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.”
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!