Why do some feminists hate transgender people?

[likesfish]

Rad fem theirs your problem.
I imagine somebody going through transition and all the hassle that causes let alone the years of pain before deciding to go down that route is likey to react poorly to somebody you'd think would be on their side.
Stupid bigatory is one thing claiming extra special snowflake status thats allows your little group to claim ownership of what it means to be a woman or a lesbian etc etc is just bigatory disguised with a confrence .

Its the stupidy that many years got my partner and her friend asked to move their tent from the "womans circle"in the big green gathering as apprantly they werent the right sort of woman.

 

[Epona]

(I think you mean bigotry, not bigatory. Just saying).

 

[bluescreen]

Tbh it's stuff like that satirised by xkcd, and accusations of being emotional rather than rational, sentimental rather than analytical, caring rather than strategic, weak (pliant?) rather than strong, that have (in my limited experience) defined gender - differences I've always rejected as false dichotomies. So it's a bit baffling that anyone should choose to identify as female: why identify as emotional, weak and innumerate? That is clearly not what trans women are identifying with. I'm sure it's not just the make-up and high heels: you can do all that while still being a man. Besides, some women hate that stuff.

So what is a woman? I realise it's not even necessarily about body - though for some people it necessarily is, and they are the ones it's easy to understand. God, I think everyone understands that.

It's the others, comfortable in their bodies, who are so puzzling. No, of course it's no one's business what anyone else chooses to do or not to do with their body. But what is a woman? And why even bother with gender? I mean, why does anyone trans rather than resist the binary, especially as tolerance of difference is increasing?

Should add that most of my info comes from a trans woman who wears a beard and has no intention of passing as AFAB. They won't talk about any of this as it is triggering. And how exclusionary cis women are! so I can't ask them these questions. Maybe it is rude to ask questions about what it means to be a woman when it's different from the generally accepted definition.

As for F to M, I have no problem understanding that... Of course it's not about me, but who I am is the place from which I can start to understand.

Wow, likesfish that's a horrible story. 'Bigotry with a conference' is a good description.

 

[likesfish]

They didnt think it was just horrible just deeply weird
Kind of difficult to be upset by not being called a woman when you are one?
Its like being targeted with a load of homophobic abuse when your not actually gay yes I should be upset by this but I'm not actually gay Client who was screaming about how much I liked cock etc

 

[Epona]

Tbh it's stuff like that satirised by xkcd, and accusations of being emotional rather than rational, sentimental rather than analytical, caring rather than strategic, weak (pliant?) rather than strong, that have (in my limited experience) defined gender - differences I've always rejected as false dichotomies. So it's a bit baffling that anyone should choose to identify as female: why identify as emotional, weak and innumerate? That is clearly not what trans women are identifying with. I'm sure it's not just the make-up and high heels: you can do all that while still being a man. Besides, some women hate that stuff.

So what is a woman? I realise it's not even necessarily about body - though for some people it necessarily is, and they are the ones it's easy to understand. God, I think everyone understands that.

It's the others, comfortable in their bodies, who are so puzzling. No, of course it's no one's business what anyone else chooses to do or not to do with their body. But what is a woman? And why even bother with gender? I mean, why does anyone trans rather than resist the binary, especially as tolerance of difference is increasing?

Should add that most of my info comes from a trans woman who wears a beard and has no intention of passing as AFAB. They won't talk about any of this as it is triggering. And how exclusionary cis women are! so I can't ask them these questions. Maybe it is rude to ask questions about what it means to be a woman when it's different from the generally accepted definition.

As for F to M, I have no problem understanding that... Of course it's not about me, but who I am is the place from which I can start to understand.

Wow, likesfish that's a horrible story. 'Bigotry with a conference' is a good description.

I've highlighted one word in your post, that may make it a bit clearer.

(Realised once I hit post that just bolding it doesn't make it really stand out, but the word I highlighted is "choose". Do you think it is a choice?)

 

[treefrog]

The "I don't understand why (insert marginalised group) are so angry all the time. Why can't they be polite and engage properly in the debate" privileged whinge makes me ropeable.

People who will defend the right to violent protest and will argue (rightly) that we shouldn't have to defend our own existence to those more privileged than us, who then turn to more marginalised people and demand that they are polite, debate their right to existence endlessly, and then get all shitty when they get anger and frustration back, just don't seem to get it.

It's not the job of trans people to have to constantly justify their right to exist. It's our duty as cis people to educate ourselves and unpack our own prejudice.

