Reading and Transness

[bcholmes]

I've been pondering, over the last few days, a post on Body Impolitic. I think the shape of my ponder has looked something like this:

• I read the post;
• I have a gut reaction that kinda looks like disappointment and annoyance;
• I force my brain to more fully engage and say, "Wait a minute. What are they actually saying?";
• I read and re-read the post, parsing it more and more denotatively; and
• I have a lengthy ponder about why the original reaction happened.

I like Body Impolitic; I've been reading it for a while, and I enjoy the topics that they post about. I don't know Laurie Edison, although I've been in the same room with her a coupl'a times, I think, and I have a copy of her and Debbie's book, Women En Large, which I enjoy quite a bit.

Debbie I know a fair bit better; I see her once a year at WisCon, and we knew each other from hanging out in some of the same online fora. Last April, I linked to a post that Debbie made in Other blog. The post was about Debbie's decision to not update a segment of text that appears in Women En Large. When I was in San Fran, a few weeks later, I had a meal with Debbie and her partner Alan. While Debbie and I were waiting for Alan to arrive, she asked me, "Are we okay?" I knew she was referring to the Other blog post, and I assured her that I had taken no offence. I said, then, that although I had some thoughts on the Other blog post, a lot of my reaction was mediated by the fact that I know Debbie, I've been on panels with Debbie about trans issues, and I know that she's trans-positive.

As I'm writing this, now, I'm writing with a great deal of apprehension. I'm afraid, I suppose, that I've become That Friend. The one with the hidden landmine; if you're going to go anywhere near That Particular Topic, better be careful that you've crossed all your eyes and dotted all your tease. I hesitate to dissect Debbie's post, but I feel like there's fruitful stuff to discuss. And, hey: the post advocates in favour of conversation.

So, um, hm. What is it that bothered me about the post? Let me be upfront: I think my reaction says more about me than it says about Debbie and Laurie. But I am interested in teasing out the reaction.

I think that the initial impression that the post left me with was that it was making this argument:

1. just because 'radical feminists' and 'conservative Christians' seem to agree isn't an indication that they're both wrong;
2. if anything, what looks like agreement is oversimplified; and
3. (this is the interesting part): radical feminist objection to trans womanhood is based on legitimate, nuanced arguments, and it does radical feminism a disservice to write it off in the way one might write off conservative Christian anti-trans attitudes.

Now, the post doesn't really say that. Doesn't even seem to imply that. Because I know Debbie to some extent, I doubt that she'd be articulating anything that sounded like "radical feminism good, conservative Christianity bad."

But the post is suggesting, "the reason the two characters in the cartoon appear to agree is that their positions are hypersimplified", and I have a hard time knowing how to read that other than as a call to be more open to hearing the full details about why someone is rejecting me. And, well... hm. I can't say that that suggestion fills me with warm fuzzies.

Two or three years ago, Debbie and I were on a panel at WisCon about trans feminism. I wanted to talk about how feminist groups grappled with transness, and we used, as one extreme of the argument, the example of Janice Raymond. Wikipedia quotes her most inflammatory statement about trans women:

All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves .... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive.

I mostly recognize that pulling ugly quotations like this out of the contexts in which they first appeared is a strategy to make people look their worst. And yet, I don't think it's a hypersimplification to suggest that this is, in fact, her thesis. Janice Raymond is an extreme (and polarizing) example of the radical feminist who is transphobic. At the same time, I recognize that the line of argument that Janice Raymond is making is very different than the line of argument taken by, say, Michael Coren. But, at the same time, they're both saying very ugly things about people like me. The ideology is different; the language is different... and perhaps there's some way in which the hurt they're causing is subtly different. But I'm not sure why I should care. What's the point?

I do think there's some interesting stuff to be gleaned from an analysis of the ways that anti-trans attitude are expressed. Here's a story that I told at that panel that Debbie and I were part of: I'm often in the position of being the first out trans person that a lot of people meet. I'm often answering a lot of trans 101 questions. I'm often answering the same questions again and again and again. Some time ago, I became close to someone who was, really, one of the first people very close to me who had a lot of experiences with trans people before we met. She was aware of trans issues, of gender fluidity and complexity, and she spoke supportively of trans people in many circumstances. And I think that maybe because this was so novel for me, I found myself lulled into a false sense that I didn't need to do the trans education.

