A quintessentially female experience
Lane Florsheim on What Happens When Trans Women Lose Their Male Privilege.
Two months after she transitioned to female, Deirdre McCloskey found herself having a quintessentially female experience. She was chatting with fellow economics professors at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, all of whom happened to be men. She was attempting to make an argument, but no one seemed to be listening. A few minutes later, a male professor articulated the same idea. “What a great point, George!” others exclaimed.
Welcome to the wonderful world of being female.
“A lot of trans women are aware that there is male privilege before we transition–that women are not treated with as much respect as men,” says Julia Serano, author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. “But there’s a big difference between knowing privilege exists and the literal experience of losing it.”
And there’s a big difference between having privilege and losing it.
The transgender women we spoke with cited a litany of new challenges on the other side of their transition, which will be painfully familiar to the cisgender women reading it: getting talked down to, getting talked over, getting catcalled in the street, getting dismissed in the workplace, and so on.
Dear “and so on.” It covers so much.
With their unique perspective of gender relations, some in the trans community actually find themselves sympathizing with men. “I think there’s a lot of what I’d call female privilege, too,” Dr. Bowers adds. “A man is never trusted like a woman is trusted: by strangers, children. When men deal with each other, there’s a certain distance they keep. There’s a sisterhood and a safety among women, and it’s a very helpful feeling.”
I think that’s true. One thing I’ve gotten from puzzling about gender and how I experience it and whether I would have been or considered being trans if the option had been as visible when I was a child in the 19th century as it is now – one thing I’ve gotten from that is a sharper awareness that I wouldn’t want to be a man. I could put it “I wouldn’t want to be a man either” because I don’t exactly want to be a woman (either) – but anyway, it doesn’t appeal, and what Bowers says makes sense to me. The idea of choosing to be a man feels to me a bit like choosing to be Charles Windsor – like signing up to a whole lot of duty and responsibility you don’t particularly want. That thought has caused me to sympathize with men more, however odd that may sound.
It would seem that the key to all this lies in a less rigid gender binary. Being male doesn’t mean you’re unworthy of trust. Being female doesn’t mean you’re unworthy of speaking. “I’ve had people say to me, ‘You shouldn’t be reinforcing traditional gender roles that hold women back. Why are you encouraging a ‘feminine’ response to certain things?'” says Dr. Bowers. “But the point is that womanhood should be able to express itself in every possible way, not just the pre-defined ways. I think if there were more expressions of what it means to be a woman—in all its forms—the world would be a better place.”
And so should manhood. The whole thing should be much more various and less predictable, so that all the attempts at policing would just become meaningless. “Man up” would stop being a phrase, and “cunt” would stop being the ultimate pejorative. That would be good.
I have heard women talk about how men interrupt them.
I’ve even tried to make a comment.
But they interrupt me.
—-
People interrupt each other, it’s very rude no matter what and everyone.
Men interrupt men. AND women.
Women interrupt women AND men.
Etc etc
Women in my demographic — white, middle class, 50s-60s, — interrupt men as much as men do it.
—-
It would be interesting to know if anyone has ever done some sort of empirical research on the matter.
As to pejoratives, is “cunt” really any worse than “prick”?
I find them more or less interchangeable.
(In white, middle-clas, 50-60s demographic.)
Deborah Tannen has conducted research on this question. Men interrupting women is well documented and much more common than women interrupting men. Her work is very accessible, if you Google her name.
Anonymous, you are incorrect about cunt, also.
1. I may be living in a more enlightened locale as women and men both interrupt about the same amount, which is too much in any case. It’s annoying and rude. That’s my experience.
2. Thank you for your decisive yet meaningless response answer about cunts and prices.
Yes, “cunt” is very much worse than “prick.” Have you experimented with saying each in different social situations? I’m pretty sure you would detect the difference if you did.
Note: that is not to say “prick” is ok; I’ve stopped using words for genitals as pejoratives in general.
On ‘wanting to be’ of any gender. How can anyone ‘want’ an identity that is constructed outside themselves? Yes, biological gender exists, but each person only experiences it within themselves. Except that our gender put us into gender apartheid from the Pink/Blue onesies to the Penthouse/Cosmo sexual conditioning.
