What Am I Missing?

[Catiette]

I may not be able to check in on responses to this very much - I hope that isn't hypocritical or rude. I read something that left me feeling a bit unsettled and just wanted to formulate my thoughts on it, really. Any responses - whether to agree with me or to highlight where I'm going wrong - would both be helpful and reassuring whenever I can return!

It relates to the article posted on the "Which Stories Could Change Someone's Mind" thread: https://philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/. I didn't want to derail that discussion, and also really don't want to discourage people from using it as one of the best representations of our position I've seen - so thorough, lucid and convincing... up to a very few paragraphs near the end, which I didn't think reflected the nuanced thought of the whole. It left me wondering what I'd missed?

I'll try not to be too wordy (famous last words...)

The paragraphs (with one removed to shorten the whole). My bold.

An Illiberal Version of the Gender-Critical Position?

A working assumption of this essay has been that those of us who are gender-critical value a liberal, pluralistic society, and are happy for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in. It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.” However they characterize themselves, they maintain that, even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women.

Some compare this to “blackface,” calling it “womanface,” and are explicit in rejecting transgender equality claims, arguing, for example, that women should not be expected to work alongside males who identify as women and display stereotypical feminine appearance. They go beyond condemning the compelled use of “she/her” pronouns for males who identify as women and regard even a voluntary use to justify excoriation and ad hominem attacks (as occurred when, in February 2024, Andrew Doyle and Janice Turner used “she/her” when referring to Debbie Hayton, a trans-identified male, and touched off a firestorm). Those who promote the illiberal view also maintain that males who present as women are engaged in a public display of autogynephilia (AGP), a fetish involving a male being sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female, and, in effect, force the participation of women in this fetish.

…

I find the illiberal version problematic for a number of reasons. First, the norms about stereotypically feminine presentation are patriarchal norms. I am not sure why women who claim to be gender-critical are so keen to claim any proprietary interest in these stereotypes. Indeed, it would seem that their rejection of transgender ideology is decidedly not gender-critical; they cling tenaciously to gender stereotypes. On the one hand, they say, “woman is not a costume.” On the other hand, they say, “leave our woman costume alone.” I agree with gender abolitionists, such as Professor Holly Lawford-Smith, who argue that the sooner these patriarchal stereotypes are no more, the better.

Second, it would be difficult in any case to formulate a limiting principle that would identify in a tidy way that would satisfy everyone what presentations are acceptable and what presentations are not acceptable. That is, the line between an acceptable gender nonconforming presentation and what some regard as an unacceptable instance of “womanface” may be very difficult to draw. Third, there is a basic matter of equal treatment. If an employer allows women to wear heels, dresses, wigs and prosthetics (which would include padded bras) at the office, how can the employer deny that right to males?

(Dunno why there's another article pictured below the extract from the first?!)

What-Have-I-Missed 1

The author presents the so-called "ultra-" perspective as:

when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women... Some compare this to “blackface,” calling it “womanface,” and are explicit in rejecting transgender equality claims, arguing, for example, that women should not be expected to work alongside males who identify as women and display stereotypical feminine appearance.

His response is:

I am not sure why women who claim to be gender-critical are so keen to claim any proprietary interest in these stereotypes... They cling tenaciously to gender stereotypes. On the one hand, they say, “woman is not a costume.” On the other hand, they say, “leave our woman costume alone.”

"Proprietary" feels like an extraordinary adjective to apply to women offended by males adopting exaggeratedly "feminine" stereotypes ("exaggerated" does feel like a fair descriptor in many cases: 1) in part, from necessity - for a male to "present as a woman", he only has these outward trappings of clothing, hair, make-up and mannerism on which to rely, and must use them to counter physical characteristics that work against him, so-to-speak: 2) it's impossible to argue, with the evidence available, that a proportion of such males don't adopt overtly sexualised stereotypes). I'd say that it's not that we claim "ownership" of these, but rather that we seek to be liberated from the assumption that they are tied to our biological reality - and, as these males are "wearing" them to create the outward impression of their sharing our biological reality, the appropriation of these by definition strengthens this bond, for us...

Yes, the issue is that these men use these external trappings as "proof" that they're women.

