White feminism and gender identity

[AssignedMentalAtBirth]

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/26/white-feminism-thing-gender-identity-ideology-epitomizes/

Brilliant article which might give 3rd wavers out there the kick up the arse you need

Bloody brilliant. Eyeliner man is a parody of identity politics, what a bellend.

Great article, not least this:

But women and girls oppressed for being born female don’t have the privilege of opting out of womanhood, and appropriating the male privilege of straight men. Patriarchy doesn’t care if women don’t like or relate to their subordinate role.

What's currently the top comment from Cassandra, also addressed in the fourth paragraph in the piece, is something two WOC friends of mine have pointed out as well especially with regards to much online discourse.

Great article. The passage NoLove highlights is particularly important.

It is a brilliant article. Eloquent, persuasive, rational. It demonstrates a truth.

Your sex will always be viewed through the eye of the beholder.

Apart from appearance, your 'gender identity' is invisible to everyone but yourself.

The concept of gender identity as an idea is indeed intriguing. It would mean that people's treatment of us was dictated by our view of ourselves, rather than their view of us; the ubiquitous 'validation' so beloved of identity politics.

But until anyone can tell me the exact means by which I can get someone to treat me in the way I want, rather than the way they want, it's meaningless.

Lol at this comment. I can't even 😂 (I've had to post this in two parts as the comment was humongous but was too good to not share)

"Here's a reply I wrote to a friend of mine who posted this on Facebook. I'm throwing it up here because I think I made some points that are valid and worth discussing.

1. Feminist current is known to harbor some pretty disgusting voices. It's founder Megan Murphy has at times been one such voice. That doesn't mean this article is problematic, but I encourage a skeptical read.

»What does gender identity mean for women and girls who look like me? «
This is incredibly sloppy. Women and girls are groups of people with a specific gender identity, this question is mostly answered by the way it is phrased. Note how it excludes women and girls who don't look like the author from consideration. If the author doesn't think trans women and trans girls in her native country look like her then she's not considering them at all. This could be stealth Trans Exclusionary feminism and given the website it's on (with it's known TERF bias) I'm taking a very skeptical look at it.

»What does it mean for Dominican women and girls who are marginalized not just by sex, but by poverty, race, and xenophobia?«
Note how gender isn't on this list. The "women and girls" are marginalized by sex, but not by gender. This could be trans exclusionary, and/or indicative of a sex essentialist view.

»But gender identity politics reduces this reality — and womanhood itself — to a trivial, malleable identity. «
How? The author states this without supporting it. Just because she thinks it does that, doesn't mean it actually does, or that other people experience it in the same way.

»It is baffling that in a world where women and girls face structural oppression due to their biology, gender identity politics has thrived.«
Unless there is some underlying truth to the analysis of gender identity politics, that the author doesn't understand but that rings true with many others. Then it wouldn't be baffling at all.
Structural oppression due to biology simply isn't the whole story, most of the story that the author related above was that people were expecting women and girls to do housework, and that they beat and abused them. Those 2 facets of oppression have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with culture and the way gender is constructed in it. A trans woman would likely be affected very similarly. Only the parts about childbearing have to do with biology.

»Susan Cox argues that: “The non-binary declaration is a slap in the face to all women, who, if they haven’t come out as ‘genderqueer,’ presumably possess an internal essence perfectly in-line with the misogynistic parody of womanhood created by patriarchy.” «
Then Susan Cox is full of bullshit. I don't know any feminists who expect a) women to be monolithic, b) women to have any internal essence related to gender (a gender identity is nothing like an essence, it's a sense of self and it changes over time -- there is nothing essential about it) c) that there is anyone who actually is in-line with the literally conflicting stereotypes of womanhood present in our culture.

»There’s a twisted, neoliberal cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.«
Who argues this? The author doesn't provide examples or support. I've mostly seen (liberal) feminists arguing that the problem with patriarchy is the way it shapes, limits and coerces (with violence among other things) what people do with their lives. I've also seen arguments that the problem is structural oppression (the above constitutes structural oppression), and seen more radical voices arguing against that oppression by casting it as violence, as the author does here.
Is the primary problem gender? Or patriarchy? The author seems to suggest it's gender within the framework of patriarchy but is calling it out as "gender" rather than calling it out as "patriarchy".
Allow me to rephrase: Is the problem people who feel like they've moved between genders, within their own identity? or is the problem people who feel like they should enforce their views of gender on others with violence and domination?
It sounds to me like the author is calling out the first group by saying they are cruel to not talk about the second group in the terms the author prefers to use (which are used by the first group in a different way).

