‘Rational’ Wiki on Radical Feminism
by retzielcrimson
So, my blog was recently linked to from the ‘Rational’ Wiki talk page on “TERFs“. The person said that my blog is “useful for debunking practice”. I’ve seen no comments forthcoming from him or any other anti-feminist trans activists (AFTAs) on my blog, so one wonders. Anyway, I had a look at the article, and behold the mountain of nonsense, ad hominem, and disregard for meaning of words.
If you’re familiar with AFTA arguments, then my apologies, this is just a basic retread. In the first paragraph, the article makes several errors:
Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (or TERF) is a subgroup of radical feminism characterized by transphobia, especially transmisogyny,[2] and hostility to the third wave of feminism. They believe that the only real women™ are those born with a vagina and XX chromosomes.[3] They wish to completely enforce the classic gender binary, supporting gender essentialism.
The first sentence is complete nonsense. “Transmisogyny”, which I guess is newspeak for “misandry” does not exist. The transphobia claim is peddled often by linking to Cathy Brennan’s responses to some seriously disturbed and verbally abusive men. Her response often boils down to publishing publicly available information on her various blogs. This apparently constitutes “TERFs are violent, murderous, and they doxx us” to AFTAs. Anyway, “only real women” is a fallacious argument. They even link to “no true scotsman”(!) Woman is a word that defines half the human population. Women are adult female humans, born with female reproductive system. The third endnote makes another fallacious claim:
They notably completely fail to acknowledge XY women with androgen insensitivity syndrome, people who are born intersex, genderqueer people, or people with various non-XX, non-XY chromosomes (e.g., X0, XYY, XXY, etc.). When pressed on the point, they will deny intersex is an issue, forcing them to choose a gender from the binary. Approximately 0% of chromosome obsessives have actually had their own karyotype tested.
“XY women” have complete (not partial or mild) AIS. They are women due to them being born with external genitalia that are the same as that of a normal female. Meaning they were not born with penises and testicles like male-to-trans people (AKA transwomen). While disorders of sexual development are numerous, they only affect a very small number of people (about 0.05%-0.06% of all live births according to ISNA), and most can be sexed. X0 is female, XYY, XXY, are male, etc. Fetuses develop into males due to the SRY gene, which in almost all cases is located on the Y chromosome (there are “XX men” when the SRY gene is translocated onto an X-chromosome carrying sperm). The fact that some people have DSD does not deny the reality of sexual dimorphism, which exists in all mammals, not just us. The last sentence is nonsensical, if you were born with anatomically correct male genitalia, every cell of your body will have XY chromosomes; likewise if you were born with anatomically correct female genitalia, every cell of your body will have XX chromosomes.
The article is filled with confused language about the distinction between “gender” and “sex”. The article uses them interchangeably in some aspects, but in others, it doesn’t. Here’s are some examples:
In other words, TERFs go so far as to reject gender being anything other than a synonym for biological organs or chromosomes.[3] Thus (re)defining their own movement as that “of women to liberate women from oppression, and that female biological reality is a defining aspect of women’s experience of oppression.”[15]
This is simply false, and a form of projection. Radical feminists have always maintained that sex (boy/girl, man/woman), our biological reality, is separate from gender, what society imposes on the sexes in terms of prescribed behaviour, attitudes, personality traits, clothes, hobbies, etc.
Academic radical feminism is premised upon the idea that gender is entirely a social construct (and further, that it must be destroyed). Some transgender people maintain, on the other hand, that gender is to some extent intrinsic (that is, even though they were raised as one binary gender, they have always identified as the other,[16] and further, they often, but not always, want bodies to match).
Note the contradiction between the article’s claim of what gender means for feminists in the first quote, and the one before us. “Identifies as the other [gender]” and “gender is to some extent intrinsic”. What does this mean? Rational Wiki answers us in its very own gender article:
Gender, on the other hand, refers more to the non-biological characteristics of “man” and “woman”. These are often rooted in stereotypical identifiers, including things like “women are care givers, and gatherers”, “men are protectors and hunters”; women feel and are intuitive, and men think and work things out. However, sometimes biologically influenced characteristics such as strength and build are included.
Again, by Rational Wiki’s own definition, MtTs (male-to-trans) who claim they’re women, rely on the belief that stereotypes of women are intrinsic, and therefore by identifying with, and performing those stereotypes, they were always women (in their brains). When feminists discuss the dismantling of gender, they’re talking about eliminating sex-based socialisation. So boys wouldn’t be socialised to “be tough; don’t cry” or ridiculed if they want to wear dresses; likewise, girls wouldn’t be socialised to “be extra nice; don’t talk back” or ridiculed for wanting to play sports, etc. Feminists aren’t interested in creating more boxes so people could find their niche and try to fit themselves in, they’re interested in throwing away the boxes so all of us can be ourselves.
Significant number of AFTAs, however, get aroused by thinking of themselves as women, Autogynephilia, and so radical feminist arguments are seen as a direct threat, even a form of violence. Understanding this key aspect of AFTA beliefs explains the hostility towards studies that debunk the existence of biological reasons for brain differentiation between men and women, even without reference to MtTs, e.g. Delusions of Gender.
While not all radical feminists would agree, those that critique — “I’m not transphobic, I’m trans critical!”[20] — transgender people’s existence maintain (generally contrary to both what trans people themselves have said about their own identities, and the medical consensus on gender dysphoria) that trans women are nothing more than “effeminate men” who have been relegated by the patriarchal gender binary to the status of women (whereas trans men, when they bother to mention them at all, are just women trying to claim ‘male privilege’ for themselves). Thus they slam transgender people in general for “reifying the gender binary.”
No feminist critiques “transgender people’s existence”, that is absurd. They simply make the obvious observation that MtTs are male/men. This is simple fact, and mentioning reality is neither abusive, nor “exterminatory”. While some MtTs are feminine, others maintain their previously held mannerisms. The article suggests that dysphoria is needed for someone to be called transgender; while I agree, this flies in the face of many AFTAs who argue that dysphoria is not needed if a man wants to wear a dress and call himself “Becky”. Reifying gender is the belief that what society imposes on men and women is innate, and therefore liking dresses, make-up, high heels, domesticity, long hair, etc. is linked to being a woman. How many MtTs make the claim that they liked playing with dolls growing up, or wished they could wear tutus but were refused, etc. and that means they have female/lady brains? How many say they’re ‘better women’ than women (often hurled at radical feminists)?
Rational Wiki also utilises block quotes suggesting that Brennan made the below quote, when in fact it was the web site they linked to which is misrepresenting her views:
Cathy Brennan, for example, literally believes not only that trans women are men, but that they are therefore de facto animals who cannot control themselves (all typos in original):[21]
transgender woman are in fact men using an artificialy constructed feminine apperance to exert patriarchy from the inside of feminism and believe it or not, to gain access to womans bathrooms in order to rape them.
In reality, this was the dailykos misrepresenting Brennan. What they said, clearly not a direct quote, and no reference to it:
You may never hear Cathy Brennan say she’s not transphobic because like all “TERFs” she rejects transsexualism, believing instead transgender woman are in fact men using an artificialy constructed feminine apperance to exert patriarchy from the inside of feminism and believe it or not, to gain access to womans bathrooms in order to rape them.
As irrational as it sounds, its true TERF ideology.
The ‘Rational Wiki’, of course, notorious for irrationality.
All of this is highly ironic, since by doing all this they are objectifying women’s bodies and saying men are not to blame for their actions because “instincts”.
The article never explains how feminists are objectifying their bodies by explaining the reality of their bodies. Saying that if men remove their penis and testicles that does not make them women is not objectifying women’s bodies. It is asserting that women are not defective men. Women have a complex reproductive system, and you don’t shift sexes simply by removing an otherwise healthy body part. My understanding is that many radical feminists believe male violence is socialised, not innate. Not sure where the article got this from. The misquotation from dailykos?
TERFs loathe the third wave of feminism. For a number of reasons, partly their authoritarianism, partly their demographic myopia, and partly because they represent a partial embodiment of every stereotype thrown at feminists over the last century and a half, this particular group of radfems have been roundly rejected by nearly every demographic they claim to represent, including, but not limited to, women of color, sex workers, kinksters, most male allies, and, at long last, most every feminist who’s come after them. This is in part due to their inability or unwillingness to understand intersectionality.[25]
I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry at the utter falsity and nonsense of mostly white men telling feminists (including women of colour, prostitution survivors, and (hi there) male allies (also of colour)) that everyone is running away from them.
