The Mary Beard Appreciation Society

almondcakes I have an awful lot of sympathy with all of that. I'm not totally sure that I buy in to the concept of privilege in this sense either - but since I'm talking about it on here, I must have accepted it as useful in certain circumstances! I think that the idea of privilege in gender conformity (which is better/broader/less contentious than cisprivilege or straight privilege) is a better way of putting what I was talking about. Actually, I wonder whether the idea of privilege might actually stop us from calling out discrimination? I mean, in the case in my head, what was going on was discrimination against/harassment of someone on the basis of their gender non-conformity - my 'privilege' in not being subject to the same harassment is totally irrelevant.

However, I reject the conclusion that in my model transwomen would be privileged over other women - I was placing them in the societally second class category 'woman' and then acknowledging that actually things might be even more shit for them than for us. I think I prefer your approach of rejecting the concept of privilege, actually, but it requires more thought!

Which brings me to... Chunkypickle I bet that transmen don't get the same male privilege that other men do - unless they are extremely successful at passing. I see why passing is problematic. I agree that most gender is performed (but I do think that we are born with some innate traits, which may be societally labelled as 'masculine' or 'feminine'). Maybe I need to stick with almondcakes and reject the language of privilege here...

Jeanne and that is all socialised, not innate.

Freddie

Thank you all for engaging on this - I struggle to get my thoughts untangled!

schools please don't look to my posts for any clarity or insight

Through most of these threads I read, think I understand and feel rather like I'm swimming in the warm shallows, then realise I'm actually out in the cold dark green sea, completely out of my depth ...

About passing - I read a terribly sad article the other day, which I now can't find, about a young transman who was really conflicted, because he's of Asian origins and had always had a lot of body hair. And this had been presented to him as 'ugly' for a woman. When he transitioned, people were saying wow, you're so lucky, passing so well. But he couldn't help associating it with that old idea that he was being an 'ugly woman'.

I know this is just one example, but surely it indicates that none of this is so simple as we might like to think? You might 'pass' well but be quite conflicted over it, mightn't you?

Passing, and what that means for women is a really tricky bit of this for me.

I'm not very feminine, I do sometimes do nails/makeup, but I never wear a dress, I don't particularly enjoy performing femininity (although I do like looking good sometimes) - does this mean I have whatever cis privilege is or not?

I'm not sure it does, I don't think it's because of how you look, I think it's because you are happy enough as you are (however that is), in which case, it's not 'cis privilege' it's just comfortable in my own skin privilege - something both men and women have, and trans are trying to achieve. I was very unconfident when younger, but now I'm older and have kids/job/life I just care a lot less about what others think, so perhaps it's don't give a shit privilege.

I have a thought that the passing as a woman, and saying that women have privilege because no-one minds them wearing dresses (not true, but lets say it is), is forgetting that if a transwoman puts mens clothes on, then they'll likely be treated as a man and have male privilege. If a transman puts mens clothes on, they'll generally be treated as a man (probably?) and get male privilege. If a woman puts mens' clothes on, they'll still be treated as a woman.

So much focus is on the clothes and presentation and passing, but I don't think that's what it's really all about.

can you not also hold that individuals whose biology makes it impossible to entirely 'pass' as they perform their gender are a rung down the privilege ladder from those of us whose biology and gender better fit a patriarchal norm?

Well I suppose, if you're inclined to agree that gender is an innate thing, which many people fundamentally don't believe. Most radical feminists would argue that this performance if gender is largely socialised and meaningless so while choosing to perform the gender that doesn't match your biological sex wouldn't be in any way disadvantageous if gender no longer existed.

Schoolclosed, for various reasons, I don't believe in the concept of privilege. I think it is applied callously in various situations and thinks it masks situations in which people, by job, qualification or wealth genuinely are privileged in the more well known sense of the word.

But if I did believe in privilege, then the issue over clothing would not be cis privilege, as cis has a specific meaning and it doesn't mean how you express your gender through clothing.

It would be an example of privilege that gender conforming people experience over non gender conforming people. So many lesbians who dress in a masculine way experience negativity around the way they dress similar to that experienced by a trans genderqueer person, but masculine dressing lesbians are not trans.

And in your perspective on privilege, trans women would presumably be privileged over female bodied people, because trans women don't experience the discrimination that is directly about female bodies.

not sure my final sentence makes any sense!

no i'm with you schoolclosed - where transpeople are experiencing abuse and disadvantage due to being identified as trans. i don't think i've ever seen anyone deny that that exists though? it's where discussions about periods and abortions and FGM under the banner of women's issues are being called cisprivilege that is felt to be objectionable

Ah, fair point. Sorry to hear that about your friend.

I was thinking the opposite - I remember being at a radfem conference which was supposed to be women only, and that an awful lot of women could very easily pass for men.

I wonder if this is something where we kid ourselves a bit? I'm thinking how people will often swear blind they can 'just tell' which (clothed!) babies and toddlers are female and which male, even though at that age, there really isn't a visual difference to be seen. Maybe we do the same with adults, assuming we can always tell easily, and we worry about that?

Only thinking about looks because I was thinking about a particular transwoman being harassed, I guess. She is XY and has stereotypically male features so people readily identify her as trans and behave like gits accordingly.

Btw, I have to put in the caveat that I have no clue whether I'm right or not about any of this.

I think there are lots of situations where people can be both right, though.

Where I grew up, there is a large Somali community and also a large Asian community. Both suffer racism, sometimes from each other. As a white woman, I would say I have racial privilege, but I can't see a useful way to go further. It's not parallel to your DH not thinking he is oppressing you.

