Feminist perspectives on transgendered people

Btw, I think using a qualifier before 'woman' is especially dodgy given that a lot of women who are feminists will remember the same sort of attitude from misogynistic men or children being cruel ... 'you're not a real girl, you're a boy-girl/ 'you're all just hairy sexless feminists' are fairly common taunts and it's hard not to see another term qualifiying 'woman' as hurtful.

What is this "cis?"

I don't see how either 'cis' or 'gender' can be non-offensive?

I do feel offended by someone telling me I am a 'cis woman'. Why must there be some term to imply I'm not just a 'woman'? What is it about me that my femaleness need to be qualified?

I am not aware of the history of teh term and would like to know it - but not knowing it, my first response is that I do feel hurt, yes.

It is jolly interesting.

So, if you are a man, or a boy, and you feel strongly that you are a woman, or girl, (depending on age), but you don't want to have surgery to alter your body, then clearly to you the constituent parts of the body are not necessary for a clear wish for one type of so-called gender alignment.

I can kind of see that, I have dc and am heterosexual, but I am not strongly identified with my body, I think of me as me and have no interest in my organs or bosoms as such, they are just what I happen to inhabit as a matter of chromosomal chance. I don't think of myself as "female" much either, more as "human," until being "female" becomes an issue in the way I am treated by the outside world.

Hmmm.

That's interesting Milly - I wasn't aware that most transgender people weren't seeking to change their bodies (not at all? or do you mean they take hormones but don't undergo surgery?). Obviously there is a potential issue with a man with fully functioning male anatomy and hormones but who identifies as a woman, especially in sensitive situations.

I see what you mean about it being wrong to attempt to split the mind from the body, but to be honest I don't think most people do this - or at least, not for this reason. Cis gender is really just a non-offensive term for the majority who are happy with their born bodily sex, isn't it?

That, I agree Milly, especially about women's reproductive rights.

Sorry, I'm posting and running, but I'll come back later if people are still discussing this.

The issue for me with defining women by their reproductive potential, is that while I understand many women will never want to get pregnant, it is still something that only women do. As such, in a sexist society, society as a whole is not going to prioritise women's choices in childbirth, women's reproductive health, maternity leave and so on. That is something women as a group have to push for. So a large part of feminism has to be about the reproductive health of people who are biologically female. For example, I'm confident that I am not going to have an abortion, but I still understand abortion rights are a hugely important part of feminism and losing those rights would have a knock on effect on the treatment of all women and our rights to our bodies. So I do think that the fact we are biologically female is at the heart of feminism. This is not an argument against transgender; I am merely saying that I think if feminism were to move, it can only move so far. It cannot, as some transactivists have asked for, stop calling abortion a feminist issue.

As for transgender people, I understand the point somebody made earlier that if you felt female you would want your body to look female. But that seems to be leaving aside the point that most transgender people are not seeking to change their bodies through surgery. They want to be treated as the opposite gender without surgery. They want to be treated as if they were women. And despite having read around the subject, I don't understand what it means to feel like a women if all aspects of the body are removed from it. So I'd really like somebody to explain that. I think it is reasonable to ask that, because we can't treat people how they want to be treated if we don't understand what this non-bodily expression of womanhood consists of.

My other issue with it is that I don't think it is a positive thing for girls to attempt to split the mind from the body and see them as wholly separate, so I reject the concept of cis gender. I can't really explain that well but it comes from my reading of Susie Orbach on feminist therapy.

Well, I don't feel my identity as a woman is at all affected, let alone made meaningless, by the fact that a few people born as male feel that that their selves are out of sync with their bodies, and decide to alter their bodies accordingly and redefine themselves as women.

We're all different, eh?

I'm wondering why people are finding it difficult to define "woman". It means adult human female and female means of the sex that is born with eggs. It's not a controversial definition, it's existed for thousands (millions?) of years. It's not just our species that recognises sex - other animals recognise sex differences and act accordingly.

If the idea of womanhood has been stretched to include people born with penises and testes then you've rendered it meaningless. I for one as a feminist am not happy with my basic existence being treated as meaningless.

Enjoy the tree planting, that sounds nice!

Oops, sorry, tak, my last was a general comment, not a reply to your post!

I thought that the question Sam asked, about why would she be attracted to a man if he were essentially the same, was the comment that sparked this. I suspect it's a personal question that doesn't do well to generalize about, because as a general question it does rather imply that heterosexuality is the norm, and that sexual attraction naturally results from perception of sex/gender difference.

I think the point about personally feeling that your identity as a woman is intrinsically linked to reproduction does make sense. I think the whole experience of being brought up as a woman is important here - if you are brought up as a woman in our society, part of the biology you learn to apply to yourself is to do with the fact women have wombs. That is why it can be so upsetting to find you can't carry a baby. But I think it must be a very different kind of upset, from the upset you'd feel as a MtoF transsexual who never had a womb and who had to struggle against society insisting 'he' conform to some idealism about what a man should be.

yes

I need to go and plant some trees now, so not ignoring anyone who wants to point out (probably entirely justifiably) that my thinking is totally wooly headed and just plain wrong. Will be back later.

Whew, anyone else's brain going foggy?!

I'm sorry, it was me who introduced the greeks, and it wasn't anything to do with the trans issue, it was a response to a previous post that I read as implying that heterosexuality was entirely a biological norm (if that is the right way to put it).

I do take the point made above that child-bearing as an identifying factor for womanhood is potentially exclusive. I think I was trying to say that for me there are certain things about being a woman that were very important to my intrinsic sense of self, one of which is my reproductive history, if you like to put it that way.