»We argue sex is real because from the moment an ultrasound reveals a baby is female, her subjugation begins.«
This is not a biological argument. In fact this proves the point that sex is a social construct. In the absence of an ultrasound there is no subjugation despite all the same biology being there. It is only the social knowledge of sex, the social construction of sex that creates the subjugation. This proves the point that "bio sex is a classification we invented." which is something the author mocks.

»And though “gender identity” is presented as an issue feminism must contend with, it is, as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper explains, completely at odds with feminist analysis of biological sex as an axis of oppression...«
Except this argument is somewhat at odds with the lived experience of trans men who are assigned by society to the female sex. They actually report more privilege and less oppression when they become perceived as men. Trans women, assigned by society to the male sex, also report much more oppression and violence directed against them as they become perceived as women.
I'm not saying here that biological sex isn't an axis of oppression, but that gender is a very important axis of oppression, and that people who move between perceived gender categories clearly demonstrate that much of the oppression women face is due to their socially perceived gender rather than their (often unperceived, or irrelevant) sex.
Here's a link with some trans men explaining some of their differences in oppression they face when percieved as men:
everydayfeminism.com...

»Presumably, the Romanian women and girls who are filling up brothels in Spain (six out of 10 prostituted women in Spain are from Romania) would like to opt-out of their gender.«
This is a doozy. Prostitution stats are notoriously inaccurate, far more sex workers are in the work willingly, or semi-willingly than anti-prostitution activists would have people believe, and there is an established phenomenon of people agreeing to be smuggled into other countries in order to do sex work. But above and beyond all that, gender identity is mostly not something people choose. Identity isn't terribly malleable and gender identity is pretty rigid in most people. Why would these sex workers want not to be women?
Also, trans women are massively over-represented in sex work, and to leave them out of this analysis is a jarring oversight.

»Evelyn Hernandez Cruz, the 19-year old girl who has just been sentenced to 30 years in jail in El Salvador for having a stillbirth, after being repeatedly raped by a gang member, surely would like to reject her status as “woman.” «
Why?? The author seems to be framing womanhood as if it's all about being raped and oppressed. But the identity, to my understanding, for most people who hold it, a positive one. They see something positive about themselves in womanhood, or just feel as if it is who they are called to be, or that it explains how they relate to the world and society, which is why they identify as women. Or maybe they don't think about it at all? Regardless, being a rape victim doesn't make the vast majority of people reject their gender identity. Why would it? Victims can and do still have the same aspirations they had before being raped? The ones I've met mostly want to be treated better in the future, but would prefer a future where they can go about their lives much as they did before they were raped. Their aspirations, which are often interlinked with identity, don't frequently change.

»Presumably the girls in Nepal who die from snake bites and low temperatures in menstruation huts are uncomfortable with the restrictions of their gender.«
Well if the author bothered to ask them, or look up interviews with them they'd know. But being uncomfortable with the restrictions on a gender imposed by society is an entirely different thing than not wanting to be that gender, or not identifying as that gender. I don't know how or why the author is conflating these things, as indicates? What problem does it help solve?"

Cont...

"13)
»The 12-year-old girls in Kenya who are sold into prostitution by their families, desperate for money amidst regional droughts, probably don’t identify with being exchanged as if they’re commodities.«
These people almost certainly don't identify as commodities, but they are pretty likely to identify with being women or girls. These are totally different things.

»Even in the US, sex-based oppression...«
It boggles the mind that the author keeps referring to it as sex-based oppression when talking about sex-work as a component of that oppression. There are a lot of trans-women in sex work, they are really over represented. Clearly it’s not oppression solely based on assigned biological sex.

»A study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that half of the murders of women in the US are committed by a current or former partners and that black women are most likely to die by homicide than all other demographics.«
Trans women of color are even more likely to die by homicide than women of color. But they aren’t even present in the official studies. And the author excludes them from analysis again.