They also seem to deeply resent that the third-wavers have taken their best ideas — understanding and fighting patriarchal structures and rape culture, the fight for reproductive rights and women’s health care — and carried them forward, while leaving the dogmatism and one-size-fits-all theorizing behind, rendering the majority of them irrelevant.
MtTs calling women catty and jealous. These dudes call themselves “gender non-conforming”, but they represent some of the most gender conforming men I ran into online. Oh, and by the way, dudes, “Slut Walk” isn’t fighting rape culture, ok?
Back in the 1980s, TERF ideas were at the absolute pinnacle of the tree of ideological soundness and political correctness (early enough that that term was only used approvingly by those supporting it); they can’t quite understand how the same ideas — let alone their actions — in the 2010s are considered odious bigotry.
‘TERF’ was never used approvingly. Only MRAs think women’s liberation is “odious bigotry”.
In the 1980s, TERFs successfully brought an end to trans health care access. One TERF operative wrote the government report which led the the revocation of trans medical care under government programs and soon thereafter, private insurers followed suit.
This is a lie by Cristan Williams, which has been proven false a long time ago. I already answered in storify, but I’ll reproduce it here: Cris is blaming Janice Raymond’s activism for the government position back in the Reagan administration. The claims on Dr. Raymond are published in http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-trans-community-hates-dr-janice-g.html and are completely fallacious. The paper in question had nothing to say about ‘eliminating’ federal and state aid for transsexuals. Hard to eliminate what doesn’t exist and all that. The National Center for Health Care Technology commissioned Dr. Raymond along with other organizations, including American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, among others to determine whether “specific procedures are reasonable and necessary”. The submissions were published in a report “Transsexual Surgery” in 1981, in its Assessment Report Series. The professor’s findings are quoted in one sentence of the 15 page report. In short, the notion that Dr. Raymond did any of the things AFTAs claim is bollocks, of course, but why let facts keep you from blaming women, yes?
The whole “TERFs and wingnuts” section is ad hominem stating that some radical feminist argument sound similar to right-wing arguments. The fact that why they believe in these arguments are different, and that their end goals are different is not explored, of course.
Their particular transphobic rhetoric also owes a lot to wingnut homophobia in its structure, showcasing the same homosexuality-as-a-choice; when Jeffreys noticed RadFem2012 was cancelled and labelled a hate group, she said:[29] (emphasis added)
Criticism of the practice of transgenderism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by transgender activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue.
The bolded part is eerily similar to what the radical right have said about homosexuality; specifically, it resembles a quote about such by neo-Nazi Paul Fromm:[30] gender identity as choice instead of something a person is, as well as a massive persecution complex.
Gender ID is nonsense, and people can’t change their sex. A surgical created body cavity is not a vagina, and removing testicles does not make a man a woman. Also? No conclusive evidence that homosexuality is innate. Like all human behaviour, sexuality is fluid, and can be changed, by will/choice. In fact NARTH and other SOCE practitioners believe homosexuality is a mental illness, and believe reparative therapy will allow these people to become ‘normal’ members of society. Homosexuality is not viewed by them as a choice, freely made, but a mental illness that can only be changed through exertion and external effort to ‘correct’ wrong behaviour induced by past events (absentee father/mother, childhood abuse, etc.)
TERFs have advocated reparative therapy for transgender people, e.g. Janice Raymond, in her paper Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery:
Nonsexist counseling is another direction for change that should be explored. The kind of counseling to “pass” successfully as masculine or feminine that now reigns in gender identity clinics only reinforces the problem of transsexualism. It does nothing to develop critical awareness, and makes transsexuals dependent upon medical-technical solutions. What I am advocating is a counseling that explores the social origins of the transsexual problem and the consequences of the medicaltechnical solution.[31]
This is exactly the same rhetoric used by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH),[32] an anti-LGBT group dedicated to lobbying reparative therapy.[33]
Hardly same. Raymond is advocating better treatment to people struggling with dysphoria, rather than presenting them with hoops/pushing them through path towards surgery. She’s advocating better psychological practices to enable men/women with dysphoria to look at the heart of why they feel psychological distress from otherwise healthy organs, rather than having one option, that of ‘transition’.
The thinking done on this article is muddled, and based on a misunderstanding and ignorance of several concepts. I haven’t even pointed out the reality that feminism is about liberation of women, not ensuring men’s feelings (including MtTs) are not hurt.
That was fucking brilliant.
All of my kudos. Succinct and great takedowns.
If I was not so drunk, I’d give a more adequate reply.
Thank you for writing this.
XY women with PAIS or CAIS are born with testicles. (Did you mean “scrotal pouch?”) They typically also still respond to Anti-Muellerian Hormones, which means that they do not have fallopian tubes, a uterus, cervix, or upper vagina. There are also XY men, who have AMH-insensitivity, and they have a penis, testicles and scrotum, however they have fallopian tubes, a uterus, cervix, or upper vagina, which is typically only found upon exploratory abdominal surgery, and typically removed as a matter of course during such exploratory surgery, as they only exist as cancer targets.
“Fetuses develop into males due to the SRY gene…” This statement is inaccurate. The gonadal ovotestical tissue develops into either testes or ovaries based on the existence or non-existence of the SRY gene respectively as you accurately describe here.
However, after that, everything is determined by hormones. External genitalia forms according to presence and response to testosterone and other androgens. (External genitalia here refers additionally to lower vagina.)
Muellerian organs (fallopian tubes, a uterus, cervix, and upper vagina) are governed by presence and response to Anti-Muellerian Hormones (AMH).
While both these hormones are secreted by testes, they are not secreted by ovaries, thus the change in development.
Nearly all other factors of sexual development are in response to puberty hormone increases: Breasts grow in response to estrogen regardless of genitalia; androgenic hair (pubic, underarm, facial) all respond to androgens regardless of genitalia; vocal cords deepen in response to androgens regardless of genitalia.
That’s not to say that there are other (unusual) primary sexual dimorphism in humans. For instance, the index:ring finger ratio is well known and documented to be in response to hormone levels in womb.
In all mammals so far investigated, it is already know and well established that the brain is sexually dimorphic http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100381/
Also, since cow twins typically have the blood vessels in the chorions become interconnected. They have some cross hormone transfer, and in the case of a male-female pair of fraternal bovine twins, it is already well documented that the female will exhibit mounting behavior, and generally react like castrated male bovines.
So well documented is the later that there is an explicit term for them in animal husbandry: freemartin. Due to exposure to AMH, they will do not develop the complete reproductive systems, and are infertile.
“The fact that some people have DSD does not deny the reality of sexual dimorphism, which exists in all mammals, not just us.”
Indeed, and all evidence suggests that just like all other mammals have sexually dimorphic brains.
“… if you were born with anatomically correct male genitalia, every cell of your body will have XY chromosomes; likewise if you were born with anatomically correct female genitalia, every cell of your body will have XX chromosomes.”
Yes, but recall, the SRY gene only counts for distinguishing ovotestical precursors into the appropriate genitalia. EVERYTHING else is driven by hormones.
Now, considering how many birth defects that we have seen make it to viable and productive state, we know that hormone levels of all hormones can vary significantly throughout the body of a developing fetus. For instance, in rats, random thyroid hormone driving inner hair cell growth is blocked from reaching the ear? BAM! The mouse is deaf for life: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/12/3163.full.pdf
Now, is it so hard to imagine that sexual hormones can vary at different levels inside the body (I mean, the very statement is tautological.) It stands to reason that it’s possible (but UNLIKELY!) that the brain will come out sexual dimorphic inconsistent with the genitalia. (Say, like 0.03% of all births. As you yourself noted DSD has “about 0.05%-0.06% of all live births according to ISNA” so, we’re not talking crazy figures here.)
That works out to 1 in 3000 births… which is about the prevalence of transsexualism.
“Sexually dimorphic brains” at birth is certainly not proven, and in fact this notion of “lady brain” has been debunked, as I mentioned in the article. Read Delusions of Gender. The notion that because there are differences, on average, between men and women’s brains this means that brains are sex dimorphic is fallacious and based on the ignorance about the evidence of the brain’s neuroplasticity. In essence, our experience, socialisation, etc. change our brain structures. So in the vast majority of human cultures, women would tend to be more empathetic than men, and men more spatially-skilled than women, etc.
If you understand that DSD only affects 0.05%-0.06% of the population, then you should also understand that for 99.94%-99.95% of the population, sex is determined at conception. Your claim at the prevalence of transsexualism is odd. First define what transsexualism is, then show a source that gives that figure using your definition for it. My understanding is that different definitions are used, some of the most popular, at least online, include “any man who calls himself a woman is a woman, and was female all his life” cf. Frank Maloney.
