In this chapter excerpt from her book Whipping Girl, Serano breaks down the arguments (if you can call them that) made in feminist and queer-women spaces to exclude trans women. She first explains that her own transition "reshape[d] [her] views" of trans woman exclusion from being just "a symptom of society-wide transphobia" to "traditional sexism in disguise" (234, 36). That is, Serano makes the distinction that she was not "the victim of 'transphobia'" as much as she was "the victim of trans-misogyny," a subtle but extremely important distinction that shifts her critical eye from society's general treatment of all trans people to queer women space's exclusion of trans women. Serano then goes on to break down the most common arguments made by trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) by showing how the arguments are fundamentally "antifeminist" and, again, rooted in "traditional sexism" (244, 38). These arguments try to use both "biology" and "socialization" to simultaneously exclude AMAB people while including AFAB people (240).
One thing I'd first like to note is that while Serano may be perceived as attacking or excluding AFAB people, transphobia is a real issue and that "folks on the FTM spectrum" still face discrimination, harassment, and abuse. Like we've been discussing, intersection plays a large role here: trans men benefit from male privilege (and we see here how that allows them to enter women's spaces) but are also victims of transphobia. That being said, I agree with Serano's criticisms of the, for lack of a better name, trans-double-standard: allowing trans men into women's spaces based on their assigned sex and/or how they were raised. She points out how the banning of trans women fundamentally disagrees with the "most central tenet of feminism" which is that "women are far more than the sex of the bodies that [they] are born into, and [their] identities and abilities are capable of transcending the restrictive nature of the gender socialization [they] endure during [their] childhoods" (238, 39). If you agree that this is an important tenant of feminism (and I do), then it makes no sense to ban trans women because of the sex of their bodies or the gender socialization they endure. I would, personally, agree that this is reason for not allowing trans men into women's spaces.
That being said, this made me question my own stance on if genderqueer, agender, or any other non-binary gender people should be allowed into women's spaces. Since I have no lived experience in this department, I don't feel it is my place to say if they should or not.
If the eligibility for entering a women's space is your self identification as a women (and not based on assigned sex or socialization), and you don't self identify as either man or women, should you still be allowed access to women spaces? How can we reconcile the desire for (queer) women's spaces to be accessible and inclusive, while also maintaining an exclusivity that keeps members safe?
Do you think that women only colleges (such as Mount Holyoke) should accept both trans women and trans men? And if so, how would you justify one without excluding the other?
In the study by Kessler and McKenna that Serano discusses, she quotes them as saying "there seem to be no cues that are definitely female, while there are many that are definitely male. To be male is to 'have' something and to be female is to 'not have' it." This seems to be the exact opposite of Kimmel's discussion of masculinity as "the renunciation of the feminine" not "the direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity tenuous and fragile." Is there a way to reconcile these two ideas? Is one right and the other wrong? Or, in fact, do they not oppose one another?
Senano's work was published in 2007, and since then there have been a rise of (admittedly few) visible trans women in mass media as well as legal/medical advances for trans people (e.g. the DSM-5 published in 2013 shifting its diagnosis of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria). What do you think is the next step (socially, legally, medically, etc.) in protecting trans women and including them in queer women spaces?
I really enjoyed this piece and completely agree with Serano's argument that to be transmysogynistic is inherently antifeminist. I definitely think that trans women should be allowed to attend all girls colleges like Mount Holyoke. However, I don't necessarily think trans men should be excluded from these institutions. I think the issue is confusing because we rely so much on a gender binary that doesn't exactly work for this situation. By not allowing either group to apply or attend the school, whoever chooses is essentially making a decision about the applicant's gender. I think that either way, if it is an all girls' school, all female identified people should be allowed to apply. I'm interested in learning the different reasons that a trans man would want to attend an all girls' college (not to say that I don't believe they exist- I'm sure there are plenty). It seems like relying on gender will always be problematic, but because of historical significance, I don't think that it's realistic to expect schools like Wellesley to go completely gender neutral. I don't know the answer or solution myself, but I'm interested in learning what other members of the class think.
ReplyDelete(I don't mean to sound rude but just want to really look at what you are saying) So you're saying that "all female identified people should be allowed to apply" and that you think "trans men should [NOT] be excluded from these institutions" ? But if they identify as a man then they (presumably) don't identify as a woman...so what you're saying makes no sense, to me at least.
