Not my fiftieth post (that was this one). Me. Fifty. Today.
Half a century.
It feels like that should mean something, so I'm posting about it. I'm not sure what though. It does feel a lot nearer the end than the beginning, I have to say. Likely that's because I've been in a more morbid frame of mind since my sister died (on 24th October last). Then again I might live to be 103, in which case I'm not even halfway through. Now that does seem utterly bizarre. More years than I've lived so far. What might I do with so long?
I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' – or get busy dyin'.
Thursday, 12 December 2013
Sunday, 17 November 2013
So, what is femme? (4)
Another day, another definition of femme. This one comes from Julia Serano in a piece, Reclaiming Femininity, from her new book 'Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive' (Seal Press 2013).
[I]t is common for people to have somewhat varied opinions regarding what the word “femme” actually means. For me, having a holistic view of gender and sexuality, I would suggest that most of us who are femme share two things in common. First, we find that, for whatever reason, feminine gender expression resonates with us on a deep, profound level, in an inexplicable way that isn't easy to put into words. The second thing that we share is a sense of being different, perhaps because we are lesbian or bisexual. Perhaps because we are trans women or feminine men, or we fall somewhere else along the transgender spectrum. Or perhaps because our bodies fall outside the norm in some way, because we are fat, or disabled, or intersex. Or perhaps we experience some combination of these, or maybe we are different in some other way. Because of our difference, we each have to make sense of what it means to be feminine in a world where we can never achieve the conventional feminine ideal, and in a world where feminine gender expression and sexualities are plagued by misogynistic connotations. For me, that's what femme is. It's a puzzle we each have to solve. And because we are all different, we will each come up with a different solution, a different way of making sense of, and expressing, our femme selves.
This definition I like because it's open-ended. It's a non-definition (“we cannot begin with a definition; we cannot offer assurances of any kind” – Duggan & McHugh), allowing each of us to define – or, more accurately, realize – femme for ourselves.
Actually I like Serano's writing in general; it's just the right blend of (gender) theoretical, political and personal material that appeals to me. I've quoted a bit more from Reclaiming Femininity – in which Serano talks about essentialism and difference – on my tumblog. And there's another (shorter) quote here – about MTF crossdressing and effemimania – from her previous book, 'Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity' (Seal Press 2007).
You should probably go and buy those books right now :)
[I]t is common for people to have somewhat varied opinions regarding what the word “femme” actually means. For me, having a holistic view of gender and sexuality, I would suggest that most of us who are femme share two things in common. First, we find that, for whatever reason, feminine gender expression resonates with us on a deep, profound level, in an inexplicable way that isn't easy to put into words. The second thing that we share is a sense of being different, perhaps because we are lesbian or bisexual. Perhaps because we are trans women or feminine men, or we fall somewhere else along the transgender spectrum. Or perhaps because our bodies fall outside the norm in some way, because we are fat, or disabled, or intersex. Or perhaps we experience some combination of these, or maybe we are different in some other way. Because of our difference, we each have to make sense of what it means to be feminine in a world where we can never achieve the conventional feminine ideal, and in a world where feminine gender expression and sexualities are plagued by misogynistic connotations. For me, that's what femme is. It's a puzzle we each have to solve. And because we are all different, we will each come up with a different solution, a different way of making sense of, and expressing, our femme selves.
This definition I like because it's open-ended. It's a non-definition (“we cannot begin with a definition; we cannot offer assurances of any kind” – Duggan & McHugh), allowing each of us to define – or, more accurately, realize – femme for ourselves.
Actually I like Serano's writing in general; it's just the right blend of (gender) theoretical, political and personal material that appeals to me. I've quoted a bit more from Reclaiming Femininity – in which Serano talks about essentialism and difference – on my tumblog. And there's another (shorter) quote here – about MTF crossdressing and effemimania – from her previous book, 'Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity' (Seal Press 2007).
You should probably go and buy those books right now :)
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Pink List 2013.
Two years ago the Independent on Sunday's Pink List – “101 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people that make a difference” – was a prompt for my own list of Inspirations. This year's Pink List is an inspiration in itself with numerous trans activists featuring, all the way to Paris Lees at the very top. It's great to see people like — ah, why be selective?! I'll just list them all...
