In the New York Times, feminist Elinor Burkett writes What Makes a Woman?:
For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they’re articulating….
Many transwomen and transmen embrace psychological distinctions between men and women that some feminist claim are purely cultural and represent patriarchal oppression. I believe there are, speaking generally, innate psychological tendencies between (most) men and (most) women that these feminist reject, although there are also exceptions, which may be more likely (although not exclusively) to be seen among gay men and lesbians (and even here, to be sure, not all gay men are more feminine than straight men, and some are hypermasculine leathermen; likewise, there are “lipstick” and “butch” lesbians), so it gets messy.
More. Like Caitlyn Jenner, women are far more likely than men to prefer frilly underwear. That’s not meant to be flippant; the fact that Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair in sexy lingerie was one of the transgressions, so to speak, that provoked Burkett’s column. To claim that women don’t generally prefer stereotypically feminine underwear, or if they do to claim it’s because of cultural norms imposed by the patriarchy, is, I think, silly.
That said, despite the general trend, some women don’t prefer frilly underwear and some men do.
33 Comments for “Feminists vs. Transwomen”
posted by Lori Heine on
We get into these difficulties because we’re always encouraged to see people as members of this herd or that one, instead of as individual human beings.
If we recognize each as an individual, we can respect the perspective and experience of each. Instead of tying our brains in knots trying to figure out who is more or less a woman or a man, who fits which category better, we can simply appreciate everybody for who they are.
Works better for me.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
This sort of reminds me of a well-meaning (if not else) Star Trek: The Next Generation episode (STTNG). It is oftentimes cited as the first effort by the series to deal with — via sci fi wink and nod — the issue of gay rights. It is called “The Outcast”.
The episode introduces us to a new alien race that has moved beyond gender and looks at any gender specific expression or identity (male or female, feminine or masculine) as being a perversion.
A small minority of aliens on this planet are born different. They are male or female. They want to be identified as male or female and be free to do gendered things, like have sex. They are are victims of discrimination and harassment. One such alien is part of a team that visits the Enterprise. “She” falls in like with Riker and once the affair is discovered she is forced to under some type of “conversation” therapy treatment.
Long story short, the Star Trek episode (which even the actor who played RIker said was not “gusty” enough) may be a bit more about transgender rights — as much as a network T.V. series could be in the early 1990s — then gay rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
The ever-present curse of the false-binary.
Not everything falls easily into a category. Gay/straight. Male/female. Those are not always either/or propositions. The medical and academic literature are clear about that. Why has popular culture lagged so far behind?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Although some feminists reject “innate psychological tendencies” that differentiate men and women, most argue simply that women should be treated equally with men when it comes to job opportunities, pay and so on. I have no problem with that — do you?
posted by jake on
Scott Adams has just devoted a “Dilbert” to Tom! http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Distinctions are difficult, huh Jake?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“…most argue simply that women should be treated equally with men when it comes to job opportunities, pay and so on. I have no problem with that — do you?”
Clearly, some people DO have a problem with it. Otherwise “feminist” would not be such a demonized word .
posted by JohnInCA on
Yeah… I was responding in a comment thread about Jenner elsewhere and someone said (paraphrasing) “wait a second… if transgender people exist, then feminism is wrong because men and women aren’t interchangeable! Lol!”
Not surprisingly, he didn’t react terribly rationally when I said that his argument was based on an flawed understanding of feminism.
Which brings me around to… I suspect the whole “feminism means men and women are equal and interchangeable” is a more common thought among those who *oppose* feminism/feminists then among those who *are* feminists/support feminism.
posted by Jorge on
I believe there are, speaking generally, innate psychological tendencies between (most) men and (most) women that these feminist reject, although there are also exceptions, which may be more likely (although not exclusively) to be seen among gay men and lesbians (and even here, to be sure, not all gay men are more feminine than straight men, and some are hypermasculine leathermen; likewise, there are “lipstick” and “butch” lesbians), so it gets messy.
For all that equivocating, I agree.
I also don’t care (much). Men who are…
(Okay this is where I think the language is the opposite of what it should be. When I think men with gender dysphoria who will transition to women, the way I express that internally is “transgender men”. Oh well.)
