Trans genderists are harmful to women.

A feminist roars discusses the attacks by trans genderists against radical feminists, and the underlying structural problems with “TERF”-speak.

When transwomen change the way they wear their head hair, remove their body hair, have cosmetic surgery, breast implants or a cavity they name a ‘vagina’ created they are reducing women to their bodies and the social norms imposed on those bodies.

By insisting they are or need to become women, transwomen validate archaic ideas about the female sex. It is true that many women also do this to function within the world but that does not negate the impact. Wanting to end women’s oppression demands an acknowledgement of this, as RadFems do. Many transwomen also seek to find ways to express their experiences that do not negatively impact on women. It can be done.

Here is also an entry from Ask A Radfem (an excellent tumblr, highly recommended) where the issue of “cis”-talk is discussed.

For a woman to be cis, she must be/identify/whatever as the feminine gender. She must innately have the aforementioned traits according to both the patriarchy and trans politics, or at least have those traits willingly. I shouldn’t have to explain why that is pure misogyny.

Gender was not fabricated by the trans politics, but by the patriarchy as a tool to control and dehumanize women. Trans politics just use it as well and also think it’s true, but that there are a few who are born with the wrong gender for the wrong body, trans. Those who have the same gender as they are “supposed to” are cis.

21 thoughts on “Trans genderists are harmful to women.

  1. hessianwithteeth November 22, 2014 at 20:36 Reply

    There’s no such thing as a trans genderist. You’re either transgender or you support trans* rights, but neither of those categories are called trans genderists. Those quotes show a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender. For one, not every transgender person feels the need to transition. The ones who do do so because they either feel it is necessary to be accepted as the proper gender or they do so for the same reason cis women get similar surgeries (though usually to a more extreme degree): because they have issues with their body and want to change them. They also don’t seem to fully understand the difference between sex and gender. Gender has nothing to do with your body: it’s completely in your brain. However, we live in a world that confuses having a penis with being a man and having a vagina with being a woman. Of course there are issues with how sex and gender are viewed by society, but rather than attacking people who are transgender for the feelings of depression (not to mention safety concerns) that lead them to change their bodies it would be better to deal with the societal issues that make it difficult for people to realize that gender and sex are not the same thing, and some people do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.

    • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 01:33 Reply

      Trans genderist = a genderist of the trans kind (as opposed to a traditional genderist).
      Pretty simple if you know my blog. I’ve been writing about genderism for a while now. The fact that you don’t understand such a simple term betrays your ignorance.

      “some people do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.”
      Most women do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. I don’t identify with the gender I was assigned at birth. That doesn’t mean we’re “trans” anything. Stop looking through your ideological blinders and come into the real world, which is more complicated and messy than what trans genderists want you to believe.

      • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 02:40 Reply

        Making up words doesn’t make you intellectually superior. Genderist isn’t a word. It’s transgender. And these are real people you’re talking about. People whose lives you know nothing about. Try some compassion.
        As someone who’s gender queer, I can say that there is a big difference between not identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth and being transgender. Does anybody fit perfectly into the box? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that you know what it’s like to be transgender and can dismiss the issues faced by people who are transgender because you don’t fit perfectly into that box yourself. Most females fit into that box a hell of a lot better that I do, and they are perfectly happy to call themselves women. That’s what makes them cis. I have no issues with being female, but I am not feminine. I am not a woman. That is why I’m gender queer. I wont have any surgeries because I’m not a man either. I’m not transgender. I am trans* though. Do you really want to say I’m ignorant of my own identity and you know more about it than I do? Because I’d say that’s ignorant.

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 02:46 Reply

          “Making up words doesn’t make you intellectually superior. Genderist isn’t a word. It’s transgender.”

          Genderism and transgender are two different concepts. Genderism is the belief in gender as an objective property, and transgender people are, well, transgender people. Treating me like an idiot when you are the one who’s wrong is just embarassing. I explain genderism and anti-genderism here:
          https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/what-is-anti-genderism/

          “Most females fit into that box a hell of a lot better that I do, and they are perfectly happy to call themselves women. That’s what makes them cis.”

          Stop using slurs against women. Just because they keep performing femininity does not mean you get to call them “cis.” No woman deserves to be attacked for the way she tries to deal with living in a patriarchal society.

          “Do you really want to say I’m ignorant of my own identity and you know more about it than I do? Because I’d say that’s ignorant.”

