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?

wastingaway -
"I mostly want to know right now, when it was decided that transsexuals are women."
This question doesn't make much sense to me. transsexuals can be men or women. Decided by who?

MillyR -
"What makes a person female is that she starts life with a uterus and breasts. She then has to spend her whole life making decisions about whether or not she is going to use that uterus and those breasts."
That is your definition of being a woman. Others will share that feeling. It is not one that I share, and others won't either.

Well I meant mtf transsexual, and yes decided by who?
If the debate is about whether a man who chooses to define himself as a woman is a woman, and people say they are, then I say, who says? And when was this decided?

earwicga, wrote about MillR's post "That is your definition of being a woman."

I don't see the word "woman" in MillyR's definition of "female". Can you clarify your response please. I am struggling with the way the words "woman" and "female" are being tossed about on this thread and being self-defined.

My previous post should have read :

"earwicga, can you clarify your response please."

wastingaway - www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues

earwicga. The Guardian article is very interesting. Thanks for posting the link. It covers quite a bit of the topic. Interestingly, I found no mention of the word "female" in the article, however.

We are all aware that there are mtf transsexuals as well, surely? I'm not sure why we're only talking as if the issue is one way.

And raelly, if transsexuality was about co-opting the privileges or social identity of the opposite sex, then there'd be an awful lot more ftm transsexuals, I think. I mean, I'd quite like the same privileges as men. This is why I don't see the anger against transsexuals. They're not a privileged class. MTF transsexuals are very often on the receiving end of sexual violence. They experience discrimination in pretty much every area of life.

Dittany mentioned a MTF transsexual who was appointed to a university position in place of Greer. Frankly, a trans woman is up against more layers of discrimination than a cis woman, so I'm not seeing the argument that this is "unfair" - without knowing the specific case, I tend towards the assumption that the appointment was made on merit.

Wastingaway, the question about "who has decided" is vexed; there's a long history with regard to the legal status of transsexuals, and it comes up in legal cases a lot; if a married man later transitions to become a woman, is she still legally married? Should a convicted transsexual criminal be incarcerated with people of hir birth sex or hir current sex?

There's an interesting commentary here but that's from 2003, and I don't know if the law has changed since (that link says that as of 03, "the law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests. If all three are congruent, that should determine a person's sex for the purpose of marriage. Any operative intervention should be ignored. The biological sexual constitution of an individual is fixed at birth, at the latest, and cannot be changed either by the natural development of organs of the opposite sex or by medical or surgical means".

Answered my own question.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (which came into operation 4 April 2005) "gives transsexual people legal recognition as members of the sex appropriate to their gender (male or female) allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate, affording them full recognition of their acquired sex in law for all purposes, including marriage. The two main exceptions are a right of conscience for Church of England clergy (who are normally obliged to marry any two eligible people by law), and that the descent of peerages will remain unchanged. Additionally, sports organisations are allowed to exclude transsexual people if it is necessary for 'fair competition or the safety of the competitors'."

"A woman who doesn't have a uterus isn't a woman? A woman that can't reproduce isn't a woman? "

THis has to be the most ridiculous defence yet. XX babies i.e girls are identified as girls from birth. Nobody knows whether they can or will reproduce. Nevertheless they are assigned a gender role based on their potential to bear children.
This gender role assigned to them is very oppressive in all cultures around the world.
Some XX babies, girls, women-born-women, whatever you want to call them, may go on to reproduce. Most soceties reward them for this. In other cases they may be penalised for this (please read up on the history of women around the world who have borne babies out of wedlock)
Some women can't have children. A woman in this situation is often more oppressed than a woman who can, because gender constraints dictate that women can only be defined as women if they bear children. It's a double-whammy. Some women don't want children, but they are still known by society to be XX i.e as someone born with the potential to bear children.

Moving onto misogyny. It seems that one of the roots of misogyny is the envy or irrational hatred of women which is derived from their unique gift of having been born with the potential to bear new life.
SOme feminists argue that this is why men desire war: to prove that they, too, have power over life and death, just like women. This is why women have been regarded as chattel to be bought and sold in the past. Because patriarchy wishes to assert control over reproduction, but realises it is futile, because ultimately reproduction and bearing life remains in women's hands.

To dismiss the reality of XX people and to superimpose an XY person's experience of life onto all of the above is wrong.
By all means, create a third gender, and feminists will gladly support trans-gender males against patriarchal oppression.

"Stating 'women and trans women' and the like is putting trans women in a third gender i.e. "not quite men or women". "

We keep going round in circles.
Stating trans-men are women is putting women as a non-group. To understand how this feels like an aggressive attack to some women you must read up on the history of women's identity being defined as non-being and penis-less. In other words, up until today, in our society and all over the world women are regarded as not having a sex of their own.

Am I understanding this; the argument is that to expand the definition of 'female' to encompass persons not born with female genitalia renders the definition meaningless and thus threatens female identity?

I hate to be all "what about the menz", but, what about the trans men? Are they superimposing an XX experience onto an XY one?

Is it the case that the same thing happens; the expansion of the term 'male' renders it meaningless, but because there isn't the same history of women seeking to define men as non-people, it's not an issue?

ok. so you are born a male (genetically) and you decide for whatever reason that you want to be female (genetically).

everyone agrees this is impossible, yes?

so. you are born a male (genetically) and you decide for whatever reason that you want to be a woman (given you cant be a female genetically).

this is transgender, yes? (very simple i know. sorry for that)

so then the argument is what makes a woman a woman? according to men (because that is what this is about surely, given its all already been defined and enshrined in law an everything?) it is a bunch of secondary sexual characteristics (boobs, no penis) and a whole lot of social constructs.

females may understandably take offence at this.

i dont see how challenging the above is in any way PHOBIC of transgender.

i also dont see why being transgendered means that we have to expand what it means to be female. why cant it expand what it means to be male. wouldnt that actually make more sense?

tortoise, this is not about the individual trans-people, it's about re-defining women.
I'm not an expert on trans-gender women, but I remember watching a film, directed and produced by men, and the subject was a woman with gender dysphoria who lived her life as a man. When the men in her life found out, did they accept her as one of their own? No, they gang-raped her. Patriarchy thinks that's a perfectly acceptable way to treat trans-gender women and yet it has made a law whereby any man who says he is a woman must be regarded as one.

Now, considering that women are oppressed by patriarchy already, and that men are not oppressed by matriarchy, we are not starting from a level playing field.
Women, trans-gender women, and trans-gender males are all oppressed. But trans-gender males must acknowledge the gender history of the people they claim to be. But we find that rather than falling down on their knees thanking the work of feminists for everything they've done for women over the years, as women with feminist consciousness do, they appear to have caused a split among feminists, and want women to pledge alliegance to them, rather than be prepared to accept that some women are not yet ready to have their sex completely erased, when the point of feminism is to make it acceptable to belong to a sex without having to subscribe to all the social contructs of its gender.

Frik, thanks for saying in one post what I have attempted to say in..5 pages

Sakura - so much to comment on and so little time.

For starters:

"they [trans women] appear to have caused a split among feminists, and want women to pledge alliegance to them"

Where is your evidence for this allegation towards trans women?

From a trans-gender male:

"Feminists - even prominent ones with big platforms to shout from - do not get to be the gatekeepers of what is and is not female, what is and is not feminine, any more than patriarchal apologists do."

theFword

And can you please stop shrieking words like "evidence" "allegation" "libel" "bigot" when we are all here discussing what it means to be female.
And rather than picking the minutest holes in my argument, can you PLEASE put your own argument forward as to why it's acceptable for womento be regarded as a non-sex and "other", but not acceptable for trans-gender males.
Isn't it just because women are the weaker target, overall, and because of their reconciliatory nature, they're more likely to accept other people's definition of them?
I answered your last question, please answer mine.

Sakura - you are quoting the words of Laurie Penny who is a cis woman.

"And can you please stop shrieking words like "evidence" "allegation" "libel" "bigot" when we are all here discussing what it means to be female."

'Shrieking' - very good Sakura! You will be calling me hysterical next...

The rest of your comment makes no sense and as such there is nothing to respond to.

Okay, I apologize for saying the article was by a trans-woman. I did read an article on the F word, along the same lines, that was by a trans-woman, which I shall search for. Women are often employed to do the dirty work of men for them.

"The rest of your comment makes no sense and as such there is nothing to respond to. "

That's like saying you don't believe in science. It's very scary to hear your detractors saying they don't believe in science.
Science is very social because it provides evidence that all human beings can relate to and draw their own conclusions from. If you don't believe in science, then yes, you can probably get away with believing whatever you like, without having to provide evidence in your favour.

nah, i am just summarising YOU, it makes me look like i have an origional thought when really, not so much...lol

A measure of how deeply you understand something is the extent to which you're able to explain it in a simple way )

Interesting..
Sakura,I've read the link and actually I agree with the author - I'm not sure that a self selected group of women should get to decide what is female/feminine.Don't think the patriarchy should either - or women as a whole,because of outside influences...it's a puzzle.

I also think that the argument that trans women being accepted as female results in women being regarded as non-sex and other is invalidated by the existence of trans men - this is a symmetrical thing, isn't it - not a male plot to infiltrate womenkind.How do you feel about trans men being accepted as male?