Men who have gender dysphora are overrepresented in those who join the military. So from that alone it seems to me that psychological differences aside, that women can function as men (beats the crap out of them psychologically, but that’s what noble words about sacrifice are for). Then we have single father and Rosie the Riveter situations.
Once summer hits, I’m expanding my newfound affection for bracelets into buying and wearing twin sets, one on each wrist. Every example of that out there is either very butch or very femme.
Brains are a good place to begin because one thing that science has learned about them is that they’re in fact shaped by experience, cultural and otherwise.
…
“You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girl’s brain’ or ‘that’s a boy’s brain,’ ” Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Britain’s Aston University, told The Telegraph last year. The differences between male and female brains are caused by the “drip, drip, drip” of the gendered environment, she said.
Interesting.
Nope.
And I say, as a man, that I think this woman’s [the author’s] drip-drip-drip of experiences are no less disqualifying to her objectivity in discussing women as mine are to discussing women. You’re forgetting the neurotransmitters, the chemicals in the brain, the hypothalamus, you’re selecting only the neuron pathways.
Just because I’m more sympathetic to feminism doesn’t mean I’ll let it trample on transgender interests.
posted by Stuart on
What exact quality is it that only women can experience, so that if you experience this quality, you must be a woman? Nurturing? Being bad at math? Liking “The Notebook?” You can have all of these qualities and still be a man.
To say that there is some quality only available to woman is a return to the “biology is destiny” argument which feminism strove to demolish. If transgender is true, that means that any woman who succeeds in a man’s arena–Danica Patrick, Amelia Earheart, Marie Curie, et. al., only succeeded because they were really a man in the first place. And any man who succeeds at being a househusband is really a woman.
There is no intrinsic quality which only women have or only men have. If I am experiencing feelings which are associated with women, then I am experiencing them through the lens of someone who has a penis. I will never know what it’s like to have a period, to risk pregnancy, or to be physically smaller than a potential rapist no matter how many times I’ve seen “Mamma Mia!”–and I’ve seen it 5 times.
I also don’t want to have sex with men the way a woman wants to have sex with men. My sexuality is about two born-male masculine energies combining and colliding. I have no idea what women see in men.
I am G–, not L, not B, and not T. And I’m not required by my gay gene to support transgender or believe it exists.
posted by Lori Heine on
I DO believe that transgender exists, but as an “L” instead of a “T,” I do admit to a different individual perspective. I don’t need to limit myself to that perspective by pretending that no others are valid, simply because I don’t share them because I have a different set of experiences.
When we view everything through a political (power-game) lens, that is what we’re left with. Everybody’s on a team of one sort or another. I refuse to play the game.
Refusing to acknowledge the reality of transgender experience has become a means of burnishing homocon credentials. It’s a way of siding with the gay conservative “team.” To me, this is idiotic.
I don’t understand the transgender experience because it is not my experience. But one of my best friends is transgender. I see her nearly every week, spend quality time with her, and value her as a person. So I can’t toss off flippant remarks about her experience not being “real”–whatever that might mean.
She isn’t an Other to be misunderstood for the sake of belonging on a team. Nor is she the pawn on a chessboard for the sake of the opposing team. She’s herself. She need not apologize for that, or explain it. Nor need she be anyone different from who she is.
posted by Stuart on
OK, but you still haven’t answered the question–what is a transwoman experiencing that is so intrinsic to being a woman that only a woman can experience it? And if I find myself experiencing it, it means I must be a woman?
I thought feminism showed us that there are no intrinsically male or female qualities–the full spectrum of experience is equally available to each gender.
If that’s not the case, if there are some qualities which are absolutely and only able to be experienced if you are a woman, then aren’t we back to the old stereotypes? If I’m a boy who likes to play with dolls, I’m really a girl? Not just a boy who happens to like dolls? I thought we were Free To Be You And Me.
If my genitals and chromosomes are not enough evidence for me to determine my gender, then what evidences trumps them? Are we now going to have to classify Neanderthal bones based on what sort of movies we think they would have liked?