He also argues:

Second, it would be difficult in any case to formulate a limiting principle that would identify in a tidy way that would satisfy everyone what presentations are acceptable and what presentations are not acceptable. That is, the line between an acceptable gender nonconforming presentation and what some regard as an unacceptable instance of “womanface” may be very difficult to draw.

I can see this, in many respects. However, I find this argument interesting in the context of his own preferred example earlier in the essay: arguing, for example, that women should not be expected to work alongside males who identify as women and display stereotypical feminine appearance and the earlier acknowledgement of the analogy some feminists draw with blackface.

Firstly, in the workplace it is, actually, possible to do this. Most workplaces have a dress-code, and the relevance of this in this particular scenario is immediately clear in, for example, Pip Bunce's famed frilly pink dress: few women would choose, or indeed be permitted, to wear this in a professional context, knowing they would be seen as frivolous or overly-sexualised. Therefore, Bunce's wearing it in photo shoots, and the media's apparent acceptance or even celebration of this is, at best, a reflection of unconscious male privilege - and an indication to frustrated feminists that it is, indeed, possible to draw such lines, and the issue is, rather, whether or not employers choose to.

"women should not be expected to work alongside males who identify as women and display stereotypical feminine appearance"

Is that really the argument that's made though? I feel like he's strawmanning or misrepresenting.

Lastly, blackface. My own thinking on this is pretty unformed, but focussing only on what I see as logical missteps in his essay... what happens to this argument? He acknowledges that some feminists draw a parallel between this and "womanface", however doesn't engage with this any further. This, to me, indicates that he references it only to highlight its 'self-evident' absurdity. Yet given that his essay, earlier, used the example of Rachel Dolezal to highlight some of the logical inconsistencies within trans ideology, this seems like something of a logical inconsistency on his part, too...?

Exactly, Anne! I think he does this elsewhere in this section, too. And it just feels so incompatible with the nuance evident up to this point.

Here's another example:

and regard even a voluntary use to justify excoriation and ad hominem attacks (as occurred when, in February 2024, Andrew Doyle and Janice Turner used “she/her” when referring to Debbie Hayton, a trans-identified male, and touched off a firestorm)

This relies on a number of logical fallacies to misrepresent concerns about making concessions to pronouns as wholly unreasonable. Ironically, rather than engaging with the many arguments behind this, he throws in his own accusation of misleading use of a logical fallacy (ad hominem) to dismiss individuals who themselves have voiced the very arguments with which he's not engaging...

I have other bones to pick...

maintain that males who present as women are engaged in a public display of autogynephilia (AGP), a fetish involving a male being sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female, and, in effect, force the participation of women in this fetish... it must be noted that AGP is a controversial concept.

Fair enough, technically, it is. But really, there are enough published accounts of it by high-profile individuals, and enough anecdotal evidence, that it seems curious he didn't engage with this more fully as absolutely fundamental to many women's concerns... (NB. ref. recent documentary on transwidows - best wishes to all who contributed).

And the illiberal opponents of transgender ideology don’t bother to tell us how one can even ascertain which feminine-presenting men are performing AGP and which are not. Surely, they would not suggest that it’s simply a matter of looking at them?

I don't like the tone here... unless, again, I've misunderstood. maybe I have. But if it's, as I understand it, a hint at the possible hypocrisy of women who resist being judged by appearance only to condemn others for it, again, it seems like a cheap (and unconvincing) shot in an otherwise thoughtful piece.

And, much as I hate typing this - it feels unpleasant in so many ways, for so many reasons... Would he not recognise a "streetwalker" in a busy crowd? I really think he would. Most men would. So can this capacity for pattern recognition not be extended to wary women distinguishing males dressed in a disconcertingly overly sexualised way? If not, why not?

