Guest post: Reading Whipping Girl 2
Guest post by Lady Mondegreen.
Hello again. I’m back with another installment of Reading Whipping Girl.
Last time I discussed Serano’s definition of gender, which appears in the first chapter of her book. Now, I’m going to take a look at her Trans Woman Manifesto, which precedes the first chapter.
Trans Woman Manifesto
This Manifesto calls for the end of the scapegoating, deriding, and dehumanizing of trans women everywhere.
I’m with her so far, (unless “no deriding” means “no criticizing,” as it so often does with trans activists).
No qualifications should be placed on the term ‘trans woman’ based on a person’s ability to ‘pass’ as female, her hormone levels, or the state of her genitals—
Wait, hold on.
So, no qualifications at all, then? Beyond “I say so”?
What might that mean for non-trans women out here in the Real World?
Some of you reading this may be unaware of it, but since Serano wrote this Manifesto in 2007, her insistence that “no qualifications should be placed on the term ‘trans women’” has become law in many places. It can be trivially easy for a person, be he ever so bearded and be-penised, to claim trans womanhood, and thus womanhood, and thus gain legal access to any and all women’s spaces. Bathrooms. Changing rooms. Sports teams. Homeless shelters. This video by Magdalen Berns provides some pertinent references.
Moving on–
—after all, it is downright sexist to reduce any woman (trans or otherwise) down to her mere body parts or to require her to live up to certain societally dictated ideals regarding appearance.
This here? This right here? This belongs in the dictionary next to the word “specious”.
A definition does not “reduce” the thing defined. If we agree, for the purposes of argument, that a “webbis”* is a tabby cat who misbehaves, we are not “reducing” certain cats to their coat patterns or their behavior. We understand that there is more to any given cat who belongs in the class “webbis” than her stripes or her predilection for stealing human treats.
Likewise, if we define “man” as “an adult person whose gonads produce sperm rather than ova” we are not reducing men to sperm-carrying vessels. Got it?
This claim that defining “woman” using biological markers “[reduces women] down to [their] mere body parts” is blatant bullshit. It needs to be pointed, laughed, and shouted at until it slinks off the public stage to sit in a corner and think about what it did.
You want to argue that the class of people signified by the word “woman” should include include trans women? Make that argument. Don’t avoid it with sophistry.
OK, moving on a bit further. After claiming that trans women are the most maligned among sexual minorities, Serano says:
“Trans women are…ridiculed and despised because we are uniquely positioned at the intersection of multiple binary gender-based forms of prejudice: transphobia, cissexism, and misogyny.”
Serano defines transphobia, and then cissexism:
While all transgender people experience transphobia, transsexuals additionally experience a related (albeit distinct) form of prejudice: cissexism, which is the belief that transexuals’ identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals (i.e., people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned). The most common expression of cissexism occurs when people attempt to deny the transsexual the basic privileges that are associated with the trans person’s self-identified gender. Common examples include the purposeful misuse of pronouns or insisting that the trans person use a different public restroom. The justification for this denial is generally founded on the assumption that the trans person’s gender is not authentic because it does not correlate with the sex they were assigned at birth. In making this assumption, cissexists attempt to create an artificial hierarchy. By insisting that the trans person’s gender is “fake,” they attempt to validate their own gender as “real” or “natural.” This sort of thinking is extraordinarily naïve, as it denies a basic truth: We make assumptions every day about other people’s genders without ever seeing their birth certificates, their chromosomes, their genitals, their reproductive systems, their childhood socialization, or their legal sex. There is no such thing as a “real” gender—there is only the gender we experience ourselves as and the gender we perceive others to be. (Note: If you haven’t read my previous post on WG, you may want to read it now; it deals with Serano’s murky definition of “gender.”)
Be gender what it may, though, what people “make assumptions every day about” is other people’s SEX. It’s true that we do this without seeing their birth certificates, etc., but 98.3% of the time** we don’t have to—humans are pretty sexually dimorphic and most of the time we can successfully sex each other at a glance. Of course, we also rely on certain conventional cues to do this—clothes, hairstyles—but if we all went about naked we wouldn’t need those at all.
But, per Serano, cissexists are attempting to create an “artificial hierarchy” between real and fake genders, whatever those are exactly, by insisting that biological sex is a meaningful category. The dastards.
The “justification for this denial” (of access to restrooms, etc.) is not about validating anyone’s subjective feelings of “gender”. It’s about sex. It’s about the fact that male people are generally bigger and stronger than female people, and the fact that, sadly, a significant percentage of them will sexually harass or predate on women given the chance. It’s about the fact that there are times when female people need to be apart from male people, for privacy, or safety, or to play sports.
Trans women are not being kept down by an artificial hierarchy invented to make non-trans people feel better about their genders.
Whew. I’m only on page three of Serano’s 9 page Manifesto. This may take a while.