One day, this friend was telling me about a mailing list kefuffle on one of the lists that she belonged to. The mailing list was for queer women, and because a trans woman had wanted to become part of the list, there was a lot of debate about whether or not trans women should be allowed to participate. There was a lengthy discussion, followed by a vote, and at the end, the list decided to exclude trans women. And there was one final interaction that the friend in question approvingly recounted: "One of the main participants in the debate said to the trans woman: 'being excluded is an experience that a lot of women go through. Now you've experienced gender-based exclusion. You should take this as a future point of bonding.'" The friend in question took this as an apt cap to the entire incident.

Me, I was appalled at the story, and at my friend's attitude. I didn't say it, then, though I regret not doing so. She and I are no longer close.

This was, I suppose, an interesting experience in recognizing how my form of "pro trans" was different than someone else's form of "pro trans". And one could, I suppose, explore that in all its complexity. Perhaps I could, as I'm doing now, recount that story, analyzing it for how it coloured my perception of the person in question. There is a certain utility to that. If anyone reads this, then they can look upon this scenario, with some dispassion. They can decide how they feel about that -- how they might act in similar circumstances. At the very least, forewarned is forearmed. Discussion is a Good Thing. Getting into all the nooks and crannies. And, really, I think that's Debbie's and Laurie's thesis.

But the subject doesn't invite that response from me. This is not the kind of conversation that goes on between equals. Because, well, where apprehension about transfolk exists, I am at the receiving end of it. Forgive me if I'm not taking extra time to acknowledge the subtle differences in the ways that people are rejecting me. I'm a little busy fighting back against being rejected.

And, here, it might look like I'm annoyed by, or impatient with the Body Impolitic post: well, not really. My reaction is complicated. I'm Walt Whitman; I contain multitudes. I think that there are some real gems of insights. The implication, not quite articulated, that the arguments in support of gender essentialism look and smell a lot like arguments that would conflate the opinions of the cartoon's radical feminist and conservative Christian. That the tools one would use to recognize the nuances between certain identities are also the tools to grok gender diversity. Those things are, well, kinda happy-making.

But something still gnaws at me, has me wondering why my first reaction was a negative one, has me wondering where are the cartoons that celebrate trans inclusion. Why do I feel like the person with no power being asked to make concessions?

Comments

[rosefox]

But the post is suggesting, "the reason the two characters in the cartoon appear to agree is that their positions are hypersimplified", and I have a hard time knowing how to read that other than as a call to be more open to hearing the full details about why someone is rejecting me.

I would point to "appear to agree" as the culprit there. I don't think they appear to agree. I think they do agree on the particular topic under discussion. Saying that there's only the appearance of agreement implies that if one digs enough, one finds that they don't actually agree... but that puts the burden on the person who chooses whether to go digging. If you take the hateful words at face value, you're somehow not playing your part in getting through or past the hate to the compassion and acceptance hidden underneath it.

The problem with that suggestion is that when it comes to certain topics, some people don't have compassion and acceptance hidden underneath; and even if they do, walking away from the veneer of hate rather than digging through it is a perfectly reasonable, acceptable choice. If a radical feminist and a conservative Christian want to sit down and hash out whether to bond over transphobia or get into a screaming disagreement over abortion, that's up to them. You, as the third party observer, are not obliged to give them one minute of your time.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

i think you're getting this:

(this is the interesting part): radical feminist objection to trans womanhood is based on legitimate, nuanced arguments, and it does radical feminism a disservice to write it off in the way one might write off conservative Christian anti-trans attitudes.

because you know laurie and debbie are feminists and also are reasonably certain that they're not conservative christians. my theory here is that if they were conservative christians and you knew it, and you knew they weren't feminists, you'd read it exactly opposite. that's my theory, anyhow, because i am not seeing any parts where this particular radfem viewpoint is called out and had something neutral-to-good said about it.

my first reaction upon reading the post was "wow. this is not a blog post. this is a three hour discussion, and that's to start with." it's an interesting topic, as evidenced by the part where lots of people want to make blog posts about it, but to get a post that anyone is actually going to stick around and read timewise, you have to condense things so tightly that it's hard to read because you have to unpack the entire thing.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I think there's also this line:

One way to read the cartoon is that the 'radical feminist' is somehow wrong-headed because she agrees with the 'conservative Christian.'

To me, that line seems to pave the way for a line that says: "of course, we don't think that the radical feminist is wrong-headed."

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

When you say "the post", are you talking about Amp's cartoon, or the Body Impolitic post?