Dawkins’ line about religion is a near fit for this. No child is born Muslim or Catholic or Jain. No boy is born macho, no girl is born ‘valley.’
No I haven’t experimented.
Don’t like to use either term.
What difference do you see?
If I were to use them I would use them for the appropriate sex, that is, if a woman is being a jerk I’d refer to her as cunt, if a man as a prick.
But I don’t see that they have much different meaning.
Anyway, Anonymous (that’s not a very helpful nym for the long haul, you know) – you do realize there are various cognitive biases and motivated reasoning errors and just plain fallibility that mean you probably don’t know that women and men in your circle interrupt equally, don’t you?
Anonymous @ 8 – it’s not that they have different meaning – it’s that they have different connotations, different social weight, different levels of shock-value. Just ask tv censors, they’ll tell you.
Or to put it another way, you don’t need to point out the obvious (like the fact that one is for women and the other is for men). You can assume we’re familiar with the obvious and go on from there.
Also…”cunt” does not mean “a woman is being a jerk.”
i guess I don’t see much difference between the two (prick or cunt) and yes a female jerk can be characterized as a cunt.
Btw, where does “dick” come into the scale?
And clearly, a “pussy” has an entire other “less-than-male” meaning.
I’m not sure I’ve experienced that “women are more trusted”. Of course, I personally trust no one, but that is the natural outcome of being an abused child. But I do think that women walk on eggs around other women a lot; the “sisterhood” has a lot of jockeying for position, a lot of backbiting, and a lot of distrust of those around you. I think that may be more a perception than a reality.
That is just my perceptions; I don’t have any research to back that up, other than watching both women and men as an outsider my whole life.
No a female jerk cannot be characterized as a cunt. Try it on your women friends, you’ll see.
Very few of my women friends are jerks so why would I ever refer to her as a cunt?
Sometimes, every now and then, one of them can be a jerk, and therefore cuntish.
But I try to avoid people like that so little experience.
You ignored my point. “Cunt” does not mean “female jerk”; if it did it would be far more socially acceptable than it is. You could confirm this by using it the way I suggested.
For that matter you could just call me a cunt. I’m sure I’m being a jerk by your lights in not taking your provocations as amusing banter.
iknlast – I doubted that claim at first too but then it seemed he meant trust physically – not to get violent or rapey, in other words.
I didn’t ignore you.
I was making light by responding to your literal but inexact suggestion.
A more precise way would to have suggested something like “Ask a woman friend for her opinion about the word.”
No, I wouldn’t call you a cunt.
I didn’t say you ignored me, I said you ignored my point.
God this is futile, and it’s largely derailed the thread. Basta.
Sorry about that.
But conversations can’t be lead and forced, even by the person who starts it.
That is what happens among humans:
One thing leads to another.
And all I did was respond by asking what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question.
Anyway, bye..
Anonymous2015 is male. Maybe his whole performance on this thread was meant to illustrate the way men as a class tend to interrupt and talk over and patronize women.
How do you get that? I asked you questions which responded to your own statement.
I did not interrupt nor patronize.
That was neither my intention not any reasonable interpretation.
If you think humor or disagreement is patronizing then…what can I say.
I am very sorry you take my remarks amiss.
Ophelia, how do you reason that the poster “anonymous” is a male?
Also, why would you declare your suspicion openly? I felt that was a little bit – oh, I know “creepy” means something larger than this, but I also do not know what work to use to indicate something on the same scale but lower – as soon as I read it. No biggie in the grand scheme, you know, but…it rang some kind of bell for me.
“when I was a child in the 19th century”
I don’t know where you find the energy to blog so much at 115+ years old!
In the UK, cunt is definitely more akin to calling a man a ‘prick’. It’s still a strong swear, but it has a much heavier connotation in the US.
Pat Keegan I don’t “reason” that the poster “Anonymous” is a male, I know he is, from information in the sign-in. I didn’t “declare [my] suspicion openly” because it’s not a suspicion. I assume it’s not a secret because the poster didn’t conceal it. I don’t think there’s anything creepy about it.
