I hope this isn't too hot of a take, but I don't like the "No True Scotsman" approach to TERFs.
I hope this isn't too hot of a take, but I don't like the "No True Scotsman" approach to TERFs.
I see a lot of people say things like "TERFs aren't real feminists" or "We should call TERFs something besides feminists," and I understand where this viewpoint comes from, but as a transfeminine person, I honestly don't like this approach.
I feel like when people utilize this approach, they're trying to see TERFs as a problem from the outside rather than a problem within. We cannot build a better, more inclusive, and more intersectional flavor of feminism if we assume that problematic tendencies such as transphobia are inherently beyond feminist thought.
Is TERF ideology flawed and misguided? Absolutely, 100%. Is it not feminist? On some level, I see why some would say it isn't, but at the very least, it's in the name of feminism. Although TERFs are incredibly sus with their hyperfocus on trans people, especially transfeminine people, and very minimal focus on actually advocating for women's rights, TERFs are not exactly stemming their transphobia from a viewpoint that conservative Christians, for instance, might stem their transphobia. Their viewpoint is tied to a certain interpretation of feminism, even if that interpretation sucks major doodoo ass.
We have to remember that even mainstream, liberal feminists are not exempt from some problems that TERFs embody. These kinds of feminists can often have transphobic and bioessentialist ideas as well. The difference? They are often more implicit and mask-on with these problematic tendencies. If they're not outright transphobic in their thinking, they, at the very least, tend to be very erasing of trans struggles, as they usually are with all other kinds of intersectionality. Their major issue with failing to grasp intersectionality is painfully obvious with how much they focus on white cishet women, failing to demonstrate that they don't even have a single place in their mind concerned about black women, trans women, and other more marginalized groups of women. I see these feminists as a problem obviously (because libs suck), but I certainly wouldn't say they're not feminists.
I'm functionally at a point where I can only trust feminists that are truly intersectional and communists, but unfortunately, I wouldn't say that outlook comprises most self-identified feminists. However, I wouldn't say that any feminist that deviates from the most helpful outlook on patriarchy isn't a feminist. They're just, in some way, a failed one in desperate need of education.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yes, feminisms can certainly be transphobic. And like you say, "TERFs" are transphobic in the name of feminism. Almost always as some form of cultural feminism. Which is an issue because TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminists, yet 99% of so-called TERFs (even self-identified ones) don't know jack shit about radical feminism! So the whole term is a misnomer. Maybe even counterproductive because by equating radical feminism with transphobia, you're distancing yourself from some very useful feminist critique (like the construction of sex as a class that can be abolished) that is actually quite relevant to transgender liberation!
social constructionism is a harmful dichotomous viewpoint that invalidates trans experiences, see whipping girl
I don't think Julia Serano is totally and completely right about that. She's great, and Whipping Girl is great, very worth reading, it really helped me flesh out my understanding of gender, but still, I think she's wrong about, at least, the subconscious sex theory she posits.
I'd like to recommend Judith Butler's new book here, but I'll be honest, I can't read Butler, I find them extremely confusing. For an easier time, you could instead watch Philosophy Tube's newest video, because Abby talks a little about this issue, following Butler. If you're interested, I also could see if my sister would be ok with me posting an excerpt of an essay she wrote on this subject, because that's my exposure to Judith Butler, filtered through my sister's writing.
Total social constructionism is genuinely transphobic. If sex is entirely constructed, than the only reason we have to explain dysphoria is as internalized patriarchal norms. It therefore leads to attempts at conversion therapy as a natural conclusion of it, as “deprogramming of patriarchal norms and the fake expectations of sex and gender”. It is also probably wrong, because many trans people literally have desires contradictory of socially constructed norms since their early childhood. Not to mention that conversion therapy has never been shown to work (if it was just social influence that made sex dysphoria happen, these things would not be a thing, and Hitlerites would have succeeded at eliminating trans people long ago).
Now keep in mind this is not the same thing as trying to abolish gender as we currently understand it. Both me and Julia Serano believe the majority of gender is pretty much entirely made up.
