How are you all? life going well? Yes? Great! No? Keep looking for the lessons! Either ways I invite
you to pull up a seat and chew the fat for a few moments with yours truly, blogger, thinker, tinkerer
and doer of lives wonderful collection of "stuff"
We started today's musings over a cuppa in bed whilst reading through that stream of consciousness that is Facebook. In so doing I came across this.....
A link to a pink news article featuring dame Jenni Murray
It was linked via a friends profile who is (like me) trans and thus predictably might take issue with the view that trans women aren't "real women". (For those that don't know, Dame Jenni is the presenter of woman's hour on radio 4)
Ok, thinks I, heres an interesting read and seemingly omnipresent question. So I read the article and it seems theres an intriguing thread here. Dame Jenni comes from the same era of the feminist movement that is arguably represented most strongly in the public consciousness by Professor Greer. I'm going to pull a few extracts from her original article below, simply because its worthy to note that Pink news is not known for its objectivity in reporting what could be construed as challenging viewpoints.
The original Sunday Times article on which the pink news piece was based can be seen here
Pink news extracts
Head line: BBC woman’s Hour host Dame Jenni Murray says trans women aren’t ‘real women
Sunday Times headline
Jenni Murray: Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a “real woman”
Dame Jenni ask's:
"Can someone who has lived as a man, with all the privilege that entails, really lay claim to womanhood? It takes more than a sex change and make-up"
This - is in my view - a wholly justified question. Trans people often start their journey towards
transition with exactly this burning in their heads. It is a question born of the reality that people often
live in the gender assigned at birth, whichever of the usual two options that might be, before taking any actions to alter societies perception of their gender.
In years to come - and indeed currently - we are seeing a trend towards transition of individuals in their early to late teens. This means that by the age of forty or thereabouts the person has lived roughly 2/3rds of their life in the gender they identify with. As the time living in - and being perceived by others - as the "orginal" gender diminishes, so too does the argument that Dame Jenni alludes to for having developed societal wide opinions based on that gender.
Caveat: However this theory does predispose that whilst living in the gender which they identify with, they pass as that gender. Since the lived experience of a non passing trans woman is perhaps very different from a passing trans man, when both are compared to their cis gender counterparts, intersectionality of discrimination does come into play a little here. (ergo discrimination based on being seen as trans or false or gay etc muddies the waters somewhat of that lived experience being applicable/transferable to cis gender counterparts experiencing sexism)
So back to younger transtitionees, it's a simple and fair generalisation to say that most teenagers, by virtue of their being teenagers are not all that fussed about political stuff or "boring" things outside their own peer group. (for the sake of simplicity I'm not addressing pre school transition of children at this point, since that is something of an emotive issue, but none the less the long term societal effects are broadly similar) In this regards trans teens may be slightly more aware of the world around them on a personal level but not all that different from the cis counterparts as they grow up.
Dame Jenni:
I firmly believe that transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence so many of us have suffered
Admirable sentiment, but this is an erroneous lead in, since it references both sex and sexual preference you are assumed at birth. I'm sure the first thing anyone assumes on the brith of their child is that they will be heterosexual? Or then again maybe not. Maybe they dont even give it a thought, and just want to focus on now. After all the age of consent and the "birds and the bees" talk is at least 16yrs (??) from this point. So why bring it up? It plays to the LGBT tag. Sure LGB is a thing, but trans is a different thing. Trans is not and never has been a preference, so this simply muddies the waters once more regards nature/nurture and the biology verses choice arguments. It present the reader with an unconscious conflagration that trans is an orientation, which it isn't. Oh and anatomical "sex" isn't gender...that old trope, inferring science again but we shall revisit that in shortly...
Dame Jenni goes on to say...
I can’t agree with Julie Burchill or Germaine Greer, whose language in their expression of revulsion at the trans woman (a man who becomes a woman) claiming to be a real woman has been unacceptably crude. Why demean yourself and the feminist politics to which you’ve devoted your life by saying, cruelly and distastefully, “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman,” (Greer) or referring to transgender females as “screaming mimis” and “bed wetters in bad wigs” (Burchill)?
Equally, I’m appalled at the repulsive misogyny evident in the response of trans activists who have accused Nimko Ali, a Somali and a courageous campaigner against female genital mutilation, of “practising white feminism” or who have demanded the “no platforming” (banning from speaking in public) of women, such as the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, who have questioned the claims of trans women to be real women.
But my concern, which I know is shared by numerous women who are now to be known as “cis” (short for “cisgender” — natural-born women, in the language that’s more familiar to most of us), is for the impact this question of what constitutes “a real woman” will have on sexual politics. And for who has the right to be included in gatherings or organisations that are defined as single sex.
I wholeheartedly applaud Dame Jenni for her comment in regards to the language used by Professor Greer, and agree that on the opposite side of the issue many are guilty of wilful failure to engage in debate, preferring mudslinging and personal attacks. The issues at hand are far too important to the wider human race to be trivialised by tit for tat bickering. Her final point, one of the implication for "sexual politics" as she puts it is again a valid one.
