![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I really liked this article:
TERFs, Trans Mascs, and Two Steve Feminism In which A Man has an Opinion about Feminism, with Mixed Results.
It's about how a lot of "trans inclusive" cis feminists are terrible about trans masc people in ways which ultimately stem from transphobia and hurt all trans people. It's not perfect, but does capture that specific problem well.
I think the tight focus is overall a good thing but there's a few places the argument would have benefited from more mentions of the connection to broader issues with sexism/transphobia etc. Also I disagreed with some parts.
Some further thoughts:
I know some people don't like this kind of usage of "oppression" and I can see the argument, but I also can't think of a simpler way to put it.
My main disagreement with the essay is that I do not think there's a simple power continuum of cis women > trans masc people > trans femme people. The gendered power dynamics between afab people (who for a start can't be divided neatly into cis vs masc or even cis vs trans) are really complicated, and it annoys me that one thing we all have in common is a tendency to go "I am the MOST oppressed type of afab so I am INCAPABLE of oblivious prejudice".
Similarly, while I'd agree that overall cis man > afab person > trans femme (though even then, trans femme people, like all people, aren't immune from being oblivious about issues they do not personally face), there are amab people who are neither a cis man nor trans femme, and their relationship with gendered oppression and dynamics with people of other genders are also very complicated!
I was discussing this with a friend and they pointed out that the writer flattens attitudes to non-binary people as always negative. But just as there are cis women who 'support' trans women with the self serving logic of "Oh no someone is being oppressed for being a woman, the universally best thing to be" (and so are shitty to anyone who does not identify as a woman), there are cis women who 'support' being non-binary or trans masc with the logic of "Oh no someone is being oppressed for wanting to be gender-non-conforming and/or genderless, the universally best thing to be" (and so are shitty to anyone who they think is gender conforming or 'too gendered', including binary trans people).
They also pointed out that the kind of person who says trans people should just live as gender non conforming cis people absolutely will not be supportive of actual gender non conforming cis people.
But all that bolsters the main point that I do agree with: that ultimately, many cis women cling doggedly to the idea that gendered oppression is always about oppression of The Oppressed Group That They Are In, and they only care about transphobia when it affects people in that group. TERFs define the group as afab people, others define it as "non-men" or "people who identify as women", or "women and non-binary people", or "women and femmes"(*). But in a lot of ways it's basically the same attitude.
There's also, relatedly, a zero sum attitude to the various aspects of gender related oppression that I think means that well meaning but binarist cis women assume that any acknowledgement of the issues afab trans people face will automatically undermine any acknowledgement of the issues amab trans people face. Which for a start ignores the fact that transphobia exists as it's own thing we BOTH face (and of course intersex people, whose experience is not just a mixture of being afab and amab non-intersex), but also just... ignores how sexism works.
Like if we acknowledge the pretty obvious fact that, regardless of your gender, having a uterus automatically puts you at a disadvantage in certain ways, that doesn't actually mean saying that NOT having a uterus gives you an automatic and equivalent advantage. If it did, there wouldn't be so many examples of marginalised women being given forced hysterectomies. Did those women become PRIVILEGED by that experience?? Are afab women born without uteruses PRIVILEGED by that?? No! And similarly, trans amab people are not automatically privileged by not having uteruses. They experience a different set of uterus-related gender problems.
Similarly, but less obviously, being raised as a woman has some huge inherent disadvantages even if you ultimately decide you're not one (and of course some afab trans people, such as myself, still identify as a woman too) Acknowledging this disadvantage does not mean implying that being raised as a man always has equivalent advantages, specifically not for those who ultimately end up not identifying as cis men.
Sometimes there are multiple non-overlapping ways for the system to bring people down, and none are "the privileged one", they just suck in different ways. Privilege and oppression cannot be objectively measured on a single axis by a series of yes/no questions along the lines of "Do you identify as a woman?" "Do you have a uterus?" "Are you trans?" etc.
