Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 29, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Are You a Queer Woman Who Dates "Women and Trans Men"?
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM
“I date women and trans men” is the definition of cissexism. It’s basing your frame for sexuality on the gender coercively assigned to a person by their doctor at birth, not on that person’s actual identity. In this case, we’re talking about folks who were assigned female. Of course, “women” means cis women—trans women totally drop off the map.... It’s incredibly undermining to frame sexuality in a way that lumps [trans] men in with all female assigned folks instead of with cis men. It’s a failure, in the realm of sexuality, to recognize that trans men’s male identities are just as legitimate as cis men’s. If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.
I get why a lot of female assigned folks exist in this frame for reasons that aren’t overtly about undermining trans identities. There’s a ton of gender based trauma out there, and I understand that folks associate this with cis men, and not with trans men. But that’s not a reality-based approach to gender. A lot of that trauma gets easily linked to genitals, but this isn’t about bodies, it’s about patriarchy. I think this sexuality frame is a big part of why so many trans men get away with (and are sometimes even encouraged to practice) unchecked misogyny and male privilege (remember, power is complicated. You can experience both male privilege and cissexist oppression). Real talk: being trans doesn’t prevent you from perpetrating hurt and violence in the realm of sexuality.
My trans brothers deserve better than sex in a frame that undermines their identities. This doesn’t mean queer cis women and gender non-conforming female assigned folks can’t fuck trans men, but then they owe it to these guys to reframe their sexuality in a way that’s not undermining – to recognize that they sleep with men, and to question why they’re OK with sleeping with trans men and not cis men. I just don’t think it’s OK to process your sexual trauma in a delegitimizing way through the bodies of folks who’ve often faced tons of trauma at the intersection of gender and sexuality.
2
I read it twice and still have no idea what is being said. I need a helmet too, to keep my brain from exploding.
3
I think what's being said is you can't fuck who you want to fuck, you have to fuck who this person says you can fuck. Fuck that.
4
I read it twice -- the first time marveling at the jargon, and once more through to make sure I got it. And I have to admit... the author has a valid point. A few, actually. This "frame" does lump trans men in with women; it does exclude trans women. Anyway, thought it was interesting. So posted it.
9
@4, can you give us a quick breakdown, cause I read it twice and can't follow it either - what are the valid points, in 'idiot-proof' English?
10
"...coercively assigned to a person by their doctor at birth"
Um, what's the doc supposed to do, here, exactly?
"Well, Baby X, it would appear you have been born with a penis! Now, I don't want to coercively assign you a gender identity based on that triviality, so let me ask you what are your thoughts on gender?"
"GAAA tpppptt waaaah!"
"I see. Perhaps we can just leave that bit blank for the next 13 years or so?"
"grrrrgle weee bah bah bah!"
"OK, then. Let's move on to the issue of your foreskin..."
Um, what's the doc supposed to do, here, exactly?
"Well, Baby X, it would appear you have been born with a penis! Now, I don't want to coercively assign you a gender identity based on that triviality, so let me ask you what are your thoughts on gender?"
"GAAA tpppptt waaaah!"
"I see. Perhaps we can just leave that bit blank for the next 13 years or so?"
"grrrrgle weee bah bah bah!"
"OK, then. Let's move on to the issue of your foreskin..."
11
@2: Really? It was that hard to understand? Your brain must be made of mentos and Diet Coke.
This post is rather troubling to me. Why does the author assume that women who date "women and trans men" are selecting sexual partners on the basis of trauma associated with cis men, or even that they're selecting sexual partners on any basis at all? What if a woman simply has noticed that she tends to be attracted to women and trans men, and therefore describes herself as "dating women and trans men"? Should she date some cis men, or stop dating trans men, to prove she's not transphobic? If people can't choose to be gay, and if homosexuality isn't caused by trauma, then you can't police anyone's choice of (age-appropriate) sexual partners. Even that of women who date women and trans men.
This post is rather troubling to me. Why does the author assume that women who date "women and trans men" are selecting sexual partners on the basis of trauma associated with cis men, or even that they're selecting sexual partners on any basis at all? What if a woman simply has noticed that she tends to be attracted to women and trans men, and therefore describes herself as "dating women and trans men"? Should she date some cis men, or stop dating trans men, to prove she's not transphobic? If people can't choose to be gay, and if homosexuality isn't caused by trauma, then you can't police anyone's choice of (age-appropriate) sexual partners. Even that of women who date women and trans men.
12
I stop reading any article when I get to the word "cis". The usage pretty much tells me the author is overthinking it.
13
@7 As long as I don't have to love Tea Partiers, we're cool. (But I reserve the right to fuck 'em.)
15
And besides, I'm sorry, but it's just a little too PC to claim that trans men exist in the same gender category as cis men and therefore should be responded to by sexual partners in the same way. Lots and lots of people are exclusively attracted to other cis people, or exclusively attracted to trans people. When did we decide that "male/female" was a more valid binary than "trans/cis" on which to base your selection of sexual partners?
16
So much gender theory jargon to manage the difference between the upper brain and the lower brain - oh, and society. I see the point of this article ("don't rule out / delegitimize someone sexually because of their born/cis gender"), but all this language is quite tiring. I hope future generations can sort this out much more smoothly, because this sort of stuff seems to get in the way of, you know, getting busy.
17
@11 - Yes, it is confusing. Maybe you took human sexuality classes or are well versed in gender and sexuality labeling. But many of us are not. This is the equivalent to me of a writer on slog posting an essay about the misapplication of theoretical physics in an esoteric setting without any introduction. People who have physics backgrounds will get it, but no one else will without some difficult research. Dan, poor blog editing. Maybe include a primer or background when posting opaque essays on complicated issues. This isn't a human sexuality college class discussion forum; it's a general interest blog.
18
the concept of "deligitimizing someone sexually" implies that anyone has some sort of right for others to be attracted to them (there is no such right)
19
They are saying that just because a queer lady might be afraid of the penis because she has been raped or have had a bad experience with a man-with-penis that caused trauma, it's unfair to transmen to say "I am am queer and transsensual" when she means "I only date people with vaginas and that includes transdudes and ladies-with-vaginas." Because it can be just as triggering and traumatic for transdudes to be put into the position where they are considered "lady-like" just because they have "lady bits."
Additionally, penises don't rape people, people rape people. I know of several trans men in this very city who have ignored lack of consent and have raped, yes raped, their partners. I know of a trans dude who beat his female partner. Some of these guys have had their asses kicked, others continue to move unhindered in queer social circles, because sadly sometimes queer community is more about popularity contests than us actually taking care of each other. :P
Additionally, penises don't rape people, people rape people. I know of several trans men in this very city who have ignored lack of consent and have raped, yes raped, their partners. I know of a trans dude who beat his female partner. Some of these guys have had their asses kicked, others continue to move unhindered in queer social circles, because sadly sometimes queer community is more about popularity contests than us actually taking care of each other. :P
20
Dan, it would be awesome if there was a recently made and updated graphical flow chart of various major and minor genders, roles, lesbian this, hetero that, and gay this. I thought I was at least awareness wise having a relative clue but I'm feeling baffled now. I can't be the only one.
21
So if I have this right...
Some persons have pussies (PWP).
Some persons have cocks (PWC).
Some persons with pussies present as persons with cocks (PWPPPWC).
And vice versa (PWCPPWP).
Other persons with pussies present as persons with pussies (PWPPPWP).
And the same for cocks (PWCPPWC).
"Women" is a broad shorthand for both PWPPPWP and PWCPPWP.
"Men" is a broad shorthand for both PWPPPWC and PWCPPWC.
Some PWP only want to date other PWP - either PWPPPWP or PWPPPWC.
But this means they only want to date a subset of each of Men and Women - they are leaving out the option of both PWCPPWP and PWCPPWC.
Presumably because they have issues with the cock.
But this is... wrong? Because... genderism? Cisgenderism? Cockism?
Fuck it. What @7 said.
Some persons have pussies (PWP).
Some persons have cocks (PWC).
Some persons with pussies present as persons with cocks (PWPPPWC).
And vice versa (PWCPPWP).
Other persons with pussies present as persons with pussies (PWPPPWP).
And the same for cocks (PWCPPWC).
"Women" is a broad shorthand for both PWPPPWP and PWCPPWP.
"Men" is a broad shorthand for both PWPPPWC and PWCPPWC.
Some PWP only want to date other PWP - either PWPPPWP or PWPPPWC.
But this means they only want to date a subset of each of Men and Women - they are leaving out the option of both PWCPPWP and PWCPPWC.
Presumably because they have issues with the cock.
But this is... wrong? Because... genderism? Cisgenderism? Cockism?
Fuck it. What @7 said.
22
The author does make an interesting point but the way they frame it gives it much less impact than the point otherwise deserves. How about acknowledging the right of women who "only date women and trans men" to date whoever they're attracted to but then going on to make a larger point about the way this seems to lump trans men into their birth gender rather than their transitioned gender. But yeah, speculating that it's due to sexual trauma seems like an odd guess. Maybe she's just attracted to people with more feminine features?
23
Oh jesus, its like the 2 years I spent at The Evergreen State College all over again.
As valid as the writer may be in their opinion, it is lost in the PoMo queer feminist jargon. Until the Queer theory supporters learn to articulate their arguments in a way the public can understand that isn't a self-referencing and egotistical circle jerk they will continue to be ignored. I have yet to meet a Queer Theory subscriber who is pragmatic and has enough humility to do this.
As valid as the writer may be in their opinion, it is lost in the PoMo queer feminist jargon. Until the Queer theory supporters learn to articulate their arguments in a way the public can understand that isn't a self-referencing and egotistical circle jerk they will continue to be ignored. I have yet to meet a Queer Theory subscriber who is pragmatic and has enough humility to do this.
24
Interesting, although dense; very valid point (assuming I'm grokking this, and not that anyone needs my validation) but I have to wonder if there is room for someone whose emotional romantic preferences are for bodies and minds, and not particularly gender?
I can certainly see that being problematic and damaging to one's identity, as it can be seen as basically a pat on the head and a "sure you're a man, dear", but what if this were a man, or someone genderqueer, or just any human being who said "this is who I love, and who I want to fuck, because that's the way I work goddamit"? Shouldn't there be some way to parse this vector of human sexuality without being insensitive or damaging?
I can certainly see that being problematic and damaging to one's identity, as it can be seen as basically a pat on the head and a "sure you're a man, dear", but what if this were a man, or someone genderqueer, or just any human being who said "this is who I love, and who I want to fuck, because that's the way I work goddamit"? Shouldn't there be some way to parse this vector of human sexuality without being insensitive or damaging?
25
"it can be just as triggering and traumatic for transdudes to be put into the position where they are considered "lady-like"
they ARE lady-like. because they're ladies
they ARE lady-like. because they're ladies
26
Sex is complicated. Most people just know who they are attracted to and who they identify with, without all the anger and resentment this person seems to me to harbor. When you look for ghosts and goblins, you see ghosts and goblins. Life is too short.
27
I was born ugly and self-identify now as attractive. (I'm pre-op, and now still maintain an externally ugly appearance.) I'm sick of hearing "I only date physically attractive men". This frame is incredibly offensive to exclude those of us not assigned attractiveness at birth. It's a way for hatred of unattractive people to advance unchecked.
28
The frame is all very well, and it's true that it perhaps unnecessarily, or even arbitrarily, excludes transwomen, and I absolutely agree that transmen's male identities are as valid as cis-men's male identities--no one can say that Balian Buschbaum isn't a man. But for most people physical bodies have a major part to play in sexual attraction, and transpeople's bodies by their very nature are sometimes different from cis-people's bodies. Gay men typically aren't attracted to female genitalia or female bodies, so for most gay men a vagina just isn't going to be a sexual object choice, no matter how hot the man it's attached to (and yes, I know that not all transmen have vaginas). I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
29
Wow, that may be the first argument I've ever read that frame lesbians as the oppressors. Oh, wait, I forgot about the vast right-wing conspiracy. but aside from them...
I get it, it's demeaning to treat transmen as either "men-lite" or and "extreme butch women" and creating a category of "women and transmen" (excuse me, cis-women) does that.
But sheesh, you're bad for naming who you date! Really?
I get it, it's demeaning to treat transmen as either "men-lite" or and "extreme butch women" and creating a category of "women and transmen" (excuse me, cis-women) does that.
But sheesh, you're bad for naming who you date! Really?
31
Is it funnier to think that this person thinks anybody anywhere is going to be persuaded to do anything by this kind of impenetrable cant? Or that you can talk anybody into wanting to fuck somebody they don't want to fuck with any form of persuasion, even if it was lucid?
32
Look, no one is saying you have to fuck anyone you don't want to because their bodies don't turn you on. That's completely valid. If you don't want to fuck an ftm or a mtf that's fine. Peoples' feelings might be hurt but people hurt each others feelings all the fucking time in the world of dating. I agree this piece Dan posted is poorly written and convoluted. You can think whatever you want about transpeople, but it's bad form to say "they're really women because they have two X chromosomes." That's like saying to someone "Wow your mom is fat and is probably gonna die of diabetes or stroke out soon, also I wouldn't fuck her." Don't be all huffy when they get offended, don't be like "What, it's true!!! Don't be mad, it's true!" Because regardless of the state of mom's medical condition or the state of your hard-on, blurting hurtful things when it doesn't directly affect you is tactless and it makes you the asshole. If you don't have anything nice to say keep your trap shut.
33
What the friggity frak? This reads like the rant of someone who has asked out one too many women whose rejections involved some permutation of "I only date women and trans men," and whose rubberband brain has finally snapped as a result. The only possible reason that women who are attracted to women and trans-men find those people attractive must be because of some sort of penis trauma? That is some serious fucking projection: "The women I'm attracted to aren't attracted to me because something with them is seriously fucked up, and not because of anything to do with me. Said women owe it to me to get over their shit and give me a chance."
To put it in words the writer might understand: I don't think it's ok to process your rejection trauma by delegitimizing the sexual identities and preferences of women who aren't interested in you, for whatever reason. You owe it to yourself to get over your shit.