          I don’t care about your identity. Unless you are actually a genderist who is also transgender, this entry is not even about you.

          A term I have started to use instead of trans genderists is FETA (female-exclusionary trans activists). I think that is much clearer, given the similarities in words that may lead to some confusion between transgender and trans genderism. But either way, I don’t know why you’re whining at me and insulting women on my blog.

          • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 03:24 Reply

            I just google trans genderist and you are the only person using the term, so it’s not actually thing (so no duh it’s different from the actual things of transgender and genderism). Since you seem to assume that everybody should know and accept your terms, you are making yourself look like an idiot.
            Cis isn’t a slur. There’s nothing wrong with being cis or trans*. These are merely terms used to make communication and understanding easier. Why are you so quick to get offended over such a term? You’re coming across as a troll. Also, you defined “trans ‘genderists'” as opposed to “normal genderists,” which is suggesting that there is something wrong with people who are transgender. So basically, you’re okay with attacking people yourself, but you’re going to throw a shit show and say that I’m attacking people because I used a socially acceptable word to identify your so-called “normal” people. Clearly the logic is strong with you. Also, you still haven’t defined “genderist.”
            As a non-cis person, you may not be attacking me the same way you’re attacking transgender people, but you’re still attacking me by saying that I’m not “normal.” You’re basically saying that anybody who doesn’t fit into the definition of cis (minor deviations are acceptable, but any that go so far as to make a person feel outside of the gender they were assigned at birth are unacceptable based on what you’ve been saying) are harming women and shouldn’t be accepted. So I’m you’re the one buying into the patriarchy and trying to maintain the problematic binaries that have kept females in the role of second class citizens. Allowing more gender fluidity makes the second class position of females pointless. You should be open to the various gender expressions and identities, not trying to shut people down.
            I’m “whining” at you because you want to exclude women from feminism because you don’t like that they don’t identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. You’re doing the very thing that you accused them of doing. What exactly is a female-exclusionary trans activist? It’s not really very clear at all. Is that somebody who excludes females from transgender circles? Because that would mean that a number of transgender people are excluded from transgender circles. Or are you trying to say that transgender people are trying to keep biological females out of feminism? Because there is no evidence of that being the case.

        • Independent Radical November 23, 2014 at 03:04 Reply

          “I have no issues with being female, but I am not feminine. I am not a woman. That is why I’m gender queer.”

          So your definition of a woman IS “feminine person”, i.e. stupid, irrational, bad-at-math-and-map-reading person who enjoys wearing pink, thrilly dresses and lipstick and high heels and submitting to men’s sexual desires. Do you not understand why some women (as in female-bodied people who call themselves women and are labelled women by society because they are female-bodied) find this definition of “woman” offensive?

          Why not just say you are women who does not conform to femininity? You would not be the only one, I assure you. Plenty of women do not conform to femininity, acknowledge that they do not conform to femininity and still claim to be women. The term “genderqueer” makes such women seem a lot stranger than they actually are and most people do not enough know what it means. Non-feminine woman is perfectly understandable, even if it is stigmatised.

          • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 03:48 Reply

            Feminine doesn’t mean any of those things. Why do you have such a problem with feminine people? To be feminine is merely a way of acting or presenting yourself. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. Feminine people tend to be less aggressive and more nurturing. You’ll also notice that I separated “feminine” from “woman.” News flash: guys can be feminine too. Cis heterosexual males can be more feminine than masculine. But cis heterosexual men tend to present as more masculine and cis heterosexual females tend to present as more feminine. This is likely nothing more than a cultural phenomenon, but I’m not going to demonize anybody for there femininity or their masculinity.I’d rather people just learn to accept themselves for who they are and realize that the degree to which they are one or the other doesn’t make them an better or worse than the person next to them.
            I don’t say that I’m a woman who isn’t feminine because I am not a woman. I am female. That is my sex. But “woman” is not my gender. If you want to call yourself a woman, go for it. I have nothing against women. But I am not one, and I don not understand why you are so offended by the fact that not everyone who was born female fits into that box. Why do you even care? I’m still a feminist. I still believe that females (and non-cis-heterosexual-males) are treated as second class citizens and only feminism will bring about equality among the sexes (and genders).

          • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 05:04 Reply

            All right. I think hessianwithteeth is very confused in general.