If I am not limited by my genes, why can’t I use reparative therapy to transition from gay to straight? I personally feel more like a straight man than a gay man and have more in common with the straight men I know–does that make me a straight man who happens to like sex with men?
posted by Lori Heine on
Why are you so hung up about sex? I didn’t answer your question with regard to how you–or my friend–do or do not have sex. Nor did I say anything about reparative therapy. I spoke of basic human decency and common sense. I’m sorry if that’s a foreign language to you.
It neither picks our pockets nor breaks our legs that someone else is transgender. Given the horrific ordeal they must go through to transition, it beggars belief that they do so for frivolous reasons. I don’t need to know more than that. They are human beings, and they have the same rights that you or I do. Period.
How the hell would I know if a transgender woman is experiencing properly womanly things? Or if you are? What sort of an inane question is that, really?
This is an excuse to “other” people. That you must tie yourself up in knots desperately quibbling over it says nothing about them, but speaks volumes about you. Whatever it is you’re trying to prove when you comment here, I can’t see that anybody else cares about but you.
You want to think of yourself as a conservative, evidently. Go ahead and think of yourself how ever you want. You will anyway.
posted by Houndentenor on
Exactly. And who the hell am I to tell someone else how they should feel or act or live, especially people I don’t even no. This reminds me of the people all hung up that some women are too butch and some men too effeminate. What is this need to make everyone be the same? How boring!
posted by Houndentenor on
A lot of gender roles are constructs. How we dress, what leisure activities we enjoy, etc. are distinctions that concern things that didn’t even exist until recently. Even if most women enjoy this while most men enjoy that, why shouldn’t everyone be free to do and enjoy whatever they like so long as they aren’t inflicting any real harm on anyone else. As far as I’m concerned they don’t need nor should they feel obligated to ask for my approval.
I also don’t remember anyone ever claiming that there weren’t differences between men and women. The problem is putting either men or women in a box not of their own making and expecting them to live lives based on someone else’s idea of how they are supposed to be. No one should be forced either to reject or accept any of those traditional roles and the baggage that comes with them.
The addendum is odd to me. Why would anyone want to politicize underwear of all things. Eroticize maybe. But politicize? Wear the undies you like. Dress to impress your current or potential partners if you want. But no one else cares. What a silly thing to all worked up about.
posted by Clayton on
“I believe there are, speaking generally, innate psychological tendencies between (most) men and (most) women that these feminist reject, although there are also exceptions, which may be more likely (although not exclusively) to be seen among gay men and lesbians (and even here, to be sure, not all gay men are more feminine than straight men, and some are hypermasculine leathermen; likewise, there are “lipstick” and “butch” lesbians), so it gets messy.”
Very. This generalization is laden with so many qualifiers, exceptions, caveats, and special cases that it reveals the the problem with trying to make a generalization at all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The thing reads like a Sarah Palin word salad. Try unpacking the assumptions and conclusions, and see where that gets you. Headache land, I’ll bet.
What, exactly is wrong with Lori’s idea — ignore pressure to see people as members of this herd or that one, instead of as individual human beings, and push for equal treatment of all citizens under the law.
posted by JohnInCA on
Well (and I want to be clear: this is my understanding of the perspective, not my support of it), gender-transgressive individuals (be they LGBT or just girly boys and manly women) are threatening to people who have built parts of their idenity, their ego, around gender norms.
Some examples:
Take your stereotypical sexist & homophobic frat boy (note: stereotypical, not average). He’s got ideas about what makes a man a man, and how those men should treat women. They’re kind of shameful. So enter a gay guy. If he accepts that this gay guy is a real man, then by his understanding of masculinity that gay guy will treat *him* like *he* treats women. And he doesn’t want that. And if he doesn’t want to be treated in the way he treats a woman, doesn’t that mean that he shouldn’t like how he treats women? So a gay man, just by existing, threatens his identity, his ego, his behavior. It causes cognitive dissonance. So he reacts by trying to emasculate the gay man, making him “less then”.