Luke Anderson, Helen Belcher, Sarah Brown, Jane Fae, Raphael Fox, Jackie Green, Lewis Hancox, Tara Hewitt, Juliet Jacques, Roz Kaveney, Natacha Kennedy, Jennie Kermode, Paris Lees, CN Lester, Jay Stewart
...with Christine Burns on the judging panel, and yet more denoted ‘National treasures’ and ‘Ones to watch’.
In the words of Little Pete: “That was a good day.” :)
Luke Anderson, Helen Belcher, Sarah Brown, Jane Fae, Raphael Fox, Jackie Green, Lewis Hancox, Tara Hewitt, Juliet Jacques, Roz Kaveney, Natacha Kennedy, Jennie Kermode, Paris Lees, CN Lester, Jay Stewart
...with Christine Burns on the judging panel, and yet more denoted ‘National treasures’ and ‘Ones to watch’.
In the words of Little Pete: “That was a good day.” :)
Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Trans-Inclusive Feminism.
Or: “Yet More on Trans (vs.) Feminism” – except that there's no “vs.” to contend with this time...
We, the undersigned trans* and cis scholars, writers, artists, and educators, want to publicly and openly affirm our commitment to a trans*-inclusive feminism and womanism.
This heads a publicly declared statement of trans-inclusion, written in response to “a noticeable increase in transphobic feminist activity”. From 105 original signatories – some I knew; many I didn't – the list is now up to 400 and rising all the time.
The statement can be found at feministsfightingtransphobia.wordpress.com. Its criticism of anti-trans feminists is stringent and incisive, as you can read for yourself. But what I like most are these two extracts:
We are committed to recognizing and respecting the complex construction of sexual/gender identity; to recognizing trans* women as women and including them in all women’s spaces; to recognizing trans* men as men and rejecting accounts of manhood that exclude them; to recognizing the existence of genderqueer, non-binary identifying people and accepting their humanity; to rigorous, thoughtful, nuanced research and analysis of gender, sex, and sexuality that accept trans* people as authorities on their own experiences and understands that the legitimacy of their lives is not up for debate; and to fighting the twin ideologies of transphobia and patriarchy in all their guises.
Most importantly, we recognize that theories are not more important than real people’s real lives; we reject any theory of gender, sex, or sexuality that calls on us to sacrifice the needs of any subjugated or marginalized group. People are more important than theory.
Or as Dorothy Allison wrote: “Simple answers, reductionist politics, are the most prone to compromise, to saying we're addressing the essential issue and all that other stuff can slide. It is, in reality, people who slide.”
Their statement is a commitment not to let people slide. As such, it's both impressive and heart-warming – and I'd just like to say:
Thank you :)
We, the undersigned trans* and cis scholars, writers, artists, and educators, want to publicly and openly affirm our commitment to a trans*-inclusive feminism and womanism.
This heads a publicly declared statement of trans-inclusion, written in response to “a noticeable increase in transphobic feminist activity”. From 105 original signatories – some I knew; many I didn't – the list is now up to 400 and rising all the time.
The statement can be found at feministsfightingtransphobia.wordpress.com. Its criticism of anti-trans feminists is stringent and incisive, as you can read for yourself. But what I like most are these two extracts:
We are committed to recognizing and respecting the complex construction of sexual/gender identity; to recognizing trans* women as women and including them in all women’s spaces; to recognizing trans* men as men and rejecting accounts of manhood that exclude them; to recognizing the existence of genderqueer, non-binary identifying people and accepting their humanity; to rigorous, thoughtful, nuanced research and analysis of gender, sex, and sexuality that accept trans* people as authorities on their own experiences and understands that the legitimacy of their lives is not up for debate; and to fighting the twin ideologies of transphobia and patriarchy in all their guises.
Most importantly, we recognize that theories are not more important than real people’s real lives; we reject any theory of gender, sex, or sexuality that calls on us to sacrifice the needs of any subjugated or marginalized group. People are more important than theory.
Or as Dorothy Allison wrote: “Simple answers, reductionist politics, are the most prone to compromise, to saying we're addressing the essential issue and all that other stuff can slide. It is, in reality, people who slide.”
Their statement is a commitment not to let people slide. As such, it's both impressive and heart-warming – and I'd just like to say:
Thank you :)
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Twenty-Four Questions.
Another set of questions, another sequel – this time to CN Lester's earlier ‘Twenty-One Questions’ on trans issues. This time it's ‘Beyond the Binary’: “twenty four questions about gender, sex, sexuality, genderqueer issues, trans issues, stuff, things, the kitchen sink etc, answered by an amazing panel”, this time comprising Alex Drummond, Hel Gurney, Jennie Kermode, Nat Titman, and (again) CN themself.
