The Mary Beard Appreciation Society

[ArcheryAnnie]

Professor Mary Beard was one of about 130+ people who signed a letter to the Guardian this weekend, saying broadly that universities should be a place of discussion and debate, and the current habit of "no-platforming" women (it's almost always women) some students disagree with was inimical to the very purpose of education.

Out of these 130+ signatories, Mary Beard was the one the usual suspects piled on to, and she dealt with the barrage with such grace. The attacks were mostly divided between the "OMG transphobe" type" and the "very sad to see this nice old dear who didn't understand what she was signing" type, which is breathtakingly patronising when referring to one of the most brilliant academics we have. Most of the other signatories weren't attacked at all in the same way or in the same volume, although some signatories who are PoC were labelled "tokens" by the usual suspects, which is also amazingly patronising and dismissive of their choices and their expertise.

When I grow up, I want to be Professor Mary Beard. (But I would probably have to grow an extra couple of brains to do it.)

I think we're on the same page

Hope so!

Is Bethany also calling men who shave, clean their shoes, wear ties to work, own football shirts etc etc weak and silly?

No?

Then Bethany can take a good long hike to Double Standards R Us.

Apologies for dragging this back a couple of pages (and about a week) but I've been thinking about cisprivilege and wanted to think aloud.

Men have male privilege, which I don't, but I do have white privilege. People will look at me and think broadly positive things about my attributes and abilities, giving me a pass in situations in which a woman of colour would not be so leniently judged. Surely I also have some privilege that a transwoman does not. She and I could walk into the same situation and the unspoken judgements made about me would be more positive than the ones made about her. I have seen transwomen in bars subjected to unpleasant whispered jeers whilst dressing like me, drinking like me, talking like me - but looking like transwomen.

WhatWouldFreddieDo talked about people being oppressed by another's privilege. For sure, I do not think I am oppressing the transwoman I just walked in with. Equally, DH does not think he is oppressing me. We are both right, surely? The oppression is at a societal not an individual level - and that's when conversations about privilege become most relevant. Sooo... Why dismiss the idea that women have some privilege which transwomen do not? I have white privilege - why not also some privilege which accrues because my biology matches my gender in a way which suits the patriarchy? Is the rejection of cisprivilege because of the name ('don't label me!') or the direction ('I am not oppressing you, and actually you are oppressing me') or something else? Even if you hold that gender is entirely constructed and that the idea that anyone can 'feel like a woman inside' is loopy, can you not also hold that individuals whose biology makes it impossible to entirely 'pass' as they perform their gender are a rung down the privilege ladder from those of us whose biology and gender better fit a patriarchal norm? In my head, it's like straight privilege: I fit the patriarchal norm better and therefore receive better treatment than a lesbian might. It's still the patriarchy that's the problem, not me. Or is straight privilege a problem too?

Argh - just realised I've posted before running out to collect kids. Apologies if I don't get back on here before tonight.

Also - go Mary!

I think there are lots of situations where people can be both right, though.

Where I grew up, there is a large Somali community and also a large Asian community. Both suffer racism, sometimes from each other. As a white woman, I would say I have racial privilege, but I can't see a useful way to go further. It's not parallel to your DH not thinking he is oppressing you.

I would also say, I don't think all non-trans (or non-trans-identifying) people do have gender that matches their biology. And I think where they may look as if they do (you're very focussed on how that trans woman looks), you can't assume they actually do.

Which was part of the point I was trying to make with my fairly self-centred anecdote a couple of posts back. Sure, you could read my gender performance as being the kind of privilege you get for being born with ladyparts and liking wearing dresses, but given the wider conditions of patriarchy, that's a bit simplistic.

Btw, I have to put in the caveat that I have no clue whether I'm right or not about any of this.

Only thinking about looks because I was thinking about a particular transwoman being harassed, I guess. She is XY and has stereotypically male features so people readily identify her as trans and behave like gits accordingly.

Ah, fair point. Sorry to hear that about your friend.

I was thinking the opposite - I remember being at a radfem conference which was supposed to be women only, and that an awful lot of women could very easily pass for men.

