I’m glad at least to see that the quotes aren’t that offensive to their targets, lol. I agree that it’s nothing like the violent transmisogyny we experience, to me I guess it’s about yet more divisive shit in the trans community, and also maybe that anger could be directed at dogshit cis people who commit the vast majority of that violent transmisogyny, instead of our comrades? It seems kind of bastardy to be bitterly invalidating people’s genders instead? Down with cis? Just spitballing, Idk. I don’t disagree with your comment overall, I appreciate the alternate view actually. Doesn’t invalidate my experience :)
Man I still gotta read Whipping Girl, look at me being a genderlib and not reading theory!
These last two comments reminded me about a specific part of Whipping Girl that I think can elaborate a bit on the kind of thinking that informed Imogen Binnie and possibly led to these views.
In the last chapter of Whipping Girl, Serano touches on the topic of subversivism within the feminist movements of the time (90s to the early 10’s).
There’s quite a bit more than what I’ve put below, but I remember feeling conflicted when I first finished this chapter. Obviously today definitions have changed and the idea of political lesbians and genderqueer identities has shifted. I wanted to understand more after finishing the book in regards to this topic but the trans spaces I looked in were severely lacking in even basic transmisogyny discussion, so I had no hope of finding more on it.
Passages attached
The practice of subversivism also negatively impacts trans people on the
MTF spectrum. After all, in our culture, the meanings of “bold,” “rebellious,”
and “dangerous”—adjectives that often come to mind when considering
subversiveness—are practically built into our understanding of masculinity. In
contrast, femininity conjures up antonyms like “timid,” “conventional,” and
“safe,” which seem entirely incompatible with subversion. Therefore, despite
the fact that the mainstream public tends to be more concerned and disturbed
by MTF spectrum trans people than their FTM spectrum counterparts,
subversivism creates the impression that trans masculinities are inherently
“subversive” and “transgressive,” while their trans feminine counterparts are
“lame” and “conservative” in comparison. Subversivism’s privileging of trans
masculinities over trans femininities helps to explain why cissexual queer
women and FTM spectrum folks tend to dominate the queer/trans community:
Their exceptional gender expressions and identities are routinely empowered
and encouraged in such settings. In contrast, there is generally a dearth of MTF
spectrum folks who regularly inhabit queer/trans spaces.
To me, the most surreal part of this whole transgressingversus-reinforcing-
gender-norms dialogue in the queer/trans community (and in many gender
studies classrooms and books) is the unacknowledged hypocrisy of it all. It is
sadly ironic that people who claim to be gender-fucking in the name of
“shattering the gender binary,” and who criticize people whose identities fail
to adequately challenge our societal notions of femaleness and maleness,
cannot see that they have just created a new gender binary, one in which
subversive genders are “good” and conservative genders are “bad.” In a sense,
this new gender binary isn’t even all that new. It is merely the original
oppositional sexist binary flipped upside down. So now, gender-
nonconforming folks are on top and gender-normative people are on the bottom
—how revolutionary! Now, I understand the temptation for a marginalized
group to turn the hierarchy that has oppressed them upside down, as it can feel
very empowering to finally be atop the pecking order, but it’s absurd to claim
that such approaches in any way undermine that binary. If anything, they only
serve to reinforce it further.
I believe that if the transgender movement had simply continued to view
itself as an alliance of disparate groups working toward a shared goal (like
making the world safer for gender-variant folks), it may have avoided such
exclusivity while respecting the distinct differences and specific concerns of
its various constituents. Instead, by promoting the idea that we must move
beyond the supposedly outdated concept of “identity,” the transgender
movement has created its own sense of “oneness.” Rather than viewing
ourselves as a fragile political coalition of distinct subgroups, some activists
instead encourage us to see ourselves as one big homogeneous group of
individuals who blur gender boundaries. Rather than learning to respect the
very different perspectives and experiences that each transgender subgroup
brings to the table, the transgender community has instead become a sort of
gender free-for-all, where identities are regularly co-opted by others within
the community. These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right
to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people;
similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same
for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles,
and perspectives.
This sort of “gender anarchy”—where individuals are free to adopt or
appropriate any identity as they please—might seem very limitless and freeing
on the surface, but in practice it resembles gender-libertarianism, where those
who are most marginalized become even more vulnerable to the whims of
those who are more established. In this case, it leaves those of us who are
cross-gender-identified susceptible to negation at the hands of the greater
cissexual queer community. Indeed, it has become increasingly common for
people who are primarily queer because of their sexual orientation to claim a
space for themselves within the transgender movement.7 This is particularly
true in the queer women’s community, which has become increasingly involved
in transgender politics and discourses due to the recent sharp increase in the
number of (1) previously lesbian-identified people transitioning to male, (2)
dykes who now take on genderqueer or other FTM spectrum identities, and (3)
non-trans queer women who seek a voice in the transgender community
because they are partnered to FTM spectrum individuals.