“sexually dimorphic brains” at birth are a known and scientific fact for every mammal that we have studied well enough. Again, c.f. freemartins. Freemartins are also known to exist in sheep, goats, and pigs. In rats, this is such a well accepted and scientific fact that one need not even cite a paper justifying the statement.
You cannot simply dismiss scientific papers and well-worn animal husbandry with “not proven.” Now, to be fair, in humans, we have not sufficiently studied them to verify any sort of “lady brain” claim. However, considering the fact that every mammal we study has this feature… why are you have difficulty accepting that humans are mammals? In fact, the tragic case of David Reimer suggests that we cannot simply socialize our children into a sex.
David Reimer was the victim of a botched circumcision, at which point his parents were convinced to perform sex reassignment surgery on the child, and then raise it like a girl. During her entire life she resisted against socializing as a girl
This idea that we choose which group to socialize to fit is not absurd. Much like the Goth kids in South Park, “you need to conform to us in order to be accepted” And any tomgirl can relate to the social pressures against her not fitting in.
So, back to David Reimer who at this point is being raised as a girl. Once she finally learns the truth, she rebels, and refuses to be a girl anymore, and eventually reverts to a male later in her life. However, from all the abuse he suffered early in life, (i.e. forcing her to socialize as a girl, even though she didn’t want to) he eventually committed suicide.
Now, when science speaks of “sexually dimorphic brain” they’re not talking about “likes pink” or “naturally likes to raise children” or any of a number of tired and worn stereotypes are are indeed based on socialization instead of actual innate conditions of the brain.
However, there is evidence that humans do have a sexually dimorphic brain, and this does effect some differences in how men and women think. However, those differences are VASTLY different from what we typically think is behind the socialized gender of “female” or “male”. You are indeed correct that neuroplasticity is far more powerful than we think it is. And the vast majority of “women are this” and “men are this” is total nonsense socialization, and not in built behaviors.
However, all of that said, freemartins still mount other cows despite not having a penis. Another scientifically valid dimorphism seems to be that females are better at relative navigation, whereas males are better at absolute navigation. (This was tested with rats, with a maze that they learned. They could change landmarks, and left vs. right, and females got lost. If they changed the lengths of hallways, the males got lost.)
I will address the prevalence of tanssexualism in a different post, so that this doesn’t end up an impenetrable wall of text… (ok, more so)
Again freemartins are chimeric, not “genetic females” as you suggest. I’m not familiar with animal husbandry or research into freemartins, so I can’t judge the veracity of your claims, but as they’re immaterial to the general argument, I’ll take your word for it, understanding that freemartins are not “female who act like castrated males”, but females with a chromosomal abnormality. Humans are mammals, but there’s no proof that our brains are sex dimorphic, and plenty that differentiation occurs due to socialization.
The David Reimer case seems to be utilized by trans activists and allies with some frequency to ‘prove’ that gender is innate and exists in one’s brain. Nothing of the sort can be gleaned from this, unless you’re willing to omit some of the story. It begins with a botched circumcision, where David (Bruce at the time) had most of his penis burned away. His parents, concerned that their son won’t have a normal life due to this, were convinved to “trans” their son into a girl. Note, here, this was done through imposing femininity on their son, at the time 22 months. In fact, by any indication the imposition was particularly fierce, more so than any girl had to go through at his age, including being forced to wear frilly dresses during cold winters. John Money, as part of socializing David (called Brenda at this point) forced him to get on all fours while his twin brother humped him from behind, and forced him to get on his back and spread his legs while his brother lay atop him. Does this sound like normal female socialization to you? Wouldn’t you be depressed if you were humiliated, degraded in this manner? If your parents, the people who are supposed to protect you were complicit in your torture? This would be awful regardless of whether David was born a boy or a girl, or do you think girls would love wearing frilly dresses in the cold of winter? Having an adult man direct your brother to sexually assault you so you can both have “healthy gender identity as adults”? The depression came long before him finding out he was a boy, but I’m pretty sure it built up inside of him, knowing that he didn’t have to go through that torture and pain had he been treated as a boy. That you would look at that man’s story and conclude “he didn’t like it because he was born with a boy brain” is incomprehensible, do you seriously think girls would’ve loved to be treated this way by people they trusted the most?
Again, there’s a lot of evidence that men and women have different brains, on average. The issue here is that there’s no evidence that this is due to sex dimorphism. Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity, which you seem to accept, men and women’s different experiences and socializations, do result in clear, quantifiable difference, on average. This does not suggest it has anything to do with the brain’s sex dimorphism, as part of this differentiation includes how both sexes process information. Relying on evidence from rats, cows, and other mammals might be easier to do in a lab, but is certainly not enough to make arguments about humans, and certainly not to make conclusions about how they process information.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Prevalence/Reports/Prevalence%20of%20Transsexualism.pdf
Yes, how one defines “transsexualism” determines how particular results of the prevalence work.
But let’s take the lower-bound estimate that is reported in the PDF: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+%2F+30%2C000+*+population+of+the+us we get an answer of a little more than 10,000 people in the US. Go with the order of magnitude that I presented, you get 100,000. This is not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things. However, if you get onto the internet, they will find areas to congregate and selection bias can cause the appearance of higher prevalence rates in particular situations.
“for 99.94%-99.95% of the population, sex is determined at conception.” For these people, yes, the genetic sex at conception does indeed cascade into their prevalent sexual presentation. But we don’t stop giving wheelchair ramps to people because they don’t fit in with the 99.9%… we don’t stop recognizing XY women with CAIS as women because they’re not part of the 99.9%…
We accept that accidents of biology happen, and that this does not diminish the qualities of that person.
Again, I was merely questioning how you reached your numbers. The article you cite mentioned numbers of people who will undergo reassignment at some point in their life. Is that your definition? You do realize there are MtTs who do not want “sex change surgeries” and in fact claim that, because they’re women, that makes their penis and male reproductive system female? They demand we not refer to their male reproductive system as male at all, and talk of organs only, as apparently, mentioning male and female is a form of reifying gender. When words and concepts are explained to them, they go off on tirades about “TERFs”, “SWERFs”, “BERFs”, and shout about transphobia and “transmisogyny”. When other MtTs talk about the fact that gender dysphoria is a diagnostic necessity to being transsexual, they go off and shout about “truscum”. I hope the behavior of these people is something you’re aware of, as men and women who discuss abolishing gender deal with these lot frequently.
I understand XY women are women. They’re phenotypically women, so agreed there. Accidents of biology do not diminish the qualities of a person, indeed. 100% agreed. I would say “thank you for stating the obvious”, but I don’t want to appear hostile. :p
“Feminists aren’t interested in creating more boxes so people could find their niche and try to fit themselves in, they’re interested in throwing away the boxes so all of us can be ourselves.”
Why do you then insist on distinguishing transwomen from yourself? If gender is all social, and men and women largely use the same bathroom equipment, then why suggest that a person conforming to female stereotypes need use the male’s bathroom because penis?
I mean, is anyone looking at the genitalia of other people in the bathroom? I’m sure there a few, there are men who have “wide stances” that use the bathroom to find partners, but largely bathrooms are “get in, do your private stuff, and leave”… no one is flaunting anything there…
But if you insist that “biological” men, and “biological” women use separate spaces regardless of their gender-conformation, then you’re making boxes, and placing people in them against their will.
Fundamentally, we need either: unisex bathrooms, or completely individualized bathrooms. Otherwise, we’re forcing people into boxes.
Bathrooms are sex-segregated for a reason. This was a demand made by early feminists in order to give women sense of privacy in spaces where they’re vulnerable. This is especially relevant in public when dealing with strangers. Your paragraphs only make sense if you ignore the evidence at the existence of male violence. While I understand MtTs (and other men) are subject to the same, I don’t believe women should be put at risk by abolishing (effectively) women’s spaces so MtTs feel better about themselves. We have many examples of men (and MtTs) entering women’s bathrooms for reasons other than its intended purpose. To deny that is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. To have sex-segregated bathrooms is not forcing people into boxes, we are sexually dimorphic species; it’s our reality, we’re not forcing anything onto anyone. Men and women are terms of biology, putting “biological” before either term, therefore, is redundant.
Sex-segregated bathrooms have been around far before feminism. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/11/sex_segregated_public_restrooms_an_outdated_relic_of_victorian_paternalism.html Massachussets passed the first law mandating sex segregated toilets around one-hundred and twenty-seven years ago.
That they are convenient “safety spaces” for women in our modern society is merely that: a convenience.
“We have many examples of men (and MtTs) entering women’s bathrooms for reasons other than its intended purpose.”