* Word stolen from Shirley Arthur Jackson
** Per the Intersex Society of North America, which estimates that 1.7% of the population is intersex.
I must be stuck in a previous terminological era, when we said “sex” was biological and “gender” was cultural or psychological. “Sex” is the hardware, “gender” the software. Now it seems that sex and gender are the same thing. Except when they’re not?
Ben –
Is “woman” a gender or is “woman” a sex?
Is a “woman’s room/space/doctor/sport” a gender thing or a sex thing?
I think this whole disgusting discussion could have been totally avoided if trans women had declared themselves trans fem(inine)s, so instead of wanting access to bathrooms/sports/gynecologists(sarcasm), they could be demanding access to, say, Mary Kay conventions and knitting circles and scrapbooking/stamping/whatever the favorite feminine pastime is these days.
To most English speaking folks, woman = sex and the interests/behaviors and appearance associated with that sex. That is, what has been declared as ‘feminine’ (which fluctuates over time, etc).
To radical feminists and middle aged tomboys like me, woman = sex/genitalia/whether or not you have to worry about ovarian cancer or prostate cancer. (yeah, someone’s going to point out that folks without either still fit the categories, and most do, so sex assigned at birth or whatever closely resembling that will work).
To trans women, woman = gender, except when it doesn’t and it just means “I feel like a woman and it’s what inside that counts, not appearance or behavior”.
Personally, I want to identify as a billionaire, and I demand access to all the places the billionaires can go to that exclude non-billionaires without regards to my total lack of billions. I’m a billionaire and should be treated like a billionaire and I’ll have you arrested if you mis-economic class me!
Ben, it’s convenient for Julia Serano’s purposes to blur the distinction between “sex” and “gender”, and so she does. Repeatedly.
And trans activists everywhere do the same whenever it suits them. If you google, you can find any number of earnest young gendertrenders explaining that sex is a social construct and trans women are biologically female.
Millionaires just want to feel better about their millionaire identity by denying you the associated privileges, cazz. It’s an artificial hierarchy.
“Vertebrate? Vertebrate? How dare you, I am more than just my skeleton!”
There is a very simple thought here which Serano will not face.
The word ‘woman’ has two meanings. The first is an adult female human. This carries the assumption that you began with one set of genitalia – whether or not they are still functional, whether or not you ever used them, whether or not you’ve had the lot removed at some stage for whatever reason and there are several. This not something you’d need to be checking out in day to day conversation.
The other meaning is that you are fulfilling a particular social role. This is more tricky because that role changes from place to place and over time but is not impossible to incorporate that very changeability into one’s world view, with just a little effort.
This ‘cissexism’ of which she complains is no such thing. It is good, old-fashioned misogyny. A trans person may be disparaged – disparaged to the point of mrdering them – because they either started off as a woman in the biological sense or because they prefer to adopt the social and aesthetic role of woman. And good luck them, say I.
Not only does this whole notion display a complete failure to grasp biology, etymology and the whole complement of the social sciences but it does a great disservice to those of us who are totally accepting of people, as individuals, in the social role in which they present themselves but have no plan either to rewrite the biology textbooks or to set up some sort of genitalia police to go around checking people out.
The situation now is neither explained nor helped by the apparently sudden appearance of people who are claiming the benefits of both roles, in both the biological and the social dimensions. They define ‘woman’ to suit their own political purpose, albeit an odd one, then they try to bully the rest of into accepting it. To put that more plainly, they want to be accepted as women (no problem!) and then want to tell us how to be women, something we’ve been working on for quite some time, with tested methodologies and tested analyses. To disinter an elderly phrase, this is false consciousness. It is also a pain in the arse to deal with on an almost daily basis.
“Wait. Hold on.” Exactly the response I have to just about everything Serano posits.
I cannot see how we can logically arrive at the premise “everyone decides what their sex/gender is” but we still call everyone by gender specific terms.To me the logical result of “bodies don’t matter, gender presentation doesn’t matter” is “no sex/gender binary”. We would all be “hen”, the Swedish gender neutral term. No-one would be trans or not-trans; we would just be our selves. We would use male/female to describe genitals and everyone could knock themselves out with long hair or buzzcuts, pants or dresses. A social good could be achieved by this. Everyone would benefit. Masculinity wouldn’t have to be predicated on repressing all feelings except for aggression; women wouldn’t be damned if they do or don’t do anything.
But this is not what activists like Serano envisage. They want to preserve gender role conformity. It’s really baffling. There’s no socially accepted definition of gender or sex; but only women have long hair and paint their fingernails. All the constraints on women to protect themselves from male violence are still in place.
Serano wants a solution that will work for her personally. She’s okay with keeping the baby and the bathwater, because changing the colour of the bath will work for her. She’s not really concerned how that pans out for everyone else.
