Being silenced/feeling voiceless

Great article :) genderapostates.com/transgender-ideology-needs-to-change-to-support-women/

Hmm, that's very similar to what you just posted, Dodos!

As I read & learn more about the cis/trans question, I keep coming back to my original, instinctive position: that this is really about gender strictures on men.

I've yet to see/hear anything that convinces me gender dysphoria is about being the opposite sex - and I'm finding plenty of deep discomfort with one's body, deep desires to behave 'out of gender', and visceral rejections of gendered perceptions & expectations of the self. Vast numbers of women, of course, can identify with this. We campaign against it - at every turn confronting walls of patriarchal disapproval, which tries to silence our genuine fears about its impositions of gender on our sex.

Patriarchy imposes its rigid genders on men, too, and silences their dissent with a slightly different carrot-and-stick system. It privileges conforming men more than conforming women - and punishes non-conforming men more harshly than dissenting women. Our advantage of lesser punishment for greater flexibility may be hard-won through ongoing battles, but we have that privilege in most societies now. In some ways, it's the consolation prize for being a "defective man" (thank you, Ancient Greece!)

I can see that some men, strongly rejecting their gender role, would prefer the lesser punishments of being a non-conforming woman. It's also logical that, having received patriarchal training as a superior male for at least their formative years, they might believe they can perform femininity better than most women: thus avoiding all the punishments, being rewarded instead with the lesser privileges bestowed on gender-conforming women.

Feminism has given us terms to describe this class of problems, and patriarchy has limited their application to oppressed sectors. It's easier (though rarely easy) for women to actualise themselves 'out of gender' and to express this verbally. This is why I've left transmen out of my ruminations, btw: a woman can be an honorary man without hormones & surgery; she needs physical completion mainly for sexual purposes. But the man who feels "a real man" doesn't describe him has little access to the language of war against gender. I don't blame him for assuming that, if he's not a real man, he must be a woman - that's what patriarchy has taught him.

I do blame him if, during his transition, he doesn't learn about this. A lot of transwomen do, to be fair. It's just that patriarchy silences their voices too. We're all being told not to mess with the binary - and that is wrong.

... I've realised this should have been an internal rumination rather than a post! But I've typed it, so here it is if you want it.

I think the reason that cis feels so silencing to me is that it lumps non-trans women into one huge lumpy category with men and then points at us (and very much NOT at men) as the people who cause all problems to trans-people because we're easiest to pick on.

To my mind, it's the same as black people saying "we are black, everyone else is non-black" and then specifically honing in on Asian or Jewish people as their oppressors and ignoring the historic harm caused predominantly by white people because it's too scary to challenge the real issues and power. To continue the analogy, the top trumps of oppression that some transactivists try to play would be the equivalent of black people saying "we suffered through slavery so we don't want to hear about the holocaust"

It's pointless, divisive (when really we have some pretty major common ground in fighting against patriarchy) and it prevents us getting to the root of the issue. And all the while, the people with the real privilege sit back rubbing their hands in glee that they've managed to deflect the attention on to feminists instead...

'a person whose internal self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female' is the definition of trans from above

so the opposite would be someone who entirely conforms - if it's not entire, then there's some ambiguity no?

But unambiguously conforming internally is quite different

Why? "Unambiguously " doesn't mean in every respect.

lass, it the 'unambiguously' part that made me say that. I like lots of traditionally 'girly' things, and I don't like all of them. As an experiment I gave DP the definition without telling him what it meant and he said he'd put himself in to that category. And to outsiders he's pretty stereotypically male. But unambiguously conforming internally is quite different.

" internal self-identity"
WTF does that even mean?
'identity' - is description - ie how we describe ourselves to others.
I can imagine a hermit could get to identify themselves whatever the way they want 'I identify as a prima ballerina' or 'I identify as an astronaut', since no one else will ever be around to point out their delusions. But in the main our 'identities' (how we identified) are based on things that are actually true, eg- people digging into their family trees [FACTS about themselves] in order to accurately describe their heritage [a TRUTHFUL and possibly nuanced identity].
"Internal self-identity" is just how someone fantasises how the 'ought' to be, which is of very little relevance to others in the scheme of things - eg when assessing their skills and experience or putting them in positions of trust.
OED seems to have fallen for some illogical nonsense.

The only accurate description of transgender should be "displaying a-typical gender appearances and behaviour while believing and claiming to belong to their opposite sex"

Anything else is a lie.

The reason so many people feel silenced is because we are being forced into doublespeak so as not to offend. It is oppression to not be able to speak the naked truth without fear of harassment, being ostracised, losing our jobs.

So OP we all have the language to describe the violence 'cis' does to us, but that language is taboo. We'll lose friends for using it - particularly friends who subscribe to genderqueer ideology.

Just returned to the thread - but can I just say bravo! to this post microferret Mon 29-Jun-15 10:29:42

So brilliant

On a lighter note has anyone else had a MN targetted advertising banner about "transforming your body?" It's an exercise/diet regime.

It's now been replaced by Cath Kidston sale so either or both of MN and my phone have sussed me out.

According to the OED, transgender means 'a person whose internal self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female'. By that definition, most women I know are transgender, as are most men

I don't understand this comment. Thinking of my friends, colleagues and family ,unless they are in a mass of concealed inner turmoil, I would say they do conform apparently quite happily to conventional notions of male and female.

I suppose what one means by "conventional notions" is not universally objective. For example it strikes me often on FWR that statements about what women are expected to do or not allowed to do are made as givens which to me seem extreme and don't resonate with the reality of my world. For example that women are told to be quiet, not to speak up for themselves.