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

the body impolitic post.

and i agree with you about the "one way to read the cartoon" line; it had slipped my mind when i was writing my response to you.

[kalikanzara.livejournal.com]

If I weren't dog tired I'd go quote bits of Julia Serano's Whipping Girl that resonate on the theme, but, um. Maybe this is a placeholder for a more interesting response later.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I believe you that you're feeling a little stomped on.

I think the radical feminist gender essentialism thing is quite interesting and I think I decided my attitude some time ago (bearing in mind that I'm still enrolled in TG101).

There's usually some specific, practical matters underlying RFGE, if you dig at it. I've noticed two, I'm sure there are more. 1. Women-socially-recognised-as-female-from-birth have certain common experiences growing up that transwomen don't. 2. Women-only space has a certain value which is lost for some women if transwomen are present (particularly pre-op transwomen).

For 1., well I imagine most transpeople can probably provide far more horror stories of social repression while growing up than the average woman. And feminists seem to be (or try to be) clued in to other types of negative socialisation eg experienced by GBL people or non-whites, or non-Christians, etc, all of which oppression is at least as unrelated to women as trans people.

For 2., you can't possibly come up with a rule for women-only space that's going to keep everyone happy. The rule that is used then says a lot about what the majority thinks will make it happy, and to me, the "no transwomen" rule suggests either that there are a lot of transphobic women, or if they really are a minority, that their wishes are more important than transwomen's.

In neither case (or the other scenarios I can think of), even if you make a transwoman-negative decision, is it justified to go around telling transwomen they're "not real women", IMHO[1]. That, to me is where the transphobia comes in, and where I think it is in the cartoon.

What is disappointing to me about the blog posting is the "pat, pat, there, there, you think you're being oppressed, but really, feminists like you, they're just forced by soundbite culture to say things that sound oppressive".

If your soundbites sound oppressive, you need better soundbites.

[1] To the extent that I understand and sympathise with the problems experienced by TG, the baseline raw material was all that "real girls aren't good at maths", "real girls care about makeup and pink frilly clothes" etc stuff I had to put up with as a child. I'm not a fan of the "not a real X" class of social oppression.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

If your soundbites sound oppressive, you need better soundbites.

*nod* Nicely said.

[nitoda]

the friend in question approvingly recounted: "One of the main participants in the debate said to the trans woman: 'being excluded is an experience that a lot of women go through. Now you've experienced gender-based exclusion. You should take this as a future point of bonding.'"
My reaction to that? Fuck you! (pardon my language!) The assumption seems to be that trans women have NOT previously experienced gender-based exclusion. Excuse me for wondering just what it was they were experiencing throughout their lives before transition???

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Down here in Oz, Radical Feminism is a 'thing' like Economic Rationalism: a cultish snooty ideology that harms folks (in my view) by dehumanising them.

Without Any Doubtin my mind *this* Radical Feminism is virulently transphobic, and disdainfully contemptuous of bisexuals.

I think folks confuse feminism that is radical with Radical Feminism.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

oops, my comment threaded wrongly :-(

My reaction to your comment is, however a fervent agreement: 'fuck them with a twisty tusk with bells on"

[rozk.livejournal.com]

There is also the point that some anti-trans feminists are only nuanced when they are sitting down and making an effort to be. At the kneejerk level of behaviour which governs a lot of social and even political interaction, they are just acting like bigots.

And their bigotry is not only towards trans women and men; it is often towards other women who happen not to share their views - not just our sexual partners, though they particularly get it in the neck. It's the whole 'I cannot participate in feminist project X because you are allowing that person to participate in it' thing - which is not just about 'women's space' but can be about e.g important reference texts.

Also, a part of the bigotry is manifested in the assumption that no trans person is incapable of a nuanced sense of their own position, that none of us have dealt with these arguments in our own lives for decades.

Phobia is the correct term because reasoned nuanced argument for their position doesn't ultimately come into it. Many years ago, I found myself in the improbable position of acting as confidante and advisor in a difficult personal situation to a woman whose other confidante and advisor was a leading theoretician of that school. I just thought it indicated that she was a person with a life; she found my involvement deeply sinister to a point where that became the issue rather than the problem we were advising our mutual friend about.

I haven't found myself in the same position with a conservative Christian, but I suspect that it would be the same. After all, conservative Christians of a Catholic stripe are capable of real nuance even if fundies are not.