I would also say, I don't think all non-trans (or non-trans-identifying) people do have gender that matches their biology. And I think where they may look as if they do (you're very focussed on how that trans woman looks), you can't assume they actually do.

Which was part of the point I was trying to make with my fairly self-centred anecdote a couple of posts back. Sure, you could read my gender performance as being the kind of privilege you get for being born with ladyparts and liking wearing dresses, but given the wider conditions of patriarchy, that's a bit simplistic.

Also - go Mary!

Argh - just realised I've posted before running out to collect kids. Apologies if I don't get back on here before tonight.

Apologies for dragging this back a couple of pages (and about a week) but I've been thinking about cisprivilege and wanted to think aloud.

Men have male privilege, which I don't, but I do have white privilege. People will look at me and think broadly positive things about my attributes and abilities, giving me a pass in situations in which a woman of colour would not be so leniently judged. Surely I also have some privilege that a transwoman does not. She and I could walk into the same situation and the unspoken judgements made about me would be more positive than the ones made about her. I have seen transwomen in bars subjected to unpleasant whispered jeers whilst dressing like me, drinking like me, talking like me - but looking like transwomen.

WhatWouldFreddieDo talked about people being oppressed by another's privilege. For sure, I do not think I am oppressing the transwoman I just walked in with. Equally, DH does not think he is oppressing me. We are both right, surely? The oppression is at a societal not an individual level - and that's when conversations about privilege become most relevant. Sooo... Why dismiss the idea that women have some privilege which transwomen do not? I have white privilege - why not also some privilege which accrues because my biology matches my gender in a way which suits the patriarchy? Is the rejection of cisprivilege because of the name ('don't label me!') or the direction ('I am not oppressing you, and actually you are oppressing me') or something else? Even if you hold that gender is entirely constructed and that the idea that anyone can 'feel like a woman inside' is loopy, can you not also hold that individuals whose biology makes it impossible to entirely 'pass' as they perform their gender are a rung down the privilege ladder from those of us whose biology and gender better fit a patriarchal norm? In my head, it's like straight privilege: I fit the patriarchal norm better and therefore receive better treatment than a lesbian might. It's still the patriarchy that's the problem, not me. Or is straight privilege a problem too?

Is Bethany also calling men who shave, clean their shoes, wear ties to work, own football shirts etc etc weak and silly?

No?

Then Bethany can take a good long hike to Double Standards R Us.

Hope so!

I think we're on the same page

No, you didn't come across as patronizing. It's a perfectly valid response in the individual context. My problem is that it seems to be the only response anyone ever makes, in the wider context. Make sense?

Yes, I think I am explicitly resisting that narrative. Though that sounds incredibly wanky to say so. I am probably reading to much bullshit theory atm.

I am not in the least saying what you say in the last paragraph, though. As I have said, I agree with the position that some gender performances are harmful. I gave the example of high heels.

I didn't brush up against feminist theory yesterday giggling coyly, you know.

(Mostly a joke, the last bit.)

Jeanne totally understood, I'm sorry if I came across as patronising. Perhaps 'strong' was the wrong word to use (and FYI, I wear make up and dresses and very much perform femininity, so I'm not being sanctimonious in a "look how well I've resisted the patriarchy" kind of way at all).

Do you think maybe you're explicitly resisting this "abuse survivors should be desexualised" narrative? Fair enough if so. I absolutely agree about sexuality being, unfortunately, constrained within these very tight cultural restrictions, but asserting one's own sexuality can be very empowering.

I see what you mean about the we know better than you attitude, but countering this with relativism is difficult. To say "no one is right, every attitude towards gender is valid, all performances of gender are benign or even laudable" is a liberal position that doesn't really offer any hope of change. It's very unpleasant to be told that one's deeply held ideas are not one's own, but isn't serious criticism of those ideas an essential part of the feminist project? The challenge is not to slip into victim blaming, and telling women that they're stupid/weak for conforming to gender norms. I'm very sorry if it sounded like I was doing that.

riv, I actually cross posted with you there, though my cross post is a decent enough reply.

It makes me furious because it is people saying 'ah, you feel as if your way of displaying gender (performing it, whatever) is comfortable to you because of your lived experience. But, in fact, we know better than you do, and can tell you it is because you are weak'.

I am perfectly well aware of the criticisms of, eg., high heels as literally disempowering, and those make perfect sense to me.

I am less ok with the idea that my personal engagement with gender stereotypes gets labelled 'weak woman cannot muster up strength to attack patriarchy', when I suspect it has more to do with asserting my sexuality using the tools I have to hand, which happen (unfortunately) to be those of the patriarchy.

Btw, sorry, I hope this isn't off-topic. In my mind it does quite clearly relate to these debates about privilege and gender identity, but I don't know how clear that is outside my tiiiiiiiny mind.

I notice that there are scripts for abuse. You are not supposed to be confident in your femininity or sexuality post-abuse. Yes, of course, femininity and (hetero) sexuality are constructs most of us as feminists want to put giant scare-quotes around. But the fact is that mostly, we are told that damaged women ought to look a certain way and act a certain way. I'm thinking of a particularly patronizing self-help book I read, which went on about how you might not feel like doing your make-up in the morning, as if this were, like, The One True Measure of Awful. I doubt that it is coincidental that the image we're told abused women might take on, isn't that far from images of women who're not super-feminine for other reasons.

Jeanne can I ask why? I'm not disagreeing at all, just interested to know why that suggestion makes you furious.