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.

I don't know Alice. I think about all the other kinds of psychological/ physical problems that face some boys and how profoundly that impacts on their future selves, even as conforming adult males. It is impossible to disentangle the bits of male privilege from the general morass.

A male facing violence from other men however, does not make him a woman.

Hully, for sure it's a jumbled tangle. We all are. But it doesn't mean societal influence doesn't exist. We don't need to disentangle it to recognise it.

Alice - yes it does, but I'm not convinced it always makes a difference.

Nyac - sometimes in early pregnancy the surge of testosterone necessary to create the feeling in the brain that one is "male" doesn't happen (I forget why), and that human is born "male" but utterly feeling "female."

Isn't it cruel to say well, tough shit, you're a man, sister, deal with it?

Past cruelties, imbalances and the patriarchy don't excuse it. Two wrongs will never make a right.

Someone (sorry couldn't find original post) quoted:
"we think there's a whole lot more to being a woman than simply what a man feels"

Hullygully quoted:
"This is the problem.
You (and others) see them as "men". They see themselves as "women." "

The phrase quoted by the first poster might be less problematic if the phrase 'a man feels' is simply changed to 'an individual feels'.

Going by the definition (for the purpose of this thread):
Gender identity = what an individual feels in their mind
Biological sex = chromosomally oriented, assigned from birth with expected biological features in the vast majority
Gender role = how society expects you to behave

The biggest difficulty really seems to be ownership of the word 'woman'. Historically, 'woman' has always meant 'biological sex'.
Now, some places/people are changing it to mean 'gender identity'.

Now, surely whether a person decides which of their personal attributes/features is most important to them, and which they wish to identify with.

Which means some gendered-women may choose 'gender identity' as their main identifier, and prefer to group according to this regardless of biology.

However, some biological-females will prefer to choose their biological identity as more important/relevant to them regardless of gender identity.

One of the big problems is that females who prefer to identify by biology are a) being denied that their self-identity means anything, and b) being increasingly denied of the ability to share spaces common to other biological-females (regardless of gender identity). I would say that this is a form of biophobia.

I fall into the latter category (my gender identity = nil/neutral, my biological sex = female), and prefer to select biology as my identifying attribute. However, on this thread alone, there have been many biophobic posts, telling me that my biology is not relevant or important.... it is to me.

I suspect this biophobia is a big part of what many females are feeling aggrieved by; only without a way to name it, it has been difficult to articulate.

good post WhiteShores.

Love biophobia

((What men have achieved through trans though is to have created another split in feminism between women who want to welcome and allow XY people into our spaces (as long as they claim to be women) and women who don't. They've also managed to create a state of affairs where rad fems get called bigots just because we think there's a whole lot more to being a woman than simply what a man feels. Feminism can't really afford to be split, but it is. Feminism also can't afford to be letting people with male privilege and power into our spaces and our political organising, but that is what is happening now - over and over again.))

nyac, for a man to feel so trapped in the wrong body that he go's under the surgeons knife to be castrated and have his penis removed suggests to me that creating a separation within feminism isnt really on his mind.

but you actually go further and suggest that men in general have orchestrated this split within feminism by useing trans gender people, this is just paranoid and delusional

nyac.....are you male or female?

Good post Whiteshores. I think biophobia is a helpful term.

Hully, I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that that's what happens to trans people.

Where's the evidence that a "surge" of testosterone in utero is what makes men feel male, just for starters?

Whiteshores, it's a form of misogyny to deny the biological reality of women. It's not necessary to create a new word for that.

And once again, having a "gender identity" is not what makes a woman a woman. Being an adult human female is what makes a woman a woman.

"paranoid and delusional"

More insults.

Then followed up by a personal question that has nothing to do with the thread.

There's getting to be a pattern here.

Nyac - I read about it recently, it was about the interraction between hormones and brain chemistry etc, but sadly I have completely forgotten where, I just stored away the interesting bits. If I can remember I'll provide it.

I've read speculation about it as well, but as far as I know there is no actual evidence that it's true or based in empirical science.

I think it helpful to talk about biophobia. Many things contribute to misogyny that are not specifically about targeting the biological aspects of a woman's life.

In much the same way some people have a prejudice against breastfeeding, which we could give a specific term to. It would only form part of misogyny.

And biophobia can also apply to men. In much the same way that racism is frequently applied in misogynistic ways, but there are also applications of racism that are not misogynistic.

Nyac

I would agree that it is misogyny to be biophobic against biological females, in which case 'biophobia' can be seen as a subsection of misogyny.

Eg. not all misogyny would have to involve biophobia, but all biophobia would be a form of misogyny.

I guess one of the major differences is that biophobia would also theoretically be possible against men (eg. denying the right of biological men to self-identify and group by biological sex if they so wished).

Perhaps it is similar to homophobia, in that when it is applied to men, it is still very strongly connected to misogyny?

I'm speculating a little here. But if a boy or a man behaves in a feminine way, bullying and violence is often accompanied by two slurs - gay and girl. The latter could be said to be a form of biophobia. It is people saying that if you behave in a way that is similar to one gender role, they have a right to define you as that gender role (in this case girl) rather than by your preference of defining by biological sex.

That man would then be being treated in a biophobic way, and the fact that the slur is 'girl' also makes that biophobia either part of, or heavily linked to misogyny.

Girl isn't a gender role SeaHouses. Girl means female human child.

Girls are real, they aren't gender roles.

Do people think that when say chickens are named according to their sex we are ascribing them "gender roles"? So a hen is a chicken in a female gender role or a cockerel is a chicken in a male gender role?

Similarly cows are bovines in female gender roles, whilst bulls are bovines in male gender roles.

I just can't get my head around this thinking.

We have female bodies, we're part of a group that contains women and girls. Why the resistance to having words than name our actual physical reality?

Accepting that girl and women are gender roles rather than descriptions of actual human beings means that the trans side has prevailed. Women and girls (or the group who were formerly known as women and girls) no longer exist. We have no name.

Rape and domestic violence also happen to boys and men. It doesn't mean that they aren't also parts of misogyny.

If somebody makes a comment that promotes rape, I can say that their comment is both promoting rape and as a consequence, promoting misogyny.

If somebody makes a comment that denies that biological reality is important to many women, I can say that their comment is both biophobic and as a consequence, misogynistic.

NYac, yes, but in the mind of the bully it isn't. The bully's claim is that because their victim is behaving in a feminine way, the bully can call that person a girl because they have a right to define that person based on gender, even when that person wants to define based on their male biological sex.

It is a way of insisting that gender roles define people, and enforcing them through bullying and violence.

Nyac

We're not saying that biophobia is identical to misogyny. In fact, we've been pointing out reasons why our definition of the word would be distinct.

Thats not to say it doesn't stem from misogyny, or that it is not part of misogyny.

But for what we as individuals are trying to say, it is a helpful and distinct word.

It may not be a helpful or useful word for you, but it certainly is for me. :)