Recommend me a book!

[RibenaBerry]

Right, reading these boards recently has given me a bit of a kick up the arse on my feminist principles. I've done a bit of 'light' reading in the area (think The Beauty Myth as a teenager) but think I need something a bit more serious without being so weighty I never pick it up. I'd rather have something published in, say, the last 15 years than any of the 'classics'.

Any ideas?

"And it doesn't suprise me that some feminists have taken up the fight against radical feminists on behalf of trans-women. Rape apologists always crop up on the rape threads shouting Dittany down with their rape myths. Anyone can call themselves a feminist. LOts of 'feminists' support prostitution, pornography, the 'right' to cut up their body.LOts of women were against universal suffrage for women. Yet others believe the man in their life has a right to beat them up and blame themselves for his actions.
Many are men-pleasers but most simply have an inability to understand just how dehumanized females are in the eyes of males."

Sakura,as one of the people who has been disagreeing with you,I really resent this.I don't think that radical feminists views are not valid - but that doesn't mean I agree with you,radical is not synonymous with infallible.
I do not appreciate being labelled by extension with all the views above.I hope that is not what you meant to do,but that is definately how it read to me.
(am posting and running here,as I have to get to work)

sorry, Pogles, I knew that's how it came out which is why I pre-apologized for it in another post. I know you don't think radical feminists' views are not valid, but trans women most certainly do, which is why our posts got deleted.
There are lots of diverging views withing feminism. I have completely opposite views to Xenia, for example, but she is just as much of a feminist as me because our main goals are to better the lot of women.

What I meant was that in light of the fact that there has been no argument as yet on this thread to support the idea that trans-women's aims are in any way beneficial to females, I'm confused as to why it's the default option to so many women.
WHy not default to radical feminism and then if trans women put up a convincing argument (which they as yet have not been able to do) to show that they can do a better job for women than radical feminists can, I could understand why women would then favour their way of doing things. But I don'T understand how supporting trans-women is benefical to females. In fact I think it might be detrimental to females in many respects, as I have outlined on this thread.
I can understand how supporting trans women can benefit trans women, but that's about it, really.

Dittany and I have completely different views on Islam for example. SGB supports prostitution AFAIK. You are right, a feminist's opinion on what is best for women is not infallible, but trans-women only want what's best for themselves. Just how did they manage to get such an enormous platform within feminist circles?

Sakura you rock.

Just to add, I don't think anyone on this thread has necessarily defaulted to trans feminism. IT was not on anybody's radar until this thread started. BUt by looking at that webpage, thefword, it looks as though lots of feminists have defaulted towards trans-women and, bizzarely, against radical feminists

"Sakura you rock"

Wow, if it feels this good to get a compliment from another feminist I can see why women take up activism !!

Well it's because it's what men always do isn't it? They co-opt the bits of feminism they like, which will benefit them (sexual liberation, women going out to work, not having to stand up for pregnant women on trains because we're all equal now) and then just dump the bits they don't like. And then they re-define feminism as the cherry-picked bits which they have slotted into patriarchy and made to fit their agenda.

Oh I have a question that I've jsut remembered: what are men called, who haven't had sex changes but were born men and identified as men all their lives?

Are they called cis-men too or are they called something else? Or are they just called men?

.

I'm glad you specified that, Sakura, because I was going to be all Oh You Did Not Just Compare Me To A Rape Apologist.

FWIW, trans issues have always been on my radar, I've just not talked about them around here because the topic's not come up. I haven't 'defaulted' to the side of men, I've thought about it and read about it and questioned myself about it for ages now. I've explained why I think it's compatible with feminist issues, and I think Pogleswood has too. I understand the radical feminist position. I don't think we can agree, because we see the root of oppression somewhere differently and the solutions equally so.

And I guess I'm defensive about this because HerB sympathised about the lack of an intellectual debate, and now earwicga, on the other side of the fence, is also assuming that I, personally, need 101 links. And I realise this thread is not all about me, but I'm feeling very frustrated that the pro-trans arguments on this thread are being ignored to the point that the claim is being made that they don't exist.

HerB, cis men is the term, yes. The terminology is cisgender and transgender. With respect, this is the sort of question that betrays a basic lack of understanding of the subject matter. And I'm pissed off enough now to type that and leave it.

tortoise, nobody thinks it's your job to put the other side of the debate.
And the cis question was relevant, because the point is that women have not been consulted on any of this.
Lets say patriarchy represents males, and radical feminism represents females. All men and women don't have to agree with either institution, but there you have it roughly laid out.
Patriarchy has declared that trans women are now women. Radical feminists are in severe opposition to this. Women were not consulted. Female academics and activists would have opposed it and there you have it. What do you make of trans women using their male privilege in this way?

