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?

To continue...

So for ethnic minorities to escape the social constructs about them, they have to change those constructs as a group. It isn't possible for them simply to pretend that being black is an irrelevant construct, because the construct goes on existing.

In terms of lesbian mothers. Well, a mother can be many things. A mother can be a genetic mother, or a biological mother of some other mother's genetic material, or a mother who nurtures a child after birth, or an adoptive mother, or a step mother. A child may have two or three or four mothers.

But none of these mothers are threatened by pointing out the reality is that for children to exist, some woman has to have a baby in her womb for 9 months and give birth to a baby. But biological mothers (most women worldwide are at some point a biological mother) are hugely damaged both socially and in terms of the reality of their health and even life, if we downplay the importance of biological mothers. Huge numbers of women die every year in the United States because they don't have access to adequate maternity care, so it would be ludicrous to push this issue to one side simply because people want to sideline the reproductive potential of women in favour of other issues.

I think if people seriously want to compare race as a social construct and someone's sex as a social construct, they need to outline the biological functions of geographical human variation and the biological functions of the reproductive organs. If they do this, they could then define how these are similar in the extent to which they are constructed.

But until that is done, it seems obvious that reproductive organs are far more essential to our live histories in any possible society that humans could construct (without science fiction) than human geographical variations are.

It is interesting to note that in the science fiction book 'Woman on the edge of time,' where reproductive organs no longer matter, nobody defines themselves as she and he anymore. Everyone is 'pers' instead. Gender only needs to exists because of reproduction.

Life histories, not live histories. Sorry.

MillyR, Thank for the above. I think your last statement is really important because it encapsulates so much of the argument we have been trying to make on this thread.

I know you were talking about a fictional world, but it is no less true in real life. If gender only needs to exist because of reproduction then the notion of 'feeling like a woman' truly is nonsensical. I can't think of a single reason, other than reproduction, why men and women are different. All of their biological differences are down to that. All of the perceived emotional and psychological differences are down to nurture and culture.

That's it. In a nutshell.

I think there are those that throw transphobia around too easily. I think in doing so weakens it. It also stops discussions as everyone gets side tracked on transphobia instead of what the conversation was.

I try not to use it. It?s really not constructive and if i?m honest some of the things said have been a slightly upsetting to read, i wouldn?t call them transphobic though, sometimes it?s what was said sometimes it was the blunt force with which things were said. Then again i?d rather understand the thought process behind the insult.

We as people in transition can?t expect to freely question passionately felt feminism and not expect to have our identities questioned in return, that?s not how it works in my eyes. By hurling what I see as unnecessary accusations of transphobia, and stopping conversation and keeping things on track it looks like there?s something to hide almost.

If someone says something that chafes slightly, why not take a minute and think about why and how it makes you feel instead of saying someone is filled with bigoted hate which is what the accusation really is. I generally find that people are more receptive if you tell them reasonably why your offended is generally quite well received. Perhaps i?m too much of a laid back hippy these days, but isn?t that a better way of working?

I?m not telling anyone off.... please don?t take that statement and then copy and paste it and say ? well obviously you are?! please. Because i?m not.

On endocrinology and the treatment of the young. I was with my endocrinologist getting a lecture on high dose oral estrogen, it?s pretty catastrophic if you think about it the risk, and i?m sure if it was an exact science then they?d have gotten it right one the first attempt. Given the rather extensive and serious health implications who takes responsibility for the treatment of a minor. I?m not implying anything in that it?s an honest question. What happens if one of those billion things does happen ( slight over statement ).

What happens if ultimately the parent is wrong, what happens if the system that we trust in fails. It?s simply incorrect to insist that there are transpeople who don?t regret their transition. www.imdb.com/title/tt1590252/ . Feminism, has a right i feel to question the transgendered because of the failings in the treatment pathway and the transgendered people that are in or have been through the system because the system isn?t perfect.

Sorry i typed that this morning and didn't hit the post button. I know the conversation has moved on and i'm notrying to drag it back, It was releivant at one point.

SalaciousCrumb, thank you for your discussion on this thread. I have no doubt that when a person has a deeply held belief that he/she was born into the wrong body and that inside they are a man/woman and that when they have been through a whole load of soul-searching, pain and intolerance to come to terms with that, it is hurtful when someone questions it.

I also have no doubt that for these people, there is an enormous sense of relief when they are permitted to live in the way they feel will make them 'right' again.

They are very brave people and go through hell. I am sure of that.

Our point of view is not bigotted. The feminists on this thread, as far as I can see, have merely been trying to enter into a discussion about the nature of womanhood. As a movement trying to break down social barriers and end gender stereotyping and discrimination, they are trying to understand what it means to 'feel like a woman' what does that actually mean? It is a question we need to ask because it could be very revealing and important for the feminist movement - the answer could reveal what preconceived concepts of womanhood still need to be challenged.

Selaciouscrumb, I was thinking about transgender earlier, about some issues that are wholly separate to the debate being had on this thread.

I was thinking about various women I know who have an interest in gay, male relationships. I have read various books about gay male relationships such as 'At Swim, Two Boys' about the Irish uprising, or the Mary Renault (herself a lesbian) about homosexual men in Ancient Greece. There are also some gay and transgender themes in 'Venus as a Boy.' I know quite a few feminists who read about gay men, and some also write about gay male relationships.

I think a large part of the appeal of that is the chance to explore sexuality and relationships through the bodies of people who you yourself (the reader or writer) cannot be. That can be liberating as it removes a lot of the problematic issues of gender hierarchies.

I wonder if that has some common ground with transgender (although obviously it is different for you as decisions were made in your childhood about being intersex, although I don't want to be overly-personal). The issue of transgender allows people to explore life as if lived in a body they do not have.

It doesn't change my overall argument, as thinking about gay male relationships doesn't make the reader a gay man. But I think it has a common theme of imagining existence beyond your own material experience. And that desire to imagine may come the narrow constraints of our current gender roles.

Evening selacious

(hmmm that doesn't sound quite right)

Anyway.

I think that there are quite a few different viewponts on here from both "sides", and it's all very interesting.

I typed out a load of stuff and then deleted it, as I realised that I am still trying to clarify what I mean but it's nice to see you.

selaciouscrumb-
[what happens if.............]
ha-ive just recently had a whoppin big argument somewhere because of the same thing youve just said!
yes-i agree with you!
as ive said a thousand times now-
i believe that a transwoman is a woman[i elaborate on this in a moment]but everythings not black and white-and this is why i mentioned the spectrum this morning!
in this-theres other things-hence me agreeing with you!
i feel that if people could see[im talking about in general-not this group]this-
then transpeople will be more accepted-
and it will save some from going down a road that a-might not be right for them and b-then have to live in a way that society sees as being trans![or being scared that people will find out about theyre past]
the thing i found offensive-was when transwomen have been repeatedly refered to as "he"!
someone please tell me that they understand what im on about as i getting rigamortis in me fingers trying to explain!

Sparky,

I see where you are coming from regarding the labelling of people as 'he'. The problem is, that by calling a trans woman 'she' feminists create a difficult situation for themselves. I see that it is hurtful to trans women and will acknowledge that, but trans women also need to acknowledge that feminists have their own struggles and have endured prejudice in a different way from trans women. This prejudice has made feminists just as sensitive about how they are determined and are just as concerned with the labels used to describe them.

You can not expect feminists to change their definitions of being a woman just because you want them to.

The middle ground would be to recognise that the patriachal society has failed us all. Men who do not fit the accepted mould of manhood are made to feel 'other'. Women are already universally treated as not completely human and 'other' That is the common ground.

I am more interested, Sparky, in the parts that you have yet to explain. They grey areas that you are trying to put across. You keep saying things aren't black and white. Can you give a concrete example to illustrate what you mean? I'm struggling a bit to get to where you're coming from and I want to.

Do you mean about the spectrum

That when it comes to stereotypical behaviours and ways of being and things that people are interested in and good at and their personalities and so on, that there is a spectrum from steretypical ultra-feminine at one end and stereotypical ultra-masculine at the other.