And there are plenty of examples of men (and women!) entering any gender’s bathrooms for reasons other than its intended purpose… you deal with these situations as they occur. The same you do for any person who is not trans.
“To have sex-segregated bathrooms is not forcing people into boxes, we are sexually dimorphic species; it’s our reality”
And our brains are very likely sexually dimorphic as well. This is more like the Higg’s Boson a couple of years ago, than perpetual motion machines. There is strong evidence to suggest that we, like all mammals, have sexually dimorphic brains. This isn’t to force you to recognize and accept transsexuals; it’s just our reality.
“Men and women are terms of biology, putting “biological” before either term, therefore, is redundant.”
Men and women are defined in how they are greeted by society. Again, we don’t go checking people’s genitalia before deciding which pronouns to use. Male and female are biological terms which refer to what kind of gamedes they produce AND NOTHING MORE. It doesn’t mean “has a penis” or “has a vagina”. It is strictly attached to “contributes mobile/non-mobile gamede to conception.” In species where neither is particularly mobile, or both are more or less indistinguishable, they are presented with different terms to distinguish them from their reproductive role.
Biologically, XY women are males, because they produce sperm. I have already gone over this in this conversation. The only thing that biology cares about sex is: produces sperm, and produces eggs. They don’t care about any other features or milieu that contribute to the “man” vs. “woman” dichotomy of society.
Brains are not sex dimorphic. No proof of this notion, and this has nothing to do with how sex-segregated spaces are not fitting people into boxes, just you prevaricating. Also, you yourself claimed that “brain sex dimorphism” has nothing to do with gender, so MtTs who wear ‘feminine’ clothing and adopt ‘feminine’ mannerisms don’t necessarily have ‘lady brains’ according to you, correct? They might in fact have ‘macho brains’ but express themselves in ‘feminine’ manner, yes? There’s strong evidence to suggest sex differences in brain structures is due to socialization, not what you’re claiming.
Sex-segregated bathrooms are crucial for women’s involvement in the public sphere, and in women’s empowerment. There are studies that show in developing countries, providing girls with sex-segregated bathrooms is strongly linked with them remaining in school after they hit puberty, for example. Plenty of evidence points to the fact that women’s spaces whether locker rooms or bathrooms is important for women to participate in public life. In that sense, it is very feminist, and that’s the sense I was usig it in, not referring to the much more recent suffragette movement.
Your comment on what makes men and women is based on false beliefs, XY women (who are a very tiny minority), are phenotypically women. Which refers to external appearance. This isn’t difficult or esoteric knowledge. Like I mentioned most men who put on make-up don’t look like women. Biology does not have a consciousness, that’s rather silly. Men are defined as adult human males, even if they don’t look like ‘typical’ men (eccentric men, feminine men, ‘special’ men, etc.) Likewise women are defined as adult human females, even if they don’t look like ‘typical’ women.
“Radical feminists have always maintained that sex (boy/girl, man/woman), our biological reality”
Your “biological” reality is limited strictly to those who have contributed genetic material to a fertilized egg. “Male and female” in biology refer to “those with larger immobile gametes” vs “those with smaller mobile gametes”. This would mean that an XY woman with CAIS would be a biological male, because they produce sperm.
“Biological sex” has nothing to do with anything we see… it has to do with the gametes produced by our gonads.
And if you haven’t conceived a baby, then your “biological sex” is meaningless, because you haven’t done anything to deserve your condition as “male” or “female”.
You seek simply to reinforce an arbitrary boundary of “this person was born with what appear to be these genitals, therefore they are this specific sex” completely neglecting the actual biological arguments, and realities of mammalian development.
XY women (CAIS) are phenotypically women. Ask any physician with expertise in DSD. Sex is reproductive potential, not conditional on fecundity. It’s not like my sex is currently indeterminate, then if I get a woman pregnant I’ll spontaneously transform into a man. You don’t do anything to “deserve” being male or female. You are either male or female, regardless of whether you’re fertile or not.
You’re the one ignoring realities of mammalian development by claiming that “male” and “female” hinge on whether you reproduce. This is a patently false argument.
“XY women (CAIS) are phenotypically women.” Externally only. They still have testes, and they typically do not have any Muellerian ducts.
“Sex is reproductive potential” Then XY women are still males. Because they produce sperm. They cannot conceive a child in any way possible, and if they had their genetic germ cells removed in order to contribute to a conception, they would contribute sperm.
Again, XY women only have a lower vagina. They are women only externally, and they typically have an orchiectomy after puberty, and after they find out, because the only thing the testes will do at that point is collect cancer.
“It’s not like my sex is currently indeterminate, then if I get a woman pregnant I’ll spontaneously transform into a man.” However, animal husbandry does make a distinction between “not yet reproductive” and “proven to be reproductive”. Because an infertile female (freemartin) is worth only as much as a castrated male cattle, because it will not ever be productive, and it will not ever produce milk as a milking cow.
“You’re the one ignoring realities of mammalian development by claiming that “male” and “female” hinge on whether you reproduce.”
No, I am not. Biology does.
And you’re neglecting the realities of mammalian development when you claim that brains are not sexually dimorphic in cows, sheep, goats, pigs, rats, and every other mammal that we’ve bothered to check for.
You have a false understanding of XY women. Their phenotype is female, even though they can’t reproduce. They don’t have typical male genitalia, and phentotype refers to external appearance. Saying “they’re phenotypically women externally” is a tautology. Again, if in animal husbandry they make that distinction, that’s because there’s monetary value attached, not same with people…
Biology does not define male and female by who reproduces. That’s you. Our sex is observed at birth, and can be observed in utero. My claim was that human brains are not sex dimorphic, as no evidence for it exists. I’m not well read on the subject of research of this matter in animals, but they too have cultures that divide labor based on sex, and I’m wondering if any sort of control has been done on that (my assumption is no). Just because some things exist in nature, are done by animals does not make them inevitable or moral. Infanticide, murder, rape, etc. are all behaviors observed in animals and quite prevalent even amongst mammals, including primates. Systems of gender also exist, and I think this might influence brain development in mammals as well. But again, not an expert.
“and I think this might influence brain development in mammals as well. But again, not an expert.”
If you are not an expert, why are you talking about this.
Fact: all mammalian brains that we have studied are sexually dimorphic.
You repeating what I told you does not an argument make. While hormones do affect brain size; males are usually larger than females, this does not support the notion that behaviors are innate. Femininity is not inherent in ‘female brain’ likewise for masculinity.
“Significant number of AFTAs, however, get aroused by thinking of themselves as women, Autogynephilia,”
The existence of autogynephiliacs is indisputable because Anne Lawrence loudly proclaims that “she” is one.
This cannot however be used to apply it to all people who identify as women… doing so is like saying that feminists decry sex, and want to destroy men… which is clearly bogus… sure SOME feminists say such things, however it is not the central theme of feminism, which I think you would agree.
Imagine being told that because you’re a feminist, that you think all men should be castrated and/or killed. (Some feminists do argue for this!) Would you feel happy people painting you with that brush, because “some people do that”?
This was actually argued by Ray Blanchard, and J Michael Bailey, among others. It is a matter of continuous research, and is not denied in the field. I said significant numbers, not “all”, yes? Read more carefully, please.
I am aware of Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey. If you knew anything about the theory, you would know that there is also Anne Lawrence, who has publicly asserted their identification of an autogynephiliac.
Also both Blanchard and Bailey drew their lines between HSTS and AG transsexuals more on their sexual attraction to the individual than any sort of fact. (Surprise surprise, only women who are attracted to men exclusively feel any need to conform to the sexual desires of men.)
Anne Lawrence has also publicly stated that she short-circuited the WPATH Standards of Care, and basically paid someone to give her her doctor’s notes. There are numerous issues with Anne Lawrence as a person, and this is best expressed by how she ended up being dismissed as an anesthesiologist… “I think this woman has mutilated genitalia, I think I’ll go check”
“I said significant numbers, not “all”, yes?”
Oh, I was under the impression that you thought that no transwomen deserved to be treated like every other woman… I’m sorry for misunderstanding you. Apparently, you do think that there are some transwomen who are acceptable in women-only-spaces, and aren’t anti-feminist.
I will endeavour to keep this in mind as I continue to respond to your posts.
I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re saying anymore.
Also both Blanchard and Bailey drew their lines between HSTS and AG transsexuals more on their sexual attraction to the individual than any sort of fact. (Surprise surprise, only women who are attracted to men exclusively feel any need to conform to the sexual desires of men.)