To put it in words the writer might understand: I don't think it's ok to process your rejection trauma by delegitimizing the sexual identities and preferences of women who aren't interested in you, for whatever reason. You owe it to yourself to get over your shit.
35
Dan, your headline is wrong. And not because "a" cannot modify "women". But because the writer is not talking about women who identify as "queer." The writer is talking about Lesbians who also date trans men. Women who date trans men and still claim to only be attracted to women may be incredibly undermining to the identity of the trans men. In the article writer's mind, you're taking away the agency of the trans man to identify as a man and not as a woman.
So, contrary to the comment thread, this writer isn't saying "only fuck certain people." In fact, the writer is saying, "fuck whomever you want, just don't take away the agency of one person to self-identify just because you feel the need to self-identify in a specific way." In other words, don't fuck trans men and identify yourself as a complete dyke.
On the other hand, like @11, I too am disturbed by the last sentence and the overarching idea that lesbians are lesbians because of sexual trauma. Or that queer women who also sleep with trans men do so because they've suffered trauma at the hands of natural men [I'll be goddamned if I'm going to use cis, and I have the right to do so since I'm the one its describing; fuck you queer theorists]. I think there is a whole WORLD of reasons for queer women to sleep with trans men beyond trauma, mostly involving body shapes, behaviors, brain chemicals, hormones and phermones. That there is a wave of lesbians who are attracted to the subversive sexuality of dykes and trans men doesn't men they were traumatized by it. If this were true, then gay men attracted to twinks and trans women must have suffered similar trauma as well. Of course, there aren't that many gay men I know attracted to trans women, but men are more wired in visuals than women.
More...
So, contrary to the comment thread, this writer isn't saying "only fuck certain people." In fact, the writer is saying, "fuck whomever you want, just don't take away the agency of one person to self-identify just because you feel the need to self-identify in a specific way." In other words, don't fuck trans men and identify yourself as a complete dyke.
On the other hand, like @11, I too am disturbed by the last sentence and the overarching idea that lesbians are lesbians because of sexual trauma. Or that queer women who also sleep with trans men do so because they've suffered trauma at the hands of natural men [I'll be goddamned if I'm going to use cis, and I have the right to do so since I'm the one its describing; fuck you queer theorists]. I think there is a whole WORLD of reasons for queer women to sleep with trans men beyond trauma, mostly involving body shapes, behaviors, brain chemicals, hormones and phermones. That there is a wave of lesbians who are attracted to the subversive sexuality of dykes and trans men doesn't men they were traumatized by it. If this were true, then gay men attracted to twinks and trans women must have suffered similar trauma as well. Of course, there aren't that many gay men I know attracted to trans women, but men are more wired in visuals than women.
38
Okay thanks for everyone who tried to explain, because I think I finally got it now. The only thing that I'm confused about now is that this issue apparently comes up enough that someone felt the need to write about it. Cause I was thinking, 'yeah, maybe one time that happened.'
But what do I know? I guess my last question is, is this really a wide-spread problem? In the Queer/Trans community? Or is this really more of a theoretical discussion?
But what do I know? I guess my last question is, is this really a wide-spread problem? In the Queer/Trans community? Or is this really more of a theoretical discussion?
39
Look, if a penis is a deal breaker for someone but a male identity isn't, that is none of this moronic commentator's business. Saying that someone should or shouldn't pursue consensual relationships with certain types of adults just because you and your twisted-up panties think there's something abstractly morally wrong with it is bigoted. It's the exact same fundamental logic used to justify homophobia.
Dan, I expected better of you. You of all people should know that people, when choosing sex partners, discriminate on all kinds of wacky grounds. Sure, lumping trans men in with women, and not with cis men, seems insulting to their chosen identity. But if someone is basing their sexuality on their partner having lady bits, I see nothing at all invalid about it. Any trans man who doesn't like that attitude can simply decline to date anyone who holds it.
Dan, I expected better of you. You of all people should know that people, when choosing sex partners, discriminate on all kinds of wacky grounds. Sure, lumping trans men in with women, and not with cis men, seems insulting to their chosen identity. But if someone is basing their sexuality on their partner having lady bits, I see nothing at all invalid about it. Any trans man who doesn't like that attitude can simply decline to date anyone who holds it.
41
I'll try to suppress my pretty strong LOLWTF?! reaction, and ask ...
1) If you say "I date women and trans men", doesn't that implicitly say you regard them as _different_ groups, rather than saying they're automatically lumped together? Wouldn't you just say "I date women" otherwise?
2) Why, exactly does anyone owe it to the writer to "question why they’re OK with sleeping with trans men and not cis men"? If a woman likes to date women and slender men, is she obliged to question why she's not attracted to fat dudes?
1) If you say "I date women and trans men", doesn't that implicitly say you regard them as _different_ groups, rather than saying they're automatically lumped together? Wouldn't you just say "I date women" otherwise?
2) Why, exactly does anyone owe it to the writer to "question why they’re OK with sleeping with trans men and not cis men"? If a woman likes to date women and slender men, is she obliged to question why she's not attracted to fat dudes?
42
@35,
I think you're giving the writer a little too much credit. The argument is that "queer" women shouldn't fuck women and transmen, not that those women shouldn't call themselves lesbians. For one thing, the word "lesbian" doesn't appear once in that screed, and, yes, I did follow the link to the whole thing.
There's also this. I mean, what? Like you said, queer women who fuck transmen are more likely basing their preferences on physical appearance and pheromones, not gender. If a femme lesbian prefers dating butch dykes, does that mean that she's a hypocrite/liar?
I think you're giving the writer a little too much credit. The argument is that "queer" women shouldn't fuck women and transmen, not that those women shouldn't call themselves lesbians. For one thing, the word "lesbian" doesn't appear once in that screed, and, yes, I did follow the link to the whole thing.
If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders.
There's also this. I mean, what? Like you said, queer women who fuck transmen are more likely basing their preferences on physical appearance and pheromones, not gender. If a femme lesbian prefers dating butch dykes, does that mean that she's a hypocrite/liar?
43
for fuck's sake, i'm sick of all this jargony shit. no wonder non-queers think we're all so complicated and easily butt hurt.
new least favorite prefix: "cis"
new least favorite prefix: "cis"
44
The valid point in this badly written piece is that if you date transmen, you should admit that you date men, because you do. It's okay to date both women and men. It's also okay to only be attracted to some subset of each category (actually, it's deeply disturbing if you actually are attracted to every single woman or every single man who exists). So, if the only men you're attracted to are transmen, then that's fine. But you should not identify as someone who doesn't have sex with men, because that is insulting to the men you have sex with.
Personally, I don't date people who have vaginas, because vaginas squick me. That's my right. I am not forced to date anyone I don't want to, and I should not be. But if someone with a vagina is interested in me, I will try to politely reject them - just as I would for someone with a penis that I am not interested in. But I don't think we need to make a big deal out of the fact that some people don't like particular genitals.
Personally, I don't date people who have vaginas, because vaginas squick me. That's my right. I am not forced to date anyone I don't want to, and I should not be. But if someone with a vagina is interested in me, I will try to politely reject them - just as I would for someone with a penis that I am not interested in. But I don't think we need to make a big deal out of the fact that some people don't like particular genitals.
45
@35 - my issue is that I want to be this communities' ally, but I can't keep all the terms straight (no pun intended), and my attention is lost. Whoever wrote this was like reading theoretical physics with no background in the subject had it right.
I really, really want to support this community. But I am so afraid of misusing a term or insulting someone that I can't make any kind of statement of support.
I really, really want to support this community. But I am so afraid of misusing a term or insulting someone that I can't make any kind of statement of support.
47
Okay, well... I identify as a mostly heterosexual female, and I'm attracted to cis-guys and transmen. I guess that means I'm doing it right? Maybe?
49
I understand where the writer is coming from (persons who are born female but identify as male probably don't want to be lumped in to the category "women") but disagree with the overall premise and tone. How does she get to decide the sexual identity of others? Didn't she just spend several paragraphs talking about how we need to accept the gender identities of trans people?
51
So, do the trans man in question not have a say? What if he knows that the queer woman who dates cis women and trans men does so, and chooses to date her anyway? Aren't you taking away his choice by insisting that queer women who are attracted to cis women / trans men not do so? I think that these conversations are helpful for people who find themselves in these situations, but that there definitely isn't a universal as implied here. If a trans man chooses to get involved with a queer woman who admits to being attracted to the dude's assigned gender, that's his fucking business.
53
Ever since I got a degree in mechanical engineering, I've been wondering what I was going to do with my degree in organic chemistry. Chemists label the position of functional groups on pi bonded carbon atoms as "trans" if they are kitty-corner from each other or "cis" if they are on the same side.
Little did I know that my useless background would enable me to correctly assign my gender label as "cis-male." It seems odd to adopt this label from the standpoint of being a kind of man who is not trans. Which might make sense if a substantial proportion of men were trans. Which we're not.
I can't wait for the cis-male box to appear on government forms.
Little did I know that my useless background would enable me to correctly assign my gender label as "cis-male." It seems odd to adopt this label from the standpoint of being a kind of man who is not trans. Which might make sense if a substantial proportion of men were trans. Which we're not.
I can't wait for the cis-male box to appear on government forms.
55
I'm a rape survivor. I've only had serious relationships with women and a trans man (okay, and kinda sorta a gay guy who was so deep in the closet he was chilling with Aslan). This isn't a matter of viewing trans men as something "other" than any other man, though. It's a side-effect of falling in love with someone I viewed as a woman and then having him come out and start his transition. If he had a massive organic cock, I'd still love him.
So I'm bisexual and happily so, but I'm not going to go find and fuck a cis guy just to reassure everybody that I really do view my boyfriend as a man. Of course he's a man and if I wasn't with him, I might date a cis guy, or a cis woman, or a trans woman, or whoever tickles my fancy.
Are there lesbians who fetishize trans men? Yes. Are they some kind of widespread problem? Not as near as I can tell. If a lesbian identified woman is a douche about your gender identity, dump her ass. If they're not getting fucked by trans men, maybe they'll eventually get a clue and be a little nicer to their partners. There isn't the same kind of power imbalance there as there is between straight male chasers and trans women, so it's not some huge, scary deal. Gosh, that was difficult.
So I'm bisexual and happily so, but I'm not going to go find and fuck a cis guy just to reassure everybody that I really do view my boyfriend as a man. Of course he's a man and if I wasn't with him, I might date a cis guy, or a cis woman, or a trans woman, or whoever tickles my fancy.
Are there lesbians who fetishize trans men? Yes. Are they some kind of widespread problem? Not as near as I can tell. If a lesbian identified woman is a douche about your gender identity, dump her ass. If they're not getting fucked by trans men, maybe they'll eventually get a clue and be a little nicer to their partners. There isn't the same kind of power imbalance there as there is between straight male chasers and trans women, so it's not some huge, scary deal. Gosh, that was difficult.
56
Moving past the squickiness of the usage of trauma...
"If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders."
I just don't think it works that way, exactly. The labels come around after the fact, describing a reality; the map is not the territory.
"If you’re going to base sexuality on gender, better base it on people’s actual genders."
I just don't think it works that way, exactly. The labels come around after the fact, describing a reality; the map is not the territory.
57
"Is this why liberal arts majors can't get a job?"
Don;t be so sure, if you can figure out how confused these people are, you can probably do Java.
Don;t be so sure, if you can figure out how confused these people are, you can probably do Java.
60
@55 Thank you Zuulabelle, I couldn't figure out how to get at something I wanted to talk about until you told your story.
I self-identify as a completely heterosexual male. If I fell in love, or lust, or was simply fucking someone I viewed as a woman, I do not know that his coming out, or any point of his transition necessarily changes me or my identification. My initial attraction is consistent with my identified orientation, any complexity is the result of an established relationship.
I self-identify as a completely heterosexual male. If I fell in love, or lust, or was simply fucking someone I viewed as a woman, I do not know that his coming out, or any point of his transition necessarily changes me or my identification. My initial attraction is consistent with my identified orientation, any complexity is the result of an established relationship.
61
People have a right to be picky about who they have sex with and not be labeled bigots just because they don't have sex with a particular group of people. Being a bigot isn't about who you have sex with, it's about who you marginalize, who you support, what actions you take to harm or help people (no, fucking them doesn't count much).
If I only had sex with red headed half Asian women, I wouldn't be racist or sexist or a bigot. I'd be a picky fuck. Being unreasonably picky isn't that same as misogyny.
If I only had sex with red headed half Asian women, I wouldn't be racist or sexist or a bigot. I'd be a picky fuck. Being unreasonably picky isn't that same as misogyny.
62
I've decided I'm a Teapot.
You have no right to tell me I am not. I feel it deep inside. It's my deepest core being.
It's taken years of suffering for me to come to this conclusion. My desire to whistle and brew tea has been suppressed for way too long. STOP STARING AT ME! Wait. Don't you DARE look away! What? You want me to be ashamed of my spout? You teapotist!
Okay. I know this is confusing. I don't look like a teapot. But imagine the torment us Teapots feel? I SAID IMAGINE IT RIGHT NOW, you assholes!
Lastly. If you don't fuck Teapots when we want you to... YOU'RE HITLER!
You have no right to tell me I am not. I feel it deep inside. It's my deepest core being.
It's taken years of suffering for me to come to this conclusion. My desire to whistle and brew tea has been suppressed for way too long. STOP STARING AT ME! Wait. Don't you DARE look away! What? You want me to be ashamed of my spout? You teapotist!
Okay. I know this is confusing. I don't look like a teapot. But imagine the torment us Teapots feel? I SAID IMAGINE IT RIGHT NOW, you assholes!
Lastly. If you don't fuck Teapots when we want you to... YOU'RE HITLER!
63
This is the straight version of one of those "Cotton Ceiling" people. As in MTFs see a lesbians underwear as the last place to break thru to troo womanhood.
Lesbians who are only attracted to women born women and not trans women are transphobic and should be coerced or fooled into sleeping with Transwomen. and now apparently trans men as well. Jesus fracking god.
Lesbians who are only attracted to women born women and not trans women are transphobic and should be coerced or fooled into sleeping with Transwomen. and now apparently trans men as well. Jesus fracking god.
64
wiat, I read it 2 more times and I think its saying lesbians should NOT sleep with transmen unless they will sleep with all men? Jesus, that is one poorly written piece of shit.
65
If my experience with transmen is any indication, they seem to start out thinking they are lesbians then come around to realizing that they are trans (I'm sure that there are plenty of exceptions). So most of the transmen I know were more comfortable around lesbians because that's how they were socialized. Over time, some of the transmen I know have moved away from lesbian social circles into trans & straight communities and no longer date lesbians.
Transitioning your gender is difficult, there's no manual for it, and I wish that we made room in our society for people to just be themselves at younger ages. It would certainly help to get rid of this politicizing of people's dating preferences.
Transitioning your gender is difficult, there's no manual for it, and I wish that we made room in our society for people to just be themselves at younger ages. It would certainly help to get rid of this politicizing of people's dating preferences.
66
I think there's a difference between identifying a troubling population trend and telling other people they therefore have to change their identity/personal preferences/whatever to suit how the world 'should be' that the author fails to distinguish. The author is right that at the population level this could indicate that many trans people have trouble getting the community around them to genuinely think of them as the gender they identify with. This does not mean that individual queer women attracted to people with vaginas regardless of their gender are either bigots or repressing rape trauma. Its the difference between observing the troubling gender disparity of characters with names and speaking parts in fiction overall (Bechnel test), and saying that if a work has mostly male characters it automatically is sexist and if a work has mostly female characters it's automatically wonderful.
67
I think Quix @33 and I Have Always Been . . . East Coaster @39 have it right.
As I read this, my first thought was that I'm clearly "cis-sexist": I only date/fuck naturally born men. Sorry, but I love cock and there's just something about the smell of a natural-born man (I too hate the term "cis" and find it to be too much like the egotistical mental masterbation Quix discussed - hence the quotations around "cis-sexist").
Does that mean I think think trans-men aren't men? No, it just means I'm attracted to certain pheramones that are given off by natural-born men.
The next thing I thought was "mental masterbation".
But then when she brought up the sexual trauma thing, I knew this was some sort of projection on the part of the author. I don't know what happened to her, but she is projecting her anger onto women who date women and trans-men only. Perhaps she was rejected by one of these women?
Finally, how is saying you will date trans-men "cis-sexism". If you said you dated women and lumped trans-men into that category, then you would be guilty of "cis-sexism", but calling a FTM transexual a trans-man is acknowledging his maleness. There was an unregistered comment earlier that called a trans-man a woman, just because that is how he was born. THAT is cis-sexism.
While I agree that trans-men are indeed men, just as natural-born men are, but to say they are exactly the same as natural-born men is to deny the transformation a trans-man has gone through to become who he is. Do we really want to deny that? I think we should celebrate that!
How many girls out there are denying that aspect of themselves and will live the rest of their lives denying who they truly are? Being able to realize that and then change your outsides to match who are truly are, at large expense on many levels, is a wonderful thing. And I'm willing to bet it changes him in a way that most natural-born men cannot, and will not ever be able to, understand. So, to say that trans-men are exactly like natural-born men, to me, is an insult to them and the journey that they have gone through. I see them as men, as that is what they are, but I want to acknowledge their strength, courage and journey in becoming a man. Does that make me cis-sexist (aside from the fact that I only date natural-born men)?
Who cares, what @7 said. And to the author, please go see a therapist.
More...
As I read this, my first thought was that I'm clearly "cis-sexist": I only date/fuck naturally born men. Sorry, but I love cock and there's just something about the smell of a natural-born man (I too hate the term "cis" and find it to be too much like the egotistical mental masterbation Quix discussed - hence the quotations around "cis-sexist").
Does that mean I think think trans-men aren't men? No, it just means I'm attracted to certain pheramones that are given off by natural-born men.
The next thing I thought was "mental masterbation".
But then when she brought up the sexual trauma thing, I knew this was some sort of projection on the part of the author. I don't know what happened to her, but she is projecting her anger onto women who date women and trans-men only. Perhaps she was rejected by one of these women?
Finally, how is saying you will date trans-men "cis-sexism". If you said you dated women and lumped trans-men into that category, then you would be guilty of "cis-sexism", but calling a FTM transexual a trans-man is acknowledging his maleness. There was an unregistered comment earlier that called a trans-man a woman, just because that is how he was born. THAT is cis-sexism.
While I agree that trans-men are indeed men, just as natural-born men are, but to say they are exactly the same as natural-born men is to deny the transformation a trans-man has gone through to become who he is. Do we really want to deny that? I think we should celebrate that!
How many girls out there are denying that aspect of themselves and will live the rest of their lives denying who they truly are? Being able to realize that and then change your outsides to match who are truly are, at large expense on many levels, is a wonderful thing. And I'm willing to bet it changes him in a way that most natural-born men cannot, and will not ever be able to, understand. So, to say that trans-men are exactly like natural-born men, to me, is an insult to them and the journey that they have gone through. I see them as men, as that is what they are, but I want to acknowledge their strength, courage and journey in becoming a man. Does that make me cis-sexist (aside from the fact that I only date natural-born men)?
Who cares, what @7 said. And to the author, please go see a therapist.
69
Translation for those who can't be arsed:
It used to be "Lesbianism is a choice - a political choice". Then bi became hipper, and trans went up on the radar. Now it's "I chose to be bi, because I include transmen".
Let them rant their silly little heads off, and watch what happens to them in a decade. It inevitably turns into "I put in my time as a good little radical by dating women (and trans men), now I'm ready for a real relationship".
It used to be "Lesbianism is a choice - a political choice". Then bi became hipper, and trans went up on the radar. Now it's "I chose to be bi, because I include transmen".
Let them rant their silly little heads off, and watch what happens to them in a decade. It inevitably turns into "I put in my time as a good little radical by dating women (and trans men), now I'm ready for a real relationship".
70
Am I the only person who read the first sentence and though, "Oh, brother, here we go," and didn't read any further? Doesn't sound like I missed much.
71
God damn, some of you are bigoted idiots.
It's almost fascinating to see the stupid typed out. So someone rights a piece about gender identity and suddenly you don't understand English or how to link subjects and verbs in sentences and then in full paragraphs to formulate a complete idea? Okay.
Back to school you go!
It's almost fascinating to see the stupid typed out. So someone rights a piece about gender identity and suddenly you don't understand English or how to link subjects and verbs in sentences and then in full paragraphs to formulate a complete idea? Okay.
Back to school you go!
72
I think shit like this proves to anyone still in doubt: Dan Savage is not and never was a transphobe, but he audience is and always has been.
73
Oh heavens. People are not "coercively assigned" gender at birth. The state of being male or female is a physical reality. Doctors make an observation. They're not being coercive; it's just true that most people's gender identities match their genitalia.
Gender is the result of genes, gene expression, body chemistry, below-the-neck anatomy, and brain anatomy. Brain anatomy happens to trumps the rest.
But yes, we should lump trans men in with other men under all circumstances in which their transition is not relevant, if only because it's polite. (And there are more reasons besides it being polite.) But no, this isn't the system being cruel. Being a person whose identity does not match his or her body is bad luck, just like menopause is unpleasant. Society didn't decide that some people would be trans or have hot flashes; it's not an injustice to be corrected. It's a reality to be worked around.
Gender is the result of genes, gene expression, body chemistry, below-the-neck anatomy, and brain anatomy. Brain anatomy happens to trumps the rest.
But yes, we should lump trans men in with other men under all circumstances in which their transition is not relevant, if only because it's polite. (And there are more reasons besides it being polite.) But no, this isn't the system being cruel. Being a person whose identity does not match his or her body is bad luck, just like menopause is unpleasant. Society didn't decide that some people would be trans or have hot flashes; it's not an injustice to be corrected. It's a reality to be worked around.
74
I agree with the author, although it took awhile to translate the argument from gender studies-speak to plain English.
75
I think the author erased Mr Califia, but I'm not sure whether it was deliberate.
It does raise the interesting point about the occasional conflict between the right of A to identify as and be taken as a member of hes true gender in all circumstances and the right of B to maintain Doesn't Boink X as an integral part of hes identity. The Feminist Bingo language just reveals the target audience.
And does anyone know when "women" became fashionable to use as a singluar? I see it frequently.
It does raise the interesting point about the occasional conflict between the right of A to identify as and be taken as a member of hes true gender in all circumstances and the right of B to maintain Doesn't Boink X as an integral part of hes identity. The Feminist Bingo language just reveals the target audience.
And does anyone know when "women" became fashionable to use as a singluar? I see it frequently.
76
@42 If their story is women should either fuck only women or fuck everybody for fear of marginalizing trans men, unfuck the writer. No. Really. Nobody fuck this useless queer whatever they identify as. Because fucking them would be an act of marginalization of some group or another.
I could see the argument if the writer had something against a group of dykes purposely calling trans men women or lumping them in as such by declaring themselves only attracted to women and then fucking trans men. But, if this writer is against any woman fucking women and trans men only, than unfuck them.
And, I have to wonder if the writer is writing from a place of butthurt after fucking a dyke who declared him a woman, and decided to take revenge by declaring it a result of sexual trauma.
@45 Fuck the butthurt. A lot of the offended queers are either overly sensitive and ALWAYS going to be offended, or are really young in their thinking...college age queer theorists, newly out queers, just beginning transitionals, etc etc. If they are offended by Your using the wrong term - as long as you're not using the terms as slurs - tell them their butthurt is showing and they should politely correct you if you're wrong. I've learned to dismiss the easily butthurt among us. They are plenty.
I could see the argument if the writer had something against a group of dykes purposely calling trans men women or lumping them in as such by declaring themselves only attracted to women and then fucking trans men. But, if this writer is against any woman fucking women and trans men only, than unfuck them.
And, I have to wonder if the writer is writing from a place of butthurt after fucking a dyke who declared him a woman, and decided to take revenge by declaring it a result of sexual trauma.
@45 Fuck the butthurt. A lot of the offended queers are either overly sensitive and ALWAYS going to be offended, or are really young in their thinking...college age queer theorists, newly out queers, just beginning transitionals, etc etc. If they are offended by Your using the wrong term - as long as you're not using the terms as slurs - tell them their butthurt is showing and they should politely correct you if you're wrong. I've learned to dismiss the easily butthurt among us. They are plenty.
77
Jesus christ. Why does the author not consider that these women could be BISEXUAL and PREFER VAGINA? Chances are (for financial and practical reasons), most trans men have not had bottom surgery. And no, not everyone is pansexual, so genitals do matter for many people's criterion for physical attraction. I'm bisexual and a trans guy, and I'm fucking offended by her asinine, misplaced aggression and pedantry. Frankly, why is she targeting these people, who are by definition trans allies, and not people who ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINS TRANS PEOPLE?
Those of you dismissing people for using the word "cis" (which is the Latin prefix opposite trans, which you should have learned in Chemistry 101) should rethink your attitude. You should dismiss her argument because she's an idiot nitpicking a point that really doesn't matter in this context, not because she's using a word that isn't in common usage among people outside of the trans community. It's exactly equivalent to heterosexual/homosexual.
And uh, @73, last time I checked people aren't fired or beaten to death for being menopausal. That's not really a good comparison. But anyway, that applies less to transgender people (which is her dumb mistake) and more to intersexed people who have ambiguous genitals--they're almost always pushed into male/female and their genitals are surgically "corrected" to look male or female. And a whole lot of them grow up and realize that their gender identity is either the opposite gender or something in-between.
Those of you dismissing people for using the word "cis" (which is the Latin prefix opposite trans, which you should have learned in Chemistry 101) should rethink your attitude. You should dismiss her argument because she's an idiot nitpicking a point that really doesn't matter in this context, not because she's using a word that isn't in common usage among people outside of the trans community. It's exactly equivalent to heterosexual/homosexual.
And uh, @73, last time I checked people aren't fired or beaten to death for being menopausal. That's not really a good comparison. But anyway, that applies less to transgender people (which is her dumb mistake) and more to intersexed people who have ambiguous genitals--they're almost always pushed into male/female and their genitals are surgically "corrected" to look male or female. And a whole lot of them grow up and realize that their gender identity is either the opposite gender or something in-between.
79
Whoops, didn't define a term--"bottom surgery" for trans men is sex reassignment surgery that essentially creates a penis using one of two methods that you can look up if you'd like. But, it's not as well-developed as the surgery for trans women, so many trans men find that they don't want to bother with it.
Also, the one thing she did get right in her article is how fantastic Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl is. It is NOT full of this academic women's/queer studies terminology, and it is NOT written to demonize people. The author is a biologist and she writes in an accessible way, and her argument is both insightful and well-supported.
Also, the one thing she did get right in her article is how fantastic Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl is. It is NOT full of this academic women's/queer studies terminology, and it is NOT written to demonize people. The author is a biologist and she writes in an accessible way, and her argument is both insightful and well-supported.
80
@35--I agree with your first paragraph, but the second has me a little confused, particularly: "I think there is a whole WORLD of reasons for queer women to sleep with trans men beyond trauma, mostly involving body shapes, behaviors, brain chemicals, hormones and phermones."
Because that's nonsense. trans men who are taking testosterone will be chemically and hormonally pretty much like bio men. Testosterone redistributes fat and changes muscle mass so that body shape is also ultimately male. Behaviors of course vary widely based on the individual. And I believe several studies have indicated that the brains of trans men tend to be structurally similar to bio men even before any medical intervention occurs.
Also, I can say as an actual trans man that there is nothing subversive about my sexuality. It's pretty standard, vanilla-ish, and hetero. And I wouldn't be dating someone who was lesbian identified anyway, so maybe this all doesn't apply to me.
thanks for posting this, Dan. I'm startled by the ignorance and bizarre outrage over the article's language here in the comment thread. I'd think people who read your blog regularly would be more up on the lingo around gender studies, but. Yeah. Guess not.
Because that's nonsense. trans men who are taking testosterone will be chemically and hormonally pretty much like bio men. Testosterone redistributes fat and changes muscle mass so that body shape is also ultimately male. Behaviors of course vary widely based on the individual. And I believe several studies have indicated that the brains of trans men tend to be structurally similar to bio men even before any medical intervention occurs.
Also, I can say as an actual trans man that there is nothing subversive about my sexuality. It's pretty standard, vanilla-ish, and hetero. And I wouldn't be dating someone who was lesbian identified anyway, so maybe this all doesn't apply to me.
thanks for posting this, Dan. I'm startled by the ignorance and bizarre outrage over the article's language here in the comment thread. I'd think people who read your blog regularly would be more up on the lingo around gender studies, but. Yeah. Guess not.
81
"I'd think people who read your blog regularly would be more up on the lingo around gender studies"
Why? Most fields of study ending in "studies" are utterly valueless, and this is one of them.
Why? Most fields of study ending in "studies" are utterly valueless, and this is one of them.
82
just, you know, because sex and gender come up a lot in the column and the podcast. Since it's a column about sex, and sex often involved gender.
83
and gender studies is next to useless in analyzing even those things as today's writer demonstrated
84
then why bother to read it at all? You probably would've saved yourself a lot of grief if you'd stopped at the first 'assigned female.' I actually have to admit that I'm finding it denser the second time reading it through than the first, but I really don't know why you'd bother if you already think gender studies is useless.
86
Also the pretzels people twist themselves into to talk/think themselves around inconvenient truths are pretty amusing too
87
"Why does the author not consider that these women could be BISEXUAL and PREFER VAGINA? "
Using a strap-on?
"But, it's not as well-developed as the surgery for trans women, so many trans men find that they don't want to bother with it."
Use a strap-on?
"trans men who are taking testosterone will be chemically and hormonally pretty much like bio men. "
Strap-on'd?
"It's pretty standard, vanilla-ish, and hetero."
Strap-on?
Using a strap-on?
"But, it's not as well-developed as the surgery for trans women, so many trans men find that they don't want to bother with it."
Use a strap-on?
"trans men who are taking testosterone will be chemically and hormonally pretty much like bio men. "
Strap-on'd?
"It's pretty standard, vanilla-ish, and hetero."
Strap-on?
89
I understand the problem with having "women" equal "only cis-gendered women".
But, not to be mean but, I am not sure sleeping with a transman IS exactly like sleeping with a cisman. I have never slept with a transman, but I can only assume that, the equipment "down there" being different, so is the experience... You don't necessarily need to be traumatized to not want to date a cisman even if you date transmen. Attraction is a complex phenomenon, based in part on a person's gender identity, personality, appearance, etc.
But, not to be mean but, I am not sure sleeping with a transman IS exactly like sleeping with a cisman. I have never slept with a transman, but I can only assume that, the equipment "down there" being different, so is the experience... You don't necessarily need to be traumatized to not want to date a cisman even if you date transmen. Attraction is a complex phenomenon, based in part on a person's gender identity, personality, appearance, etc.
90
@80 I think the similarities of trans brain process are closer to their given genders than to their desired genders, but that's given a small sampling of people and a specific observation into male vs female thinking. Also, ymmv as usual. I also have found that out of the few cases I've made out with trans men, only one reached my lizard brain.
That's just based on personal experience and has no scientific basis. Just stray observations as a gay man who has made out with a few trans men, and is not attracted to trans women based on visuals alone.
That's just based on personal experience and has no scientific basis. Just stray observations as a gay man who has made out with a few trans men, and is not attracted to trans women based on visuals alone.
91
@90 As for scientific basis... the cognitive differences that are observed between men and women tend to a) vary more within each gender than between them (as in, there are not a lot of areas of cognition in which there are robust and large differences between men and women) and b) a fair amount of the variation we do see (such as in spatial reasoning) can be explained by hormone levels (estrogens and testosterone - for example, language and spatial reasoning; see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art… for an example).
And, if you're interested in neuroanatomy, try googling transgender/transsexual and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (that's a region of the the thalamus in the brain that appears to be related to gender identity). Basically, it turns out that trans men tend to have a large BNST like cis men and trans women have a smaller BNST like cis women, and it isn't clearly caused by hormone replacement therapy.
And, if you're interested in neuroanatomy, try googling transgender/transsexual and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (that's a region of the the thalamus in the brain that appears to be related to gender identity). Basically, it turns out that trans men tend to have a large BNST like cis men and trans women have a smaller BNST like cis women, and it isn't clearly caused by hormone replacement therapy.
92
Mostly hertro male checking in to say that for me to date you a penis is a fairly large obstacle, I don't care what gender you consider yourself. Currently dating a trans guy. If said trans guy decided to surgically add a penis to his body I would likely reconsider our relationship. That being said it's not currently even a thought bubble so I'm not even thinking about it. We're poly and see other people from time to time and I'll sometimes find a lady who doesn't annoy me and he'll find people from both sexes. I feel like my partner would have problems comparing his plight in the world exactly to mine, while we might share some traits there's no question I'm the only one in the relationship that will ever get to wear the white privilege pants.
93
If there's one place in our life where we're allowed to not be an "equal opportunity employer", it's in our dating life. If I only want to date brunette transwomen who wear orange socks, while completely ignoring the blonde cis-gendered green sock wearing community, that's my business. You can and should have toleration and respect for others, but that can't make you attracted to someone you aren't.
94
FFS!
"What's that ahead, babe? Emergency vehicle lights?"
"Looks like there's been an accident at the upcoming intersection."
"The intersection of gender and sexuality?"
"Yup."
"Damn. When are they gonna fix that intersection? It is really dangerous."
"Yup."
"Cut through the organ mart lot over to Cis street. That way we can avoid that mess."
"What's that ahead, babe? Emergency vehicle lights?"
"Looks like there's been an accident at the upcoming intersection."
"The intersection of gender and sexuality?"
"Yup."
"Damn. When are they gonna fix that intersection? It is really dangerous."
"Yup."
"Cut through the organ mart lot over to Cis street. That way we can avoid that mess."
96
No. I am attracted to those to whom I'm attracted. Isn't the whole point of the gay rights movement to proudly claim the right to be with whoever we want, rather than who someone's ideology says we should be with? And why is this focused on queer women anyway? And not, say, gay men who won't date transmen and who won't even invite them to their sex parties? Or straight men who get blowjobs from dudes in drag or transwomen but who would never, ever date one?
No. I am attracted to those to whom I'm attracted. Isn't the whole point of the gay rights movement to proudly claim the right to be with whoever we want, rather than who someone's ideology says we should be with? And why is this focused on queer women anyway? And not, say, gay men who won't date transmen and who won't even invite them to their sex parties? Or straight men who get blowjobs from dudes in drag or transwomen but who would never, ever date one?
98
I think you can date who you want, but you have to be honest about yourself with the people you're dating and understand if your preferences are a dealbreaker for them. If a trans man doesn't feel comfortable dating a "women and trans men" queer woman? That's his right, and if she's getting that reaction all over the place, she might want to take a look at what she's doing and why.
I think part of the problem here is that a lot of the "women and trans men" queer women might be seeing their trans male partners as something they're not. Women who cross-dress or pretend to be men are like, a big thing for lesbians, probably because for some of us, when we're growing up that's the closest thing to women liking other women that we see. But that's not what a trans man is, there isn't going to be that woman underneath the man, and I think some of these people expect a trans male partner to be essentially a very masculine woman, and isn't going to make anyone happy. What happens if the boyfriend doesn't want to be out as trans most of the time, and just wants people to assume he's a cis guy? What about if he goes on testosterone and his body goes through a lot of changes and becomes more masculine? What if he gets surgery? (This is why I don't get the "attracted to bodies" argument- most trans people want to take hormones and/or get surgery, and those things, especially the hormones, change a LOT about the body.)
I think for many people, it is basically just bisexuality + wanting to date somebody who's in the same community as you, and there are a lot of trans men in the parts of the queer community where these women might be likely to hang out. If someone's into "women and trans men" and the men they're dating have been transitioning for a while, have gotten the medical procedures if they want them, etc, then I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt more than someone who dates trans men that are newly out and the relationships never last past the point of physical transition. There are androgynous or masculine women out there who also like cross-dressing or playing with gender, so if that's what you really want, why put yourself and the other party through dating someone who might have the body type you like, but who by definition is very likely to be unhappy with that and change it?
More...
I think part of the problem here is that a lot of the "women and trans men" queer women might be seeing their trans male partners as something they're not. Women who cross-dress or pretend to be men are like, a big thing for lesbians, probably because for some of us, when we're growing up that's the closest thing to women liking other women that we see. But that's not what a trans man is, there isn't going to be that woman underneath the man, and I think some of these people expect a trans male partner to be essentially a very masculine woman, and isn't going to make anyone happy. What happens if the boyfriend doesn't want to be out as trans most of the time, and just wants people to assume he's a cis guy? What about if he goes on testosterone and his body goes through a lot of changes and becomes more masculine? What if he gets surgery? (This is why I don't get the "attracted to bodies" argument- most trans people want to take hormones and/or get surgery, and those things, especially the hormones, change a LOT about the body.)
I think for many people, it is basically just bisexuality + wanting to date somebody who's in the same community as you, and there are a lot of trans men in the parts of the queer community where these women might be likely to hang out. If someone's into "women and trans men" and the men they're dating have been transitioning for a while, have gotten the medical procedures if they want them, etc, then I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt more than someone who dates trans men that are newly out and the relationships never last past the point of physical transition. There are androgynous or masculine women out there who also like cross-dressing or playing with gender, so if that's what you really want, why put yourself and the other party through dating someone who might have the body type you like, but who by definition is very likely to be unhappy with that and change it?
99
People are assigned a gender at birth, but that assignment relies on assumptions based on sex (i.e.: the visible genitalia) and therefore it's not always correct, in the same way that often incorrect assumptions are made about a newborn's future sexuality based on the visible genitalia.
“I date women and trans men” may be problematic, but not for the reasons this author claims: in all likelihood, given the current limitations of MTF genital reassignment options, what that statement really means is "I date people who have vaginas but not people who have penises."
If that is what is really meant, then it's not problematic because it expresses a sexuality based on gender, but because it ellides sex and gender: just as some men have vaginas and/or are female-bodied, some women have penises and/or are male bodied. Contrary to what the writer claims, people who make that statement are being quite clear about the fact they're dating women and men (it's in the name transmen). In other words, they're being clear about gender; what they're not being clear about is sex.
“I date women and trans men” may be problematic, but not for the reasons this author claims: in all likelihood, given the current limitations of MTF genital reassignment options, what that statement really means is "I date people who have vaginas but not people who have penises."
If that is what is really meant, then it's not problematic because it expresses a sexuality based on gender, but because it ellides sex and gender: just as some men have vaginas and/or are female-bodied, some women have penises and/or are male bodied. Contrary to what the writer claims, people who make that statement are being quite clear about the fact they're dating women and men (it's in the name transmen). In other words, they're being clear about gender; what they're not being clear about is sex.
100
@90 off topic now, but 'reached my lizard brain' is making me envision some alien type scenario where you normally make out with dudes who have freakishly long, possibly barbed tongues. Ha. It could make a decent horror film.
101
" therefore it's not always correct, "
Only 99.8% of the time and that's after they've taken a Queer Studies class at evergreen state.
Only 99.8% of the time and that's after they've taken a Queer Studies class at evergreen state.
104
Ms Oid @96 - As for the reason behind the focus, my guess would be that the author calling what the QW are doing Not A Feminist Act shows the concern. The mindset comes off as: These certain QW ought to be feminists, or ought to be more feminist than they are, or at least this is an instance in which they are Doing Feminism Wrong. She mentions that TM shouldn't trade on such unfeminist misbeliefs just to get boinked but that she isn't going to concentrate on correcting the more marginalized group, and that's about all from that angle. The sense of the article as I read it seemed to be that she was almost assuming that all TM seek women, but I could have missed an explicit explanation that she was limiting her focus to those TM. That might account for omitting the sins of QM; as for SM, given that the point of the article is to tell a certain group of people that they aren't being Feminist Enough, one might take it relatively for granted that QW on the whole might reasonably be presumed interested in being (more) feminist, but hardly SM.
105
"The mindset comes off as: These certain QW ought to be feminists, or ought to be more feminist than they are, or at least this is an instance in which they are Doing Feminism Wrong. She mentions that TM shouldn't trade on such unfeminist misbeliefs just to get boinked but that she isn't going to concentrate on correcting the more marginalized group, and that's about all from that angle. "
Is this pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea called 'foreplay' for Evergreen State Queer Studies majors?
Pass the remote...
Is this pseudo-intellectual verbal diarrhea called 'foreplay' for Evergreen State Queer Studies majors?
Pass the remote...
106
I'm with #12. Any blog entry that includes the term CIS is almost always written by a trans person looking for someone to blame. I don't need it, thanks.
107
@106, that's ridiculous. I'm cis, and I understand the power of being able to talk about trans and cis people without having to say that one is normal and the other is weird. Do you also feel that the world was a better place when we all said "chairman" and "fireman" and acted as if women should just get over their linguistic exclusion?
108
@107 that's because one isn't 'weird' and one normal. One is normal, one is abnormal.
Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
Date: circa 1836
: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional.
Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
Date: circa 1836
: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional.
110
My main problem with this article is that the issue is a really important one, but the author totally fucks it up by making equally broad - or truth be told, much broader - prejudiced statements, not just about queer women, but about pretty much everyone who isn't asexual (and possibly a lot of asexual folks too).
I may be reading it wrong, but I *think* she's at least slightly conflating "finding yourself physically attracted to someone" with "processing your sexual trauma." If that wasn't the intention, it should have been worded better to avoid giving that impression. If it was the intention, she should speak for herself. I mean, what a downer, seriously. If I thought that way, I'd have to self-flagellate or something (and not in the fun way).
