So writes Robin Dembroff in The Guardian 19/5/19.
"Some feminists claim misogyny targets only those who have female sex features (ovaries, vaginas and uteruses). We should be alarmed by this view," argues Dembroff.
However, if you're a feminist who does not believe transgender women are female (or indeed women) then surely the view that misogyny only affects biological females (or indeed women) holds up? The fem bit in feminist means something.
Dembroff uses two examples to back up her case. Two examples of trans women in the US who have experienced harassment by (male?) police officers.
The first case, Valerie Jackson (an article detailing her arrest is linked in the article), clearly shows the problems with the law around trans individuals, the problems with self-definition and the problem with this article.
Jackson was asked by arresting officers whether she had a male or female body, she was then wrongly (according to her deposition) forced to show her body to arresting officers. Jackson said she was wearing a wristband saying she was transgender. She also told officers she was transitioned, which she wasn't. The officers claimed they needed to know whether she had a penis or vagina so as to know whether to place her with males or females.
What a mess huh?
Whilst, if true (Jackson admits lying to the officers) then she experienced extreme harassment and traumatizing humiliation. However, and there's a big however here, how would officers know that a person they've arrested claiming to be a woman would be safe to be held with other women just on said transgendered woman's say so (or a wristband)? Of course this doesn't take into account arguments about whether transitioned women should be allowed in female only spaces per se.
The second case highlighted "Eisha Love, a trans woman who endured daily harassment at the hands of the Chicago police while in their custody. She describes being misgendered and belittled to the point of tears by the officers, who told her: “When you come to court, make sure you look cute, make sure you have your hair done.”"
Both cases, according to Dembroff, are examples of misogyny towards trans women. You can see what Dembroff's done here. It's a classic example of logical fallacy. If a trans woman is experiencing harassment at the hands of a man and I believe trans women are females then the harassment must be misogynistic. What if it's harassment? Or, if one prefers, transphobic harassment? Both cases highlighted would not have happened to a biological female, would they?
The law is muddy around trans women. Trans lobbyists argue this is the fault of the law but one of the problems is that there are many kinds of trans women. Non-binary people and transitioned and non-transitioned and I'm sure many other self definitions. How does the law cope with different forms of transgender? Can you deal legally with a non-transitioned trans woman the same as with a fully transitioned? To not use the correct jargon, can you deal with a physical male with a cock and balls the same way as a male who self identifies as a woman and has a vagina? Perhaps more importantly, why wasn't this happening 50 years ago? Or twenty? Why now? Were there thousands of men having to pretend to be men when they were really women on the inside before now?
So legally it's a mess. And that's not the law's fault. How can you adapt laws to fit in with people's beliefs? This isn't the middle ages.
Dembroff uses Kate Mann's definition of "misogyny [which] is best understood as the “law enforcement” branch of a patriarchal social order: a social order that systematically gives power to men and disempowers women. When someone “steps out of line” and fails to comply with their assigned gender role, misogyny appears on the scene. It uses tools like violence, harassment and threats to make sure the social order is maintained."
This is problematic because we all, feminists and trans lobbyists, believe gender is a construct.
Dembroff argues the same here. Yet, misogyny and patriarchy go far deeper than gender. The patriarchal vision of religion and history is based on the separating of males and females and the often systematic power relations that that entails.
Put simply, if I decide that I'm a woman and wear a dress and make up out in the street, I'm harassed by men, does that make that harassment misogynistic? Even though I'm a male, a man, myself? How it can it be? The concept of patriarchal power is endemic and all encompassing, the idea that one can choose to opt out of it by switching gender (or indeed sex, as trans lobbyists have it) is nonsensical.
To put it even simpler. I have, over the years, experienced many times other men calling me homophobic names "poof" "queer" and more colourful ones like "arse bandit." The intent is homophobic. The catch is that I'm not queer. So is this homophobic abuse? Well, obviously not.
