Feminism and the idea of a man or woman trapped in the wrong body are contradictory ideas

nyac.....absurd!! i'm totaly at a loss, where do you get it from?
if a woman has an operation to become a man that last thing on my mind is what that does or means for mankind, i just hope she/he made the right discision and will perhaps ge happy now.
of course only men are in the legal and medical institutions
'men opress women through rape' no, rapists opress women through rape!!!
yes just the other day i heard loads of medical professionals harping on about who the biological reality of women was meaningless.

Hullygully

I haven't read the whole thing, but this is certainly useful for an idea of basic demographics.

www.gires.org.uk/Prevalence2011.pdf

I'll also post the other links I did previously (as some have commented on their interest):
Trans-ablism
Thoughts of a person both transabled and transgendered
Trans-specism
Otherkin

Some members of the other communities are also transgendered (I think on the otherkin pages).

"Now men with their legal and medical institutions want to claim that the biological reality of women is meaningless, and that what women really are is a feeling that a man has. FTMs exist because the illogic has to pretend to be logical, but the existence of FTMs don't hide the fact that the political institution of trans is about the erasure of women and the division of ourselves from our bodies. Women are just a "gender identity" now don't you know. Our biology, the site of mens' oppression and destruction of us, means nothing."

So are you saying Nyac,that in your opinion the existence of transexual people is a specific conscious plan by men/the patriarchy to erase women?

Also the dismissing of FtoM people as a sop to bolster up the institution of trans seems a bit...not sure what the word is.Patronising,maybe? You are dismissing those women who want to transition as completely irrelevant it seems.

Just wanted to add (after catching up on new posts), that I do not mind if someone wishes to identify by their gender-identity and their biology does not matter to them.

However, I do not wish to primarily identify by my gender-identity, and my biology is extremely important to me as it is the major influencing variable on all of society's interactions with me, and thus impacts me massively.

Biology is very relevant to biological women who are impacted on by means of that biology. If others do not find it relevant for them, it does not negate the reality and relevance of it for others.

How many transexuals mtf or ftm are legally confirmed as such with or without surgery per year? Anyone know?

Because of time commitments I'm going to have to bow out of what has been an immensely illuminating discussion.

I just wanted to part with a few observations:

Kim, it was really interesting to get your perspective. As someone who doesn't know any trans people personally, it was good to read your post, which actually reflected what I'd thought about the personal experience of being trans.

Somebody posted links yesterday to articles about transabled, otherkin and transgenderism. This was for me the most eye-opening aspect of this whole thread. Until then I'd forgotten about a programme I'd seen many years back, about otherkin people - the one that featured a man named Cat (guess why? ). Anyone else see that? At the time of watching, it seemed clear that this was a psychiatric/ psychological disorder which needed specialist support and treatment.

Until reading the web pages linked on this thread it had never occurred to me to regard transgenderism in the same category. And yet I cannot deny the powerful similarities between the conditions - as said explicitly by some of the people on those sites. So I think I'm completely revising my idea about what transgenderism is, and I can now better understand the concerns expressed about preserving women's safe spaces.

If being transgender is a psychiatric condition then that still demands support and acceptance of the person, but a different viewpoint of the condition. I'm not even going to try and say what that might be; it needs a lot more thought than I can give it right now.

What a great discussion: insightful thoughts , stimulating disagreements, and no bunfighting. For me this is MN at its best: a forum to discuss ideas, challenge beliefs and be open to changing your opinions. Thanks all, what a great bunch.

Chromosomes are the only consistent variable (and what medics consistently turn to if in doubt), even brain scans would just indicate another biological 'bit' like any other body organ, they are not scanning the mind.

If the words 'man' and 'woman' are indeed changing into words that describe feelings as the prime determinant over biology, then I am no longer a woman (as I, and I am not alone, do not gender-identify in my mind as such).

I personally am not that bothered by the idea, as I do see it as just a word really (but I would require a new 'name', not a statement, to describe my biological female state regardless of gender-identity).