I’m assuming this is in reference to both of them finding that homosexual MtTs are the ones that fit into the model that “always acted feminine” rather than straight MtTs who often had no such histories, but wished to transition later, with a strong sexual component to seeing themselves as women? One group adopts femininity as a coping mechanism, another as a form of sexual fetish. There were studies, with evidence provided. You have a problem with scientific inquiry? Why are you obsessed with Anne Lawrence?
I know some transwomen who aren’t anti-feminist/misogynist and all of them understand and respect the need of female-only spaces, so what you’re suggesting does not make sense. If they thought they’re the same as all women, then they wouldn’t be pro-feminist.
“Understanding this key aspect of AFTA beliefs explains the hostility towards…”
In other words, because some MtT’s present this distressing belief system, therefore all MtT’s are unacceptable.
Again, some feminists want to see all men castrated or dead… this doesn’t make their view of feminism dominate or valid. You’re putting people in boxes again, even though you said feminism was about tearing down boxes…
Can we get some nuance in this monologue? Like a recognition that, while there are some MtT’s that are genuinely not good candidates for allowing into women-only spaces, that there are also good MtT’s that present no concerns at all about letting them into women-only spaces?
By denying that such MtT’s exist, you are casting all MtT’s into the same box and labeling them “unacceptable”. Why does this make sense? We already know that gender is mostly meaningless, but when we interact with people all we see is their gender… (unless you’re secretly consulting genitalia all the time)… so, which is more important to respect? Gender? or Sex?
In society, the answer is gender. If the world suddenly becomes a eutopia where gender stereotypes are no longer enforced, then we can talk about segregating people based on sex, rather than gender…
You’re relying on straw men arguments. I’m talking specifically about those MtTs who react with such hostility towards women having a conversation on how their position in society is not due to having different brains, and womanhood is not intrinsically linked to femininity. It has nothing to do with liking dresses, putting on make-up, being submissive, etc.
MtTs are men, why should they be good candidates to be in women-only spaces? In fact, this sort of compromise is the sort AFTAs prey on, by talking nonsense about ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘oppressing their needs’ etc.
While gender (associating behaviour, personality traits, clothes, hobbies, etc. with males or females and coerce males and females into conforming to such) is socially constructed, it does have material impact, overwhelmingly affecting women. Understanding what gender means, I have no idea what you mean by saying “all we see is gender”? Many MtTs put on make-up, shave, electrolysis, etc. but they’re still clearly men. Not all of them look like Mr. ‘Janet’ Mock. Gender is an oppressive hierarchy, and as such, should not be afforded respect.
We can’t end gender by respecting it, though. What you’re doing is a tautology. Refer back to male violence. Appropriating stereotypes is not a good sign a man does not pose a danger to women. Like I said, we have sex-segregated spaces for a reason. I do think many MtTs would benefit if sex-neutral bathrooms are included in buildings, but not at the expense of women-only spaces.
“You’re relying on straw men arguments.”
I am using argument by analogy. If your strawman argument attacks my argument, then it attack YOUR argument.
“I’m talking specifically about those MtTs who react with such hostility towards women having a conversation on how their position in society is not due to having different brains…”
Right, like I just realized above, you’re not talking about an transsexuals.
“MtTs are men…”
Wait, you’ve confused me. I thought you recognized that some transwomen are legitimately acceptable as women… the same way that XY individuals with CAIS are acceptable as women.
“by talking nonsense about ‘gatekeeping’ and ‘oppressing their needs’ etc.”
But I’m not talking nonsense about gatekeeping. There is gatekeeping on getting a boob job (to make sure individuals don’t have Body Dysmorphic Disorder, and realistic expectations of what the surgical results will be), there should absolutely be gatekeeping for all medical interventions.
Yes, there are some transpeople out there making disgusting arguments. But there are feminists out there making disgusting arguments as well. But you have no problem distancing yourself from feminists calling for the extermination or castration of 90% of men… why don’t you see that not all transpeople are AFTAs?
“Mr. ‘Janet’ Mock”
I do not, and you do not refer to Jacqueline „Jackie“ Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis as Jackie “Kennedy” “Onassis”. Names are entirely social constructs and by saying that a man cannot have name that is typically female is anti-sexism offensive. There is nothing about the name “Janet” that means that women own it, and a man cannot have that name legitimately… unless you’re in a Civil Law tradition, where they do actually lay down what you came name your children. But when people in the US can name their children Apple, and Moxie Crimefighter, putting scare quotes around someone’s valid and proper name is just being mean.
“Appropriating stereotypes is not a good sign a man does not pose a danger to women.”
And the fact that he has a vagina is not a good sign than a transman doesn’t pose a danger to women.
Look, the problem here, is that you’re taking the worst of the worst of trans, and painting every trans person with that brush. Should we say that no man can be a feminist because penis? Where do we draw this line of accepting that some people are assholes, and that no subculture is immune to this fact?
I am using argument by analogy. If your strawman argument attacks my argument, then it attack YOUR argument.
Not sure what analogy you’re using, as I’m specifically referring to your suggestion that I’m attacking all MtTs, rather than the abusive anti-feminist trans activists (AFTAs) who I, and many people engaging in gender-critical discourse, have to deal with.
MtTs are men, and if numbers I read are accurate approximately 80% don’t go through “SRS”. XY women are phenotypically women, unlike MtTs.
I understand that not all transpeople are AFTAs. That goes without saying. There are some who respect there are clear differences, which bear out in socialization, privilege, other aspects of living. And while they have difficulties as men with gender dysphoria, women have their own, and are not privileged because they were born female.
Point taken regarding the scare quotes.
A woman posing a danger to women? Why not flip the sexes and say “transmen posing danger to men”? Because you know it’s quite nonsensical, yes? While some women with DSD (eg MRKH) don’t have vaginas, only women have them, not men.
Your last couple of sentences are simply not true about me, I’m talking generally about transactivist arguments, and mentioning the worst of the worst, certainly not my attempt or intention to suggest that all MtTs are awful or bad, and I do support the ones who are not abusive in getting the help they feel they need. You would know this if you had a tentative look at my twitter account.
“XY women are phenotypically women, unlike MtTs.”
No they are not. Please talk to a biologist (you can probably find one at your local University) about correcting your inaccurate understanding of phenotypes.
They are born with lower vaginas. That’s the only thing that they have going for them being phenotypical women. All the rest of what makes a woman phenotypically? All of that is exactly the same as a transwoman.
Links on wiki showing scientific discourse mentioning xy women are phenotypically female: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome last sentence of first paragraph.
Check signs and symptoms for clearer discussion on differences. Transwomen as males, go through puberty by developing male secondary sex characteristics, absence the more recently available Lupron injections and taking cross-sex hormones at 16-18. XY women do not undergo any surgical interventions, unless for removal of organs that are cancer targets as you mentioned; MtTs require elective surgeries, and that means they’re not phenotypically women
Furthermore, vast majority of MtTs “transition” after completing puberty, meaning they developed fully as male; become men, before going through process to look like/claim to be women. This is a clear difference to XY women, who don’t go through puberty as boys, they go through it as girls; absence menses, of course, but in that aspect they share it with other women with DSD, eg MRKH
I regret that due to circumstances entirely unconnected to this dialog, that my mental health has become quite fragile.
While I do appreciate the dialog, and a better understanding of your views on the matters, I do feel that you are misunderstanding biology and sexual development of humans, and recommend that instead of listening to random person on the internet, you consult with an expert locally to you.
Please, feel free to continue adding replies in order to express your criticism of my replies, but understand that I will not be receiving notice of their posting, responding to them, and will not be revisiting the blog, at least until my mental health improves.
I wish to thank you for opening this dialog, as I was afraid that you would simply censor my posts without response. I am happy that you chose instead to open a dialog with me.
Of course, I do believe in dialogue, and I appreciate your sharing of your opinion. I wish you a speedy recovery.
“And while they have difficulties as men with gender dysphoria, women have their own, and are not privileged because they were born female.”
More or less. But you must admit that being born with nonconformant gender identity places a deep wound on them that ciswomen never experience.
Now, I will say, that some trans person saying “women are jealous of our legs”, that’s the trans person being catty. Not the women they’re talking about.
This is the issue, though, vast majority of people (men & women) struggle at some level with strictures of gender; particularly women. They don’t want to “transition” but they certainly feel dysphoria. And I understand that at least some MtTs understand and respect that, and don’t claim “cis privilege” is a thing that either men or women need to check.
“certainly not my attempt or intention to suggest that all MtTs are awful or bad”
However, you still insist that they are men, and should use the mens room. This is exclusionary language.