Only a few more. I don't know if people do this with threads - if it's totally inappropriate, please do tell me, someone. For now, though, I'm just really interested in thrashing this out...

if no one is forced to recognize such males as women, or compelled to use “she/her” pronouns, or allow them to use women’s private/intimate spaces or play on women’s sports teams, etc., it’s not clear how anyone is being forced to participate in anything

"Anyone"? At all? Do these men live in isolation, or do they have wives, daughters, sisters - as well as male relatives - whose own experience of a lifelong, foundational relationship is upended by this change? I tend to favour his liberal approach, but find it disturbing that he reduces impact down to this simplistic, concrete, list. Society is still coded by gender. We may not like it, but it's the water in which we swim. An overt contravention of that has the potential to impact everyone in regular contact with that person, to some degree, and in some way, or other. Most women are aware in their interactions with strange men of the physical power differential, and it affects how we behave: don't stare at the drunk on the bench, watch your tone with the cowboy builder, neatly sidestep the striding male pedestrian... There's always a higher potential, however unlikely, of life-changing negative consequences for a woman interacting with a man than vice versa.

(I didn't jump out of the way of a rude man on the street last weekend - and he yelled at me, "Next time...!" It was the third time I've been yelled by a man for not deferring to his assumption of space, or an overt show of respect, that I didn't owe him, in the past month...).

And last, but not least, the one that didn't confuse me or intrigue as a bit of an intellectual exercise, but just roundly pissed me off.

He equates padded bras with prosthetics.

prosthetics (which would include padded bras)

I really do try to avoid using the phrase "male privelige" - I worry that any facile hierarchy of privilege is potentially problematic - but really...

Is a woman's need for support, discretion in a cold office, and bloody comfort really equivalent to artificial boobs?

So, again, what am I missing?

Or... give this all a miss as selfish board-hogging and ask me to get it deleted. Genuinely happy to! Just needed to reflect, vent, explore...

Fwiw I agree with him regarding the bolded points.

A bog standard radical feminist analysis (what he calls "liberal") is that people can wear what they want and act how they want, that is irrelevant to their biological sex. And that much of "femininity" is stereotypes. First, the norms about stereotypically feminine presentation are patriarchal norms

I've also noticed that many people (that he unflattering calls "illiberals") do insist that female stereotypes "belong" to women and so trans people/drag artists coopting them are appropriating. And I agree with him that its logically inconsistent with that feminist position.

FWIW I'm anti-drag because I feel it mocks women, not because I think its "appropriation".

It's a really ideas driven article and pretty interesting in how it characterises the positions

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13725993/Minister-civil-servants-fetish-gear-work-transgender.html

It's clear that either sex coming to work dressed in fetish gear would be inappropriate. I think that's a fairly easy line to draw and it is inevitably cross dressing men who try to get away with this nonsense. However, if a trans identified male civil servant came to work in a smart skirt and jacket combination with court shoes wearing a small amount of makeup I think Prof Francoise has a point. Despite this I should still be able to describe that person as male. Because he is. I'm ambivalent about the idea of womanface. Clearly there's a long tradition of men dressing up as exaggerated versions of women in theatre and comedy. It feels a bit po faced to describe it as womanface and compare it to blackface although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. I really loathe agp men and their deeply misogynistic and masochistic representations of womanhood. They can all get in the bin.

This man seems to have written a long-winded essay that essentially boils down to 'Why won’t these women just shut up and let men do this thing they want to do?' 🤷‍♀️🙄 He seems much more able to empathise with the men in these situations than with the women.

He doesn’t really seem to, or want to, understand that women have boundaries and should be allowed to have boundaries. All this waffling on about the potential meaning in various combinations of clothing, behaviour and prosthetics just really reminds me of the attitude of men who’ve tried to pester-negotiate around my personal physical (and sexual) limits to achieve something they very much wanted and I didn’t.

Some men can’t or won’t take no for an answer from women.

"it would seem that their rejection of transgender ideology is decidedly not gender-critical; they cling tenaciously to gender stereotypes. On the one hand, they say, “woman is not a costume.” On the other hand, they say, “leave our woman costume alone.”"

Isn't the position actually that it's the men who are in fact playing on the gender stereotypes of what they think it means to be a woman?

Thanks, everyone. It's interesting, and difficult... I largely agree with his position - up to that part of the essay, it was pretty much 100%. I just found his representation of so-called "illiberal" feminism(!) pretty reductive and cynical - both of that perspective and in his own treatment of that perspective.

“reminds me of the attitude of men who’ve tried to pester-negotiate around my personal physical (and sexual) limits to achieve something they very much wanted and I didn’t.”