This time the first question was mine. “Three related questions in one: How would you define sex and gender from a genderqueer/non-binary/neutrois/etc perspective? How do they intersect and/or conflict? And in the latter case, how might such a conflict be resolved?”
The answers you can read for yourself here. What surprised me more than anything was my own response to them: they made me cry. I don't expect anyone else to be affected like that. It was just... people talking my language (the sometimes abstruse language of gender theory) and saying things – deeply personal things (because gender) – that I agree with. Such as:
CN: I think ‘gender’ is a word we use to describe the ways in which we present our bodies, the way we talk, write, pitch our voices, move through the world, the work we do, the way we work in relationship to one another, who we identify with, how others see us, how we capitulate or rebel against that viewing, what we hope we are, what we’re frightened we are, and how we navigate societal structures concerning the above.
Nat: Each genderqueer/nonbinary/neutrois/etc person will have their own perspective on sex, gender and transgender and how their own experience of gender intersects and/or conflicts with that. We can guess what these may be based on the language and labels they identify with or use to describe themselves, but any writing on gender that falls outside of the binary must acknowledge that there is no single narrative that reflects how everyone in this group conceives of, expresses and describes their gender, or rejection of gender.
Hel: So, in a fully gender-pluralistic world, neither oppositional sexism nor traditional sexism would make sense. While ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ would probably continue as visual codes if nothing else, I’d expect (or at least hope) that they’d become value-neutral things (rather than standards to which someone is held because of their body morphology and/or gender identity, or an unequal pairing in which femininity is devalued compared to masculinity.) … so that’s my dream of a queer-feminist utopia, anyway.
As I wrote below the line: “I feel like I’ve come home.” :)
___________________________________________________
PS If you're interested in my lengthier (and mostly personal) comments, see questions four, six and thirteen.
This time the first question was mine. “Three related questions in one: How would you define sex and gender from a genderqueer/non-binary/neutrois/etc perspective? How do they intersect and/or conflict? And in the latter case, how might such a conflict be resolved?”
The answers you can read for yourself here. What surprised me more than anything was my own response to them: they made me cry. I don't expect anyone else to be affected like that. It was just... people talking my language (the sometimes abstruse language of gender theory) and saying things – deeply personal things (because gender) – that I agree with. Such as:
CN: I think ‘gender’ is a word we use to describe the ways in which we present our bodies, the way we talk, write, pitch our voices, move through the world, the work we do, the way we work in relationship to one another, who we identify with, how others see us, how we capitulate or rebel against that viewing, what we hope we are, what we’re frightened we are, and how we navigate societal structures concerning the above.
Nat: Each genderqueer/nonbinary/neutrois/etc person will have their own perspective on sex, gender and transgender and how their own experience of gender intersects and/or conflicts with that. We can guess what these may be based on the language and labels they identify with or use to describe themselves, but any writing on gender that falls outside of the binary must acknowledge that there is no single narrative that reflects how everyone in this group conceives of, expresses and describes their gender, or rejection of gender.
Hel: So, in a fully gender-pluralistic world, neither oppositional sexism nor traditional sexism would make sense. While ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ would probably continue as visual codes if nothing else, I’d expect (or at least hope) that they’d become value-neutral things (rather than standards to which someone is held because of their body morphology and/or gender identity, or an unequal pairing in which femininity is devalued compared to masculinity.) … so that’s my dream of a queer-feminist utopia, anyway.
As I wrote below the line: “I feel like I’ve come home.” :)
___________________________________________________
PS If you're interested in my lengthier (and mostly personal) comments, see questions four, six and thirteen.
Sunday, 14 July 2013
More about stuff.
I have a theory about stuff: It's just stuff. Not a very original theory perhaps. Indeed, I've said it before myself, but there it is: Stuff is just stuff. It's all stuff that people do. Probably most of us would like most of it to some degree. It's all good stuff. Some stuff we might like more than other stuff. Some stuff we'll have greater inclinations towards, some we'll have lesser inclinations. But it doesn't matter. It's all just stuff.
