Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

631 replies

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 07/05/2012 19:25

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.

OP posts:
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 08/05/2012 16:02

Okay need to go again. But when peopel talk about a female or male brain in terms of transexual, they are usually referring to this research

biologicaltheoriestrans.wordpress.com/

Huge - Thanks for taking the time to understand this. You don't agree with my conclusions to be a radical feminist and I don't agree with your conclusion that this is exclusionary and discriminatory - but that's fine.

OP posts:
SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:03

Well yes, except that you have actually given the gingers some defined characteristics - I can argue against the belief that red heads are fiery, passionate and volatile.

I can't argue against female internal gender identity because even though people insist I must be defined by it, and that they want to research my brain chemistry to prove to people that I must have it, they refuse to actually describe what it is.

Nyac · 08/05/2012 16:11

What chemicals in their heads do men who think they are women have, that men who don't think they are women don't have.

witchwithallthetrimmings · 08/05/2012 16:12

Well I think many feminists would argue that it is not your precise mix of chromosomes that defines you as a woman, but your experience of oppression. Trans people may be oppressed but not in the same way.
Btw in my world you would get psychologists correlating purchase of hair dye with hormone levels and other such madness

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:14

There is a dystopian novel in there I think, witch.

witchwithallthetrimmings · 08/05/2012 16:14

Pink and fluffy ones of course nyac! [ smile]

Bennifer · 08/05/2012 16:14

Nyac, would it matter? Of course it would be good to know, but why exclude those women from feminism?

minipie · 08/05/2012 16:22

Not read the whole thread but isn't this the real point:

If feminism had achieved its purpose then men and women would not be treated differently (except in purely physical ways eg medical).

If men and women were not treated differently then there would be less need (arguably no need) for someone to change gender. Because they could act "female" or "male" regardless of what body they were in. And society would not treat them differently.

witch your analogy makes sense. And in your scenario there would be gingerists whose aim was to make sure no-one was treated differently or had assumptions made about them simply because they were ginger. And once the gingerists succeeded in this aim, the red haired people would no longer feel like they had the wrong hair colour.

Scorpette · 08/05/2012 16:23

I haven't plucked the term radical feminist out of the air, I have been one since I first read Dworkin in my teens. I studied transgenderism precisely because I thought the transphobia of some other radical feminists in academia or elsewhere disgusting and wrong, although I do know other women who are pro-TG and consider themselves RadFems. I am also a liberal humanist and my passion for egalitarianism trumps all, which is why the transphobic aspect of radical feminism disgusts me. Eveyone here knows that patriarchy seeks to oppress women, but it also oppresses LGBT people and is part of a wider system that seeks to oppress anyone who is not a white, privileged male. I do not agree that not being anti-TG means that I have been inculcated by the misogynist hegemony. Rather than seeing a pro-TG feminist as unconsciously colluding with the patriarchy, I would assert that being anti the identities and struggles of minority groups is far more collusive.It makes radical feminists look silly and just as blinkered, biased and eager to oppress as the very institutions they strive to dismantle.

Also, I don't agree that MtoF transsexuals are men claiming they are women. I think they are women. Being anti-TG is transphobia; would you like me to find a less ugly word for something ugly? Sexists, racists and disablists all use fancy rhetoric to gussy up their nasty prejudices but it all amounts to the same thing.

Well, I shall go away and find a time machine to take me back to the 1950s. If being a radical feminist means I have to reject and be prejudiced against others then I want none of it. I hate the 'if you're not for us then you're against us' mindset. Not my idea of Feminism at all.

Interestingly, this was inspired by a thread about a FtoM TS. What do people think about that position?

PS I never said anyone was a fascist. Godwin's Law, much?

PPS "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." As I mentioned above, Klinefelter's sufferers have XY chromosomes (albeit with an extra X too) and testicles and are actually female. And conversely, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - thought to be particularly prevalent amonst female models and Jamie Lee Curtis is said to have it, fact fans - can result in a body that looks and operates as entirely female, IS female, but is actually XY. Can people stop using science to back their views up if they don't understand it? Kthxbai.

LineRunner · 08/05/2012 16:26

I was thinking that there is a lot of interesting feminist theory in classical history and prehistoric archaeology that examines how social definitions of biological realities varies across cultures through time, such as the state of being dead, and being human.