The intent may well be but importantly it isn't homophobic. I've not been conscious since my first sexual awakening of fancying men. I don't have a shared history with other gay men of the fight for equality. I don't share the long history of homophobia in law that finally ended in 1967 (here in the UK). The same is equally true of a male who believes they have been assigned the wrong sex (or gender, who knows?). A male can't switch sides part way into a game and expect to be part of the other team. Just as white people who take part in social experiments and stain their skin or dress in traditional (read: patriarchal) female religious clothing aren't experiencing racism. The intent may be racist but it's not racist, is it? As a legality you could argue it is and punish someone for it but that still does not make it racist, homophobic or misogynistic at source, for the person experiencing the abuse. Love and Jackson's harassers could, in theory, be acting out misogynistic abuse but Love and Jackson aren't experiencing misogynistic abuse because they're males. Remember, misogyny is, in Dembroff's theory, the controlling arm of patriarchy which enforces gendered roles, based (wrongly) on sex differences. Jackson and Love were born male, lived as gendered boys and at some point became aware (or began to believe) that they were actually women assigned the wrong sex organs. How can they experience misogyny? They are males, were once men.
Dembroff rightly points out: "We should be alarmed by these views. [well, not that bit] Feminism’s history displays a pattern of (mostly white, non-disabled and financially stable) women deploying claims about difference to justify ignoring the needs of women of color, disabled women and working-class women."
This is true until the likes of Gayatry Spivak challenged the view in the late '60s. But I'm afraid Dembroff is in a pot calling the kettle black situation here as the trans lobby is not exactly a bastion of colour, disability and working class voices itself is it? It's a white middle class movement with its base in universities. That's how such a tiny minority get to be so vocal and taken so seriously in the media.
Dembroff adds: "The exclusion of trans women risks becoming the latest manifestation of this terrible pattern."
No, no, no. Transwomen are not the same as working class, disabled or BAME women. No one chooses to be disabled, poor or non-white. Yes, trans people do not see it as a choice, they liken it to homosexuality. The big difference is that if I'm gay I'm almost certain to act on it and put my belief into practice by having sex with another man. Trans women dress as women, some (though it seems a tiny minority) go through a transition to a female body type. But they aren't female. They believe they're women. Imagine if we began instituting laws based on individuals' beliefs. Yep, that is the middle ages, it's a leap backwards from enlightenment and science.
Dembroff argues that Eisha love "being misgendered and belittled to the point of tears by the officers, who told her: “When you come to court, make sure you look cute, make sure you have your hair done” is misogyny.
"To see why, we need to begin by understanding the nature of patriarchy and its “law enforcement” branch. Patriarchy is not simply based on the idea that men are superior to women; that is a gross oversimplification."
Yes, that is a gross over simplification. Because even if you did away with gendered roles that doesn't necessarily mean you would do away with misogyny. Males could still hold power over females, still hate them and harass them. The power imbalance between males and females is inherent in our physical forms (yet another reason why transgender when male to female is so problematic, see sports stars being sacked for stating scientific facts about the unfair advantage to trans women). Of course, in a gender neutral society there would be no reason for males to use that power. But then, the trans lobby, unless I've completely misread everything I've heard or seen, don't actually want a gender neutral society. Trans women, unless I'm seeing things, want to look like gendered women, wear dresses and make up. Trans women (and I don't hear this from trans men) want to be recognized legally as females. Transcending biology. And then legally, of course, any arguments I'm putting forward here could be seen as misogynistic. It's bonkers. It's why we're in this crazy situation where people are being cautioned or even arrested for pointing out biological facts about what makes a female a female.
"This would not tell us anything, for example, about why trans women are targets of violence within patriarchal societies, or why a woman’s appearance is scrutinized far more than a man’s."
Two separate issues here. We're all targets of violence within patriarchal society but it doesn't mean the violence is misogynistic. If a trans woman is targeted violently that doesn't automatically mean that the violence is patriarchal or misogynistic. Just as violence towards black Americans isn't necessarily racist (around 50% of homicides are by black Americans mostly on black Americans).
Yes, a woman's appearance is scrutinized far more than a man's (which always makes me wonder why anyone would want to willingly choose to be a woman). It just totally sucks being a woman, it always has it probably always will. Men are often awful. Males are often awful. Separate that one.
"Patriarchy’s theoretical foundation combines three beliefs." argues Dembroff. "Stating these beliefs doesn’t require the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ at all:
‘Male’ and ‘female’ are a natural, immutable and exhaustive binary.
All males should be masculine, and all females should be feminine.
Masculinity is incompatible with and superior to femininity.
