The Great Trans Debate of Summer 2005

Forum: WMST-L
Date: 08/03/2005

Intersex bodies just are. They don't exist as theoretical device to challenge anything. Besides, do we really need to look at intersex to realize that biology is also culturally constructed? I mean, didn't we already know that, based on our understanding of how women's bodies are constructed?

Again, transgender people just are. They don't need to justify their existence by proving their usefulness toward your theorizing. But that said, don't transsexual people "challenge" some of our basic assumptions about sex and gender, that is: that one's anatomy is the basis for her or his gender identity, and that it's unchangeable?

No. Only people who imagine such a thing are the bigots who want to discredit transsexual people.

The fact is, transsexual people exist, and they are facing extreme violence and discrimination because of their difference. Things we do can make their lives better or worse--your rhetoric clearly does the latter.

Listen, there are ways we can critique and problematize the medical interventions toward transsexual people without demonizing transsexual people. Suggesting that being transsexual is similar to participating in "the worst form of cultural appropriation" is not a reasonable criticism, but a hate speech.

I believe that you are talking about the recent court ruling in Australia, and if so you are mischaracterizing the ruling.

In the recent case, a 13-year old trans-identified person was given permission to take *puberty-blocking* pills, not fully "go through gender reassignment." The reason for this is that if the puberty is medically delayed for several years, then this individual will be in a very good position to make a decision as an adolescent several years later. That way, the 13-year old will not be forced to experience the undesirable and irreversible physical changes due to puberty, and keep all options open when s/he is more mature.

The point here is that physical changes due to puberty is irreversible, but puberty-blocking medicine is reversible. If, after several years, the person decided not to go through with the transition, that's fine too: just stop taking the pill and s/he will experience puberty just fine.

You may disagree with the ruling, but please don't mischaracterise it just to make it easier to dismiss.

Hello, do you realize that 99% of intersex people simply want to live as ordinary men and women? They are just as gender-comforming as transsexual people, or as the general population for that matter.

Transsexual women are women, so why shouldn't they be welcome in a women's space?

I think it's the height of hypocrisy especially for a lesbian space to exclude transsexual women who are lesbians: many "lesbians" have had straight relationships in the past and fully enjoyed heterosexual privileges back then, but nobody questions their place in a "lesbian" space after all.

Na, I never felt "safe" in women-only spaces, especially those that claim to be "safe." Sexism isn't the only oppression, ya know.

Of course--why would any self-respecting transsexual people put themselves through such hostility? I consider it a duty for non-trans people to fight against trans oppression.

Trans issue is not someone else's issue for lesbians; it's an issue that concerns all lesbians and especially trans people who are lesbians.

When trans women are excluded from a women's space, it's not safe for all other women whose identities are more complicated than "woman." When trans lesbians are excluded from a lesbian space, it's not safe for all other lesbians whose identities are more complicated than "lesbian."

Emi Koyama

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Date: 08/05/2005

Then why did you make a suggestion that being transsexual or seeking recognition for one's gender identity as equivalent to the "worst form of cultural appropriation"? Why did you characterise transsexual women's entry to women's space as an "occupation" and "cultural and political appropriation"?

Correct. But if someone were to go on to suggest that women who wear makeup and high heels are "brainwashed," for example, it becomes a vilification of these women. What you did to transsexual people was similar to this: it wasn't a criticism of the culture/ideology of gender, but a direct attack on who they are.

Then perhaps you could have stated your position on women-only space without resorting to attacks on transsexual women. Callling their entry to women-only space as an "occupation" and "cultural and political appropriation" is clearly an insult, a tactic designed to bully and silence transsexual women into compliance.

Your suggestion that any lesbian who opposes the discrimination against transsexual women are "internalising" the "trivialisation and marginalisation of lesbians" is also an insult.

In fact, you did not state a single coherent reason why transsexual women should be excluded from a women-only space. You basically labeled transsexual women occupiers and their lesbian supporters sellouts, and that's all. If you want to argue about women-only space, then let's do that; don't rely on bullying and silencing tactics like these.

Emi Koyama

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Date: 08/06/2005

That's not what I said. In my observation and in any available literature, the only people who ponders about the ethic of "racial reassignment surgery" are the people who are bigoted. I never suggested that the act of imagining it is itself bigotry--no, I'm simply pointing out that people who are not bigots do not imagine such a thing to begin with.

