When male is the new female

This week Everyday Feminism, an online magazine normally fairly middle-of-the-road and non-controversial, ran an article by a trans*woman in which the author a) defined “woman”, b) defined “female” c) defined “natural” and d) suggested that trans*women not only have access to women’s safe places like shelters and crisis centres, but be given jobs there so that trans*women will truly feel welcome. The fact that the author was given this very public online platform tells me hir opinions are endorsed by a majority of feminists – or that somebody is trying to mainstream them. The article, which seems to represent the current trans* political platform, reveals that trans*women are targeting women, and pose a danger to us.

First s/he defines “woman” to include biological males, that is people with xy chromosomes and penises.

I know only two definitions for “woman”. The first is biological. According to that definition, “woman” is a grown-up female. The second is sociological. A woman is a gendered social construct created by the constant interaction between a human female with innate personality potentials and a society that wants to allow her to develop some of those potentials and lose the others.

By both of those definitions, one has to be female to be a woman. I know, that hardly sounds like rocket science.

The author has also figured this out, so s/he offers a new definition of “female”. It’s a definition that may shock some. Here’s the quote:


There is no singular female body, and even though feminist movements are broadening the idea of a woman’s body to include bigger, disabled, Black and brown women, they are not doing justice to trans women’s bodies.
People use “female-bodied” to talk about people assigned female at birth, which completely erases trans women’s bodies that are female.
This is a step towards unlearning that penises equates to maleness. That our breasts, whether flat or hormone-grown or implanted, are our breasts and just as natural as any other breast.
Not recognizing our bodies as naturally female supports a patriarchal culture that defines what a woman’s body is.


I’m sorry if this is hurtful, but there is only one, singular definition of female; it’s one that applies all mammals. Female have wombs and mammary glands. Females do not have penises. These are biological facts.

If you want to remove the words “male” and “female” from the language, then you have to remove them, although I’m not sure how animal breeders or farmers would be able to function without recourse to those very useful terms. Can you imagine a rancher with a field full of steers waving away the vet who has come to castrate them, shouting “they’re not steers, they’re cows-with-penises?” Good luck with that dairy herd.
You affect the whole animal kingdom when you start redefining female as male.

Silicone is not “natural”. Enough said about that.

The author of this article is biologically male as well as male-gendered at least to some degree. The process of constructing gender begins the moment adults know the sex of the fetus or infant. By the time a child is old enough to say something like “I’m really a girl in a boy’s body”, the child has already been subject to three or four or five years of gender conditioning, a lot of it unconsciously done, and most of it unconsciously processed.

So, yes, this author is a male-bodied and masculine-gendered member of the patriarchal culture that believes males can define what a woman’s body is. And so s/he’s doing it.

Nonetheless, the author explains why male-bodied “women” need to work in women’s centres:


You don’t need to make us invisible to keep us safe. We need to be named and openly supported in women’s spaces.
If you want to ensure trans women feel safe, have openly trans women working in the space. Part of this is extending beyond theory into practice.
Instead of saying trans women are welcome to an event run by cis women, have actual trans women in leadership positions to create the events that center and support us. Be someone who offers resources and support to allow us to develop our own women’s spaces.
That’s the kind of solidarity that truly makes social change.


This is where the demands of male-bodied trans people conflict with the needs of women — aside from the fact that the author is expecting women to keep trans people safe – from male violence, of course, which is kind of presumptuous, isn’t it? Or does the author think it’s the job of women to serve male (and thus male-bodied trans) needs?

All women, feminist or not, need to consider the ramifications of the author’s demand that male-bodied trans people be given jobs in women’s organizations and spaces.

If trans*women have their way, a woman who leaves an abusive, violent husband is welcomed at a women’s shelter by a male-bodied person who does not have a shared history or culture with her. He has not experienced female socialization, has no experiential understanding of why a woman would choose a violent husband or the reasons why it would be so hard for her to leave.

If trans*women have their way, a woman who has just been raped will call a rape-crisis centre and be met with a male-bodied person who has never experienced vaginal rape and who doesn’t have the experience of being preyed on and who has not lived with the constant vigilance required of many women to avoid being raped.

If trans*women have their way, a woman who suffers PTSD as a result of childhood sexual abuse may sign up for a woman’s PTSD support group and find, when she arrives, that the leader is a male-bodied person and half the participants are as well.

If trans*women have their way, government funding for women’s organizations may well go to organizations run by and for male-bodied trans*women instead of to organizations run by and for women.

If trans*women have their way, when a woman is debilitated by illness or injury, she may share a hospital room with a male-bodied person.

And if, god-forbid, a woman kills a husband who has been raping and beating her for years, and winds up in prison, she may well share a cell with a male-bodied person. I know, it’s so cute on Netflix, isn’t it?

