Liberating words

[dreamer_easy]

"A feminism that makes room for transgender people still fights to dismantle the structures that prop up gender as a system of oppression, but it does so without passing moral judgment on people who feel the need to change their birth-assigned gender. To reevaulate the relationship between transgender and feminist politics, it is essential to acknowledge that how each of us experiences and understands our gender identity... really is a very idiosyncratic personal matter. It is something prior to, or underlying, our political actions in the world and not in itself a reflection of our political beliefs. Nontransgender people, after all, think of themselves as having a gender, or being a gender, and nobody asks them to defend the political correctness of their 'choice' ... Being transgendered is like being gay - some people are just "that way", though most people aren't. We can be curious about why some people are gay or transgendered, and we can propose all kinds of theories... but ultimately we simply need to accept that some minor fraction of the population (perhaps including ourselves) simply is 'that way'."
- Susan Stryker, Transgender History

Comments

[kelliem.livejournal.com]

As friend and also parent to transgender people, it's really nice to see this.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

It just crystallises the idea - the simple truth, really - so nicely.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yes. That.

[jvowles.livejournal.com]

(claps)

How weird is the timing of this -- since I just watched Victor/Victoria yesterday? (granted, that's crossdressing for a purpose, but it does raise questions of gender expectations.)

Feminism, it seems to me, springs up to address a specific set of expectations about the world and the people in it. It is there to correct faulty assumptions, to try to bring about a paradigm shift. In that, it is much like the civil rights movement, the gay rights/gay pride movement, and other similar social engines.

People join these things for that area where their particular concern overlaps others within a common theme. And I'd argue that, while the extremist and exclusionary elements wind up with a voice in those groups, the groups themselves often have to navigate a thorny path between the common goals of the organization and the support that they'd burn off by embracing more radical elements that would otherwise be natural allies.

Organizations that have accomplished many of their major goals often see a petering out of the more moderate elements, who often have more reasonable goals. Even within the world of anime conventions, there has been a remarkable shift in attendee and volunteer demographics, and the goals and expectations shift along with them. Anime is now arguably mainstream, and so my organization has been shifting more effort to broader cultural stuff, whereas a decade ago, the novelty of actually seeing the stuff at all was sufficient to draw crowds and maintain interest.

So I think it's understandable that the more moderate elements of, say, the feminist movement would see transgender issues as a distraction from their primary objectives, just as gay rights leaders often groan at the endless media focus on drag queens, leather daddies, twinkie boys, hardcore butch lesbians, and so forth. The lurid, freakish, and hedonistic elements of the movement will always draw the most sensational media spotlights, and can become the "face" of the movement in the public eye, and that can do real damage. On the other hand, they're a very real and unavoidable part of the gay community, just as people who identify as female are unavoidable tied to the goals and aims of the feminist movement.

It's kind of like bumping into your boss and your most embarrassing cousin at the same time; inconvenient relatives with a poor sense of timing can screw with your long-term goals.

The extremists give the not-yet-convinced moderates a compelling argument to stay on the sidelines and withhold support, even when they might otherwise be sympathetic to the goals of the cause proper. Mainstream America could get to know and like Will from Will & Grace far more easily than Jack from that same show. They'll be entertained by Jack, happily, but he's a bit too "out there" for even Will's comfort.

At the moment, transgendered people fall well outside the understandable range of normal experience, even for people already on the outside.

It's not right, and it's not fair, but it is true and it won't change overnight. The question that needs to be addressed in all cases is whether embracing that decidedly-not-mainstream branch of the family tree will be good for the organization's goals, and if so, whether the leadership is up to the challenge of explaining the alliance to the potentially sympathetic mainstream.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

My impression is that feminists haven't excluded transgender women because they're seen as marginal and weird, but because they're "not real women". I think there may be some honest fears and reservations about how women who were raised as men, and may still be physically male, will behave if allowed into "women's spaces". But for the most part, the arguments seem to be all about ideology and theory. While I haven't looked very deeply into the debate, this strikes me as cutting off one's own nose to spite one's face: feminists interrogate gender, and what challenges gender more than transgenderism?

It's interesting looking back on Blue Box now - when I started writing it, my idea was that a ftm man was appropriating masculine power, which I found an exciting concept. By the time I'd finished writing it, I'd learned more - that transgenderism is not a political statement or a personal choice. Chick might have some additional power as a man, but is also in a very dangerous and disempowered position, subject to outing, blackmail, violence, etc. Anyway, I changed that odd little fable of the Princess and the Bull to reflect my changed understanding.