Because I'm sick of white women using race metaphor to vilify trans people, as if racism is a thing of the past and everyone (at least within feminist circles) is *so* beyond it. I'm sick of the fake outrage white women express as they say "it would be *so* obvious to everyone that it's *so* wrong if it were about race."

The boundary of "people of color" isn't as clear as many of these white women seem to think. There are people who are mix-raced, people who can pass as white, people who were raised by white people and were taught to be white all their lives. The definition of whiteness itself is culturally and historically dependent. I don't believe in creating a Blood Quantum system (or any other singular system designed to draw a clear and unambiguous boundary) to determine who is "of color" enough; and that is exactly the same way I feel about the gender boundaries.

In other words, it's not so much that I want transsexual women to be part of women's space; it's more about the politics of drawing clear and unambiguous boundaries that bothers me. And in that sense, my position on boundaries is perfectly consistent whether we are talking about racial lines or gender lines: I don't believe in creating rigid boundaries, and believe in demilitarizing the borders.

There goes the "I have a friend who is XYZ so I'm not prejudiced" trajectory...

Fine, if you think you are in a position to question if someone is a real woman or not, then I'll also question that you are a woman. Don't be surprised if I scream when I find you using the women's restroom.

What are you talking about? When we created "women's space," trans women have always been part of us.

Emi Koyama

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Date: 08/06/2005

First of all, I wasn't trying to argue that it's great to be transsexual because they challenge cultural assumptions. My main argument was that it's not the point for transsexual or intersex persons to challenge cultural assumptions, and that they shouldn't be expected to break down binaries any more than other people.

That said, I was disagreeing with Bronwyn's point that intersexuality challenges cultural assumptions but transsexualism doesn't. I don't think it's not the point of either intersexuality or transsexualism to challenge anything, but if she were to say that intersex challenges cultural assumptions, then transsexuality also challenges a different set of cultural assumptions (while leaving other assumptions unchallenged, of course).

It's just like being lesbian. Claiming lesbian identity does challenge some cultural assumptions (compulsory heterosexuality, women's position relative to men in male-d ominated society, etc.) but at the same time it leaves other assumptions (gender binarism, compulsory monosexism, etc.) unchallenged. I just think it's illogical to bash transsexuality as "not challenging" cultural assumptions while celebrating intersexuality and lesbianism for "challenging" them.

Pressure exists both ways, depending on where you are: there are pressure for butch women to "transition" in some circles, and there are pressure for trans-identified people to not "transition" in others. And this is something we can all join together to work on: there shouldn't be any pressure interfering with people's choice to transition or not to transition.

The trans movement is about self-determination, and not about coercing more people to transition. To say that trans movement pressures people to transition is just like saying that the pro-choice movement wants there to be as many abortions as possible, as Rush Limbaugh has once stated. No, pro-choice is pro-choice and self-determination is self-determination.

Of course, that doesn't mean that privately there aren't any peer pressure to transition among peer groups--however, there are also peer groups where there is a pressure to not transition. The important point is that as a movement, the trans movement is for self-determination and against coercion.

To refuse to accept her as a woman is just as offensive as refusing to accept transsexual women as women. I don't understand why some people consider this same act (defining "woman" so narrowly that many people who identify and live as women everyday are excluded from it) is offensive when it happens to a non-transsexual woman, and yet an acceptable feminist position when it happens to a transsexual woman.

I don't understand: what this friend of yours is experiencing is similar to what many transsexual women are experiencing, namely that someone else had defined "woman" in such way that they are excluded from it against their will. How does trans people's confronting such "policing" silence her?

We are basically outraged about the same problem here, but somehow you are making it sound like people who support trans people's right to transition are to blame for causing the pressure for non-trans people to transition. That is such a twisted logic--it almost reminds me of conservatives' rhetoric against same-sex marriage, which is that it destroys families. There's no basis or logic to what's suggested here.

I agree--those who have been treated as a male in a patriarchal society must recognize and confront her or his privilege (as do people who are not transsexual in a cissexist society). But we also need to stop seeing male privilege as absolute or universal: our lives are more complicated than just being raised as a male or a female, and the experience of "being treated as a male or a female" varies widely depending on many other factors.

It's easy to say that all (cissexual) women share the "experience of being raised as a girl under patriarchal oppression," but in reality these same words do not mean the same thing for all women. Given that, I have no problem accepting transsexual women's childhood as a very unique form of girlhood, even if it's not typical. Is there any logical reason that her childhood experiences are any more different than all the unique experiences that women may have? And who is "policing" the boundaries of "woman" now?