Hardly. My ‘insistence’ as such is that men use the men’s room. Certainly not exclusionary. I understand some MtTs do look like women, and use the women’s bathroom to do their business and leave. I take issue with MtTs who demand such a right, and want to criminalize women who don’t want men/’visible MtTs’ in women-only spaces. Such a thinking is certainly problematic. I can get behind sex-neutral spaces, but not at the expense of women’s.
“While some women with DSD (eg MRKH) don’t have vaginas, only women have them, not men.”
This is like saying only men have penises, and not women.
It’s simply not true. And asserting “woman == vagina” and “man == anything else” is an extremely poor choice of distinguishing men from women… because it sounds like man saying “anything I’m ok with fucking is a woman, everything else is a man”…
I’m not saying that you are arguing this. What I am trying to get you to recognize is asserting women must be born with a vagina in order to be women, otherwise they’re men, is deeply morally wrong.
And it’s why people dismiss the BBL AG/HSTS model… because the two B’s in the model (and I’d probably say Dr. Lawrence as well) comes down to “would I fuck them”. and I’m not even kidding.
Please, if you’re going to use the model, then I recommend that you read up on how the original classifiers were classifying their subjects. If she were attractive, then she’s a woman, otherwise, it’s a guy who gets off on the idea of himself being female.
It’s true, though, that only men have penises, and not women. The second paragraph makes no sense. Men/women are terms describing our biological reality, not what we wear, how people perceive us, etc. as these are irrelevant to the definition of the term as we use them.
If you understood sexual dimorphism, you wouldn’t say “women must be born with a vagina in order to be women” you’d recognize woman is merely descriptive of a person’s position on the sex binary, not suggesting anything inherent in that person, and as such only adult females are women. Simple, yet you persist in making these rather fallacious claims. What is a woman according to you? Can you give me a definition? What is a man?
Regarding your assessment of the AG theory of transsexuals, this is fallacious. Researchers found it prevalent amongst heterosexual, and non-homosexual MtTs, not because they wanted to fuck them. You yourself admitted to such in a previous reply.
“No feminist critiques “transgender people’s existence”, that is absurd. They simply make the obvious observation that MtTs are male/men.”
And biologically, so are XY women with CAIS. And XX men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The former produce sperm, and the later produce ova. (Or rather, each would if they had the proper hormone levels/response.)
So, at some point, you even recognize that congenital conditions must at some point “reify” or validate one’s sex. Because you think that XY women are women. Biologically, they are not.
But you’re ok with them being women, because they’re born with a (lower, and only a lower) vagina and external genitalia which conforms to your guidelines, because they were born with them. Everything else about the individual is still male: testes, no muellerian ducts, etc. Sure, they go on to develop into women, but interestingly enough, they develop more “feminine” than actual women, because without an androgen response, they don’t grow pubic hair, and they don’t grow underarm hair, and they don’t grow a moustache.
The simple objection to your argument, is that you’re drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying “women, and men”, when biology doesn’t even support your classification.
That is what makes calling transwomen “men” and transmen “female” abusive and exclusionary. You are asserting that you know better than they do what they are. As if somehow, you have some divine power to separate the wheat from the chaff and declare one one thing, and another another, but critically, and most importantly, the line you draw fails to exclude those that you would really like to exclude.
“While some MtTs are feminine, others maintain their previously held mannerisms. The article suggests that dysphoria is needed for someone to be called transgender; while I agree, this flies in the face of many AFTAs who argue that dysphoria is not needed if a man wants to wear a dress and call himself “Becky”. Reifying gender is the belief that what society imposes on men and women is innate, and therefore liking dresses, make-up, high heels, domesticity, long hair, etc. is linked to being a woman. How many MtTs make the claim that they liked playing with dolls growing up, or wished they could wear tutus but were refused, etc. and that means they have female/lady brains? How many say they’re ‘better women’ than women (often hurled at radical feminists)?”
I can’t argue with any of this. Some of this is offensive behavior, but declaring ALL MtT’s male, because “they were born with it”, doesn’t mean anything but excluding people from your party.
Transwomen are not “better women” than ciswomen. That’s absurd, and the transwomen who argue it are being just as offensive and abusive as “TERF”s. They’re both women, and just like a butch lesbian is no less a woman because she conforms to gender stereotypes than any other woman. They’re all women.
Now, will some men come in and exploit “the loophole” in order to gain access to female-only areas? Well, we already covered Anne Lawrence, and I find her to be a despicable person. But you can’t throw everyone into the same box, and use the worst of that box to declare the whole box bad.
Again, militant lesbians who then all men should be castrated, and/or killed.
XY women (CAIS) like I mentioned, are phenotypically female. MtTs are men, vast majority of who transition after adulthood. This argument is simply a rehash of “0.05% people have DSD, therefore sex dimorphism does not exist”. I’m not drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, we are a sex dimorphic species; and for vast majority of us, whether we’re male or female is clear. There are people born without feet, would you say, then, that humans aren’t bipeds? Transwomen are men, and this is not abusive, or exclusionary. Taking synthetic hormones, does not make a man “hormonally a woman”. There are men who take oestrogen due to having prostate cancer, can you tell me if that makes them “hormonally women” as well? Going under the knife for “facial femininization surgery”, gluteal implants, testicular removal, and penis inversion surgery, does not make men “phenotypically women” either. Women are adult human females, not males who take daily dosages of synthetic hormones and undergo major elective surgeries. You can not change your sex. That is simply fact, neither abusive, nor exclusionary, nor ‘exterminatory’.
You can’t argue with any of this precisely because what MtTs do is reifying gender while claiming they’re ‘queering’ or ‘bending’ it. It’s nonsensical. I’m male, if I lost my penis in an accident, I’d still be male, right? Likewise, MtTs who have it removed are still male. Intent does not change anything. Plenty of privileged white dudes have no idea what PoC go through, and go online saying they’re ‘black’ because they feel black inside and like rap music and speak ebonics. Do you accept they’re just as black as ‘cis-blacks’? This is the same concept. Why deny these white men’s identities, but not men who call themselves women?
Transwomen are not women, they’re men. My argument just showed how these men appropriate ‘femininity’ and disparage women, usually radical feminists, who don’t conform to society’s rulings on gender and what women are expected to wear and how they’re expected to behave. Look into the reviews of Gender Hurts, where an MtT laughs at Jeffreys and tells her she’s “4 shots of T away from becoming a trans man”. This is somewhat of a theme amongst online AFTAs and is repeated often. Only if you’re wilfully blind you won’t see it.
“The ‘Rational Wiki’, of course, notorious for irrationality.”
This is actually just people being people and making mistakes. A community of editors cannot perfectly ensure that every single thing is perfect.
I will examine your complaint here, and adjust the article as necessary in order to correctly source the quote, and ensure that her views are represented appropriately.
Well, you have your work cut out for you if you want to fix that article, including the contradictions in its own claims to what radical feminists believe gender to be. Not to mention the rest of blatant falsifications in the article, it’s not just that lie about ‘quoting’ Cathy Brennan, though that is egregious enough.
There isn’t any contradiction in what radical feminists claim. They are not a monolithic group. And the article speaks specifically of TERFs. Obviously, Trans Inclusive Radical Feminists do not have the same beliefs about transpeople that TERFs do.
And RW is a wiki that can be edited by anyone. If you don’t like the article, then help us fix it.
I know you’re no longer replying to this, but this is some of the most disingenuous statements you’ve made in our exchange. Throughout the article, it’s discussing radical feminists, derogatorily called “TERFS”, and in defining their beliefs it gives two contradictory definitions in quick succession. Either RW has weak editorial policy or the editors of the page have a clear agenda and they won’t let confused language and muddled logic get in their way, perhaps a bit of both.
I’m not getting into the cesspit that is “rational” wiki, thanks. Engaging in edit wars with anti-feminist MtTs isn’t my idea of an evening well spent
“Women have a complex reproductive system, and you don’t shift sexes simply by removing an otherwise healthy body part.”
Again, you already stated that XY women with CAIS are women. They do not however have a complex reproductive system. In fact, they lack a reproductive system entirely, because they have neither the delivery method to get sperm into contact with a ova, and they equally have none of the secondary mechanisms to support birth, except for a shallow lower vagina…
Again, you’re drawing an arbitrary line in the sand that is not borne out by science or any rational categorization, and are simply asserting “you have to be born with it!” … and equally dismissing the evidence that you brought up that all mammalian species studied to date have sexual dimorphic minds, and patent evidence in the case of freemartins, which have vaginas, but act like castrated males.
Because there are 99.99% (estimate) of women who are not XY CAIS? I don’t know what I was thinking, to be honest. I never brought up any studies suggesting all mammals have sex-dimorphic ‘minds’; that was you. Freemartins are chimeric, result of chromosomal abnormality, not “genetically female” like you’re suggesting.
