The cis/trans binary is used to flip the hierarchy of oppression
That discussion about use of the word “TERF” at Daily Nous has generated a lot of useful comments – some useful for the horrible clarity with which they spell out that yes, women do indeed have privilege in relation to cis women while the reverse is most definitely not the case, and others for less tooth-grinding reasons.
For a top example of the latter there is Jane Clare Jones’s comment this morning on a thread about what is meant by “oppression” and how/whether it applies to women and/or trans women:
Homophobia is not a form of oppression, it is a form of discrimination, which arises as an adjunct of patriarchal oppression. The same is true of the discrimination against trans people. That is not to say that discrimination is not a form of limitation that affects people’s flourishing – it is. But it does mean that there is not a structural force which is invested in the maintenance of that limitation in the same way. If we compare the amount of progress we have made with respect to removing the discrimination against homosexuals, vs. the progress we have made with the liberation of women, I think that tells us something interesting. Male persons are invested in maintaining the oppression of women. It turns out that straight people, by and large, are not actually that invested in maintaining the discrimination against homosexuals, because it doesn’t impact their material privileges.
Straight people don’t (particularly) extract labor from homosexuals. Cue jokes about designers and florists, but the distinction is real.
Anti-semitism is a different case – because it has a rare and unusual structure. It is a prejudice against a group of people for their purported dominance, power, and the allegedly malign influence of that power. There is no material motivation for the oppression of Jewish people as a class by non-Jewish people. It is rather, an axiomatic form of scapegoating/auto-immune fear directed at people who are conceived to be foreigners inside the body politic.
The point here is that the nullification of women’s claims in this argument is entirely predicated on the idea that non-trans people are the oppressors of trans people, and the way the cis/trans binary is used to flip the hierarchy of oppression, and hence to position women’s concerns as analogous to racism. This is predicated on an incorrect reading of the structure of oppression. Both women and trans women are subject to limitations which arise as the result of patriarchal oppression. Women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and through the system of gender. Trans women are discriminated against because they do not conform to patriarchal gender norms which tie bodies to behaviours and expressions. That is, we have two groups facing limitations imposed by the same structural system, and we should deal with this as a rights conflict between two disadvantaged groups, not as act act of structural oppression by a dominant group against an oppressed group.
I find that immensely clarifying and helpful. I’ll just repeat the key bit in case y’all want to commit it to memory.
The point here is that the nullification of women’s claims in this argument is entirely predicated on the idea that non-trans people are the oppressors of trans people, and the way the cis/trans binary is used to flip the hierarchy of oppression, and hence to position women’s concerns as analogous to racism.
I agree. It crystalizes my rather less well-articulated opinion on the matter, that trans people are oppressed for the same reason women have been oppressed throughout history because being female is seen as ‘inferior’ or ‘other’ and that setting up this false dichotomy of ‘cis’ vs ‘trans’ is not only artificial, it fails to address the root cause.
Yes. And women being seen as inferior works against both trans women and trans men. Because trans women desert the “superior” sex and behave in ways seen as unbecoming to men. Trans men are naturally inferior to start because they are born women, and though they may get some boost from identifying as the dominant gender, it does not actually make them men – they remain women in nature.
The hatred directed at trans individuals is simply another manifestation of misogyny, and the trans activists don’t get that at all.
This is immensely clarifying and helpful–as far as I can determine, all systematic oppression is rooted in the need to justify one group benefiting from the goods and labour of another (making sexism and racism the ‘fundamental’ oppressions)–this is a good explanation of how bigotry based on sexuality or gender-nonconformity fits into that model and why it initially appears not to.
It’s not entirely correct, though: ‘There is no material motivation for the oppression of Jewish people as a class by non-Jewish people.’ Historically anti-Semitism justified non-Jews appropriating Jewish property, in the same way that persecuting witches allowed more powerful people to appropriate the property of unprotected women. Today it can be used to justify and facilitate removing or reducing the participation of Jewish people from competing with non-Jews for certain benefits (e.g. university admissions, access to certain jobs or networking opportunities) in the same way that misogyny and racism justify and facilitate removing or reducing the participation of women and non-white people.
That latter point has been on my mind the past few days–someone recently sent me the schedule of talks at the local university on topics relevant to my academic work. One is being given by someone I am acquainted with; my last interaction with him was pretty unpleasant for me, so I don’t think I would be comfortable attending the talk, even though it’s within my area of interest/expertise, and might provide not only learning opportunities but also opportunities to connect with other scholars working in the same area.
I realise this kind of thing has happened to me before, with more serious provocations and more serious consequences–at least once I was disinclined/unable to get involved in a set of projects at work that I am extremely competent in, which would have benefited both me and my company, because someone else working on these projects had physically threatened me (and another woman in the same room).
