Well that was pretty quick. Melissa McEwen at Shakesville posted the late Mary Daly’s popular “origin of the word sin” quote by way of eulogy an early feminist icon. And, despite multiple apologies, promptly got threadjacked by accusations of transphobia. Enough so that another blogger at the site closed comments on the post.
The bone of contention being Daly’s evident transphobia. Which isn’t terribly widely know — little-known enough, for instance, to have caught the generally hyper-inclusive McEwen off guard.
If I have the main 70’s era categories of feminism that would have been current in Daly’s ascendancy she was a gender essentialist and not a gender equalitarian. That essentialism was a pretty big deal and one that, I’m pretty sure, is pretty incompatible with sympathy for the transsexual and transgendered.
Yes, you might argue, perfectly reasonably as many trans people do, that the real “essence” of one’s sex is determined by identity and not chromosomes. But that’s not going to carry a lot of weight with anyone who believes that, say, by its very nature the Y chromosome is irretrievably degenerate or that the planet needs to be “decontaminated” of individuals with that defect.
With that understanding transphobia is 100% consistent with gender essentialism. Racism and genocide would be consistent with antagonism towards gender equalitarianism. To an essentialist like Daly a man using plastic surgery and testosterone suppressing drugs to “pass” as a woman would be as viscerally offensive as a person of color using plastic surgery and melanin-suppressing drugs to “pass” as white would be to David Duke
That said, regardless of her motivation for analyzing the gendered status quo one can still learn from her analysis of its structure and flaws. Enough so to say she was a significant figure in gender politics independent of her essentialism. You might not want to touch most of her proposed solutions with a 10-foot pole, but one can learn from her analysis. And draw one’s own, non-essentialist, non-exclusivist conclusions.
Jessica Valenti Julia Serano of the, um, mainstream feminist website Feministing raises the alarm about proposed revisions to psychiatry’s main reference, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM.
...do you happen to be attracted to, or in a relationship with, someone who is differently-abled or differently-sized? Or someone who is gender-variant in some way? Well congratulations, you may now be diagnosed with a paraphilia!
Seriously.
[Contributing author Ken Zucker and Ray] Blanchard and other like-minded sex researchers have coined words like Gynandromorphophilia (attraction to trans women), Andromimetophilia (attraction to trans men), Abasiophilia (attraction to people who are physically disabled), Acrotomophilia (attraction to amputees), Gerontophilia (attraction to elderly people), Fat Fetishism (attraction to fat people), etc., and have forwarded them in the medical literature to denote the presumed “paraphilic” nature of such attractions. This tendency reinforces the cultural belief that young, thin, able-bodied cisgender women and men are the only legitimate objects of sexual desire, and that you must be mentally disordered in some way if you are attracted to someone who falls outside of this ideal. It’s bad enough that such cultural norms exist in the first place, but to codify them in the DSM is a truly terrifying prospect.
Another frightening aspect of Blanchard’s proposal is that any sexual interest other than “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling” is now, by definition, a paraphilia. In his presentation, he claimed that paraphilias should include all “erotic interests that are not focused on copulatory or precopulatory behaviors, or the equivalent behaviors in same-sex adult partners.” Copulatory is defined as related to coitus or sexual intercourse (i.e., penetration sex). So, essentially, all forms of sexual arousal and expression that are not centered around penetration sex may now be considered paraphilias.
Quite a (dry, bitter) mouthful in my excerpt, above, but Valenti has more in her post. Read it and weep.
Or, possibly, not weep. A lot of ordinary, mundane worries, fantasies, and interests show up in the DSM — worrying that you forgot to turn off the stove, losing sleep over finances or politics, and stuff like that for instance — but is technically only a problem when taken to extremes. There’s a point on the way to the airport where my partner almost always remembers something we forgot and wonders if we should go back for it. That’s not crazy — not least when, sometimes, it’s something we really should go back for… like my wallet. Instead it’s a quirk. If she were instead immobilized and unable to leave the house because she obsessively catalogued the things we might otherwise leave behind then one of the DSM diagnoses would kick in and treatment might be sought, approved, and (assuming her insurer agreed… a big assumption) undertaken.
