Life, Law, Gender

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

It's been a long time since I wrote a blog post.  And, I guess if I'm honest here, I'm not writing one now.  I don't know when, or if, I'll ever blog regularly again.  But, that's not the point of this post. 

I came across this article nearly a week ago.  But, I've been crazy busy with work and only just now found time to read it.  It's quite long, and it takes a fair amount of critical thinking to get through it.  But, it's really worth it.  I don't agree with everything she says here.  But, her main points are essential, in my view.  Take some time and read this.  It really is more than just a re-hashing of this decade-long debate.

According to this view, trans women lie at the intersection of (at least) two types of sexism. The first is cissexism, which is the societal-wide tendency to view transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments as being less legitimate than those of cissexuals -- that is, nontranssexuals. (Note: the word "cisgender" is similarly used as a synonym for nontransgender.) Cissexism functions in a manner analogous to heterosexism: Transsexual gender identities and homosexual/bisexual orientations are both typically viewed as being inherently questionable, unnatural, morally suspect, and less socially and legally valid than their cissexual and heterosexual counterparts. Not only does cissexism institutionally marginalize transsexual individuals, but it privileges cissexuals, rendering their genders and sexed bodies as unquestionable, unmarked and taken for granted (similar to how heterosexual attraction and relationships are privileged in our culture).

While all transsexuals face cissexism, trans women experience this form of sexism as being especially exacerbated by traditional sexism. For example, trans women are routinely hyper-sexualized in our society, especially in the media, where we are regularly depicted as fetishists, sexual deceivers, sex workers and/or in a sexually provocative fashion (trans men, in contrast, are not typically depicted in this way). The common presumption that trans women transition to female for sexual reasons seems to be based on the premise that women as a whole have no worth beyond their ability to be sexualized. Furthermore, most of the societal consternation, ridicule and violence directed at trans people focuses on individuals on the trans feminine spectrum -- often specifically targeting our desire to be female or our feminine presentation. While trans men experience cissexism, their desire to be male/masculine is typically not mocked or derided in the same way -- to do so would bring maleness/masculinity itself into question. Thus, those of us on the trans feminine spectrum don't merely experience cissexism or "transphobia" so much as we experience trans-misogyny.

...

Given the violence and extreme poverty that afflicts many trans people, some have suggested that the MWMF trans woman-exclusion issue has received an undeserved amount of activist attention. And the fact that tickets to this weeklong festival cost several hundred dollars -- a luxury many trans folks cannot afford -- is often cited by those who view MWMF's policy as primarily a middle-class trans issue. While MWMF is not the most pressing trans-related issue out there, such critiques miss the larger picture. This is not about the desire to simply attend one music festival. Rather, for lesbian and bisexual trans women, this is about us being able to participate in our own queer women's community -- a community in which we face anywhere from antagonism to irrelevancy on a regular basis.

**********************************************************************

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

By Julia Serano, AlterNet. Posted August 5, 2008.

"The grudging admiration felt for the tomboy and the queasiness felt around a sissy boy point to the same thing: the contempt in which women -- or those who play the female role -- are held."

In 1991, Nancy Jean Burkholder was expelled from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (MWMF), the world's largest annual women-only event, because festival workers suspected that she was a trans woman -- that is, someone who was assigned a male sex at birth but who identifies and lives as female. That incident sparked protests from a burgeoning transgender movement to challenge what eventually came to be known as the festival's "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, which effectively bars trans women from attending. The protests evolved into Camp Trans, which continues to take place just down the road from MWMF each year, and which has become a focal point for a much broader push for trans-inclusion within feminist and queer communities. Despite more than 15 years of petitioning, and a growing acceptance of trans identities in both mainstream society and within queer, feminist and other progressive circles, the festival still officially maintains its "womyn-born-womyn"-only policy, and countless other lesbian- and queer-woman-focused groups and events continue to harbor dismissive, if not outright disdainful, attitudes toward trans women.

