Another good comment by John Horstman on how we think about gender, this time on Heina’s post distancing herself from me.
The fact that cis women are women is not disputed by anyone, not trans women nor non-binary trans folk nor men nor trans men. Even on the very fringes of radical non-cis thought, spaces where I often find myself, I’ve yet to see anyone questioning the legitimacy of cis women’s status as women. On the other hand, some people, including some women, think that trans women’s status as women is up for debate.
This is simply incorrect. There is a massive amount of scholarship questioning the validity of gendering organizational schemata at all, for cis, trans, genderqueer, and any other sort of people.
Butler’s Gender Trouble is a widely-known example, and it is decried as transphobic by the same crowd that’s going after Ophelia for pointing out that gender is a social construct and that our individual understandings of it are socially mediated. This despite the fact that the book spends most of its time deconstructing gender as a normative category for cisgendered people. I dispute the categorical assertion that cis women “are” women (or cis men “are” men) as any sort of essential aspect of existence. So does Kate Bornstein: go read Gender Outlaw, which contains an essay questioning how anyone could ever legitimately claim to feel “like a man” or “like a woman” divorced from a social context that determines what those categories mean in the first place. Or read David Valentine’s Imagining Transgender: An Ethnography of a Category, which explores how unstable gender categorizations are in practice, with many of his interview subjects describing themselves using what would normatively be considered mutually-exclusively categorizations, to the point that any claim of essential meaning for any gendered identity categories becomes absurd.
And this is an incredibly important point because every single time I get dragged into this debate with gender-essentialist trans activists, what’s actually at issue has exactly zero to do with trans rights or marginalization and everything to do with a few people insisting that a discredited model of gender as a social system be adopted by everybody. You don’t get to hijack an entire discipline of study becasue you internalized a descriptive categorization as an essential aspect of your own identity (and this applies to cisgendered people as well as transgendered people – you simply can’t extrapolate to everyone or the total functioning of a social system from your own experience). Being trans doesn’t somehow make someone never wrong about how social systems (including gender) operate or not an asshole; the social-identity essentialists are just as wrong as the biological essentialists who insist that trans people are delusional, and their imperious demands are just as unacceptable.
Heina says yes but most people do believe in gender as a category, and that it’s self-absorbed to suggest we do away with something so important to most people.
I don’t think that’s right. I think it’s fine to suggest we do away even with things that are important to most people. It’s the “to suggest” part that’s crucial here – suggesting is a very non-violent thing to do. (Granted, by the same token, it can be a very passive-aggressive thing to do. Ain’t that just like life.) Suggesting that we do away with some unquestioned custom or category has always been the job of the world’s rebels and iconoclasts and pains in the ass. Most of the suggestions are worthless, but not all.
The last paragraph quoted sums up what I was thinking about this pretty nicely. Gender categories used to be enforced by law, then custom. And enforced nastily, too. I just want to live my life and let that life be the definition of my own womanhood. I’m not a gatekeeper into womanhood because no woman gets to hold that position. Because the social implications for other women just bore down too hard on us. Tell me you’re a woman, and I’ll be more than happy to accept you as you are. But, let’s not resurrect the Real Woman debates of the 20th century.
Oh the word salad keeps coming, and the dancing around keeps going on. It’s just digging deeper. Here’s a yes or no question: Are you trying to dig fast enough to catch up to Dawkins? So many people trying to act as friends and talk to you, and you just flail and cry and stomp and add meaningless word salad to meaningless word salad. How about taking a little step back and listening to people? So many people who love your writing and really want to tell you something, is it really so hard to not just act in the most stubborn, hurtful and childish way possible?
Yes to all of this.
Most people in the US* believe in the Christian god, and that belief is very important to them. It’s also harmful in many, many ways.
I find these portrayals of the situation quite confusing. Deconstructing beliefs about gender has been a part of the feminist struggle against oppression for a long time. Suddenly it’s being called self-absorbed, callous, oppressive, a cold intellectual exercise, a pretense concealing a desire to exclude trans people, and so on. Weird, and offensively dismissive of feminism.
* Not sure what culture Heina’s talking about, but there is cultural variation.
Joerg
It’s not word salad. It’s not dancing around. It’s not digging. It’s not meaningless.
What on earth are you even looking at this blog for if that’s what you think? This is what I like to do – look at ideas, pick them apart, interrogate them. It’s what I’ve always done. I’ve been doing it for 13 years as a blogger, and all my life as a person with access to pen and paper.
Social constructs are just as real as deities now. Because that is totally what social construct means.
Okay then.
Not every debate needs to be fought to the bayonet-level final bloody victory, in which one side or the other is conclusively demonstrated to be wrong and the other right. That seldom happens, really.