The first belief asserts that every person, by virtue of their reproductive features (usually genitalia), decisively is male or female, and this can never be changed. The second dictates that males and females should comply with pervasive and strict rules about the sexual attractions, clothing, emotions, work, family roles and behaviors expected of them. (Of course, the content of these rules – what is considered masculine or feminine – varies across context, time and culture.) The final belief maintains that anything feminine is anti-masculine, and vice versa, and that masculine traits are more valuable than feminine traits."
Yep, that's gendered roles in a nutshell.
"With these beliefs laid out, we can see exactly where trans-exclusionary feminists go wrong. They fail to recognize that misogyny imposes all three beliefs on any group that defies or challenges them. And trans women do present a challenge."
They certainly challenge the first but not in a realistic way. Males and females are (almost exclusively) defined by their sex organs or you can go further and say by their gametes, males produce multiple sperm, females produce one egg, that is immutable and trans women do not challenge that by miraculously producing an egg. So that screws with that one.
Gendered roles are indeed arbitrary and no self respecting feminist (yeah, even us TERFS) are against breaking down these boundaries and that's why no feminists have any issue with a trans woman self defining, just not legally (see the above, one egg thing). Ditto the third point.
What's your point Robin?
"But this framework also reveals the extent to which misogyny’s reach extends beyond trans and non-trans women. Violence against nonbinary persons and trans men, discrimination against gay and gender-nonconforming non-trans men, and cosmetic genital surgeries on infants who are intersex are neither separate nor separable from the violence, discrimination and body policing that non-trans women constantly experience. We have an explanatorily powerful, unifying story to tell about what holds these forms of marginalization and mistreatment together. They all are manifestations of misogyny – the force that, in Manne’s terms, “patrols” and “polices” the patriarchal order."
Absolute bollocks. Patriarchy affects females. To suggest you can lump other marginalized groups into it (homosexuals? aren't they men and males still? liking other men doesn't opt you out of patriarchal control) is nonsensical. Intersex is always the one brought up in discussions around trans rights but we are talking here super tiny amounts of people who are born intersex and no one 'cared' or knew about intersex people until the trans lobby discovered them and use it as an argument weapon. It blurs the issue purely to try to obfuscate because we aren't actually talking about intersex, we're talking about males who believe they are women and that's a separate issue altogether.
Violence, discrimination and "body policing" of women women (I hate the non-trans woman phrase, as if biological females are failing in some way at not being a not complete female) is patriarchal and often misogynistic (I say often because our patriarchal society unconsciously denigrates and often vilifies women).
It might sound like a great rallying call, gay men, trans women, actual female women, we're all in this together but it's nonsense.
"Members of each of these groups threaten this order in their own way. Some challenge the strict binary and immutable nature of sex categories. Others violate culturally mandated masculine or feminine social norms. Still others place explicit and unique value on femininity. Such stepping “out of line” comes at the cost of violence, harassment, coercion or other harms. That cost, in other words, is to become a target of misogyny."
By this logic if I have sex with another man I'm fighting male control, my dressing up as a woman and slapping on some make up is taking on patriarchy first hand. That's nonsense, it's taking on gendered roles. Does a domestic abuser who cross dresses nullify his patriarchal abuse? Is it like carbon offsetting (another manufactured false idea)?
"If feminists want to eliminate patriarchy, we cannot pick and choose which of its victims fit beneath our wings. We can’t choose – period."
That's an unfortunate Americanism there, yeah what about periods? To put in my own British biological faux pas idiom, this is bollocks. Patriarchy has already chosen its victim and it's females. It's in the name "the rule of the father." The one who has many gametes. You can't suddenly say, oh that patriarchy, the rule of the father, the father who has many gametes compared to our lowly one, that actually includes some other marginalized groups who also produce many gametes. It makes no sense.
Of course, Dembroff, like all trans activists can't help but suggest that rad feminists are uncaring swine who would love to see trans women trampled beneath the hooves of a dray horse, or uh, words to that effect:
"For these feminists – sometimes called “trans-exclusionary” feminists – trans women’s interests are none of their concern."