Because of our history, the fact that cissexual queers now dominate
transgender and queer/trans communities and discourses is highly problematic
for those of us who are transs*xual.
Oooooh look at this ✨ holy shit it’s incredible… You know…
subversivism creates the impression that trans masculinities are inherently “subversive” and “transgressive,” while their trans feminine counterparts are “lame” and “conservative” in comparison.
Now I think about it, Kieran and Maria kind of play this silly dichotomy out exactly, that must be intentional I suppose. But yes, I can see the whole-ass roots of Nevada’s weirdo takes right here, I feel like I put on the shades from They Live this is fuckin awesome. Take a shot every time bad actors in the trans community recreate a gender binary. I know what “oppositional sexism” is! Kinda scuffed, again, claiming that non-binary gender identities are “on top”, like even just today I’ve watched a nonbinary person get conversationally trodden upon by binary trans women, what horseshit.
I do actually find it kind of fascinating that Serano takes it back to queer unity though, that’s very interesting. But uh
These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people; similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles, and perspectives.
What does this mean, lol. Please do not tell me that cissies have been stealing our language behind my back??? I beg of you… “Gender libertarianism” is fucking hilarious though. But this whole thing is fascinating, dang. I have been enlightened, and it turns out the solution was just to read theory all along!!! It almost reads like Maria misread Whipping Girl now, lol
These days, many transs*xuals assume that they have the right to appropriate the language of, or speak on behalf of, intersex people; similarly, many cissexual genderqueers feel they have the right to do the same for transs*xuals. This needlessly erases each group’s unique issues, obstacles, and perspectives.
So this is one of those parts that Serano intentionally left unchanged in later editions and Whipping Girl’s age becomes apparent again. Serano herself, and from what I gather- queer activism of the time, made the distinction between Transgender and MTF identities (MTF being anyone born male that displays exceptional feminine traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise. Transgender being anybody who displays exceptional cross-gender traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise) and Transs*xuals. (Essentially what we acknowledge today as transgender, meaning someone who identifies with a gender that’s incongruent with their assigned gender.)
I’ll attach a passage at the end where she goes into it a bit as well.
In this passage Serano is saying that cissexual genderqueers (meaning cissexuals who identify as genderqueer due to politics or potentially people who do not feel within the gender binary but also do not identify with transs*xuals.) had a tendency to speak for trans individuals while not entirely being affected by the same societal systems and pressures.
I feel like I explained it badly but the messiness is a product of the age of the text I think.
Now that we understand “sex” and “gender,” we can begin to consider the
word transgender, which is perhaps one of the most confusing and
misunderstood words in the English language. While the word originally had a
more narrow definition, since the 1990s it has been used primarily as an
umbrella term to describe those who defy societal expectations and
assumptions regarding femaleness and maleness; this includes people who are
transs*xual (those who live as members of the sex other than the one they were
assigned at birth), intersex (those who are born with a reproductive or sexual
anatomy that does not fit the typical definitions of female or male), and
genderqueer (those who identity outside of the male/female binary), as well as
those whose gender expression differs from their anatomical or perceived sex
(including crossdressers, drag performers, masculine women, feminine men,
and so on). I will also sometimes use the synonymous term gender-variant to
describe all people who are considered by others to deviate from societal
norms of femaleness and maleness.
The far-reaching inclusiveness of the word “transgender” was purposely
designed to accommodate the many gender and sexual minorities who were
excluded from the previous feminist and gay rights movements. At the same
time, its broadness can be highly problematic in that it often blurs or erases the
distinctiveness of its constituents. For example, while male crossdressers and
transs*xual men are both male-identified transgender people, these groups face
a very different set of issues with regards to managing their gender difference.
Similarly, drag queens and transs*xual women generally have very different
experiences and perspectives regarding gender, despite the fact that they are
often confused with one another by mainstream society.
…okay that’s really strange, huh. That’s not a definition I’ve ever heard of in my life and it doesn’t make any sense to me, not a word of it. So needlessly complicated and weird, thank fuck I was not on trans internet in 2007 because wtf.
I see, are there really “political genderqueers”? Huh, now I don’t understand anything anymore
Is… the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this? A crisis, I wonder if I read Gender Outlaw wrong by not having this bizarro definition of “transgender” in mind. Maybe I am a lib.
I imagine that there were at the time in the same way there were political lesbians. Their existence would connect back with subversivism and the desire to ‘break the gender binary’.
Is… the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this?
Unfortunately it’s definitely spread throughout the book, but Serano does well to front-load the definitions. She goes into it a bit in the 2nd editions preface.
While the major themes that I forward in Whipping Girl remain just as vital and relevant today as they were when I was first writing the book, some of the specific descriptions and details will surely seem increasingly dated as time marches on. So in this preface to the second edition, I want to place the book in historical context, as it most certainly was a reaction to what was happening in society, and within activist and academic circles, during the early-to-mid aughts (or “the zeros,” as I prefer to call the first decade of this millennium). While a decade is not a huge amount of time in the grand scheme of things, it certainly feels like a lifetime ago when it comes to public understandings and discussions about transgender people.
