Being silenced/feeling voiceless

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

Can we talk about this?

There were some amazing threads on here a few years ago, about rape and about 'small' sexual assaults, and I remember so many posters saying they'd suddenly found a way to talk about something that had shaped them as people. It seemed really powerful to me. But I was wondering if we're actually going backwards in terms of feeling able to speak up.

I was in a meeting yesterday, and noticing how some women (including me) do that classic 'I don't know if I'm saying this very well' kind of minimising of their own points. I was really struck that someone said 'I need to learn the language to say this' - as if she was being inarticulate, rather than as if people weren't bothering to listen to what she was saying (which was closer to the case).

I keep on feeling this way, especially about all the debates raging around gender identity issues - I just don't have the language to say what I want to say. I can't help feeling as if all of us who disagree are just miscommunicating. Does anyone else feel that? I don't feel as if I have the language to talk about what makes me feel hurt and upset by words like 'cis' - I think it's a real feeling, and I think it is related to sexual violence, but I don't feel very able to put it into words, especially outside MN.

Does anyone else feel like this?

bolleaux, thanks for that. I'm naturally a people-pleaser and it annoys me (a bit) that I seem unable to put my own needs first. It helps knowing where it comes from so I can start to address it. I know part of it comes from other places too, but I've been wondering if it was something other women had experienced too.

Hi Laurie - that's an interesting point and certainly worth thinking about; however I'd disagree that the two are really equivalent for a couple of reasons; conservative, heterosexual western Christians aren't a disadvantaged group. They represent the establishment, with all its privileges intact. Legalising gay marriage doesn't infringe upon their rights, and it doesn't change their marriages, because everyone is free to define their own marriage - it just extends those rights to non-heterosexual people. Conversely, women are a disadvantaged group, and asking us to both acknowledge the idea of "female brains" and call ourselves "cis" women is asking us to redefine our own identities and ideologies in a way that is harmful to us. It's also asking us to assert that we are privileged as women, when we vehemently challenge the idea that such a privilege exists. It's asking us to swallow the very idea (that women and men have innate behavioural differences rooted in our neurological makeup) that we, as feminists, have spent our entire lives battling, the very idea which has been used to justify female oppression for millennia. We can accept that other people feel differently and will respect their right to define themselves, but in return I for one would like to have that same right to define myself on my own terms, and part of that is being free to choose the language I use to describe myself.

I think that trans woman or trans man is a perfect way to describe transgendered people. They were once something else but they have transitioned to something new, and that's great. Rather than trying to use language as a magic wand to create a new reality, isn't it just better to be okay with reality as it is?

I think that using the language you want to define yourself is really important. To accept labels of trans, cis, agender, gender fluid etc, I'd have to accept that I have a 'gender identity'. But I don't have one, so why should I accept a label which doesn't accurately express how I feel?

My concern now (and maybe I'm not supposed to express it but I'm sick of feeling voiceless) is that I'm not actually allowed to reject the label cis. That to do that would be offensive to some people, but I'm not trying to make a comment on how they feel, I just want to be allowed to define myself as I choose.

Everyone isn't really free to define their own marriage. The nature of civil marriage is defined by the state and the nature of religious marriage is defined by the church.

The law around marriage equality has extended the range of people who can get married. It hasn't changed the rules that apply to an individual if they are married.

For example, if the government were to reintroduce rape and sexual assault being legal in marriage, I would consider them to be redefining marriage in such a way that married people should be able to object to the redefinition. If government mandated that all public sector organisations referred to men in religious (anyone married in church) marriages as being protective, I would consider religious people objecting to such a definition to have a valid point.

Whether or not they are conservative heterosexual Western Christians is neither here nor there. You shouldn't be able to define someone else's feelings and characteristics or rules that apply only to them without their consent.

hang on almondcakes - does that mean that you think that secular gay marriage has an actual effect on the marriages of straight Christian couples just because it's called marriage and not a civil union?

micro, many people I know do feel that the state extending the definition of marriage to include same sex unions did impact them. Because they see marriage as a religious sacrament and don't think the state has a right to redefine it. If there were separate words for 'civil marriage' and 'religious marriage' then it wouldn't have been a problem.

(I disagree btw, and I'm massively pro gay marriage.)

I can see the analogy though, because I think of one thing when I hear the word 'woman' and other people think 'woman' means something else entirely. It's the problem, really, with language. It means different things to different people even though it's supposed to be a way to communicate ideas.

I had a civil marriage, and it was absolutely forbidden to have any religious references at the marriage at all (I was married before the legalisation of gay marriage) and any readings/music with lyrics had to be submitted in advance to make sure there were no religious references. Secular civil marriage hadn't had an effect on religious marriages prior to the expanding of marriage to include the union between woman and woman or man and man.

many people I know do feel that the state extending the definition of marriage to include same sex unions did impact them

I always wanted to ask , but never did , whether those who objected to gay marriage actually think secular heterosexual couples who did not have a religious ceremony aren't really married .

Sorry, I'll catch up properly later, but lass, yes, I know people who genuinely think that!

There are big swathes of Christian believers who think secular marriage has no meaning and that people who've not been married in church are living in sin. I've heard the same is true of other religions, too.

