I do not see how this reflects the criticism of some, not all, radical feminsts. The problem I find is that some feminsts crticize transmen as selling out and transwomen as invading women's spaces. Just as some criticized people who identified as butch or femme at one time. It's not that some people clainming feminst identity are cricizing the trans people who impose gender norms,is that they criticze trans people for being transsexual. For instance, "woman born women" only spaces implies that transwomen weren't born women, and therefore aren't "real" women.
I don't make excuses for people who judge an entire group based on the beliefs and actions of some, wether it's the majority or not, however I completely understand where the article is coming from and it's point about imposing normativity. However, again I don't see the above criticsm from feminsts that have a problem with transpeople.The criticism I see is around the idea that transmen are sell-outs and transwomen are invaders. As a matter of fact, some feminsts who feel that way tend to impose their own standards of normativity on people.
I was particularly glad to see you discuss the Standards of Care. Gender policing from the medical community is a huge issue, and I'm continually surprised to find that feminists are either unaware of the guidelines or don't see the guidelines as unjust "tools of patriarchy." On the occasion that I see someone make this realization, their gut response is inevitably one that would make hormones and SRS (for example) even more difficult to obtain rather than acknowledging the individual's power to make decisions for their body, life, and gender presentation.
Yet I still hold hope that there is potential for common work in this arena resting with your final statement, "The bottom line is that there is no one 'correct' form of gender expression which all males or all females should be required to adhere to; gender expression is a choice, and no form of it is more valid than another."
To Anonymous:
I disagree that the only critique (or maybe vitriolic attack) that feminists level at trans people is based solely on their trans status. I think the OP is correct when they say that the gender expression of trans people is often used as a tool to exercise transphobia. Here is a link to an article by Judith Lorber talking about the social contstruction of gender:
http://www.meac.org/Resources/
ed...ionOfGender.pdf
And here is the particularly relevant quote, for those who do not wish to wade through the article: "Transvestites and transsexuals carefully construct their gender status by dressing, speaking, walking, gesturing in the ways prescribed for women or men whichever they want to be taken for - and so does any "normal" person."
One may say that yes, this article states that all trans people are gender normative, but it was published 14 years ago. Well, this text is still used as the introduction to the theory of gender as a social construct in many Women's Studies classes. In fact, my own college-level introductory course in Women's Studies used this very text, and our instructor chose not to ever address the transphobic and inaccurate depiction of trans people in the article. When questioned about it, she said that we "just didn't have time" to talk about it, since there were so many other things to learn.
So, I agree with the OP. The tool often used to exercise transphobia within some feminist communities is the policing of gender expression.
I didn't mean to assert that militant heteronormativity is the sole criticism leveled at us by feminists, but it is certainly one of the most common ones, and one which I believe has a considerable degree of validity to it.
Um. Something about all of this makes me very uncomfortable. I can't put my finger on it yet but I will return when I have had some time to digest.
I guess I'm unclear what you mean by the "highly active minority of transexuals who are militantly heteronormative." Perhaps this is a a spatial thing, because I definitely don't see this in my community. Could you link me some examples of what you're talking about, perhaps?
Also, I'm uncomfortable with your statement that all binary identified trans people should "reject the vicious orthoxody of conformist gender policing and to embrace in its place the freedom of gender deconstruction." First, is gender deconstruction really an easily accessible freedom? I can discuss that a little more later but I would really like it if you could explain what you mean by gender deconstruction for me.
Okay, class is over, and I figure I need to elaborate on my question. When I say explain gender deconstruction (and i know this is on the front page of the blog), I wonder what you think that looks like, and how it would function in the transgender/transsexual community.
By deconstructing gender, I mean ceasing to demand or even encourage people to behave in a specific manner based on gender.
In other words, "I behave this way because this is who I am" should always be acceptable, but "I behave this way because this is how guys/girls are supposed to be" should NEVER be acceptable.
So, I don't want to be too harsh, cause this is just a blog and all.
But - woah! Where are you coming from? All this hostility to to trans ppl who pass? Howsabout the 99.9999996% of everybody in the world who passes as one gender or the other? For every trans person who says "this is how a woman/man should act" theres about 19 billion cisgendered people saying the same damn thing.
Why do you feel the need to apologize for transphobic idiots who call themselves feminists?
Your assignment: read "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano.
People have a fundamental right to be themselves. It is perfectly okay for anyone, cis or trans, to exhibit heteronormative behavior if that is their preference, but it is not okay for anyone to demand that OTHERS exhibit heteronormative behavior.
A lot of trans people do this, and a fair number of feminists call them on it; it's NOT purely transphobia, because they do have a point that trans people do this and it's wrong.
@IntellectualJailbait
This post smacks of cisgender privilege!
Why have you failed to address the vast number of cisgender people who do what you attack transwomen for?
and yes, most feminsim is very trans-misogynistic. Deal.
So, why are you being an apologist?
Do I get a free pass for saying that some (sexist, racist ableist) stereotypes have a grain of truth? Why do you?
Send me an email pls...I rarely visit blogs twice in a row...
I sort of assume yr trans IJ.
Anyways, it is a fact that some trans people hold up sexist stereotypes, and criticize others who don't live up to that.
It is also a fact that millions and millions and millions of cis-gendered women do the same thing. Phyllis Schaffly anyone?
Why is it alright to hate trannies for things that cisgendred women also say?
The only logic that allows that is that transwomen = less then cisgendered women. Hence, transphobia or whatever.
I really don't think that this post speaks to cisgender privilege; the argument seems to be organized in a way that is addressing certain feminist and trans perspectives within the framework of our oppressive society (so...lots of other people are oppressive, too -- including many cisgender people). I think it can be very helpful and ultimately quite productive to examine how we, within our communities and their intersections, negotiate various issues surrounding our identities and where we stand on the path to equality.
That said, the idea of passing and the resulting invisiblility is NOTHING new to identity politics (try reading Faulkner's A Light in August, or anything on biracial experience and passing). There are pros and cons to passing (and not being vocal about your identity or multiple identities), but IJ aptly points out that passing really becomes an issue when our comrades -- who are visible (either by choice or not) -- suffer for doing so. It's scary to weigh the pros and cons of enduring the (possibly violent) reprocussions of visibility against being safely (so to speak) out of the spotlight. I think that people who pass need to be very aware of the power they gain through invisibility, and should know when and where that power can be harmfully used to marginalize the more visible others.
TS, your point is putting responsibility for societal ills at the feet of trans women who pass.
There are no pros and cons to passing. It just is. Talking about it like there's even room to debate about it, is super insulting.
Forget all of this hierarchy of oppression nonsense. Things are fucked up, but that isn't the fault of trans women who pass. To single a group out like that is messed up, and transphobic.
Colleen,
I appreciate the arguments that fuel your comments, and respect your passion for the topic. However, I strongly recommend you read further about the complexities of passing in its difference forms -- much like any choice we make as far as our identities go, there is always room for debate. In fact, that's entirely the purpose of this forum!
I would highly recommend reading Maria Carla Sanchez and Linda Schlossberg's "Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion" -- it provides a good analysis of passing with regard to multiple locatiosn of identity. There are a number of texts out there that describe passing/not-passing visible/invisible experience (and even the space between such binaries, if one can imagine!), and the many arguments surrounding it all.
Best,
-ts
Commenting by HaloScan