[mizalaina.livejournal.com]

My immediate reaction to reading that post is very emotional, too, especially with MWMF coming up next week. I'm angry. (Not that I give a shit about attending an event that requires one to camp in the woods with irritants like bugs, radical feminists, and prehistoric toilet facilities, mind you.)

I don't think radical feminism ever took hold in Canada the way it did in the States, so while we're not spared from anti-trans feminism up here, it rarely takes the form of radical feminism. Without the radical feminist-run MWMF around, It's easy for me to forget that they still exist and have a voice, because I'm used to the young, queer, third wave York WMST crowd.

I'm so tired of these arguments. Radical feminists, in my experience, tend to argue from an emotional perspective, not a rational one. It's very soundbite-y, and they're fond of sweeping generalizations. They parrot the things they've heard other people say, and they're so busy trying to feel oppressed that they don't want to hear about how they might be shitting on other people. When someone identifies themselves as a radical feminist, my brain usually plays hold music while they're talking about trans issues. I realize that this is unfair, but it's also a mechanism to protect myself emotionally from something I find hurtful.

On to the call-and-response.

"One of the main participants in the debate said to the trans woman: 'being excluded is an experience that a lot of women go through. Now you've experienced gender-based exclusion. You should take this as a future point of bonding.'"

So the next time she wants to join, they'll let her in because she's experienced gender-based exclusion?

"Why do I feel like the person with no power being asked to make concessions?"

Because that's exactly what you are.

[mizalaina.livejournal.com]

Oops, sorry about the EM tag mix-up.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I'm so tired of these arguments. Radical feminists, in my experience, tend to argue from an emotional perspective, not a rational one. It's very soundbite-y, and they're fond of sweeping generalizations.

*nod*. I hear you.


They parrot the things they've heard other people say, and they're so busy trying to feel oppressed that they don't want to hear about how they might be shitting on other people.

Yeah, I think this is one of the key ideas that I took away from books like Read My Lips: the idea of juridical power and the way groups, as they try to broaden their base, turn on those at the fringes.

[redbird]

Also, just because people from two very different camps agree, or seem to, doesn't mean they're both right: they might share one (flawed) axiom that leads them both to the same position. (Flawed axioms that seem possibly relevant here are gender essentialism, and one that looks something like "sex without romantic love is not only less valuable but degrading, and you can't love more than one person that way." The conservative Christian might shape that into "God doesn't want you to do this" and the radical feminist say that "you're buying into the patriarchy," but they're both going to tell us that we can't love more than one person, and have no right to try.)

That "future point of bonding" is an "apt" cap to the incident only in the sense that it makes a nicely pointed story, not that it's a suitable outcome or a justifiable answer. There are probably people out there who have never experienced gender-based exclusion; it's possible that there are some who aren't cisgendered males; but the idea that the trans woman in question had been one, and that she or the world was better off because she'd suffered that way is nonsense that would be silly if not harmful.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

Wow! I might do a better job on responding to this if I hadn't spent all night in the hospital with stonebender, but let me give it a try.

First, the personal (which is political). BC, please call me out any time you think it's appropriate. I learn by making mistakes. I think about what you say (and what anyone else who calls me out says). Please dissect my posts. And as far as being That Friend, hell, I clearly need a friend (or ten) in that role. Maybe we'll find an arena where I can do the same for you.

Now, the political (which is personal). First, I want to be an enemy of transphobia, even as I know that I am occasionally subject to it. More important, I want to be an ally to transfolk.

Laurie and I wrote that post together, and she's traveling so I can't get her input just yet. The hypersimplification point was initially mine, however, and I do think it's an important one.

One way to read the cartoon is that the 'radical feminist' is somehow wrong-headed because she agrees with the 'conservative Christian.'

I agree that this paves the way for "of course, we don't think the radical feminist is wrong-headed." We should have added another sentence, making it clear that both of us believe that she is wrong-headed because of what she believes, not because of who agrees with her, which is the point Laurie and I were trying to make.

I know I need to write more about this, and to respond to some of the commenters above. Think of this comment as an "I'm here, I'm listening, and I want to both acknowledge the mistake and make myself clear" placeholder.

Thank you!

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

First up, thanks for the reply. I look forward to anything further you write on this topic, because I really enjoy your writing.

I'm thinking back to something that Laurie Marks said at WisCon, and I'm trying to form a question with that inspiration. I think the question is something like, "what does a non-hypersimplified form of Amp's cartoon look like?"

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

New post on this topic up at Body Impolitic (www.laurietobyedison.com/discuss). I'd love to know your response.