But still, as Valenti points out, perfectly functional people are sometimes saddled with DSM disorders. And some of the proposed “disorders” are actually nobody’s flipping business if conducted in privacy on one’s own or with other adults who decide they want to participate.
Interestingly, there’s been a lot of pressure to back off the so-called gender identity disorders that umbrella transvestism, transgender, and transsexualism. Valenti doesn’t mention whether those are still in. (The tactical and strategic reasons for keeping it in, including insurance mandates for sex reassignment, possibly makes this more complicated than it might be.) But adding being attracted to trans-men and women seems like upping the ante: it seems… disordered to attach a disorder to someone who’s something it’s not a disorder to be.
And along those lines I’m more than a little uncomfortable with designating attraction to the aged or infirm. Not least because, last I heard, it’s not a disorder to be aged or infirm. In which case you’re really aiming to screw up the lives of otherwise perfectly ordinary people by… scaring off or nailing their prospective partners.
—-
This is not, incidentally, an abstract issue. I’m fairly confident the bill died in session (as most, um, quirky bills do) but… well, remind me to post about the (now dead-in-session one hopes) Massachusetts bill “protecting” anyone and everyone over age 60 by adding “and anyone older than 60” to all child sexual assault statutes!
Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors says
Nan Hunter blogged about this case here, writing:
The Schroer court held that just as discrimination against converts from one to faith to another is still discrimination based on religion, so too discrimination against transgender persons is still sex discrimination. Although doubtless Congress did not have transgender persons in mind when Title VII was enacted in 1964, the court found that the plain text of the statute covers this situation.
“Diane Schroer is a male-to-female transsexual. In August 2004, before she changed her legal name or began presenting as a woman, she applied for the position of Specialist in Terrorism and International Crime with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress. The selecting official for the position, Charlotte Preece, offered Schroer the job, but then rescinded the offer after learning of Schroer’s intent to present as a woman when she started at CRS. After a bench trial in August 2008, I found that the Defendant had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Schroer because of sex.”
So wrote Judge James Robertson a couple of weeks ago, in the context of awarding Schroer “$183,653 for back pay and benefits, $300,000 for nonpecuniary losses, and $7,537.80 for past pecuniary losses,” comprising “a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $491,190.80.”
There is a lot of legal scholarship on the general topic of transgender/transexual issues in employment discrimination, see e.g. this, this, this, and this.
Good to know. Minus the hideboundedness of gender construction it’s hard to imagine there’s be quite so much opposition to, or discrimination against, trans people.
Cara Kulwicki of the well-known mainstream feminist website Feministe has a just-in-time reminder.
Tomorrow, May 17, is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. This year, IDAHO is focusing on transphobia:
Each year, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (the “IDAHO”, as it is usually called), will see actions and initiatives take place in many countries and contexts and on many different issues.
All these activities and initiatives are a very strong signal to all, decisions makers, public opinion, civil rights movements, human rights defenders, etc. throughout the world that our fights for our Rights as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, intersex, etc… is vibrant!
The Day provides all different kind of actors with a very powerful opportunity to express their demands and to advocate for their case. Each year also, the IDAHO aims at using the extra public, political and media attention that it provides at all levels to highlight one specific aspect of the struggle for sexual rights.
This year, we chose to highlight the often neglected but important issue of Transphobia.
Click here to read the full appeal for rights for all trans people across the world (pdf). And then click here to sign the appeal yourself.
Remember, this is an international appeal, so anyone can sign. And of course, don’t forget to spread the word.
Kulwicki, of course, posted this in time. I’m just a bit late to the party. Nevertheless, I’ve signed the IdahoHomophobia.org appeal myself.
For a variety of other takes see also:
Piny of Feministe hits back at the stupid “it’s ok to use sexist slurs if the target is conservative” idea.
I thought I’d talk a bit about the “Ann Coulter is a tranny” thing, and why it’s transphobic. It’s based on a bunch of transphobic ideas. Trans women all look alike. Trans women all look like men. Trans women all look totally different from “real” women. Trans women are obvious, and oblivious to their inability to blend in: cis people are much more perceptive about gender cues than trans people: trans women are delusional. Trans women are ugly and pathetic. Women who look like trans women are ugly and pathetic.
Um. Yeah. Whether Coulter is or isn’t is sort of beside the point. The point is if you “know better” than to sexualize someone on your side of the aisle but not to sexualize an opponent then you don’t know better.