To return to this for a moment:
A few examples of cis women whose womanhood has been disputed at various times: women who can’t give birth, women who don’t want to give birth, women who want a formal education, lesbians, women who want to be politically active, black women, poor working women, women who aren’t religious or “spiritual,” women who are very muscular or good at sports, women who aren’t nurturing, post-menopausal women,…
And, because it’s a double bind, the reward for the status of “real woman” tends to take the form of exclusion, dismissal, condescension, authoritarian control, marginalization, limited rights and life options,…
Way to pull the comment out of context, where it had rebuttals.
I’ll just point out, AGAIN, that Butler does not agree with using her work to “do away with” gender.
http://www.transadvocate.com/gender-performance-the-transadvocate-interviews-judith-butler_n_13652.htm
Way to miss the point of that sentence (and also apparently to miss the link in that very comment). Fuck but this is tiresome. It just doesn’t seem possible to have an actual discussion on this blog network about anything significant. I was thinking last night that I’m glad you’re leaving, Ophelia. I remember having actual arguments at the old B&W in which every point didn’t have to be spelled out to preclude the most simplistic and uncharitable interpretations. I feel like here for a while now I’ve been doing a lot of wheel-spinning.
@ ^ SC (Salty Current) : Is Ophelia Benson leaving FTB? I hope not.
Social construct also = NOT a real physical thing.
Society = abstract idea, not actual, tangible, reality.
If you’re gonna try to defend yourself and try to deflect criticism (something I support) you should stay here. No need to let the gender essentialist trolls get what they want.
As none of the prime generators of interesting content here I would be sad to see you go.
*one
SC, you are consistently awful at explaining yourself, so you know what? I don’t care.
StevoR: Society is in fact real. It is a unit of organization. And social constructs affect reality. They are real to people. Race is a social construct. Race isn’t real. But it still affects how people are treated. It is still considered real by the culture. It is still part of (many) people’s identity. It is most easy to avoid adopting a racial identity when you are privileged. And it isn’t right to go up to somebody who has a minority racial identity, suffers because of that identity, and explain to them at length how Wrong they are to care about racial identity. It is just misplaced.
Joerg, how about you shut the fuck up for one everloving minute? You have been nothing but nasty—well beyond what’s called for even in a fair fight—and provocative. NOTHING Ophelia says will be acceptable to you unless it’s abject groveling. You want her to back off? How about you lot take one fucking *minute* to reflect on how you’d feel? Why don’t YOU shut the fuck for a few minutes too?
Not exactly a productive contribution. For the record, my point – as indicated by my quotation of the sentence to which I was responding – was that an argument of the form “X belief is held by most people and is emotionally important to them” doesn’t hold up as a defense against questioning or challenging harmful beliefs, and it’s wrong to suggest that those – especially those most harmed by those beliefs – are self-centered or callous for questioning or challenging them. That argument has much in common with accommodationist arguments I’ve seen for the past several years. I phrased it in terms of beliefs because what I was responding to framed it in terms of beliefs, but my general point was not that gender categories are like deities, but that categorical identities shouldn’t be immune from questioning, or their harms from challenge, because they’re held by most people or most people consider them personally important (even if the latter is true in this case, and I’m not at all sure that it is).
More generally (and this is also similar to arguments about vocal atheism), this has to stop being about supposed types or motives of people who would challenge these categories (selfish, self-satisfied, detached, dismissive of others’ lived experience, heartlessly wanting to take away something important to people for no reason,…). It should be about questions like: in what way are these categories “real”? In what ways are they beneficial or harmful, and to whom? What are other ways of thinking about gender, and what are some of their positive and negative implications (in terms of psychology, social inclusiveness or exclusiveness, policy, politics, law, etc.)? I know TERFS exist, but this isn’t a discussion between TERFs and non-TERFs. I don’t understand why we can’t talk about gender without this prosecutorial, accusatory stuff. I don’t know when that became so difficult to do.
xyz @ #8, quoting Judith Bulter:
Yes. And? How is this counter to what Ophelia has been saying? By being gender-free, or striving to be so, how is that taking anything from the experiences of people who feel gender is crucial to who they are?
Yeah, but race and gender are different. Rachel Dolezal proved that. Using race as an analogy to gender isn’t a road most people are willing to go down, in discussing trans gender experiences. You can’t rely on it to bolster your arguments re. trans gender experiences on one hand and then deny the equivalency on the other hand. Either race is like gender or it isn’t. I don’t think it is, personally.
SC – For what it’s worth, I think your comments are consistently some of the best on B&W. You are a very good communicator and I have no difficulty understanding you.
@SC (Salty Current)
Most people in the US* believe in the Christian god,
Heh you’ll get dinged for this – because that statement is being interpreted as Christian God = false , hence you are implying that trans women as women = false , hence troubling analogy (soon to be come TERF!, transphobic!)