Maybe not quite as bad, but just as glib, is the assertion that "our desires our political" - I agree that our desires do have massive political implications because of how they interact with cultural norms, prejudices and systems of power (for lack of a better term), but I it seems like what she means here is that they *originate* from politics and not, say, DNA, the particular cocktail of hormones and whatever other conditions in the womb, or a million other essentially non-political factors. Again, either word it more clearly, or speak for yourself. Keep your nuance-challenged, sweeping generalizations off my body!
I may be reading it wrong, but I *think* she's at least slightly conflating "finding yourself physically attracted to someone" with "processing your sexual trauma." If that wasn't the intention, it should have been worded better to avoid giving that impression. If it was the intention, she should speak for herself. I mean, what a downer, seriously. If I thought that way, I'd have to self-flagellate or something (and not in the fun way).
Maybe not quite as bad, but just as glib, is the assertion that "our desires our political" - I agree that our desires do have massive political implications because of how they interact with cultural norms, prejudices and systems of power (for lack of a better term), but I it seems like what she means here is that they *originate* from politics and not, say, DNA, the particular cocktail of hormones and whatever other conditions in the womb, or a million other essentially non-political factors. Again, either word it more clearly, or speak for yourself. Keep your nuance-challenged, sweeping generalizations off my body!
111
Again, cis is a Latin prefix meaning "same side", trans is "across". Do you think chemists talking about isomers are trying to pick a fight? How about geneticists?
It's just a specific, accurate term. Saying that there should be no "opposite" to transgender is like saying that we shouldn't bother with the word heterosexual ever just because that's the default for most people.
It's just a specific, accurate term. Saying that there should be no "opposite" to transgender is like saying that we shouldn't bother with the word heterosexual ever just because that's the default for most people.
112
@109 You may want to see a doctor about this head-explodey thing... I don't think that's good for you!
(And I appreciated your comments before, too--it's kind of ridiculous how she's essentially trying to speak for trans men about how very offensive this is to us... without consulting any trans men.)
(And I appreciated your comments before, too--it's kind of ridiculous how she's essentially trying to speak for trans men about how very offensive this is to us... without consulting any trans men.)
114
Just wanted to acknowledge that towards the end she does qualify a bit: "I am absolutely not about critiquing the way one person falls for another. The problem is with a community trend." OK, ok.. but for me it's too little too late, because the bulk of the article is based on accusing anyone with one particular set of preferences of dating who they date not out of sincere attraction, but out of peer pressure or something. I tried that in high school, but it got old pretty fast when I figured out it wasn't any fun (well, mostly). How is this line of reasoning any different? To me it seems like one new angle of political pressure trying to tell people who they're supposed to like. Granted, it's way more well-meaning, but I don't see how it's that different otherwise.
@113 - I certainly hope so. I've been wanting tentacles since I was a little kid. I mean, what's so hard about that?? (putting on my crash helmet now..)
@113 - I certainly hope so. I've been wanting tentacles since I was a little kid. I mean, what's so hard about that?? (putting on my crash helmet now..)
115
Gah.. errr...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who tried to read this and was all "whaaa...?"
I can, have and do work to treat hetero, homo, trans, c/d and all other sex/gender identities equally but getting so hung up on terminology seems ridiculous. Especially when ending your argument by assuming those who weren't aware of your preferred gender identity terms were sexually abused.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who tried to read this and was all "whaaa...?"
I can, have and do work to treat hetero, homo, trans, c/d and all other sex/gender identities equally but getting so hung up on terminology seems ridiculous. Especially when ending your argument by assuming those who weren't aware of your preferred gender identity terms were sexually abused.
116
I understand that the word "assigned" is used in the social sciences, but it's misleading. The doctors and parents don't decide that the child is male or female. They observe that he or she is. Sometimes that observation turns out to be incorrect.
The state of being male or female was around a long time before humans were. We didn't invent it; we've just reacted to it.
The state of being male or female was around a long time before humans were. We didn't invent it; we've just reacted to it.
117
"The state of being male or female was around a long time before humans were."
Don't you oppress me!
Don't you oppress me!
118
Damn it, this article desperately needs little stereotyped stick figures.
So basically it's saying "you turned me down so you must be a bitch--hand in your queer card"?
Hmm, the diagram in the article makes more sense. Anecdotally, the two transwomen I know personally both dating ciswomen. So either they "got lucky" or maybe people on the East Coast are just snobs?
So basically it's saying "you turned me down so you must be a bitch--hand in your queer card"?
Hmm, the diagram in the article makes more sense. Anecdotally, the two transwomen I know personally both dating ciswomen. So either they "got lucky" or maybe people on the East Coast are just snobs?
119
@107 - When I figure out what firemen have to do with my observation about how CIS is typically used in practical discourse, I'll be sure to get back to you.
120
Question: so am I supposed to fuck cis men, or stop fucking transmen? <3, a transman who fucks women and transmen :)
121
#116: The doctors and parents don't decide that the child is male or female. They observe that he or she is. Sometimes that observation turns out to be incorrect. The state of being male or female was around a long time before humans were. We didn't invent it; we've just reacted to it.
Doctors and parents do 2 things when they look at a newborn: (1) based on its external genitalia, they determine its sex, and (2) based on the sex, they determine its gender.
Nobody's arguing that there is no such thing as male and female, but there are problems with the convention of determining gender by looking at visible sex characteristics. The first problem is that it doesn't always work, since while in most cases gender corresponds with sex, it doesn't always. The second is that some people's sex cannot be ascertained by looking at their external genitalia. Something like close to 2% of people are intersex in some way. For instance, a person with a vagina may be chromosomally male or female or one of a variety of in-between sexes, and may have a male or female or third or other or no gender identity. The third problem is that this system doesn't recognize that gender (i.e.: what it is to be a man or a woman) is a cultural construct; many societies recognize more than 2 genders--the largest number I'm aware of is 5.
Doctors and parents do 2 things when they look at a newborn: (1) based on its external genitalia, they determine its sex, and (2) based on the sex, they determine its gender.
Nobody's arguing that there is no such thing as male and female, but there are problems with the convention of determining gender by looking at visible sex characteristics. The first problem is that it doesn't always work, since while in most cases gender corresponds with sex, it doesn't always. The second is that some people's sex cannot be ascertained by looking at their external genitalia. Something like close to 2% of people are intersex in some way. For instance, a person with a vagina may be chromosomally male or female or one of a variety of in-between sexes, and may have a male or female or third or other or no gender identity. The third problem is that this system doesn't recognize that gender (i.e.: what it is to be a man or a woman) is a cultural construct; many societies recognize more than 2 genders--the largest number I'm aware of is 5.
122
Instead of working on self-esteem from the inside, there are is this loony trans army who believe the only way to happiness is to accuse people of language abuse. It's nuts.
123
So, in summary:
1) If you are attracted to cis people and not attracted to trans people within a gender, you're a transphobic bigot.
2) If you are attracted to trans people and not attracted to cis people within a gender, you're a creeper fetishist and/or psychological trauma victim who fails to respect trans identities.
Good to know!
1) If you are attracted to cis people and not attracted to trans people within a gender, you're a transphobic bigot.
2) If you are attracted to trans people and not attracted to cis people within a gender, you're a creeper fetishist and/or psychological trauma victim who fails to respect trans identities.
Good to know!
124
From the first sentence, this is a terribly written article. The most important part of writing things for people to read is to be able to do it clearly and concisely. Respect for the reader, from the first paragraph. This article is a nightmare. It's not a work of great fiction, it shouldn't need 6 read-throughs to be understood.
126
@55, This line: "so deep in the closet he was chilling with Aslan" is fabulous. Congratulations.
127
@121 Some societies have more than two gender ROLES, but there is no third set of affirmative characteristics and no true third gender.
I do not believe that you and I are using the word "gender" to mean the same thing. I am using the general English definition of "state of being male or female." It means the same thing as "sex" but lacks connotations of sexual intercourse. "Gender" in this sense predates the human species and therefore cannot be a cultural construct. If you're using "gender" as short for "gender role," that's another matter. Even in this sense, however, it's less something that human beings constructed and more something that they reacted to. The need for food is a biological reality. Agriculture and table manners are what grew out of that need. Gender is a set of biological realities. The idea that women wear skirts and men do not (arbitrary), that women wear makeup and men do not (based on men's biological predisposition to respond more than women do to visual stimuli), and that men are more likely to be accepted as soldiers (based on men's more pronounced upper body strength) are reactions to that reality.
The point that I am trying to make is that gender isn't something that society invented, like sexism or racism. It's one of the biological realities inherent in being human. The day of a child's birth, doctors and parents do not cruelly, coercively or arbitrarily force a child into one gender or another. They observe and respond.
I do not believe that you and I are using the word "gender" to mean the same thing. I am using the general English definition of "state of being male or female." It means the same thing as "sex" but lacks connotations of sexual intercourse. "Gender" in this sense predates the human species and therefore cannot be a cultural construct. If you're using "gender" as short for "gender role," that's another matter. Even in this sense, however, it's less something that human beings constructed and more something that they reacted to. The need for food is a biological reality. Agriculture and table manners are what grew out of that need. Gender is a set of biological realities. The idea that women wear skirts and men do not (arbitrary), that women wear makeup and men do not (based on men's biological predisposition to respond more than women do to visual stimuli), and that men are more likely to be accepted as soldiers (based on men's more pronounced upper body strength) are reactions to that reality.
The point that I am trying to make is that gender isn't something that society invented, like sexism or racism. It's one of the biological realities inherent in being human. The day of a child's birth, doctors and parents do not cruelly, coercively or arbitrarily force a child into one gender or another. They observe and respond.
129
This article brings to mind the words of a smug 18th century writer line ( who was probably just trying to ridiculize his competitors) :
"Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément"
In other words : if the piece is badly written, the ideas it contains were not altogether clear to the writer to begin with.
In any case, after reading them twice, they are not clear to me at all. I'll have to trust Dan & commenters on this.
"Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément"
In other words : if the piece is badly written, the ideas it contains were not altogether clear to the writer to begin with.
In any case, after reading them twice, they are not clear to me at all. I'll have to trust Dan & commenters on this.
130
Just want to agree with many posters above:
1. Cis man and cis woman are very useful terms, especially in discussions like this one, and should enter the generally known vocabulary.
2. WTF that the only reasons women are lesbians is rape?
3. Who made the author the dictator of who can fuck whom? I consider myself queer and I only fuck crossdressers (not transsexuals, not cis men, not women--crossdressers). The whole lovely point of the word "queer" is that it is vague, and simply means non-normative sex. If a woman called herself a lesbian and dated trans men, that would be somewhat offensive to trans men, but a queer person can fuck whom she likes.
1. Cis man and cis woman are very useful terms, especially in discussions like this one, and should enter the generally known vocabulary.
2. WTF that the only reasons women are lesbians is rape?
3. Who made the author the dictator of who can fuck whom? I consider myself queer and I only fuck crossdressers (not transsexuals, not cis men, not women--crossdressers). The whole lovely point of the word "queer" is that it is vague, and simply means non-normative sex. If a woman called herself a lesbian and dated trans men, that would be somewhat offensive to trans men, but a queer person can fuck whom she likes.
131
There is nothing wrong with non-trans people feeling like they are a well-integrated single-gendered person and born integrated. "I am a man," or "I am a woman" is perfectly healthy and acceptable and clear, as is "I like women, or I like trans men." A healthy trans person would not want people physically and mentally a single gender to worry about anything at all. Only an angry, jealous person would want someone to suffer over their issues, an anguish over adopting a new gender dictionary.
Here is what should be in that blog post: "I am glad that non-trans gender people enjoy the fact that they were born with the same bodily gender as their psychological gender. I will not impose new labels on their personal gender expression. And I really want non-trans people to enjoy that fact, and to feel good and not the least bit guilty for the gift of mind-body gender integration the got at birth. They have a gift that I didn't get, in that they don't have to explain, or struggle. Let them enjoy it in peace, using whatever language they please. I refuse to label them "cis." Their personal description is my description. How can I be the least bit insulted by someone else's joy when it has no impact on me or my esteem, which I generate from the inside? My trans status has been a gift too, and not a disability. I am much stronger and integrated in mind, body and spirit through this beautiful, God-given struggle. We can all feel positive about who we are, and how we describe it. Freedom of expression, and freedom on gender expression!"
Here is what should be in that blog post: "I am glad that non-trans gender people enjoy the fact that they were born with the same bodily gender as their psychological gender. I will not impose new labels on their personal gender expression. And I really want non-trans people to enjoy that fact, and to feel good and not the least bit guilty for the gift of mind-body gender integration the got at birth. They have a gift that I didn't get, in that they don't have to explain, or struggle. Let them enjoy it in peace, using whatever language they please. I refuse to label them "cis." Their personal description is my description. How can I be the least bit insulted by someone else's joy when it has no impact on me or my esteem, which I generate from the inside? My trans status has been a gift too, and not a disability. I am much stronger and integrated in mind, body and spirit through this beautiful, God-given struggle. We can all feel positive about who we are, and how we describe it. Freedom of expression, and freedom on gender expression!"
133
#127:
You are confusing "gender" and "sex," which are different things. "Sex" here doesn't refer to sexual intercourse, but to biology, which is to say the external genitalia, the reproductive organs, physical appearance and secondary sex characteristics, and genetics--this is what is meant by male and female.
"Gender" is a social construct which refers to social identies, roles, and expectations. Gender is not a set of biological realities, sex is. Gender is less a reaction to biological reality than a set of cultural expectations. For instance, in many cultures women are expected to be deferential, obedient, retiring, and modest. This has nothing to do with vaginas, breasts, and XX chromosomes, as can be readily understood by looking at female social roles in other parts of the world.
As to your point that there is no such thing as more than 2 sexes, biologically, there are people who are not clearly male or female. There are people with XX chromosomes who penises and testes, and people with XY chromosomes who have vaginas and ovaries. And then there are people who are XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXY and other chromosomal combinations.
To your other point, doctors and parents are usually able to correctly identify a newborn's sex, but not always: up to 2% of people are intersex. And like the assumption that sexuality will correspond with sex (that a female-bodied person will be sexually attracted to males and vice-versa), the assumption that gender will correspond with sex is also usually correct, but not always.
You are confusing "gender" and "sex," which are different things. "Sex" here doesn't refer to sexual intercourse, but to biology, which is to say the external genitalia, the reproductive organs, physical appearance and secondary sex characteristics, and genetics--this is what is meant by male and female.
"Gender" is a social construct which refers to social identies, roles, and expectations. Gender is not a set of biological realities, sex is. Gender is less a reaction to biological reality than a set of cultural expectations. For instance, in many cultures women are expected to be deferential, obedient, retiring, and modest. This has nothing to do with vaginas, breasts, and XX chromosomes, as can be readily understood by looking at female social roles in other parts of the world.
As to your point that there is no such thing as more than 2 sexes, biologically, there are people who are not clearly male or female. There are people with XX chromosomes who penises and testes, and people with XY chromosomes who have vaginas and ovaries. And then there are people who are XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXY and other chromosomal combinations.
To your other point, doctors and parents are usually able to correctly identify a newborn's sex, but not always: up to 2% of people are intersex. And like the assumption that sexuality will correspond with sex (that a female-bodied person will be sexually attracted to males and vice-versa), the assumption that gender will correspond with sex is also usually correct, but not always.
135
Surprised that so many people on this thread a) object to the term "cis" which is useful, as pointed out above, in the same way that "hetero" is useful. It also gets us around usages like "natural man" which implies that the rest of us are robots or something. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are people who think that post-transition transmen smell different than "natural men" given that our hormones are bioidentical to theirs and there is no blood test, or smell test, that could ever tell us apart. Ultimately, what's apparent to me is that most of the cispeople on this thread, when they think of transpeople, think primarily or exclusively of those who are in the middle in some visible way, either because they choose not to take hormones or have surgery, or because they are actively transitioning right now. It seems like people are invested in the idea that being attracted to, for instance, ciswomen and transmen, is something stable that you can count on rather than being an idea that doesn't have a lot of correspondence to how attraction actually works. If, for instance, you think of yourself as exclusively attracted to cismen, and you meet a transman at a bar but don't know he's trans (because he transitioned ten years ago, let's say), is there any reason you wouldn't be attracted to him? Maybe he's got a beard, maybe he doesn't, maybe he's short but maybe he's tall, etc. So you flirt with him and he asks you out, and you go out a couple of times and make out and you touch his chest, etc. You're attracted to him, and him to you. Then, when the magic moment comes and you get in his pants, you realize that he's trans. Perhaps you feel put out because he didn't tell you. Perhaps he thought you knew already because you have friends in common, and is surprised to find that you don't. It's not wrong, and I don't think anybody is saying it's wrong, for you to disengage at this point. If getting down with someone who doesn't have all the traditional accoutrements of maleness is too much or not something you're down with, fine. But you were attracted to him, and why wouldn't you be? He looks, feels, and smells like any other man. So maybe it's not wrong for someone to point out that your description of your sexuality is probably not realistic, inasmuch as it's invested in the idea that all transmen are easily identified and that there's no chance that you'd ever find yourself wanting to make out with one. Like the idea that we somehow smell different (how offensive would this be if we said it about another racial or class group? and just as ignorant) or have different pheromones, it exposes a certain ignorance of biological reality (something we transpeople often accused of, ironically) and a psychological investment in the "realness" or "naturalness" of cisgender vs. the supposed falseness of transgender.
So, sure, bang who you want, but don't be so sure you know who's who. If you like men who are tall, dark, and handsome, and smell like men, you might find yourself attracted to a transman. It's fine to not want to get down, but if you think you could never make the "mistake" of being attracted to one of us, you're lying to yourself. And so one question that might occur to you is, why am I so invested in this idea of my own potentials of attraction?
Sadly, I am unsurprised at the number of people who are not only too lazy to spend any time trying to understand the linked/excerpted essay (spend your free time as you like, whatevs), but who are damn proud of their laziness, and want to make a self-congratulatory comment about how this is just too hard, and why can't minorities make it easier to understand, and now let's make a few denigrating comments about liberal arts colleges, etc. Be dumb if you want to, but please have some appropriate shame. American anti-intellectualism is not cute.
More...
So, sure, bang who you want, but don't be so sure you know who's who. If you like men who are tall, dark, and handsome, and smell like men, you might find yourself attracted to a transman. It's fine to not want to get down, but if you think you could never make the "mistake" of being attracted to one of us, you're lying to yourself. And so one question that might occur to you is, why am I so invested in this idea of my own potentials of attraction?
Sadly, I am unsurprised at the number of people who are not only too lazy to spend any time trying to understand the linked/excerpted essay (spend your free time as you like, whatevs), but who are damn proud of their laziness, and want to make a self-congratulatory comment about how this is just too hard, and why can't minorities make it easier to understand, and now let's make a few denigrating comments about liberal arts colleges, etc. Be dumb if you want to, but please have some appropriate shame. American anti-intellectualism is not cute.
136
@135:
Permit me to point out the obvious: the writer's inability to articulate an idea efficiently and effectively does not mean that the reader is lazy. It does mean that the writer is incompetent. Variants of "well, you just haven't worked hard enough to understand me" have been fig leaves for snotty bad writers -- and their apologists like you -- for a long, long, long time.
Permit me to point out the obvious: the writer's inability to articulate an idea efficiently and effectively does not mean that the reader is lazy. It does mean that the writer is incompetent. Variants of "well, you just haven't worked hard enough to understand me" have been fig leaves for snotty bad writers -- and their apologists like you -- for a long, long, long time.
138
So does "women and trans men" mean "cis women and trans men", and the person is offended that cis women were only called women, or does it mean "cis or trans women and trans men" and the person is offended because of something else?
I'm not sure quite what is offensive about being attracted to who you're attracted to. If I'm attracted to someone I think is male, and I'm a straight female, and they turn out to be a trans woman, I don't think I insulted them by being attracted to their body, as much as they might dislike said body.
I'm not sure quite what is offensive about being attracted to who you're attracted to. If I'm attracted to someone I think is male, and I'm a straight female, and they turn out to be a trans woman, I don't think I insulted them by being attracted to their body, as much as they might dislike said body.
141
@138: I think the main complaint might have been about calling oneself a lesbian while being attracted to trans men. Not entirely sure, though.
142
@135, thanks for breaking that down and providing some context where this all makes sense. I'm bi, so if I found out the man I was about to bed didn't have the expected parts I would be cool with it....but speaking from experience (living many years in small towns), that is NOT the norm. My understanding is that it is better to disclose this information ahead of time, before the pants are actually being gotten into, right?
Also, for everyone out there criticizing those of us who have never heard of cis before, chill out. No really. That is a very specific term only used by what is, in reality, a very small community of which I am not a member...so I had to google it okay. I admit it...and thank you Wikipedia for helping me out. But that does not mean I am stupid, or a trans-hater, or can't read English, or am a newbie to Dan's column.
Also, for everyone out there criticizing those of us who have never heard of cis before, chill out. No really. That is a very specific term only used by what is, in reality, a very small community of which I am not a member...so I had to google it okay. I admit it...and thank you Wikipedia for helping me out. But that does not mean I am stupid, or a trans-hater, or can't read English, or am a newbie to Dan's column.
143
@119 people used to call women who fought fires "firemen." Over time, most people became persuaded that a gender-neutral term like "firefighters" was more useful than an inaccurately gendered term. And I believe that similarly, over time, people will be persuaded that it's handy to have a term to describe people who never went through a gender-transition. That term may be "non-trans" or "cis-" or something else entirely. But language evolves to suit social needs, and I think this is a need that will become more and more apparent. As firefighter did, to replace fireman.
144
@133 No I am not confusing "gender" with "sex." If you consult dictionary.com and search for "gender," you will see "state of being male or female, sex" given as the standard English definition of the word. In standard English, the words "gender" and "sex" are synonymous. You are using a specialized version of "gender" common in the social sciences and I am not.
People who are naturally "intersex" or "androgynous" still exist in terms of male and female. "Intersex" means "between male and female" and "androgynous" means "both man-like and woman-like." It's a spectrum with two endpoints, not a plane that extends in more than two directions. That is what I mean when I say that there is no true third gender: There is no set of affirmative characteristics.
You seem to be drawing assumptions about my beliefs about sexual orientation. Sexual attraction to males is not an essential part of the female gender. A man who is a homosexual is no less a real man.
People who are naturally "intersex" or "androgynous" still exist in terms of male and female. "Intersex" means "between male and female" and "androgynous" means "both man-like and woman-like." It's a spectrum with two endpoints, not a plane that extends in more than two directions. That is what I mean when I say that there is no true third gender: There is no set of affirmative characteristics.
You seem to be drawing assumptions about my beliefs about sexual orientation. Sexual attraction to males is not an essential part of the female gender. A man who is a homosexual is no less a real man.
145
Sorry, no THIRD set of affirmative characteristics. We have masculine traits and feminine traits, but we don't have a third set of traits. Someone can be more masculine or less masculine and more feminine or less feminine, but there's no third type of thing to be, no third direction to move in.
146
Good god.
First, cis vs trans -- get over it. It provides a perfectly good context in which to discuss concepts that mainstream vocabulary just is not precise about.
Second, the lumping of trans men and cis women together because presumably most trans men have not had bottom surgery and therefore are both "cock free"? Dear god, let me introduce you to a person no self respecting woman should go near: Chaz Bono, who has made his disdain of the silliness of women quite clear in more than one interview. I don't accept that sort of disdain from anyone: male or female, trans or cis.
Third: coercive sex assignment at birth does not occur with most trans folks. Coercive sex assignment occurs with intersexed children where there is some physical question about the baby's perceived sex and quite frequently surgery of some sort to "repair" or "fix" the situation. Not all intersexed folk are trans and vice versa. Now, coercive sex assignment comes into play once the trans person identifies with his or her correct gender and those around him or her refuse to acknowledge or accept that. But at birth...there is at present no way of telling.
Fourth, that is a monumentally badly written article, even if I understood what the person was getting at (and sort of agree with some of the points made). They displayed a fair amount of their own privilege while trying to slap others down for being privileged. It's always amusing to watch this.
Fifthly -- gah.
First, cis vs trans -- get over it. It provides a perfectly good context in which to discuss concepts that mainstream vocabulary just is not precise about.
Second, the lumping of trans men and cis women together because presumably most trans men have not had bottom surgery and therefore are both "cock free"? Dear god, let me introduce you to a person no self respecting woman should go near: Chaz Bono, who has made his disdain of the silliness of women quite clear in more than one interview. I don't accept that sort of disdain from anyone: male or female, trans or cis.
Third: coercive sex assignment at birth does not occur with most trans folks. Coercive sex assignment occurs with intersexed children where there is some physical question about the baby's perceived sex and quite frequently surgery of some sort to "repair" or "fix" the situation. Not all intersexed folk are trans and vice versa. Now, coercive sex assignment comes into play once the trans person identifies with his or her correct gender and those around him or her refuse to acknowledge or accept that. But at birth...there is at present no way of telling.
Fourth, that is a monumentally badly written article, even if I understood what the person was getting at (and sort of agree with some of the points made). They displayed a fair amount of their own privilege while trying to slap others down for being privileged. It's always amusing to watch this.
Fifthly -- gah.
147
I don't agree with this writer, except....
I tried to reframe the original statement (I only date women and trans-men) to express the inoffensive personal preference that *I* read in it, and I came up with, "I only date people with pussies." And then I noticed that that statement assumes that all women had pussies. So I had to concede the author's point. This statement either excludes trans-women from womanhood, or *does tend* to conflate trans-men with women. So maybe the idea should be more carefully or clearly expressed.
On the other hand, maybe the people saying it are aiming for a less-negative form of, "I don't date cis-men." Or maybe it's short-hand for something else. In any case, it sounds like a rejection line, and rejections don't need to be justified, they just need to be graciously accepted.
PS - Add me to the list of folks who like the prefix "cis". Sure, we don't need it every day, but in a gender-identity discussion like this one, it helps us to clarify our thinking and our positions.
I tried to reframe the original statement (I only date women and trans-men) to express the inoffensive personal preference that *I* read in it, and I came up with, "I only date people with pussies." And then I noticed that that statement assumes that all women had pussies. So I had to concede the author's point. This statement either excludes trans-women from womanhood, or *does tend* to conflate trans-men with women. So maybe the idea should be more carefully or clearly expressed.
On the other hand, maybe the people saying it are aiming for a less-negative form of, "I don't date cis-men." Or maybe it's short-hand for something else. In any case, it sounds like a rejection line, and rejections don't need to be justified, they just need to be graciously accepted.
PS - Add me to the list of folks who like the prefix "cis". Sure, we don't need it every day, but in a gender-identity discussion like this one, it helps us to clarify our thinking and our positions.
148
Oh damn. Correction:
... either excludes SOME trans-women from womanhood...
You'd think two read-throughs before posting would be enough to filter the stupid, wouldn't you?
Sorry.
... either excludes SOME trans-women from womanhood...
You'd think two read-throughs before posting would be enough to filter the stupid, wouldn't you?
Sorry.
150
@146 Regarding your first point, I think some of the disdain for the word "cis" has to do with the way that many people are introduced to it...
You know, when someone makes a broad generalization, like "men are just looking to bang that pussy", most people here see it for what it is and move on. Occasionally, someone will feel compelled to correct this regarding the relatively small subset of men who are gay, but we've gotten to the point where this is usually done in service to some other point, as it is not like these sometimes useful generalizations powerfully invalidated or worse, caused these gay men to cease to exist. I guess, we've come a long way baby.
Conversely, and I think not without reason given that we're a lot less far along with the T portion of our community, these same types of generalizations can elicit extremely strong reactions when they do not acknowledge a broader experience, even when that is outside the general scope of the conversation or would make it unwieldy. Suddenly, it is somehow unacceptable to use "men" to cover those most commonly male. This is where many are introduced to the term "cis".