I’d like to comment on Serano’s view of cis-sexism and how transphobia is worse than homophobia, but I’m not doing the guest post. I admire your tenacity Lady Mondegreen!
I have seen people talk about how their children af transgender, which might be true, but as evidence for this they site that a male child plays with dolls or likes to wear dresses.
But does this make one transgender? Not in my eyes, it is simply a child playing outsider the traditional gender roles, which in itself should not be considered as evidence of gender dysphoria.
And sure, if a girl wears pants and plays with cars, she is not so easily assumed to be gender dysphoric, since it is “normal” to do “boys” things, but for boys to do “girls” things, needs an explanation.
So when wellmeaning parents diagnose their children as sex dysphoric based on them acting like “girls” it makes me sad. It is good that we weaken the hold of social rules regarding what you can and cannot do based on your biological sex, but then we cling on to the gender roles by simply reassigning gender based on behaviour.
Unfortunately, this wouldn’t be very helpful in Scotland.
“Hen” is also a quite recent import from Finnish, which has only one linguistic genus. Now that is practical!
Long-time lurker, not very active in discussion anywhere these days, but had to drop a link to this opinion piece in the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/my-daughter-is-not-transgender-shes-a-tomboy.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
And yet she is asked by the pediatrician, by her teachers, by people who have known her for many years, if she feels like, or wants to be called, or wants to be, a boy.
In many ways, this is wonderful: It shows a much-needed sensitivity to gender nonconformity and transgender issues. It is considerate of adults to ask her — in the beginning.
But when they continue to question her gender identity — and are skeptical of her response — the message they send is that a girl cannot look and act like her and still be a girl.
She is not gender nonconforming. She is gender role nonconforming. She does not fit into the mold that we adults — who have increasingly eschewed millenniums-old gender roles ourselves, as women work outside the home and men participate in the domestic sphere — still impose upon our children.
What in the bloody blue blazes is a subconscious sex? How do you know if your subconscious sex does or does not align with your physical sex if your subconscious sex is, well, subconscious?
What happens if you’re not trans but you don’t “align” with the stereotypes and social expectations attached to your sex? Are you still “cis?”
None of this makes any dang sense.
Thank you, robin.
It seems a lot of these activists cannot picture such a scenario. If you don’t align with expectations, they will brand you trans. They’ve done that to several (dead) celebrities, such as Prince, who did not behave in a standard masculine manner.
In short, they get to define their own gender identity; then they get to determine the most appropriate gender identity for other people. They are the ones that declare me “cis”, not me. I am just a person, a woman who does some things that women are expected to do, and refuses to do other things that women are expected to do, because I determine my actions by my own likes and dislikes, and not those of society. And I suffered years of abuse as a child (and some as an adult) for not following the arrow that was painted for me to point unerringly toward womanhood.
But everyone falls outside the various, often conflicting, and usually irrational structures our society places upon us based on sex. Or gender. Or whatever. Yes, everyone. I am a vegan. I don’t like sports. Except baseball. I think hunting sucks. I hate shopping. I don’t own a comb. I like k-pop. I like dogs more than cats. Am I a man? I am. Always have been, and no one has ever questioned it. But, but, but… I don’t tick all the “man” boxes. Of course I don’t. No one does. We used to understand this. Now it’s controversial?
(*strictures)
Yup! Gender roles not being essential and naturally normative was only starting its long percolation through cultures based on the converse. When another bit of new, liberated thinking popped up – “hey, let’s not make life awful for people whose bits don’t match their sense of self!” – it got read too easily by too many in a way that required gender roles to BE essential somehow – and potentially mis-matched with the bits.
It’d be very, very good to have transactivism that does not reinforce the ideas that drive any woman (at least) back into the kitchen or out of the Woman Club and still gives everyone with some problems with how society (or a naïve view of their bits) categorizes them sexually respectful, kind treatment that’s as supportive as can be without genuinely screwing other people to make it happen.
Yup, the Mormons of the activism world.
Ben @ 15 and 16, English being what it is, structures works nearly as well, but differently to strictures in this case.
Rob @ 19: Yeah, but my phone decided I meant “structures” when I didn’t, and I can’t let it think it’s the boss. (It’s the boss.)
@Holms #5
:D
@morganmine #12
She talks about that later in the book, and I do plan to discuss it in time. But, spoiler: she never does offer a clear definition, so one is left to speculate.
Lady Mondegreen, you are a “pseudo feminist”, thus all you say may be dismissed without a word. So there.
Ugh.
(FWIW, I read the full manifesto just now [not the first time], and there were times I thought, “what a mess!”, while there were moments when I thought, “hmmm, some subtlety there I hadn’t considered, point taken”.)
I like how that manifesto is closely followed by an essay guided by two questions:
“(1) Whom and what do I touch when I touch my dog? (2) How is “becoming with” a practice of becoming worldly?”
Good bedfellows in silliness.