This word would essentially replace what 'woman' has historically/traditionally meant (biological), and the new word 'woman' means a feeling (without any necessary objective definition - unless someone actually has a proposal for what this might be).

In this case, 'man' and 'woman' would both actually become obsolete terms in terms of societal interaction, because anyone I pass on the street is a 'ManorWoman' until they tell me which they are.

The only thing that would happen is that society would still judge you on your biological appearance, and we still need names for the biological identity of a person who either cannot communicate their gender-identity (babies, persons with relevant physical/mental disability, unconscious, even deceased), who wish to keep their gender-identity private, or whom gender-identify as neither man nor woman (myself included).

As I said, I do not personally feel that attached to whichever words are ultimately used, but I can honestly empathise with people who feel protective of the 'woman' as 'biological female' definition, because this has been their identity, and has meant something particular to them (not just what anyone says it means). I empathise, it is not a fight I personally feel passionate enough about to engage in... but I do not think their views are invalid or intolerant (although I have often seen them get labelled as such).

Do you spend a lot of your time feeling angry, Nyac? I would, if I saw the world in the way you do.

you see i don't agree with you nyac. I see the patriarchy more like racism. A group is defined as being different from the norm and therefore less important. Cod science and biology is used to justify this difference. To me scientific findings that cast doubt on there being two clearly separate genders are, like scientific findings that cast doubt on the idea of clear biological racial differences entirely consistent with my feminism.

women are born into the class that is oppressed by men.

Erk. 'Jump' through hoops, not 'hump' through them.

What a dainty piece of sarcasm Bruxeur.

If men feel their reality is under attack from the fact that FTM are deemed to then I'm sure they can pipe up.

The fact is that the redefinition of woman presents a clear danger to women, allowing men into women's spaces where they wouldn't have been before, and denying the human reality of women, in favour of men's feelings. It's handy for them to have a few FTMs to hide behind so they can claim "women do it to", but it doesn't detract from the political reality that trans undermines the existence of women, and therefore our work to politically organise to overthrow male supremacy.

Regardless of science, then, why not take their word for it? They're hardly going to put themselves through all that upheaval for sh*ts and giggles, are they?

I am finding the discussion about internal gender identity very interesting: and kim's post was illuminating on this, I thought. I had wondered in the past about whether I would be able to hump through the hoops required to 'prove' I am a woman. I'm just not very girly, and never have been. Maybe I'm more neutral, like Whiteshores. Although, tbh, since I think a lot of OTT 'girlyness' or 'masculinity' really is cultural anyway. And my family is not particularly conventional (in fact, my grandmother was adopted, along with her siblings by a woman who lived as a man, and her sister married an intersex woman who sex changed before they married).

So, yes. I think the points people have made about a sort of social 'gender fluidity' perhaps allowing people to just be who they are as opposed to having to fit a narrow definition, are good ones. I think it would take a lot of work now, though, especially as there's so much hypersexualisation in the media these days...

O WAIT LULZ IT TOTALLY DUSNT SAY THAT.

It does work both ways. You only mentioned one side of the story.

What an omission! You must feel a bit silly.

What a wonderfully complete summary of that piece of news, Nyac.

Do you know why the reverse doesn't apply? Why the meaning of man hasn't changed to "something a woman feels"?

It would be very interesting to find out why it only worked one way, in such a slap in the face for feminists everywhere.

Despite all the quoting of science on this thread and the attempts to dress up "internal gender identity" as a scientific fact grounded in brain structure or chemistry (which it isn't), the only test for trans still is a man claiming he's a woman or vice versa. People just have to take the man's (or woman's) word for it.

Argentina follows suit in reducing the meaning of woman to "something a man feels". Argentine men can keep their penises and testicles and can still be given legal status as women.

www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/argentina-approves-transgender-rights-id-changes-sex-change-operations-and-hormone-therapy/2012/05/09/gIQAToWAEU_print.html

"Any adult will now be able to officially change his or her gender, image and birth name without having to get approval from doctors or judges ? and without having to undergo physical changes beforehand, as many U.S. jurisdictions require.