I would agree with that.

Then i would say that with sex ie biological sex, there are two extremely dominant types - male and female, and a tiny minority who are bioogically intersex.

Then my POV would be that anyone can be anywhere on the spectrum - a person of the male sex can be stereotypically very feminine in their personality and attributes and so on and a female can be very much at the male end.

So far so good.

This I suspect is where we part company.

I would say that if a person of one sex displays attributes that are very much of the other gender, then that doesn't mean anything really. It just means that they are a person of that sex who enjoys things and behaves in a way that is more commonly found in the other sex. That's the bit where my belief that a lot of these issues are to do with extreme gender stereotyping that goes on, and that in a society where people were able to get on with what they felt without teh feeing that that was "wrong" for their sex, then maybe the prevalence of people wanting to switch over would be less/none.

However (big caveat) obviously I do not know how it feels to be transgender so I don't know. On the other hand, a man doesn't know what it feels like to be a woman, so how does he know that he is one? All of this stuff is unknowable and I suppose we have to take people's word for it.

Which is fine, up until the point where taking someone's word that they are female kind of negates a whole bunch of things that are pretty fundamentally female IYSWIM.

I also keep harking back to our Iranian woman who is living as a man and working as a mechanic. if she lived in a country where it was fine for women to be mechanics, would she still have the desire to live as a man? That is the bit which is quite crucial, as it shows up whether any of this is to do with gender roles in society, or whether it is something more fundamental.

I hope what I am about to say is not horribly inflammatory. I also don't know about being transgender and have not studied it or anything, but it is called a 'disorder' is it not? It is a strongly held belief that a person has that they have been born in the wrong body?

Is that similar to other disorders such as body dismorphic disorder where people have a strongly held belief that they are ugly?

Is it a mistaken belief due to the brain malfunctioning in some way? Or do trans gender people really believe in male and female brains and think they have the wrong one for their body?

Please no one get upset or start shouting at me. It is a genuine question borne out of ignorance.

Interested in the answer.

The thing with all of this is that i keep thinking about how gay people used to be regarded as having psychological/psychiatric isses, which was what made them fancy the "wrong" sex, and it could be treated. I mean you still have these christian groups "treating" gay people, and a girl I new at university was threatened with electric shock treatment by her family

Of course in these enlightened times most reasonable people accept that gay people are gay because that is how they are.

So I am cautious about this as while I cannot understand how a man can say he "knows" he is a woman, I can see that is the same as someone who could not see how a man could possibly fancy another man.

Personally (and I know that many of the feminists on here disagree with me) I think that if someone born male wants to live as a woman and call themselves her then that is fine and dandy.

I so think that exploring where this comes from etc is interesting and i assume oodles of research is being done.

What bothers me is the possibilty that many people would in fact be perfectly happy staying the sex they are if society were less constraining about gender roles. But I cannot possibly say that in a society without constraining gender roles trans sexuality would not exist - it might, it might not, and exporing that is very interesting.

What I am in a palaver about (as I have mentioned a zillion times) is the seeming attempt by trans feminists to steamroller feminists into fighting their corner in an apparently non-reciprocal deal, this woman being a "state of mind" thing bothers me enormously (although I understand that slightly contradicts what i have just said), and teh fact that a whole raft of feminist issues surrounding sex and reproduction and childbirth and so on are just apparently.

Some of the high profile cases where transgender people have clashed with feminist groups are:

1. Protesting outside of the Michigan festival for women born as women.
2. Picketing of Lu's Pharmacy - a pharmacy that deals with the health needs of people who are reproductively female.
3. Taking a woman's rape centre to court because they only wanted to employ people who were biologically female.

So while there is a wider issue with how transgender issues have an impact on the psychology of women and girls, there are very specific cases where transgender women have pitted themselves against feminist groups.

This strikes me as being like white working class people who get angry that there are council funded British Asian community centres. Yes, it is awful that while working class areas are often underfunded and yes, white working class people should have properly funded facilities. But scapegoating British Asian people and getting angry towards them does not achieve this.