Except that there are rules about stuff. Stuff gets gendered. It's still all just stuff, but we call it "men's stuff", "boys' stuff", "women's stuff", "girls' stuff". Boys and men aren't supposed to do girls' and women's stuff. Girls and women aren't supposed to do boys' and men's stuff. And since we're aren't supposed to do some stuff, most of us don't do some stuff. We decide we don't want to do some stuff. But there's still a lot of other stuff to do, and that's good stuff too. So, even if the stuff we aren't supposed to do might have been good as well, we don't really miss it. There's plenty of good stuff either way. So the gendering of stuff doesn't bother us all that much.
But then there are those of us who are highly inclined to do that other stuff, the stuff that is gendered away from us, the stuff we aren't supposed to do. And then the gendering of stuff certainly does bother us. But because we are highly inclined towards that other stuff, we want to do it anyway, we really want to do it, and often we will do it. And then we come into conflict with people who think the gendering of stuff is real, that there really is women's and girls' stuff, men's and boys' stuff. And because the world is arranged that way, it's natural to assume that the world must actually be that way, that the rules about stuff and gender are proper rules. And perhaps, when those rules are challenged or broken, those people get cross, because they think this is the way the world really is and should be. But it isn't. It's all just stuff.
Anyway, that's my theory: People are just people and stuff is just stuff. There isn't a continuum of gender, with male at one end, female at the other, and some sort of androgyny in the middle. There are just people, with all our similarities and differences (some of which are morphological). Instead, what we have is a continuum of stuff, with some stuff gendered male at one end, some stuff gendered female at the other end, and not-particularly-gendered stuff in the middle. And this continuum of gendered stuff is completely made up. It's only real because we make it real each and every day. (I think I might call my theory "performativity for dummies".) Every time we accept the gendering of stuff, every time we say – or allow someone else to say – that some particular stuff is gendered female or male, we make it so. But it's all just stuff really.
So (note to self) don't allow anyone to tell you ever again that some stuff is gendered. That you can't do some stuff, you can't like some stuff, you can't want some stuff because gender. Nuts to that. Nuts to them. It's all just stuff. And it's time – way past time – people got over themselves about stuff.
Except that there are rules about stuff. Stuff gets gendered. It's still all just stuff, but we call it "men's stuff", "boys' stuff", "women's stuff", "girls' stuff". Boys and men aren't supposed to do girls' and women's stuff. Girls and women aren't supposed to do boys' and men's stuff. And since we're aren't supposed to do some stuff, most of us don't do some stuff. We decide we don't want to do some stuff. But there's still a lot of other stuff to do, and that's good stuff too. So, even if the stuff we aren't supposed to do might have been good as well, we don't really miss it. There's plenty of good stuff either way. So the gendering of stuff doesn't bother us all that much.
But then there are those of us who are highly inclined to do that other stuff, the stuff that is gendered away from us, the stuff we aren't supposed to do. And then the gendering of stuff certainly does bother us. But because we are highly inclined towards that other stuff, we want to do it anyway, we really want to do it, and often we will do it. And then we come into conflict with people who think the gendering of stuff is real, that there really is women's and girls' stuff, men's and boys' stuff. And because the world is arranged that way, it's natural to assume that the world must actually be that way, that the rules about stuff and gender are proper rules. And perhaps, when those rules are challenged or broken, those people get cross, because they think this is the way the world really is and should be. But it isn't. It's all just stuff.
Anyway, that's my theory: People are just people and stuff is just stuff. There isn't a continuum of gender, with male at one end, female at the other, and some sort of androgyny in the middle. There are just people, with all our similarities and differences (some of which are morphological). Instead, what we have is a continuum of stuff, with some stuff gendered male at one end, some stuff gendered female at the other end, and not-particularly-gendered stuff in the middle. And this continuum of gendered stuff is completely made up. It's only real because we make it real each and every day. (I think I might call my theory "performativity for dummies".) Every time we accept the gendering of stuff, every time we say – or allow someone else to say – that some particular stuff is gendered female or male, we make it so. But it's all just stuff really.
So (note to self) don't allow anyone to tell you ever again that some stuff is gendered. That you can't do some stuff, you can't like some stuff, you can't want some stuff because gender. Nuts to that. Nuts to them. It's all just stuff. And it's time – way past time – people got over themselves about stuff.