DeleteI definitely think being a trans man at a college for women would be a weird experience anyway, as it would force your trans status into every room you're in if you are male passing or recognized by classmates. I would be very uncomfortable having people immediately know that I was trans and would be scared of arising situations from that constant visibility. I understand Holyoke's wish to include all people within the confines of gender, but it does seem like it would be the farthest thing from my mind to stay in a blatant women's space while trying to transition. I do love the nonbinary support, but it does suck how alienating it can be in both women's and men's designated spaces. I think trans representation at Holyoke is going to be really important but also a continuing topic, not to stop with the new ruling.
DeleteSaying that I think all female-identified people should be allowed to apply is not the same as saying that trans men should be excluded. I don't know where I stand on whether trans men should attend all-girls schools but my statement about allowing all female-identified people to apply didn't imply that male-identified people would be excluded.
DeleteI've been doing a lot of thinking lately about why all women's colleges began in the first place, and what type of environment they were trying to foster BECAUSE of their exclusion of men. I can understand why in 1837 (when Mt. Holyoke was founded), it made sense for an all-girls academic environment to exist, considering that women were almost a hundred years away from being trusted with the vote. Having recently read about the role of masculinity in our culture, I also understand why many people (and not just women) would want to learn in an environment with fewer people who have been handed incredible amounts of power simply because of what is in between their legs (males, generally). However, also in light of our conversation last class, and knowing what I know about the multi-faceted complexity of identity and the power that comes with identity, it seems that excluding men from all-female spaces seems like it could work counter productively to our class visions of a more malleable gender binary. Women can wield masculine-resembling power against other women and men can possess many feminine qualities. What kind of environment are we trying to create by telling certain people, based on their genitals, that they are not welcomed?
Delete@Andrea "Saying that I think all female-identified people should be allowed to apply is not the same as saying that trans men should be excluded. " That was my whole point. I noted that you said "trans men should [NOT] be excluded from these institutions" and I simply disagree. I believe they should be excluded (in terms of women's only spaces). Also, I have no idea how you would allow female applicants without excluding males (if you have a genuine idea I'm all ears). By definition (in the binary system we live in, which is obviously not ideal but is the reality as it stands) allowing only females WILL exclude ALL males, which I think is good (in this context).
Delete@Grace "What kind of environment are we trying to create by telling certain people, based on their genitals, that they are not welcomed?" Wait isn't the whole point of this that we are NOT doing that???? Excluding some people based on their IDENTITY is very different from doing it based on GENITALS. We (a general kind of "we") are trying to create, in this situation, an all female environment that is friendly to trans women and therefore not based on genitals.
On a side note, I went to an all girls K-12 school and wouldn't change that for the world. I'd say that, compared to other female peers (and here I'm not accounting for lots of things and admit this is a large generalization), I am more willing to speak in class, take leadership roles, and pursue a STEM career; all these things I was discouraged from while attending a co-ed middle school. Also, according to some of my heterosexual peers, being in a classroom free of distractions and free of pressure to impress boys, made their learning experience much better.
I love this question of how to describe who gets to be included in the "queer women's" community; Just the name itself already cuts nonbinary and genderqueer people from the picture. I would love to hear how people propose to go about describing a community that can feel togetherness in self-identified womanhood and genderqueer or questioning status without leaving out the people who aren't sure they fit under the umbrella, and also with keeping allies from drowning out voices? Saying "people on the feminine side of the spectrum" is obviously useless as that is not definitive of womanhood or gender to start with.
ReplyDeleteI really would love to go into some deep discussion and come up with some amazing ideas to answer Eliza's difficult discussion question, "What do you think is the next step (socially, legally, medically, etc.) in protecting trans women and including them in queer women spaces?"... but i'm finding it difficult to do that (and would LOVE to hear other people's ideas!). Instead, I can possibly answer yours Madeline, "how do people propose about describing a community that can feel togetherness..?" with just this simple answer: going back to treating everyone as humans. Whoever on Monday made that comment about not having and acting with "female" or "male" qualities and instead "having and acting with human qualities" is so right. How about just enjoying everyone's presence who have similar thoughts and experiences and can openly relate, discuss with one another? How about this common agreement of wanting a safe, free, trusting space where EVERYONE can thrive? I would love to live there.