Those doing the defining and those being defined not always being the same, obvs.

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:31

Scorpette, I am not to comment on the 'Life of Brian' bit of your post because I really don't care who is the most radical of all.

If somebody has XXY chromosones then most people would see that as having something different to XY chromosones. A lot of your previous post does seem to have errors in, and people have quite politely asked you to explain those or given links to info from science papers. We are quite used to people posting links to science papers on these threads, so please feel free to link to the evidence.

I think just saying you are more sciencey/more radical/more tolerant than other people isn't really helping anybody to understand more about what any of of us is trying to say.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 08/05/2012 16:32

Sorry only popping in briefly, but this thread was not inspired by a thread about FtoM transexuals. A few of ended up discussing this issue on another thread and I suggested rather than derailing I start a thread here

OP posts:
Scorpette · 08/05/2012 16:33

Minipie, in your scenario, most TG people would still seek surgery/treatment, because theirs is not an ideological standpoint, it is a medical condition.

Hmm, although I have studied the significence (or lack of) of brain sex in gender and sex identity, I do not think there is that much disparity at all between male and female brains; I know there is a hormonal sliding scale, but believe the differences on it are incremental. This contradicts some of my ideas/work and I am interested in thinking about this a lot more, although I still do not hold with the anti-TG aspects of Radical Feminism. Cheers, everyone, for a fascinating debate.

Nyac · 08/05/2012 16:34

Thinking that men can't become women isn't oppressive Scorpette.

Nobody said you'd said that radical feminists hold fascist positions, but other people have.

If your passion for egalitarianism trumps all then you aren't subscribing to radical feminist politics. Radical feminism is the movement to liberate women from male supremacy. It doesn't subscribe to equality or egalitarianism but rather women's liberation. Radical feminism isn't pick and mix, you either sign up to it or you don't. Feminism however is a much broader church.

If people with Klinefelters are XXY then clearly they aren't XY. I don't understand why you'd say they were. A biologist would say that XXY is intersex. They still wouldn't say that XY is female.

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:36

Most transgender people do not have a medical condition and most of them don't want any kind of 'treatment.'

WhiteShores · 08/05/2012 16:37

Scorpette
People with Klinefelter's (XXY) are not female. They may identify as female (though not all, or even most do), and may appear more female (though most appear male). But their sex is not female, it unfortunately does not have its own unique term (I think it should), but falls under the umbrella of 'intersex'.

Bennifer · 08/05/2012 16:38

What about 5 alpha reductase deficiency? Genetically XY but can be born with female genitalia? At birth, is it easy to define them as male?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha_reductase_deficiency

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:39

What about them? What point are you trying to make?

Scorpette · 08/05/2012 16:39

SeaHouses, am not trying to say I am more whatever than anyone. Explaining my own standpoint, experiene or opinion is not saying anything about anyone else. Yes, it's annoying when people are getting scientific stuff wrong, but am not saying I am the world's leading expert or anything like that. I dislike it when people extrapolate personal slights from 'I' statements and it adds nothing to a discussion.

Stuff to back up what I've said is not immediately to hand. It's been a few years since I was in academia and working on this stuff and I can't think up the names, links, etc., I'd need off the top of my head. Also, am writing this whilst my DS naps/plays, so is a bit disjointed. Am not trying to avoid this, will have a look, see what I can find.

Bennifer · 08/05/2012 16:40

I'm just demonstrating that the statement "Sex is actually easily defined" is not always correct

Scorpette · 08/05/2012 16:40

Whiteshores, yes, they are intersex, that was a typo on my part.

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:43

How are you showing it is not correct? The sex you have described is easily defined; you have even given a link to its definition!

Bennifer · 08/05/2012 16:45

So, are you saying it would be easy to identify a baby with female genitalia as male?

SeaHouses · 08/05/2012 16:46

Scorpette, lots of your life of brian post was about comparing yourself to radical feminists. So I'm not extrapolating. It was there in your post.

WhiteShores · 08/05/2012 16:46

Bennifer
Easily defined doesn't have to mean instantly defineable at first glance. A person with 5 alpha reductase deficiency will more often than not have some ambiguous characteristics (which prompt further investigation), or will have this discovered in later (fertile) years.

Chromosomes are really not that ambiguous (even taking into account mosaic patterns).

Swipe left for the next trending thread