The same seems true of transgender campaigners. Why are they singling out the miniscule number of women led, women only facilities. With Lu's pharmacy, the whole point was to set up a pharmacy where women could feel safe, as they are put off going to other pharmacies due to aggression in dangerous areas. How is a transgender protest making those women feel safe?

Theyare making a bunch of relatively powerless feminists into their target. I don't get that. Haven't they bigger, more powerful targets to attack?

lifeissweet-
i feel we are getting somewhere a bit now-thankyou!
[creating a difficult situasion for themselves]
yes-i understand this and to a point i agree with you!
i also agree with what else you say in this top paragraph-
[this predujuice has.......]
yep-i agree with you!
im not saying i expect you to change because i want you to-
im trying to explain how i feel in hope that there will be better understanding all round!
if people dont understand each other-this is where hate and predujuice breeds!
ok-going back abit-the reason im saying that the struggle is simmallar is-two wrongs dont make a right!
because sometimes society sadly see transwomen as "men in dresses"[theyre not]-
they have a fight to be themselves right across the board-and this isnt right!
i can also see what youre saying-and because i can see both sides-i cant see what the arguments are about!
i maybe?be able to accept a middle ground-but i also feel that this middle ground will never be met unless we try and understand each other better-at the moment i feel that youre not understanding me on the "what is a woman"bit-[but ill keep trying]and im seeing it as predujuiced by things like "transwomen=he"!
and im not fully understanding some of the things that have been said either!

Sparky, could you expand a bit on the what is a woman point if you can, as that is the main sticking point I think.

I completely get the parallels with homosexuality, which did slightly make me cringe as I asked the question.

However, Gay people know that they find people of the same sex attractive. It is within their own personal experience to know that this is true.

In order to 'know' you are the opposite sex would require some knowledge of what it means to be a man or a woman. Where does this knowledge come from?

I know I am a woman because I was born with certain physicial characterstics. I went through a female puberty, I carried and gave birth to a child and all my life I have lived with the expectations and oppressions of my gender. Without having had any of that how would I know I was a woman? It's the same question over and over and over...I still don't have an answer that makes sense to me.

lifeissweet-
yes-but years ago gay people was being told that they basically didnt exist!
they was told that it was a psyc condition-
although diffrent things-this is not a lot diffrent from whats being thrown at transpeople these days!
people have moved on[mostly]from these ideas
about gay people!

Agree lifeissweet that is where I get a bit stuck too.

I have to sleep now though, night all

"On endocrinology and the treatment of the young. I was with my endocrinologist getting a lecture on high dose oral estrogen, it?s pretty catastrophic if you think about it the risk, and i?m sure if it was an exact science then they?d have gotten it right one the first attempt."

Children aren't given high dose oral estrogen though. They are given hormone blockers, which has been noted earlier in this thread with further information about them posted on more than one comment.

Brain Neurochemicals
From Science Daily Source: Cornell University 7 February 2000

Brain Neurochemicals Tell A Female To Act Like A Female, Not Her Gender, Cornell Biologists Discover
ITHACA, N.Y. --

Cornell University biologists have shown how chemicals produced in a core region of the brain shared by all vertebrate animals (including humans) make males act like males, females like females -- and some males something like females.

James Goodson and Andrew Bass, who studied a fish species that produces two types of males for their report in the Feb. 17, 2000, issue of the journal Nature, say that brain processes responsible for social behavior typical of females, for example, aren't necessarily linked to the female's sex at all. "This is a clear demonstration of how the action of neurochemicals can modulate the electrical or neurophysiological output of the brain as it establishes a social behavior," said Bass, professor of neurobiology and behavior, in an interview. "We have also shown that there can be a neurochemical dissociation an uncoupling between an animal's gonadal sex and the regulation of behaviors typical of a sex," said Goodson, a postdoctoral fellow in Bass' neurobiology laboratory.

