Splaining
Mischa Haider tells us how difficult it is being a trans woman with children. People look at her funny in the playground.
In these moments I am reminded how easily our worth as individuals, along with the bonds we form with our loved ones, can wither before the relentless gaze of society. That is the prison not only for transgender women and mothers but, I increasingly realize, for all women and mothers.
It’s interesting that she’s only now realizing that women are subject to social scrutiny and devaluation.
We inhabit a world in which we are seen as passive receptacles, defined by an oppressive normative gaze sharpened through millennia of misogynistic formulations long accepted as inarguable facts of nature. In this gaze, personhood is the realm of men, while the value of women resides in their physical bodies.
Yes, we do, but we already know that. Quite frankly we don’t need trans women explaining it to us. We already know it, and we know it better than trans women do. We haven’t been sitting around waiting for trans women to tell us about it all this time.
Transgender women occupy the fault line of this gender gulag. Our womanhood resides solely in who we are as persons, not in the set of physical attributes conventionally expected of our gender. Therefore, granting transgender women their womanhood is tantamount to granting women personhood.
No. No it is not. Our personhood does not depend on trans women.
I do not have the parts in flesh that are required of me in the patriarchal constructs to be accepted as mother. The uterus is prized more in this regime than the countless years of attentive engagement with babies that motherhood entails. Breast milk is hailed as liquid gold, while the hours of rocking and settling a newborn is mere detail.
Wow. What does that sound like? It sounds like MRAs raging at the mothers of their children. It sounds like misogynists trying to erase women from everything, even childbearing.
The post-birth care of infants is – obviously – not mere detail, but that doesn’t mean the extremely hard work of gestating and bearing a baby should be belittled, let alone erased. Breast milk is not “liquid gold” but then it wouldn’t be any use to infants if it were, would it. Nursing a baby isn’t something to sneer at.
Though there is no womb of flesh in my loins, there was a womb in my heart that carried all three of my children; my soul was pregnant with them though my body could not be. It is of little relevance to those who deem me unfit or incapable of motherhood that my young children know nothing of eggs and sperm, uteruses and labor; they know about cuddles and stories, diapers and creams, and my bottomless love.
But that’s true of fathers and of adoptive parents, too. Of course cuddles and stories and love matter; of course infants and children need them to thrive; of course they create bonds between parents and children. Haider is her children’s adoptive mother, which means she’s their mother. That’s how adoption works. There’s a strong social consensus that adoption is parenthood, and that mother and father are the right words to use. That does not, however, mean there never was any biological mother or father. Haider wants it to mean that.
I am a mother, and those with presuppositions to the contrary must lose them. I am the real, entire, and, in my case, only mother of my children.
No. Real, sure, entire, sure, but only, no. A woman or two or three carried those children and gave birth to them. She or they should not be erased.
Ah, Ophelia, that’s where you have it wrong. A uterus-haver gave birth to them; it is a woman that is raising them. Because uterus-havers must be defined by their biological parts, you see, but a woman must not.
That’s the problem. This writer has no consideration of the amount of risk and commitment on the part of the biological mother of her children; she ignores that altogether, other than to complain that other people take that part of it seriously. And it should be taken seriously. It is not simply a matter of putting a baby into an incubator that you merely need to keep at a proper temperature.
And since when do we ignore the role of adoptive parents? As you pointed out, we consider that a very serious role. My sister adopted all her children; she was not ignored, passed over, or considered not their real mother. in fact, she got tons of praise for her selfless action, a level of praise that goes beyond what her childbearing sisters received, because we merely did what was expected. Conceived and carried children and raised them. She, on the other hand, raised children. Her act was selfless; the rest of us were just basically seen as breeding stock that then happened to keep our children beside us and raise them to the best of our ability.
I guess what I’m saying is, I think this woman has it all backwards. She is reading something into the gaze that gazes on her. What society tends to neglect is the biological part, because that is just what women – excuse me, uterus-havers – do.
Exactly. It reads as so entitled, her blindness to all that.
Honestly, why isn’t “proof that you know what you’re getting into in terms of becoming a member of the oppressed sex” one of the requirements for transitioning. If a person wants weight loss surgery, they have to prove they understand how to cope with the dietary needs and side effects they will be coping with after. Yet so many trans women seem so shocked to realize that being a woman has disadvantages. And some of them blame women for their new-found oppression, and others think the maybe need to invent some way for women to claim power in society, if only there was a word for that.
That.
Nooooooooooo kidding.
“It’s interesting that she’s only now realizing that women are subject to social scrutiny and devaluation.”
Yes, it is interesting. Especially since his article makes it clear that he’s not subject to social scrutiny and devaluation as a woman. He obviously doesn’t pass (if he did nobody would be asking about his children’s mother). And the playground scrutiny he describes sounds virtually identical to what other men engaged in child care report experiencing.
Not so sure “bottomless” was a good choice of word following on directly from “diapers and creams”. Clearly her love is predicated on bottoms! ;)
But seriously, I think there is a sexism in implying that those activities she is engaging in are what define mothers: they define parents.
I had a similar thought while posting. “Bottoms, she said bottoms!”
Dear god, did she just identify as pregnant??
Transplaining!
It’s just the opposite with me. My womanhood resides in certain of my physical attributes. I don’t think “who I am as a person” has very much to do with gender (except insofar as societal pressures have shaped me without my prior consent.)
(But then I also think the phrase “who I am as a person” is pretty naive.)
I thought she did that on purpose, and that it was rather clever of her. :)
Ya. This is the core disagreement, for me – this claim that “womanhood resides solely in who we are as persons, not in the set of physical attributes.” No, absolutely not – it’s the other way around. Being a woman is a blunt physical fact, and does not determine who we are as persons. That’s the core disagreement for so many women.
[…] dissent from the “true” mother piece is much harsher than mine. Also […]
Jen@5: uses male pronouns for the author of the piece. Really uncomfortable seeing that here. Ophelia uses the author’s preferred pronouns, use gender neutral phrases if you’re not comfortable with that. Play the ball, not the wo/man.
Years ago, I used to comment on Feministing. (Many, many years ago.) I got involved in a discussion with a young trans woman who was really frustrated by the conflicting demands placed upon her. “My voice is too shrill/too intimidating”, “I’m too outspoken/not supportive”, “I’m too sexy/dowdy” etc etc. I said “That’s how it is when you’re a woman. Whatever you are doing, someone will always say ‘ur doing it rong’. Welcome to being a woman.” She didn’t respond.