 

[Epona]

Why can't they be polite and engage properly in the debate" privileged whinge makes me ropeable.

Especially when "The Debate" is often formed around an idiotic argument along the lines of "Y U exist?"

 

[bluescreen]

I've highlighted one word in your post, that may make it a bit clearer.
'd
(Realised once I hit post that just bolding it doesn't make it really stand out, but the word I highlighted is "choose". Do you think it is a choice?)

Fair call. No I don't think it's a choice. Certainly not for body dysphoria. I just don't understand gender dysphoria but maybe I don't have to.

 

[bluescreen]

I mean, I don't understand it because my own concept of gender is so out of whack.

 

[Epona]

I'm not even sure this is the right place to try to explain that gender identity is not the same thing as, and not always in step with, whatever bits you happen to have been born with on your undercarriage so to speak. It's not about cultural gender norms either. It's not even as simple as some people are born one gender and want to be the other, there's more to it than that.

Just respect for other people -as people - and without making assumptions- goes a hell of a long way.

 

[Thora]

Such as Thora's unchallenged assertion that trans people being the gender they identify as is a niche position, when its clearly anything but.

Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.

 

[likesfish]

I guess if you build your entire identify around having a vagina and periods.
Somebody who has a vagina created or chooses to get rid of said organs is a threat to everything you hold dear.

 

[bi0boy]

Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.

What is the "sex" you refer to here? Genitalia? Chromosomes?

 

[frogwoman]

biological sex like the ability to get pregnant i think (which has been the primary source of discrimination against women and the way it gets justified), so not a case of building your identity around something but having it (or society's ideas about it) imposed on you.

isnt the point that gender roles are something that are imposed on people since birth? i dont think conspiracy bullshit is the way to change that, but i dont think thoras actually said anything like that so far tbf. the conspiracy theories and lies are a million miles away from a debate about gender being a social construct but it some people have coopted a version of this theory for their own purposes (some of whom like alex jones et al have very very outdated ideas on gender themselves).

 

[butchersapron]

The Fields, in Racecraft argue that racism produces race, not that race produces racism. They argue that ignoring or sidelining this, getting the polarity wrong is where most people go wrong. Is that insight of any use here?

 

[Idris2002]

The Fields, in Racecraft argue that racism produces race, not that race produces racism. They argue that ignoring or sidelining this, getting the polarity wrong is where most people go wrong. Is that insight of any use here?

Of use? Maybe, except that you would have to recognise that "race" isn't based in an objective biological reality, while gender is not unrelated to a biological reality (note I said "not unrelated to", not "determined by").

 

[butchersapron]

Of use? Maybe, except that you would have to recognise that "race" isn't based in an objective biological reality, while gender is not unrelated to a biological reality (note I said "not unrelated to", not "determined by").

Isn't that exactly what much race-based discussion assumes though - that race exists, biologically. And their argument isn't that black people don't exist - but that race doesn't., that it's a epiphenomenon (yes, i said epiphenomenon) And isn't the last part of your post exactly what many people are arguing here isn't the case? Both can be related materially back to something and both have a set of other stuff that flows from the grounds of that original assumption.

 

[Idris2002]

Isn't that exactly what much race-based discussion assumes though - that race exists, biologically. And their argument isn't that black people don't exist - but that race doesn't., that it's a epiphenomenon (yes, i said epiphenomenon) And isn't the last part of your post exactly what many people are arguing here isn't the case? Both can be related materially back to something and both have a set of other stuff that flows from the grounds of that original assumption.

Both can be (but may not necessarily be) related materially back to something, and both have a set of other stuff that is believed or assumed to flow from the grounds of that original assumption - even if both that assumption and the things that are assumed to flow from it may not be a secure foundation for such arrangements.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

To be fair, froggie, the "entire feminist movement (whatever wing of it)" has always been dominated by women with a more than average stash of money and of social capital. Much of the shift to identity politics in the '80s was due to that domination (and to the blindness of the dominators to their social colonialism).

 

[Sea Star]

BTW I've seen a lot of hate online directed to cis women as a whole group.

I very much doubt this as most trans women would like nothing more than to have been a cis woman, and will identify strongly as women, so to hate women would be absurd. I see hate directed at TERFs as a group but they don't represent even a majority of cis women. But hate expressed by a marginalised minority for a unrepresentative group of narrow minded people who have unusually privileged access to academia and media, and who campaign to have our rights removed seems fairly justified to me.