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
So, what is femme? (3)
Exactly two years ago, in ‘So, what is femme? (2)’, quoting part of Elizabeth Marston's essay Rogue Femininity, I wrote: “I doubt I'll ever be able to put it better than this”. And perhaps not. Nevertheless, I like very much what Elise Nagy has to say in her own article Exploding the Limitations (on the queer activist and literary ‘In our words’ blogsite). A few extracts:
Femininity has a lot of rules, and one of the overarching rules is that it’s nearly unattainable, that you will always be striving. It will keep you busy and keep your money and energy tied up in trying to reach some imaginary pinnacle of perfect femininity while you could be out doing magnificent things with your life, or exploring and constructing your own vision of femme that isn’t dictated to you from capitalism and sexism.
In many ways the difference between identifying as feminine or female and identifying as femme is one of intentionality and awareness. (...) Femininity is what’s expected of you if you’re assigned female at birth. Femme exists between and around sex and gender assigned at birth. Femme opens up a space for people who weren’t necessarily assigned female at birth but also might not accept a strict and naturalized gender binary. Femme can be a space for people who reject that assignment as having any real personal meaning. Femme is embodied in trans women and cis women, trans men and cis men.
Femme is what you do with yourself in the world, the way millennia of ideologies of femininity collide in the sway of your hips and swoop of your eyeliner. Femme is a vision as well as a way of presenting; Femme isn’t hierarchical or exclusionary. Femme isn’t necessarily straight and isn’t necessarily gay; femme can be asexual, femme can be kinky, femme can be fluid. Femme is by/for people of color. Femme is by/for people with disabilities. Femme is by/for people who can’t afford what Femininity is selling and wouldn’t want to buy it anyway.
Femme is about gestures, mannerisms, affectations and performance. It’s about making the face you present to the world represent the self you feel most like in that moment. Sometimes it’s about allowing yourself to act the way that people have punished you for, it’s about resisting the idea that traditional masculinity should be a requirement of your embodiment. Femme is contradictory and chaotic. It’s unfixed, mutable, fluid, and heterogeneous.
Femme is a personal identity, but it’s also a political one. It calls attention to the performativity of gender and sexuality. It questions the idea that there can be too much: too much blush, too much tulle, too many holes in your short shorts, too much calling out of racism, too many discussions about neocolonialism. Femme is resistance. Femme pushes back against the idea that people must act traditionally masculine to be powerful or traditionally feminine to be acceptable. Femme rejects white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Femme explores and explodes the limitations placed on people when they’re assigned female or male at birth.
I like this because it's political femme; powerful femme; confident "pay-it-no-mind" femme; confrontational "if-you-don't-like-it..." femme; impatient "when-do-we-want-it?-now!" femme. Femme that celebrates and draws strength from difference, independent of received notions of sex, gender and sexuality. Femme that rejects imposed prescriptions of what people are or should be. Femme that explodes the limitations of what femme is and can be. This is radical femme.
On which note, it's quite appropriate that I was directed to Nagy's piece by ‘Radical Femme’ on Facebook. Thanks, Katie :)
Femininity has a lot of rules, and one of the overarching rules is that it’s nearly unattainable, that you will always be striving. It will keep you busy and keep your money and energy tied up in trying to reach some imaginary pinnacle of perfect femininity while you could be out doing magnificent things with your life, or exploring and constructing your own vision of femme that isn’t dictated to you from capitalism and sexism.
In many ways the difference between identifying as feminine or female and identifying as femme is one of intentionality and awareness. (...) Femininity is what’s expected of you if you’re assigned female at birth. Femme exists between and around sex and gender assigned at birth. Femme opens up a space for people who weren’t necessarily assigned female at birth but also might not accept a strict and naturalized gender binary. Femme can be a space for people who reject that assignment as having any real personal meaning. Femme is embodied in trans women and cis women, trans men and cis men.
Femme is what you do with yourself in the world, the way millennia of ideologies of femininity collide in the sway of your hips and swoop of your eyeliner. Femme is a vision as well as a way of presenting; Femme isn’t hierarchical or exclusionary. Femme isn’t necessarily straight and isn’t necessarily gay; femme can be asexual, femme can be kinky, femme can be fluid. Femme is by/for people of color. Femme is by/for people with disabilities. Femme is by/for people who can’t afford what Femininity is selling and wouldn’t want to buy it anyway.
Femme is about gestures, mannerisms, affectations and performance. It’s about making the face you present to the world represent the self you feel most like in that moment. Sometimes it’s about allowing yourself to act the way that people have punished you for, it’s about resisting the idea that traditional masculinity should be a requirement of your embodiment. Femme is contradictory and chaotic. It’s unfixed, mutable, fluid, and heterogeneous.