I don't think being comfortable with gender conventions means unequivocally accepting all conventions of a particular time and place and in any case social mores for men and women change anyway. Do people even think about it to any great degree?

I also want to echo exactly what Jessica said in her last post. Agree completely.

almond - ah right. When I said I believe people are free to define their own marriages, I meant that some people - whether religious or not - will see marriage differently. For atheists, some see it as a tax break, some see it as something you do just to start a family, some married couples don't want a family, some just want to cement their partnership and make a solid commitment. Christian people may marry in a religious ceremony but will follow biblical proclamations on how to conduct themselves within said marriage to varying degrees. My dad's a devout Catholic and my mum's a staunch atheist; their marriage clearly means different things to both of them. I guess that's what I meant by defining one's own marriage. I do see what you're getting at though.

I think one of the issues I have with the "cis" label is that it means an individual who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. I'm not so sure I do, because I reject utterly the very concept of gender roles. I am a biological woman, but I do not subscribe to the societal norms that purport to be the essence of femininity. I do not believe that gender roles are part of some innate truth about men and women. As far as I'm concerned, being a woman is a lived experience, not something you're assigned or a feeling you get.

So forcing me to accept this label without my consent does do me harm, because it goes against everything I feel about myself and undermines my agency in choosing how I wish to define myself.
sorry once again: yes

I would actually define myself by gender roles(if i had to) as a transvestite-trans man (as being a man in a dress needs another sub category apparently).

But I am not I am a woman.

I think one of the issues I have with the "cis" label is that it means an individual who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. I'm not so sure I do, because I reject utterly the very concept of gender roles. I am a biological woman, but I do not subscribe to the societal norms that purport to be the essence of femininity. I do not believe that gender roles are part of some innate truth about men and women. As far as I'm concerned, being a woman is a lived experience, not something you're assigned or a feeling you get.

So forcing me to accept this label without my consent does do me harm, because it goes against everything I feel about myself and undermines my agency in choosing how I wish to define myself.

I think the train set, sports stats, computers & sci fi is more geek territory, and I say that as someone who's finally embraced my geekiness. I wish I had the confidence to do so when I was younger.

I know I am a page late with this comment but it took me until i was 40+ to admit outside my gaming group I STILL PLAY D&D. It was bad enough i was a computer programmer, i didn't want to make it worse.

I know i am not a "good" woman because i am selfish, bolshy and outspoken, (was i going somewhere with this?).

I think that the insistence that transwomen are women comes from a place of deeply internalized hypermasculinity (or homophobia). It is so not ok for a boy or a man to take on the trappings of the lower sex caste (girls and women) and any man who does must actually not be a man - and that means that he is a woman because we all know that woman equals not a man.
yes, agree

Sorry, that was in answer to lass.

Being labelled 'cis' upsets me for reasons mentioned upthread - I don't think I am what 'cisgender' is. I don't want a label which doesn't describe me in any way I recognise.

According to the OED, transgender means 'a person whose internal self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female'. By that definition, most women I know are transgender, as are most men. So labelling pretty much all women as 'cis gender' is suggesting that we all internally conform to gender stereotypes. But we don't.

As for the big picture, I have more of a problem with people redefining the word 'woman'. Because how can I talk about / campaign about issues which only affect biological women if I don't have a word to that means that particular group of people?

I think for a long time the idea of gender stereotypes really allowed women to be oppressed even more than they/we are now. The very idea that women behave / think / feel one way and men behave / think / feel a different way has been, and continues to be, dangerous for biological women.

Microferret, what I am saying is that I disagree with you that people are free to define their own marriages. Marriage isn't something you self identify as doing or define for yourself. I'm not saying it as some kind of moral perspective - just a statement of the situation.

Who is and is not married in the civil sense, and what they can and cannot do within society is defined by the state.

Who is and is not married in a religious sense and what they can and cannot do within religion is defined by religions.

sorry, my fault with the confusing marriage analogy!… Hope you can see how it slightly maps over i.e. with changing definitions and with the way some supporters of the 'the establishment' objected to the changing definitions and how it affected those who identified with 'the establishment' in a way I find difficult to understand.

And I guess it brings us back to the question… when it comes to sex/gender/sexuality… who is 'the establishment'? Privileged? In power? Cis refers to all people who are not trans (irrespective of sex and sexuality) as far as I understand…?! Does the change in language and labels have a tangible, real world, effect on them?

Almond, neither do I. I think I'm just getting really confused, I don't know if I really got what you were trying to say...

I think with the marriage thing, the difference is that you're disapproving of someone else's lifestyle to the extent that you want to stop them doing something as important as getting married, which I think is wrong.

I don't feel that way about transgender people. I don't feel that their existence threatens mine or that they shouldn't transition because it will affect me. I do not object to a trans person legally changing their gender or name. What I do object to is being forced to adopt a label to describe myself that I fundamentally disagree with. I also resent, to echo another poster, that we pretty much have no choice in the matter as to refuse is to be labelled bigoted. And I also feel that it is wrong to treat oppression as a competition, the winner getting to force other oppressed people to redefine their entire existences and self-perception in order to redress the balance of suffering in some way. I just don't see how this helps anyone and I think it actively detracts from the trans cause to make demands of feminists in this way.

Basically I believe in tolerance. My belief system may be in direct opposition to X's, but as long as X and I both agree to respect each other's right to self-determination that doesn't have to be a problem.