I have found cis women in real life to be nothing but entirely supportive and sympathetic, as I think most trans women I've spoken to also find. Online, things are slightly different and I've been actively campaigned against by TERFs, both male and female, who do not consider me to be a woman, including a group who tried to get me deselected as a candidate at the general elections.

 

[Sea Star]

So it's a bit baffling that anyone should choose to identify as female:

We don't choose. no one would choose to be transgender!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

it comes down to accepting that people have a right to define their own identity rather than have one imposed upon them. this is a fairly basic principle IMO, not something that should be labelled as 'niche'.

Unfortunately the principle is fairly new in historical terms, whereas "imposed identity" is as old as the hills, and has millennia of reaction behind it.

 

[Sea Star]

What is the "sex" you refer to here? Genitalia? Chromosomes?

No one knows - its just an innate subject feeling that all children are able to report at some age whether they are cis or trans.

An acute awareness of this feeling of gender identity only arises if the gender you were assigned disagrees with the one you subjectively feel.

When I knew I was a girl at the age of 7 I saw no gender role I wanted to buy into - I just knew that I was a girl. It's as simple as that.

Research into the mechanism continues - can be found using Google if you're interested. Trans feelings can now be shown to be an objective reality from pyschological studies on children looking at our behaviour.

What is clear is that due to the fact that we identify as girls from as far back as we have any gender identity, and contrary to the conditioning we are given, our brain develops differently from "normal" males.

The best thing to do at this stage is to just listen to/read the more articulate trans women out there, probably not me, but I recommend the writings of Julia Serano.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fair call. No I don't think it's a choice. Certainly not for body dysphoria. I just don't understand gender dysphoria but maybe I don't have to.

If you mean you don't understand how it feels, then sure I would think only those experiencing it can really understand that. Not having that kind of understanding is absolutely no reason not to accept it, though.

 

[Sea Star]

If you mean you don't understand how it feels, then sure I would think only those experiencing it can really understand that. Not having that kind of understanding is absolutely no reason not to accept it, though.

I know how it feels if anyone wants to know, though subjective feelings are very hard to express. I do try. It mostly seems to go down fairly well to the people I explain it to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The problem with this approach, IMO, is that it risks reducing issues of gender (and by extension those of race, class and others) simply to an individual (and individualistic) question of personal identity, which in turn makes it an entirely subjective thing with no generally agreed or socially established meaning.

Anyone can define their own identity as a woman, but in practical terms they can't insist that everyone else accepts or agree with their self-definition, particularly if it contradicts the more broadly accepted definition. One person's self-identity isn't simply of interest to them, it has implications for the identities of many other people, in this case in the insistance by some that female adults who are quite happy to simply identify as women now have to be referred to and regard themselves as cis-women, because not to do so is supposedly to exclude trans-women from the identity of women.

I'm not coming down on either side of that argument, BTW, simply pointing out that it isn't as simple as some (not necessarily you, but your point about the right to self-identify highlights it) appear to be portraying it.

Self-identification is only feasible if/when the identification has some root in lived experience. Describing yourself as working class, when you have no experience of what "being working class" is, is fatuous. Describing yourself as "minority ethnic" when you're an obvious Euro-white is similarly fatuous. Describing yourself as a woman when you live and exist as a woman isn't fatuous. It's an expression of lived experience even if some women deny the validity of that experience.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1.what parts of identity are not socially constructed labels?

None of them.

Some, however, are more culturally-concretised than others, which leads some people to assume that the labels are "natural" rather than man-made artefacts.

 

[smokedout]

Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.

Even that's not a niche view, either amomgst scientists, or wider society - Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus etc. But anyway you said

This is the bit I find particularly odd and aggressive about the whole debate tbh - that everyone has to accept this particular, niche world view about gender and what it is to be a women or else they're hateful terfs and should be hounded off the internet

Which implies, along with your wider comments, that you think someone who believes they can self-identify as a woman in a way you don't agree with is a niche view. And it's not, it's a pretty mainstream view, so mainstream that in fact it's the law.

 

[smokedout]

I mean, I don't understand it because my own concept of gender is so out of whack.

is it? how do you transcend the gender you were born into on a daily basis? it seems to me that there is a huge amount of pressure on people who are trans to reject gender in a way that almost nobody else does. classic bigotry, a minority groups is held to a higher moral standard than everyone else and condemned for not reaching it.

 

[Sea Star]

Actually I said seeing gender as something intrinsic rather than a social construct imposed on people because of their sex is a niche view, but carry on.

which is also wrong