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 03:33 Reply

          “You’re basically saying that anybody who doesn’t fit into the definition of cis (minor deviations are acceptable, but any that go so far as to make a person feel outside of the gender they were assigned at birth are unacceptable based on what you’ve been saying) are harming women and shouldn’t be accepted.”

          No. I never said that. Again, I defined the word genderism for you and even gave you an entry where I explain it in more detail. Just because no one uses the specific term “trans genderism” doesn’t mean anything, since the meaning is clear: transgender people who are genderists.

          I also don’t believe that there is anyone who “fits into the definition of cis” because “cis” is a slur and it designates a kind of person (a person who accept their assigned gender) which does not exist.

          “What exactly is a female-exclusionary trans activist? It’s not really very clear at all. Is that somebody who excludes females from transgender circles?”

          Yes, it is very clear. You seem to be having trouble with words. It follow the same pattern as the term TERF. FETA means: trans activists (TA) who exclude (E) females (F). Very simple really.

          • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 03:55 Reply

            Actually, trans genderist would imply imply someone who is genderist towards trans people. If you want to express the idea that transgender people are sexist towards females, you should just say so. But I really don’t know why wanting to transition would make someone sexist towards anyone. Why do you even care? Why not just let them do what makes them the most comfortable in their own skin and accept them for who they are?
            What are the females being excluded from? And what do you mean by females? Do you mean born female? Or do you mean those who identify as female (ie woman, or the gender as opposed to the sex)?

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 03:59 Reply

          “Why do you even care? Why not just let them do what makes them the most comfortable in their own skin and accept them for who they are?”

          Not sure if you have actual reading comprehension issues or not, but I never said anything against transgender people. I couldn’t care less if someone “transitions” or not, as long as they’re consenting adults.

          • Independent Radical November 23, 2014 at 04:36 Reply

            I believe hessian was addressing me there. I do not claim to speak for you of course, but I see the medical “transition” process as being pretty brutal. It involves many of the same harmful surgeries that women go through in order to try to look prettier (e.g. breast implant, face lifts, etc.), as well as “gender reassignment surgery”, which is of course a euphamism for “chopping off healthy penises”. I do not hate people who get such “treatments” (liberals need to stop taking everything personally), it is the treatments themselves I oppose, not to mention the idea that a healthy penis can somehow be “wrong”.

            I am happy to let biological male behave in a non-feminine behaviour, without undergoing any kind of transition (medical or otherwise). Ironically, it is the trans movement itself that tells people that their bodies need to be surgerically altered because they do not “match” their personalities. The whole idea of body-personality matches are ridiculous to begin with, in my view.

    • Independent Radical November 23, 2014 at 02:49 Reply

      Since you think it is wrong to define “being a man” as having a penis and “being a woman” as having a vagina, what do you think the definitions of those terms should be? Do you think the definition of a woman should be a person who likes wearing pink dresses and high heels and thrusting her butt from side to side while she walks? Do you think it should be based on personalities traits that society associates with women (e.g. gentleness, incompetence in the areas of math and science, eagerness to please others, obsession with one’s physical appearance, etc.)? I find those definitions far more offensive than “woman=person with vagina”. Do you have some other definition for “woman” or “man” that is not just a stereotype?

      • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 03:31 Reply

        A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Their gender expression and identity is that of a woman. It has to do with your brain and how you identify, not what you wear. “Woman” is a gender term, not a sex term. A person with a vagina is likely a female, but that is not necessarily the case either, since sex has to do with chromosomes and not with genitalia. A person with an XX chromosome is a female, but a person can have a vagina (at birth) and not be female (they’d be intersex). The same works for those with a penis.
        Woman=person with a vagina is a stereotype. Why are you okay with that stereotype, but not one that suggests that you don’t have to be born female to be a woman?

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 03:34 Reply

          “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.”

          Again with the trouble with words. Do you understand that the definition you gave is circular? You defined woman in terms of woman. Please do try to pay attention…

          • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 03:57 Reply

            That wasn’t my whole explanation. I said it was a personal identifier that people give themselves based on their personal preference. It’s based on brain chemistry, not body. Try reading the whole thing next time.