DeleteAnd yes, Madeline, i agree with you that saying "people on the feminine side of the spectrum" is useless. When i was younger, probably high school, i remember hearing that phrase in conversation and in psychology class and it made sense at the time. Now that i'm older though I know this isn't true anymore.
I think that a safe, free, trusting space where everyone can thrive is a bit of an impossibility. Living in a society where people are presented different challenges based solely off their identities limits how much people can be comfortable in spaces accepting of everyone. As a person who is marginalized in various ways, spaces where I can be with people who identify similarly to me are very important to me. They allow me to vent about things that people who aren't like me don't have to deal with and therefore can't empathize with to the same extent.
DeleteThe question of who gets included in a "women's space" is a very interesting one. I think that people who identify with womanhood/femininity (not just present in a feminine way) should be included. This allows for genderqueer and non-binary folks who feel womanhood but don't feel that they are wholly woman to be included in those spaces while minimizing the involvement of allies and gender-nonconforming, non-woman identifying people.
@Amanda, I agree that ideally it would be amazing to treat qualities as "human qualities" because, as we've discussed, gendering qualities is either: super toxic socially constructed crap (e.g. hegemonic masculinity), or transphobic "biologically" crap (e.g. all men are aggressive because testosterone or all women are emotional because estrogen).
Delete@Christopher, I love everything you said!!!!! (seriously seriously couldn't have said it better myself). I agree 100% that having specific, exclusive safe spaces is SUCH a necessity. There is a time and a place for allies. I also love how you say people "who identify with womanhood/femininity (not just present in a feminine way)" because this is such an important distinction. I think the real challenge is, without physical/biological cues to determine who is a woman or who identifies with womanhood, we have to rely on someone's word; that if a person, however masculine presenting, says they identify with womanhood, we believe them. And that's tough (and normalizing androgony/non-binary/trans women and men would help lessen people's gut reactions/judgements). Sorry for the ramble!
If a space is designated for women only, then only individuals who identify as women should be allowed to be a part of that space. I say this because I think of such spaces as affinity groups. For examples, there are affinity groups for a variety of folks who have been historically, and currently, oppressed and marginalized in our society (e.g. blacks, women, LGBT, etc.). Some spaces are meant for the comfort and support of particular groups of individuals who hold a common identity. These spaces should not be seen as divisive or self-segregating; instead, they should be seen as a supportive network for those who identify in a particular way.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to women's colleges, trans women should be accepted by those institutions. Trans women do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth; thus, they are not male-identifying individuals. Therefore, trans women should be allowed to enroll in women's colleges. I also agree with Eliza and Madeline's sentiments when it comes to the notion of trans men attending women's colleges. I would not imagine that trans men would want to attend a woman's college, but I could be very misguided or flat out wrong in my line of thinking. After all, different people have different reasons for wanting to attend a particular college or university. Echoing Andrea's statement from her post, I am interested to learn what others think of the idea of trans representation in women's colleges.
@JD, just wanted to say that I could not have said this better: "Some spaces are meant for the comfort and support of particular groups of individuals who hold a common identity. These spaces should not be seen as divisive or self-segregating; instead, they should be seen as a supportive network for those who identify in a particular way." It frustrates me when (well intentioned or not) allies try to but into safe spaces without understanding a safe space is built to protect the people inside, not to make the other people feel excluded, per se.
DeleteTotally agree. It doesn't matter if people mean well or not, they shouldn't encroach upon safe spaces created specifically for a group of people. I also agree that trans women should be allowed in "women's spaces." Just because some people were assigned female at birth doesn't mean they get to tell people who is or isn't a woman. Great post @JD and @Eliza
DeleteI think that women's colleges should absolutely accept trans women. No matter how well or poorly a woman's body conforms to social expectations, she should still have the right to exist in a women's space.
ReplyDeleteI don't think women's colleges should accept trans men. If a college doesn't accept men, then it shouldn't accept men, even if those men were assigned female at birth and socialized as female.
I'm not sure what I think they should do about non-binary and genderqueer people. My first instinct was to say the colleges should deal with nb people on a case-by-case basis, but that smacks too much of gatekeeping and would require imposing arbitrary standards of womanhood/non-manhood, which is just gross. After some thought, I believe women's colleges should err on the side of trusting nb people to decide whether a women's college is the right place for them; if an nb person wants to go to a women's college, there's no reason not to let them.