Femme is a personal identity, but it’s also a political one. It calls attention to the performativity of gender and sexuality. It questions the idea that there can be too much: too much blush, too much tulle, too many holes in your short shorts, too much calling out of racism, too many discussions about neocolonialism. Femme is resistance. Femme pushes back against the idea that people must act traditionally masculine to be powerful or traditionally feminine to be acceptable. Femme rejects white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Femme explores and explodes the limitations placed on people when they’re assigned female or male at birth.
I like this because it's political femme; powerful femme; confident "pay-it-no-mind" femme; confrontational "if-you-don't-like-it..." femme; impatient "when-do-we-want-it?-now!" femme. Femme that celebrates and draws strength from difference, independent of received notions of sex, gender and sexuality. Femme that rejects imposed prescriptions of what people are or should be. Femme that explodes the limitations of what femme is and can be. This is radical femme.
On which note, it's quite appropriate that I was directed to Nagy's piece by ‘Radical Femme’ on Facebook. Thanks, Katie :)
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
More on Trans (vs.) Feminism.
The following is my own personal take on things. (I don't speak for anyone else.) The simplifications therein are for theoretical clarity; they do not (necessarily) describe every individual's complicated reality. Similarly, I've used the word "transgenderism" only because it was linguistically useful to do so. Trans people may agree on some things (sometimes), but really transgenderism doesn't exist as either an ideology or a movement.
___________________________________________________
I was hoping to get back to writing about femme, which I've neglected for quite a while in favour of trans, feminist and more general gender topics. But since I have been preoccupied by the latter topics lately, I felt the need to respond to a new article, ‘Who Owns Gender’, on the radical feminist website Trouble and Strife, which has been going the rounds:
Julie Bindel: “Brilliant analysis of the essentialism of transgender politics”.
Liz Kelly: “a thoughtful and clear discussion of what is at stake in recent debates on trans and radical feminism”.
In reply (to JB), I tweeted: “It misses the point entirely. Trans (in this context) is about *sex*, not gender. A trans person's *gender* might be anything.” And: “To put it another way: When we each talk about "gender" we don't mean the same thing. This is a conflict of language not politics.”
Because: No, it is not brilliant analysis. No, it is not a thoughtful and clear discussion. What the author (Delilah Campbell) has done is set out what she thinks trans politics are about and then proceed to censure them. This is typical straw man argument: “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.”
Personally, I'd dispute that we are in fact opponents, but in this type of article authors always assume that we are, that radical feminism and trans politics are completely at odds, and then set about a critique of the latter by applying ideas from the former. Whereas it would be far more productive to assume the reverse – that we're not at odds – and try to understand how the latter might be accommodated by the former. And that turns out to be not so very difficult. It only requires the acceptance of three basic axioms:
1) sex and gender are not the same;
2) cultural gender does not inherently correlate with binary sex;
3) transsexuality is about sex not gender.
I think we can probably agree on #1 and #2 straight away. #1 can also be applied to trans: i.e. transsexual is not the same as transgender. This is worth noting, since Campbell acknowledges differences in trans positions without appreciating how they mostly arise. As for #3, this comes with a crucial corollary:
3a) sex is a property of the mind, not the body.
In other words, our own sex is what we each know it to be and this is not dependent on any specific aspect of the body. This corollary might be difficult for some people to accept, but as I think it is the best way to make sense of these matters, please suspend disbelief for the moment and just allow that it is so. (To put it another way: for any morphological definition of sex there are always exceptions; transsexuality can be regarded as such an exception.)
The point is that if transsexuality is about sex (not gender), feminist critiques of gender are not threatened. They remain valid irrespective of whether someone is trans or not. In particular, problematic issues of "brain sex" (which Campbell highlights) simply disappear. Sexed brains already are different – microscopically in structure; more significantly in size, and how they sometimes light up under resonance imaging. But simple physical (or neurological) difference doesn't imply any difference in function or inherent capability. All attempts to infer gendered difference from sexed brains have been thoroughly debunked (as related in another article on site, linked to by the author: ‘Brain Wars’). Whether someone's brain is "trans-sexed" or not doesn't affect that debunking in any way.