“pester-negotiate”

thats such a good description of it.

the whole thing is goady fuckery. you are much more patient than me

Sometimes women just have to trust their creep-dar. Women have the right not to be unconsenting participants in a man's fetish. And that should come first. Not some bloke's inner philosophical ramblings, because for us - far too often - it's a matter of safety.

I always think of Aja's tweet on this:

https://x.com/AjaTheEmpress/status/1727745772970471686

The truth is, it's never really that difficult to tell the men who are using you as a prop in their sexual fetish and those who aren't. The rule of thumb I use is gender non conforming man = no fake breasts. AGP = fake breasts.

It's not hard really.

Yes - a lot of the time we do sense when someone's a potential danger. Which is why that withering, "How are you suggesting you tell - by their appearance (derisory chuckle at easy gotcha)?" felt, somehow, quite upsetting. They just don't know what it's like. I do wish they'd try harder to imagine.

Both can be true.

This author isn't talking about all GC people; he's talking specifically about those GC people who claim men are "appropriating womanhood" by complying with stereotypes of femininity. It's an interesting point.

I haven’t read it. I don’t usually read anything on this topic tbh. I just have four questions that need to have a definitive, clearly evidenced, legal answer, and then, we’re all good.

1. Can humans change sex?
2. Does the Equality Act 2010 allow for single sex provisions?
3. Should point 2. be extended to all areas of life?
4. If your answer to point 3. is No, Why? Detailed and evidenced answers only.

Yes. It very much comes across as this.

‘prosthetics’? Yeah. Fuck that. A padded bra is nothing like a male strapping on fake breasts. Or a rubber woman suit complete with already painted on make up and rubber thighs.

While I have time for his analysis on Twitter. This essay is very much telling women that they should not object to ‘some’ male people who are obviously deemed special by him.

@CassieMaddox And OK, for some women, there will be a proprietary attitude towards "feminine" signifiers. But for many of us, the concern is, rather, the appropriation of our language, spaces, bodies through those signifiers. They're an outward manifestation of what's being demanded/taken. He doesn't seem to make that distinction.

I also think perceptions of the "appropriation" of womanhood through drag & trans identity are complicated by the historic power imbalance between men and women, and long-established use of feminine signifiers to disempower and demean women, and ridicule and emasculate men. Carnivalesque costumes, boy-actors, misogynistic drag act stage-names... men "playing" women has a long history in which the common denominator is the power imbalance and an implicit or explicit demonstration of relative male power. It's certainly not aspirational: it's more often ridiculed. And yes, you could say that this is an argument for normalising it - but also, it should be an argument for empathising with women having an understandable, instinctive sensitivity to it: an inevitable anticipation of it being more teasing than tribute.

There were a few recent threads here or on AIBU about make-up with some interesting discussion about whether it's a weapon of, or against, the patriarchy - demeaning or empowering (OK, reductive, but...) I do think one thing it showed is how impossibly hard it is to separate ourselves from the cultural waters in which we swim. If you live and breathe make-up-as-normal, how can you possibly make that assessment for yourself, never mind in general terms?

He doesn't seem to make much allowance for all these things. For millennia of fear and oppression - and the burgeoning fear that we're losing the gains of just 100 years of meaningful political emancipation as a distinct and valid demographic long denied us in the name of what at least some of these men now embrace, or appear to embrace...

Mown reading is that he's describing the position as he sees it and where it goes wrong in his opnion.

I would also say that if his understanding was correct his critique wouldn't be that far out. He's not being particularly illogical.

What he misses is that it's not about a particular set of norms being inherently and eternally womanish. It's about the fact that the attempt is not really about the particular clothing, it's about adopting whatever the conventional sexed form of femininity is and claiming that is what it is to be a woman.

I think it's a common gap a lot of people don't understand. It seems to me it related to a somewhat flat or unsophisticated understanding of the way our physical sexed bodies have a cultural expression. These guys aren't wearing dresses because they like dresses, but because they want to "be" women. If women and men dressed alike they would still be wearing falsies under their sweatshirts or whatever.

The mistake from people like this comes out of the assumption that clothing differences themselves represent some kind of externalized patriarchal oppression that could be done away with if only we understood that.