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

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

This post is in response to another thread where posters wanted to discuss this, but didn't want to derail the thread. So I said I would start the thread here.

A basic element of feminism is that women and men are born as that sex - biologically men/women, but society socialises us to behave as our alloted gender. Gender is the idea that women and men behave in certain ways. And we are all socialised in this even if we reject it or try to as adults.

For example, research shows that people treat the same babies differently depending on whether they are told they are boys or girls. The media pumps images to our DCs about what a girl or a boy should be interested in, play with and wear. Teachers are more likely to allow boys to speak out to the whole class than girls - well researched.

Feminism challenges these gender constructs and says that girls and boys can enjoy doing the same things, etc. Transexuals talk about being born in the wrong body e.g. born in a male body, but feeling like they are really a girl/woman.

But this is obviously at odds with feminism. Sex is a biological fact. You are born in a male or female body. Behaving or feeling like a man/woman is supposed to feel, is an artificial construct. Because what does a man or woman feel like? We only feel like ourselves as individuals. So any idea of feeling a man or a woman or a boy or a girl is based on an artifacial idea of how a boy/girl is supposed to feel.

So the basic idea of being born in the wrong body, is contradictory to the basic ideas of feminism.

Scorpette, I just sighed with relief. At last someone who has enough knowledge to argue pro trans eloquently. No offence to anyone else, but that post sums it up for me.

Welshness has characteristics than can be described. You can debate those characteristics and say something are more important than others or shouldn't be more important because the characteristics can be described.

Internal gender identity has no characteristics, so how do I recognise it?

Scorpette, radical feminism doesn't support the institution of transgender, nor has it ever. You are mistaken.

See radical feminist texts by original radical feminists like Mary Daly or Janice Raymond.

Id like to read your post on the critical theory of TG, this thread has intrigued me as I have an interest in learning about neuroscience.

I think one of the major crux of the issue is how much an individual's (or small groups of individuals') feelings are honestly evaluated as being reflective of an objective cause in reality, or caused by mental dysfunction in the individual/s.

I am NOT jumping to either conclusion with people who are transgendered, because I am still considering the question myself (as I would in any case where feelings do not match the perceived reality of the majority) and to try and clarify I'll try and produce a few examples of how I'm thinking:

1. This does not apply to gay/lesbian/bi because sexual orientation is personal preference (even if this preference exists from birth), and personal preference is allowed to be entirely subjective.

1. A person who says they see ghosts will divide opinion. Some will believe they are really seeing ghosts (and hence that ghosts do exist, cue being called irrational by those who disbelieve), and some will believe the person is hallucinating (and will be called close-minded or intolerant by those who do believe).

1. People who are transabled, transspecies (species dysphoria), and otherkin all believe themselves to have some kind of 'sense of self' or 'mental image' that does not match their physical bodies. Some personal experiences on the transablism website are related by persons who are also transgendered and vouch for the similarity of the feeling involved.

#3 is the one that really stumps me, because I can't honestly see why any of what is accepted by society regarding persons who are transgendered shouldn't also be accepted for these groups... eg. shouldn't these people also be allowed to have surgery to match their external reality to their internal image?
If not, why not?

I have no doubt that everyone's feelings are entirely genuine, heartfelt, and valid as feelings, what I am not so sure about is whether 'feelings mismatching external reality' = external reality is wrong?

I'm going to bow out here, I think scorpette has argued more eloquently than I could on this. I'll still lurk though, and just make one observation.

Two here have responded to Scorpette's point with "you're not a racial feminist" - why is it so important to exclude people?

I think the OP is right about gender identity disorder and feminism being contradictory ideas - at least if we're talking about radical feminism. Radical feminism is premised on the idea of an ongoing, transhistorical system of oppression divided on the fault line of biological sex. According to the ideology, since time immemorial men have colluded to keep women down and the whole ideological field is structured to perpetuate a system in which this is seen as normal. Opposition to this system is seen as guerrilla warfare in the interests of a future feminist utopia.

The notion that any individual could as it were 'swap sides' in this war is absurd within the terms of the ideology. Hence rather than discount the ideology, we discount the people. Sod their experience, never mind what life is like for them, they don't fit the picture so they must be enemies, nutcases or both.

This topic has finally helped me to understand why, despite owing a huge amount to at least first-wave feminism, I just can't get behind the radical variety. I've realised that it's because it's a system of thought where ideas are considered more important than people. The moment ideas become more important than people, all kinds of cruelties become possible. I'm close to Godwin's Law territory here so won't belabour the point, but I suppose I should thank those radicals who have helped to clarify the issue for me.

I suspect like many people who are feminists, I have both a son and a daughter and we are not conducting guerilla warfare in my house.

But neither am I asking them or attempting to find out from them, what their internal gender identity is, because nobody will describe what it actually is.

I don't see how pointing out that I can't categorise people into male or female based on a set of unknown characteristics makes me a fascist.

It's not about excluding people, it's about accuracy.

Claiming that there is a pro-trans position in radical feminism is simply incorrect and actually an attempt to co-opt the movement. Which politically is a big no-no. Radical feminism has a history, and is already a consistent and logical theory based on womens lived experiences. It centres the interests of women and girls, it doesn't centre the interests of men, boys or males or promote them at the expense of women and girls.

OTheHuge, I agree with your post, especially in relation to transgender AF radical feminism. When I first posted on this thread yesterday, I had no idea what radical feminism was and now I think I have a better idea, so I can see where the OP is going with her argument.