Transgenderism, on the other hand, supports such critiques of neuroscience intrinsically, as it does axiom #2. By definition transgenderism is gender which runs contrary (in a cultural sense) to binary sex. It demonstrates that, despite the rigorous and constant efforts of the gender system (aka the patriarchy), gender cannot be forced into discrete binary boxes. That (gender) difference is a human quality, not one predicated by binary sex. That masculinity and femininity (however defined by the local gender system) are not essential properties of, respectively, men and women, but appear where they will in the human population as a whole.
The main disagreement between transgenderism and radical feminism is about what gender is and how each person's gender arises (as noted in my earlier post). Radical feminism proposes that gender is socially constructed. Transgenderism proposes that gender is also intrinsic (to some degree) but is forced along false and discrete binary paths by an oppressive gender system. Thus described, transgenderism hardly threatens feminism either. Feminist critiques of how and why binary gender is culturally maintained, feminist analysis of gender structure and power relations, again all remain valid.
So what are we actually arguing about? And why do trans activists (as the author rhetorically asks) direct so much ire at (some) radical feminists? Because radfems are always starting fights (her article being another case in point). And because many trans activists are feminists; this is our turf as well, and we'll fight battles over it. But these battles are never really about gender. They're always about the nature of trans. (The author was right the first time.) And we fight because you don't understand trans. You think you do, but – as her article shows yet again – you really really don't.
___________________________________________________
Footnotes (for Julie Bindel):
While I was writing this piece, JB tweeted me back: “why do they call it 'transgender' then?”
My quick response: “Just to be confusing ;) . No, it depends on context.”
The "confusing" part of that is a serious point (if flippantly made). As I said in my previous post, I think it would be helpful if we refrained from using the word "gender" altogether when we really mean "sex". As for the context part, "transgender" relates variously to:
1) the crossing of cultural gender lines;
2) a political coalition of people who cross – or appear to cross – cultural gender lines;
3) transsexuality – a linguistic confusion arising from a colloquial interchanging of the words "sex" and "gender".
Note, too, that the trans prefix describes sex and gender within the prevailing gender system. From a radical feminist perspective "trans" doesn't actually exist at all. Transgender doesn't exist because the gender lines that trans supposedly crosses are a false construction of the patriarchy. While if a trans person's declared sex is (regarded as) their true sex (see corollary 3a) and not "crossed" over from anywhere, then the trans part of transsexuality doesn't exist either.
Speaking personally: I am transgender within contexts #1 and #2. But ultimately I don't see myself as trans, because I regard my "femininity" (my supposed gender crossing) as perfectly valid for my sex (male). It is only the gender system that falsely (and oppressively) equates "femininity" with "femaleness" (and vice versa).
Two final things:
1. All this is but a framework in which trans matters might be understood from a radical feminist perspective. It isn't (necessarily) how each and every trans person understands themselves.
2. The corollary (3a) is very important. The actual truth of it is unproven, but you can't understand trans – and transsexuality in particular – unless you accept that it might be true, or at least that it is true for us.
___________________________________________________
I was hoping to get back to writing about femme, which I've neglected for quite a while in favour of trans, feminist and more general gender topics. But since I have been preoccupied by the latter topics lately, I felt the need to respond to a new article, ‘Who Owns Gender’, on the radical feminist website Trouble and Strife, which has been going the rounds:
Julie Bindel: “Brilliant analysis of the essentialism of transgender politics”.
Liz Kelly: “a thoughtful and clear discussion of what is at stake in recent debates on trans and radical feminism”.
In reply (to JB), I tweeted: “It misses the point entirely. Trans (in this context) is about *sex*, not gender. A trans person's *gender* might be anything.” And: “To put it another way: When we each talk about "gender" we don't mean the same thing. This is a conflict of language not politics.”
Because: No, it is not brilliant analysis. No, it is not a thoughtful and clear discussion. What the author (Delilah Campbell) has done is set out what she thinks trans politics are about and then proceed to censure them. This is typical straw man argument: “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.”
Personally, I'd dispute that we are in fact opponents, but in this type of article authors always assume that we are, that radical feminism and trans politics are completely at odds, and then set about a critique of the latter by applying ideas from the former. Whereas it would be far more productive to assume the reverse – that we're not at odds – and try to understand how the latter might be accommodated by the former. And that turns out to be not so very difficult. It only requires the acceptance of three basic axioms:
1) sex and gender are not the same;
2) cultural gender does not inherently correlate with binary sex;
3) transsexuality is about sex not gender.