I also have questions that might be slightly off-topic: how should queer women's spaces and women's colleges deal with genderfluid people? If you're hosting a woman-concert (and you're less transmisogynistic than the folks running the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival), would you accept a genderfluid dmab person when they were having a female-identified day but not when they were having a male-identified day?
I think there's a broader issue here with trying to define what 'women's only' means or should mean--should a women's only space be only for woman-identified people, only for people who don't identify as men, or only for people who aren't cis men? Different definitions of women's-only will probably be right for different events and places.
@Ray I agree with your ideas on women's college applications. Gatekeeping is a huge problem for trans women and men who strong identify as one or the other, let alone someone who is nb. I don't have an answer for your first question (but super interested if anyone has any ideas!), but as for the second one, I'd say the space should be for (I'm quoting Chris from another thread here) "people who identify with womanhood/femininity (not just present in a feminine way) ". I STRONGLY disagree that it shouldn't be a place for "not cis men," because not only does that treat trans men as if they aren't real men, but also seems to open the door to other marginalized men (e.g. gay men, black men). And by all mean marginalized men need spaces, but not this space.
DeleteI'm in agreement with Ray that women's colleges should absolutely accept trans women, and that self-identification in terms of gender should be sufficient enough to allow acceptance to a women's college. That being said, I find Ray's question about genderfluid people in relation to queer women's spaces interesting, and I can't seem to find an answer to it that makes me feel like everyone is being included to the extent which they should be.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, JD's comment about affinity groups is important, in that they provide a support network for people of a common identity, and that members should ideally share that identity. If you make a space for queer women, the idea would be that people in that space would identify as women so that they share somewhat of a common experience and can offer support and sympathy for that shared experience.
But then when you take a space and label it a "women's" space, are you not actively denying access to people who identify outside the gender binary? Do we create separate spaces for people who identify outside the gender binary? My initial instinct says no, because that just seems to exude exclusion and other-ing to me. There is nothing wrong with a space created for specifically non-binary or fluid people, but the forced creation of that space due to specific exclusion from queer women's spaces seems counter-productive to me. Does anyone have thoughts on the answer to this question?
Ultimately I agree with what Ray has said (specifically in relation to women's colleges) about erring on the side of trusting nb or fluid folks to decide whether a women's college is the right experience for them. I am tempted to say the same of queer women's spaces as a whole- that if a person wants to enter that space on the basis that they feel they belong there, then they should be trusted that they understand themselves and the idea of shared spaces well enough to make that judgment. But maybe that's putting too much trust in others. I don't know. I'm babbling, but I'd love to know what others think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Micaela, I find myself facing the same dilemma: do I trust that this person wants to enter this space to feel safe and be supportive, or is trying to sabotage it? My gut reaction, as well, is to trust the person and let them in. My reasoning is two fold: first of all, I feel like there are clearly some transmisogynistic problems with gate keeping who "feels" they are a woman (e.g. using someone's gender expression bias you to excluding a genderfluid or nb person); my second reason is, if a person wants to be in the group, they must want to feel safe/contribute? Also, if someone is let in who is clearly a troll you can always kick them out, but you can't get someone you turn away back in.
DeleteIn regards to the Kimmel question - to me, it just affirms the idea that the masculine only exists in opposition to the feminine, and vice versa. It does not matter (in my opinion) which one is 'having' and which is 'have notting,' if you will. I thought about this while reading the Kimmel piece as well. He asserts that all manhood is avoiding femininity, but I see many times men trying to be strong and aggressive because it is MANLY not because it is NOT WOMANLY. And same with femininity. Much of it is striving to be 'ladylike,' but there are almost equal parts trying not to be manly or crude. So I'm not exactly answering your question, but rather saying it depends. It depends on context and many times it depends on culture. Japanese culture, for example, definitely asserts that the woman is lacking something that men have. As for American culture, I'd agree MORE with Kimmel, but it's not as static as he states.
ReplyDeleteI don't even come close to understanding how any feminist could, in good faith, make the conscious decision to exclude trans women from any movement. My understanding of feminism says that it's about equality for both (and all) genders; these women don't want to be seen or valued solely for their bodies, and yet there are still those who reject or exclude trans women for their biological differences. If that isn't a judgment of the body, I don't know what is. There was a quote in this article that stood out to me as saying it all: "[The mentioned feminists] privilege trans women's appearances, socialization, and the sex others assigned to them over [their] persons, [their] minds, and [their] identities."