The part of the brain studied by Goodson and Bass is the preoptic area-anterior hypothalamus, a section of the basal forebrain, which neurobiologists say has been "conserved" throughout the evolution of vertebrates. The functions and structure of this conserved brain region are strikingly similar in fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including humans. The neurochemicals credited with sex-related social behaviors are isotocin and vasotocin in fish and are essentially the equivalents of oxytocin and vasopressin, respectively, in mammals.

The fish that made the neurochemical finding possible is the plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), best known for its singing in shallow salt water at mating time. Most of the noise comes from male midshipman fish of the type I variety, which vocalize for hours under rocks to attract females. When type I males' courtship songs are successful, females briefly visit the nests to deposit eggs, then leave the type I males to fertilize the eggs and raise the young.

Sometimes, however, the type I males' songs have an unintended effect, attracting a different kind of male of the same species. Called type II or "sneaker" males, the visitors are distinguished by three things: Their inability to sing like a type I male (although type II males can grunt, as can females, which is explained in the attached fact sheet); their smaller body size but enlarged reproductive organs; and the type II males' habit of sneakily fertilizing eggs left for the type I males.

Also attracted to all the singing, grunting and sexual shenanigans are opportunistic biologists, eager to analyze an animal system with a third, intermediate gender the type II males and with behaviors that are linked to gender. Watching this salt opera, the Cornell biologists wondered: Are the gender-typical actions dictated by the animal's sex, as embodied in the gonads? Or can a brain process alone initiate gender-typical behavior?

Working in the laboratory with anesthetized type I males, type II males and female midshipman fish, the Cornell biologists first applied gentle electrical stimulation to nerve cells in the basal forebrain. That caused type I males to produce versions of their courtship songs and grunts, females to make their characteristic grunts and type II males to make the same, female-like grunts -- all in "fictive" form. (Fictive vocalizations are electrical impulses that are recorded from nerves controlling the fish's vocal muscles, much like the nerves that control vocal muscles of the human larynx. The fictive vocalizations are displayed on a computer and heard through a speaker; despite their electronic format, the recordings sound virtually identical to the natural sounds of free-swimming males and females.)

Next the biologists tested the effects of the neurochemicals by putting small amounts of each chemical into the basal forebrain, or by treating the fish with a chemical called an antagonist that blocks the animal's own neurochemicals from binding to nerve cells and influencing behavior. By comparing the effects of isotocin, vasotocin and their antagonists with the effects of a control substance similar to the fish's brain fluid, the researchers demonstrated that the neurochemicals decrease whereas the antagonists increase the amount of fictive vocalization that is recorded when the basal forebrain is stimulated.
However, females and the different types of male midshipman fish didn't all respond the same. The courting males (type I) were sensitive to vasotocin but not isotocin, and in females, this pattern was reversed. The sneaker males (type II), whose vocal behavior is more like females, exhibited responses to the chemicals that were almost identical to females, rather than other males.

The Cornell biologists have shown, for the first time in any animal species, that the neurochemical regulation of gender-typical behavior by the basal forebrain is not necessarily limited by an animal's gonadal sex, even though sexual behavior and the gonads also are regulated by this brain region. Writing in Nature, they offer "strong evidence that gonadal sex and social/reproductive tactics may be uncoupled from each other and regulated independently within the same brain region."

Goodson adds, "Apparently, the process of evolution has modified reproductive and social behavior independent of the gonads. This blending of characteristics should make more variation available for natural selection to act upon and may help explain the extraordinary range of social behaviors that we see across all of the vertebrate groups, from sex role reversal to dynamic diversity in the sex differences found for parental care and aggressive competition."
The study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Science Foundation. Logistical support was provided by the University of California Bodega Marine Laboratory.