Depends on whom you ask in the UK.
#21 “Anonymous2015 is male. Maybe his whole performance on this thread was meant to illustrate the way men as a class tend to interrupt and talk over and patronize women.”
ha.
Indeed. I clicked on the post and saw “27 comments” and thought, “oh there’s probably an interesting discussion going on here.” Turns out, not so much.
Anyway, quoted in the original post: “It would seem that the key to all this lies in a less rigid gender binary.” Yes, it would sure seem so.
Ophelia@26: unless there is a way to sign in beyond the route I took (username, email address, away you go), then I do not see how you could “know he is” from sign-in information. Disregarding the possibility that he signed in with the username JeffreyMcTestosterone@menlymen.com, the commenter may be:
1) A cis man.
2) A trans man.
3) A cis woman with a non-traditional name given to her by her parents.
4) A woman with a traditionally non-gender specific name given to her by her parents (*hi!*).
5) A cis/trans man using the computer of their cis/trans female partner, with field autofill enabled in the browser.
6) An androgyne who at that time used (one of) their male-presenting email address(es).
I could go on, but I am already boring myself! The point is, you have no idea of the identity of people like Anonymous, never mind their gender. I hate to be a ranter, so perhaps I should leave it there, where you can choose to meditate or not upon my thoughts.
A man is never trusted like a woman is trusted: by strangers, children.
Maybe someone should alert all those women forcibly exposed to an increased morbidity/mortality by politicians and a government who don’t trust them to make their own medical decisions about their inherent trustworthiness.
And others. Pretending you believe that other people are making spurious assumptions so that you may needle isn’t compelling.
Pat Keegan @ 29 – That’s fascinating, but you don’t know everything I know. You jumped to the conclusion that I simply assumed “Anonymous” is male based on the name in the email address. That conclusion is quite wrong. You have no idea what you’re talking about, so you should probably stop talking about it.
I tend to think of gender in terms of family resemblance. I’m speaking here to the subject of being male, since that’s what I know. But I think much of the following would be analogous with other gender specifications too.
There is no one ‘male’ or one ‘masculinity’. There are many. Essentially, everyone who identifies as male is going to be their own specific example of what it means to be a man. The average of all of these informs cultural perceptions of what it means to be a man. Those cultural perceptions then go on to influence the individual men, and so the cycle continues.
My favorite example of the differences between how people view masculinity is from my dance classes. I do Latin and Ballroom. I really enjoy leading, it feels very manly to me. However, I have known men who think that dancing of any kind is unmanly. Let’s assume an individual man named Dave. Dave does not like dancing, it makes him feel unmanly.
This could put me into a problem. If the definition of ‘man’ includes ‘does not like to dance’, and I like to dance, then it would follow that I am not a man. So should I stop identifying as a man, because I like to dance? That seems wrong-headed, precisely because dancing a lead role makes me feel manly.
On the other hand, switching it around the other way doesn’t help matters either. If the definition of ‘man’ includes ‘does like to dance’, and Dave does not like to dance, does it follow that that Dave should stop identifying as a man? That seems equally wrong-headed, precisely because dancing a lead role makes that him feel unmanly.
I think that it is better to relax the definition of what it means to be a man, and family resemblance categorization is a really good way to do that. It means that both myself and Dave are both male, without ambiguity. One or the other of us may be a better example of a man based on where the perceived average of ‘maleness’ happens to rest. But we can still both be men, even though we will likely both have differences from that average point.
So if we assume a culture in which the view of ‘male’ is that men don’t enjoy dancing. With family resemblance categorization, I am still a male even though I don’t adhere perfectly to that average point.
This can tie in with being transgender if we consider the biological reproductive equipment with which someone happens to be equipped along similar lines. Just as I am no less a man because I enjoy dancing, someone else should be considered no less a man because they happen to lack a penis.
I don’t think that this conception is necessarily a perfect way to see things. There’s likely problems. But I find it a useful way to think about many categories, particularly gender expression.
For anyone reading who finds this interesting, Stephen Pinker discusses family resemblance categories very accessibly here.