“I’m not sure whether to laugh or to cry at the utter falsity and nonsense of mostly white men telling feminists (including women of colour, prostitution survivors, and (hi there) male allies (also of colour)) that everyone is running away from them.”
You don’t get to claim Jesus as a member of your party unless there’s actual evidence that he is in your party. (This is a reference to everyone thinking that they have God on their side.)
You CANNOT simply name a bunch of people and state that they are patently on your side. Feminism is not a monolithic cult, with a singular belief structure. Just because someone calls themselves a feminist, does not mean that they agree with you.
In the context we were talking about, I was referring to radical feminism. The people I was thinking about espouse the same beliefs and fight the same fight. So, yes, not lumping others.
“MtTs calling women catty and jealous.” You are making a deeply troubling assumption in believing that a transwoman wrote this whole article here.
RationalWiki has many editors, and each has a say in what the wiki says. You cannot single out this quote or another and say, “transwomen be calling women catty!”
Reality does not work that way. I mean, imagine your surprise if it turns out that a cisgendered female of color wrote that particular piece? I don’t know the nature of the person behind it, but the statement stands on its own.
The Republican party establishment is “sick of” the Tea Partiers, because they’re carrying the party away from moderates. And the Tea Partiers are “sick of” the establishment for not being reactionary enough.
The idea that some second-wave feminists find third-wave feminism to be unacceptable is not an impossible idea… I mean, after all, if they agreed with third-wave feminism, then they would be third-wave feminists… they would have grown and developed.
Perhaps better said is that the second-wave feminists tend to be reactionary to their principles as they grow older, and resent the third-wave feminists for coming and upsetting the status quo.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable to say, because again, if one were to agree with third-wave feminism, then one would be a third-wave feminist, not clinging on to an older doctrine.
I’ll take my chances that a woman of colour did not write that, ok? I actually have a pic saved published by Cristan Williams from his @transadvocate account where he claims women are jealous of MtTs “sexy legs”, so yes there’s a precedent for that sort of language from AFTAs. Yes, third-wave feminism is seen as little more than reifying the status quo and considering it “empowerment”, relegating some women to underclass and calling it “agency” (pro-prostitution), etc.
Second-wave feminists argue for the liberation of women from oppression, and are not interested in suggesting that ‘individuals can be free/empowered should they think they’re free”. We’re not free until we’re all free and all that. This is not reactionary, it’s text book revolutionary, and that’s why you see all this backlash against them, especially misogynists (men and MtTs).
“Only MRAs think women’s liberation is “odious bigotry”.”
Some people see your unwillingness to dump out the boxes and let people define themselves as “odious bigotry”… after all, you’re telling someone else what they are and who they should be.
If you want to argue that you’re not doing that, then why oppose them being themselves and entering female-only spaces?
As long as society has gender, people will choose gender roles as they see fit, and they should be allowed to chose such gender roles as they see fit. You already agree with this, you said so! But right now, we have to live in reality, where feminine individuals (both male and female) face degradation and abuse from masculine individuals. In such a system as currently exists, feminine individuals should be granted a safe space away from those who are not as “gender-flexible” a.k.a. masculine right now.
This isn’t to say that masculine gender socializations cannot be fixed. Women won the right to wear pants, and work, and do other things that were considered absolutely “unfeminine” at the time. Let’s expand this ability to men who want to be different, and give them a safe place to grow, and put pressure on the rest of masculine society with it’s “Man Code” and stereotypes about what a man can and cannot do, and the world will be a better place.
And if that means letting in some men who want to wear dresses, and call themselves “Brenda” then so be it. They’re CHALLENGING the masculine stereotypes that are gripping men in a chokehold right now. Why shouldn’t we embrace them as the new future of men?
Basically say, “hey, if you’re an ally of anti-sexism, such that you’re willing to wear a dress as a guy as a vanguard assault on our stereotypes, GO AHEAD, and welcome in. You’re exactly the next wave of ‘masculinism’ that we need… people whom we can point to and say, ‘you don’t have to be a dudebro to be ok with society.'” Think back on what people said about women wearing pants… “ugh, you look like a dude” and “gross!” and “that’s unnatural!”
If a man wants to step forward and be called a feminine name and dress in feminine attire, then YOU don’t have the right to tell them that they’re being unacceptable. And perhaps, maybe, in the future, when we manage to get everyone over stereotypes, men with gender dysphoria won’t feel the need to run out and get surgery to convince themselves that it’s ok for them to be feminine…
Because sure as hell, the dudebro society is telling them “we don’t want you, and we think you should die.” … why can’t we, the people who have already torn down so many stereotypes that walled us in, embrace the people who want to break down the same walls for men?
The first sentence is pure projection. like I told you repeatedly men/women are facts of biology; we’re describing them not associating anything with them. Males are not females, and just like I do, I expect all males to respect female-only spaces. Wear whatever you like, but use the men’s room, it’s not complicated. I never said that ‘gender roles’ should be reified. There’s nothing intrinsically female about taking care of the kids, or being the sole breadwinner, or liking sports, or wearing dresses, etc.
Feminine individuals face degradation from masculine individuals? That’s nonsensical. When has a transman attacked/raped/hurt a transwoman? Do you know the statistics of male-on-female violence? Women face degradation from men. Women-only spaces offer women some protection from such violence in spaces where they’re vulnerable, and including men who wear dresses is certainly not something I can stand behind.
To say women won the right to wear pants, and now we need to fight for men’s right to wear dresses is nonsensical. This only applies to US/Western culture. The majority of men live in cultures where wearing skirts and dresses is part of traditional men’s clothing. Here’s a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_skirts#In_non-Western_cultures You’re also implying that women no longer have impositions on their clothing; in vast majority of beaches men go bare-chested with no problem, what will happen if women do the same? An inordinate number of (misogynist) men put women at risk for wearing clothes they deem inappropriate or ‘bad’; does the same happen with the same frequency when the sexes are reversed?
The MtTs who dresses and call themselves “Brenda”, at least the misogynist ones I’m talking about, say that makes them women. In essence, femininity is the definition of womanhood, and if they perform femininity that makes them women. This is not challenging masculine stereotypes, or gender; it’s the definition of reifying it. A “new future of men” would be one where men respect women’s boundaries and understand that women have no obligation to bend to their wills and wants. A “new future of men” would be understanding that, though, shit happens to men, most men are PoC, over privileged white men have no right to claim they’re the most oppressed because they wear women’s clothing and say they’re women in their brains. A “new future of men” would be understanding that some men do struggle with dysphoria, due to gender and society’s impositions, and that men should work towards creating spaces for these other men, rather than shouting at women to “do their job” and take care of MtTs with dysphoria.
I’m not calling feminine men unacceptable, that’s a straw man. I’m merely recognising them as men, which you seem to agree with. I have no problem with feminine men at all. They are who they are, and I accept that. If a man tells me he’s a woman in his brain, though? Get out of here. You say MtTs want to break walls down, and that is patently false. The Rational Wiki, which I’m sure was written by AFTA supporters, if not AFTAs themselves, itself acknowledged that trans activists believe gender is innate. They believe that you’re born with a boy/girl brain, and this determines, with some small variation, whether you’re into sports, dresses, make-up, gossip, maths, reading, baking, barbecue, even down to colours pink and blue, etc. This isn’t breaking down walls, it’s fortifying them with steel.
“In fact NARTH and other SOCE practitioners believe homosexuality is a mental illness, and believe reparative therapy will allow these people to become ‘normal’ members of society.”
Are we really going to quote hate groups and use them as an assertion that, hey, maybe we’re wrong.
If we’re doing that, then NAMBLA doesn’t think there is anything harmful in adult men, and boys can have consensual and healthy sexual relationships. Therefore, their viewpoint must be valid, because why would a group exist unless its viewpoint is valid?
And then, how about I extend TERF rejection of transwomen, and refusal to recognize them as women, as a result of mental illness in you, as a result of some sexual abuse you endured in the past?
Doesn’t sound so nice suggesting that your opinions are a result of mental illness, now does it?
But then, some person on the internet said it was true, therefore, it deserves equal consideration, just like NAMBLA.
What the hell? This is nonsensical. That sentence is in reference to falsity peddled by AFTAs and allies about how radical feminists asserting that homosexuality is choice is the same claim as NARTH and other SOCE practitioners. The claim is patently false, because NARTH makes the fallacious claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. What that mean is saying that radical feminists make the same argument as NARTH is false, because they don’t make the same claim at all. I hope that clarifies any confusion you had.