It’s a great scam–be aggressive or sexual once to a woman in a professional environment; she will remove herself, or be removed, and you’ve eliminated any competition she might pose to your own status and reputation. The man is always seen as more important/valuable than the woman–he usually already has higher status, but even if not he has ‘potential’, and we know that men are valued for ‘potential’ more than women are for demonstrated results:
https://www.science20.com/news_articles/in_hiring_simulation_male_potential_is_preferred_over_a_female_track_record-155376
so it will be the ‘troublemaking’ woman who needs to be transferred, or asked to leave. Quick and easy game, and works every time; it’s surprising really that more men don’t do it.
Argh. Yes.
How do we apply this insight in this particular case?
https://people.com/crime/online-threat-to-12-year-old-transgender-student-shuts-down-oklahoma-school/
So, what exactly is the *point* being made by defining oppression in this way (which excludes, for example, victims of genocide, if they didn’t have any property stolen from them, and weren’t forced into slave labour.) Like, it’s obviously supposed to be germane to some argument about exactly what spaces trans women should be allowed into, or some philosophical debate over whether trans women are ‘really women’. Or at least, in order to be obviously pertinent to a rational debate about the latter, it would presumably have to be function as a premise or a support for a premise in such an argument. But neither you, nor the quoted Daily Nous commentator actually specify any such argument, so it’s not clear why this particular definition of oppression is being brought up. (Surely not just because someone said ‘trans women are oppressed’ since they might simply be using a different reading of oppression that counts pervasive ‘discrimination’ against a class as oppression, in which case, merely insisting on your alternative definition doesn’t actually get us any further, by itself, in resolving the actual claims about who trans women are and what spaces they should be allowed into, that are supposed to be the subject of the dispute.) Which in turn does rather suggest that oppression might functioning for you, and the Daily Nous commentator as pretty much what nasty conservatives often claim it functions as in left discourse: a sort of special badge of honour and purity, to be jealously guarded, and denied to people you don’t like.
Why don’t you make an argument about why the fact that trans people aren’t subject to exploitation of labour and women apparently are, shows something salient about whether they are women/whether they should have access to women-only spaces.
By making women-only spaces open to anybody who claims to be a woman not only potentially compromises the safety of women, it negates the very idea of such spaces in the first place. It seems to me that forcing women to open their doors to all-comers is simply taking one more thing away from them, and if that isn’t oppressive I’ll eat my hat.
They say “Homophobia is not a form of oppression, it is a form of discrimination” and that “Trans women are discriminated against because they do not conform to patriarchal gender norms which tie bodies to behaviours and expressions.” but clearly note there needs to be a “structural force which is invested in the maintenance of that limitation in the same way” or in other words oppression.
I would say homosexuals were an oppressed group, there were structural forces such as laws against them meaning their human rights were limited, as there were for women. They are separating oppression and discrimination out as separate, and the use of the word homophobia suggests they are talking about social (informal) discrimination, rather than systematic legal discrimination of the group deriving from structural oppression. They then talk about those as if they are the same thing, the oppression of women is the same as social discrimination and ignoring the long and hard fight oppressed groups like women, homosexual people and those of oppressed ethnic groups had to fight to get equal treatment under the law and to get structural discrimination removed.
This is then used to act as if we are talking about conflicts between two oppressed groups, when in history this hasn’t happened, as they’ve only sought to be treated the same as anyone else in the population. In this case though, unlike before the “rights” demanded by one group directly conflict with hard won rights of another and this group even forces it’s own definition, not allowing the oppressed group to define themselves as distinct from others and able to refer to their biology as the source of their oppression. It’s nothing to do with how people dress or express themselves, it’s to do with being female. This is an act of an dominant group which never has experienced structural oppression over another group which did and which is still dealing with the long history of that. They may be discriminated socially against for being gender non-conforming but that is not the same thing, we are talking about men here and that they wish to break down women’s hard fought rights to participate in public live, of privacy, of safety and to meet together as a group. They certainly have flipped the hierarchy of oppression, no woman is actually refusing another female entry to the group, they are refusing men coming in but that is now positioned as being the same as the racist system of segregation where no black person, irrespective of sex was allowed access. I don’t think it works to try this sort of appeal, treating it as if there is a genuine conflict rather than seeing it for what it is and seeing how TERF is set up to specifically target women for attack.
Sorry, DM, but in what world have the victims of genocide not lost property to the people wiping them out?
[…] application of the analysis of oppression. With the fact that people have just lapped up the cis-trans binary and the claim that women are the ‘oppressors’ of trans people, and that their political […]
Sorry, but can you all explain how your “theories” of identity politics based oppression lattices* are not equally flipping the victimhood hierarchy for poor and other disadvantaged people? There are many poor people all over the place who will never enjoy the luxury to learn all the fancy sensibilities you have wrt identity politics, but who remain oppressed without support because you deem them to have the wrong skin color, sex or gender.
Your struggle with the trans activists is exactly the same as you yourself treat those arw non-female and disagree with your fancy stances. You use the same vile illogical methods.
* yes, when one uses intersection of sets, a mathematical structure called a lattice presents itself. That all the “theories” academics get off on using a formal sounding term like “intersectionality” without realizing they are discussing lattices and order theory is telling imho. (If you write a paper about this i demand credits.)