• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.

Status
Not open for further replies.

benjipwns

Banned
Bit of a cool piece on a debate I've seen mentioned in threads from time to time around here:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2?currentPage=all

On May 24th, a few dozen people gathered in a conference room at the Central Library, a century-old Georgian Revival building in downtown Portland, Oregon, for an event called Radfems Respond. The conference had been convened by a group that wanted to defend two positions that have made radical feminism anathema to much of the left. First, the organizers hoped to refute charges that the desire to ban prostitution implies hostility toward prostitutes. Then they were going to try to explain why, at a time when transgender rights are ascendant, radical feminists insist on regarding transgender women as men, who should not be allowed to use women’s facilities, such as public rest rooms, or to participate in events organized exclusively for women.

The dispute began more than forty years ago, at the height of the second-wave feminist movement. In one early skirmish, in 1973, the West Coast Lesbian Conference, in Los Angeles, furiously split over a scheduled performance by the folksinger Beth Elliott, who is what was then called a transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said:

I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies. Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”

In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like. By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement.

Radfem 2013 also had to switch locations, as did a gathering in Toronto last year, called Radfems Rise Up.

In response, thirty-seven radical feminists, including major figures from the second wave, such as Ti-Grace Atkinson, Kathie Sarachild, and Michele Wallace, signed a statement titled “Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of ‘Gender,’ ” which described their “alarm” at “threats and attacks, some of them physical, on individuals and organizations daring to challenge the currently fashionable concept of gender.” With all this in mind, the Radfems Respond organizers had arranged the library space as a backup, but then a post on Portland Indymedia announced:

We questioned the library administration about allowing a hate group who promotes discrimination and their response is that they cannot kick them out because of freedom of speech. So we also exercise our right to free speech in public space this Saturday to drive the TERFS and Radfems out of OUR library and OUR Portland!

(TERF stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” The term can be useful for making a distinction with radical feminists who do not share the same position, but those at whom it is directed consider it a slur.)

Abusive posts proliferated on Twitter and, especially, Tumblr. One read, “/kill/terfs 2K14.” Another suggested, “how about ‘slowly and horrendously murder terfs in saw-like torture machines and contraptions’ 2K14.” A young blogger holding a knife posted a selfie with the caption “Fetch me a terf.” Such threats have become so common that radical-feminist Web sites have taken to cataloguing them. “It’s aggrieved entitlement,” Lierre Keith told me. “They are so angry that we will not see them as women.”

In the book, Jeffreys calls detransitioners like Russell “survivors,” and cites them as evidence that transgenderism isn’t immutable and thus doesn’t warrant radical medical intervention. (She considers gender-reassignment surgery a form of mutilation.) “The phenomenon of regret undermines the idea that there exists a particular kind of person who is genuinely and essentially transgender and can be identified accurately by psychiatrists,” she writes. “It is radically destabilising to the transgender project.” She cites as further evidence the case of Bradley Cooper, who, in 2011, at the age of seventeen, became Britain’s youngest gender-reassignment patient, then publicly regretted his transition the next year and returned to living as a boy. Jeffreys is especially alarmed by doctors in Europe, Australia, and the United States who treat transgender children with puberty-delaying drugs, which prevent them from developing unwanted secondary sex characteristics and can result in sterilization.

Throughout the book, Jeffreys insists on using male pronouns to refer to trans women and female ones to refer to trans men. “Use by men of feminine pronouns conceals the masculine privilege bestowed upon them by virtue of having been placed in and brought up in the male sex caste,” she writes. To her critics, the book becomes particularly hateful when she tries to account for the reality of trans people. Explaining female-to-male transition is fairly easy for her (and for other radical feminists): women seek to become men in order to raise their status in a sexist system. Heath Atom Russell, for example, is quoted as attributing her former desire to become a man to the absence of a “proud woman loving culture.”

But, if that’s true, why would men demote themselves to womanhood? For reasons of sexual fetishism, Jeffreys says.
She substantiates her argument with the highly controversial theories of Ray Blanchard, a retired professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and the related work of J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Contrary to widespread belief, Blanchard says, the majority of trans women in the West start off not as effeminate gay men but as straight or bisexual men, and they are initially motivated by erotic compulsion rather than by any conceived female identity. “The core is, it’s really exciting for guys to imagine themselves with female breasts, or female breasts and a vulva,” he told me. To describe the syndrome, Blanchard coined the term “autogynephilia,” meaning sexual arousal at the thought of oneself as female.

