Feminist perspectives on transgendered people

[toboldlygo]

Excuse the random intrusion (haven't posted here before) but I've been watching My Transsexual Summer on C4 and it's raised some questions for me; basically, I was just wondering if there was any sort of feminist consensus on transgendered/transsexual individuals, whether there's any difference in opinions depending on whether they are FtM or MtF, pre or post surgery etc.

Not looking for a bunfight, just curious, if it helps any I am a cisgendered female these days but went through a phase in my late teens of being desperately uncomfortable in my own gender and wanting very much to be male.

Takver - I'm sorry you found that distressing.

I did say, though you didn't quote that bit, that this requirement is controversial.

I don't see why medics require people wishing to transition to adopt stereotypical 'female' or 'male' behaviours - but they do. If you're saying your mate doesn't like that then I completely understand - I don't like it either.

As usual, I think the real argument here is with the patriarchy, which cannot accept that gender is a social construct, and which insists that you're only allowed to be one of two things - a man with a penis who acts 'masculine' or a woman with a vagina who acts 'feminine'.

This is not a helpful thing to insist upon, is it?

(Basically I think you misread my post initially, though maybe it wasn't very clear).

Sorry, LRD, I apologise completely, your post wasn't distressing, it was some of the posts in the earlier bunfight threads.

Should have put my second comment separately from the first one. Will think again and come back to you.

Whew, thanks! Glad it wasn't distressing.

And I agree that the requirement to adopt stereotypical 'female' or 'male' behaviour is unreasonable. I really wasn't trying to disagree with your argument - actually, I think I was agreeing with you.

Will leave the thread, don't think I can express my thoughts clearly here, its the kind of issue where I find it much easier to talk in person and hard not to give the wrong nuances (?) in typing.

I know what you mean ... I find it really hard to put into words on here what I think.

I have a number of trans friends and have had trans lovers, of both genders as well as more overtly 'third gender-ish'. The more extreme anti-trans views I've read on some MN feminism threads left me so shocked and angry I decided this section of the board just categorically wasn't for me.

I'm greatly relieved to see that there are some more nuanced voices around.

I am not sure I'm going to express myself very well here so bear with me.

Something I find a bit troubling is that this debate (at least here) is being carried out using, as default, terminology that is radically opposed to what I would see as feminism. We're talking about people's 'gender'. Which may be being done for a reason, I don't know. But it feels to me as if, by presenting this debate in terminology of gender, it's like saying that before we even start, we've rejected the feminist point of view.

I really find that hard.

I'm sure there are always acommodations of terminology that have to be made (and I'm thinking of the 'Open Letter' from Southall Black Sisters to slutwalk, which made that point really calmly and eloquently, that to many non-white women the term 'slut' has a resonance it doesn't have in white culture and so they were dubious about the idea of reclaiming it).

But this seems bigger than that, and it's also problematic because the terminology of 'gender' is the same terminology the patriarchy uses.

Does that make any sense or am I just wittering?

Sorry, that should be 'a' feminist view not 'the' feminist view ... though I do seriously think it's tricky bordering on impossible to reconcile feminism with acceptance of gender roles, personally.

Oh dear, I said I wasn't going to come back to this thread . . .

OK, so maybe I'm using the wrong word, and I should say sex rather than gender? But to me (and I consider myself to be a feminist), being a woman is very important. It is important to me that I can grow a baby in my womb, that I can produce milk to nourish that baby, and that this is something that I wouldn't be able to do if I were a man. My physical shape is important to me as part of that difference.

The feminist aspect for me I suppose comes into the fact that I don't see why the fact that I can have babies should stop me making other decisions about my life, I don't believe that it should stop me doing certain jobs (or give me a preference for those jobs), and I don't believe that it should mean that I am not an economically and socially independent being.

Similarly, I think it is important to my partner (who is a man) that he can't grow or nourish a baby. But I don't think that this physical fact should stop him taking on nurturing (or any other) roles in life.

So I guess for me I can see very clear differences between me as a woman, and him as a man, which makes me see why someone could feel they were in the 'wrong' body. But those differences shouldn't mean that the rest of the world should force either of us to live our lives in a particular way.

Does that make sense???

"it is important to my partner (who is a man) that he can't grow or nourish a baby"

sorry, should have said there that he probably (not here to ask, but from previous conversations) considers this a bad thing - ie he feels a lack in that he can't do this

I can quite see why feminists are unhappy about transgendered individuals being forced to perform the relevant gender role in order to qualify for surgery. And I can quite see why feminists dislike rigid societal gender roles, and are uncomfortable about those who are unhappy with their allotted role feeling forced to resort to surgery.

But, not all transsexuals/transgendered individuals do rigidly perform the gender of their desired sex (someone mentioned third-gender people above). And some radical feminists seem to be very unpleasant not just about the transsexual 'industry' but about transsexuals themselves. There is a lack of human compassion here, and a lack of any desire to educate themselves in the complexities of transgender issues, which I find very unappealing.

Yes, I think I would say that that is sex, not gender.

I didn't mean to be nit-picking about the terminology btw, I hope it doesn't come across that way. It's just that for me, gender and sex are so different and it is a huge part of the problem that we are encouraged to see them as the same.