But for a lot of cis women, to truly acknowledge that there is no simple gender-related binary dividing the world into Oppressor and Oppressed would undermine their world view and politics on too deep a level. So they at best paper over it with shallow and thoughtless "trans inclusiveness" and get very angry when the cracks in this "inclusiveness" are pointed out.
(*) There are specific situations where for practical reasons you need a simple way to say who is and is not welcome in a particular space designed to support those who experience certain kinds of gender related oppression. In these contexts, sure, you have to draw the line somewhere. But that doesn't mean the line actually represents a real binary.
It's like, it's fine to have a youth support group which is just for under-25s. You have to draw the line somewhere. But the world does not divide neatly into "under-25s, who are oppressed with regards to age" and "over 25s, who are oppressors with regard to age". A different youth support group might limit themselves to under-18s and not be any more or less correct. And you shouldn't act like a 24 year old and a 25 year old are TOTALLY DIFFERENT in a way that a 24 year old and a 12 year old are not, or that 25 year olds, or for that matter 85 year olds or even 35 year olds, never face any problems relating to their age.
EDIT: Extra random thoughts since I keep having them.
There are afab trans people (especially successfully passing post-transition binary trans men) who do feel like their experience is so different to that of cis women that equating the two is generally both inaccurate and dysphoria inducing. There are also amab trans people (especially those who do not present in a feminine way) who feel like being amab gave them genuine advantages that aren't totally negated by the disadvantages of being trans. The experience of being trans is hugely varied and complex, and it's important not to over-generalise.
Some of the kinds of feminists the article critiques hold up examples of (at least in their eyes) sexist afab trans people as proof that being an afab trans person is basically inherently sexist, because it's a rejection of being a woman. And the fact that afab trans people experience transphobia and also often pretty heavy sexism doesn't change the fact that some of us really are super duper sexist, and wallow in every bit of male privilege they have access to.
But plenty of cis women, and even some trans women, have sexist attitudes and are shitty to other women and willing to use sexism to their advantage. Hell you even have cis women using sexism to be shitty to cis men. There is a difference, but it's again complicated. There's no nice neat line between the Good Safe Group Who Suffer Gender Related Problems and the Bad Oppressive Group Who Cause Gender Related Problems. And even if afab trans people WERE, as a group, as inclined to sexism as cis men (which I have seen no evidence for), that would not negate the fact we experience transphobia and cis women need to be careful not to be transphobic to us. Just like how disabled men aren't notably good about sexism but that doesn't negate their disability or mean able bodied women don't have to worry about being ableist towards them.
I actually cannot think of any cis friends or acquaintances who distanced from me after I came out. But this is probably influenced by (a) Me having already spent some years being severely disabled which already shed a lot of people who plausibly would have been iffy about it (b) Me not unambiguously transitioning to male in any way people might find threatening or alienating. I sure wish people DIDN'T think of me as just a somewhat gnc cis woman, but there's no denying that some of them do, if only subconsciously.
TERFs, Trans Mascs, and Two Steve Feminism In which A Man has an Opinion about Feminism, with Mixed Results.
It's about how a lot of "trans inclusive" cis feminists are terrible about trans masc people in ways which ultimately stem from transphobia and hurt all trans people. It's not perfect, but does capture that specific problem well.
I think the tight focus is overall a good thing but there's a few places the argument would have benefited from more mentions of the connection to broader issues with sexism/transphobia etc. Also I disagreed with some parts.
Some further thoughts:
I know some people don't like this kind of usage of "oppression" and I can see the argument, but I also can't think of a simpler way to put it.
My main disagreement with the essay is that I do not think there's a simple power continuum of cis women > trans masc people > trans femme people. The gendered power dynamics between afab people (who for a start can't be divided neatly into cis vs masc or even cis vs trans) are really complicated, and it annoys me that one thing we all have in common is a tendency to go "I am the MOST oppressed type of afab so I am INCAPABLE of oblivious prejudice".
Similarly, while I'd agree that overall cis man > afab person > trans femme (though even then, trans femme people, like all people, aren't immune from being oblivious about issues they do not personally face), there are amab people who are neither a cis man nor trans femme, and their relationship with gendered oppression and dynamics with people of other genders are also very complicated!