There are young transgender-critical radical feminists, like Heath Atom Russell and Rachel Ivey, aged twenty-four, who was one of the organizers of Radfems Respond, but they are the first to admit that they’re a minority. “If I were to say in a typical women’s-studies class today, ‘Female people are oppressed on the basis of reproduction,’ I would get called out,” Ivey says. Other students, she adds, would ask, “What about women who are male?”

That might be an exaggeration, but only a slight one. The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women; Alison Turkos, the group’s co-chair, is twenty-six. In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word “women” when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men. “We recognize that people who identify as men can become pregnant and seek abortions,” the group’s new Statement of Values says.

In the summer of 2003, Serano joined about a hundred people at Camp Trans, a protest camp near the Michfest site, which has run intermittently since 1994. Serano said that relations with Michfest attendees were often unexpectedly cordial. A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent.

Before Sara St. Martin Lynne was asked to leave the Bay Area Girls Rock Camp board, she hadn’t identified closely with radical feminism. Yet, as the campaign against Michfest—and against radical feminism as a whole—has grown, she’s come to feel strongly about keeping the event “womyn-born-womyn.” She said, “This moment where we’re losing the ability to say the word ‘woman’ or to acknowledge the fact that being born female has lived consequences and meaning is kind of intense to me.”

One of the trans women who showed up at the Radfems Respond conference, a thirty-five-year-old software engineer from California, with a tiny nose stud and long brown hair, agrees. She understands why trans women are hurt by their exclusion from Michfest and other female-only events and facilities, saying, “It’s not really wanting to invade space. It’s a deep-seated wanting to belong.” But, she adds, “if you’re identifying with women, shouldn’t you be empathizing with women?”

Sandy Stone shares this view—up to a point. Of the radical feminists’ position, she says, “It’s my personal belief, from speaking to some of these people at length, that it comes from having been subject to serious trauma at the hands of some man, or multiple men.” She adds, “You have to respect that. That’s their experience of the world.” But the pain of radical feminists, she insists, can’t trump trans rights. “If it were a perfect world, we would find ways to reach out and find ways of mutual healing,” she says. But, as it is, “I am going to have to say, It’s your place to stay out of spaces where transgender male-to-female people go. It’s not our job to avoid you.”

Invade my space and impose your definitions on me if old.
 

nomis

Member
tumblr_ljmk1wx16S1qj3nv3o1_500.gif
 

Valhelm

contribute something
“Use by men of feminine pronouns conceals the masculine privilege bestowed upon them by virtue of having been placed in and brought up in the male sex caste,” she writes. To her critics, the book becomes particularly hateful when she tries to account for the reality of trans people. Explaining female-to-male transition is fairly easy for her (and for other radical feminists): women seek to become men in order to raise their status in a sexist system. Heath Atom Russell, for example, is quoted as attributing her former desire to become a man to the absence of a “proud woman loving culture.”

But, if that’s true, why would men demote themselves to womanhood? For reasons of sexual fetishism, Jeffreys says.

This is fucking violence. Her words are the 21st century equivalent to Broca's writings on women.
 
I have two comments on this subject.

1) The idea of male privilege for a transgendered woman is an interesting one.
2) I recall a person (not here) complaining about cissexist language in a feminist community. For example, talking about women having their periods without including transgendered/transsexual women in the conversation. It's kind of interesting when you get to those discussions on male privilege.
 

nomis

Member
Contrary to widespread belief, Blanchard says, the majority of trans women in the West start off not as effeminate gay men but as straight or bisexual men, and they are initially motivated by erotic compulsion rather than by any conceived female identity. “The core is, it’s really exciting for guys to imagine themselves with female breasts, or female breasts and a vulva,” he told me. To describe the syndrome, Blanchard coined the term “autogynephilia,” meaning sexual arousal at the thought of oneself as female.

iPVeQnhKIuVau.gif
 

benjipwns

Banned
In the book, Jeffreys calls detransitioners like Russell “survivors,” and cites them as evidence that transgenderism isn’t immutable and thus doesn’t warrant radical medical intervention. (She considers gender-reassignment surgery a form of mutilation.) “The phenomenon of regret undermines the idea that there exists a particular kind of person who is genuinely and essentially transgender and can be identified accurately by psychiatrists,” she writes. “It is radically destabilising to the transgender project.”
This sounds a lot like the anti-gay treatment deals.
 

kirblar

Member
Every single *ERF I've been exposed to has been ignorant, dangerous, and destructive. At least with religion you have an excuse for being raised that way.
 

benjipwns

Banned
She sounds like a cunt. Who is she to say why people identify with what gender they do?
A woman is a person who feels they are a woman.
Their/her argument is that there's an intrinsic value or quality or whatever to being born biologically a woman and that the privilege and entitlement is tied to this which leads to the really, brilliant in terms of blowing my mind at unflinching logic here, notion that MTF is just a further expression of the male privilege. In that only males can CHOOSE to become a woman. Women are forced into being one.