It's biology that determines who has a womb and who doesn't, and it is a really big issue obviously (eg. having a hysterectomy, even to save your life, can be really upsetting and physically and emotionally very tough). OTOH, 'gender' to me means all the expectations we force on babies born with particular genitals ... like, 'oh, she's a girl, she must like pink and wear skirts'. To insist that those social constructs have a bearing on what sex someone is (which is what the current UK medical position on transitioning does, IMO, by saying you must conform to the stereotypical gender roles in order to qualify for surgery), is wrong.

I don't know if that makes sense?

Sorry, I cross-posted.

moon, I really hope I'm not lacking in compassion. I admit I am uneducated about it all. But it seems to me that forcing people to conform to a stereotyped gender role in order to qualify for surgery is unfair to both feminists who want to get rid of the concept of gender, and to anyone who wants that surgery.

If a person is saying they want surgery because they are terribly, horribly unhappy with their body, and if you the medic think you can make them happy by giving that surgery, it is surely just cruel to say 'but now you must jump through these hoops'?

I should say I'm influenced here by reading the thoughts of people who say, as you do, that they wouldn't want to take on a stereotyped gender role anyway. I think that attitude isn't often reported in the media and is perhaps not so well known, because it suits society to believe that making people take on rigid gender roles is sensible/healthy.

Yes, I think what you say does make sense, LRD.

Thanks.

I do think it is really complex. But you know what makes me so angry is that this sort of issue ... the people who really win out, are those who like to undermine both feminists, and anyone who doesn't fit the patriarchy's notion of what a man or a woman is.

I would love to see what it'd be like if we could only get rid of the idea of gender altogether, and then we could look at people's identities in relation to their bodies on their own merits and not have to worry about this conflict between gender roles and biological sex.

I may be being naive, I don't know.

I would be supportive of anyone who was so unhappy with their body that they wanted surgery to change it. I couldn't care less whether friends adopt stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviour and styling.

However, I think a sex change is impossible. I am female because I was born with a uterus, and that has had a huge impact on my experience of life. It has determined my choices, my treatment and experiences. It has nothing to do with stereotypical gender roles.

It seems to me (and I am v. happy to be corrected) that a lot of the "wrong body" stuff comes from not fitting a stereotype of masculinity or femininity.

Agree, but possibly up there with getting rid of capitalism as a worthwhile but relatively ambitious plan

I assume you've read The Left Hand of Darkness - which sadly I think isn't Le Guin's best book, but still interesting in terms of putting someone from a gendered society into one without fixed biological sex?

Hi LRD, I don't think you're lacking in compassion at all! I quite agree with your point.

My concern is really about the radical feminists (a la Julie Bindel) who almost seem to take pleasure about being nasty about transgendered people... as if they seem themselves as the gate-keepers of womanhood. (Implied message: 'You may think of yourself as a woman, you may feel you are a woman, you may have had surgery and hormone treatment to make your body more womanly... but you're not still a woman, so there.')

takver - true, but ambitious is good.

I've not read the Le Guin but I'm aware of it and the premise. IIRC she sort of shoots herself in the foot according to some critics, but I forget how ... sorry, not helpful!

moon - thanks for saying that.

I don't know enough about Julie Bindel to know what she says or why. I would say, though, that that sounds to me defensive rather than primarily aggressive (no doubt it's not a point that matters much when you're on the other end of it, but it's important in the debate).

I do feel kind of upset when (as happened recently, not from a transgender person but from a heterosexual woman, FWIW) someone tells me I'm not a 'woman'. I got told I was a 'cis woman', which I found a bit hurtful really ... I mean, we spend so much time being treated as if 'woman' is just a word for what is 'other' to 'man', and here's another way to make me feel 'other'?

But I don't know if that's the kind of thing that makes Bindel feel defensive or not, or even if I should bring this into the debate because, as I say, the person who said it wasn't transgender and I don't think she knew much more than I do about it all!

Reading back I am not sure that's the same thing at all, anyway ...

WRT the idea of gender and sex, what about the role of hormones and they way that they can affect the body? Men produce lots more testosterone and this affects lots of things - mainly the fact that it makes them physically bigger and stronger than women (and therefore, you could argue, better at certain roles), but it can also affect their behaviour. Men and women are fundamentally different, and surely this goes further than one has a penis and one has a womb?

Also are you saying that people are heterosexual because they have been socially conditioned to be that way and it is nothing to do with their sex/gender?

I don't think so. I think the role of sex hormones is still controversial, isn't it?

I mean, women after the menopause don't produce the same hormones they did before, but this doesn't make them any less women.

Sorry, I don't quite get the point about sexuality, run it past me again?

Oh, I meant to say ... I read on here and I think it's MillyR who said it, that if you compare humans to other species where there's a marked difference between the two sexes, humans aren't really very well differentiated in terms of sex. Men and women are pretty similar, and much of the differences are exaggerated by social conditioning (eg., some women are taller and stronger than some men, but we're conditioned to ignore that, and in past times we actually reinforced the difference by feeding women less and letting girls get less exercise).