The problem is though, that a lot of people who aren't affected actually say similar things about feminism - that it's not really an issue now and that sexism has fallen off to a point where it isn't really relevant, and anyone who claims that it is needed is some sort of dinosaur who wants to 'take it too far'. I've heard similar things said about race, there's a black president of the US so racism isn't a problem in the US.

It's a lovely idea that trans people don't experience prejudice because there is a soap actor and a woman in your local Tesco who you haven't seen suffering abuse, but that is hardly a firm basis for a socio-political discussion about the issue, is it?

I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here.

How do you judge this?

Serge Nicholson, from the charity Galop, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said transphobic hate crimes recorded by police were a “tiny fraction of the true number”.

“A third of trans people in the UK go through transphobic abuse every year,” he said. “That’s the second highest of any EU country. Yet only a few hundred transphobic crimes get recorded by the police each year. That has got to be a tiny fraction of the true number.

rise in reports of transphobic hate crimes

 

[Epona]

I'm not denying theres still problems, I said that, some of the crap on this thread is evidence enough of that, I was pointing out that in general, there is a greater acceptance of transgenderism where it counts and where the struggle will be won, than has often been evidenced by threads on here.

I think that's fair enough up to a point, but the struggles against racism and sexism have been going on for longer than I have been on the planet, and still a long way from being won - it is not yet time to stop the fight for those, let alone for acceptance of sexuality and gender identity, the fight for rights for those is still young by comparison.

 

[smokedout]

How do you judge this?

by some of the threads on here, and the wider debate amongst lefties and liberals. Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but. The rad fem position is a niche position, the ultra-identity politics is another, but what seems to be happening, and how acceptance will be gained, is people muddling through, using a bit of common sense and tolerance for others and not really giving that much of a shit when it comes down to it - how much fire and brimstone was rained down over the gender recognition act, which is pretty radical considering where society was a couple of decades ago. Urban is behind the class, no big surprise, bit uncomfortable for some no doubt though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

by some of the threads on here, and the wider debate amongst lefties and liberals. Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but. The rad fem position is a niche position, the ultra-identity politics is another, but what seems to be happening, and how acceptance will be gained, is people muddling through, using a bit of common sense and tolerance for others and not really giving that much of a shit when it comes down to it - how much fire and brimstone was rained down over the gender recognition act, which is pretty radical considering where society was a couple of decades ago. Urban is behind the class, no big surprise, bit uncomfortable for some no doubt though.

The majority position of people on this thread, as on any other thread on trans acceptance, is that trans people should be accepted with the identity they want.

'urban' includes you, btw.

 

[smokedout]

The majority position of people on this thread, as on any other thread on trans acceptance, is that trans people should be accepted with the identity they want.

'urban' includes you, btw.

You'll note the comment I was referring to

the bulk of the population has a long way to go to catch up with views expressed on places like urban and among my FB friends.

 

[frogwoman]

Tbh since becoming friends with a couple of transgender people i have had my eyes opened quite a bit, i know ive swallowed some of the radfem stuff a bit too uncritically in the past, i do still think theres some valid concerns but i think that openness etc can go a long way. I think there is a lot of ignorance out there and some quite messed up 'facts' can fill the void quite quickly cos people dont really understand. Some of the radfem articles online can give the impression that these drugs etc are being given out like sweets but thats actually (in this country at least) not the case at all. Really tough to get a referral in this part of the uk and a lot of people end up self medicating via the internet. So yeah as ive discovered the way things are presented online on either side are often too binary and without any subtlety and its a good idea to actually meet and talk to people

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You'll note the comment I was referring to

Fair dos. I missed that bit, tbh. Yes, I agree to that extent that urban isn't some kind of vanguard on this stuff.

 

[bluescreen]

You'll note the comment I was referring to

To be fair, I have no firm evidence so I shouldn't have made the claim. But perhaps you have more than anecdata to go on? Meanwhile I think we need to listen to what transwomen have to say about their experiences.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That's not quite what I was saying. Various traits are gendered in various ways. To be simplistic, but this process is, by its nature, simplistic:

Being good at languages is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'female' trait.
Being good with numbers is, for spurious reasons, considered a 'male' trait.

Neither of these things is remotely true, yet they still permeate various discourses, the ways children are treated, etc. You will still hear, despite the evidence to the contrary, that girls are not as good at maths as boys, for instance, and you will still see girls guided away from maths in lots of subtle ways. 'Gender norms', as you put it, exist despite the evidence that they are the wrong way to look at things, that they are not what is going on, that they are not the explanation. Again, simple example: why do fewer girls do maths at uni than boys? Is it because girls are not as good at maths as boys (it's a 'male' trait)? No. It isn't. All the evidence is that this is not true at all, and the reasons are in fact far more to do with the self-fulfilling nature of the gender norms themselves.

This is exactly how gender norms function - they are not necessarily (or even usually) accurate descriptions of the innate characteristics and capabilities of the sexes: as in your example, they constitute gender identities rather than describe them. That's what norms do. I don't think we have any real disagreement on that point.

Some interesting research on gender stereotypes and maths performance:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.370.3979&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Bustle

 

[frogwoman]

To be fair, I have no firm evidence so I shouldn't have made the claim. But perhaps you have more than anecdata to go on? Meanwhile I think we need to listen to what transwomen have to say about their experiences.

and trans men surely?
it seems like it is a term that is used to describe a huge range of different experiences tbh. And i dont think theres like a correct position to have about it all only 'dont be a dick'. Eg dont force kids to play with dolls or action men, dont go round calling the trans person by their old name and gender (unless it turns out they want you to, such as if they change their mind about it all). That's it really. it's something that has always happened to an extent, and probably always will and its not really something you can or should 'morally mandate out of existence'.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The thing about gender norms is that they may be defined as the cultural manifestation of ideas based on biological sex, but they are invariably framed by those that reinforce them as actually due to biological sex. You can't neatly separate the two.

Not always. For example, men are called 'girls', 'pussies', 'bitches' etc. not due to the biology but in spite of it, because of their failure to conform to societal ideals of masculinity.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not always. For example, men are called 'girls', 'pussies', 'bitches' etc. not due to the biology but in spite of it, because of their failure to conform to societal ideals of masculinity.

I don't think that really contradicts what I'm saying. As you said, and you summed it up well, gender norms 'constitute gender identities rather than describe them'. But that's not how they are enforced, or how they are understood by those enforcing them. I would say that they are invariably enforced in a way that assumes some form of biological determinism - even when they're used as above as insults.

 

[bluescreen]

This is exactly how gender norms function - they are not necessarily (or even usually) accurate descriptions of the innate characteristics and capabilities of the sexes: as in your example, they constitute gender identities rather than describe them. That's what norms do. I don't think we have any real disagreement on that point.

Some interesting research on gender stereotypes and maths performance:

Just in case there is anyone in the entire universe who hasn't seen this:

,