The fear is that if you allow anyone to "define" themselves a woman, and then claim the oppressed status of women then this gives an out to men from their constant oppression.

Like I said, it's really a fascinating logical train of thought. And circles them around to agreement with their otherwise mortal foes in some areas.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Wasn't there a study relatively recently that showed that trans people have some particularl different brain structure compared to cis people?

I understand, ideologically, where TERFs are coming from but they seem to be unwilling to accept reality.
 
Their/her argument is that there's an intrinsic value or quality or whatever to being born biologically a woman and that the privilege and entitlement is tied to this which leads to the really, brilliant in terms of blowing my mind at unflinching logic here, notion that MTF is just a further expression of the male privilege. In that only males can CHOOSE to become a woman. Women are forced into being one.

The fear is that if you allow anyone to "define" themselves a woman, and then claim the oppressed status of women then this gives an out to men from their constant oppression.

Like I said, it's really a fascinating logical train of thought. And circles them around to agreement with their otherwise mortal foes in some areas.

While that could happen it just seems more like the mental meanderings of very paranoid individuals who don't want to deal with the reality that is gender dysphoria.
 

kirblar

Member
Their/her argument is that there's an intrinsic value or quality or whatever to being born biologically a woman and that the privilege and entitlement is tied to this which leads to the really, brilliant in terms of blowing my mind at unflinching logic here, notion that MTF is just a further expression of the male privilege. In that only males can CHOOSE to become a woman. Women are forced into being one.

The fear is that if you allow anyone to "define" themselves a woman, and then claim the oppressed status of women then this gives an out to men from their constant oppression.

Like I said, it's really a fascinating logical train of thought. And circles them around to agreement with their otherwise mortal foes in some areas.
It sounds like they would disagree that intersectionality and female privileges even exist.
 

sphagnum

Banned
The idea that transwomen-who-have-penises have a special privilege compared to cis women because they can just take off feminine clothes and "look" like a man, rather than this being something oppressive and forced upon transwomen to not feel persecuted by society, is mindblowingly dumb.
 
While that could happen it just seems more like the mental meanderings of very paranoid individuals who don't want to deal with the reality that is gender dysphoria.

This.


It honestly reminds me of the whole 'fake girl nerd' shit. "Nerds were belittled and bullied, and now you just want to be a nerd because it's cool! You didn't earn it!"

Same sentiment. Apparently because they weren't oppressed from birth like cis women, trans women don't get to be in the 'club'? Fuck that nonsense.
 

sphagnum

Banned
I've noticed a very odd trend on Tumblr for tankies to love TERFs and hate trans socialists. They also tend to follow fascist blogs. The Maggotmaster vs. Malheureux Marxist feud is probably one of the better known examples.

I still can't exactly figure out why any self proclaimed communist would be opposed to transgender people.
 

kirblar

Member
I've noticed a very odd trend on Tumblr for tankies to love TERFs and hate trans socialists. They also tend to follow fascist blogs. The Maggotmaster vs. Malheureux Marxist feud is probably one of the better known examples.

I still can't exactly figure out why any self proclaimed communist would be opposed to transgender people.
Because if you're supporting Communism after the past century and a half of history, you're already showing that rational thought isn't your forte.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I've noticed a very odd trend on Tumblr for tankies to love TERFs and hate trans socialists. They also tend to follow fascist blogs. The Maggotmaster vs. Malheureux Marxist feud is probably one of the better known examples.

I still can't exactly figure out why any self proclaimed communist would be opposed to transgender people.

Huh. I've never seen much TERF activity on tumblr. While there are certainly a good deal of radfems, there are a good deal of white supremacists, too. Neither group seems to make an impact on the general site.

What are "tankies" in this instance? Militaristic communist bloggers who call for revolution?
 

benjipwns

Banned
While that could happen it just seems more like the mental meanderings of very paranoid individuals who don't want to deal with the reality that is gender dysphoria.
It sounds like they would disagree that intersectionality and female privileges even exist.
The idea that transwomen-who-have-penises have a special privilege compared to cis women because they can just take off feminine clothes and "look" like a man, rather than this being something oppressive and forced upon transwomen to not feel persecuted by society, is mindblowingly dumb.
They aren't "radical", they're now conservatives because culture has moved past and accepted many of their positions at some level.