Take your stereotypical sexist and homophobic homemaker (again: stereotypical, not average). She’s built her life around family and kids, invested in doing all the things a woman should do because that’s what she believes a woman should do. She supports her husband, rears her kids, and has no real ambition outside the home. Enter a lesbian. That lesbian is out doing all the things a man does. She has a well-paying job, her own house in the sub-urbs with a white picket fence and a golden retriever. She even has a beautiful wife/partner. This lesbian, by virtue of *not* conforming to everything the homemaker conforms to, threatens her. Because if that lesbian can go out and, in the homemakers eyes, “be a man”, then why can’t she? Why *shouldn’t* she? So it becomes important for her to label the lesbian as a bad woman so that she can remain a *good* woman.
There’s a reason that as LGBT acceptance has risen in this country strict adherence to gender norms has fallen. I can’t say whether it’s chicken/egg, but in order for more people to accept LGBT people, they have to broaden their understanding of what makes a man/woman and how a man/woman should behave.
So to answer your question, what’s wrong with etc.: because people have invested their identity/ego into their ideas of gender roles and gender-transgression people challenge that identity.
That said, people freak out a *lot* more over trans* people then those who are merely gay. LGB mixes up behaviors a little, but T challenge gender norms a *lot* by not just mixing up behavior, but mixing up *identity*. And when you get into accommodating gender-transgresive people in gender segregated space people tend to freak.
Disclaimer: my stereotypes were chosen not for demographic representation, but because they were convenient stereotypes that get the idea across. Personally I have never had a negative experience with a “fratboy”. In fact, my college didn’t have frats so I never encountered any. As for homemakers, all the homemakers I know are very nice ladies who understand that their choice to be a homemaker is not the same as thinking that *all* women should be homemakers. I apologize to any fratboys or homemakers I may have offended.
posted by Houndentenor on
As bad as these strict roles were for women, gays, trans people and others who didn’t fit in them very well, they weren’t much better for straight men. They limited who they were, who they could be and how they could interact with the world. It hurt everyone. If the traditional roles work for you, great; but you shouldn’t have to live someone else’s life and be miserable.
posted by Jorge on
…gender-transgressive individuals (be they LGBT or just girly boys and manly women) are threatening to people who have built parts of their idenity, their ego, around gender norms. . . . So he reacts by trying to emasculate the gay man, making him “less then”.
Most such people just flex a bit more and get over it. The best of them are even willing to do it while your back is turned. (Am I too long out of high school or do I just know how to snarl at people without realizing it?)
posted by JohnInCA on
I’d like to believe that’s true, but I think evidence bears out that while things have gotten significantly better (in western first world countries at least), many people don’t “get over it”, they just opt for less obvious forms of harassment.
posted by Stuart on
The problem with your argument is this: You say transgender threatens gender norms. No, transgender REINFORCES gender norms. By saying there are qualities intrinsic to being a woman which I can only have if I am, ontologically, a woman, that means men and women are ontologically different. Transgender is a step backward from the idea that men and women can share the whole human experience equally. We can no longer say it’s OK for boys to cry or cook; we can no longer say it’s OK for a girl to be good at math or sports. If a boy cries, it’s because he’s ontologically a woman and needs puberty-delaying drugs. If a girl is good at sports, it means she’s ontologically a man and needs to prepare for breast reduction.
Now, if someone finds a drowned body in a river, we can’t assume its gender just by it’s genitals. It would be discrimination to say that the body is a woman just from the DNA. And a good lawyer will say, “My client confessed to killing a woman. There is no evidence that the body in question is a male or female.”
Put that on CSI.
posted by Houndentenor on
Who is saying that? Since when are all athletic girls lesbians much less trans? You really do seem to be missing the point or trying to argue against a point no one is making (or no one I’ve ever heard of). Where is this coming from?
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s been done on CSI… a better example was the episode of “Bones” called ‘The He in the She’ which forensically chased down the murderer of a trans female preacher. It was a beautifully and carefully crafted episode that might help you reconcile things… Like the characters had to over the course of the investigation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285434/?ref_=ttep_ep12
posted by JohnInCA on
That’s certainly one way someone with ingrained gender norms could rationalize acceptance of someone’s trans identity, but if they don’t have that acceptance then they’re (in their perspective) looking at a man in a dress.
And when you read an article about Jenner that insists on using “Bruce” and “him”, it becomes quite obvious that they aren’t accepting the identity.
posted by Jorge on
“wait a second… if transgender people exist, then feminism is wrong because men and women aren’t interchangeable! Lol!”
