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?

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.
sorry once again: yes

I would actually define myself by gender roles(if i had to) as a transvestite-trans man (as being a man in a dress needs another sub category apparently).

But I am not I am a woman.

almond - ah right. When I said I believe people are free to define their own marriages, I meant that some people - whether religious or not - will see marriage differently. For atheists, some see it as a tax break, some see it as something you do just to start a family, some married couples don't want a family, some just want to cement their partnership and make a solid commitment. Christian people may marry in a religious ceremony but will follow biblical proclamations on how to conduct themselves within said marriage to varying degrees. My dad's a devout Catholic and my mum's a staunch atheist; their marriage clearly means different things to both of them. I guess that's what I meant by defining one's own marriage. I do see what you're getting at though.

I also want to echo exactly what Jessica said in her last post. Agree completely.

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

I don't understand this comment. Thinking of my friends, colleagues and family ,unless they are in a mass of concealed inner turmoil, I would say they do conform apparently quite happily to conventional notions of male and female.

I suppose what one means by "conventional notions" is not universally objective. For example it strikes me often on FWR that statements about what women are expected to do or not allowed to do are made as givens which to me seem extreme and don't resonate with the reality of my world. For example that women are told to be quiet, not to speak up for themselves.

I don't think being comfortable with gender conventions means unequivocally accepting all conventions of a particular time and place and in any case social mores for men and women change anyway. Do people even think about it to any great degree?

On a lighter note has anyone else had a MN targetted advertising banner about "transforming your body?" It's an exercise/diet regime.

It's now been replaced by Cath Kidston sale so either or both of MN and my phone have sussed me out.

Just returned to the thread - but can I just say bravo! to this post microferret Mon 29-Jun-15 10:29:42

So brilliant

" internal self-identity"
WTF does that even mean?
'identity' - is description - ie how we describe ourselves to others.
I can imagine a hermit could get to identify themselves whatever the way they want 'I identify as a prima ballerina' or 'I identify as an astronaut', since no one else will ever be around to point out their delusions. But in the main our 'identities' (how we identified) are based on things that are actually true, eg- people digging into their family trees [FACTS about themselves] in order to accurately describe their heritage [a TRUTHFUL and possibly nuanced identity].
"Internal self-identity" is just how someone fantasises how the 'ought' to be, which is of very little relevance to others in the scheme of things - eg when assessing their skills and experience or putting them in positions of trust.
OED seems to have fallen for some illogical nonsense.

The only accurate description of transgender should be "displaying a-typical gender appearances and behaviour while believing and claiming to belong to their opposite sex"

Anything else is a lie.

The reason so many people feel silenced is because we are being forced into doublespeak so as not to offend. It is oppression to not be able to speak the naked truth without fear of harassment, being ostracised, losing our jobs.

So OP we all have the language to describe the violence 'cis' does to us, but that language is taboo. We'll lose friends for using it - particularly friends who subscribe to genderqueer ideology.

lass, it the 'unambiguously' part that made me say that. I like lots of traditionally 'girly' things, and I don't like all of them. As an experiment I gave DP the definition without telling him what it meant and he said he'd put himself in to that category. And to outsiders he's pretty stereotypically male. But unambiguously conforming internally is quite different.

But unambiguously conforming internally is quite different

Why? "Unambiguously " doesn't mean in every respect.

'a person whose internal self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female' is the definition of trans from above

so the opposite would be someone who entirely conforms - if it's not entire, then there's some ambiguity no?

Just catching up slowly.

I admit, I use 'cis' in certain contexts, and don't mind doing so - what I mind, is having it applied to me all the time, and not being able to figure out why I'm not comfortable with that. But anyway. lass, I noticed you saying:

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

People say this a lot, and I can see that for some people it is helpful. But it's not true for me. I work in a weird place, for starters. I would say most people I meet, day to day, would understand the term 'cis' (often in quite a basic way, just as 'not trans'). And a sizeable minority would be fairly clued up on the politics, too, though some would also be quite unaware of it all.

So for me, it's not just 'something on the internet'. And I would really like to figure out where I stand on my identity as a woman living in a patriarchy.

under, sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Because I do see that some people use this terminology productively (for them: it helps them understand who they are). So I don't want to just say, oh, they're a bunch of deluded fools.

I also have issues with 'violence' done by language. I do feel upset and hurt about all of this, and I don't know why really. But I know that people constantly claim that language is 'violent' and I find it Orwellian and frightening - eg., people claiming that radical feminists are literally 'causing violence' to them by speaking. I don't want to go down that road.

I think the reason that cis feels so silencing to me is that it lumps non-trans women into one huge lumpy category with men and then points at us (and very much NOT at men) as the people who cause all problems to trans-people because we're easiest to pick on.

To my mind, it's the same as black people saying "we are black, everyone else is non-black" and then specifically honing in on Asian or Jewish people as their oppressors and ignoring the historic harm caused predominantly by white people because it's too scary to challenge the real issues and power. To continue the analogy, the top trumps of oppression that some transactivists try to play would be the equivalent of black people saying "we suffered through slavery so we don't want to hear about the holocaust"

It's pointless, divisive (when really we have some pretty major common ground in fighting against patriarchy) and it prevents us getting to the root of the issue. And all the while, the people with the real privilege sit back rubbing their hands in glee that they've managed to deflect the attention on to feminists instead...

Thank you, that comparison is making me think (though also making me feel uncomfortable, being very, very white).

As I read & learn more about the cis/trans question, I keep coming back to my original, instinctive position: that this is really about gender strictures on men.