I imagine that for others there will be other factors, but I suspect for a lot of people there will be at least something about their biological sex and physical form which is important to their sense of self.

And hence it does make sense to me that for some people it is quite possible to feel that they are intrisically in the 'wrong' biological sex regardless of whether they wish to adopt traditional gender roles or reject them entirely.

Hully was replying to previous comments though?

TBH I think the question of sexuality and its relation to gender/sex/transgenderism is a red herring.

Hi LRD - It was Hully's post about the Ancient Greeks that puzzled me, linking transgenderism and homosexuality, which I didn't "get."

I think that many folks who transition though don't go for full gender reassignment surgery for all sorts of reason from the surgery being risky to not feeling they need to have a vagina or penis to be the person they feel they are (coming back to transitioning to the other gender being the least worst option, so not necessarily feeling the need to "go the whole way," so to speak.)

I do feel really uneasy though about some aspects of transexualism that are clearly linked to what you mentioned about women's or transitioned women's bodies being "holes for sex." It's the whole "Ladyboys of Bangkok" culture, not just the entertainment side, but the ostensibly "straight men" who go to another country and buy children, women and transexual people for sex - creating a "market" for each of these. It's racist as well as misogynist. The choice between struggling hand to mouth in poverty and selling your body as "holes" for privileged Western men's use and abuse isn't a genuine choice. For those born men, their "choice" to transition is more likely to be based on economic survival than identity.

In a similar way, depictions of Lesbians in porn is for male consumption, not representing the genuine choices of women or reflecting the reality of that identity for Lesbians.

Perhaps I've gone on a bit of a diversion here and maybe I should step out now as I know this remains a really, really thorny issue. I have certainly enjoyed hearing the perspectives and insights here and the way folks have articulated these in a sensitive way, despite whatever feelings the issue may be pulling up for them.

Sorry, I think I am losing the thread here, probably getting distracted by RL so will shut up in a minute.

Just to check, because I may be misread, but kri, if you were replying to me, I never did conflate homosexuality and transgenderism.

People have historically applied the same idea (which IMO is cock-eyed) to homosexuals that they now do to transgender people - ie., that if you don't fit with a rigid gender role, you must be a member of the opposite gener but in the wrong body.

However, I'm not sure this point was raised on the thread, I think I was responding to samstown who was talking about how sexual attraction works. I didn't quite get her point TBH, but just want to be clear what I don't think here!

I'm not sure how helpful it is to put together a rigid definition of a 'real woman' (though I see why people try to do it). There will always be a grey area. This does cause problems in terms of who can be admitted to women-only spaces, of course... I don't think there's an easy answer here.

Part of the problem here is the old sex v. gender thing, isn't it. Feminists are very hot on sex distinctions, as the bedrock of feminism thought is the fact that men have a tendency to oppress women. But they dislike gender distinctions, which rely on socially constructed control of behaviour.

Now transgender/transsexual people seek to breach the man/woman binary, and (often but not always) conform to the masculine/feminine binary. So it's not surprising that feminist responses to this are confused/varied.

Incidentally, there are actually more intersex people with odd chromosomes/ genitalia/hormones etc who decide to align themselves with one gender or the other for social purposes than there are transsexuals. But intersex people don't get any stick for their choices, as far as I'm aware... there's something about the decision transsexuals make to leap from one sex/gender to the other that upsets (some) people.

We need new names. New names for everything unconnected with the old freights of associations.

Okay, gotcha, I think. I'm not sure about conflating homosexuality with transgenderism though. Who you fall in love with, have sex with, have a relationship with may not be connected with how you see your identity as male, female or something else. Although Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people don't "conform" neatly to the dominant gender dichotomy, the reasons for this are quite different, imho.

It's interesting though because I am reminded that in the early 70's wave of feminism, there were some feminists who wanted to exclude Lesbian women, particularly "butch" lesbians from the feminist movement. They argued that they were "apeing" masculinity, attempting to take on the appearance and behaviour of men and men were the oppressors. I remember this being one of the themes in the second "If These Walls Could Talk" movie about Lesbian relationships across the decades. Anyhow, idea seemed to be based on misinformation, narrow perceptions about Lesbians and possibly, good old fashioned heterosexism.

That kind of flip flopped in the 80's and 90's when many feminists suggested that "sleeping with the enemy" was colluding with patriarchal oppression and the concept of loving women as a political act came more to the fore.

Now, I'd like to think we've moved on from that, but yes, still uneasy with definitions predicated on biology and reproductive functions.

I do see your point Kri.

But OTOH, I would not want to see a vagina that is constructed solely as a sex object being teh defining characteristic of a woman. I can see that this is a tricky issue and much of the problem may be that surgery as it is currently, is I think still seen as a 'best' solution not a 'perfect' solution. But there is something that to me seems uncomfortably close to the patriarchial attitude that women's bodies are holes for sex, in that.

I don't know if that is fair or not.

I think women who cannot use their wombs to have children, or whose wombs are removed, are certainly just as much women as anyone else and we shouldn't use this as a defining characteristic. But, IMO, it also seems wrong to say that a woman who's had a hysterectomy is the same as a MtoF transsexual. I'm not saying one is happier, or more admirable, or more deserving of sympathy than the other here ... just that tehy are different and will have had different experiences that are - inescapably IMO - to do with the sex they were born and identified as.

So for example, at a certain point in Greek history, as I understand it, it was the norm for men to have homosexual relationships during their lives - they were socially conditioned to expect to have such feelings/desires as well as to have heterosexual relationships for the purpose of producing children. Does that make sense?

Here, KRITIQ^