The history of the MWMF trans woman-exclusion debate has been retold countless times -- often in an overly simplistic, cut-and-dry manner. The controversy is usually depicted in one of two ways: either pitting the supposedly out-of-touch, transphobic lesbian-separatists who run the festival against a more politically progressive transgender minority, or portraying transgender activists as bullies who selfishly seek to undermine one of the few remaining vestiges of women-only space with their supposedly masculine bodies and energies. In addition to being obvious caricatures, these sorts of us-versus-them portrayals obscure one of the most important aspects of the story: the fact that there are actually three "sides" to this debate, each driven by a different take on feminism.

Rather than rehash the history or delve into all of the details about the festival and the controversy, I will attempt to describe these three differing feminist perspectives and discuss how they have played out with regard to the issue of trans woman-exclusion at MWMF, as well as in lesbian/queer women's communities more generally.

For those unfamiliar with the subject, I will start by defining some of the trans-specific language that I will be using. Transsexuals are individuals who identify and live as members of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth. A trans woman is someone who has socially, physically and/or legally transitioned from male to female, and a trans man is someone who has similarly transitioned from female to male. While the medical establishment (and the mainstream media) typically define "transsexual" in terms of the medical procedures that an individual might undergo (for example, hormones and surgeries), many trans people find such definitions to be objectifying (as they place undue focus on body parts rather than the person as a whole) and classist (as not all trans people can afford to physically transition). For these reasons, trans activists favor definitions based on self-identity, that is, whether one identifies and lives as a woman or man. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for all people who defy other people's expectations and assumptions regarding gender, and can be used to refer to transsexuals as well as people who are gender nonconforming in other ways -- for example, cross-dressers, drag performers, feminine men, masculine women, and genderqueers (who do not identify exclusively as either women or men), to name a few. Transgender people who defy gender norms in the male-to-female/feminine direction are said to be on the trans feminine spectrum; those who transgress gender norms in the female-to-male/masculine direction make up the trans masculine spectrum.

-- Radicalesbians (1970)

Obama for President!

Barack Obama sealed up the nomination tonight.  I am inspired by him and excited about the possiblity of seeing him in the White House.  Now, I just have to figure out how I can best support his candidacy and get him into the Presidency and keep Bush McCain out.

Oddly, I am also saddened today at the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign.  No matter how you slice it today is an historic day.  I would have been proud to support her for the Presidency.  I *am* proud to support Obama!

Let's win in November!

To think I'd let my daughters fly on this airline...

Spirit Airlines claims this ad was an innocent mistake.  I might (but probably not) believe them if they could identify the island chain by name and exact location.  By the way, I had to Google the term MILF to find out what it's slang for.  It's incredibly filthy and underscores - yet again - the debasement of women by some men in our culture. I won't even provide a link. Honestly, it saddens me beyond words.  Let's just say we shan't be flying Spirit Airlines again, no matter how low their fares.

h/t: Feminist Law Professors

See ABC news.

Rape and Silence

I wanted to post about Gender and the Pulpit, an inspiring article in Newsweek about transgender people of faith (and the first-ever National Transgender Religious Summit held at the Pacific School of Religion).  An excerpt from the story:

The transgender issue is so new that most religious denominations have not yet made policy statements about it. In 2003, the Roman Catholic Church announced that transsexuals suffer from “mental pathologies” and should be barred from religious orders and the Catholic priesthood. Often using Biblical language to make their point, conservative Christian groups have treated transsexuals and other people with ambiguous gender as having psychological defects that can be cured with psychotherapy. Swenson, not surprisingly, objects to this characterization. “To pick out small pieces of Scripture and use them in a hateful way is damaging to me and to the Scripture,” she explains. “God says to love one another; should anything else matter?”

Instead of focusing on that, however, I need to express my ongoing frustration with religion as expressed by many others.  Have you heard of the movie Hounddog?  I had not.  Not until this story broke.  Is it about child pornography?  Fanning is 12 years old.

Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of the Web site movieguide.org, claims "Hounddog" breaks federal child-pornography law. He said the law covers material that "appears" to show minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

"Even if they're not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here," he said.

Baehr said Fanning is being exploited in the film, and that it should be considered an outrage.

Or, is it about a genuine issue in our society, one that many (many!) little girls suffer through and needs to see the light of day?