However, my view is that the "first wave" of feminism, as it had been referred to on here, is outdated.

Apologies that my posts weren't more informative, I stumbled into this thread and board without realising the way in which the feminist board works.

First wave feminism was things like the right to vote.

The first wave of feminism is probably outdated given that it took place in the 19th and early 20th century.

The second wave of feminism which I think is what you are referring to is not outdated.

Scorpette
I'd like to respond to your post because I do find it very rational (and you seem quite informed on the subject), and I do not yet hold any fixed beliefs regarding the issue myself. I have 'beliefs that I have formed thus far', but am looking to robustly challenge them.

I hope therefore that you consider my questions/counterarguments below as being made because I recognise the value of your input.

1. and 2) I would like to know the definition of 'male' and 'female' as used in these statements. I would also like to research the scientific backing (if you could kindly provide a reference).

2. I would argue that persons with Klinefelter's (XXY) or Turner's (X0) do not have the body of a male or a female (although may be mistaken at first glance as such), but rather have the body of the sex they are (which is neither male nor female). This to me does not indicate a spectrum, but rather a selection of multiple distinct and different sexes (of which male and female just happen to be the most common).

3. and 5) The difficulty with this research is that as you yourself put it, brain sex is fluid, and brain characteristics also change due to various influences throughout life. There are ways to increase the validity of research such as this (such as scanning brains from baby/childhood, although logistics/ethics are a whole new debate) in order to see if findings at this stage can predict a person being transgendered in later life.
   Additionally, as far as I am aware, there is nowhere near enough significant body of peer-reviewed research to back this study or its conclusions (would be glad to be corrected with some references).

I agree with you on common human decency and respect. But to me, this does not mean agreeing with someone so as not to hurt their feelings. I absolutely support anyone's right to their own feelings, just I support anyone's right to their own lifestyle, religion, etc.

But I don't believe it is intolerant or indeed nasty in any way to want to critically evaluate those beliefs, and form my own.

I've been interested for a while in how what we recognise as 'biological reality' is a social construct, and changes through time.

Well yes, but usually there is a description of what that biological reality is. It used to be considered a biological reality that women were more prone to various mental weaknesses or more prone to deceptive behaviours. But these things can be argued about.

I can't actually think of any time in history when somebody has declared something to have a basis in biological reality and then given it no characteristics. You can't argue that something isn't true if it is never described. But such is the case with internal gender identity.

I can't engage with people who are telling me I can't be a radical feminist if I don't fit their narrow definition of radical feminism. It's not just that I feel embarrassed for people who think like that, it's that there's no point talking to people who can't see the irony. So feminists can't be radical if they aren't transphobic? I want to be nothing that includes prejudice and the rejection and negation of the identities of other groups. I didn't realise that radical feminism meant smashing the monoliths that affect us personally but supporting and maintaining those that don't. Or seeing anyone not like me as other or the enemy. Shame, shame, shame.

I wish I'd not seen this thread. Not only do I know categorically that people are wrong, it's the first time ever I have felt that thing that I have heard others describing; feminists doing feminism a disservice and trying to tell other feminists what they can and can't be or how and what to think.

"I could do an even bigger post about the critical theory of TG but it really would lose people."

Some of us here read books and all sorts. We know long words and everything.

Do many of us really care who is and is not a radical feminist? This isn't the Life of Brian.

If somebody has something to say that has come from a radical feminist book or whatever, they might want to point out that is where it came from. That's fair enough.

But if you are talking about something that has nothing to do with radical feminism, why mention radical feminism? It's like me saying that I'm a liberal feminist, and as such my position on the London marathon is that is should be 5 miles longer.

Isn't it you telling us how to think by the way. If we don't agree we get called fascists, or transphobic or all sorts of other insults.

I have no idea of whether the idea of a person believing that they have been born in the same body contradicts "radical feminism". It sounds like it does given the tenets of belief that radical feminists espouse.

On the other hand, when people claim that sex is a biological fact and easily and narrowly defined, then that is a completely different question and open to debate by people with little interest in radical feminism. As many posters have argued, this has not been clearly decided, is often debated and certainly merits more research, especially in the area of brain chemistry.

What is the social purpose of categorising people into different groups based on their brain chemistry?

Radical feminism a political theory with its own theories and beliefs. I think sometimes the term itself doesn't help as some people think it just means a more radical or extreme form of feminism. It doesn't. You can be more radical than all the feminists you know and still not be a radical feminist in terms of the definition.

And i would say this to anyone who claimed that they were a political brand of ideology but weren't. For example, someone who claimed to be a socialist but though that individuals should look after themselves and there should be no welfare state?

Why does it matter? There is enough confusion even amongst feminists about what radical feminism is, that I personally can't just stand back and not say you are wrong that isn't what radical feminism is.

I'd love to know which chemicals are involved in the brain in terms of transsexuality.

Sex is actually easily defined. I don't think any biologist would agree with you that it wasn't. You certainly wouldn't get any biologist agreeing that an XY human with testicles was female. It would be like claiming that gravity doesn't exist. Unscientific and wrong.

Let's say that people with red hair were assumed to be fiery, passionate and volotile. Prejudice excluded them from many professions although non red heads would pay good money to watch them fight in special ginger clubs. You would then get non gingers thinking they had been born with the wrong hair and gingers feeling resentfull of dyers coming in and taking over the redders political meetings.