Indeed the question of inclusion is at the heart of the entire issue, but viewed from Dame Jenni's perspective is only a half story, since she only deals with trans women. (pretty obviously because she is approaching this from a feminist POV and as a woman of course.) Let us not forget the trans man in this argument. Broadly speaking, trans men do have one massive "advantage" over trans women. On average, with their clothes on, it is harder to differentiate the trans man from the cis man, than it is trans woman from cis. Late transitioning trans women "stand out" in society and thus fall victim to misogyny, homophobia (based on the idea they are gay men), mental health stigma, the list is endless. Trans men, whilst getting much the same I am sure, are less visible, thus less discussed. Trans is an issue that needs to focus on the whole picture, not just the feminist perspective. That trans men are often "invisible" is evident in the bathroom bill arguments raging in America, but thats another story for another time.
Dame Jenni references a vicar who transitioned in the 1970's and a recent transitonee, India Willoughby, News reader and presenter.
Both are held up as examples of "unknowing" Trans woman, who have limited to no knowledge of women's specific political issues at the time of their interview by Dame Jenni. There are two faults with this argument. Firstly, in 1970, the over all perception of "A woman" in society was very different to todays version. Arguably Professor Greer and her contemporaries have had a considerable hand in changing those attitudes, for which they are to be rightly commended. Second, not all "Cis gender" women are clued up on these defining issues of woman hood as Dame Jenni puts it, nor care much about them either, thus knowing/unknowing is not a universal argument.
For a link to my "cis/trans explanations see here)
Sure both Carol and India didn't know all that much, and whether they perhaps "should" have known more in their positions is open to debate, but had they done so would that then make them qualify as real women? Or by extension can a cis women who is uniformed be deemed to be not a real woman? So much of what Dame Jenni levels at Carol and India is irrelevant unless one assumes they didn't know because they lived as men pre transition. This is huge leap and quite an assumption. So, one has to ask, what is that assumption based on?
Dame Jenni goes on to say that India in particular is quite "stereotypical" in her attire choices, and preferences, thus pandering to the societal idea of a man's opinion of what a woman should look like. Recent court cases where employers have attempted to implement dress codes obligating women to wear heels at work or as is the case in the article Dame Jenni references, "always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs" have highlighted the issue of appearance politics as it is applied to women in the professional work spaces.
The issue here, that Dame Jenni seemingly misses, is "choice". A woman may choose to wear heels to work. A woman may choose to wear make up, or shave her legs. When that choice is removed and appearance is directed by coercion then there is a problem. Concomitantly if a woman chooses to wear such items because she like them, and this is in agreement with a policy that other women disagree with, that must also be a valid option, since to deny her the choice to do so is to denigrate the other argument. Men and women have through the ages changed their looks, attire etc for reasons of practicality, preference, attraction of companions, uniformity, etc etc. But yet again this does not imbue any legitimacy of "real" woman hood or otherwise, so is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, unless one assumes the decisions India makes are due to her former perceptions whilst in a societal male role. Again quite the assumption. So again, what is it based on?
Dame Jenni goes on to reference Dr Zucker, the by now infamous researcher who is a somewhat controversial figure having allegedly (dependent on who you believe) practiced reversion therapy on trans youth, something that is now a universally discredited way of thinking for the medical profession. She also references a person who transitioned male to female and then back again ,
"Others, like Charles Kane, have found life as a woman intolerable. He began life as a man, became Samantha in 1997, and then, in 2004, had the surgery reversed. He believes he saw himself as an unusually sensitive man, but feels that he had surgery too soon. He said recently: “The worst part about being a woman is being treated as a sex object. So much depends on your appearance at the expense of everything else. Even though I was a woman physically, I felt I still had a male brain, but when I tried to talk to men about blokey things they didn’t take me seriously.”
This speaks to someone (Charles in this case) who perhaps hadn't fully appreciated the nuances of social transition, and erroneously thought life would be the same either way. We now know very different, hence the consideration of social elements in transition alongside the medical. The person in question had 6 yrs living in society as a woman. Were they dealing with misogyny? Or was it discrimination due to transphobia and homophobia? (intersectionality again) Who knows, but either way they reverted back the societal perceptions of man. I feel for them, however 6yrs is not a representative sample, and neither are the singular experiences on one person a great evidence base, so why bring it up?
Dame Jenni continues:
"Ah yes, the male brain. How often do we hear about the male or female brain and the oft-repeated mantra, applied to males and females alike, “I was born into the wrong body”. Research carried out by the distinguished scientists Cordelia Fine and Lise Eliot can find no evidence for such claims. They hold to the fact that all children are born with the potential to develop their own unique characteristics of behaviour, talent and personality, regardless of biological sex. They say that the idea that the brain and the body are split, meaning it is possible to have the brain of one sex and the body of the opposite, is very recent and is not supported by credible scientific evidence."