Kampmeier [the director] said it took her a decade to get the film made, largely because of the rape scene, but cutting it was a compromise she was unwilling to make.

"This issue is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story," she said.

I haven't seen the movie, of course, but based on this article and my own instinct, I opt for the latter.  I don't believe that hiding the fact that many little girls are raped by the men in their lives is the way to stop it.

(As an aside, I watched the President and Sen. Webb's speeches last night.  I thought Webb did a decent job; I thought the President, though "somber" as the commentators noted, glossed over the real problems and differences facing our country right now -- and I thought he hinted that we might be taking on Iran next, which scares me to death.  How is he going to balance the budget without raising taxes and without cutting defense?  Hmmm?  Thank the voters we have a Democratic congress! Note that he did NOT mention "marriage" once last night - check this out.)

Blogging for Choice!

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I learned from Feministe that today is Blog for Choice day.  (As a complete non sequitur, do you know that I had to give a 5 minute impromptu speech on the 14th Amendment to a group of women and I referenced this case -- only 20% knew what the case was about)

On the subject of abortion, I have a limited amount to say - other than I believe in pro-choice (despite the fact that it's not really about choice unless you happen to not be a poor woman, or a woman of color, or both). If you haven't seen "The Last Abortion Clinic", I urge you to watch it.  Pro-choice is losing.  Roe does NOT have to be overturned for women to lose their rights; in fact, it might be argued that it is better for the anti-choice side if Roe stays in place and women just go on gullibly believing their rights are protected.

Having said that I don't have much to say, I will also say this: I believe that people who cannot get pregnant should stay the hell out of this debate.  If you can and you don't want an abortion -- please, see to it that no one can force you to have one. Reproductive freedom was won at the cost of many women's lives. If you can get pregnant and you do want/need an abortion -- please see to it that no one can force you to not have one.  OK, I'm bowing out now as I get that by my own rules, I'm not someone who should be in this debate.

For people who really have something to say, check out the site (scroll down for a list of bloggers participating):

Bush v. Choice (where you, too, can sign up!)

UPDATE: Posts from around the blogroll:

Feminist Law Professors -- offers a GREAT way to show you're pro-choice
Half the Sins of Mankind -- watch her brown hands blog
DeNovo -- State of Scalia the law
Irish Law -- ::sigh:: There *is* a different opinion and she has it
MuscleHead -- A former pro-lifer (and former law student)
Unblague -- Faced with co-workers going to a Pro-Life march
(en)Gender -- Dealing with the fact that people have sex - Priceless.
Women of Color -- Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide -- Read it!
Alas, A blog -- It's not all about the U.S.
BlogHer -- A tremendous link round-up and great quote excerpts
Carter's Little Pill -- I don't own much, but I do own my body.
Feministe -- A post in 5 parts, each great.
A Bird and A Bottle -- Blogging for reproductive justice
Magic Cookie -- I've always wondered if becoming pregnant and having a baby would change my views. It hasn't.

Just Deserts?

When I took Criminal Law, we learned about some of the theories of imprisonment and punishment.  We learned that retribution and deterrence (individual and societal) were two of the main justifications (it's more complicated than that, but I won't go into an analysis of Utilitarianism and Retributivism here).  I wrote back then about my reaction to rape as a crime as distinct from other crimes based, perhaps, upon my personal experience with it.

Recently, I've read a couple of stories about rape.  One, which I read first at Feminist Law Professors, frankly turned my stomach (I also note that Women's Space/The Margins and Feminist Nation also reported it).  It is a story about a man who kidnapped his wife, raped and tortured her to create a porn video (original story here).

ORLANDO - (AP) -- A man kidnapped his wife, raped and tortured her and then hung her from a tree to film a two-hour bondage porn video, authorities said Tuesday.

The 30-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault and battery, sexual battery, kidnapping and false imprisonment. He was being held in the Brevard County Jail Tuesday on a $3 million bond.

Do you know that there was a time -- very recently -- in this country when a man could not be convicted of rape if the victim was his spouse? Even now, the Model Penal Code says:

§ 213.1. Rape and Related Offenses.