Salt Opera Fish Facts: It's not over when the single father sings Source: Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University Among the three kinds of plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus) fish type I males, females and type II males only type I males sing. They perform their droning song to attract females to the rock nests where these soon-to-be single fathers hope to raise a family. Eggs deposited by females in the nests are fertilized and tended by type I males after the females depart. But the eggs also might be fertilized by type II males, a smaller male type that sneaks into nests to spawn. After a furtive attempt at fertilizing females' eggs, the type II males, like the females, depart and leave the nesting type I males to protect the eggs and newly hatched young. The so-called sneaker males and females don't produce the courtship song of type I males, but like the type I males, they do give brief grunts. These grunts are aggressive, and are used in different contexts by the different kinds of midshipman: Type I males grunt during fights to obtain the best nests, and while defending the eggs and young from usurpers; in contrast, type II males, like females, grunt mostly in non-reproductive social contexts, when they are hassled or are agitated. -- As a virtuoso single parent raising young that aren't all his, the type I male midshipman is a boon to biologists. His elaborate vocalizations are used much differently from the simple grunts of females and type II males, and Cornell biologists suspected that his brain must reflect the difference.

I?m going to try and answer a point or two that have been raised. And I?m not speaking for anyone or representing anything other than my own thoughts and feelings.

Firstly the physical stuff, and again I can?t speak for fully transgendered people about how they experience things because really the only thing that transwomen and I have in common is the transition process. Being born inter-sexed gives me a lot of leyway in the way I?ve deconstructed.

I agree that I man can?t experience the essence of what it means to be woman, that?s why I said what I said in my first post. This works both ways, and while feminism has deconstructed society and it answers a lot of questions I have it is a one sided exercise. I?m not being on down on it or anything but sometimes, it is off mark and shows very little understanding of how men see themselves.
I?ve never said I feel like a woman in a mans body, I?ve thought about the expression a lot though and it?s very childish expression of a very large failing in society at large and it goes back to the socialisation thing.

Boys & girls, now some of this twoddle you?re about to read might make you think that I?m trying to enforce the view that women aren?t serious or to be taken seriously and I?m not. Boys are supposed to grow to men and somewhere along the line through various avenues they are fitted with blinkers and told what to believe and they do this without question most of the time.

Those that don?t conform are sort of put to one side and scorned upon. There?s the instilled patriarchal view handed down. And so the boys and girls only thing continues. For all my difficulties and identity problems I never knew there could be another option. So at some point there?s a thought processes that goes ? oh my word I?m not a man?, because of the socialised re-enforced message of the bi-polared system that means there is only one other option.

This is of course different for the majority of transmen I know, who lived as masculine or butch women prior to treatment and have an understanding of identitiy fluidity, and that in itself causes issues down line and causes more controversial questions that a lot trainmen would heckle over.

My first expression of how I felt was something like this body isn?t mine and then I became a big snotty mess as the flood gates opened, everything came pouring out onto this poor woman that looked like I was speaking a totally different language.

A few years on and my view is a lot more informed. And I can give a much clearer explanation, unfortunately, and is me being judgemental about transwomen I know, but I feel some let the side down frankly, and ought try and read more, or understand more. I won?t name them.

As for the dysmorphia point. I understand where you?re coming from. I have a food issue linked into my dysmorphia. I see myself and I think I?m the jolly green giant. I?m not, I know I?m not because the tape measure and the scales and the slim small size shirt I wear all tell me I?m not so I?m dysmorphic and I try and rationalise my way through it in therapy using self de-constrction.

Before I headed off to the gender clinic I spent real time in therapy trying to rationalise my gender/sex/ whatever else issues I have and it?s not possible, there is no coping method. Really treatment and HRT were my last option. The thought of how invasive the surgery is scares the living daylights out of me. And it?s bloody hard work, and I work hard enough thank you very much. While I see the point that you are making I would say they are too slighty different things.
Life is sweet?In order to 'know' you are the opposite sex would require some knowledge of what it means to be a man or a woman. Where does this knowledge come from? ?
You brain naturally has a dominant side most of the time and the majority of people are either left handed or right handed. You just know right? How did my sister know she was pregnant ? if you ask her, she?ll say she just knew. It might be asking for a leap of faith but I just know, I could try and explain but that would require me to overshare.

The fish example is ludicrous. If a behaviour is shared by all females and some of the males, it isn't a female behaviour - it is simply a behaviour that some males don't participate in.