So in the couple days since my blog entry A “Transsexual Versus Transgender” Intervention came out, I have spent a big chunk of my free time pouring over all the responses - both comments made on my own blog, plus all the comments that appeared when it was cross-posted on The Transadvocate and tagged on numerous Facebook threads. I knew I was writing about a hotly debated topic, so I am not *too* surprised that the piece generated interest (both positive and negative). But I am a bit overwhelmed by how many responses there actually were.
While I have read all of the comments, I don’t have the time to reply to each comment individually since there have been so many. So here, I will respond more generally to sentiments that seem to have come up on more than one occasion. Occasionally I will cite or quote specific individuals, but other times I will discuss some of the sentiments/reactions more generally.
Note: I am making this a separate post so that it can be linked to more easily, and so that people who follow me on Twitter, Facebook and NetworkedBlogs will be notified of this post. I will also paste it into the comments sections of my original blog entry and the Transadvocate blog entry.
1) Many negative reactions to the piece stressed the ways in which cis gay and lesbian folks are dismissive of transsexuals. I certainly agree that such sentiments exist, and a lot of my previous writings (e.g., Whipping Girl, my “frustration” web page, and all blog posts tagged with “frustration”) discuss this. However, I completely disagree with the monolithic portrayal that all cis lesbian and gay folks are this way. Many cis lesbian and gay folks are sincerely informed about, and supportive of, transsexuals. If you have not met anyone who fits this description, it is probably because you are not active in gay/lesbian/queer spaces on a regular basis.
2) Marlene (posting on my blog) brought up the history of how all people who currently identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, etc., were generally described by others, and often self-identified, as gay up until the 1970s. This is something that I did not discuss in my post, but which is obviously pertinent. So the idea that transsexuals, or transgender people, have nothing to do with LGB folks is ahistorical.
3) Along similar lines, several replies reiterated that sexual orientation is totally different from gender identity in their attempts to separate the T from the LGB. I would encourage them to re-read this passage from my post:
“Transsexuals who want to secede from the LGBT umbrella keep citing the fact that sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity. This may be true, but this point has nothing to do with the rationale behind why trans people were initially included in the umbrella - specifically, because LGBT individuals are all discriminated against for similar reasons (i.e., because, in one way or another, we challenge the assumption that sex, gender and sexuality should all be perfectly aligned). This is evident in the way that gays, lesbians and bisexuals are often targeted for discrimination for their gender nonconformity, and in the way that transsexuals are often targeted for discrimination because people fear that sleeping with us might “make them gay.” In other words, while sexual orientation and gender identity may be different things, homophobia and transphobia are very much intertwined.”
4) Jonah (posting on my blog) brought up how umbrellas (e.g., transgender) can lead people to appropriate other groups (e.g., trans people appropriating intersex identities and experiences). Here was my response: “This is a legitimate concern, and I feel that it stems mostly from people confusing identities with umbrellas. People who understand umbrellas realize that they are in an alliance with other marginalized groups, but that they have no right to speak on behalf of those groups. I know several intersex folks who also identify as transgender. But I do not assume that I can speak on their behalf simply because I also identify as transgender. Just because you identify a particular way, or are included in the same umbrella as someone else, does not give you the right to speak on their behalf.”
I would also add, the same is true for cis lesbian and gay folks who appropriate trans people’s identities and experiences. Being in an umbrella does not give one the right to appropriate other people’s identities or issues, and such instances should be challenged. Granted, this may happen quite often (e.g., G & L appropriation of T, trans folks appropriations of intersex), but it is not because of umbrellas per se, but because of a lack of understanding or respect for what umbrella alliances are really all about.
5) dentedbluemercedes (posting on my blog) said: “you make the point that even "transsexual" is an umbrella. This is true. But the wider an umbrella is cast, the greater the erasure and the sense that any one narrative becomes misrepresentative.” This sentiment was echoed in an anonymous comment (posting on my blog): “arent we all groups of one essentially? All marginalized peoples should with varying degrees help one another...being identified in any group lessens our unique individuality.”
Sometimes I refer to this as the Russian nested doll problem. Each of us is a unique individual with lots of issues that affect us personally (and also, lots of privileges that allow us to ignore other people’s problems). Each of us on our own is unable to make much of a dent in the system, so we ban together with other people to fix these problems - that is, we form umbrella groups. The smaller and more specific the umbrella group, the less in-fighting and the more focused the activism. This can be good. But there is drawback, in that the smaller the umbrella group, the less impact it will have on the world. Bigger umbrella groups have bigger impacts, but they also dilute out individual voices more, and tend to favor larger or more established subgroups over more marginalized subgroups. So which umbrellas should we choose?
Well, I don’t think this is an either/or situation. I personally think the answer is to work on multiple levels at once. Sometimes I write about, and focus my activism on, transsexual issues. Other times, trans woman-specific issues. Still other times bisexual issues, or queer issues, or women’s issues. And so on. This is what I advocated at the end of my piece - that there are numerous alliances that we can create and/or strengthen.
Some transsexuals may want to only focus their activism primarily on transsexual-specific issues. I think that is completely valid, and I encourage them to do so. But they should not discredit those of us who are working at the level of larger umbrellas (e.g., transgender or LGBT). And vice versa.
One more thing that was implicit in my piece, but I want to say more explicitly here: One potential benefit of larger umbrellas is that (when working functionally rather than dysfunctionally) they tend to be less elitist or exclusive than smaller ones. They force us to recognize and challenge obstacles that may not affect us personally, but which affect other folks under our umbrella. While I may be transsexual, I feel that it is important for me as an ally to recognize and challenge obstacles faced by crossdressers, or genderqueers, or intersex folks, or cis gays and lesbians, even if they are not my issues per se. And as someone who is in favor of social justice more generally, I think that it is important for me to also challenge racism, classism, ableism, etc., both within my own community as well as in society more generally.
6) Teagan (posting on the Transadvocate) said: “For what it's worth, I do believe that Serano and others desire hetero TS women in there to legitimize the movement with the public.”
I can’t speak for “others,” but I am comfortable with the fact that some hetero transsexuals do not identify as transgender or LGBT. I don’t think that transsexuals are some monolithic group that all share the same orientations or political views. I am comfortable stating publicly that some transsexuals are actively involved in transgender and LGBT alliances/umbrellas whereas others are not. In other words, I am not out to exploit/appropriate hetero-identified transsexuals.
A question: do hetero-identified transsexuals exploit/appropriate transgender/queer/LGBQ-identified transsexuals when they argue that all transsexuals want out of the transgender or LGBT umbrellas? It’s kinda sorta the same thing, isn’t it? That’s why I believe we should embrace the fact that “transsexuals” are not a monolithic group. We differ on this, and other, issues. Our differences/diversity is an asset, not a drawback.
7) Andrea (posting on the Transadvocate) said:
There's a serious issue being missed here: CONSENT. Women are individuals, not individual examples of a homogenous "identity group" called "women." We cannot consent for each other. You can't consent for anyone else but yourself, Julia. All a "Separatist" really is, is a woman who said "NO." NO MEANS NO. It is not the beginning of a discussion, it is the end. There is no debate to be had. The "Separatists" aren't preventing any woman from saying "YES," for herself, if she wants to. It is the "Inclusionists" with their grabby umbrella that are ignoring consent issues and trying to remove the ability to say "NO."
Amber (posting on the Transadvocate) then replied “Yes brilliant. I say no to being raped by the transgender umbrella. I say no to someone making knowledge of my sexuality the price of admission. I say no to gays and lesbians presuming t0 speak for me.”
So first, as a survivor of an attempted date rape myself, I must say that comparing pro-umbrella folks to rapists is beyond the pale. Having said that, the issue of consent is a legitimate point. For the record, I have never once advocated that all transsexuals *must* identify as transgender or LGBT. And I denounce anyone who insists that all transsexuals *must* identify as transgender or LGBT. At the same time, many anti-umbrella folks claim that transsexuals (uniformly) are not transgender, or that we are not LGBT, when many of us do identify these ways. So perhaps there is some non-consensuality on both sides of this debate?
Hopefully, my above discussions about the difference between umbrellas and identities, and my Russian nested doll analogy, will help clarify my perspective on this. I will not force any transsexual person to identify as transgender or LGBT. But at the same time, I believe that my identity as a transgender- and LGBT-identified transsexual woman should also be respected. And when I (and others) talk about transsexual participation in transgender and LGBT alliances/umbrellas, it should not be seen as me forcing my identities onto you, but rather as my belief that there are commonalities worthy of forming alliances there. Conversely, if you want to focus primarily on transsexual-specific issues, I should (and do) respect that.
I hate war metaphors, but here it goes: There are many fronts to every movement. You are focusing on one front (i.e., transsexual issues), whereas I and other transgender- or LGBT-identified transsexuals are focusing on other fronts. We are on the same "team," but tackling different issues. And when people exploit or appropriate transsexual identities, we should stand together to challenge that, whether they be LGBT, or transgender, or cis straight folks. But we should welcome legitimate (i.e., non-appropriating/exploitative) cissexual allies of any stripe.
8) Speaking of which, comments on my piece (and on this issue more generally) constantly talk about transgender and LGBQ appropriation of transsexuals, as though this were unique to transgender- and LGB-identified folks. This ignores the fact that there is a long history of cis straight-identified folks (whether they be media producers, novelists, photographers, psychiatrists/psychologists, academics, etc.) who have appropriated/exploited/misrepresented transsexuals over the years! To pin this solely on LGBT/transgender/gender theorist folks is both wildly incorrect, and potentially sexist on several levels (e.g., traditional sexism, heterosexism, monosexism, etc.)
9) I saw a couple commenters who actually said they didn’t feel that transsexuals needed to form alliances with anyone. I feel that those responses are naive, and I assume they were probably uttered by folks who have no experience doing grassroots activism of any sort. It is easy to be an “arm chair activist” who complains about alliances they dislike without having to do the heavy lifting required to change societal views about transsexuals and the various forms of sexism we face.
10) Of all the people who objected to my piece, none of them offered different alliance(s) that they would support over transgender or LGBT alliances. I just wanted to note that.
11) Thaniel (posting on my blog) said “it seems to me that there's also something else at work here. I believe that some transwomen bring a heap of unexamined male privilege w/them thru their transition, & this causes them to think they have the "right" to define "trans-ness" for everyone. Thus their intolerance for those of us who may have gone in a different direction (and who frankly don't care what *they* think.) And with such a binary, right/wrong world-view, there can be no interpretation of "transgender" other than "it's wrong."
I am very sensitive to when the “male privilege” card is played against trans women - it is often used to dismiss our perspectives (especially in cis feminist spaces). It also ignores the fact that trans women no longer experience male privilege in our day to day lives. Having said that, I do believe that Thaniel has a point here about privilege more generally. When I have met (in person) transsexuals who hold anti-umbrella views, they are almost always white, middle-class, able-bodied trans women (for the record, privileges that I also share). There is nothing inherently wrong with being a white, middle-class, able-bodied trans woman. However, this can mean that such women have never been personally exposed to activism or social justice issues until coming out as transsexual.
In activist and social justice circles, people often justifiably decry people who are “single-issue activists” - that is, people who are only concerned with the one issue that personally affects their lives, but ignore the issues faced by other marginalized groups (which they do not have to deal with because of their own privileges). I think that it is fine to focus your activism primarily on a specific issue that you are most passionate about. But it is not okay to use that as an excuse to ignore the issues that negatively impact other marginalized groups.
12) On the comment section of the Transadvocate, some disagreed with my opinion that someone can be a transsexual woman yet still have a penis, to which I responded: “objecting to the idea that 'woman and can still have a penis' is logically no different from objecting to the idea that 'woman and is not XX chromosomally' or 'woman and cannot bare children'. There are countless arbitrary lines one can draw in the sand to separate women from men (and many would also disenfranchise many cis women as well as trans women). We are women because we move through the world as women. Trans women face the same sexism that cis women face. We deal with similar expectations and obstacles. That is what makes us women. Not our biology or anatomy.”
13) In that comment thread, several people argued with my claim transsexual was also an umbrella, arguing instead that it was a “medical condition.” While the phrase “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” (HBS) was not stated explicitly, this seems to be the position they were taking. Personally, I believe that transsexuality is a natural (i.e., pan-cultural, trans-historical) phenomenon where some people understand themselves at a deep and profound level to be a member of the sex/gender other than the one they were assigned a birth. I don’t view it as an illness, pathology, disorder or syndrome, but rather as a part of human variation. Unfortunately, in a cissexist world, transsexuals often are required to be diagnosed as having some kind of “disorder/illness/syndrome” (whether mental or medical) in order to access the means to physically transition. HBS-identified folks support the “disorder/illness/syndrome” model, whereas I and other non-HBS-identified transsexuals do not.
I personally feel that the natural variation view that I hold is both more accurate and empowering than the HBS view of transsexuality as medical “disorder/illness/syndrome,” but I respect the fact that others may disagree. But what I do strongly object to is the way that HBS-type positions are often used to police the “real/fake,” “transsexual/transgender” hierarchies. I think that it is arrogant when a psychiatrist or psychologist feels entitled enough to state that they can single-handedly determine whether a person is transsexual or not, especially when that determination invalidates that person’s gender identity. When a transsexual claims that they are truly HBS, whereas other transsexuals are not (which typically invalidates the latter person's gender identity), it is the same sort of arrogance.
14) Some people disagreed with my claim that trans men are relatively accepted in contemporary queer women’s spaces. To be clear, I am not saying that trans men are universally accepted. But as someone who has been active in queer women’s spaces for a decade, I can tell you for sure that in almost every dyke/queer space I’ve been in, trans men have been more accepted than trans women. This isn’t just my observation - many others have noticed and written about this discrepancy as well. Perhaps there are small pockets of queer women’s spaces (e.g., in particular towns or cities) where trans women are more accepted than trans men, but if they exist, they are few and far between.
It was also pointed out that trans men are not accepted in gay male spaces. I agree, this is a problem. But trans women (pre- and post-transition) are not readily accepted there either. I often participate in queer spaces (i.e., where there is a mix of LGBTQ folks) - these tend to be more accepting of trans women than either gay or lesbian/dyke spaces, but there still seems to be a bias or preference toward trans men over trans women, and it seems to stem from a favoring of masculinity over femininity.
So I am not saying that trans men are always accepted whereas trans women are not. It is more complex than that. But I do believe that there is a discrepancy there and that it is fueled primarily by transmisogyny and anti-feminine sentiment. And the *only* reason that I brought it up here is in an attempt to explain why most anti-umbrella advocates are trans women rather than trans men.
<!--—pause for a deep breath ---->
A disclaimer, I am rushing this out there because I feel that the blogosphere demands my (relatively) immediate response. This response is not as well honed or thought-out compared to most things I write (where I go through several revised drafts). So please give me a little leeway if my particular word choice (or even grammar/spelling mistakes) bother you. I have written this in the spirit of explaining my views while simultaneously respecting other people’s views. I hope that it is taken in the same way.
Okay, so that is it for now. I am taking a couple day break from the internet after all this. Feel free to leave whatever comments you may have. I will read all comments sometime soon. Right now, I feel wiped-out responding-wise. But perhaps (after my break) I may reply to a handful of future comments, especially if they touch on issues I did not address here...
Best wishes, -julia
[note: If you appreciate my work and want to see more of it, please check out my Patreon page]
Home »
» Postscript for my “TS-vs-TG-Intervention” piece