This is a fallacy. And I don't want to get all ad hominem here but Robin Dembroff is an assistant prof in philosophy so she should know better. Because rad Fems believe trans women aren't and shouldn't be legally counted as females then that does not follow that they don't care about the rights of trans women. By definition rad fems are liberals so it goes with the label that we care about any marginalized group. Trans women's interests are very much the concern of the made up term by a tiny group of trans lobbyists in university campuses trans exclusionary feminists. As a feminist and a male I can hold seemingly contradictory positions. I'm part of that great patriarchy in the sky, I was born into this body and this culture but I can still do every thing I can to fight the very system that makes me the god I am. I can also believe that trans people have rights and they should be enforced. However, it's really simple, trans women should not be legally recognized as females otherwise the notions of patriarchy and misogyny become meaningless.
Dembroff's argument hinges on the idea that trans women in crossing gender and sex boundaries are a threat to patriarchal hegemony. However, this is based on a false premise. Do trans men then bolster patriarchal hegemony?
Why, if trans women are fighting patriarchy (and Dembroff points out that cultural gender assumptions is the enforcer of patriarchy) do they, trans women, appear to engage so wholeheartedly with gendered definitions of womanliness? The first thing that trans women change about themselves when they 'come out' is to modify their appearance to not only a feminine gendered model but most often to something hyper feminine akin to Barbie dolls (I'm still non-plussed as to what the "feeling of being a woman" feels like, as every trans woman I come across in articles suggest it's about dresses). Where are the trans women denying cultural gender roles by not not having those hair extensions or implants, not wearing dresses, or make up, and so on? The two examples, Eisha Love and Valerie Jackson fit the feminized model.
Are they doing so to fit in with biological women? If so, how is this fighting patriarchy? They both seem almost a parody of femininity with enlarged boobs and heavy make up. It's not an attack on them but on Dembroff's argument that makes no sense.
The trans movement are in fact a body of patriarchy to the point where they've created insults belittling feminists (read women) who don't agree with them, a whole new set of denigrating terms thrown at women. Ultimately it always comes back to the fact that I, as a 56 year old male can identify as female, as a woman, don a dress and somehow I'm no longer part of patriarchal oppression. In fact I'm fighting it by my action and if you disrespect me you're misogynistic.
Dembroff is using the cunning argument that feminists have long argued that gender is the way patriarchy enforces its power, thus people who cross that gender divide must be attacking patriarchy.
What Dembroff and other trans activists misunderstand is that their movement isn't revolutionary but fundamentally conservative. It likes to portray itself as akin to gay rights, Stonewall or sometimes even feminism itself (and there are conservative feminists who agree with this view). However, it paradoxically seeks to garner equality for a minority who believe in their own difference. It's fundamentally a religion, a belief system and its lobbyists extol its doctrines with a religious zeal, even inventing terms to negatively portray those who do not believe in this religion, those heathens, those gentiles, those atheist heretics, transphobes, TERFs, cis heretics.
The trans movement is not going to fundamentally change society for the betterment of females. How could it, when its aim is to dismantle laws that separate the needs and necessities that are uniquely female. When in the UK the Labour party announced they would have a unique selection process of MPs solely for female candidates (All Women Shortlist Labour) they then later added the caveat that "The Labour Party’s All Women Shortlists are open to all women, including self-identifying trans women."
Self identifying trans women Heather Peto and Sophie Cook have both stood for Labour under women only shortlists. My argument has nothing to do with how they look but that for most of their lives they have lived as men (gendered) and they are males (sex). So how on earth can they represent women? You would never have a white person on a BAME shortlist because they've always felt black inside. That idea is offensive so why on earth is it not offensive to suggest someone who believes they're a woman can represent women? You can do this game for any minority; disabled, working class, take your pick.
How are Cook and Peto challenging patriarchy, in Dembroff's words? They're reinforcing patriarchy by excluding biological women who could be doing their job.
I've just returned from the towncentre in my home town and there was a woman, who was very obviously physically a man (six feet four and weightlifter shoulders) in a long red wig and Mary Poppins dress. Two women and their children were pointing at her/him and laughing, are they misogynists? I'm confused. Was that misogynistic abuse or is it only if, say, I, a male and a man stopped and did the same (which I have no intention of doing, of course, I couldn't give a shit what people wear, well except for those that wear other animals). If we're both doing the same thing how can one be misogynistic abuse and one be uh, I don't know, some women laughing at a guy in a wig?
