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.

Because of time commitments I'm going to have to bow out of what has been an immensely illuminating discussion.

I just wanted to part with a few observations:

Kim, it was really interesting to get your perspective. As someone who doesn't know any trans people personally, it was good to read your post, which actually reflected what I'd thought about the personal experience of being trans.

Somebody posted links yesterday to articles about transabled, otherkin and transgenderism. This was for me the most eye-opening aspect of this whole thread. Until then I'd forgotten about a programme I'd seen many years back, about otherkin people - the one that featured a man named Cat (guess why? ). Anyone else see that? At the time of watching, it seemed clear that this was a psychiatric/ psychological disorder which needed specialist support and treatment.

Until reading the web pages linked on this thread it had never occurred to me to regard transgenderism in the same category. And yet I cannot deny the powerful similarities between the conditions - as said explicitly by some of the people on those sites. So I think I'm completely revising my idea about what transgenderism is, and I can now better understand the concerns expressed about preserving women's safe spaces.

If being transgender is a psychiatric condition then that still demands support and acceptance of the person, but a different viewpoint of the condition. I'm not even going to try and say what that might be; it needs a lot more thought than I can give it right now.

What a great discussion: insightful thoughts , stimulating disagreements, and no bunfighting. For me this is MN at its best: a forum to discuss ideas, challenge beliefs and be open to changing your opinions. Thanks all, what a great bunch.

How many transexuals mtf or ftm are legally confirmed as such with or without surgery per year? Anyone know?

Just wanted to add (after catching up on new posts), that I do not mind if someone wishes to identify by their gender-identity and their biology does not matter to them.

However, I do not wish to primarily identify by my gender-identity, and my biology is extremely important to me as it is the major influencing variable on all of society's interactions with me, and thus impacts me massively.

Biology is very relevant to biological women who are impacted on by means of that biology. If others do not find it relevant for them, it does not negate the reality and relevance of it for others.

"Now men with their legal and medical institutions want to claim that the biological reality of women is meaningless, and that what women really are is a feeling that a man has. FTMs exist because the illogic has to pretend to be logical, but the existence of FTMs don't hide the fact that the political institution of trans is about the erasure of women and the division of ourselves from our bodies. Women are just a "gender identity" now don't you know. Our biology, the site of mens' oppression and destruction of us, means nothing."

So are you saying Nyac,that in your opinion the existence of transexual people is a specific conscious plan by men/the patriarchy to erase women?

Also the dismissing of FtoM people as a sop to bolster up the institution of trans seems a bit...not sure what the word is.Patronising,maybe? You are dismissing those women who want to transition as completely irrelevant it seems.

Hullygully

I haven't read the whole thing, but this is certainly useful for an idea of basic demographics.

www.gires.org.uk/Prevalence2011.pdf

I'll also post the other links I did previously (as some have commented on their interest):
Trans-ablism
Thoughts of a person both transabled and transgendered
Trans-specism
Otherkin

Some members of the other communities are also transgendered (I think on the otherkin pages).

nyac.....absurd!! i'm totaly at a loss, where do you get it from?
if a woman has an operation to become a man that last thing on my mind is what that does or means for mankind, i just hope she/he made the right discision and will perhaps ge happy now.
of course only men are in the legal and medical institutions
'men opress women through rape' no, rapists opress women through rape!!!
yes just the other day i heard loads of medical professionals harping on about who the biological reality of women was meaningless.

Witch, you don't erase racism by pretending that black people don't exist, any more than you erase woman-hatred by pretending that women don't exist and we're all the same really.

Thanks Whiteshores.

I understand Nyac's pov BUT also feel we need to find a way forward (as per last thread!) to accommodate all human variants. We could see it as something positive, an attempt to break away from the binaries that have oppressed ALL of us?

ThatGhastlyWoman, I'd ask you if you spend a lot of time with your head in the sand in response to your question, but I won't because that would be rude and having a go personally, just like your question is rude and having a go personally.

"yes just the other day i heard loads of medical professionals harping on about who the biological reality of women was meaningless."

To be a woman in our society now, you don't need to have the biology of a woman. You just need approval from a gender recognition panel. Legally physical biology has no meaning any more.