This is why the “subconscious sex” theory is pretty much the only non-problematic one I could think of. It leaves room for gender abolition while also explaining the feelings of trans people in a way that’s accurate and not invalidating. It’s also why the disappearance of the term transsexual is kind of sad and makes things way more confusing.
Edit: I think what I’m saying here is very similar to the idea proposed in the Gender Abolitionist Manifesto. You can want to (have dysphoria over etc) have boobs or something but not be labelled a Woman and given that social class for that
If sex is entirely constructed, than the only reason we have to explain dysphoria is as internalized patriarchal norms.
I think fundamentally this is what I don't agree with. I don't believe I feel better with a testosterone-dominant endocrine system because of societal norms. It's a body thing, not a society thing, at least for me. But, that doesn't necessarily mean "sex" isn't socially constructed. Why does feeling better with testosterone necessitate that I be "subconsciously male"?
Let me say a little more: I had tits once, and I got top surgery to remove them. That choice was purely societal. In a perfect world, I would have kept my tits while being on testosterone. Would you still say I'm "subconsciously male" if my ideal body would have large (they were big and wonderful) boobs, but also facial and body hair? If so, what exactly does "male" mean? If not, what is my "subconscious sex"? Something other than male or female?
(I do actually agree about transsexual being a word that perhaps we should keep. I far, far preferred when my official diagnosis was "transsexualism" rather than "gender identity disorder". I'm trans, but I'm not disordered.)
I would argue that “subconscious sex”‘s main flaw is that it’s called “subconscious sex” when it’s not really about entire “sex”‘s as we understand them (which yes, do not exist).
Male and female are a made up dichotomy (a ‘fun’ oppositional sexism example!!) but the identification/dysphoria/euphoria desires people in patriarchal society associate with those supposed sexes is not made up. I think Julia Serano actually holds this opinion but doesn’t explain it particularly well. Sexes themselves aren’t real but some factors that make them up are. I think she was trying to get at this when she pointed out how things can be both socially constructed and partially influenced by biology.
This means that people with a non-binary “subconscious sex” can exist and in fact are probably way more common than we think. Generally I think it would be better to just call it “biologically driven body dysphoria” instead of subconscious sex, because it’s not about fitting a specific sex, and more about having deep discomfort due to your brain feeling “not right” with a certain aspect of your biology, which doesn’t even have to be gendered IMO. I wonder how many cis people experience this but we consider them cis because their dysphoria is over something we don’t consider to be gendered (and therefore they were able to rectify it without getting attacked for being an evil trans…)
Well alright, that's fine, but then, like, so what? How is it helpful to think about "subconscious sex" if really the idea there is no more than "some people are more comfortable if certain parts of their biology are changed from what their bodies would do without intervention"? What do we gain by saying something like "everyone has a subconscious sex that may or may not match the gender we're assigned at birth and could even have very little to do with what society calls 'sex' "?
Am I underselling the idea somehow?
(Thanks for talking with me, I'm really not trying to be argumentative or contrarian.
)Honestly, I wrote up a response similar to this to @EelBolshevikism@hexbear.net, but I didn't want to seem argumentative. I just hope to be educational and clarify what trans-affirming gender abolitionists believe in. Here it is:
"I don't agree that total social constructionism is genuinely transphobic. I also don't think your dichotomy is accurate here. To say that 'If sex is entirely socially constructed, then the only potentially applicable explanation for dysphoria is that it's caused by submitting to patriarchal norms and nothing else can possibly be the explanation for such a feeling whatsoever' presents that false dichotomy. Let me ask you this: why must those only be the two options?
When people say gender and/or sex is socially constructed, they're not necessarily saying that the 'feelings' around gender/sex aren't real. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as masculinity and femininity could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, what we now know as gender dysphoria could still exist. If gender/sex were abolished, you're still gonna have your genitals, hormones, and characteristics of 'biological sex' as people know it. It's just that these things would all take on a different outlook. These things wouldn't have an idea of 'gender' tied to them. Gender abolitionists seek this reality because it liberates people from how seemingly concrete gender is placed as an expectation within society.