»To argue that sex is not real and that gender is innate or chosen, instead of socially imposed, demonstrates both ignorance to the world around you as well as a position of privilege.«
But that’s not what people argue. I argue that sex is socially imposed, and gender is several different things. 1) Perceived gender is socially imposed (usually based on appearance) and is the basis for a lot of oppression. 2) Gender identity is a concept that is internal to someone’s mind. It can be pretty rigid, and it can also be fluid. Identities are funny that way. Most people don’t choose their gender identity. But they can choose to question it or not. 3) Gender performance or presentation. Gender performance is how people choose to present themselves and is a choice. It can greatly affect perceived gender and thus is often incredibly coerced by the socially imposed pressure to conform to a stereotypical understanding of gender.
So yeah, components of gender are socially imposed. Gender presentation and conformity is obviously chosen by people which should be obvious to the author if she’d ever met someone who presents as Butch, which she likely has. Gender identity is internal, is mental, and is not imposed. It’s often not chosen but is instead developed as people develop their identity and begin to understand how they would ideally relate to the world, their community and their culture, and the constructs of gender within that culture. (fuck, I left out cultural constructs of gender in my list of things gender could be).

» In this way, we see that gender identity ideology literally is“white feminism”: a (so-called) feminism that ignores the material realities of the marginalized, centers the feelings and interests of the most privileged, and presents itself as universal. It is a “feminism” invented by academics in Western countries that does little to address the struggles of those outside these circles.«
OK, this is some bullshit. To start with gender identity theory has been driven by trans people, who also largely drove the development of queer theory, even if the academics developing that theory weren’t actually queer or trans, they were reacting to the visibility and lives that queer and trans people were living openly, and their protests about their status.
Also the feminism this author is pushing totally ignores the marginalization of trans and non-binary identities in non-western countries. I was just hearing about Travesti in Brazil and how they have an average live expectancy of like 38. Clearly they are highly marginalized, and are so marginalized in a not totally western country. Their struggles are also totally undressed by this author. This author is pushing a feminism that presents itself as universal but that excludes these struggles. This author is just as guilty of ignoring the material realities of the marginalized and centering the feelings and interests of the somewhat less marginalized (cis women in latin america in her case). It’s not white feminism, but it sure seems like Trans Exclusionary Feminism.

18. OK, this article is almost certainly TERF bullshit.
    I’m not going to repost what the author says about Gabriel Squailia. Please read Gabriel’s moving article instead:www.bustle.com/p/ho...
    The feminist current author misgenders her, and uses the wrong pronouns. This is straight up disrespect. And it’s gross coming from someone who claims to not want to "ignore the material realities of the marginalized." The author ignores the material realities that Squailia is marginalized by people misgendering her, and the author participates in that marginalization, hen centers the feelings of cis women, who are more privileged. This is exactly what the author claims she is calling out.
    I’ll also note here that nearly all of the author’s claims about what Squailia is claiming are inaccurate. Squailia does not claim that makeup makes her a woman, Squailia claims it defines her, and only her, relationship to her womanhood. Squailia doesn’t really claim that security is available through superficial means, and talks at length about the challenges they faced because of their use of makeup. And Squailia doesn’t claim a refuge in taking off makeup. She explicitly mentions the fact that denial of identity leads to suicide.

»But women and girls oppressed for being born female don’t have the privilege of opting out of womanhood, and appropriating the male privilege of straight men.«
Women and girls don’t. Trans men assigned to the female sex at birth do have this option, assuming they are indeed straight. They can and do opt out of presenting as women and they can and do acquire some privileges when they do so. Please read the article I linked above about trans men if you don’t believe this, or find other sources where trans men talk about their experiences with privilege and oppression. They know far more about this than this trans oppressing author does.

»Patriarchy doesn’t care if women don’t like or relate to their subordinate role.«
This is true. And it’s just as true for non-binary trans women like Gabriel Squailia, or even gender conforming trans women (like e.g. Laverne Cox).

»Many people who consider themselves progressive believe that by swearing allegiance to gender identity ideology, they demonstrate “intersectionality.”«
Intersectionality is a real thing, and without it analyses are bullshit. This whole piece suffers from not considering how the axes of cisgender identity privileges the author over the trans women she is attacking (and disrespecting) with this piece.
Gender identity is an axes of oppression, as the lived experiences of trans men and women demonstrate. That the author ignores this, gives credence to the idea that they actually don’t care about intersectionality, and are using the scare quotes to signal that.