I was discussing this with a friend and they pointed out that the writer flattens attitudes to non-binary people as always negative. But just as there are cis women who 'support' trans women with the self serving logic of "Oh no someone is being oppressed for being a woman, the universally best thing to be" (and so are shitty to anyone who does not identify as a woman), there are cis women who 'support' being non-binary or trans masc with the logic of "Oh no someone is being oppressed for wanting to be gender-non-conforming and/or genderless, the universally best thing to be" (and so are shitty to anyone who they think is gender conforming or 'too gendered', including binary trans people).
They also pointed out that the kind of person who says trans people should just live as gender non conforming cis people absolutely will not be supportive of actual gender non conforming cis people.
But all that bolsters the main point that I do agree with: that ultimately, many cis women cling doggedly to the idea that gendered oppression is always about oppression of The Oppressed Group That They Are In, and they only care about transphobia when it affects people in that group. TERFs define the group as afab people, others define it as "non-men" or "people who identify as women", or "women and non-binary people", or "women and femmes"(*). But in a lot of ways it's basically the same attitude.
There's also, relatedly, a zero sum attitude to the various aspects of gender related oppression that I think means that well meaning but binarist cis women assume that any acknowledgement of the issues afab trans people face will automatically undermine any acknowledgement of the issues amab trans people face. Which for a start ignores the fact that transphobia exists as it's own thing we BOTH face (and of course intersex people, whose experience is not just a mixture of being afab and amab non-intersex), but also just... ignores how sexism works.
Like if we acknowledge the pretty obvious fact that, regardless of your gender, having a uterus automatically puts you at a disadvantage in certain ways, that doesn't actually mean saying that NOT having a uterus gives you an automatic and equivalent advantage. If it did, there wouldn't be so many examples of marginalised women being given forced hysterectomies. Did those women become PRIVILEGED by that experience?? Are afab women born without uteruses PRIVILEGED by that?? No! And similarly, trans amab people are not automatically privileged by not having uteruses. They experience a different set of uterus-related gender problems.
Similarly, but less obviously, being raised as a woman has some huge inherent disadvantages even if you ultimately decide you're not one (and of course some afab trans people, such as myself, still identify as a woman too) Acknowledging this disadvantage does not mean implying that being raised as a man always has equivalent advantages, specifically not for those who ultimately end up not identifying as cis men.
Sometimes there are multiple non-overlapping ways for the system to bring people down, and none are "the privileged one", they just suck in different ways. Privilege and oppression cannot be objectively measured on a single axis by a series of yes/no questions along the lines of "Do you identify as a woman?" "Do you have a uterus?" "Are you trans?" etc.
But for a lot of cis women, to truly acknowledge that there is no simple gender-related binary dividing the world into Oppressor and Oppressed would undermine their world view and politics on too deep a level. So they at best paper over it with shallow and thoughtless "trans inclusiveness" and get very angry when the cracks in this "inclusiveness" are pointed out.
(*) There are specific situations where for practical reasons you need a simple way to say who is and is not welcome in a particular space designed to support those who experience certain kinds of gender related oppression. In these contexts, sure, you have to draw the line somewhere. But that doesn't mean the line actually represents a real binary.
It's like, it's fine to have a youth support group which is just for under-25s. You have to draw the line somewhere. But the world does not divide neatly into "under-25s, who are oppressed with regards to age" and "over 25s, who are oppressors with regard to age". A different youth support group might limit themselves to under-18s and not be any more or less correct. And you shouldn't act like a 24 year old and a 25 year old are TOTALLY DIFFERENT in a way that a 24 year old and a 12 year old are not, or that 25 year olds, or for that matter 85 year olds or even 35 year olds, never face any problems relating to their age.
EDIT: Extra random thoughts since I keep having them.