?It?s saying you can change your gender legally without having to change your body at all. That?s unheard of,? said Katrina Karkazis, a Stanford University medical anthropologist and bioethicst who wrote a book, ?Fixing Sex,? about the medical and legal treatment of people whose physical characteristics don?t fully match their gender identity."

vesuvia - yes, the people I refer to are/were unhappily wittingly aware of patriarchy - it just wasn't the winning influence for any of them. They were equipped to make their own intimate decisions outwith what patriarchy was telling them.

'non-declared feminst?' - I'd have thought it was self evident. A few posters have declared their 'status' on the feminist spectrum - I was indicating I am not a feminist so wasn't going to be arrogant enough to comment on whether transsexuality is consistent with feminism. No more than that.

hth

Pan wrote - "Really problematic post vesuvia. Throughout there is an assumption that inviduals are making decisions within their perception of the existence of a patriarchy - they they are 'bowing' to a superstructure. I know this isn't the case for the 3 transgendered people I know. Their knowledge of themselves was outside of a notion of a patriarchal superstructure."

A person's level of awareness of patriarchy does not change the reality that societies are patriarchal. Most people who are not familiar with feminism haven't given it much thought and any person can still bow to a superstructure, wittingly or unwittingly.

Pan , you described yourself as a non-declared feminist. What is that?

kim147 Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed your very insightful post, and that I wish you both the happiness and the acceptance that every human being deserves.

I think the 'biological male entering women only space' only comes up because it is only relatively recently that 'women' came to mean anything other than biological women.

Some biological women do still want a space for biological women, in my case this could feasibly come about because I do not internally 'gender-identify' as 'woman' and so my biology is what links me to other women and nothing else - this would be the commonality I would wish to share.

Similarily, I might want to join a group with people who are bisexual (as I consider myself), and do not see any reason why people who are heterosexual or homosexual would feel hurt or excluded as a result of such a grouping.

I can feasibly see a future where there are groups for biological women, groups for people who female gender-identify, and groups for 'women' (which may well be an umbrella term for both gender/biological groups).

I hope and pray for a world where biological males and females are treated as individuals and not as their biology. Then the situation you describe with the changing rooms would never exist, and I would not face the gender role forcibly expected of me (which I reject). :)

I think most people would agree that no one knows how anyone else feels.

So a person only knows what being a biological female feels like unless they are a biological female themselves.

However, 'a feeling regarding self-identity in your mind' is now coming to have its own recognition and so needs a name (a lot of people use the word 'gender' or 'gender-identity' for this).

The person feels how they feel (whatever that may be), and they choose the label for that feeling based on their personal idea about what that label means.

Unless there is an external definition for what 'female gender-identity' and 'male gender-identity' actually mean, then the terms don't really mean anything concrete except to the individual (who knows what they mean by them).

For example, I am biologically female, but would call myself neutral (or absent) gender-identity, because that is the term that has the most meaning to me. It does not make me anything other than a biological female with a neutral gender-identity.

A person who is MtF transgendered would be a biological male with a feminine gender-identity.

As a result of the use of the words 'man' and 'woman' by both those who are biologically male/female, and those who gender-identify as masculine/feminine, 'man' and 'woman' have basically become umbrella terms and really need to be divided into two subsections to make it clear which people are talking about when they wish to talk about the specifics.

Yes, that's my problem with the claim that research 'proves' whatever about trans people 'because their brains are more like those of the gender with which they identify'.

Thread's so long now I forget where that came in. But it bothered me when it did!

If someone feels their gender identity doesn't match their body, who am I to argue with them. Although I am a bit puzzled by how you'd know what it feels like to be a man (or woman) if you aren't already clearly a member of that gender. Which is presumably my own ignorance as I haven't had to face that particular hurdle.