I suspect it's bc 2nd wave feminism still holds so much rhetorical sway in the minds of cis women. Gen X & Millennials were raised by Boomer parents to believe that feminism = eradicating all implications of gender. Both those for and against it taught that.
Well-meaning allies see trans acceptance as the extension of that. So do TERFs. The idea that there is no one "real" definition of woman kept me from knowing myself as nb for years. When I felt alienated from the term "woman," I was told I was wrong or "brainwashed by the patriarchy" or whatever.
2nd wave feminism doesn't allow for the rejection of intrinsic womanhood. It will contort its definition of the term however it must to maintain relevance. That was perhaps good & necessary in its time, but it's so harmful now.
I think the issue is there's a fundamental insincerity there. Liberalism is as much dependent on patriarchal futurity as any reactionary ideology, and if you presses a cis liberal hard enough they'll basically cop to the inevitability of a normative reproductive structure.
Do you have any reading on this you could point me to? At the same time, I both conceptualize why this isn't a helpful framework for understanding the question, while at the same time struggling to think of a different one. As a cisman, if somebody asked me what it means to be a "man," I would be...
...be able to discuss various aspects of privilege, but outside of that wouldn't be able to come up with any kind of meaningful answer. So in thinking of "woman," I can think of it in terms of marginalization, but otherwise can't think of a meaningful conceptual framework that describes the word.
The various aspects of privilege are part of the answer. The point is that men are* real. Being a man in society isn't just a vibe, it has real consequences, both hazards and many privileges. Gender is socially constructed but social constructs are real: see eg money and countries.
Tbf, it sounds like you're already on the right check--Talia's point is that "man" and "woman" *are* largely constructed around privilege (or lack thereof), and that's why it's valid and reasonable for trans women to be considered women--because patriarchy treats us the same way it treats all women
On place to start might be with some of Judith Butler’s work, I’ve only read “Who’s Afraid of Gender” so far, and it wasn’t an easy read, but it is a very thought provoking book and I’m going to read more. Would love folks to discuss this with.
i am extremely grateful for the work you do, that thread kickstarted a lot of reading and processing on my side and helped me resituate my own sense of self, physical relationship to gender, and womanhood into a place that feels so much stronger and more present than before. 🫶
ofc it would be much cooler if more cis folks were taking the same trip, but wanted to say that at least for this trans gal that thread/your writing it led me to was so helpful.
I have to admit that before I started actually interrogating what my transness really meant to me, and actually taking control of it rather than wearing it as an accessory, I genuinely believed that gender had to become 'meaningless' in order for me to have any hope of actually being a woman.
That brings up an interesting point, and seems, reading the replies, that very few, cis or trans, have a good answer to this.
The answer you wrote really does stem from the fact that I don't need to have a good definition of "woman" or "man" to allow people to be who they are.
I may be talking semantics here, but I think it's really important. There are many people who believe gender holds no meaning and thus identifying as any gender is equally (in)valid, but I believe there's a difference in believing gender is meaningless and that gender has no inherent meaning
Gender, as a social construct, has no "inherent" or "natural" value as a signifier, so any value/meaning we put on it is arbitrary. This doesn't mean gender is meaningless. Being a woman has cultural meaning even if gender is as constructed (i.e., "fake") as race or nationality is
Identifying as a category is making a statement about your existence. "I am a woman and that means I associate myself with this group of people who face similar social treatment." Because we are social creatures we rely on both internal and external validation to secure our identities.
Many identities are forced onto us & we internalize them, like gender/sexuality (e.g., everyone assumed cishet) But we don't always gel with the identities chosen for us. So we identify as something else that validates us & fight for external recognition or validation of our self-identification
4/10
I mention that to stress the importance of individual autonomy in making choices about ourselves and how these choices are important even if the categories "don't matter" in a material sense (e.g., being trans doesn't automatically change someone's physical body).
It's a mistake to assume material reality is all that matters. Even w/o changing their bodies, people can transition socially--grow/cut hair, wear different clothing, etc. and this may be enough to "pass" without needing gender affirming surgery or HRT.
Sometimes I feel like I'm harping on about the same thing constantly, but it really would be nice for it to just be understood that 'trans women are women' isn't predicated on an invalidation of the category 'woman'.
I guess it's not that simple to bridge the gap between "we established gender as a social construct that we'd ultimately like to get rid of along with patriarchy as a whole" and all you just very accurately said. Here and now women are definitely not a meaningless category and trans women are women.
All in all I feel like it stems from some kind of a desire to prove or validate having taken distance from the essentialist categorization of gender based on "biological sex". Like "see, this type of categorization doesn't mean anything to me so of course you can be a woman too".
It seems to me that if the category "woman" were invalidated, why would anybody want to be a "woman"? Stated differently, trans women don't (at least I think) want to be part of an invalidated group. Am I missing something?
It's not about 'wanting' to be a woman, it's about 'being' one. 'Woman' already has an understood meaning as it relates to privilege or the lack thereof, and trans women fit that definition, so it's nonsensical to think that they could only fit if 'woman' were made meaningless instead.
there was a point during the abortion rights loss & following conversations where folks were emphasizing 'don't say 'women,' this is about rights for people who can get pregnant, including trans men & nb people' which is inarguable BUT: that's assuming it's actually about pregnancy.
and it isn't. right? it's about woman-as-object, put-her-in-her-place, too.
and in that framing... there's just as much impact for trans women as cis, BUT not trans men. because it's about the role. the way 'women' move through the world, how they're treated and valued, what they can do.
"Woman" can't be a meaningless category in a patriarchy, but also we're not all gender abolitionists. I want to abolish patriarchy, not gender. Some people are binary-gendered, and non-binary people can be men or women. That's not the problem, it's part of self-expression. But it should be optional.
It's not about putting trans women into the narrow predefined box patriarchy forces *every* woman into, but it's about smashing the constricting and unhealthy boxes patriarchy forces everyone into, along with the patriarchy itself, ultimate?
These are kinda different things. The box exists. Maybe it shouldn't and maybe there's some gender-free transhuman utopia in the distant future but right now gender exists and we all have a relationship with it. And within the framework of gender as we experience and live it, trans women are women.
I feel like there is some kind of "you can only understand traditional sexism (transphobia), or opposition sexism (misogyny) one at a time" belief of people who are not trans femme.
So here they kinda get the oppositional sexism, but completely neglect traditional.
And thus don't get transmisgony.
Comments
One of my best friends is trans and she can't really explain it. Feelings and emotions are often difficult to put into words.
*unfortunately
I'd like to think I can speak somewhat intelligently on the things mentioned, but, you know, reading is fundamental and all that
The answer you wrote really does stem from the fact that I don't need to have a good definition of "woman" or "man" to allow people to be who they are.
1/10
2/10
3/10
4/10
5/10
6/10
Distancing ourselves from an outdated way to identify who's a woman shouldn't automatically come with the idea that the whole category is meaningless.
there was a point during the abortion rights loss & following conversations where folks were emphasizing 'don't say 'women,' this is about rights for people who can get pregnant, including trans men & nb people' which is inarguable BUT: that's assuming it's actually about pregnancy.
and in that framing... there's just as much impact for trans women as cis, BUT not trans men. because it's about the role. the way 'women' move through the world, how they're treated and valued, what they can do.
(
It's not about putting trans women into the narrow predefined box patriarchy forces *every* woman into, but it's about smashing the constricting and unhealthy boxes patriarchy forces everyone into, along with the patriarchy itself, ultimate?
I'm just trying to understand all of this to be a better ally?
So here they kinda get the oppositional sexism, but completely neglect traditional.
And thus don't get transmisgony.