We're now at a point down this road, and it's a very steep incline as this has happened so quickly, that a rejoinder article in the Guardian critiquing Dembroff's views are unthinkable, would be considered in line with Charles Murray's The Bell Curve (which implies white superiority of intellect) or Police Chief James Anderton suggesting that homosexuals were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making" (revolting but he has a poetic biblical turn of phrase). To question the validity of transgender women's beliefs in a mass media publication is inconceivable yet Dembroff can argue the fallacious conceit that transgender women experience misogyny too. It's a weird Trump Brexit right wing populist Islamic extremist climate breakdown denial of science and reality world we live in.
"Some feminists claim misogyny targets only those who have female sex features (ovaries, vaginas and uteruses). We should be alarmed by this view," argues Dembroff.
However, if you're a feminist who does not believe transgender women are female (or indeed women) then surely the view that misogyny only affects biological females (or indeed women) holds up? The fem bit in feminist means something.
Dembroff uses two examples to back up her case. Two examples of trans women in the US who have experienced harassment by (male?) police officers.
The first case, Valerie Jackson (an article detailing her arrest is linked in the article), clearly shows the problems with the law around trans individuals, the problems with self-definition and the problem with this article.
Jackson was asked by arresting officers whether she had a male or female body, she was then wrongly (according to her deposition) forced to show her body to arresting officers. Jackson said she was wearing a wristband saying she was transgender. She also told officers she was transitioned, which she wasn't. The officers claimed they needed to know whether she had a penis or vagina so as to know whether to place her with males or females.
What a mess huh?
Valerie Jackson
The second case highlighted "Eisha Love, a trans woman who endured daily harassment at the hands of the Chicago police while in their custody. She describes being misgendered and belittled to the point of tears by the officers, who told her: “When you come to court, make sure you look cute, make sure you have your hair done.”"
Eisha Love
The law is muddy around trans women. Trans lobbyists argue this is the fault of the law but one of the problems is that there are many kinds of trans women. Non-binary people and transitioned and non-transitioned and I'm sure many other self definitions. How does the law cope with different forms of transgender? Can you deal legally with a non-transitioned trans woman the same as with a fully transitioned? To not use the correct jargon, can you deal with a physical male with a cock and balls the same way as a male who self identifies as a woman and has a vagina? Perhaps more importantly, why wasn't this happening 50 years ago? Or twenty? Why now? Were there thousands of men having to pretend to be men when they were really women on the inside before now?
So legally it's a mess. And that's not the law's fault. How can you adapt laws to fit in with people's beliefs? This isn't the middle ages.
Dembroff uses Kate Mann's definition of "misogyny [which] is best understood as the “law enforcement” branch of a patriarchal social order: a social order that systematically gives power to men and disempowers women. When someone “steps out of line” and fails to comply with their assigned gender role, misogyny appears on the scene. It uses tools like violence, harassment and threats to make sure the social order is maintained."
This is problematic because we all, feminists and trans lobbyists, believe gender is a construct.
Dembroff argues the same here. Yet, misogyny and patriarchy go far deeper than gender. The patriarchal vision of religion and history is based on the separating of males and females and the often systematic power relations that that entails.
Put simply, if I decide that I'm a woman and wear a dress and make up out in the street, I'm harassed by men, does that make that harassment misogynistic? Even though I'm a male, a man, myself? How it can it be? The concept of patriarchal power is endemic and all encompassing, the idea that one can choose to opt out of it by switching gender (or indeed sex, as trans lobbyists have it) is nonsensical.
To put it even simpler. I have, over the years, experienced many times other men calling me homophobic names "poof" "queer" and more colourful ones like "arse bandit." The intent is homophobic. The catch is that I'm not queer. So is this homophobic abuse? Well, obviously not.