Gender and sex are made up categories regardless of the things we categorize within them. Dysphoria could be innate to trans people, but the way we have gendering around it obviously is entirely a social construct. A very non-gendered way explain the manifestation of a trans person would be something like:
Person is born with penis and gonads that produce testosterone.
Person doesn't like effects of this testosterone hormone.
They take pills to increase the presence of the other hormone instead and seek out other features they would rather have such as longer hair, a bigger chest, and a higher-pitched voice. They feel much happier afterwards.
No where in that explanation did I mention gender. Although, this kind of reality sounds unimaginable because of how deeply gender is woven into society, nothing is saying that the hypothetical trans person in this scenario would be unable to be uncomfortable with the way testosterone impacts their body. That's something that could theoretically occur regardless if you tie a social construction of gender or sex to that discomfort or not.
It's effectively the same thing as:
Person is born with male features.
Person grows up and develops as a man and doesn't like it.
They undergo procedures and changes to look like a woman instead, and now they feel more comfortable.
The difference is that this latter example is gendered, and it's the way many people would look at it as things stand now. We don't really need to have an 'explanation' for dysphoria in particular to validate it. To be honest, we don't have a perfectly definitive explanation as to why people experience gender dysphoria now, and the same could honestly be said about homosexuality even. This does not mean that gender dysphoria and homosexuality aren't real things people experience. The simplest explanation that I wish people could accept for queer people is: it be like that sometimes (seriously)."
This sounds exactly like what I’m saying, just without sticking to saying “sex” is socially constructed. Like I don’t believe “sex” is real because it’s a bunch of disparate shit we think is related when it probably isn’t in a lot of cases. Neither is gender, for that matter.
When I say, “sex is entirely socially constructed” I am not referring to the idea of the concept of sex nor the concept of gender, but rather the idea that any and all feelings people experience around those things are the result of conditioning and conditioning alone. I disagree with that idea because I think, like you said, a world without the categories of gender and sex could still have people with dysphoria and different desires around presentation and just general existence.
This is an example of limited language I think
And this is what gender abolitionists like myself believe in, hence my comment here tying in perfectly, the one starting with "I honestly hold it to be a semantic argument..." These semantic discrepancies are what got me to reject the notion of gender abolitionism initially. I don't base my view of the existence of trans people off of conditioning like you mentioned, and that isn't an inherent part of proper gender abolitionist views. Any gender abolitionist with a proper grasp on how gender works in this society will not see it that way, but the same can't be said for TERFs. TERFs don't often manifest this kind of thinking because they try to have bioessentialism and gender abolition co-exist, which is just nonsensical on their part. I was exactly thinking the same way as you before I understood these things, so I understand where you're coming from for sure. This knowledge may not do the same for everyone, but in my personal experience, I found so much more comfort, peace, and liberation in my gender (or lack thereof) once these realizations hit.
I don't see how that's the case so I'll make sure to read it this summer.
I honestly hold it to be a semantic argument. It depends on how you define "social constructionism" and how that definition relates to trans experiences. TERFs oftentimes do define gender being a social construct in a way that does invalidate trans experiences, but I don't think gender abolitionism has to, in all interpretations, be at odds with trans experiences being valid. Quite frankly, I'd argue the contrary, especially since The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto liberated my mind on gender which liberated the way I handle my own sense of gender.
Yeah exactly, I learned about gender and sex abolition from transgender feminists. I'm curious what Serano is talking about though so I'll acquire that book sooner rather than later.
There are some trans people who effectively argue that "If you assert that gender and sex are socially constructed and can be abolished, you're basically saying that my transness/dysphoria isn't real when it feels very real," and that interpretation leads to quite a lot of trans people opposing this abolitionist viewpoint. I know because I used to be one of them, even though I am non-binary. The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto cured my ignorance there. I only learned to properly understand what gender abolition is about after reading that, so I don't fault trans people who don't have as coherent of an understanding of such a position.
The issue with feminism is that all the terms have so many different meanings