I wonder if this is something where we kid ourselves a bit? I'm thinking how people will often swear blind they can 'just tell' which (clothed!) babies and toddlers are female and which male, even though at that age, there really isn't a visual difference to be seen. Maybe we do the same with adults, assuming we can always tell easily, and we worry about that?

no i'm with you schoolclosed - where transpeople are experiencing abuse and disadvantage due to being identified as trans. i don't think i've ever seen anyone deny that that exists though? it's where discussions about periods and abortions and FGM under the banner of women's issues are being called cisprivilege that is felt to be objectionable

not sure my final sentence makes any sense!

Schoolclosed, for various reasons, I don't believe in the concept of privilege. I think it is applied callously in various situations and thinks it masks situations in which people, by job, qualification or wealth genuinely are privileged in the more well known sense of the word.

But if I did believe in privilege, then the issue over clothing would not be cis privilege, as cis has a specific meaning and it doesn't mean how you express your gender through clothing.

It would be an example of privilege that gender conforming people experience over non gender conforming people. So many lesbians who dress in a masculine way experience negativity around the way they dress similar to that experienced by a trans genderqueer person, but masculine dressing lesbians are not trans.

And in your perspective on privilege, trans women would presumably be privileged over female bodied people, because trans women don't experience the discrimination that is directly about female bodies.

can you not also hold that individuals whose biology makes it impossible to entirely 'pass' as they perform their gender are a rung down the privilege ladder from those of us whose biology and gender better fit a patriarchal norm?

Well I suppose, if you're inclined to agree that gender is an innate thing, which many people fundamentally don't believe. Most radical feminists would argue that this performance if gender is largely socialised and meaningless so while choosing to perform the gender that doesn't match your biological sex wouldn't be in any way disadvantageous if gender no longer existed.

Passing, and what that means for women is a really tricky bit of this for me.

I'm not very feminine, I do sometimes do nails/makeup, but I never wear a dress, I don't particularly enjoy performing femininity (although I do like looking good sometimes) - does this mean I have whatever cis privilege is or not?

I'm not sure it does, I don't think it's because of how you look, I think it's because you are happy enough as you are (however that is), in which case, it's not 'cis privilege' it's just comfortable in my own skin privilege - something both men and women have, and trans are trying to achieve. I was very unconfident when younger, but now I'm older and have kids/job/life I just care a lot less about what others think, so perhaps it's don't give a shit privilege.

I have a thought that the passing as a woman, and saying that women have privilege because no-one minds them wearing dresses (not true, but lets say it is), is forgetting that if a transwoman puts mens clothes on, then they'll likely be treated as a man and have male privilege. If a transman puts mens clothes on, they'll generally be treated as a man (probably?) and get male privilege. If a woman puts mens' clothes on, they'll still be treated as a woman.

So much focus is on the clothes and presentation and passing, but I don't think that's what it's really all about.

About passing - I read a terribly sad article the other day, which I now can't find, about a young transman who was really conflicted, because he's of Asian origins and had always had a lot of body hair. And this had been presented to him as 'ugly' for a woman. When he transitioned, people were saying wow, you're so lucky, passing so well. But he couldn't help associating it with that old idea that he was being an 'ugly woman'.

I know this is just one example, but surely it indicates that none of this is so simple as we might like to think? You might 'pass' well but be quite conflicted over it, mightn't you?

schools please don't look to my posts for any clarity or insight

Through most of these threads I read, think I understand and feel rather like I'm swimming in the warm shallows, then realise I'm actually out in the cold dark green sea, completely out of my depth ...

almondcakes I have an awful lot of sympathy with all of that. I'm not totally sure that I buy in to the concept of privilege in this sense either - but since I'm talking about it on here, I must have accepted it as useful in certain circumstances! I think that the idea of privilege in gender conformity (which is better/broader/less contentious than cisprivilege or straight privilege) is a better way of putting what I was talking about. Actually, I wonder whether the idea of privilege might actually stop us from calling out discrimination? I mean, in the case in my head, what was going on was discrimination against/harassment of someone on the basis of their gender non-conformity - my 'privilege' in not being subject to the same harassment is totally irrelevant.