No idea where you came up with NAMBLA; that’s really sick.
And then, how about I extend TERF rejection of transwomen, and refusal to recognize them as women, as a result of mental illness in you, as a result of some sexual abuse you endured in the past?
This sentence is barely English, and I don’t understand it.
“That sentence is in reference to falsity peddled by AFTAs and allies about how radical feminists asserting that homosexuality is choice…”
We don’t have argument with them that it’s a choice. We have argument with them saying “reparative therapy is the only option for treatment”. There are a wide variety of therapies available, and refusing to allow for the possibility of other therapies is a sign of abusive psychology. Which is why the American Psychiatric Association removed and will remove accreditation to any person espousing reparative therapy.
“The claim is patently false, because NARTH makes the fallacious claim that homosexuality is a mental illness.”
And you’re arguing that TERFs say that transsexualism is a mental illness that should never be treated with transition. You’re making exactly the same claim as NARTH: they’re mentally ill, and the only way to fix them is our way.
“No idea where you came up with NAMBLA; that’s really sick.”
Most everyone would say the same with bringing up NARTH and SOCE… especially everyone who practices accredited psychology, and psychiatry.
No, actually, choosing to “transition” is clearly a choice. And the process being followed is clearly one of reifying gender. You touch upon this divide in another post, I should mention that due to the confusion about the term ‘gender’, some sociologists, particularly feminists made arguments to talk about ‘sex roles’ rather than rely on the imprecise term ‘gender’ but more on that later.
Radical feminists understand that “gender dysphoria” is caused by the strictures of gender, you don’t resolve it by removing otherwise healthy organs due to them causing psychological anxiety, just like physicians refuse to operate on individuals with Body Identity Integrity Disorder. Solution should be more comprehensive, and resolving problems should not be focused on relieving stress by removing healthy organs. You seem to be aware of the process involved, so from what I understand, there is a recent push towards allowing men to call themselves women even without these procedure; this is seen as revolutionary, and progressive. What I think should be done, though, is recognition that sex-differences, like you mentioned, are only relevant when it comes to reproduction, and as such talking of changing sex is pointless, as people can’t change their sex. Simple, yes? Imagine that if all the men who want to be wearing dresses and putting on make-up actually respect sex-segregated spaces, and acknowledge they’re male/men. You’d think the world would end.
I’ve only brought up NARTH and SOCE because it was brought up by the rational wiki article, check it yourself.
“Hardly same. Raymond is advocating better treatment to people struggling with dysphoria, rather than presenting them with hoops/pushing them through path towards surgery. She’s advocating better psychological practices to enable men/women with dysphoria to look at the heart of why they feel psychological distress from otherwise healthy organs, rather than having one option, that of ‘transition’.”
If you were to speak to all of the gender therapist in the world excluding Iran, you would find that the vast majority of them seek out alternatives to medical intervention, because medical intervention is a) scary, b) extreme, and c) “irreversible”.
The fact that Iran pushes everyone to transition is because it’s illegal to be a homosexual in Iran, so “be a woman, and then you can love men, and not be put to death for it.”
The reason reparative therapy for homosexuality is considered abusive therapy in the US, is because they present ONLY ONE option: fix yourself. They do not suggest or even hint that it is acceptable to just accept yourself as you are, and be yourself.
In the same light, you seem to have taken the opposite position, that of: there should be every option BUT transition. If you want less transition, then help expand the male gender roles, so that they can wear dresses, or be feminine without endangering being “male”. Then they will find that it’s ok to live in a happy medium of gender roles, and not feel driven to “the only way I can truly express myself is if I transition!” … because like it or not, women, trans- or cis-, both enjoy a level of acceptance in variation of gender roles that is incredibly flexible, allowing a great number of trans men, to simply be masculine females.
If you want psychological practices to offer options to people, then you have to recognize that “transition” is an extremely attractive condition at this time, because you can be as masculine as you want, but still be as feminine as you want. You want options? Let’s start breaking down masculine gender stereotypes, like full frontal assault on that, and let’s start recognizing that hey, sometimes, people are born with anatomically and physiologically incongruent sexual dimorphism, and that transition CAN be an option…
I’m well aware of why Iran encourages these sort of surgeries, making it one of the highest countries with so-called “sex change” surgeries. These psychiatrists who MtTs visit don’t suggest alternatives, though. Like long-term psychological talk therapy, for instance. It’s either “good candidate for ‘HRT'” or “bad candidate”. While, of course, a lot of feminine men do face issues, and I sympathize, I just don’t think pushing transition, or claiming that a person can change their sex is a healthy way of dealing with people’s stresses over the oppression of gender. This is particularly egregious when many women discuss how uncomfortable they feel in their bodies only to be shot down by AFTA MtTs demanding that women check their “cis privilege”. “Transition” therefore isn’t an attractive option at all, as it reifies notion that people’s expressions and behaviours are limited to whether they’re perceived as male or female. It isn’t changing anything, so why claim that it does? Breaking “masculine stereotypes” means that we’ll have to break “feminine stereotypes”, they come in a package. Part of the process is understanding that men who wear dresses and put on make-up are still men, and can never be women, as womanhood has nothing to do with dresses and make-up, just as manhood has nothing to do with sports and cars. Brains are not sex dimorphic at birth, and differences that are seen in MRI are due to socialisation. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way
“The thinking done on this article is muddled, and based on a misunderstanding and ignorance of several concepts.”
Yes, and you fundamentally demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the realities of the biology behind sex, and your lines drawn in the sand do not conform to any valid line except “was born with it”. And by “it” I mean, external genitalia only.
If you want to complain about people misrepresenting your view as incongruent with science, and rationalism, then perhaps, you should start by educating yourself about the process of sexual development, and what it really means to be “male” and “female” beyond “contributed a sperm/egg to an offspring.”
“I haven’t even pointed out the reality that feminism is about liberation of women, not ensuring men’s feelings (including MtTs) are not hurt.”
People today like to point out that they “don’t need feminism”, because this that and the other. Predominantly, they’re arguing about feminism being focused only on women, and not on being anti-sexism.
Your comment here clearly places your focus on women, and not anti-sexism. Sexism hurts men, too, and other genders as well. Everyone is hurt by sexism. Let’s clean up sexism, and help men break down the gender barriers so that they can express themselves freely, without the compulsion to justify their feminine behavior with “I must be a woman.”
What you’re saying here is quite ironic, as the article I looked at was so confused, the authors couldn’t agree on what radical feminists believe regarding gender. External genitalia for over 99.95% (as I believe the issues involved with CAIS, ovotesticular DSD, etc. is even rarer than other forms of DSD) is a good indicator of a person’s reproductive system/sex to be observed at birth. That you would suggest otherwise shows gross ignorance of our biology. You should educate yourself about how taking synthetic cross-hormones are different from hormones your body produces naturally and that removing healthy organs through surgery does not alter your sex. Educate yourself on how chromosomes, genitalia, and hormones are interlinked for over 99.9% of humanity.
Your point on ‘people’ not needing feminism because it’s focused on women, is ignorant if not misogynist. It’s quite like you telling me there are ‘people’ who say we don’t need anti-racism anymore, because it’s focused on people of colour rather than how racism affects white people.
“Other genders” is nonsense; gender is hierarchy placing men at the top and women at the bottom, all else, of course, being equal. We should be making sure women are afforded safe space from male violence, I think that takes priority. But it shows what we’re dealing with, since your concern is making sure men can wear dresses without having their masculinity challenged.
By the way, do you know of Ru Paul? Yeah, cross-dressing by men is a thing, and Paul isn’t confused about being a man, so yeah…
God bless this post! I’m so tired I can’t give a really good response, but I really appreciated this article. And especially hearing someone else’s opinion on Cristian Williams (or whatever their name is) besides from a website like the TransAdvocate.
To think, all the mental gymnastics and justifications for deliberate disrespect could be avoided by opening a dictionary:
trans: “cross”
woman: “adult human female”
female: “of or denoting the class…”
Many ways to be trans, many ways to be a man/woman, many ways to be male/female — identity, expression, by law, medicine, phenotype ad infinitum.
The sooner you stop pretending that you dictate who is what and why, the sooner you can stop obsessing over a tiny minority group and get a life.
Pure unadulterated queer theory bollocks. “Female” is not an identity, or most women would’ve chosen not to identify with their oppression. Rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, FGM, the list goes on. Essentializing gender by stating that performing femininity makes someone a woman, or you can identify as female is misogynist and part and parcel of the problem. I’m not ‘dictating’ anything, simply exposing the fallaciousness of transgender ideology. It’s funny you tell me to get a life but took the time to write a reply…