I've yet to see/hear anything that convinces me gender dysphoria is about being the opposite sex - and I'm finding plenty of deep discomfort with one's body, deep desires to behave 'out of gender', and visceral rejections of gendered perceptions & expectations of the self. Vast numbers of women, of course, can identify with this. We campaign against it - at every turn confronting walls of patriarchal disapproval, which tries to silence our genuine fears about its impositions of gender on our sex.

Patriarchy imposes its rigid genders on men, too, and silences their dissent with a slightly different carrot-and-stick system. It privileges conforming men more than conforming women - and punishes non-conforming men more harshly than dissenting women. Our advantage of lesser punishment for greater flexibility may be hard-won through ongoing battles, but we have that privilege in most societies now. In some ways, it's the consolation prize for being a "defective man" (thank you, Ancient Greece!)

I can see that some men, strongly rejecting their gender role, would prefer the lesser punishments of being a non-conforming woman. It's also logical that, having received patriarchal training as a superior male for at least their formative years, they might believe they can perform femininity better than most women: thus avoiding all the punishments, being rewarded instead with the lesser privileges bestowed on gender-conforming women.

Feminism has given us terms to describe this class of problems, and patriarchy has limited their application to oppressed sectors. It's easier (though rarely easy) for women to actualise themselves 'out of gender' and to express this verbally. This is why I've left transmen out of my ruminations, btw: a woman can be an honorary man without hormones & surgery; she needs physical completion mainly for sexual purposes. But the man who feels "a real man" doesn't describe him has little access to the language of war against gender. I don't blame him for assuming that, if he's not a real man, he must be a woman - that's what patriarchy has taught him.

I do blame him if, during his transition, he doesn't learn about this. A lot of transwomen do, to be fair. It's just that patriarchy silences their voices too. We're all being told not to mess with the binary - and that is wrong.

... I've realised this should have been an internal rumination rather than a post! But I've typed it, so here it is if you want it.

Hmm, that's very similar to what you just posted, Dodos!

Great article :) genderapostates.com/transgender-ideology-needs-to-change-to-support-women/

Garlick "punishes non-conforming men more harshly than dissenting women"
I don't really agree here. Non-conforming men are not punished worse than dissenting women. Think of the Taliban... or many other regimes that suppress female dissent and empowerment - stoning to death, 'corrective rape' etc. Gender non-conforming men can still host prime-time shows, become 'leading experts' on women, etc, win the Turner prize doing traditional 'women's' crafts, win Eurovision, Big Brother...

And all those Suffragettes who were force-fed were largely upper-middle class, so even their class privilege wasn't enough to protect them

Thanks Garlick, that's really helped me understand what I feel but I've been to frightened to say. It seems to me, that at least some issues surrounding MTF transgender people would be made significantly easier if men (as a group) were more able to display traditionally feminine characteristics without fear or harm.

I look around me and see many women who are not as oppressed as they would have been 100 years ago. Their behaviour is less defined by their sex - they don't have to stay at home, they can like cars, they have equal rights (in law at least) to education and to work in many professions traditionally done by men. The link between being a woman and feeling / behaving a particular way (ie gender stereotypes) is slowing being broken. The movement is by no means complete, there is still lots of work to be done. But progress has definitely been made.

But then I wonder why a similar movement hasn't happened for men. I know at least two fathers who would love to be SAHP but won't because "men provide for their families" is so ingrained. Men who work in childcare are often viewed with suspicion. There are probably more examples that I can't think of right now.

It feels like there's still a problem with (most) men still conforming to their gender stereotype even when they don't want to. But I'm not sure it is a problem that I (as a biological woman) can solve. And I don't think I should have to give up hard-won rights (such as women-only rape crisis centres) in order to help those who are fighting that particular problem. I still need language to express the problems faced by biological women. And I don't want to start using 'ciswoman' because that just re-links women and their gender stereotype.

Oh, god, yes Paw. I'm so sorry, I was really thinking about everyday small things in OUR societies. You know, freedom to wear a dress or trousers and choose whether to do engineering or interior design, boxing or ballet. And the language which facilitates those choices.

Actually I've just discovered that 'genderqueer' covers most of this, so I have another word for a complicated idea :) Wish it didn't say 'queer' though. We all know how comforting that is in a heteronormative patriarchy.

YYY, Jessica. Thank you.

I really dislike genderqueer ideology - (besides it being based on the rubbishing of logic) how it is a means by which the most privileged in society can do a bit of dressing up, play acting and mucking around with their mates as a release from the apathy that comes with privilege - and then get to claim status as a member of an oppressed class.

For example, I once saw a male in a dress and make up, with a girlfriend - and both described themselves as lesbians. This means straight women and men can call themselves lesbians and go on a dyke march, just because the male likes dressing up in women's clothes.

It is so disrespectful to the people genuinely engaged in a struggle for liberation.

It's a bit like cultural appropriation isn't it - which is something I found really hard to get, but through feminism (that WoC thread was very helpful), I'm starting to get an inkling of understanding about.

I think when you have the privilege it's very hard to understand why an unprivileged group is so upset about something, because it seems so trivial ('but I love saris they're so pretty, why are you upset about me wearing one to a party'), whereas from the other side you see that something that is a key part of your identity is being used as a game - which makes you understandably angry.

Oh, perhaps I've misunderstood genderqueer after all. I may abandon the term, I've only known it for a couple of weeks.

Gender critical and gender fluid I can get behind, having been around, and been, both for quite a lot of my own life.