Before you read:
I am NOT transphobic. If you believe that a radical feminist critique of liberal male queer theory, at least some of the popular theory, makes one a transphobe, then you should stop reading this now.
I believe in equal rights and life free of discrimination for every human being, this includes trans folks. I have absolutely nothing against trans people, this is merely supplying some thoughts i had after reading a very brilliant blog post. I am also using this post to express my personal criticisms of some theories and activism.
I just recently read a radical profeminist's most recent blog post here, which discusses liberal queer politics and its effects on radical feminism and radical lesbian feminist politics. The post is unbelievably amazing and completely accurate, in my opinion. You really should read it, as it will explain everything much better than I can.
As most of you know, a lot of feminist theories are being replaced by liberal queer theories, proposed by white men. Sites like feministing.com deal more so with homosexual men and trans men issues than issues of sexism and patriarchy. This is because feminism seems to no longer be about sexism, but rather about queer politics, at least the liberal homosexual male politics. So, obviously there are not enough people willing to challenge liberal queer politics because they run the risk of being labelled as anti-gay or transphobe. This is ridiculous considering the liberal queers do not speak for every homosexual, and they definitely do not speak for lesbians. In fact, they do not seem to care for lesbian politics at all, let alone radical lesbian politics.
The post I linked to examines some liberal queer politics as well as some of the trans activist work that has come out of some blog sites. But, of course stating anything that even questions the politics of trans people will get "transphobe" stamped onto your forehead. To illustrate this, the radical profeminist blog discusses how so many people disregard Sheila Jeffreys' incredibly important work because they believe her to be a 'transphobe' for criticizing the gay liberal male agenda.
The funny thing is, very few people have actually read Jeffreys' work or looked at her book "Unpacking Queer Politics", which is a vital read for anyone interested in radical politics. A lot of activists tend to forget that they are not above critique. This whole notion of being beyond criticism is directly working against radical politics, which essentially open anything and everything up for critique. This is necessary if any fundamental change is to occur in society. I believe that some groups of liberal queer politics (usually in support of gay men, not lesbians) are harming women's liberation by discouraging radical feminism and promoting individualist ideals.
Individualism brings a whole whack of problems, as we see now with our lovely capitalist system. Individualism allows people to put on their "me" sunglasses and forget the struggle many people face throughout the world because of issues with race, class and gender. But, this does not matter because now all these women are "cis-privileged" and just don't know it yet. Yes, I'm saying that cis-privilege is a pile of shit, I guess that makes me a transphobe.
But wait, let me explain! This idea of cis-privilege is damning to women's liberation because it sends the message that women-assigned-at-birth are privileged! Yes! Some (NOT ALL) transactivists believe that women who are not trans have fucking power in our society.
This is obscene! Women, regardless of trans politics, are NEVER in a place of privilege. But yet, we have men, who have had surgery to transition to become more biologically like a woman (which is a social construct in and of itself) are claiming to be more oppressed than assigned-at-birth-females. How does this make any sense? How can any group of people, especially an apparent "transgressive" group, claim that women actually have some sort of privilege? This is unbelievable and I'm glad it is being critiqued by radical feminists as well as possibly other trans and queer activists. Yet, if you simply critique this idea of 'cis-privilege' you are automatically thrown into the pile of transphobic people.
How does this make sense? I don't know. But it draws support because most of the people saying it are white dudes. People seem to think that, if a dude is white and heterosexual cares less about women than a white homosexual male, we all know this is ridiculous. If you have read anything by Sheila Jeffreys, especially her critiques on gay male culture's impact on women and lesbians than you would understand that patriarchy is patriarchy.
This is not suggesting that white homosexual or trans dudes are always in a place of privilege or are always trying to oppress women and halt our liberation. I am simply suggesting that critiquing the highly acclaimed white queer male theories is important in any radical politics. Why? Because radical politics is concerned with uprooting oppression, to uproot something you must find what sustains it. To find what sustains oppression of women, one must critique all possible institutions as well as theories.
Please check out the blog post on A Radical Profeminist blog and tell me your thoughts.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
ReplyDeleteVery well said - thanks.
ReplyDeleteI've been pondering this a bit because I've been going to support meetings for trans- and genderqueers in my area. The only privilege I can come up with for me as a het woman is that I have more room to explore my sexuality. As in I can have sex with another woman, and still have my heterosexuality validated, whereas once a guy experiments with a guy (and folks find out) they will say he is gay (in the black community only gay and straight seems to be recognized). However, I don't know how being biologically female gives me a one up over a transwoman, in our current period, and I worse don't know if that's because I can't see my privilege in this area, or if this is like the reverse racism stuff.
ReplyDeleteI think I may have replied to this too soon, as I am not familiar enough with this situation. Since reading this I have looked up info on cis-privelege. First I need to note that since I am two spirited (I actually prefer this term, but genderqueer is more recognized), I apparently don't fit under the definition of cisgender (I guess?). My body doesn't always correspond with my gender, because my gender isn't consistent, and yes that is me saying I don't always identify as a woman, though I have been socialized as such. From what little bit I have come to understand from just pondering this over night, is that there are benefits to being assigned male or female and having one's gender correspond. I don't think that this type of privelege invalidates the oppression of women, just like black male privilege doesn't invalidate the oppression of black men. However, I also don't think questioning the politics of anyone means one is transphobic. Now I will again note I am not familiar with this issue, so I don't feel as though I can really weigh in. I have only read a short essay by Jefferies, and I don't think it was enough for me to really understand her position. I am going to look into this further.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if you've ever heard of an idea called the matrix of domination. Basically it's supposed to explain the many different ways that a person or group of people can be oppressed. The idea is that if you're black, gay woman you have three factors contributing to your oppression. The more a person or group of people is oppressed the less power and privilege they are afforded. It isn't necessarily that trans-gendered women believe that biological women have power, it's just that they have more power and privilege than them.
ReplyDeleteJust because they were born with a penis does not mean that some sort of special privilege has been carried over to their life as a woman. Most trans people have a particularly hard time reconciling their own personal issues while dealing with discrimination from a very young age for not conforming to their biologically assigned sex and are often considered freaks by most of society. It's all the worse when someone is brave enough to transition only to be discriminated against as though the genitals they were born with are the deciding factor of their gender. A trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man. They are not pretending.
Gag Fodder,
ReplyDeleteI have not heard of that particular concept, at least not by that name, no. I have of course heard that people have differing oppressions.
I want to clarify first and foremost that I do not have any sort of hatred or disregard for trans people or people who choose to have a sex reassignment surgery. What I was attempting to clarify, is that Radical politics need to deconstruct and critique every single concept and/or issue that affects society and people living in society.
In our critiques, not all, some of us are trying to analyze this importance society, particularly the west, places on the actual genitalia, the 'parts'. Emphasis is also on gender, which most people involved in radical politics believe is ultimately a social construction.
To illustrate what I mean, think of it this way, the critiquing of why we believe it's oppressive for women to go under the knife to affirm their 'femininity' is accepted as legitimate among most feminist circles, but when a feminist asks why one feels the need to affirm a biological sex, through the same surgical type process they are labeled a transphobe.
This is problematic because it is claiming that one can be critiqued and another cannot.
Also, i never suggested one was "pretending" to be trans. i'm simply separating the idea that female-assigned at birth face a different reality than a male-assigned at birth getting a surgery to alter their genitalia to make it 'feminized'. [see the link i give at the bottom of this comment]
Why would one surgical operation, such as breast implants or labiaplasty, be critiqued, but genital altering surgeries and hormones are off limits and above feminist analysis?
It's not about pretending, it's about what is and isn't "above" criticism by those involved in radical politics.
My qualm with this is that many people are labeled "transphobe" for merely stating that females assigned at birth DO suffer consequences that are real (this isn't suggesting that trans folks do not experience oppression) - woman hating is a universal.
Also, much of the liberal queer community sabotages and ignores radical lesbians, or lesbians in general - yet they claim that trans folks are far more hated in society. The ones getting censored and kicked out of queer spaces are the radical lesbians, so why isn't anyone standing up to this? Or critiquing this very serious issue? I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that women are constantly censored, whereas white males are not.
It's not a matter of believing "one pretends" it's a matter of critiquing everything, making the personal the public and political and creating equality and freedom for everyone, regardless if they are transgendered, intersex, asexual, lesbian, homosexual, radical and so forth.
To add, I personally advocate for all rights for every group, i do not, however, speak for all radical feminists, and i will never speak for everyone on their opinions about these matters. I respect radical feminist critiques because I know they are used in the sole purpose of abolishing the hierarchy that allows so much hate in the world.
I appreciate all efforts to abolish transphobia, homophobia, sexism and various other forms of discrimination.
To end, A fantastic piece on this is over at Julian Real's blog, Here's the link...it pretty much explains what i'm trying to say in a far more articulated manner.
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/anti-radical-anti-feminism-in-pro.html
Thank you for stopping by and being respectful. It is much appreciated, considering how many nasty comments i get.