» But if they truly cared about the intersections of sex, race, and class, they would center women and girls marginalized by those axes of oppression.«
I do. Or at least try to. But I stop centering them when they are speaking about trans people. In those cases I center the lives of the most marginalized: the trans women and girls also marginalized by race and class, and sometimes sex.

» Instead, progressives and queer activists are centering men who believe oppression is something you can opt in and out of. «
The fuck we are. Still even that would be better than centering the voices of cis women who want to exclude trans women from resources that would benefit them.

» Surely, most women around the world would take offense at the notion the violence and injustice they suffer is a choice… Or that it has anything to do with eyeliner. «
They probably would. But the only person I see pushing that notion right now is the author of this piece. People don’t choose to suffer injustice. But they do choose to present themselves in the way they are most comfortable with. And sometimes that involves eyeliner, either because they like the way they look with it, or their culture demands it of them. And they will be treated differently because of it, and that disparate treatment can cause suffering and injustice. IMO, if the author was paying attention they’d realize that the theories that integrate gender identity into their intersectional framework explain that oppression and injustice better than the theories that don’t.

In conclusion, I think this author raises a couple of almost good points, but then absolutely torpedo this piece by being unable to hide their contempt of trans women, and letting their near hatred bleed in. I’d really like to ask you: what pressing question does this piece answer? What information of value do you think it communicates? What problem does it help solve?"

Disgusting voices you say.

And they were all about the menz

That comment is the best reason for just writing TL: DR as a response I've ever seen.

That uberlong comment has my blood boiling. How can that be real? Such blind ignorance, stupidity, lies, urgh

The comments on that comment are pretty entertaining though! Both comments and author shredded.

Plus a couple of comments suggesting to me that this article has peaktrans-ed them.

I was just coming to post the same! Some great responses to that awful comment.

This is SJW and lib feminism in action.

Fuck the minority females...won't somebody think of the trans!

It's the assumption that any feminist comment piece must include men/mtt.

Fucking grates.

I must admit, I didn't understand half of what she was saying.

She seemed to be implying that despite ones identity, the only real way some transwomen could be included in feminism is if they pass. And only then, on the basis of their appearance. So if you're looking at someone believing they are a woman, despite them being a man, you might treat them as such. Up until the point where you realise they're not.

Which, although that might be true, must be an infinitesimally small number.

And doesn't start to address the issue of things that affect women which are directly connected to their biology.

I know I tend to simplify things though, as I think over complication often muddies the waters. Not to mention that it often doesn't reflect real-life.

Datun - the actual article is linked at the top, and is v. good. The comment Tiny has quoted was one of the BTL comments which was barking (fortunately the only barking one, and duly taken apart by other commenters).

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog

I read the article. I thought it was excellent. I was musing on the comment. But I admit, I get a little lost with the way people argue things, sometimes. I don't believe life is really that complicated.

Life isn't that complicated. I am oppressed as a woman because OTHER PEOPLE perceive me to be a woman. How I self-identify has fuck all to do with it.

You couldn't get a more perfect comment than that ridiculously long one to show the insular privilege of trans ideology.

Unbelievable.

My head actually spun when reading Reilly Dennis' bloody assertion that sex is a social construct. Gaaah! And although I read loads of the comments, I didn't get as far as that über long one, but it absolutely reads as if it is written by him, having listened to his claptrap on YouTube until my ears bled in a bid to educate myself in order to try to be an ally to my trans niece, whom I adore, but fear for with every fibre of my being. Another young lesbian bullied into thinking she must be a boy because she is not conforming to gender stereotypes.

This part of the article made me want to cry, I have no words, the behaviour of Squailia and the like is just unbelievable and so disrespectful:
The ridiculousness of Squailia’s claim that makeup makes him a woman and that power, strength and security are easily available and acquirable through superficial means, is made ever more clear when contrasted with the day-to day realities faced by most women and girls around the world. In his piece, Squailia admits womanhood is something he has been able to put on and take off, as he pleased:

“I stopped wearing anything that scanned as feminine. I didn’t even own eyeliner for 20 years. And I said nothing when people took me for a straight, cisgender man.”

But women and girls oppressed for being born female don’t have the privilege of opting out of womanhood, and appropriating the male privilege of straight men. Patriarchy doesn’t care if women don’t like or relate to their subordinate role.

Thank you for sharing this. It encapsulates what all women experience. Powerful post.