Look at the transition regarding gay rights opponents to now claiming that equalization is granting gays privileges over straights. They're trying to flip the role of the oppressor onto the "newly liberated" (or soon to be, etc.) to protect their status.

This instance is more extreme because they're trying to preserve victim status, so it's intellectualized oppression olympics.
 
Ugh. I hate when shit like this comes out. It gives all feminists a bad rap. No, what those women are saying isn't real feminism. Real feminism involves intersectionality. It's just like those white feminists who say that women like Rihanna are bad because they show skin. smh.
 
They aren't "radical", they're now conservatives because culture has moved past and accepted many of their positions at some level.

Look at the transition regarding gay rights opponents to now claiming that equalization is granting gays privileges over straights. They're trying to flip the role of the oppressor onto the "newly liberated" (or soon to be, etc.) to protect their status.

This instance is more extreme because they're trying to preserve victim status, so it's intellectualized oppression olympics.

Well my favorite part is buying into sex essentialism and biotruths on some level, the very same shit feminists are constantly struggling against. Talk about cognitive dissonance there.
 
thought the thread would be full of buffalo bill gifs and memes after reading the title. You want the biblical approach or the 2K14 world we live in approach?
 

hateradio

The Most Dangerous Yes Man
I understand part of it. If gender is a social construction, people mustn't use biology as the reason to cross over to another gender. In effect, saying that someone is born with a female or male brain, does some damage to the claim that gender is completely socially created. So I can understand how that is problematic to groups who want to break down or deconstruct some of the system.

However, I personally would say that under social construction, gender expression should be available to any kind of body. I would actually applaud transgender individuals for breaking gender down -- even if they use biology as a reference for their doing so.

Lastly, females (cis-females) do have their unique issues and problems but I feel that the attempt to keep those completely exclusive to themselves, just makes the troop count smaller.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Well my favorite part is buying into sex essentialism and biotruths on some level, the very same shit feminists are constantly struggling against. Talk about cognitive dissonance there.
That's the best part, what are the odds that at least this one woman has written articles decrying the very thing she's now supporting her argument with.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Because if you're supporting Communism after the past century and a half of history, you're already showing that rational thought isn't your forte.

There are a lot of radical leftist trans people so congrants on insulting them too I guess?

Huh. I've never seen much TERF activity on tumblr. While there are certainly a good deal of radfems, there are a good deal of white supremacists, too. Neither group seems to make an impact on the general site.

What are "tankies" in this instance? Militaristic communist bloggers who call for revolution?

Tankies are "anti-revisionists"/Stalinists*/Marxist-Leninists**/super Soviet apologists. For some reason a lot of them side with radfems when there are tumblr arguments about feminist issues, while Maoists and anarchists usually side with trans people.

*Tankies hate the term Stalinist and argue that there is no actual "Stalinist" ideology, just "applied Marxism-Leninism"
**not just Leninism, because that's what Trots call themselves, but Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that Stalin supported!
 

Moff

Member
Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”
as somewhat of a feminist myself, I actually agree with this. its also why I find transgender people very interesting, because transgenderism seems to contradict a lot of my views about feminism and gender in general.

still, these radicals simply seem to be hateful sexists who hate anyone who was born with a dick. it seems petty to believe that transgender people dont have their own share of discrimination, which is arguably worse than cis womens.
 

Dougald

Member
Had to stop reading at the point it was suggested that trans people enjoy being harassed. It's too early in the morning to get this angry
 

Mindwipe

Member
Ten minutes reading the Twitter accounts of prominent TERFs will leave under no illusions that they're anything other than petty horrible people in general.

It really is a great example of pseudo-theory hitting the real world and choosing bigotry over trying to make the theory work with what actually exists or accepting the theory is simplistic and wrong.
 

sphagnum

Banned
as somewhat of a feminist myself, I actually agree with this. its also why I find transgender people very interesting, because transgenderism seems to contradict a lot of my views about feminism and gender in general.

I wouldn't disagree with anything from that quote either. I think one thing radfems and transfeminists can agree on is that gender ultimately doesn't exist - it's a social assignment. The problem is where to go from there; radfems think this means all gender must be abolished because the female gender is a construct meant to oppress people with vaginas (which is true), while transfeminists understand that there are people who literally experience dysphoria and are not comfortable with the bodies they have or the genders they were socially assigned. While "feminine" things are a social construct, it is logical to assume that a penis-bodied person who is born with such feelings may not feel comfortable with the social elements that are foisted on them by a culture which expects them to act certain ways due to their genitals, and if they find more comfort in those things that society tells them they shouldn't, they may feel more correct identifying themselves with that oppressed class. This doesn't mean they have a privilege - it's crazy to think that someone who would willingly subject themselves to the kind of mockery and physical violence that trans people experience is "privileged" - but that they have a different experience as a woman than a cis-woman does.

