I do not believe that we are discriminated against in the same ways and for the exact same reasons. I have found that the ways people reacted to me back when I identified as a mostly closeted male crossdresser, or as a bigendered queer boy, were very different from one another and yet again different from the way people react to me now that I am an out transsexual woman. The focus on “transgender” as a one-size-fits-all category for those who “transgress binary gender norms” has inadvertently erased the struggles faced by those of us who lie at the intersection of multiple forms of gender-based prejudice.”
agree - lumping all issues into one is not ideal for addressing individual struggles. but there’s a much bigger difference between homosexuality and transsexuality than there is between “bigender” and transgender. so why are we so upset when homosexuals insist upon their own spaces, their own organisations, and focusing on LGB without the T? focusing on our niche rather than putting everything under a “queer umbrella”??
“as an out transsexual woman, I find that those who wish to ridicule or dismiss me do not simply take me to task for the fact that I fail to conform to gender norms—instead, more often than not, they mock my femininity.”
interesting. i won’t argue with your experience (yet) but i wanted to note this
non-trans feminists who have written about us in the past have usually based their theses upon the assumption that we are really “men” (not women), and that our physical transitions to female and our expressions of femininity represent an appropriation of female culture, symbolism, and bodies. Besides being disrespectful of the fact that we identify, live, and are treated by the world as women, such flawed approaches have overlooked an important opportunity to examine far more relevant issues: the ways in which traditional sexism shapes popular assumptions about transsexual women and why so many people in our society feel threatened by the existence of “men who choose to become women.”
again, baseline twaw without explanation besides “we identify, life and are treated as such”. we are only “threatened” because you threaten us regularly, outside of that, we don’t think you are women. you think that’s “disrespectful”, but we don’t owe you respect just because you love femininity, a weapon designed to teach women to be tools for men. also: interesting how this book immediately, off the bat, chooses non-complicit feminists as the enemy, rather than men who actually hurt trans people.
The fact that we identify and live as women, despite being born male and having inherited male privilege, challenges those in our society who wish to glorify maleness and masculinity, as well as those who frame the struggles faced by other women and queers solely in terms of male and heterosexual privilege.
radfems certainly don’t glorify maleness and masculinity, so i suppose we’re in the second category, saying female struggles are only due to male privilege?
Today, while it is generally considered to be offensive or prejudiced to openly discriminate against someone for being female, discriminating against someone’s femininity is still considered fair game. The idea that masculinity is strong, tough, and natural while femininity isweak, vulnerable, and artificial continues to proliferate even among people who believe that women and men are equals. And in a world where femininity is so regularly dismissed, perhaps no form of gendered expression is considered more artificial and more suspect than male and transgender expressions of femininity.
i can’t wait to hear a definition of femininity, because what i know of it, it’s gender stereotypes put on women such as long hair, nails, makeup, dresses, and personality-wise friendly, caring, bubbly etc. i don’t always pick an issue with femininity specifically, but i think it is fair game to say if you sacrifice convenience for beauty standards, your own needs for other’s interest, etc then you aren’t making the most ideal choices. same way too much masculinity is bad, too much femininity is harmful to the self. by many people’s standards, femininity is inherently “weak, vulnerable and artificial”. again, i’d like to know what the author considers “feminine”
[people] who are feminine, whether they be female, male, and/or transgender, are almost universally demeaned compared with their masculine counterparts
i wouldn’t say masculine women cop it less difficult than gender-conforming women “universally” or in general. sure, working in construction or engineering, a masculine woman may be more respected than a feminine woman, but in less masculine professions/spaces, gender conforming women absolutely have better treatment than gnc.
Even many feminists buy into traditionally sexist notions about femininity—that it is artificial, contrived, and frivolous;
you talk about femininity as if it’s some natural state, not a cultural set of rules invented by patriarchy.
What I hope to show in this book is that the real ruse being played is not by those of us who happen to be feminine, but rather by those who place inferior meanings onto femininity. The idea that femininity is subordinate to masculinity dismisses women as a whole and shapes virtually all popular myths and stereotypes about trans women.
“women as a whole” are effected by criticism of femininity - sort of like (apologies for the rather intense metaphor, i know) saying “criticising being greedy is bad, it hurts jews as a whole! it’s okay to be greedy!” or maybe. jews aren’t greedy. and women aren’t inherently feminine, but are socialised to be such. maybe there’s something more complex here than “most women are feminine so femininity = woman, and criticism of femininity = sexism”
I argue that certain aspects of femininity (as well as masculinity) are natural and can both precede socialization and supersede biological sex.
i’m sure fucking hoping you’ve got a source to back this idea up, because i’ve got a million to the contrary. note to reader: if ur curious, just read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. it pretty much debunks this whole concept, or at the very least demonstrates that it’s not proven enough to take as fact considering the implications about and consequences for women if you do so.
No form of gender equity can ever truly be achieved until we first work to empower femininity itself.
oh okay so this is the basis of “empowerment” feminism too. two birds with one stone i suppose. also, for anyone reading, apologies if you’re saying “duh!! everyone knows Whipping girl focuses on…”, i do prefer going into books blind. i can form my own opinion on what the author’s words mean before someone can tell me “no no no they ACTUALLY mean [this] and it’s totally feminist, despite how it sounds!!”. i’ll listen to that after. i get this from law. interpret words with their plain meaning before looking to external sources for interpretation.
Some readers may be transsexual themselves, or may be very active in the transgender community, but may not be tuned in to the many discourses about gender and transsexuality that exist in academia, clinical settings, feminism, or queer politics. Others may take an interest in this book from a women’s, queer, or gender studies perspective, being familiar with what non-trans academics have had to say about trans people, but without ever having been exposed to a transsexual woman’s take on these manydialogues and debates. Still others may be completely new to the subject, having picked up the book because they want to learn more about transsexuality, how to be a trans ally, or because they have a particular interest in the subjects of femininity and/or sexism.
funny how GC books often start with “i really hope someone who disagrees with me is reading this. this book is practically written for people who don’t agree with me. i want to have a discussion” meanwhile this book doesn’t even consider for a moment someone who disagrees could be an audience, only people who agree or are neutral on the topic.
gender essentialists (who believe that women and men represent two mutually exclusive categories, each born with certain inherent, nonoverlapping traits) and social constructionists (who believe that gender differences are primarily or exclusively the result of socialization and binary gender norms).
at least we show some understanding of what gender essentialism is. now let’s see if we can use the word properly when describing different ideologies. anyways i’m definitely a social constructionist and i have plenty of sources (many studies done after this book was written) to support the idea. this book is pretty much in direct competition with Delusions of Gender so far, sort of a pro-trans version, except without the sourcing of anything.
In chapter 19, “Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism,” I make the case that feminist activism and theory would be best served by working to empower and embrace femininity, rather than eschewing or deriding it, as it often has in the past. Such an approach would allow feminism to both incorporate transgender perspectives and reach out to the countless feminine-identified women who have felt alienated by the movement in the past.
(big sigh) still waiting (hoping) for a definition of femininity which isn’t just patriarchal desires of + rules for women which assist patriarchy to easily control them. please stop talking about it like people are born either feminine or masculine. i’m begging at least for a source or something.
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner
kaledo-art
vaporwave
areudirty
discoholicmusic
ellievsbear