There are afab trans people (especially successfully passing post-transition binary trans men) who do feel like their experience is so different to that of cis women that equating the two is generally both inaccurate and dysphoria inducing. There are also amab trans people (especially those who do not present in a feminine way) who feel like being amab gave them genuine advantages that aren't totally negated by the disadvantages of being trans. The experience of being trans is hugely varied and complex, and it's important not to over-generalise.
Some of the kinds of feminists the article critiques hold up examples of (at least in their eyes) sexist afab trans people as proof that being an afab trans person is basically inherently sexist, because it's a rejection of being a woman. And the fact that afab trans people experience transphobia and also often pretty heavy sexism doesn't change the fact that some of us really are super duper sexist, and wallow in every bit of male privilege they have access to.
But plenty of cis women, and even some trans women, have sexist attitudes and are shitty to other women and willing to use sexism to their advantage. Hell you even have cis women using sexism to be shitty to cis men. There is a difference, but it's again complicated. There's no nice neat line between the Good Safe Group Who Suffer Gender Related Problems and the Bad Oppressive Group Who Cause Gender Related Problems. And even if afab trans people WERE, as a group, as inclined to sexism as cis men (which I have seen no evidence for), that would not negate the fact we experience transphobia and cis women need to be careful not to be transphobic to us. Just like how disabled men aren't notably good about sexism but that doesn't negate their disability or mean able bodied women don't have to worry about being ableist towards them.
I actually cannot think of any cis friends or acquaintances who distanced from me after I came out. But this is probably influenced by (a) Me having already spent some years being severely disabled which already shed a lot of people who plausibly would have been iffy about it (b) Me not unambiguously transitioning to male in any way people might find threatening or alienating. I sure wish people DIDN'T think of me as just a somewhat gnc cis woman, but there's no denying that some of them do, if only subconsciously.
no subject
I'm not a cis woman but close enough for appearances, and for me this has been a somewhat harrowing experience to unpack - not so much the trans part but the racism part. And the disability part. And class. And and and (but primarily the racism). Unlearning and relearning feminism as an ongoing process is hard but necessary. Like, you can't put "racism and sexism" in a neat pile with white men at the top and black women at the bottom. There's multiple piles for every single person alive. And the same for any human dynamic.
no subject
Yes absolutely, same. And I have noticed that people like TERFs, with their simplistic and self serving "my experience is THE most oppressed" approach, tend to be awful at intersectionality even with things like racism where on the surface it SHOULDN'T be at odds with their politics.
no subject
Man, this goes off, I didn't even think of it this way but this makes so much sense and breaks down the nuance of it so so well
You have to draw the line somewhere. But the world does not divide neatly into "under-25s, who are oppressed with regards to age" and "over 25s, who are oppressors with regard to age".
This is semi-connected, but when I wanted to go to kink 101 munches for newbies about 10 years ago, I was told very firmly they were for under 25s, and I asked where the newbies went who were over the age of 25 and basically told the equivalent of 'suck it up and just go to a regular event.' Which, while paraphrased, felt weirdly ageist in the whole other direction (that we don't have a right to safe spaces, or to get specific welcome groups for us, and it made me think how additionally *hard* it might be for folks in their 50s/60s to enter these spaces as shy newbies and get this response too. It's a very 'well you missed your window' response, and makes me feel like I should pretend to have more practical experience than I do to "fit in" with my age group).
So yeah, those age parameters need to exist - especially to stop (generally) older cis male predators around younger folks. But it did highlight what happens when you rigidly place the people on either side of an arbitrary line into certain sides of an amorphous somewhat unreal dichotomy in the process.
no subject
My bottom line is as humans, we are ALWAYS capable of oblivious prejudice.
no subject
Ha I love that as an endorsement for like... book covers or whatever. "[image: [personal profile]] https://sqbr.dreamwidth.org/profilesqbr https://sqbr.dreamwidth.org/'s rhetorical deployment of the uterus is outstanding!"
no subject
Yeah I was thinking about similar issues I've seen with queer resources etc. I absolutely get why those age barriers exist, BUT...
no subject
no subject
Yes! I had a vague memory of having explored similar topics before but was sleepy so didn't follow that thought very far but you're right, it's very related.