ReplyDeleteI, too would be curious to find a solution for the inclusion of people identifying outside of the gender binary. Any queer group (in my opinion) should ideally be welcoming of these people; however, it would ultimately be up to them how comfortable they would be in these spaces and whether or not an entirely different, separate one would be more fitting. On a related note: yes to trans women in women's colleges, but I would have to say no to accepting trans men. In a sense, I would see it as more invalidating to a trans man to be accepted to a women's college, simply because – and I speak from a cisgendered perspective, so without firsthand experience – it would imply that there was not a full acceptance of his gender transition, or that there was some inherent "femaleness" to him still.
I completely agree that trans women should be allowed into women’s colleges and trans men should not - since trans women identify as women, they, in my opinion, have all the “qualifications” it takes to “be” a woman (echoing Judith Butler on what it means to “be” an identity or sexual orientation). I think Ray summed it up nicely: “I don't think women's colleges should accept trans men. If a college doesn't accept men, then it shouldn't accept men, even if those men were assigned female at birth and socialized as female.
ReplyDelete“ If the experience of a trans women is embodying womanhood and identifying as such, and the experience of a trans man is doing the same but for manhood (I apologize if this statement comes across as a little blunt and ignorant - I’m not as familiar with the experience of trans men and women as a lot of you, and this is just what I’ve gathered from living in a city with a strong, outspoken LGBTQ community, but not being directly associated with that community), then it follows that they would not be allowed in women’s colleges. Also taking into account the idea that women’s colleges were initialized as an academic safe space for all those who identify as women, I think that it would be justified to not accept trans men (not to say that this would exclude non-binary or genderqueer people, though).
The purpose of women's spaces (and colleges in particular) is to provide a safe environment with ample female role models to foster a feminist mindset. Studies show that college students at women's colleges increase their implicit associations of women with power, intelligence, and leadership ability. The same study also looked at college students attending co-ed schools and found that their implicit associations of women with positive traits actually decreased. Outside of women's spaces and particularly in academia, males are seen in the majority of leadership positions (professors, deans, presidents) and young women often internalize the idea that they are inferior in some way.
ReplyDeleteSo if the purpose of women's colleges is to provide an environment free of systemic patriarchy, then it only makes sense to exclude those in a place of privilege who don't need a separate space to foster self-confidence. That being said, trans women are most definitely NOT in a place of privilege as they suffer from both sexism and transphobia. Women's colleges and spaces have no reason to reject a demographic in need.
This idea that Trans women should be allowed in women’s colleges and trans men should not be allowed has already been reflected by so many others on this blog, so I’ll try not to be super redundant. This qualification is based off of how identity works; an individual’s gender identity does not depend on biology or socialization. Therefore, to say that trans men are allowed to enter in women’s only spaces is the same as saying cis men are allowed into these same spaces.
ReplyDeleteIn this discussion about women’s universities, I’d just like to bring up another all women’s college in Massachusetts that’s less than a 30 minute drive away from Mount Holyoke: Smith College. A few years ago Smith College made news headlines when the university denied the acceptance of a trans woman. Smith’s policy still hasn’t changed. On the universities web page dedicated to gender identity Q&A, Smith states that “Like most women’s colleges, Smith expects that, to be eligible for review, a student’s application and supporting documentation (transcripts, recommendations, etc.) will reflect her identity as a woman” (http://www.smith.edu/diversity/gender.php). This means that if Smith reads a student application with documentations (whether it be legal or not (e.g. identity documents, teacher recommendations)) that do not contain consistent “female gender markers”, then the student will not be accepted (http://smith-q-and-a.tumblr.com/faq). Simply identifying as female is not enough to apply Smith. This sort of ties in to Eliza’s open ended question about what progress needs to be done to allow trans women into women spaces. In the case of Smith College (and probably other women’s colleges with similar policies), low income trans women are at a disadvantage for they cannot afford to get their gendered terms on documentation fixed. What is more important here, as well as in other non-academic spheres, is changing how people define or qualify someone to be male or female. Documentation does not define identity. People need to recognize that excluding trans women from women’s spaces is indeed a “product of traditional sexism” (Serano, 238). The deconstruction of myths and societal believes about trans women is essential for inclusion (e.g. trans women people do not need to receive hormone treatment or surgery to identify as a woman (some people simply cannot afford the cost)). A larger social understanding of this issue will pave the path for proper protection and inclusion of trans women.