Submitted by fortmis in Feminism

I imagine there will be some obvious answers to this question as well as maybe less obvious ones. I'm curious to hear it all. I keep coming across terf-y articles, and as uncomfortable as it is, I'm trying to see what is missing in the debate -- where the nuances are. I have some thoughts percolating... need more reflection / discussion, though.

2

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tuesday wrote

For me, personally? Probably never. I'm not a doctor or a health care professional. It isn't my job or responsibility to tell people if someone is or is not trans. I don't even confirm other people's transness when asked unless I've been given explicit permission to do so and I try to make sure that I ask.

If I were a trans woman I imagine there are healthcare reasons that I'd want to disclose my transness to my healthcare professionals. Absent transphobia there wouldn't even be a necessity to disclose for safety reasons or to potential sexual partners. Since transphobia exists though I can understand that some situations call for disclosure to ensure safety. It might also be relevant in terms of community building. If I am going to a meeting for trans women, being able to be genuine in that identity would be important.

10

Tequila_Wolf wrote

There are different ways of relating to how the other people will perceive her, which can require a different kind of situational awareness. Depending on context cis and trans women can have different circumstances in which they are in danger, for example. I'm also more conscientious of my gendered language around other trans folks because I care less about getting it right for cis people and am aware of the relative sensitivity many of us have to it. Otherwise I'm not particularly even treating them as women so much as people on their own individual terms. Being a woman doesn't have any meaning beyond what gets made of it so anybody can just be understood in their own individual terms and in relation to what their gender is.

7

fortmis OP wrote

Otherwise I'm not particularly even treating them as women so much as people on their own individual terms. Being a woman doesn't have any meaning beyond what gets made of it so anybody can just be understood in their own individual terms and in relation to what their gender is.

Yeeeeeeeeeee

3

fortmis OP wrote (edited )

Yaaa, I think a lot of trouble starts at this need to have a universal term for anything really.
...as supposed to allowing for the nuance of each individual's experiences to be part of creating their own identity

2

a_z0_9 wrote

there is no really room for nuance in terms of identity because of hounds like you

−1

a_z0_9 wrote

you only begin wanting to "allow nuance" when you want to misgender us

−1

kin wrote

Maybe is out of scope here but in my own irl circle and at online discussion I see that many times AFAB discourse and rhetoric is invisibilized and many times dismissed and I wonder if this relates to a subtle misogyny and terfism that still permeates queer

But could be totally my personal experience here..

3

fortmis OP wrote

AFAB discourse ... terfism

Makes sense in relation to misogyny, but how does terfism contribute to the invisibility of AFAB voices? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

Maybe if you elaborate a bit, it'll make more sense to me?

1

kin wrote

Maybe it's a stretch in my own reasoning, bc like you said it's kind of counterintuitive, but I found it in irl discourses and in the internet also. Maybe they are very attached to gender essentialism.

Now I ask you, how many times a trans positive message or discourse (graffiti, workshops, praxis) include explicitly AFAb that doesn't identify as woman? Very little from my experience. Maybe I am trying to find divide where it isn't, never saw anyone complain about it but knowing how the dynamics in queer circles are usually very intricate I wouldn't be surprised.

But sorry I am feeling that this is derailing the topic from your initial question

2

fortmis OP wrote

Honestly still a little confused about what you're saying, so sorry. But from what I can parse, I'm also interested in the presence of AFABs who don't identify with mainstream femininity. An easy example is the presence (or lack there of) of drag kings in queer communities.
When it comes to terfs, the hostility is usually towards AMABs as far as I understand. I haven't seen any terf content that attacks AFABs who identify outside of mainstream femininity. \

I think there's an interesting sticky point between accepting trans women as women, point blank, and then on the other hand allowing their backstory, their experience being treated as a man, their journey through transitioning, etc, to play a role in their identity today. I know it's important when it comes to honouring the struggle to transition and the struggle for acceptance, and I also believe it's important when it comes to being able to address any underlying misogyny that might still be lingering as a result of a trans woman's experiences existing in the world as a "man."

3

kin wrote

Maybe I am not making sense or y words were poor written, but I don't want to revise it now. My comment was more to put it out loud some feelings I have about a tangent question to your post.

I wasn't so much targeting terfs, maybe the idea of gender essentialism. But this is something that I never had much interest before or have explored besides the usual and vague queerness.

My intent was never to question experiences or to put one against other, sorry if I did. I hate to fuel oppression olympics or any other form of hierarchy in oppressions suffered by anyone.

2

Majrelende wrote (edited )

Why not just trans people and their cis counterparts?

Here is my answer, though I don't think any of it is particularly original or elucidating:

In questions of the menstrual cycle and of pregnancy, impregnation, occasionally sexual matters. Also, in medicine--the taking of certain hormones, for instance.

There may also be elements of trans people being variably more or less susceptible to height discrimination in certain contexts than cis people of their gender.

Aside from that, there is transphobia.

3

AnnaV wrote

Medical. More in the beginning, less as the years go by if you are on HRT. That's realistically it. I don't see the need to differentiate between them anywhere else, for any actual reason, that isn't "but trans bad."

3

fortmis OP wrote

Some more thoughts: I think it's obvious that the distinction is not as important as the world seems to think it is, but I'm asking specifically whether people think there are any circumstances where the distinction might be useful -- for example, advocating for trans rights (or in lieu of "rights," advocating for their inclusion and due respect) requires a certain degree of distinction by definition.

1