I don't think that the practice of making determinations based on the external characteristics of babies is bad, but we certainly need to get better at dealing with where we're wrong, and tangentially, really should stop the practice of "correcting" those who do not fit out binary coding too early. Similarly, I think "cis" is indeed a useful term. I just think that we need to get better about being able to respect and acknowledge all portions of our community without needing to clunk up our discussions past the point of utility.
Lastly, given our country's changing racial make up, I think that we're going to have to start actually specifying that a person is white long before the privilege of being it is diminished.
More...
You know, when someone makes a broad generalization, like "men are just looking to bang that pussy", most people here see it for what it is and move on. Occasionally, someone will feel compelled to correct this regarding the relatively small subset of men who are gay, but we've gotten to the point where this is usually done in service to some other point, as it is not like these sometimes useful generalizations powerfully invalidated or worse, caused these gay men to cease to exist. I guess, we've come a long way baby.
Conversely, and I think not without reason given that we're a lot less far along with the T portion of our community, these same types of generalizations can elicit extremely strong reactions when they do not acknowledge a broader experience, even when that is outside the general scope of the conversation or would make it unwieldy. Suddenly, it is somehow unacceptable to use "men" to cover those most commonly male. This is where many are introduced to the term "cis".
I don't think that the practice of making determinations based on the external characteristics of babies is bad, but we certainly need to get better at dealing with where we're wrong, and tangentially, really should stop the practice of "correcting" those who do not fit out binary coding too early. Similarly, I think "cis" is indeed a useful term. I just think that we need to get better about being able to respect and acknowledge all portions of our community without needing to clunk up our discussions past the point of utility.
Lastly, given our country's changing racial make up, I think that we're going to have to start actually specifying that a person is white long before the privilege of being it is diminished.
153
#144: for whatever reason you're bound and determined to treat "gender" and "sex" as synonymous; they are not. You can scoff about social sciences all you want, but I find it difficult to believe you'd rather look to dictionary.com for an explanation of something so complex than to the people who actually devote themselves to studying it.
We define "intersex" in terms of male and female because those concepts are monolithic. This is why intersex people are usually subjected to surgery in infancy to bring them in line with people's expectation that everyone must be either male or female.
As for sexual orientation, I was simply using it as a parallel to demonstrate my point: just as people assume that sex and gender go together (they look at a newborn, observe a penis and testes, and assume that individual will grow up to be male and masculine), they also assume sexual orientation is part of that formula (they assume that same individual will grow up to be sexually oriented towards females).
We define "intersex" in terms of male and female because those concepts are monolithic. This is why intersex people are usually subjected to surgery in infancy to bring them in line with people's expectation that everyone must be either male or female.
As for sexual orientation, I was simply using it as a parallel to demonstrate my point: just as people assume that sex and gender go together (they look at a newborn, observe a penis and testes, and assume that individual will grow up to be male and masculine), they also assume sexual orientation is part of that formula (they assume that same individual will grow up to be sexually oriented towards females).
154
Dingo, the word "gender" has MORE THAN ONE definition. That is why I bothered to say which definition I was using. Yes, in the social sciences, people use it for "gender role" and "gender identity" but in standard English, "gender" means "sex" as in state of being male or female. Some dictionaries don't even bother to include the social science definition of gender.
If the issue is what a word means, then the people writing the dictionaries, not the people performing sociology experiments, are the experts.
But you don't have to take my word for it: dictionary.com reads 2. "sex: [as in] the feminine gender." Oxford American Dictionary does the same.
Definition number 1. refers to the use of "gender" in linguistics (grammatical classes). 3. and 4. deal with the archaic definitions of "to breed" and "to engender."
I'm not sure what you mean by male and female being monolithic. When I say that there's no true third gender, I mean that there's masculinity and femininity and being less masculine doesn't automatically mean being more feminine, but there's no third set of characteristics, no third quality. We might say "Hm, that man is a bit effeminate," or "that is the most feminine woman I've ever seen" but there's no third set of descriptive traits for something on the same level as male and female.
If the issue is what a word means, then the people writing the dictionaries, not the people performing sociology experiments, are the experts.
But you don't have to take my word for it: dictionary.com reads 2. "sex: [as in] the feminine gender." Oxford American Dictionary does the same.
Definition number 1. refers to the use of "gender" in linguistics (grammatical classes). 3. and 4. deal with the archaic definitions of "to breed" and "to engender."
I'm not sure what you mean by male and female being monolithic. When I say that there's no true third gender, I mean that there's masculinity and femininity and being less masculine doesn't automatically mean being more feminine, but there's no third set of characteristics, no third quality. We might say "Hm, that man is a bit effeminate," or "that is the most feminine woman I've ever seen" but there's no third set of descriptive traits for something on the same level as male and female.
155
I know it does, DRF. But where I'm being specific about which definition I'm talking about, you're being inexplicably obtuse, and you're insisting on conflating things that are different, like male and masculine, female and feminine. In any case, if you want to have a serious discussion about academic matters, you have to use academic terminology.
When I say male and female are monolithic, I mean that we're heavily invested in there being only two sexes: male and female. I don't mean this in a radical political way, but a practical one: it's reflected everywhere in society, from the M or F on your government identification to laws and social expectations (as just one example, as I'm sure you know, the first basic requirement for eligibility to be pope is having balls). Yet from a biological point of view, in some cases, it simply isn't possible to state definitively that a person is male or female.
Now, because you refuse to be clear about your definitions, when you say that there's no true third gender it's unclear whether you mean "sex" or "gender," and even the descriptions you offer (feminine man/feminine woman) conflate the two. If you mean there is no third SEX, from a biological point of view if not from a social one that's untrue as I've explained a number of times. If you mean there is no third GENDER, that may be true in some societies, but it is certainly not in all, and just because we have no way to describe something in our language or culture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And while you might counter that not having a social role in our culture akin to, for instance, Hijra, fa'afafine, or two-spirit proves there's no such thing, I would say that it only demonstrates that gender is cultural not natural.
When I say male and female are monolithic, I mean that we're heavily invested in there being only two sexes: male and female. I don't mean this in a radical political way, but a practical one: it's reflected everywhere in society, from the M or F on your government identification to laws and social expectations (as just one example, as I'm sure you know, the first basic requirement for eligibility to be pope is having balls). Yet from a biological point of view, in some cases, it simply isn't possible to state definitively that a person is male or female.
Now, because you refuse to be clear about your definitions, when you say that there's no true third gender it's unclear whether you mean "sex" or "gender," and even the descriptions you offer (feminine man/feminine woman) conflate the two. If you mean there is no third SEX, from a biological point of view if not from a social one that's untrue as I've explained a number of times. If you mean there is no third GENDER, that may be true in some societies, but it is certainly not in all, and just because we have no way to describe something in our language or culture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And while you might counter that not having a social role in our culture akin to, for instance, Hijra, fa'afafine, or two-spirit proves there's no such thing, I would say that it only demonstrates that gender is cultural not natural.
156
This is, well, stupid. People fall for people. All this cisgendered stuff sounds like something the theocrats,err, the Ron Paul Republicans have dreamed up to make anyone not straight sound stupid.
157
It is entirely possible to have a serious discussion about an academic subject while still using ordinary-speech terms. I have not refused to be clear about my definitions. I have said flat out: "I am using the general English definition of 'state of being male or female.'" (Post 127)
When I say "there is not true third gender," I am using the word "gender" the way I have repeatedly said that I'm using the word "gender."
To use your words, there is no third sex. Women with androgen insensitivity syndrome are women. Men with Klinefelter's syndrome are men. Intersex people are in between but not some third type of thing. There is no third set of affirmative characteristics. As I said earlier, gender is the product of MANY physical realities, including genes, gene expression, body chemistry, anatomy, and brain anatomy. When I say "biology" I mean "biology" not "the subset of biology that deals with whether someone's chromosomes are XY or not."
In my reading about the hijra and two-spirit, I have not found these gender roles to be truly separate from he concept of maleness and femaleness. Rather, they are things in between, still defined in terms of male and female. There is again no third set of affirmative characteristics. The hijra describe themselves as "neither man nor woman" but they do not describe themselves as some third, unique thing. They do not show or list traits distinct from masculine and feminine.
"Masculine" is an adjective that means "male-like." These are not two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, society is built around the idea that there are two genders, male and female. Few societies have had explicit roles for people who are either intersex or otherwise not clearly male or female, and many of these roles have been imperfect in that they would only have been a close fit for a small subset of not-clearly-male-or-female individuals.
More...
When I say "there is not true third gender," I am using the word "gender" the way I have repeatedly said that I'm using the word "gender."
To use your words, there is no third sex. Women with androgen insensitivity syndrome are women. Men with Klinefelter's syndrome are men. Intersex people are in between but not some third type of thing. There is no third set of affirmative characteristics. As I said earlier, gender is the product of MANY physical realities, including genes, gene expression, body chemistry, anatomy, and brain anatomy. When I say "biology" I mean "biology" not "the subset of biology that deals with whether someone's chromosomes are XY or not."
In my reading about the hijra and two-spirit, I have not found these gender roles to be truly separate from he concept of maleness and femaleness. Rather, they are things in between, still defined in terms of male and female. There is again no third set of affirmative characteristics. The hijra describe themselves as "neither man nor woman" but they do not describe themselves as some third, unique thing. They do not show or list traits distinct from masculine and feminine.
"Masculine" is an adjective that means "male-like." These are not two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, society is built around the idea that there are two genders, male and female. Few societies have had explicit roles for people who are either intersex or otherwise not clearly male or female, and many of these roles have been imperfect in that they would only have been a close fit for a small subset of not-clearly-male-or-female individuals.
158
The author manages to do an amazing job of hitting every possible note of offensiveness that can be brought up in a discussion about gender and sexuality: demanding that every heterosexual person who does not change their gender be described as "cis," declaring gender an arbitrary an oppressive assignment (I believe that XX or XY chromosomes and the related genitals do a pretty good job of indicating gender in 95-99% of people), claiming a MALE conspiracy, implying sexual trauma, etc.
The irony of the situation is that the author is furious over the use of the word "trans" in describing a person's gender, but is oblivious to the fact that a lot of people find it offensive to be called "cis."
How about this: as a heterosexual male I will treat any transsexual person I encounter as the gender they wish to be identified as. If a person with XY chromosomes has gender reassignment surgery I will refer to them as a woman. The same goes for any person with an XX chromosome who wishes to be identified as a man. In return, I would like to be referred to as a man, a male, a straight male, or whatever is appropriate for the situation.
The irony of the situation is that the author is furious over the use of the word "trans" in describing a person's gender, but is oblivious to the fact that a lot of people find it offensive to be called "cis."
How about this: as a heterosexual male I will treat any transsexual person I encounter as the gender they wish to be identified as. If a person with XY chromosomes has gender reassignment surgery I will refer to them as a woman. The same goes for any person with an XX chromosome who wishes to be identified as a man. In return, I would like to be referred to as a man, a male, a straight male, or whatever is appropriate for the situation.
159
Ugh. It's like my gender studies coursework all over again: authors going out of their way to use as many words as possible to convey as little intelligible information as possible.
I'm a gay man. I date people who (1) identify as male, and (2) are into guys. I'm not causing "trauma" to anyone, am I?
Also, Alice Dreger (@3) might be my new favorite commenter: "I think what's being said is you can't fuck who you want to fuck, you have to fuck who this person says you can fuck. Fuck that."
I'm a gay man. I date people who (1) identify as male, and (2) are into guys. I'm not causing "trauma" to anyone, am I?
Also, Alice Dreger (@3) might be my new favorite commenter: "I think what's being said is you can't fuck who you want to fuck, you have to fuck who this person says you can fuck. Fuck that."
160
I've just read through the comments above and was shocked to see how much time I'd lost to the exercise.
I have to admit to a certain personal fascination to any prescriptive claims regarding sexual attraction. One of the most heated arguments I ever had came with a close friend (academic gender theorist, natch) who claimed that my "privileging" attractive women was sexist, anti-egalitarian, and generally just propping up patriarchy. That has always seemed like horseshit to me, mostly because I've always been attracted to exactly the same kind of woman, and if it's "socially constructed," it's pretty damn durable in the face of many powerful incentives to widen my field (e.g., getting laid more). And although I'm a sample of one, the way most other people talk about types and attraction leads me to believe that most people have a paradigm (or set of paradigms) of what they find attractive and that's how they are going to determine whom to pursue romantically or sexually, ceteris paribus. No amount of gender/queer/feminist browbeating is going to change that, although I'm wondering now if the reason that its mostly young women who are making these arguments because they are, comparatively, more flexible in this respect than men (just a hypothesis).
Sorry, that was a massive aside. My real point: According to studies I've found, somewhere between .02% and .005% of people are trans, yet we (and by we in this case I mean Dan) spend a *ridiculous* amount of time talking about/defending ourselves against claims of phobia against/working our way into verbal knots to avoid offending/ trans people. Should we be respectful of the gender people feel they are, rather than the sex they were born? Absolutely. Should we protect trans people from all forms of bigotry and transpobia? Of course. But do we need to be spending so goddamn much time talking about a relatively rare phenomenon? Take a look at this following quote from a recent journal article, and tell me you think spinning lots and lots of cycles considering whether prescriptive transgender attraction is really a good use of our time:
[In a study of women in the U.S.] most frequently reported concerns were lack of interest (87.2%), difficulty with orgasm (83.3%), inadequate lubrication (74.7%), dyspareunia (71.7%), body image concerns (68.5%), unmet sexual needs (67.2%), and needing information about sexual issues (63.4%). More than half reported concerns about physical or sexual abuse, and more than 40% reported sexual coercion at some point in their lives."
So, by my reckoning, and only purely utilitarian grounds, for every minute we spend talking about trans folks, we should probably spend 800 minutes talking about the fact that so many women have felt sexually coerced.
More...