Thanks, sambarge!
Do you think that means my comment could maybe make the archive being compiled? I would be so honored.
@SC (Salty Current)
Well you do follow Ophelia so follows a TERF – Strike 1
you did equate Trans women as women to the false Christian God – Strike 2
I guess you need to like a comment on FB and you should be good to go.
I thought the analogy equate belief in gender constructs with belief in God.
Oops – Strike 3, you’re out of here!
Dammit, SC… And I was just gonna offer a friendly wager… First one to 100 Suppressive Person Points or somethin’. But I’m just feeling intimidated, now.
But I’m not on FB! Damn!
Phew.
For the record, I just posted this over at Godlessness. (Oh, and I forgot: bringing in vague references to unrelated issues and disputes to try to impugn the person’s character further.)
You should, seeing as my real point was that trans people are like religious fundamentalists (which the dossier-compilers will no doubt recognize in hindsight).
(I was going to make a joke about a secret TERF code, but Ophelia’s bringing up that comic reminded me that it did contain, as some people pointed out, semi-disguised TERF references. So apparently there is a slimy TERF code and vigilance in reading comments and images is necessary.)
That was a great rebuttal (on Godlessness). I just don’t understand the goal of this pile on. I think you’re right that people are joining in for a variety of reasons but some just confuse me. There seems to be, among some, a conspicuous need to see Ophelia humiliated or brought low. I don’t want to point to other bloggers’ or commenters’ statements because that’s just pouring gas on the situation but it’s clear that for many nothing short of Ophelia prostrating herself on the altar of whatever it is they believe (not even sure) will be enough.
“She has to admit she was wrong.”
She doesn’t think she’s wrong. She’s explained her position and that’s it. She supports trans people but still questions social constructs of gender.
“That doesn’t matter. She has to admit she was wrong.”
SC @9,
Very well put, IMO. This captures nicely my own experience and what I have witnessed others going through too many times in many places online. I also think that agreeing to disagree is a dying art and that we are all worse off for it.
I might be way off base but I also believe there is an axis of privilege in play here that is flying under the radar. Not referring to Ophelia or anyone else specifically, just making a general observation.
I’m talking about the fact that some people are fortunate enough to have been exposed to the right combination of learning opportunities or whatever things (e.g., family, friends, education, culture, accumulated life experience, exposure to good solid information and arguments, etc.) that tend to allow for a more informed/enlightened view, a deeper understanding of some of these topics. Like gender identity for example. Where as other people may be have much more difficultly reaching that same level of understanding due, in part, to circumstances out of their control. (for the record I would classify myself in the latter camp on most topics)
Having that deeper understanding is a good thing of course, but it may also be, in part, the product of a certain type of privilege. A type that is too easy to take for granted.
When that privilege is used for good and that understanding and mastery is packaged and shared in a reasonably friendly, welcoming or at least non confrontational way, it can be a great learning opportunity and a chance to spread some knowledge. But too often it’s used as a metaphorical club to metaphorically beat down otherwise well meaning people who have not yet been exposed to the right mix of things that allow the understanding to crystalize. Too often it’s used to separate the “good” from the “bad,” the “us” from the “them.” I contend that nobody learns anything and no minds are changed at all when the metaphorical clubs are used. Rather it’s far more likely to harden hearts and polarize people regardless of who’s “right” or “wrong.”
For that reason I think we should all be very, very careful about jumping to conclusions about people’s character based on their opinion or their viewpoint on specific topics. We should remind ourselves often that our understanding of things didn’t come about purely through hard work, keen intellect and general good nature. There must be a privilege factor at work in the background that plays some role in how we see the world, how we see particular topics, how thoroughly and quickly can learn and assimilate new information, how open we are to new ideas, etc. I believe that privilege factor is a big part of why we owe it to people, as a general rule of thumb, to be charitable and even to err on the side of civility. Even when they disagree on certain topics or have another way of seeing things.
Ultimately, I believe a person’s actions should hold more sway than their opinions, in terms of how we view their character. Are their actions to the good, or are their actions harmful in some way? I believe that how a person reacts and responds, in the face of new information or when being confronted with a disagreement or concern, is a much better measure of character than how they answer any given question or what their current opinion is on any given topic.
/ soapbox
(Shreds players’ association card…)
(… Slinks back to minors.)
But seriously, SC, re the linked thing: I think it fair and insightful. I’ve been scratching around at metaphors, the dangers of a standing army*, didn’t know anyone would listen, couldn’t figure where to get started; this kind of thing, I just have to admire.
Oh, and re sambarge, and ‘There seems to be, among some, a conspicuous need to see Ophelia humiliated or brought low…’
… For what it’s worth: I’ve hairs standing on end in exactly that same direction.
(*/In fairness, they have kinda been fighting one.)