There’s actually a third edition now! It just came out last month and she included an extended afterword where she goes into the “basic biology” argument as well as the topic of “trans grooming.”
lfg!!!
Hi, I welcome any thoughts on this subject!
I’m glad at least to see that the quotes aren’t that offensive to their targets, lol. I agree that it’s nothing like the violent transmisogyny we experience, to me I guess it’s about yet more divisive shit in the trans community, and also maybe that anger could be directed at dogshit cis people who commit the vast majority of that violent transmisogyny, instead of our comrades? It seems kind of bastardy to be bitterly invalidating people’s genders instead? Down with cis? Just spitballing, Idk. I don’t disagree with your comment overall, I appreciate the alternate view actually. Doesn’t invalidate my experience :)
Man I still gotta read Whipping Girl, look at me being a genderlib and not reading theory!
more book more book
Oh! I just remembered!
These last two comments reminded me about a specific part of Whipping Girl that I think can elaborate a bit on the kind of thinking that informed Imogen Binnie and possibly led to these views.
In the last chapter of Whipping Girl, Serano touches on the topic of subversivism within the feminist movements of the time (90s to the early 10’s).
There’s quite a bit more than what I’ve put below, but I remember feeling conflicted when I first finished this chapter. Obviously today definitions have changed and the idea of political lesbians and genderqueer identities has shifted. I wanted to understand more after finishing the book in regards to this topic but the trans spaces I looked in were severely lacking in even basic transmisogyny discussion, so I had no hope of finding more on it.
Passages attached
Unending bookposting!
Oooooh look at this ✨ holy shit it’s incredible… You know…
Now I think about it, Kieran and Maria kind of play this silly dichotomy out exactly, that must be intentional I suppose. But yes, I can see the whole-ass roots of Nevada’s weirdo takes right here, I feel like I put on the shades from They Live this is fuckin awesome. Take a shot every time bad actors in the trans community recreate a gender binary. I know what “oppositional sexism” is! Kinda scuffed, again, claiming that non-binary gender identities are “on top”, like even just today I’ve watched a nonbinary person get conversationally trodden upon by binary trans women, what horseshit.
I do actually find it kind of fascinating that Serano takes it back to queer unity though, that’s very interesting. But uh
What does this mean, lol. Please do not tell me that cissies have been stealing our language behind my back??? I beg of you… “Gender libertarianism” is fucking hilarious though. But this whole thing is fascinating, dang. I have been enlightened, and it turns out the solution was just to read theory all along!!! It almost reads like Maria misread Whipping Girl now, lol
no gender-libs
So this is one of those parts that Serano intentionally left unchanged in later editions and Whipping Girl’s age becomes apparent again. Serano herself, and from what I gather- queer activism of the time, made the distinction between Transgender and MTF identities (MTF being anyone born male that displays exceptional feminine traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise. Transgender being anybody who displays exceptional cross-gender traits, qualities, or behaviors but can identify as their assigned gender or otherwise) and Transs*xuals. (Essentially what we acknowledge today as transgender, meaning someone who identifies with a gender that’s incongruent with their assigned gender.)
I’ll attach a passage at the end where she goes into it a bit as well.
In this passage Serano is saying that cissexual genderqueers (meaning cissexuals who identify as genderqueer due to politics or potentially people who do not feel within the gender binary but also do not identify with transs*xuals.) had a tendency to speak for trans individuals while not entirely being affected by the same societal systems and pressures.
I feel like I explained it badly but the messiness is a product of the age of the text I think.
also i’ll just attach a link to the book to make it easier to look up if you need to.
passage
haha...
…okay that’s really strange, huh. That’s not a definition I’ve ever heard of in my life and it doesn’t make any sense to me, not a word of it. So needlessly complicated and weird, thank fuck I was not on trans internet in 2007 because wtf.
I see, are there really “political genderqueers”? Huh, now I don’t understand anything anymore
Is… the entire book steeped in ridiculous crusty terminology like this? A crisis, I wonder if I read Gender Outlaw wrong by not having this bizarro definition of “transgender” in mind. Maybe I am a lib.
spoiler
I imagine that there were at the time in the same way there were political lesbians. Their existence would connect back with subversivism and the desire to ‘break the gender binary’.
Unfortunately it’s definitely spread throughout the book, but Serano does well to front-load the definitions. She goes into it a bit in the 2nd editions preface.
http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2016/04/excerpt-from-whipping-girl-second.html
spoiler
I’ll make sure to snag the second edition then, huh… these weirdo definitions are all new to me.
spoiler
There’s actually a third edition now! It just came out last month and she included an extended afterword where she goes into the “basic biology” argument as well as the topic of “trans grooming.”
spoiler
Oh awesome, very nice, an update for new kinds of suck!