Also, mocking a transsexual is approximately as funny as making fun of a diabetic (who needs hormones — insulin in this case — to be healthy), of someone who needs glasses (who needs prosthetics to function comfortably), or someone who wears or wore orthodontic braces (who had medical intervention to correct the way their body did or would have otherwise grown without intervention.)
Also, “trannie?”
Reflecting on some boneheaded insensitivity to transgender issues raised in the L-Word final season Ily of asexy beast makes a connection to the way she’s often treated as an asexual, and comes to an insight with even broader applications towards orientation, identity, as well as the (inappropriate, unwanted) utility well-meaning others assign can assign to you.
Once I started on this train of thought, I realized that a large proportion of the unwanted things people say when we come out are actually attempts to make us feel better. Maybe this is obvious, but since I tend to assume everyone knows the same things I know, it took me awhile to figure out. Being told “You’re just a late bloomer” is supposed to give us hope, as is “You just haven’t found the right person yet.” If the other person can convince us that asexuality doesn’t exist, we’re supposed to find that a huge relief. Uh…no. Someone with little understanding of asexuality might think it’s a negative thing, and assume that we want to be talked down off the edge of identifying as such.
Good points. We tend to do a lot of that, to a lot of people. Ily mentions her exasperation upon being told when she mentioned her asexuality “But! Straight men would want to date you!” Yes, no doubt that’s true. Goodness knows enough gay women are told the same. As trans men and women are told “you’re fine just the way you are.” As men expressing emotion are told to “suck it up.” As children are told “you’d be prettier if you tied your hair back.” All well-intentioned, sure, but intentioned far more for the consolation of the beholder than for the “consoled.”
Courtney Martin of Feministing has a list of “feminist questions she’s still exploring.” Some of them are particularly relevant for the 10th annual Transgender Day of Remembrance.
1. What is the accurate, once-and-for-all differences between men’s and women’s brains?
...
4. When do I focus on being right and when do I focus on being effective?
5. When do I address sexism directly and when it is best to handle it indirectly?
6. How can society still be so invested in the categories hetero, homo, and bi when sexuality so obviously exists on a spectrum?
If I write about the ways our current constructions of gender confine us, I have to acknowledge that while it merely confines most of us inside too-narrow walls, for some of us… people… human beings!... it brutalizes and too often kills.
Following up on my post about transgendered women in Transamerica, I ought to mention there’s a great article about trans men in this week’s New York Times Magazine. When Girls Will Be Boys, by Alissa Quart, who is sympathetic and has a clue, really digs into the issues of identity, decision making, obstacles, and the details of transition for women who make the switch to men.
It’s funny, in conversation or even while writing this post I keep wanting to say “I don’t know why…” when addressing a perception that transvestism, transsexuality, and transgenderism is mostly about men who wish to become women. Except of course I’m pretty sure I do know: from Milton Berle to Monty Python’s the Lumberjack Song to Gottfried in Gravity’s Rainbow to 10,000 punch lines about gay men lisping and (inexplicably) carrying purses to Transamerica itself to… well… the list is long but basically pop history’s full of references real or imagined of male-to-female transitions, temporary and complete. But outside of a few plot devices in Shakespeare, Marlene Dietrich and maybe K.D. Lang, and various folk songs about women cross-dressing so they can find or be with their soldier/sailor lovers there’s just not that much there.
Which is probably sort of a blessing since often trying to buck the gender trend isn’t very well received, but also a bit of a shame because there’s not a lot of comprehension, sympathy, or support either.
(Via Courtney Martin)
Saw an incredibly sweet movie yesterday for class,
Image via Wikipedia.Transamerica_(film)”>Transamerica, with Felicity Huffman in the role of a pre-op transgendered Sabrina “Bree” Osbourne. Just a week before male-to-female reassignment surgery Bree learns she’s got a now otherwise orphaned son from a one-night stand nearly eighteen years earlier. Much warming of hearts ensues as she zooms to pick him up from New York where he’s been living on the streets hustling, meddling with drugs, and most recently, where he’s been busted for shoplifting. Presenting herself as a church lady (not much of a stretch!) Bree bails the boy out and drives him back across the country to L.A. Eventually the boy finds out Bree’s actually his father, Bree gets surgery, and the two reconcile… about as well as you can imagine under the circumstances. Which is actually a big relief and a much nicer ending than a much happier one would have been.