The intent may well be but importantly it isn't homophobic. I've not been conscious since my first sexual awakening of fancying men. I don't have a shared history with other gay men of the fight for equality. I don't share the long history of homophobia in law that finally ended in 1967 (here in the UK). The same is equally true of a male who believes they have been assigned the wrong sex (or gender, who knows?). A male can't switch sides part way into a game and expect to be part of the other team. Just as white people who take part in social experiments and stain their skin or dress in traditional (read: patriarchal) female religious clothing aren't experiencing racism. The intent may be racist but it's not racist, is it? As a legality you could argue it is and punish someone for it but that still does not make it racist, homophobic or misogynistic at source, for the person experiencing the abuse. Love and Jackson's harassers could, in theory, be acting out misogynistic abuse but Love and Jackson aren't experiencing misogynistic abuse because they're males. Remember, misogyny is, in Dembroff's theory, the controlling arm of patriarchy which enforces gendered roles, based (wrongly) on sex differences. Jackson and Love were born male, lived as gendered boys and at some point became aware (or began to believe) that they were actually women assigned the wrong sex organs. How can they experience misogyny? They are males, were once men.
Dembroff rightly points out: "We should be alarmed by these views. [well, not that bit] Feminism’s history displays a pattern of (mostly white, non-disabled and financially stable) women deploying claims about difference to justify ignoring the needs of women of color, disabled women and working-class women."
This is true until the likes of Gayatry Spivak challenged the view in the late '60s. But I'm afraid Dembroff is in a pot calling the kettle black situation here as the trans lobby is not exactly a bastion of colour, disability and working class voices itself is it? It's a white middle class movement with its base in universities. That's how such a tiny minority get to be so vocal and taken so seriously in the media.
Dembroff adds: "The exclusion of trans women risks becoming the latest manifestation of this terrible pattern."
No, no, no. Transwomen are not the same as working class, disabled or BAME women. No one chooses to be disabled, poor or non-white. Yes, trans people do not see it as a choice, they liken it to homosexuality. The big difference is that if I'm gay I'm almost certain to act on it and put my belief into practice by having sex with another man. Trans women dress as women, some (though it seems a tiny minority) go through a transition to a female body type. But they aren't female. They believe they're women. Imagine if we began instituting laws based on individuals' beliefs. Yep, that is the middle ages, it's a leap backwards from enlightenment and science.
Dembroff argues that Eisha love "being misgendered and belittled to the point of tears by the officers, who told her: “When you come to court, make sure you look cute, make sure you have your hair done” is misogyny.
"To see why, we need to begin by understanding the nature of patriarchy and its “law enforcement” branch. Patriarchy is not simply based on the idea that men are superior to women; that is a gross oversimplification."
Yes, that is a gross over simplification. Because even if you did away with gendered roles that doesn't necessarily mean you would do away with misogyny. Males could still hold power over females, still hate them and harass them. The power imbalance between males and females is inherent in our physical forms (yet another reason why transgender when male to female is so problematic, see sports stars being sacked for stating scientific facts about the unfair advantage to trans women). Of course, in a gender neutral society there would be no reason for males to use that power. But then, the trans lobby, unless I've completely misread everything I've heard or seen, don't actually want a gender neutral society. Trans women, unless I'm seeing things, want to look like gendered women, wear dresses and make up. Trans women (and I don't hear this from trans men) want to be recognized legally as females. Transcending biology. And then legally, of course, any arguments I'm putting forward here could be seen as misogynistic. It's bonkers. It's why we're in this crazy situation where people are being cautioned or even arrested for pointing out biological facts about what makes a female a female.
"This would not tell us anything, for example, about why trans women are targets of violence within patriarchal societies, or why a woman’s appearance is scrutinized far more than a man’s."
Two separate issues here. We're all targets of violence within patriarchal society but it doesn't mean the violence is misogynistic. If a trans woman is targeted violently that doesn't automatically mean that the violence is patriarchal or misogynistic. Just as violence towards black Americans isn't necessarily racist (around 50% of homicides are by black Americans mostly on black Americans).
Yes, a woman's appearance is scrutinized far more than a man's (which always makes me wonder why anyone would want to willingly choose to be a woman). It just totally sucks being a woman, it always has it probably always will. Men are often awful. Males are often awful. Separate that one.
"Patriarchy’s theoretical foundation combines three beliefs." argues Dembroff. "Stating these beliefs doesn’t require the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ at all:
‘Male’ and ‘female’ are a natural, immutable and exhaustive binary.
All males should be masculine, and all females should be feminine.
Masculinity is incompatible with and superior to femininity.