That's kind of a messy paragraph, but I guess what I mean is that - as someone who does not experience gender dysphoria - the way I've best understood it is that we are all born as humans, first and foremost, with certain proclivities and traits. Society has constructed two genders based on what it assumes people with particular body parts should adhere to; some people born with X body parts are actually more comfortable with the traits society would ascribe to the other (or maybe they aren't comfortable with those traits as much as they feel like they were born in the wrong body), and vice versa for people with Y body parts. Since gender is socially assigned anyway, there should be no reason that they can't declare themselves to be one or the other if they genuinely feel more comfortable that way, even when one of the created classes/genders was created initially for the purpose of submission.

It reminds me of how race is a social construct, but we can't defeat racism by being colorblind. We have to first accept that race exists as a social construct and understand how people see themselves in terms of races before we could ever move to some sort of hypothetical future where the concept of race has disappeared. And if that's not achievable, then it's better to come to an understanding that we're all different and that's ok rather than assuming that differences need to be abolished.
 

Jarate

Banned
Feminists defining themselves this way in the nature vs nurture debate is one of the few reasons why I refuse to associate myself with modern feminism.

This article is absolutely vile too. The people in it make me sick.
 

Reishiki

Banned
But, if that’s true, why would men demote themselves to womanhood? For reasons of sexual fetishism, Jeffreys says. She substantiates her argument with the highly controversial theories of Ray Blanchard, a retired professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and the related work of J. Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Contrary to widespread belief, Blanchard says, the majority of trans women in the West start off not as effeminate gay men but as straight or bisexual men, and they are initially motivated by erotic compulsion rather than by any conceived female identity. “The core is, it’s really exciting for guys to imagine themselves with female breasts, or female breasts and a vulva,” he told me. To describe the syndrome, Blanchard coined the term “autogynephilia,” meaning sexual arousal at the thought of oneself as female.

Pseudoscientific Bullshit paraded around as truth

Jeffreys is a real piece of work anyway.

"Now one of the things I find puzzling about it is that, when I look at the House of Lords debate on this legislation, those I agree with most are the radical right. Particularly the person I find that I agree with most, in here, and I’m not sure he will be pleased to find this, is Norman Tebbitt. Now, Norman Tebbitt is not having any of it, right, so in response to the Gender Recognition Act, he says, he gives a very good definition of gender as socially constructed and says, in your act you’ve got it confused, right, it should say sex and you’ve got gender. And Lord Filkin, for the government, who is putting this legislation through, says that sex and gender are the same thing and anyway, what does it matter? Right, isn’t that extraordinary? Tebbitt then accuses him of linguistic relativism. Which I love. [laughter] Couldn’t have put it better myself. Tebbitt also says that the savage mutilation of transgenderism, we would say if it was taking place in other cultures apart from the culture of Britain, was a harmful cultural practice, and how come we’re not recognising that in the British Isles. So he makes all of these arguments from the radical right, which is quite embarrassing to me, but I have to say, so called progressive and left people are not recognising the human rights violations of transgenderism or how crazy the legislation is. The legislation makes us engage in a folie à everybody, right? Everybody now has to go mad in order to understand or respond to this legislation."
-- Sheila Jeffreys also demonstrating Horseshoe Theory.
 
Feminists defining themselves this way in the nature vs nurture debate is one of the few reasons why I refuse to associate myself with modern feminism.

This article is absolutely vile too. The people in it make me sick.

This is Radfem, not modern feminism.

The majority of modern feminists would think the article is disgusting too.
 

Yrael

Member
as somewhat of a feminist myself, I actually agree with this. its also why I find transgender people very interesting, because transgenderism seems to contradict a lot of my views about feminism and gender in general.

still, these radicals simply seem to be hateful sexists who hate anyone who was born with a dick. it seems petty to believe that transgender people dont have their own share of discrimination, which is arguably worse than cis womens.

I've taken the view at this point that gender identity is probably innate, much like sexuality (and also like sexuality is not always a black-and-white binary). Gender expression, on the other hand, seems to be influenced to quite a large extent by social and cultural norms, and it's hard to say how much of it is really biological.

But yes, the views of TERFs are terribly bigoted. Thank god they're only a small minority of feminists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom