Feminist perspectives on transgendered people

I'm still thinking about it all. It's most int'restin

I agree.

If we manage to annhialate the hierarchy, that would be a miracle. But it is a desirable state of affairs.

sorry the eh was to boffin, but i think your post explains it lrd!

Plus there are many more versions of sexuality than XX and XY. You have XXY, XYY and all sorts of other things. There may be as many as 15 permutations, with associated variations in genitals and personal inclination. We should celebrate this diversity, and stop shoving people into pigeonholes.

eh?

I don't think so.

I think if no-one much cared what genitals people had, who was female and who was male, we would not have the patriarchy.

The need for feminism means we need to argue for women as a group, but that is only because the patriarchy disciminates on women as a group. If no discrimination, no need for feminism - which is the ideal.

If there was less polarisation in society generally, less emphasis on social divisions, then we would not need feminism.

Boffin Couldn't agree more. But if we stop paying any attention to what genitals people have, doesn't feminism go by the wayside as well? And there, I think, is the rub.

I can see your point, sgm

I think we are too hung up on what genitals people have.

yes, me too, Manatee.

new names for new times I say. As we don't seem to be able to live without names.

I can imagine if you had a penis, but identified strongly as a woman, it must be doubly hurtful to be told your penis debars you.

Equally if you want a physically-literally women only space to feel safe, you wouldn't want a penis-bearer.

difficult indeed.

In that ideal world, IMO, we would no longer be talking about 'gender reassignment surgery' because we would have accepted 'gender' as a concept is useless and restrictive.

Hully, I think one poster case for this has been the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, which has a clear policy that only 'womyn-born womyn' are allowed in, thus excluding transwomen. It's caused some savage bunfights lively debates among different groups within the feminist, lesbian-feminist, queer-feminist, trans-activist and LGBTQ worlds.

Personally I see it as a classic example of the problems and limitations of identity politics.

Absolutely LRD, of course everyone should be treated like human beings. But even in that ideal world there would be sometimes be a linguistic need to distinguish between trans and cis women. E.g. 'Well, as a cis woman she's never had to undergo gender reassignment surgery.' or 'As a cis male, he's never walked around with a sock down his pants'. Just in the normal way of conversation about such issues, one needs a term.

It's not that different from referring to 'gay' and 'straight' women (though obviously that doesn't threaten the sex binary).

god yes the prison thing is a nightmare. they'd have to be in a unit on their own I guess.

reclaim etc, hmmm, I'll have to think about that. I can see both sides.

I know it would be expensive, but ideally would you not allocate different bits of the prison or different prisons to different people? Prison is non-ideal in a shedload of ways though ...

Hully, what woman-specific issue would you have, that'd be treated the same in a cis woman and a trans woman? That was the bit I didn't get.

perhaps it was a woman-specific medical issue?

Ah, ok Manatee. I think I'm not being very coherent, sorry.

But what I'm saying is, there are some differences between a MtoF transsexual, and someone who's born a woman. I think both women and MtoF transsexuals - obviously- deserve to be treated with respect. But why define the standard of treatment MtoF transsexuals should expect with reference to the standard accorded to women? Why not just treat everyone like human beings? Then you wouldn't need to use a term that implies a woman who's born a woman is 'other' compared to a transwoman.

Hully I'd definitely say that among my lesbian friends the idea of gender as a spectrum has a lot of currency.

I used to spend a lot of time on a (mostly) London lesbian forum; there would occasionally be epic bunfights about whether or not it was OK for male-identified lesbians to participate in the messageboard, as it was intended for lesbians only. The more separatist-minded posters were on occasions deeply offended by male-identified posters talking about feeling as though they had a penis, and some even found the idea of using cock-like prosthetics abhorrent. On the other hand the genderqueer contingent would argue that they were lesbians, within a broad definition of lesbian, and as such had as much right to be there as the separatists. It got quite heated sometimes.

There were interminable arguments about how people 'identified', a proliferation of labels and debates about what the labels themselves meant ('What, you're saying you're not really butch if you like kittens and puppies? How dare you? I'm more butch than a steel toe-capped boot, me, and I wuv my kitten and have a My Little Pony duvet set etc etc etc') and definitely, absolutely, no consensus that you were either definitely female or definitely male.

I guess all that probably influences my approach to debates about gender too

I want to know about trans people not being allowed to go to some women-only things please.