Emi Koyama

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.

Date: 08/07/2005

Agreed, but I also believe that, as members of the dominant group, cissexual people discussing transsexualism must have a basic level of sensitivity toward the minority group that the issues they are discussing impact.

The very fundamental difference we must understand *even* before starting this conversation is that "race reassignment" surgery is just a thought experiment, while "sex reassignment" surgery is a lived and embodied experiences of real humans. All I am asking for is the sensitivity toward people whose lives the discussion will touch upon, which has been completely absent from the people who have been making this race analogy. This particular analogy is routinely brought up by people who already disaprove of transsexual existance as a cheap shot to discredit and dismiss transsexual people, and it was no exception this time around.

You seem to be implying that transsexual people are ignorant cosumners of medicine, which is extremely offensive. There is a huge interest in health issues among transsexual communities, and it's not just about obtaining hormones and surgeries. Trans activists are vigorously critiquing medical technologies that are offered to them, and pushing for more studies to make their medical interventions safer. Why would you assume otherwise?

The reason you read denounciations in press is because these publications first publish columns and essays that are critical of transsexual people or movement, and then other people respond denouncing that. In other words, critics of transsexual issues have not been silent as you claim.

It's not fair to characterise these "denounciations" as "attacks" on feminism. The authors of such "denounciations" are not attacking feminism, but are making a feminist case for transsexual inclusion.

Women's spaces are not maligned by trans activists. The policy excluding some women from the women's space is what is being challenged.

To characterise efforts to end the discrimination as attacks on feminism or women's space is similar to how war-mongers call you unpatriotic and traitors for opposing the war.

It's ironic how transsexual people are attacked for not breaking down categories enough, and yet also attacked for rendering categories meaningless. Please at least pick either and stick with it, okay?

Why? I thought that you and I agreed that everyone deserves the same respect, safety and liberty... Or, did you mean to say that everybody deserves them, but some more than others?

On the contrary, I'm insisting that transsexual women's experiences are unique. That said, I don't think there's any reason to assume that their experiences are any more unique than all other women's unique experiences.

Right, and I really don't see Condoleezza Rice as my peer either, but unlike some people I don't have the bloated sense of entitlement to enforce that feeling onto other women.

Why do you insist that the dominant group is entitled to decide if, when and how they would include the "other"?

Also, it's not accurate to say that my solution "forces" someone something because I don't have such power. What I do is similar to what feminists have been doing around the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club: lacking legal authority to force Augusta to open up membership to women, we first tried to persuade the club to change its policies, and when that was unsuccessful we asked business leaders, Masters Tournament and others to stop patronizing or legitimatizing the club. That is exactly what I'm doing around women-only space.

Your statement would make sense if all women had to earn it before they can enter the space. But if Condoleeza Rice and Margaret Thatcher can enter the space, then it really has nothing to do with trust or good faith. Why are transsexual women the only ones to have to prove themselves?

That's not what I asked for. I am asking you to show that the between-group (i.e. raised girl vs. raised boy) difference is more fundamental, severe or significant than the within-group (i.e. among raised-girls) variation. Unless that can be shown, and I don't think it can be because it's not true, the existence of between-group difference cannot be used as a reason to exclude transsexual women from women's spaces.

Interesting point. My response is that the soceity is not so simple that it's made out of just masters and slaves, but there are many whose identities are hybrid or multiple who occupy the borderlands of racial, gender and other constructed boundaries. I am not arguing that everyone should be able to come in and out as they please; I am arguing however that at least those whose bodies and spaces on which the boundaries are drawn should be able to cross that boundaries freely without having to prove their status with documents.

In other words, I don't oppose "women-only" space, but I oppose any attempt to institute any one official definition of "women" that is clear and unambiguous. To draw any such line would always cut through someone's flesh and bleed--and I am not just speaking figuratively here.

There's a jump in your logic here: why does excluding people who are "uncomplicatedly men" necessarily lead to questioning any other person's place in a women's group? And why do you believe that "uncomplicated" women should have such enormous power over "complicated" ones? Who among us is completely "uncomplicated" woman? Do you even realize that your argument could easily be used to justify exclusion of lesbians from women's spaces? ("In order to keep 'us' safe from unwanted sexual attention!")

Sounds like "when you're excluded, it's not bigotry; but when I'm excluded, it's bigotry."

And who are the "women" who should have should be afforded such latitude? The most gender-normative, gender-comforming ones?

Emi Koyama

--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.