The first belief asserts that every person, by virtue of their reproductive features (usually genitalia), decisively is male or female, and this can never be changed. The second dictates that males and females should comply with pervasive and strict rules about the sexual attractions, clothing, emotions, work, family roles and behaviors expected of them. (Of course, the content of these rules – what is considered masculine or feminine – varies across context, time and culture.) The final belief maintains that anything feminine is anti-masculine, and vice versa, and that masculine traits are more valuable than feminine traits."
Yep, that's gendered roles in a nutshell.
"With these beliefs laid out, we can see exactly where trans-exclusionary feminists go wrong. They fail to recognize that misogyny imposes all three beliefs on any group that defies or challenges them. And trans women do present a challenge."
They certainly challenge the first but not in a realistic way. Males and females are (almost exclusively) defined by their sex organs or you can go further and say by their gametes, males produce multiple sperm, females produce one egg, that is immutable and trans women do not challenge that by miraculously producing an egg. So that screws with that one.
Gendered roles are indeed arbitrary and no self respecting feminist (yeah, even us TERFS) are against breaking down these boundaries and that's why no feminists have any issue with a trans woman self defining, just not legally (see the above, one egg thing). Ditto the third point.
What's your point Robin?
"But this framework also reveals the extent to which misogyny’s reach extends beyond trans and non-trans women. Violence against nonbinary persons and trans men, discrimination against gay and gender-nonconforming non-trans men, and cosmetic genital surgeries on infants who are intersex are neither separate nor separable from the violence, discrimination and body policing that non-trans women constantly experience. We have an explanatorily powerful, unifying story to tell about what holds these forms of marginalization and mistreatment together. They all are manifestations of misogyny – the force that, in Manne’s terms, “patrols” and “polices” the patriarchal order."
Absolute bollocks. Patriarchy affects females. To suggest you can lump other marginalized groups into it (homosexuals? aren't they men and males still? liking other men doesn't opt you out of patriarchal control) is nonsensical. Intersex is always the one brought up in discussions around trans rights but we are talking here super tiny amounts of people who are born intersex and no one 'cared' or knew about intersex people until the trans lobby discovered them and use it as an argument weapon. It blurs the issue purely to try to obfuscate because we aren't actually talking about intersex, we're talking about males who believe they are women and that's a separate issue altogether.
Violence, discrimination and "body policing" of women women (I hate the non-trans woman phrase, as if biological females are failing in some way at not being a not complete female) is patriarchal and often misogynistic (I say often because our patriarchal society unconsciously denigrates and often vilifies women).
It might sound like a great rallying call, gay men, trans women, actual female women, we're all in this together but it's nonsense.
"Members of each of these groups threaten this order in their own way. Some challenge the strict binary and immutable nature of sex categories. Others violate culturally mandated masculine or feminine social norms. Still others place explicit and unique value on femininity. Such stepping “out of line” comes at the cost of violence, harassment, coercion or other harms. That cost, in other words, is to become a target of misogyny."
By this logic if I have sex with another man I'm fighting male control, my dressing up as a woman and slapping on some make up is taking on patriarchy first hand. That's nonsense, it's taking on gendered roles. Does a domestic abuser who cross dresses nullify his patriarchal abuse? Is it like carbon offsetting (another manufactured false idea)?
"If feminists want to eliminate patriarchy, we cannot pick and choose which of its victims fit beneath our wings. We can’t choose – period."
That's an unfortunate Americanism there, yeah what about periods? To put in my own British biological faux pas idiom, this is bollocks. Patriarchy has already chosen its victim and it's females. It's in the name "the rule of the father." The one who has many gametes. You can't suddenly say, oh that patriarchy, the rule of the father, the father who has many gametes compared to our lowly one, that actually includes some other marginalized groups who also produce many gametes. It makes no sense.
Of course, Dembroff, like all trans activists can't help but suggest that rad feminists are uncaring swine who would love to see trans women trampled beneath the hooves of a dray horse, or uh, words to that effect:
"For these feminists – sometimes called “trans-exclusionary” feminists – trans women’s interests are none of their concern."
This is a fallacy. And I don't want to get all ad hominem here but Robin Dembroff is an assistant prof in philosophy so she should know better. Because rad Fems believe trans women aren't and shouldn't be legally counted as females then that does not follow that they don't care about the rights of trans women. By definition rad fems are liberals so it goes with the label that we care about any marginalized group. Trans women's interests are very much the concern of the made up term by a tiny group of trans lobbyists in university campuses trans exclusionary feminists. As a feminist and a male I can hold seemingly contradictory positions. I'm part of that great patriarchy in the sky, I was born into this body and this culture but I can still do every thing I can to fight the very system that makes me the god I am. I can also believe that trans people have rights and they should be enforced. However, it's really simple, trans women should not be legally recognized as females otherwise the notions of patriarchy and misogyny become meaningless.
