A category that functions to establish and reinforce inequality
Robert Jensen on sex, gender and patriarchy, from June 2014.
Today’s existing sex-role differentiation is the product of a patriarchal society based on male dominance. In that system, males are socialized into patriarchal masculinity to become men, and females are socialized into patriarchal femininity to become women.
In patriarchy, sex-role differentiation supports male power and helps make the system’s domination/subordination dynamic seem natural and normal. Moral, intellectual, and emotional traits are assigned differentially to each sex, creating what we today typically call gender roles. This patriarchal system of control—which is complex, adapting to changing conditions and to resistance—is designed to justify and perpetuate male dominance.
I’m not sure “designed” is the right word there, since it’s not really designed at all in the ordinary understanding of the word. “Functions to” maybe?
The gender roles in patriarchy are rigid, repressive, and reactionary. These roles constrain the healthy flourishing of both males and females, but females experience by far the most significant psychological and physical injuries from the system.
In patriarchy, gender is a category that functions to establish and reinforce inequality.
Ah look, he said “functions to” himself. Better.
Anyway – yes, and that’s why the claims that gender is a precious essence or an inner feeling or an identity are so dubious.
In contemporary culture, “radical” is often used dismissively as a synonym for “crazy” or “extreme.” In this context, it describes an analysis that seeks to understand, address, and eventually eliminate the root causes of inequality.
Radical feminism opposes patriarchy and male dominance. Radical feminism, which challenges the naturalizing of the process by which patriarchal societies turn male/female into man/woman, rejects patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender roles.
And now that whole project is being relentlessly and steadily demonized by people who want to embrace gender roles instead of rejecting them.
It’s sad.
Has anyone called Robert Jensen a transphobe, accused him of denying their humanity, no-platformed him, or invited him to die in a fire?
Good question. I’m sure there’s some difference between Robert Jensen and your average “TERF” that would lead to his being exempt from abuse. I can’t put my finger on it, though.
What could it be, what could it be.
There should be a natural alliance between radical feminists and non-binary trans people. Both groups oppose the gender binary.
Cressida,
Are you sure you want to put your finger on it?
Ophelia, trans people seeking medical treatment are often *required* to embrace strong gender roles in order to be considered trans-enough to receive treatment. From what I have heard (though not yet seen) some of them are more relaxed about gender roles several years later, to the point that some trans women adopt a ‘butch’ presentation, and some trans men adopt some femme aspects.
So to be clear, you are saying that transgender people don’t actually exist (in the sense that there’s no such thing as being “transgender”)? That their sense of gender identity is mistaken, because gender identity itself cannot be innate but is an invention of patriarchy functioning specifically to oppress women?
Because if so: Medscape.com/viewarticle/840538
“Gender roles” =/= “gender identity”
I’m certainly not going to invite him to “die in a fire” and hurl abuse at him, but I do think this article by Jensen is filled with anti-scientific and transphobic rubbish (ludicrously, he went on to compare the “success of the transgender movement” to “failure to address climate change” in a follow-up article to this one: dissidentvoice.org/2014/09/ecological-and-social-implications-of-trans-and-climate-change/). (Incidentally, following the publication of this article his books were removed from an Austin store and he was disinvited from future speaking events there (medium.com/@JosephCaterine/a-safe-space-for-all-transphobia-in-austin-tx-eeaebaf19309#.qr14iej9n).)
Going through the article in the original post piece by piece, including parts that weren’t highlighted:
I’m not familiar with the book by Michael Schwalbe, but I am with Sheila Jeffreys’ “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism.” Jeffreys subscribes to Ray Blanchard’s theory that transgender women are autogynephiles: men with sexually deviant fetishes for “becoming” women. In the book she personally attacks individual trans women, such as Julia Serano, who wrote about Jeffreys’ attacks on her here (advocate.com/commentary/2014/08/05/op-ed-open-letter-new-yorker) in an open letter to Michelle Goldberg last year. The theory of “autogynephilia” is completely and fundamentally flawed scientifically – see these links:
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241
learningtrans.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/serano-agreview-ijt.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032 (applying the theory of “autogynephilia” to a sample of cis women resulted in the finding that 93% would be identified as autogynephiles!)
Advocating this as a “helpful” book for “those concerned about the harms that result from the imposition of traditional gender roles but do not embrace the ideological assumptions of the transgender movement” is along the same lines as advocating books about gay people being sexual deviants “for those who do not embrace the ideological assumptions of the gay rights movement.” Here’s a sample of Jeffreys’ insulting and misgendering of Serano in her book: “[Julia] Serano seeks to reinvent ‘feminism’ to fit his erotic interests. Since he is turned on by the accoutrements of femininity, he is angry that many feminists are critical about it.”
Jensen briefly acknowledges that intersex individuals exist, but then goes on to state he will ignore them for the sake of his argument that sex is clearly defined and strictly binary. This is on increasingly shaky ground (nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943). Some researchers now believe that as many as 1 in 100 people have some form of DSD (“difference of sex development,” or intersex conditions). There are in fact intersex people who can bear and breastfeed children. When genetics are taken into account, the line becomes even blurrier.
Hundreds of cultures have recognized the existence of more than two gender identities. Legal systems in the west are slowly beginning to adapt to recognize the existence of intersex and non-binary people. One example: in April last year the high court of Australia recognized a third category of sex in addition to “male” and “female” (abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/high-court-recognises-gender-neutral/5361362).