Well, I don't accept your premise, for a start, but I see where you're coming from, and okay, it's as neat a way of laying out the dividing line between two interest groups as any.

And secondly, I don't accept that "patriarchy" has done anything of the sort. I realise, of course, that the bulk of the legislature and judiciary is male, and generally represents the patriarchy. It does not, however, follow that every law passed represents a position held or declared by the patriarchy. When feminist lobby groups get laws passed or amended in ways that support women, that's not a case of "the patriarchy declares that, e.g., you can be raped by your husband".

I also don't accept that women weren't consulted. But I'm a bit lost as to how to refute that since, I'm fairly sure, if I point you to the Parliamentary debates and the breakdown of votes and the fact that the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Transgender issues at the time the legislation was passed was a (cis, as far as I know) woman, the argument will be that men get women to do their dirty work.

The Gender Recognition Act is hugely threatening to the patriarchy, IMO. I know we're talking about trans women here, when we're talking about semantics, but don't forget that law also gives the same rights to trans men. So if you're talking about privilege, doesn't that law potentially open the patriarchy to having people without penises demand the privilege and access that they enjoy? For every trans woman who is appointed to a female-only job, there's the spectre of a trans man demanding access to male-only clubs, higher pay and the right not to be harassed on the street despite not having a penis. Can you imagine the patriarchal horror?

I keep coming back to trans men because, if the bill only recognised trans women, I'd have more sympathy with your argument. But it recognises both, and so your arguments have to apply to both. Pogleswood is saying the same thing.

Certainly in Australia, legal recognition doesn't just smooth the way. A case here a couple of years ago rejected the application of two trans men who had both undergone double masectomies, were taking testerone which rendered them infertile, but hadn't had hysterectomies (under advice from doctors saying it was too risky an operation). The Board has discretion on an individual basis. I think that's the case in England too. I'm mentioning that because it seems clear to me that in effect the patriarchy is still fighting back pretty hard against trans recognition.

"For every trans woman who is appointed to a female-only job, there's the spectre of a trans man demanding access to male-only clubs, higher pay and the right not to be harassed on the street despite not having a penis. Can you imagine the patriarchal horror?"

Umm, why can't those rights be granted to all women then?
Why can't women have access to higher pay?
WHy can't women have the right not to be harassed on the street because they don't have a penis?
Why can a woman only access those things if she looks like a man.
Can you imagine the horror if a woman could do those things without looking like a man Heaven Forbid

And is there any trans-men in male only clubs? Really? Why is it we hear so much of trans women but not much of trans men?

You are making it really obvious why trans women want to keep the gender divide. It's because if women have the right to all of the above without looking and behaving like men, then on what premise can trans women claim to be women.

Oh - sorry, I keep forgetting I namechanged. It's tortoise.

Oh, I completely agree with you, obviously we should have those rights. I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, here: the existence of trans men, to the patriarchy, could be seen as a backdoor way into patriarchal privilege. I'm arguing that the patriarchy has more to fear from trans men than it has to gain from trans women (who are, after all, asking to be allowed to enjoy the status of an oppressed class).

ANd I can'T even begin with rest of your post. It does not suprise me one bit that the application of trans-men were rejected because they hadn't had a hysterecomy. MEN won't accept that they're men because they had wombs. MEN won't accept trans women because they don't fit the mould.

According to that same logic, women should not accept a trans woman as a man unless he receives a compulsory womb transplant.

the patriarchy has nothing to fear from trans men. Trans men don't even register on their radar. They are insignificant to patriarchy, bits of fluff, irrelevant, JUST LIKE WOMEN.

As Dittany said, the only reason trans women are getting so much attention is because nobody really believes they're women. Otherwise noone would give them the time of day.

Well, no, it doesn't surprise me, either.

"According to that same logic, women should not accept a trans woman as a [wo]man unless he receives a compulsory womb transplant"

Isn't that what you're arguing? That you won't accept a trans woman as a woman because she doesn't have the right body parts?

NO, some women don't have wombs but they're still women. What makes a woman with a hysterectomy still a woman? Well first there's her chromozomes, then there's her actual real-life (non-imagined) experience as a woman before the hysterectomy. She would have had to make the same reproductive decisions any woman has to make: whether to have an abortion or not; whether to have a child or not. She may have experienced any number of misogynistic encounters.
There is a lot more to women than body parts, but a woman's body parts (or lack of) are still a central part of being a woman.