Dembroff's argument hinges on the idea that trans women in crossing gender and sex boundaries are a threat to patriarchal hegemony. However, this is based on a false premise. Do trans men then bolster patriarchal hegemony?
This is Jack Monroe (left, that's Arnold Schwarzenegger on the right). She's a non binary transgender man (I think that's the right nomenclature, I stand to be corrected if wrong) and she seems a good and lovely person (in my definition, vegan, left wing, socially conscious). But now she's a man is she an evil patriarchal beast like myself? Has she added to the patriarchal pool? Can she now be a misogynist (fucking bonkers idea isn't it?)? And if I'm a TERF like other rad fems why don't I give a shit how Jack Monroe defines herself? That's rhetorical but the answer is because it makes no difference to women, the law, the history of feminism, the fight by women for equality and rights and ooh everything.
Valerie Jackson and Eisha Love defying gendered roles and fighting patriarchy.
Are they doing so to fit in with biological women? If so, how is this fighting patriarchy? They both seem almost a parody of femininity with enlarged boobs and heavy make up. It's not an attack on them but on Dembroff's argument that makes no sense.
The trans movement are in fact a body of patriarchy to the point where they've created insults belittling feminists (read women) who don't agree with them, a whole new set of denigrating terms thrown at women. Ultimately it always comes back to the fact that I, as a 56 year old male can identify as female, as a woman, don a dress and somehow I'm no longer part of patriarchal oppression. In fact I'm fighting it by my action and if you disrespect me you're misogynistic.
Dembroff is using the cunning argument that feminists have long argued that gender is the way patriarchy enforces its power, thus people who cross that gender divide must be attacking patriarchy.
What Dembroff and other trans activists misunderstand is that their movement isn't revolutionary but fundamentally conservative. It likes to portray itself as akin to gay rights, Stonewall or sometimes even feminism itself (and there are conservative feminists who agree with this view). However, it paradoxically seeks to garner equality for a minority who believe in their own difference. It's fundamentally a religion, a belief system and its lobbyists extol its doctrines with a religious zeal, even inventing terms to negatively portray those who do not believe in this religion, those heathens, those gentiles, those atheist heretics, transphobes, TERFs, cis heretics.
The trans movement is not going to fundamentally change society for the betterment of females. How could it, when its aim is to dismantle laws that separate the needs and necessities that are uniquely female. When in the UK the Labour party announced they would have a unique selection process of MPs solely for female candidates (All Women Shortlist Labour) they then later added the caveat that "The Labour Party’s All Women Shortlists are open to all women, including self-identifying trans women."
How are Cook and Peto challenging patriarchy, in Dembroff's words? They're reinforcing patriarchy by excluding biological women who could be doing their job.
I've just returned from the towncentre in my home town and there was a woman, who was very obviously physically a man (six feet four and weightlifter shoulders) in a long red wig and Mary Poppins dress. Two women and their children were pointing at her/him and laughing, are they misogynists? I'm confused. Was that misogynistic abuse or is it only if, say, I, a male and a man stopped and did the same (which I have no intention of doing, of course, I couldn't give a shit what people wear, well except for those that wear other animals). If we're both doing the same thing how can one be misogynistic abuse and one be uh, I don't know, some women laughing at a guy in a wig?
We're now at a point down this road, and it's a very steep incline as this has happened so quickly, that a rejoinder article in the Guardian critiquing Dembroff's views are unthinkable, would be considered in line with Charles Murray's The Bell Curve (which implies white superiority of intellect) or Police Chief James Anderton suggesting that homosexuals were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making" (revolting but he has a poetic biblical turn of phrase). To question the validity of transgender women's beliefs in a mass media publication is inconceivable yet Dembroff can argue the fallacious conceit that transgender women experience misogyny too. It's a weird Trump Brexit right wing populist Islamic extremist climate breakdown denial of science and reality world we live in.
Comments
Post a Comment