Jensen’s failure to recognize the experiences of those who do not conform to this dichotomy ultimately ends up reinforcing exactly the kind of patriarchal system that he is seeking to destroy. In his view, there are two distinct sex categories, and everyone who is assigned male at birth grows up to be men, and everyone who is assigned female at birth grows up to be women. Jensen simply can’t comprehend how someone with male sexual characteristics can possibly identify as a woman, because his view is that the identity of “woman” is a purely fabricated concept designed to oppress those who are female, that gender categories themselves are patriarchal inventions, and that identifying as female when one has a “male body” or vice versa is something that belongs to the “realm of theology” (in his follow-up article comparing transgender people with, um, climate change: “If we were to assume there are distinctly male and female minds/souls/essences (a claim that is speculative, far beyond the reach of any current science, more in the realm of theology), what would it mean to say that one was born into a body in the wrong sex category, that one’s essence is out of sync with one’s body?”) – hence, he believes that “transgenderism” must be a political movement. Of course, this is contrary to the lived experiences of transgender people, whose very existence shatter this theory completely. It is also not out of the reach of science and in the “realm of theology”: there is more evidence to support the existence of at least some biological component of gender identity than there is to support Jensen’s view that gender identity is purely socially constructed (for example: Medscape.com/viewarticle/840538), in the same way that there is more evidence of some underlying biological component of sexuality than there is that it is completely socially determined.
On the contrary, Jensen absolutely minimizes the social and psychological struggles of transgender people and those who do not conform to patriarchal gender norms in his own article. For example:
Here, he characterizes sex reassignment surgery (why else would these paragraphs be in the article?) as a purely cosmetic change along the lines of nose jobs (misrepresenting the reality of transgender people’s lives entirely), and implies that it is dangerous (“destruction of healthy tissue”). His vague rebuttal, “such medical practices are part of a deeper problem in the industrial era of our failing to understand ourselves as organisms, shaped by an evolutionary history, and part of ecosystems that impose limits on all organisms” is more anti-scientific nonsense, a basic “appeal to nature” fallacy. “Nature” is not inherently perfect – indeed, we elect for surgery to correct all kinds of “natural” mistakes and limitations (diseases, cancers, etc). He goes on to express more concern about sex reassignment surgery for transgender people being publicly funded without ever properly articulating what these “serious public health questions” are:
Contrary to Jensen’s unsupported concerns, the majority of transgender people who elect for sex reassignment find that the outcome is beneficial (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24872188, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7006942.stm). The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association support the availability of sex reassignment procedures to those seeking it on the best possible evidence of its benefits (and that they also shouldn’t need surgery for their gender identity to be legally recognized – not every transgender person does feel that this is the best option for them). See, eg. psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/Position-2012-Transgender-Gender-Variant-Access-Care.pdf
One can counter this by considering the psychological distress inflicted by denying puberty blockers and forcing children to undergo puberty into the body that their brain fundamentally does not want. The pause is reversible, and gives children more time to decide what it is that they feel is best (cbsnews.com/news/transgender-teens-become-happy-healthy-young-adults/).
This is the line of reasoning that results in transgender women being barred from domestic violence and homeless shelters – a very real problem (still slowly being recognized and rectified: transequality.org/blog/ncte-applauds-federal-protections-for-transgender-survivors-of-violence/)
Again, “transgenderism” (what a word!) is not a political ideology any more than being gay! It’s a shame for Jensen that reality doesn’t happen to conform to his viewpoint.
Your medscape link requires login.
@ 7 Falcon
Holy fuck, that was a tour de force.
*applause*
People certainly experience dysphoria with regard to their bodies. Nobody here disputes that. The tendency to call it “gender” dysphoria, though, begs the question: what is gender, exactly? Is liking pink inherently female?
We’ve been discussing this for some time here; I won’t try and recap the entire discussion.
“Sexually deviant”? Really? Way to poison the well.
I have no idea if autogynephilia is a thing, (your links don’t work; I copypasta’d the ncbi link but the summary isn’t helpful–“ever”? “frequent”?–and it doesn’t address whether or not autogynephilia exists in or motivates trans women.) The harrassment directed at people who’ve written about the subject is enlightening, though.
Thanks for that; I should not have been so glib about it: men have certainly been harassed for expressing unpopular opinions about trans issues. J. Michael Bailey was hounded mercilessly; people tried to get him fired and lied about his work. The low point, though, was plumbed by trans activist Andrea James. Alice Dreger described James’s brave work on behalf of trans people:
http://alicedreger.com/in_fear
The Ontario, Canada Cetre for Addiction and Mental Health will close its gender identity clinic because it features counseling rather than just agreeing to a person’s self-assessed gender:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/camh-to-wind-down-controversial-gender-identity-clinic-services/article27766580/?cmpid=rss1
Well, at the link they call what they’ve been doing there “conversion therapy.” That sounds like more than just counseling.
“Watch and wait,” which the article says is current practice, while accepting the child, seems good to me; putting an emphasis on accepting the person however they present without being too quick to label them (since young kids may try on and discard identities.) Hopefully clinical practice doesn’t push trans gender theory. We can fight about that without thinking trans people need to be “fixed.”
Looks like CAMH’s Gender Identity Clinic was not practicing “conversion therapy” at all, and its critics painted a distorted and dishonest picture of what went on there.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html