See here.. Scientific American
This work in no way indicates a level of potential on the individual, merely a structure anatomical difference that is reliably consistent with the persons "internal" gender - or gender identity if you will - be that cis or trans in nature.
So why would Dame Jenni include an inaccurate statement in her report?
She then goes on to quote a Miranda Yardley, giving no qualification as to her knowledge base other than she is a transgender woman... (presumably assuming the reader knows who she is - she is a trans blogger btw, I looked it up)
"Miranda Yardley,.... is a male-to-female transsexual. She explains that some boys who are gay want to adopt the female gender because they’re considered effeminate and bullied for it. Others may simply refuse to become the kind of men they know, or want to emulate the mothers they love. Others, generally those who come to transition later in life, having lived as heterosexual men, are sexually aroused by the idea of becoming a woman or say they simply feel more comfortable living life as a woman."
So, two points here. First to be considered a "real woman" as per Dame Jenni's own criterion, one must be informed about women political struggles. Second, in order for it to be assumed that one knows everything about transgender theory and history, one must simply be trans gender. "Miranda" is assumed to know what she is talking about by virtue of her trans status alone, yet the theories she espouses are as old (and flawed) as Dr Zucker's and the gay conversion therapy ideology that was dropped circa 1950's. The notion that heterosexual men transition because they become aroused by the idea of becomeng a woman is based in the principle of Autogynephillia, which was a theory developed by Ray Blanchard in the 80's and 90's
Theres not much on it that qualifies as unbiased, but you can read the wiki here
Crucially the theory has many many critics as it lays it's overriding premise in sexual attraction which as we now know is entirely separate from gender.
Wiki extract ...
Criticism of the research and theory has come from Charles Allen Moser, Julia Serano, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, John Bancroft, and others who say that the theory is poorly representative of trans women, and reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction.[citation needed]
The theory has been the subject of protests in the transgender community, which peaked with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003. Following the publication of Bailey's book, Blanchard distinguished between the value of the theory as a behavioral description, versus as an explanation of transsexualism and that only further scientific research could resolve the latter question.[1] The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) does not support the theory, citing a need for further research.[6] WPATH also criticize the theory as being stigmatizing due to focusing on behavior instead of distress.[7]
So Miranda seem a little out of date yet s held up asa basal of trans knowledge. Why?So to sum up then, what Dame Jenni appears to be doing is suggesting that in order to be considered a real women one must be informed on gender politics, and hold feminist aligned views. Additionally if a trans woman is not so informed or holds differing views these are obviously due to her being being trans..i'e formerly societally male, not just uninformed.
She furthermore erroneously quotes the scientific research on the issue and to add insult to injury equates the comments of one trans woman, of un explained prominence or knowledge as indicative of the wider issue and current knowledge base, in direct contravention of her own ruleset regarding the requirement she herself made of trans women Carol and India, in order for them to be considered "real women".
So I asked myself what is this article based on?
Sadly, I have come to this conclusion
It is based on the assumption that trans women are men, were men and will always act as men.
It attempts to blur realms of scientific research with use of old outdated and debunked theories, and it includes unqualified opinions of unspecified members of the trans community who may or may not know the nuances of the issue, simply because those opinions agree with the predispositions of the author. It is neither an informed, nor open minded article in its second half content. The first half content establishes the author as a reasonable human being and thus predisposes the reader to seek accord with the more extreme and outdated ideas in the seconds half via the belief that a BBC presenter can't possibly be out of date. Quite simply its a poor attempt at exclusionary rhetoric dressed up as concerned opinion piece.
Why do I say this? Because I'm disappointed. Pink news did an appalling job of dissecting this article, going for headline buzz over content. I so wanted to believe this might be a sign of genuine meaning fully discourse, and a search for truth on the issue. But no. The central question needs to be debated, discussed and defined. It need's to be addressed. But it needs to be addressed unambiguously, transparently, via informed current and relevant debate that does not reduce trans women to mere clothes horses and assume that all their belief systems stem from the inherent maleness of their societal experiences. In short from an unbiased and objective and truthful viewpoint.
What it ultimately proves, if anything is that Trans women are not Cis women. Well no shit Sherlock. We coulda told you that. The issue is that you Dame Jenni, define real women on your own terms. Terms which don't actually apply to all Cis women, and then fail to apply these same requirement to Trans women's legitimacy as you see fit.
You make broad brush assumptions out of nowhere and as I asked a few times in the above text:
"What these assumption are based on?"
Belief.
They are based on a predisposed and seemingly ingrained belief that Trans women can never be as legitimate Cis women, and as such their voices have no place in as you put it "single sex" spaces.
That Dame Jenni, is the very definition of trans exclusionary feminism.
I Applaud you for your efforts in being non confrontational.....
Shame on you for your dishonesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment