The thesis I am disputing here is: Trans challenges assumptions from the culture at large regarding the foundations of gender, which is a central component of the network of oppression.
The concept that trans is in and of itself radical is one I have seen represented repeatedly in discussions. As I understand the logic, it is that since gender is involved in many oppressions in the world, the details of which are often scrupulously enforced, challenging these details, or questioning gender in and of itself, is inherently radical.
Advocating this concept would seem to rely on a sort of willful blindness to the multitudinousness manifestations of gender worldwide and historically. In fact, as Feinberg documents and speculates about in Transgender Warriors, trans has been accepted as part of the fabric of many cultures, even while they easily maintained other undesirable qualities. Sie documents various sorts of gender-variance, from cross-dressing to third genders from around the world and through time, with the thesis that trans has only quite recently been so thoroughly erased and degraded.1
Bornstein, perhaps aware of this, explains this by saying it’s not just reformist acceptance and respect for trans folk that is radical, it is the dismantling of gender altogether which will really cause a stir.
Well, it’s a patriarchal culture, and gender seems to be basic to the patriarchy. After all, men couldn’t have male privilege if there was no such thing as ‘women.’ Doing away with with gender is the key to doing away with the patriarchy, as well as ending the many injustices perpetrated in the name of gender inequity.2
I contest the idea that simply ending gender is “the key” to ending patriarchy. It sort of reminds me of the idea that the best way to end racism to for people to breed with each other until everyone is the same colour. Both ideas seem to come from a deep lack of understanding of the nature and enforcement of systematized oppression. They are so vague as to the details of their implementation, and unlikely to occur that they seem almost to write off any potential at smashing patriarchy or ending white supremacism.
She later elaborates, “the current gender system relies heavily on everyone’s agreement that it’s inflexible.”3 However, it seems to me that just in the past 60 years, gender has proven itself to be quite flexible indeed. Systems of control do not persist for thousands of years without a considerable amount of plasticity. In fact the diversity of gender expression worldwide can easily be seen as proof of a system which is immensely malleable in both its desirable and undesirable qualities.
While she concedes that feminism and such is a “vital stopgap measure” it seems so flippant to me to make a statement which amounts to a complete dismissal for the entire feminist movement and its potential.4
Patrick Califia says of Bornstein,
I would argue that we cannot realistically expect to end sex- or gender-based discrimination or stigma by simply eliminating identities that are the loci of abusive power or disenfranchisement. Indeed, eliminating such identities would be a form of oppression. I cannot imagine Bornstein seriously suggesting, for example, that we eliminate racial or ethnic categories as a way to combat racism. Human xenophobia — our fear of difference — cannot be placated so easily. We need to learn to celebrate our differences, not “morally mandate them out of existence.”5 [Sex Changes]
Feinberg attributes the following, somewhat more insightful words to Nancy Nangeroni:
It is not gender which causes problems; rather, it is the imposition of a gender on an individual by another. When the imposition is removed, polarity of masculine and feminine may remain, but as personal preference rather than imposed imperative. Penises, breasts, and vaginas will once again become body parts rather than regulators of behavior and identity. 6
While I do not think that the assigning of gender non-consensually is the only problem with it, I agree with the sentiment that gender has the potential to be life-affirming and delightful.
In my personal journey with trans I have found myself with a much deeper respect for gender diversity than when I started out. I used to be so unhappy with being assumed girl and then woman that I thought the problem was the role itself. I could not have given you a very good explanation for the existence of thoughtful and voluntary forms of femininity, as expressed by trans women and femme lesbians, for example. The idea of choosing to be female (sometimes very feminine) was confusing to me and I assumed that people who acted like that simply had a tonne of internalized patriarchy going on. It was not until I started really investigating my own gender, and listening to the stories of folks who had done the same before me, that I began to appreciate those kinds of gendered expressions. Now that the prospect of no longer passing as female looms in front of me, I am finding myself much less resentful of those women who do desire to be seen that way.
Overstating the social importance of one’s own personal life is not at all unique to the trans community. I am aware of an identical habit among polyamorists, kinksters, queers, hackers, punks and hippies and I am certain is exists in a thousand other subcultures. I think it is worth examining the reasons for this compulsion. I would guess at two possible causes, depending on the individual.
First I think that sometimes people who are otherwise involved in leftist political struggle like to justify everything they do as being at least partially politically motivated, perhaps because they feel decadent taking so much time and energy for themselves otherwise.
An other example of this would be riding a bike. I have heard it expressed that someone rides a bike as a statement against car culture. This is a very ineffective statement as another cyclist on the road does little to affect anyone. Particularly, as is usually the case, that individual never owned a motor vehicle in the first place and was a pedestrian or a more frequent user of public transportation prior to becoming a cyclist. Even in the case of someone who switches their primary mode of transit away from motors to pedals, very little is accomplished politically. However, if that same person become an organizer or an activist in some project which advances the cause of cyclists, then they are making an impact.
I ride a bike because it is fun, cheap and easy. I am trans because complex factors in my life have pushed me in this direction and it is the best way for me to live. I can choose to organize and agitate around either or those, or neither. My ability to participate in traffic as a cyclist, and in life as a trans person, is also affect by the work of many other activists before me, regardless of my decisions.
1Feinberg, Leslie. Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Boston, MA: Becon Press, 1996. Print.
2Bornstein, Kate. Gender outlaw. Vintage, 1995. 115. Print.
3Bornstein, Kate. Gender outlaw. Vintage, 1995. 121. Print.
4Bornstein, Kate. Gender outlaw. Vintage, 1995. 115. Print.
5Califia, Patrick, and Patrick Califia-Rice. Sex changes. 2nd ed. San Fransisco, CA: Cleis Pr, 2003. 257. Print.
6Feinberg, Leslie. Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Boston, MA: Becon Press, 1996. 163. Print.