I have to admit to a certain personal fascination to any prescriptive claims regarding sexual attraction. One of the most heated arguments I ever had came with a close friend (academic gender theorist, natch) who claimed that my "privileging" attractive women was sexist, anti-egalitarian, and generally just propping up patriarchy. That has always seemed like horseshit to me, mostly because I've always been attracted to exactly the same kind of woman, and if it's "socially constructed," it's pretty damn durable in the face of many powerful incentives to widen my field (e.g., getting laid more). And although I'm a sample of one, the way most other people talk about types and attraction leads me to believe that most people have a paradigm (or set of paradigms) of what they find attractive and that's how they are going to determine whom to pursue romantically or sexually, ceteris paribus. No amount of gender/queer/feminist browbeating is going to change that, although I'm wondering now if the reason that its mostly young women who are making these arguments because they are, comparatively, more flexible in this respect than men (just a hypothesis).
Sorry, that was a massive aside. My real point: According to studies I've found, somewhere between .02% and .005% of people are trans, yet we (and by we in this case I mean Dan) spend a *ridiculous* amount of time talking about/defending ourselves against claims of phobia against/working our way into verbal knots to avoid offending/ trans people. Should we be respectful of the gender people feel they are, rather than the sex they were born? Absolutely. Should we protect trans people from all forms of bigotry and transpobia? Of course. But do we need to be spending so goddamn much time talking about a relatively rare phenomenon? Take a look at this following quote from a recent journal article, and tell me you think spinning lots and lots of cycles considering whether prescriptive transgender attraction is really a good use of our time:
[In a study of women in the U.S.] most frequently reported concerns were lack of interest (87.2%), difficulty with orgasm (83.3%), inadequate lubrication (74.7%), dyspareunia (71.7%), body image concerns (68.5%), unmet sexual needs (67.2%), and needing information about sexual issues (63.4%). More than half reported concerns about physical or sexual abuse, and more than 40% reported sexual coercion at some point in their lives."
So, by my reckoning, and only purely utilitarian grounds, for every minute we spend talking about trans folks, we should probably spend 800 minutes talking about the fact that so many women have felt sexually coerced.
161
#157: you continue to conflate two separate things: the physical state of being male and female (i.e.: sex) and the culturally-defined attributes of femininity and masculinity (i.e.: gender).
So, when you say "I am using the general English definition of 'state of being male or female," and you argue that "there is no true third gender," it remains unclear exactly what you mean, no matter how much you protest that it doesn't.
Ok, so then you clarify by stating that there is no "third sex." It is your belief that people who have other than XX or XY chromosomal makeups and other than identifiably male or female external genitalia can nevertheless still be placed into one or the other category: they are, according to you, still either male or female, and if I understand your reasoning correctly, this is because "there is no third set of affirmative characteristics." Well, there are many who disagree with this analysis. Ditto for your understanding of hijra and two-spirit people.
"Masculine" does indeed mean "male-like," but I find it surprising that you don't seem to believe there is no cultural influence on what is considered to be "like a male" or "like a female." You only have to look at social expectations of masculinity and femininity around the world and throughout history to see how vastly they differ.
So, when you say "I am using the general English definition of 'state of being male or female," and you argue that "there is no true third gender," it remains unclear exactly what you mean, no matter how much you protest that it doesn't.
Ok, so then you clarify by stating that there is no "third sex." It is your belief that people who have other than XX or XY chromosomal makeups and other than identifiably male or female external genitalia can nevertheless still be placed into one or the other category: they are, according to you, still either male or female, and if I understand your reasoning correctly, this is because "there is no third set of affirmative characteristics." Well, there are many who disagree with this analysis. Ditto for your understanding of hijra and two-spirit people.
"Masculine" does indeed mean "male-like," but I find it surprising that you don't seem to believe there is no cultural influence on what is considered to be "like a male" or "like a female." You only have to look at social expectations of masculinity and femininity around the world and throughout history to see how vastly they differ.
162
No I'm not conflating them. I am using "gender" to mean "state of being male or female," as I have said repeatedly, and "gender role" to refer to society's reaction to maleness and femaleness.
Please be fair here. When I said I was using the standard-English definition of "gender," I did provide links to dictionary.com and quoted the exact dictionary definition. In common English, "gender" is synonymous with "sex." I am not making this up. I am not using the word wrong. I am just not using the definition that you personally prefer.
When I say there's no true third gender, I mean there is male and female and there are people who don't quite fit into male and female, but there's not third category into which they do fit. Say that maleness is a house and femaleness is a house next door. There are people inside and a few people outside and a couple of people hovering in doorways, but there's no third house.
What third set of affirmative characteristics do you believe that hijra have?
I didn't say there was no cultural concept of what is and isn't masculine. In post 127, I said "The idea that women wear skirts and men do not (arbitrary), that women wear makeup and men do not (based on men's biological predisposition to respond more than women do to visual stimuli), and that men are more likely to be accepted as soldiers (based on men's more pronounced upper body strength) are reactions to that reality" (the physical reality that human beings come in two genders). I used the skirt example because it is not cross-cultural. A great deal of what people think of as gender role is influenced to some extent by biological processes, sometimes very subtly, but there are a few things that aren't (or haven't yet been connected to a biological process). Generally, if something's cross-cultural, then it probably has some biological or practical basis.
More...
Please be fair here. When I said I was using the standard-English definition of "gender," I did provide links to dictionary.com and quoted the exact dictionary definition. In common English, "gender" is synonymous with "sex." I am not making this up. I am not using the word wrong. I am just not using the definition that you personally prefer.
When I say there's no true third gender, I mean there is male and female and there are people who don't quite fit into male and female, but there's not third category into which they do fit. Say that maleness is a house and femaleness is a house next door. There are people inside and a few people outside and a couple of people hovering in doorways, but there's no third house.
What third set of affirmative characteristics do you believe that hijra have?
I didn't say there was no cultural concept of what is and isn't masculine. In post 127, I said "The idea that women wear skirts and men do not (arbitrary), that women wear makeup and men do not (based on men's biological predisposition to respond more than women do to visual stimuli), and that men are more likely to be accepted as soldiers (based on men's more pronounced upper body strength) are reactions to that reality" (the physical reality that human beings come in two genders). I used the skirt example because it is not cross-cultural. A great deal of what people think of as gender role is influenced to some extent by biological processes, sometimes very subtly, but there are a few things that aren't (or haven't yet been connected to a biological process). Generally, if something's cross-cultural, then it probably has some biological or practical basis.
163
Your house analogy is fine, but take the examples of hijra and fa'afafine (because two-spirit is more widely defined) provide good examples of third gender and some would argue third sex as well. Hijra are generally female-gendered, male-bodied individuals who dress as but don't attempt to pass as women, and fill a social role that is neither masculine nor feminine, i.e.: it exists outside the male-female gender binary. In terms of their sex, some remain male-bodied, some remove the male genitalia, and a small minority are intersex. In contrast, fa'afafine are also male-bodied, and some wear women's clothing, but their gender expression can range from stereotypically feminine to stereotypically masculine, and while they typically have sex only with men, the men they sleep with are straight male-identified men, not other fa'fafine. Fa'fafine are sort of "in between," but I don't think it would be accurate to say they're feminine men, gay men, or male-bodied women.
Similarly, regarding intersex people, purely in terms of sex it's often difficult to tell, and there are objective characteristics (that is, characteristic forms of intersexuality), or alternative categories into which some people can be placed. Also, while some intersex people identify as either male or female, others don't; what is to be done with those people?
I agree that some aspects of gender are influenced by biology, but I don't agree with some of your examples (eg: soldiers).
Similarly, regarding intersex people, purely in terms of sex it's often difficult to tell, and there are objective characteristics (that is, characteristic forms of intersexuality), or alternative categories into which some people can be placed. Also, while some intersex people identify as either male or female, others don't; what is to be done with those people?
I agree that some aspects of gender are influenced by biology, but I don't agree with some of your examples (eg: soldiers).
164
They dress as women but not as some third thing. For social roles, I'll concede you can make the case. It's just not a case that I find convincing. You're still talking about male things and female things and in-between things. Male bodies. Female clothing. Where is the third in all this?
It's as if you're trying to say, "There are some people who aren't racially black or white; they're of mixed ancestry in between," and I'm saying, "Yes there are, but that doesn't make them Asians."
It's as if you're trying to say, "There are some people who aren't racially black or white; they're of mixed ancestry in between," and I'm saying, "Yes there are, but that doesn't make them Asians."
165
God the stupid, it burns. How have you bee reading DS for any amount of time and be confused by cis/trans? Also how is this confusing?
166
This is the kind of topic that makes me wish we could respond directly to other people's comments under their comments, in threaded style. It'd make it easier to keep track of who is discussing what with whom, for one thing.
For anyone who's read this far down and not figured out what "cis" means, here's a definition from the Urban Dictionary:
"Short for 'cisgender' (opposite of 'transgender'), used to describe someone whose gender identity matches their anatomical gender at birth."
-- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
It has a good entry for "cisgendered," too:
The opposite of transgendered, someone who is cisgendered has a gender identity that agrees with their societally recognized sex.
Many transgender people prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words. Using the term "biological female" or "genetic female" to describe cisgendered individuals excludes transgendered men, who also fit that description. To call a cisgendered woman a "real woman" is exclusive of transwomen, who are considered within their communities to be "real" women, also.
-- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
For anyone who's read this far down and not figured out what "cis" means, here's a definition from the Urban Dictionary:
"Short for 'cisgender' (opposite of 'transgender'), used to describe someone whose gender identity matches their anatomical gender at birth."
-- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
It has a good entry for "cisgendered," too:
The opposite of transgendered, someone who is cisgendered has a gender identity that agrees with their societally recognized sex.
Many transgender people prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words. Using the term "biological female" or "genetic female" to describe cisgendered individuals excludes transgendered men, who also fit that description. To call a cisgendered woman a "real woman" is exclusive of transwomen, who are considered within their communities to be "real" women, also.
-- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
167
Well, I suppose if you're a lesbian who dates trans men, you're kind of confused. I get that you should be attracted to who you are attracted to. But if you're a lesbian who dates a trans man, then you think you're in a lesbian relationship, when the man you're dating thinks you're in a straight relationship. That disconnect can't be that good, eh? It's like "I'm dating you because you're actually a woman, even though you claim you are a man."
It took me awhile, but I get it. Who you WANT to fuck has little to do with who is willing to fuck YOU.
I think that goes both ways, guys. Because that whole "cotton ceiling" thing makes me hella uncomfortable. My rejection of a person's advances is NOT the kind of discrimination that some think it is.
It took me awhile, but I get it. Who you WANT to fuck has little to do with who is willing to fuck YOU.
I think that goes both ways, guys. Because that whole "cotton ceiling" thing makes me hella uncomfortable. My rejection of a person's advances is NOT the kind of discrimination that some think it is.
169
@166 "transwomen, who are considered within their communities to be 'real' women, also."
This is the problem.
Transwomen are women. They aren't ciswomen, and they can never be ciswomen.
But post-transition they are clearly women, and even pre-transition, many or most are actually girls or women, they just haven't been able to provide the external evidence that the rest of us feel entitled to demand.
This is the problem.
Transwomen are women. They aren't ciswomen, and they can never be ciswomen.
But post-transition they are clearly women, and even pre-transition, many or most are actually girls or women, they just haven't been able to provide the external evidence that the rest of us feel entitled to demand.
170
@166 Also this:
>> Many transgender people prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words.>>
I would rephrase like this: Many people educated about transgender issues prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words.
>> Many transgender people prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words.>>
I would rephrase like this: Many people educated about transgender issues prefer "cisgender" to "biological", "genetic", or "real" male or female because of the implications of those words.
171
Yes and the term "biological" is often misused with respect to gender. It is possible for a person to have XY chromosomes and female body anatomy and identity (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). This person has one biological trait that says "male" and several others (breasts, vagina, self-concept) that say "female." To use biological terms with respect to gender, we have to subdivide them into "chromosomal," "chemical," "anatomic," "brain anatomic," etc.
I once had an anthro professor who kept saying "Do you mean biologically?" when I said "Chromosomally." I finally said. "Biology's big. If you say biology, you might be talking about fish."
I once had an anthro professor who kept saying "Do you mean biologically?" when I said "Chromosomally." I finally said. "Biology's big. If you say biology, you might be talking about fish."
172
The demand for anyone to self evaluate for defining sexual boundaries parallels shame tactics in use for ages. Welcome to the 3rd millennium where our new and improved misogyny now comes in "womanface". The author has balls (biology exists) to scold women on sexual autonomy. Physical sovereignty is a basic tenet of feminism. THIS from a "feminist" site.
WTFRU to deem lesbians sexual trauma victims for loving other women. I am a heterosexual woman and my lesbian sister's sexuality is just as valid as mine.The author is a giant dick by insinuating lesbians are somehow defective. No discernible difference from the 'bitch just needs a good fucking' line of thinking. Is the follow up post a how to on corrective rape to eradicate lesbian "transphobia"? Hipster homophobia at its finest.
WTFRU to deem lesbians sexual trauma victims for loving other women. I am a heterosexual woman and my lesbian sister's sexuality is just as valid as mine.The author is a giant dick by insinuating lesbians are somehow defective. No discernible difference from the 'bitch just needs a good fucking' line of thinking. Is the follow up post a how to on corrective rape to eradicate lesbian "transphobia"? Hipster homophobia at its finest.
177
@tiredofthisshit I really don't know how else to take the article. The line "I just don’t think it’s OK to process your sexual trauma in a delegitimizing way through the bodies of folks who’ve often faced tons of trauma at the intersection of gender and sexuality." really says it all. It's especially disgusting when you compare this to the kind of defenses they make of the phrase "Die Cis Scum"- survivors don't have the right to avoid penis because it offends a twanz, but all twanz retain the right to make threats of death without regard to who is offended. Got it!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
Texas Governor Rick Perry Calls for Legal Discrimination Against Atheists by Goldy
-
Dear Elliott Bay Books: Please Be Open the Hours You're Open by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Who the Fuck Puts Blinders on a Building? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
The U.S. Will Send Arms to Syrian Rebels by Eli Sanders
-
Jeb Bush: We Need Immigrants Because They're "More Fertile" by Paul Constant
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (177) RSS