And I believe it feminists succeed in this gender debate, trans men won't have to suffer the pain of a mastectomy or hysterectomy to be treated differently and outside the female norm. I think it's barbaric that any human being in the rich countries goes under the knife. If trans women win the fight even cis women will have to keep going under the knife to fit the norms of what people of their gender are supposed to look like, readily encouraged by trans women.

On the hysterectomy question,from what I've read the point may be that some one who wants to transition has to demonstrate that they are genuine and commited to the change of gender.So the board could argue that if a trans man was not prepared to have a hysterectomy he were not sufficiently commited to the change of gender.

"trans men won't have to suffer the pain of a mastectomy or hysterectomy to be treated differently and outside the female norm."
I may have misunderstood here,but my understanding was that transexuals feel as if they are in the wrong body.Whether that would still be the case in a society where gender could be expressed however the individual wanted,I don't know,but even if we think change would be good it is going to be a long time before society changes that much.If you are XX,but feel that you should have been born into a typical XY body,then I would think you might still want a mastectomy,regardless of how you are treated by society.I think the hysterectomy question is different,because it doesn't alter external body appearence.(which is relevant even if it is not the whole story)

I live in Japan, where basically women don't have obvious breasts, and it's a sign of cultural beauty for a woman to be completely flat chested. When a woman wears a kimono if there's any sign of breasts (usually if a Western woman wears one for example) more padding is put in place to give the illusion that the woman has no 'bumps'. And it actually does look rather beautiful when you get used to it.
ANyway, when you live in a culture like this the notion of a mastectomy making someone male doesn't make sense. I think it's this very idea that makes breast cancer so horrific to some women. I've never really understood why breast cancer should be seen as so much worse as any other type of cancer when all are life threatening, but I think it's the idea of a mastectomy taking away a woman's 'womanhood' that upsets women. I fail to see how chopping off a breast can make someone into a man. For some bizzre and unkown reason surgeons, politicians and law makers have deemed that it does.

Trans men identify with the male gender and want to be regarded as male(which creates another debate about whether the problem is not that they believe they are men, but rather that they simply cannot identify with the prescribed gender role for women, which is entirely understandable. But as I am not a trans man I can't say for sure what the subconsciou motivations are). Anyway, I don't see how some superficial physical alterations will do much to change how they are regarded by society. They might just as well strap their breasts down. What if they're pretty flat-chested already, as women with high testosterone tend to be?
But you are saying that surgery is a sort of 'right of passage' for trans men, a sign of their commitment. If so, why is it that trans men are allowed to keep their genitalia (Julia Serano)? As far as I see it trans men simply want the right to live as a man and be respected for this. I honestly don't see what mastectomies or hysterectomies have to do with anything.

I used to be very close to an Iranian whose sister still lived in Iran. She was a trans man. I know this because he told me she didn't wear the muslim scarf like women all have to by law, she had her hair cut short and was apparently some kind of mechanic. SHe lived her life completely as a man would in one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. I really think that if Iran can do this humanely then other countries can.

Although AFAIK it is unacceptable in Iran for a male to live their life as a woman. So you could say that in Iran trans women are discriminated against more than trans men. Like in our societies, the patriarchy refuses to accept men who are outside the norm. But the point remains that all we need to do is expand society's definition of what men and women can do.

proscribed gender roles

I have nothing against trans women living as women. I am vehemently against the idea that trans women know what it's like to be female.

You commented further up the thread I think that mastectomy wasn't looked on in the same way in Japan,which presumably is because the female body image doesn't favour large breastedness,which makes sense.

I am not for a minute saying having a mastectomy makes someone male - my DH might be a bit thrown by that idea...(strapping your breasts down would not be as comfortable,taking a long term view.)
I wasn't,either, saying that surgery is a rite of passage - I'd read,possibly somewhere on the f word,an article including comments that to have surgery trans people have to convince the medical professionals that they are serious about their desire to transition,this can lead to pressure to behave in more stereotypically male/female ways than they might otherwise choose to, so that the doctors are convinced they are serious.I assume that this might also apply to a Board deciding whether someone be legally recognised as the gender of their choice.No reason why this should not apply to trans women too,but I don't know how the panels decide on these questions.Actually,maybe that would make it a rite of passage - but one that is being imposed rather than chosen freely.

And re:mastectomy my point was that if trans people feel they are in the wrong body,altering gender roles will not affect that.A trans man might still want to alter his appearance.But I am not a trans man either - so I don't know.