One of the more interesting evolutions through the film, I thought was that the main character starts out so unready for reassignment… so sure surgery is all she needs, so… in denial about herself as if she doesn’t want to start being a woman so much, or even stop being a man, as to just erase her previous existence. And over the course of the movie as she begins to accept more about this young man and the rest of her life she starts losing some of her inauthentic affectations of femininity — the extreme “drag” attire, the shovels full of makeup, even her strained, no-stretch-pretending-to-be-a-church-lady prissiness — in exchange for relaxation into womanhood. And while they don’t make any kind of deal out of it at all in the movie (it’s surprisingly free of unintentional, non-plot-carrying clichés that way) it become clear that her psychologist was right not to sign off on her surgery until she cleaned things up because she really wasn’t ready.
One of the great things I’ve gotten out of the combined-studies program I’ve been taking this quarter is just how much there is to take for granted about the vast, wet, alphabet-soupy mesh of chromosomes, anatomy, gender, orientation, and sexuality most of us blithely imagine is a pretty elementary one- or two-step determination. And the movie nicely illuminates some of that complexity.
It also helped me make a little peace with one of my big bugaboos about trans people: perhaps because I have the privilege of feeling comfortable and unambiguous about my chromosomes, my anatomy, my gender, my orientation, and sexuality I’ve had the privilege as well to feel confined unto strangulation by all the fucking do’s and don’ts of elaborately constructed gender. And because I’m so conscious that gender is constructed I’ve chaffed at the idea that some people would want all that only more!
I think I’ve mentioned this before but decades ago a friend spent a week with a group of mostly-lesbian friends on Fire Island, NY. She said she wound up partying with a group of cross-dressing gay men who, at one point, took her under their wing and did her up — shaved her legs, curled her hair, made up her face, found her a gown. She said they were doing all these things she’d never really bothered with, and they were really good at it. And she said she felt this sort of competitive undertone like “here’s how you really do it, girlfriend,” as if no actual woman could ever be as feminine as they could be. My friend said they were great, that they all had a great time. Me, I just thought it was as weird that a bunch of men would think they could talk down to women about femininity (successfully talk down, no less!)
But here’s the deal on that, and it ties back into the movie: the boy, Toby by the way, who is unambiguously male is only seventeen and you recognize that he’s still busy constructing his gender! What kind of hats to wear. Whether to shoplift. How to interact as an adult male with women and with other men. What it means for a man to have a car. How to meet, how to greet, how to top or bottom in bed, how to “drink like a man” (clue: don’t barf on your pre-op mom’s lavender skirt), and so on.
The point being that it’s not just trans people who do gender drag, or make decisions about not just what it would be like to be a man or woman but to some extent what it must be like. And if the Bree character in the movie starts out a little rough around the edges well… big deal! That most of us get the over-the-top-feminized Barbie-style clothes and Bob the Builder helmets out of our systems early shouldn’t make us imagine everyone else should get it right the first time should they take it on a little later in life.
And since, at least as far as my position of privilege is concerned, the answer if you’re a woman is “everything I do is feminine,” and the answer for men is “everything I do is masculine.” Perhaps even if “everything you do” includes getting surgical reassignment. And I can say that so confidently because I feel when it does come down to gender, as opposed to chromosomes, anatomy, orientation, and sexuality, we all substantially make gender up based on what we see around us and to accommodate generally absolutely legitimate, unquestionably present, but also pretty low-level and almost abstract knowledge of “what” we are.
At this point I’d be even more arrogant and ignorant than usual to claim to understand all the issues hidden behind the little ‘t’ in LGBT, but at least in part thanks to the movie, thanks to listening to some pre- and post-op trans people including a really great film and video professional who spoke after the on-campus movie, I’ve at least got it through my thick skull that “gender” is a manifestation of a deeper “what” we feel that, if it doesn’t match the anatomy we pee with (for starters), distracts some of us to a point that we seek anatomical reassignment.
Lot to think about anyway, and there are so many worse ways to get started (but only get started) than Transamerica.