  (1) Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if:

(a) he compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone; or

(b) he has substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by administering or employing without her knowledge drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; or

(c) the female is unconscious; or

(d) the female is less than 10 years old.

(emphasis added)

Thank the feminist movement for bringing about positive change in that particular absurdity, although we obviously have far to go.

Then, last night, I came across this story where a San Antonio police officer was just convicted of rape of a transsexual woman. I first blogged about this crime last June, and updated the story in July.

According to testimony, Gutierrez left his patrol area and forced Bernal into his squad car at Zarzamora and Laredo streets. Testimony established that Gutierrez took Bernal to a dark and secluded area, where Bernal said the officer orally and anally raped her, and struck her in the face with his hand and on the leg with his police baton.

Although this former police officer was sentenced to 24 years in prison (the minimum the judge could give under the sentencing guidelines) I disapprove of the punishment.

My first reaction was to say "YES! The bastard got what he deserved."  And, so, perhaps he has.  If so, is this "just deserts"?  Does this satisfy our need -- and the victim's need -- for retribution?  What about the deterrence aspect of punishment?  Surely, spending the next 24 years in prison will deter this criminal, but what about other potential rapists (and maybe even this won't deter him -- who's to say he won't rape again while in prison)?  The studies that I recall from my first year criminal law class suggest that imprisonment actually does a poor job of societal deterrence. 

Back in my earlier post, I suggested castration.  I still believe it's a better alternative.  Maybe we could offer the convicted a choice: 10 years in prison plus castration, or life in prison.  Of course, I suspect that -- as long as we have 8 men and only 1 woman deciding what is cruel and unusual -- such a plan would be struck down as unconstitutional (note that I think it might also be stricken as unconstitutional on other grounds (thinking back to the forced sterilization of women in this country in the past century)).

I am sick not only that these women were brutalized by these men, although I certainly am.  I am reminded again that women hold an inferior position in society to men.  These men exercised their power over these women.  These men who supposedly held positions of trust -- a husband and a police officer.

We need to find alternatives to our criminal justice system.  In the meantime -- lock them up and castrate them! 

Marriage Anachronisms

When I was 21 I married my high school sweetheart (the mother of my 3 children).  She wanted to keep her last name, and I wanted her to keep her last name for several reasons, not dissimilar to the couple's reasons in this case, but mostly having to do with my feminist tendencies.  But, after a couple of years of enduring incredible harassment for that choice (credit was an absolute nightmare; we even had the registrar of a hotel we stayed at change our names for us in the register because "it just looks better"), we finally opted to hyphenate our last names together (to the never ending chagrin of our children, I'm certain).  This was in 1977.  According to this article, we were among a minority of 3% of [opposite sex, "legally" married] couples who chose that path.  By 2001, that number was 20%.

But, it has always seemed to me to be patently unfair that we had to go through all that legal rigmarole to get it done.  If a woman wants to take her husband's name, no problem!  The patriarchy makes that choice a simple one.  Just do it.

This couple in California just sued because the groom wished to take the wife's last name and the procedure in CA required a court order to make that happen.  It seems like a slam-dunk violation of the 14th Amendment to me.  I'm glad to see that my 14th Amendment professor, Mark Rosenbaum, director of the ACLU in CA is taking their case. (h/t Alas, A Blog)

Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU in Southern California, said it is the first federal lawsuit of its kind in the country. “It’s the perfect marriage application for the 17th century,” Rosenbaum said. “It belongs in the same trash can as dowries.”

On another, somewhat related, note I was reading about the silly "I swear I'm not a transsexual" oath that marriage applicants are required to take in Clark County, Ohio. This story has been around a while, I only just now decided to do some background reading on it. In that background reading, I discovered that 1) there is no residency requirement to get married in Ohio (which means my Girl and I might go down there just as an interesting and fun test) and 2) that if you're female you only need to be 16 or 17 to marry, but if you're male you need to be 18.  It sounds to me to be very much like the fact pattern of Craig v. Boren, the case that instituted intermediate scrutiny for gender related statutes (of course, that case dealt with the sale of alcohol, but I suspect the underlying logic is nearly a perfect match). It's only a matter of time before this anachronism also falls by the wayside.