I thought the comments in the link about the pressure on trans women to adopt stereotypical feminine behaviour, dress etc was valid - the ideas of "what women are like" are out there in society,and create pressure on cis women,so how much more on people who are already going against what society expects them to be? (does that make sense??)

I?ve had an interesting conversion this morning with a trans woman friend of mine in real life. It?s helped me clarify several things about transfeminism in my own mind. However, I still have some questions I would like to explore.

I believe most feminists would say gender is ?woman? and sex is ?female?. Surgery used to be known as "sex change" but is now known as "gender reassignment" making it consistent with this viewpoint. I'm surprised that we have transfeminist viewpoints on this thread frequently using the term ?female?, when I would have expected to see "woman". This includes statements such as ?Trans women are born as women, labelled at male (sic). They have been and always will be female.? and ?trans women are born female, they have always been female.? (both comments from earwicga)

The lack of rigour with which these terms are being used is confusing me because I don?t know whether the transfeminist approach is actively advocating the mixing and matching at will of gender and sex terms (a policy change away from the sex/gender distinction currently in wide use) or if it is just careless/casual use of the terms (forgivable human frailty).

What it is to be female and/or a woman is central to all branches of feminism. Therefore confusion needs to be resolved before feminists in particular, and society in general, can have meaningful discussion on who is and isn?t a woman or a female and why. i.e. setting out the ground rules. I seek clarity not confusion. Any takers?

For background reading

Gender identity ? from Wikipedia

?Many people consider themselves to be cisgendered, that is, belonging to either the man or woman gender corresponding to their biological sex of male or female. Before the 20th century a person's sex would be determined entirely by the appearance of the genitalia, but as chromosomes and genes came to be understood, these were then used to help determine sex. Those defined as women, by sex, have genitalia that is considered female as well as two X chromosomes; those viewed as men, by sex, are seen as having male genitalia, one X and one Y chromosome. However some individuals have combinations of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that do not follow the traditional definitions of "men" and "women". In addition, genitalia vary greatly or individuals may have more than one type of genitalia, and other bodily attributes related to a person's sex (body shape, facial hair, high or deep voice, etc.) may or may not coincide with the social category, as woman or man. Recent research suggests that as many as one in every hundred individuals may have some intersex characteristic. Because of this reality, everyone is located on a continuum of biological sex, and gender as well.?

Yes I would like clarity on the definition of a female person, taking into account the specific and unique child-bearing capabilities of XX females, which should not be trivialised by being placed on a general continuum of humanity. It is the devaluation of this, and of XX females in general, that irks me. But seeing as I abhorr the notion of a female who has not borne children, or who cannot, being lumped into a general continuum of otherness either, I would like the definition of to take into account the emotional life of any XX-born female--because these people experience a particular type of oppression stemming from misogyny.

"How do you feel about trans men being accepted as male?"
The question you have to ask, is how to men feel about this? They reject it, but not on the same basis that I do. I am not rejecting trans-gendered people on the basis that we can't expand what it means to be men or women. The elephant in the living room is that today, in society, the MALE is the status quo, and the female is relegated to the other. This is what I mean when I say women are already regarded as "other" and not-quite-as-human-as-men.

I feel that trans women need to be very sensitive about this issue, because they must take into account the history of ongoing abuse and oppression that feminists have had to contend with. I think that is all I am asking for. Sensitivity.

And, yes, trans-women experience oppression but that is at the hands of patriarchy.

But there are certain issues that only XX women will ever face, which comes directly from misogyny.

So...I would like to know how much misogyny trans-women experience. Misogyny is a very specific kind of hatred (which could be based on women's ability to bear life: Domestic violence against women increases when they are pregnant, for example.)

Damn, I wrote this whole long post about the nexus between sex and gender. It was very insightful. But I lost it.

Sakura, I do realise that you aren't talking about the individuals, but the reason I am is because in your argument against the patriarchy, it has seemed to me that you're willing to throw trans women under the bus, in that you have said you do not want trans women to be included in the category of Gender: Woman. I think trans women are excluded and discriminated against enough, without being asked to create a third gender identity. As you said yourself, actual individual trans women face sexual violence as a result of their status.

BUT in your last few posts you seem to be saying something a little different - that you just want an acknowledgement from trans women that they are seeking to 'enter' a state that is historically linked with oppression, and that oppression is linked to the biological fact of femaleness (childbearing, etc)? And then it follows that the fact that they are seeking to be recognised as having the sexual and gender identity of women despite not having the chromosomal and genital makeup of women, and the chromosomal and genital makeup of women is the root cause of their oppression - that insistence is, in and of itself, ignoring the basis of women's oppression.

Is that right? I'm sorry to go on at length, I'm having trouble understanding. And am not succinct.