Do people really not notice how easily trans have been awarded these rights compared to the length of time women have been fighting for ours, and only achieving them incrementally if at all. Trans are a tiny group, yet they were able to change the laws of the land with just a snap of their fingers really. And now women's reality doesn't exist any more thanks to them.

Nyac, isn't that precisely how we combat racism? Not by pretending that black people don't exist, but by accepting "we're all the same really"

Hully binaries don't oppress us (certainly not all of us).

Men have created a sex hierarchy (not binary) to oppress women and place themselves above us.

Hullygully

I agree, we essentially need new clarification of definitions, and words to accomodate everybody (gender-orientated and biology-orientated).

I can (personally) see being happy with the following:

female/male = biological (chromosomes main and final determinant, expected recurring biological features and reproductive implications in the vast majority)

man/woman = gender-identity (the name you choose for a feeling in your mind)

In my case (XX female, neutral gender-identity) I would therefore happily be able to say: "I am a female but not a woman."

No Bennifer. Valuing diversity is what's important, and getting away from the idea that white middle and upper class men have created that they are the human standard, and that everyone else has to be like them.

Being a woman and proud is good. Being black and proud is good. Women don't have to be the same as men, and black people don't have to be the same as white people to have the right not to be oppressed.

not that black people don't exist but that the classification of people into black and white is arbitary. The key thing that people classified as black have in common is the history of abuse and exploitation across generations not any patterns of genes.

Redefining woman to mean a "gender identity" is a political and misogynistic move to erase women's reality in favour of men's feelings.

A woman is an adult human female. That hasn't changed, whatever the institution of trans claims.

But can't you get unity in diversity? I might be a white woman, but I'll be different from another white woman, and might have more in common with a black man, but what unites us is our humanity.

I think black people might find it quite offensive to say that their blackness was only defined as a history of oppression by white people (not that that hideous oppression doesn't exist of course).

Black identity is very important in the struggle to end white supremacy. "We're all the same" simply isn't true, nor does it have to be to end oppression. Oppressors just have to stop being oppressive. Even if someone isn't the same as them, doens't give them the right to oppress anyone.

I would agree that we are not all the same.

As individuals we are, each of us, very different and unique.

Some groups of individuals have certain commonalities (whether that be the colour of their skin, the biology of their sex, their internal self-identity etc.)

All of us have at least one commonality - being human (unless trans-specism becomes accepted reality, in which case we are all biologically human).

We all deserve to be treated equally as human beings, and individually according to preferences.

Perhaps race relations is the reverse of this debate - where we'd agree is that biologically, blacks and whites are the same - race doesn't exist biologically speaking, only culturally.

I would almost agree Bennifer, except for this:

What has been the 'signal' for black people to be targetted and abused?

Because I would say it is their biological/physical features, and not whether they culturally or even self-identify as being black.

Obviously I do not think this is right, but it illustrates another case where biology has significant repurcussions (based on biological features as the cue).

WhiteShores, I wasn't suggesting black people "had brought it upon themselves" through their culture, it's just that biologically speaking, the differences between black and white people is terribly small to the point of being non-existent.

Bennifer
I'm a honestly a bit stunned as I never implied you were suggesting that (and I'm sorry if my words conveyed that meaning to you).

I agree about the tiny variations in genetic difference, and believe that we are indeed one race (the human race).

However, discrimination against black people is based on their biological features, which means biological features are relevant in a political sense (because they are what cause one to become a target).

I'm not saying it should be this way, but unfortunately this is the way it is. Discrimination against black people is 'triggered' by deciding they are black based on their visible biological features.

So heres the thing, the key biological feature that you are talking about is skin colour, other differences: height nose shape, relatiave size of waist to hips etc are seen as secondary to this key difference. A non racist world would i think neither discount skin colour as a source of difference but place it about other sources of diversity.

I think the thing for me is the kind of world you wish to live in. Do you want a world where groups (defined by race or gender) are considered different but equal or which live apart? On the other hand do you want a world where diferences in genitals and the ability to breast feed is considered just one interesting way in which humans differ? .

sorry meant to say that a non racist would not place skin colour above other sources of diversity