That’s funny enough that I don’t understand why the person didn’t react well to you challenging it.
Which brings me around to… I suspect the whole “feminism means men and women are equal and interchangeable” is a more common thought among those who *oppose* feminism/feminists then among those who *are* feminists/support feminism.
Perhaps, but then I’m in the minority. There is simply no reason to deny equal rights to men and women.
What exact quality is it that only women can experience, so that if you experience this quality, you must be a woman?
Dilation during childbirth.
Big whoop if you ask me. Women deserve their woman-time, of course, but it’s not like it makes much of a difference what experience that’s around (Cue non-transgender privilege? I take what is mine by right). It’s not like what makes women holy is one biological trait or another. Salvation will have to be found elsewhere.
(Why are we talking about underwear?
There are women who wear “bloomers.” Am I supposed to consider that “butch” now? It certainly is assertive. Are my underwear bloomers now, too?)
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m not sure if I’m understanding you wrong, but did you just say that you agree with the statement ““feminism means men and women are equal and interchangeable”?
I have a tirade on why I strongly disagree with that statement (while not disagreeing with “There is simply no reason to deny equal rights to men and women.”) but if there’s no call for it, I see no reason to type it.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Why are we talking about underwear?”
Your guess is as good as mine. I suppose for the same reason we’re so often steered into the stalls of public bathrooms.
Social conservatives are becoming odder all the time. I’m glad to see that so many of the regular commenters here recognize the surrealism.
The rest of this year, and most of next, will be a ride through the political funhouse in the GOP presidential clown car. It will be bizarre, for sure. And every right-wing-manufactured moral panic will be treated, by the bloggers at IGF, as if it is of earthshaking significance.
There’s plenty of popcorn for all of us.
posted by jake on
We’re talking about underwear because, as the post notes, it was the Vanity Fair lingerie cover that provoked the angry response that this column is about.
posted by Jorge on
(Well, okay, fine, I’ll admit being interested in Caitlyn Jenner’s underwear for the same reason women are usually interested in men’s underwear, so I can easily understand why people are upset over it. But is transgender sensuality really something to talk about so brusquely?)
posted by Lori Heine on
I know what the post notes. And I’ve seen the cover. Everywhere. If I went to the moon, it would be there.
As a previous post noted, the angry response to the magazine cover is largely generated by a mentality that obsesses over sex. A mentality that sees LGBT people through the lens of its own sexual hangups.
There’s nothing wrong with asking the sex-obsessed if they realize what they’re revealing about themselves. It’s okay to laugh at them. And it’s definitely better than some of the things that quite a number of them would like to do to us.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–Like Caitlyn Jenner, women are far more likely than men to prefer frilly underwear.
Wow. Some men and women enjoy “frilly” underwear. Heck, most of the popular brands of underwear tend to be pretty frilly (possible even FRIVOLOUS).
You would probably have to go back to yea olde caveman and cave woman days in order to find underwear that was designed solely for utility as opposes style or fashion sense.
—Jenner (are we back to using her pre-op name now?) appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair much the same way that most attractive looking people (which generally means much celebrities) appear on the cover of a Fashion and Popular Entertainment magazine.
I would be opposed to such a display on Time Magazine or Newsweek mainly because it reeks of “infotainment” and I dislike how news (and magazines and press that use to be mostly news and in-depth journalism) has become muddled into infotainment…but I digress.
I would say that advertising does impact people’s behavior, and the people that make ads often do invoke cultural stereotypes.
However, i would have to see more background and research into the underwear industry (and into advertising) before I would want to comment on whether or not most women prefer “feminine” underwear and (if so) why they prefer it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
also…I doubt that the merits of underwear as fashion or as utility or as stereotype is one of the top five problems facing most transgender people or most women.
While I have not seen research into the matter` I suspect most transgender are more worried about being the target of discrimination or a bias motivated crime. Women may have similar conccerns along with things like pay equity or pregnancy discrimination.
Granted` I can appreciate the analysis of popular culture, advertising or gender based stereotypes. I just it is easy for people to forget the context of the discussion and how other people – women or transgender people – may not have the free time or interest to think much about the spending habits or fashion sense of celebrities.