What I find most horrifying about this trans political position is that it completely devalues women’s shared lived experiences, experiences that shape all women in the culture to some degree or other. To the author this simply doesn’t matter – a male-bodied person with a completely different personal history and socialization is perfectly qualified to counsel female victims of male violence and to speak on behalf of such women. Yup.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “When male is the new female

  1. It was feminism which first championed the idea that gender is a social construct.

    It was feminism which drove men out of the family home – and out of the lives of children – and then demonised male sexuality and maleness as a whole, which is what has created the crisis in male sexuality/ male identity which has caused this explosion in men rejecting their male identity and wishing to live as women – if only to achieve social approval and not be identified as as savage rapists and historical oppressors (sociopaths). Transsexuality used to be a fairly rare condition (and, to be clear, I believe it is a real condition), but you have to wonder how many cases today are genuine and how many are simply the result of feminism’s constant attack on maleness. The very cornerstone of feminist ideology is patriarchy theory which defines men as sociopaths. Thanks to modern intersectional feminism, white men or men in general are now being literally segregated from society – from bicycle shops (in canada I believe), from meetings about diversity (the recent UCL incident), men are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied minors on some airlines, and of course men are not allowed to campaign for their human rights without feminists shutting them down……. is it any wonder so many men are abandoning manhood? In Sweden (one of the most feminist dominated cultures in the world) men who identify as men are wearing dresses and make up because they actually believe to be men is an affront to civilised society. That is like black people putting on white foundation because they are ashamed to be black.

    It was feminism which sought to align itself (intersect) with a bunch of other movements to do with race, sexual orientation, health etc. This is presumably because in the 21st century western world women actually have more legal rights than men. REPEAT: women have more legal rights than men. This naturally makes feminism look pretty redundant, which in turn threatened the livelihoods of a lot of feminists who make living from the erroneous idea that women are oppressed in society.. Feminists’ solution to this problem of women having more rights than men was to broaden the scope of feminism and form allegiances with every other progressive social movement (except those to do with men’s rights of course) and to teach them how to play the victim as well as feminists, in return for their support of feminism. It’s the social justice equivalent of supplying outlying factions with arms in return for their loyalty. Feminism subsumed the LGB crowd, who in turn subsumed the T crowd (who up until that point mostly identified and tried to integrate with the ordinary population) and you all encouraged each other to be the most passive aggressive, in order to manipulate the rest of society into giving you special treatment and free stuff.

    It is feminism which originally invented (or at least perfected) the strategy for infiltrating other sub-cultures and demanding everyone in that sub-culture change their behaviour to accommodate the demands of feminists in the name of being progressive and inclusive – and under threat of being labelled ‘oppressive’ and ‘intolerant’. You taught this strategy to the ‘intersecting’ movements you aligned with and this has spawned the passive-aggressive monster that is ‘pathological altruism’ LINK

    Now all your intersecting progressive movements are starting to use these strategies on each other. and you don;t like it. Now you know how the rest of society feels.

    > To the author this simply doesn’t matter – a male-bodied person with a completely different personal history and socialization is perfectly qualified to counsel female victims of male violence and to speak on behalf of such women. Yup.

    To be fair feminists also claim to know more about men’s issues than men’s rights advocates, despite not being men. Feminist ideology itself (patriarchy theory) claims to speak on behalf of men, and know better than men about the lifestyle and conditions faced by men (and indeed women) throughout history. If a 17th century miner, a 12th century fisherman, a 19th century farmer, a 20th century soldier or a 21st century divorced father of two told you they are not more privileged or any less ‘oppressed’ than the women of their age would you believe them …… or would you (as a 21st century women) claim to know better than them about their own lived experiences?

    And even when a woman claims to be totally NOT oppressed by men, not even when she cooks one a meal – she is jumped on by feminists and told she is WRONG (eg Kaley Cuoco). Again, her lived experience counts for nothing if it happens to contradict feminist ideology.

    So once again, you seem to be complaining about a behaviour trait that feminists also exhibit (and then some), and which everybody else finds really annoying too. Now you know how most men feel when multi millionaire Emma Watson tells them they are privileged and they have a duty to serve feminists (he for she) in order to qualify as civilised humans. Never mind how a non feminist woman feels when she is attacked by other feminist women for daring to NOT identify as a weak, powerless, victim.

    Perhaps the solution is to stop bashing men and tone down the pathological altruism a bit? (just a thought).

    Is this really the culture that you want? LINK……. because this is sadly the direction feminism is taking us.

    Like

    1. Wow, cool Star Wars link. Yes, it was feminism that drove men out of the family home and out of the lives of children, when the men were brutalizing the wives and children. Would you have it any other way? I think men who reject patriarchally-approved masculine conditioning, and create new identities as more fully human people able to be both what we call “feminine” and “masculine” will get a whole lot of social approval. Personally I don’t think feminism is redundant when the largest commerce on the web is porn, when children are sexualized at younger and younger ages, when so many thousands of women are killed by men every year.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s