Ophelia: “It’s not word salad. It’s not dancing around. It’s not digging. It’s not meaningless.”
That’s what it feels like to me.
“What on earth are you even looking at this blog for if that’s what you think? ”
Oh what now, the good old “You don’t have to read it?” routine? I’ve seen that many times in my 12+ years of blogging. Maybe because I care?
Josh: You need to seriously calm down. And all of you seem to have mildly obscure notions of what nasty means. I feel like I’ve been sucked into some parallel universe.
Oh, well, Joerg, if that’s what it feels like to you, then there’s no more to be said, is there. I suppose it also feels to you that it’s good and virtuous for you to come here and shit on the way I write. I feel that your comments here are uninteresting and prompted by malice.
re Butler and gender essentiallism/social constructivism; does it really have to be a hard one or the other choice here?
Do we really have to be living in a world where either everyone is solidly defined as male or female, and anyone who calls theirself agender is delusional, or one where essentially everyone is agender and anyone who claims to be male or female, whether trans or cis is delusional? Can nobody in this argument see the glaringly obvious falsity of that dichotomy? Does it really have to be 100% factual reality or 100% fictional construct? Much as I hate the ridiculous idea that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, surely there’s an awful lot of middle for the truth to be hiding in here?
Blargh.
Sorry. I’m sure there are plenty of people who’re aware of the ridiculousness of that dichotomy. It just pisses the hell out of me to see it be thrown up every time someone questions how much of gender is socially constructed. It’s such a ridiculously obvious little piece of nonsense.
Joerg, I had no problem at all parsing Ophelia’s words in this post (or John Horstman’s, or Heina’s.) Apparently, neither did others.
Obviously you were unable to make sense of it (“word salad”). I doubt it’s over your head; I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you just weren’t reading for comprehension. A lot of us have trouble doing that when we’re upset. Myself included.
Now you appeal to your feelings–just before telling Josh to “calm down.”(!)
Tell me again who is “flail[ing] and cry[ing] and stomp[ing]” here?
If you want to engage the post, read it for comprehension. If you want to challenge it, offer a substantive argument.
As it is, you’re contributing nothing but a stunning lack of self awareness.
sambarge @ 17:
John Morales said:
Butler said (and it’s worth reading the whole interview):
I’m not arguing against “what Ophelia has been saying”.
(sidebar – What exactly would I be trying to rebut at this point anyway? “A friend of mine said ‘This is like objecting to black face on the grounds that it makes Rachel Dolezal uncomfortable’”? Her affirmation that she does treat trans women like women [sorry if this is a shitty paraphrase]? A huge amount of ink has been spilled at this point, a ton of it buried in comments somewhere, and I’d be lying if I said I could keep track of the whole discussion.)
I’m arguing that John Morales is misreading Gender Trouble. A book arguing that gender, and sex, too, are socially constructed, but whose author is saying that being a certain gender can absolutely be crucial to someone’s social identity.
Asking someone to affirm that “trans women are women” =/= ” insisting that a discredited model of gender as a social system be adopted by everybody”.
As for “race is a social construct”, I think Butler simply meant that social constructs operate as “real things” within social contexts, and that abolishing social constructs is not really a desirable or maybe even possible goal. Not that race and gender are a perfect 1:1 analogy, they do operate differently as social constructs. If I say “money is a social construct” am I saying you have to be able to analogize its place in society perfectly to race and gender?
“The fact that cis women are women is not disputed by anyone,” is so very wrong. Athletics is one place where policing women’s gender is very common. These sorts of stories crop up all the time. Here’s a recent one.
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2015/07/29/3685341/going-stop-making-female-athletes-fight-compete-females/
@34: and of course there is the case of the sprinter Caster Semenya ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya ) who had her gender very publicly questioned.
I knew a woman who rowed for USA in the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. She showed me a card from her wallet that showed she passed the sex test. The card didn’t mention her sex, only her name and that she passed. She explained it was understood, the test was only for women, to verify they were women.
Dave Ricks@37:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I have to comment. My doctoral advisor rowed in the 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics! Really makes me wonder if it were her that you spoke to. Not that it matters–it’s just a really small world.
xyz @34, John Horstman, not me.
@34, @36:
The Court of Arbitration in Sport recently suspended a ruling that had barred Indian sprinter Dutee Chand from international competitions. They IAAF had said that the naturally high levels of testosterone in her body gave her an unfair advantage. She had initially been advised that if she wanted to be eligible to compete she would need to have a medical or surgical treatment to reduce her testosterone levels (full story at http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.3171015/top-sports-court-lifts-ban-on-female-sprinter-with-naturally-high-testosterone-1.3171023
Oops, got my postings crossed, and I see that @34 was something different and @35 was the same story.
Sorry, J. M.!