I think we can probably agree on #1 and #2 straight away. #1 can also be applied to trans: i.e. transsexual is not the same as transgender. This is worth noting, since Campbell acknowledges differences in trans positions without appreciating how they mostly arise. As for #3, this comes with a crucial corollary:
3a) sex is a property of the mind, not the body.
In other words, our own sex is what we each know it to be and this is not dependent on any specific aspect of the body. This corollary might be difficult for some people to accept, but as I think it is the best way to make sense of these matters, please suspend disbelief for the moment and just allow that it is so. (To put it another way: for any morphological definition of sex there are always exceptions; transsexuality can be regarded as such an exception.)
The point is that if transsexuality is about sex (not gender), feminist critiques of gender are not threatened. They remain valid irrespective of whether someone is trans or not. In particular, problematic issues of "brain sex" (which Campbell highlights) simply disappear. Sexed brains already are different – microscopically in structure; more significantly in size, and how they sometimes light up under resonance imaging. But simple physical (or neurological) difference doesn't imply any difference in function or inherent capability. All attempts to infer gendered difference from sexed brains have been thoroughly debunked (as related in another article on site, linked to by the author: ‘Brain Wars’). Whether someone's brain is "trans-sexed" or not doesn't affect that debunking in any way.
Transgenderism, on the other hand, supports such critiques of neuroscience intrinsically, as it does axiom #2. By definition transgenderism is gender which runs contrary (in a cultural sense) to binary sex. It demonstrates that, despite the rigorous and constant efforts of the gender system (aka the patriarchy), gender cannot be forced into discrete binary boxes. That (gender) difference is a human quality, not one predicated by binary sex. That masculinity and femininity (however defined by the local gender system) are not essential properties of, respectively, men and women, but appear where they will in the human population as a whole.
The main disagreement between transgenderism and radical feminism is about what gender is and how each person's gender arises (as noted in my earlier post). Radical feminism proposes that gender is socially constructed. Transgenderism proposes that gender is also intrinsic (to some degree) but is forced along false and discrete binary paths by an oppressive gender system. Thus described, transgenderism hardly threatens feminism either. Feminist critiques of how and why binary gender is culturally maintained, feminist analysis of gender structure and power relations, again all remain valid.
So what are we actually arguing about? And why do trans activists (as the author rhetorically asks) direct so much ire at (some) radical feminists? Because radfems are always starting fights (her article being another case in point). And because many trans activists are feminists; this is our turf as well, and we'll fight battles over it. But these battles are never really about gender. They're always about the nature of trans. (The author was right the first time.) And we fight because you don't understand trans. You think you do, but – as her article shows yet again – you really really don't.
___________________________________________________
Footnotes (for Julie Bindel):
While I was writing this piece, JB tweeted me back: “why do they call it 'transgender' then?”
My quick response: “Just to be confusing ;) . No, it depends on context.”
The "confusing" part of that is a serious point (if flippantly made). As I said in my previous post, I think it would be helpful if we refrained from using the word "gender" altogether when we really mean "sex". As for the context part, "transgender" relates variously to:
1) the crossing of cultural gender lines;
2) a political coalition of people who cross – or appear to cross – cultural gender lines;
3) transsexuality – a linguistic confusion arising from a colloquial interchanging of the words "sex" and "gender".
Note, too, that the trans prefix describes sex and gender within the prevailing gender system. From a radical feminist perspective "trans" doesn't actually exist at all. Transgender doesn't exist because the gender lines that trans supposedly crosses are a false construction of the patriarchy. While if a trans person's declared sex is (regarded as) their true sex (see corollary 3a) and not "crossed" over from anywhere, then the trans part of transsexuality doesn't exist either.
Speaking personally: I am transgender within contexts #1 and #2. But ultimately I don't see myself as trans, because I regard my "femininity" (my supposed gender crossing) as perfectly valid for my sex (male). It is only the gender system that falsely (and oppressively) equates "femininity" with "femaleness" (and vice versa).
Two final things:
1. All this is but a framework in which trans matters might be understood from a radical feminist perspective. It isn't (necessarily) how each and every trans person understands themselves.
2. The corollary (3a) is very important. The actual truth of it is unproven, but you can't understand trans – and transsexuality in particular – unless you accept that it might be true, or at least that it is true for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)