However, I reject the conclusion that in my model transwomen would be privileged over other women - I was placing them in the societally second class category 'woman' and then acknowledging that actually things might be even more shit for them than for us. I think I prefer your approach of rejecting the concept of privilege, actually, but it requires more thought!

Which brings me to... Chunkypickle I bet that transmen don't get the same male privilege that other men do - unless they are extremely successful at passing. I see why passing is problematic. I agree that most gender is performed (but I do think that we are born with some innate traits, which may be societally labelled as 'masculine' or 'feminine'). Maybe I need to stick with almondcakes and reject the language of privilege here...

Jeanne and that is all socialised, not innate.

Freddie

Thank you all for engaging on this - I struggle to get my thoughts untangled!

While I'm here... I've never been totally convinced about the utility of the language of othering, either. I am other. If you don't recognise it and can't talk about it, we'll end up in the kind of trouble French society has got itself into by not recognising that there are different kinds of French people (e.g. not taking account in the census of different ethnicities and faiths).

Yes, that's true, I suspect even if they 'pass' very well, they're still going to be smaller for example, which puts you down the masculine hierarchy.

This really is why I just can't see it being about passing at all really. I think it's about some very unhappy people trying to find their way to being happy, trying to figure out what about them they can change to get to where they want to be. They're looking at those of us who don't feel the need to change (or who change themselves in other ways) and saying that we're lucky because of that.

Undoubtedly we're lucky, but I just can't see it as privilege.

Schoolclosed, I should also add that I believe in the existence of transphobia - i.e. losing housing, being beaten up, being mocked on tv for being trans. If I did use the language of privilege, I would say that on that basis there was a privilege in not being trans.

I would not call that cis privilege because I believe the description of what cis means does not match the psychology of most people I know, so I am not in favour of the term (except for the few people who self define as cis, that is their choice).

I also don't believe people who are not trans need a group name. Presumably people who don't have cataracts are 'privileged' over me, but I don't need people who don't have cataracts to have a special name.

One big problem is that the term "passing", which derives from its use in relation to race (especially in the US in the context of the Jim Crow laws), doesn't really fit here. "Passing" in racial terms was thought of as highly suspicious, not just because it was an attempt to "pass" as the dominant white group, but also because it became associated with a betrayal of one's race by African-American activists - so it became a highly pejorative term (on both sides) for a member of an oppressed group covertly taking on the identity of a more privileged group.

It doesn't really map on to the dynamic of "trans/bio woman", because the relations of privilege and dominance are reversed, and the gender binary doesn't map on to the structure of the original racial binary. Women are the negative in the man/woman binary of oppression; not the positive term. In addition, "passing" in the trans community is seen as highly positive: it's a goal (as opposed to being something which is undesirable but done to assure a dominant social position).

The direct analogy in terns of race would be if there were a group of white people who wanted to "pass" as black; but when it was visually obvious that they weren't black enough, wanted to claim that black people therefore had "black privilege" over them.

This analogy serves to illustrate how meaningless "intersectionality" often becomes, because various kinds of privilege/oppression don't actually just map structurally onto/into each other like so many Russian dolls. One can't just remove terms which speak about race, in historically specific situations, take them out of context and then reapply them randomly to other kinds of structures as they don't always work properly, and lead to conceptual confusions and contradictions as a result.

Now I'm more sure I agree with almondcakes about privilege. But if we stick with it, why would a transwoman be in a more privileged position than another woman? Surely another way of identifying privilege is to look at who's got the shitty end of the stick? I can't see how a transwoman is better off than me, in terms of the judgements and assumptions society makes about her.

Why is there a need to assess privilege as between women and transwomen? Women do not benefit from any discrimination faced by transwomen so there is no need to ask women to give up any privilege to ease the difficulties transwomen face. Are you suggesting that transwomen should be considered women because they have a shittier stick than women? That's not necessarily true anyway. Many transwomen who transition in middle age have a lifetime of male privilege and the benefits that come with that. They may try to appropriate the suffering of marginalised transwomen, especially transwomen of colour however the situations of the two groups are very different.