So I found it difficult to understand how changing the legal definition of marriage affected pre-existing marriages. And thus my question was: does the attachment of cis to gender/sex/sexuality affect me and other people to whom cis is supposed to apply? I certainly feel it affects me because it's a label being attached to me that I don't really understand for a start...

ah, two posts in between my posts that I was too slow with… (hence starting my latter one with 'so')

lass I really hate that people are afraid of asking questions about religion! I can't speak for everyone, but afaik the Catholic Church teaches that all sexual relations outside of religious marriage are wrong. But it also teaches that judging others is even worse, because that is assuming God's rightful place as the ultimate judge.

For me, I simply don't see that I get to make judgements on the moral characters of other people, particularly as I do so many things wrong myself. Most Catholics I know (particularly those of my generation) feel the same. There are groups within the Catholic church actively campaigning for gay marriage to be allowed within the church.

Hate was a strong word to use there, sorry! I meant frustrated, upset, or something like that. Not being able to ask questions is a really worrying thing for me. All part of the 'silencing' theme I suppose.

So I found it difficult to understand how changing the legal definition of marriage affected pre-existing marriages. And thus my question was: does the attachment of cis to gender/sex/sexuality affect me and other people to whom cis is supposed to apply?

Outside of gender politic internet wars have such people even noticed they are "cis" ?
I'm not trying to minimise your objection but would it help to bear in mind that for the vast majority of people it is meaningless.

^Outside of gender politic internet wars have such people even noticed they are "cis" ?
I'm not trying to minimise your objection but would it help to bear in mind that for the vast majority of people it is meaningless^

But, lass, that's exactly what I'm thinking about… I'm new to the internet (well, except Facebook), so my feeling was, ok, who cares, it's meaningless… until you see here things about changes in law that are not being flagged and think… er, hang on...

No, Microferret, I don't believe that. I just said the exact opposite.

I think with the marriage thing, the difference is that you're disapproving of someone else's lifestyle to the extent that you want to stop them doing something as important as getting married, which I think is wrong.

I don't feel that way about transgender people. I don't feel that their existence threatens mine or that they shouldn't transition because it will affect me. I do not object to a trans person legally changing their gender or name. What I do object to is being forced to adopt a label to describe myself that I fundamentally disagree with. I also resent, to echo another poster, that we pretty much have no choice in the matter as to refuse is to be labelled bigoted. And I also feel that it is wrong to treat oppression as a competition, the winner getting to force other oppressed people to redefine their entire existences and self-perception in order to redress the balance of suffering in some way. I just don't see how this helps anyone and I think it actively detracts from the trans cause to make demands of feminists in this way.

Basically I believe in tolerance. My belief system may be in direct opposition to X's, but as long as X and I both agree to respect each other's right to self-determination that doesn't have to be a problem.

Almond, neither do I. I think I'm just getting really confused, I don't know if I really got what you were trying to say...

sorry, my fault with the confusing marriage analogy!… Hope you can see how it slightly maps over i.e. with changing definitions and with the way some supporters of the 'the establishment' objected to the changing definitions and how it affected those who identified with 'the establishment' in a way I find difficult to understand.

And I guess it brings us back to the question… when it comes to sex/gender/sexuality… who is 'the establishment'? Privileged? In power? Cis refers to all people who are not trans (irrespective of sex and sexuality) as far as I understand…?! Does the change in language and labels have a tangible, real world, effect on them?

Microferret, what I am saying is that I disagree with you that people are free to define their own marriages. Marriage isn't something you self identify as doing or define for yourself. I'm not saying it as some kind of moral perspective - just a statement of the situation.

Who is and is not married in the civil sense, and what they can and cannot do within society is defined by the state.

Who is and is not married in a religious sense and what they can and cannot do within religion is defined by religions.

Being labelled 'cis' upsets me for reasons mentioned upthread - I don't think I am what 'cisgender' is. I don't want a label which doesn't describe me in any way I recognise.

According to the OED, transgender means 'a person whose internal self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female'. By that definition, most women I know are transgender, as are most men. So labelling pretty much all women as 'cis gender' is suggesting that we all internally conform to gender stereotypes. But we don't.

As for the big picture, I have more of a problem with people redefining the word 'woman'. Because how can I talk about / campaign about issues which only affect biological women if I don't have a word to that means that particular group of people?

I think for a long time the idea of gender stereotypes really allowed women to be oppressed even more than they/we are now. The very idea that women behave / think / feel one way and men behave / think / feel a different way has been, and continues to be, dangerous for biological women.

Sorry, that was in answer to lass.

I think the train set, sports stats, computers & sci fi is more geek territory, and I say that as someone who's finally embraced my geekiness. I wish I had the confidence to do so when I was younger.

I know I am a page late with this comment but it took me until i was 40+ to admit outside my gaming group I STILL PLAY D&D. It was bad enough i was a computer programmer, i didn't want to make it worse.

I know i am not a "good" woman because i am selfish, bolshy and outspoken, (was i going somewhere with this?).

I think that the insistence that transwomen are women comes from a place of deeply internalized hypermasculinity (or homophobia). It is so not ok for a boy or a man to take on the trappings of the lower sex caste (girls and women) and any man who does must actually not be a man - and that means that he is a woman because we all know that woman equals not a man.
yes, agree

I think one of the issues I have with the "cis" label is that it means an individual who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. I'm not so sure I do, because I reject utterly the very concept of gender roles. I am a biological woman, but I do not subscribe to the societal norms that purport to be the essence of femininity. I do not believe that gender roles are part of some innate truth about men and women. As far as I'm concerned, being a woman is a lived experience, not something you're assigned or a feeling you get.

So forcing me to accept this label without my consent does do me harm, because it goes against everything I feel about myself and undermines my agency in choosing how I wish to define myself.