        • Independent Radical November 23, 2014 at 05:05 Reply

          Your definition is still circular. I know I am repeating what Francois Tremblay said, but I have actually read your whole comment and I still have no clue what you mean by the word “woman”. You say it has to do with one’s brain. Well in that case, what kind of brain does a “woman” have? Is it one that has been biologically programmed to be obsessed with prettiness and house-cleaning? Is it one that has been biologically programmed to be bad at math, science and map-reading? Is it one that has been biologically programmed to submit to other people’s whims? That is what “women brains” are like according to the culture, which is why the whole idea of a women brain is offensive. I know plenty of self-identified women who have no such brain. They identify as women because they have female bodies, not because of any kind of brain chemistry (although I still have no idea what kind of brain chemistry you are talking about and what its effects are.)

          Stereotypes usually involve attributing personality traits to people based on their physical traits. When one sees a black person on the street and assumes that they are a criminal, they are invoking a stereotype about black people. When a white person sees an Asian person and assumes that the Asian person is submissive, they are invoking a stereotype. These stereotypes do not just make black and Asian feel bad, they have real world consequences. People with black skin get sent to jail, because of stereotypes that such people are criminals and people with an Asian appearance get confined to low wage work, because of the stereotypes that say that they are submissive and do not mind that sort of work. When people see a female-bodied person, they often assume (sometimes subconsciously) that the person is incompetent, irrational and sexually submissive. They also assume that the person likes (or should like) dresses, high heels and make up, even if the person is not wearing those things. These are stereotypes that cause harm. Do you really think that when people see a male-bodied person behaving in a nuturing manner, they assume that the person must actually have a vagina, because they are acting feminine? I do not think many people do. Even if they did make this assumption, making incorrect assumptions about people’s genitalia is not as harmful as making incorrect assumptions about their personality.

          Call it a stereotype if you want, but it just does not have the same effects. “You have a vagina, therefore you are probably obsessed with prettines and like pleasing other people” is way more offensive than “you like to prettify yourself and please others, therefore you probably have a vagina”. The latter statement refers to a situation in which somebody proudly identifies as prettiness-focuessed and other-pleasing, so presumably the offensive part of the statement is “you probably have a vagina”, but why is that so offensive? So what if I incorrectly assume that someone has a vagina. I do not see that as a problem so long as I do not make any other assumptions about him.

          • hessianwithteeth November 23, 2014 at 14:32 Reply

            Okay well I will try this from a different angle then.

            First the term women is poorly defined in general and does not have particular key features which identify it. To use some philosophy terms it the question of sufficient conditions and necessary ones.

            I’d argue that there are not sufficient and necessary conditions. To give an example. Some biologically female people don’t have vaginas, yet we still call those people women. While more most people see a vagina as a sufficient condition to be a woman, it’s not necessary because we still call the majority of those biologically female people women.

            And to be clear I’m not at the moment talking about trans people, some women are born without a vagina it may be rare, but it is real.
            http://www.childrenshospital.org/health-topics/conditions/vaginal-agenesis

            This is the same for uteri, ovaries, breasts, and then that are many optional (not sufficient) traits which aid us in identifying if someone is a women such as body hair, body size, reproductive capacity, and a whole a array of cognitive traits.

            What this means if there fails to be a strict definition of “woman.” So when your loosely referring to women your referring to this poorly defined.

            More over there are people who are not biologically female that are born with vaginas, making it extra clear it is not a necessary condition, but all making it clear that even if you have a vagina that does not necessarily make you a woman.

            From my understand of many trans-activists a good portion of them reject biological sex as a useful category. I may not agree with that but there are valid reasons like the ones above that give support to that argument.

            Now on to Trans people. So I read more of that post that was linked to in the original article, and upon thinking about it I see the problem with how Trans and Cis are being defined. There is 0 reference to the core that the trans people in my life use. That Being Cis is to be comfortable and identify with the gender assigned to you at birth, Trans is when you are uncomfortable and do not identify with that assignment.

            This is a bit of an oversimplification and we can add on to it later, but until you recognize that core component of how Trans people define the selves then we will simply talk past one another. And if you don’t at least mention that within how you define trans people in general then you end up misrepresenting them.

            • pantypopo November 24, 2014 at 11:44 Reply

              “A whole array of cognitive traits” which aid in identifying if someone is a woman.

              That is hate. It’s sexism.

              It is Traditional Genderism-It is a dogmatic adherence to oppressive stereotypes which have been used by men and male supremacists to oppress, and discriminate against, women and girls for thousands of years.

  2. pantypopo November 25, 2014 at 18:20 Reply

    @ hessianwithteeth http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Hating-Plume-Andrea-Dworkin/dp/0452268273/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4 All the proof you need is in this book. Enjoy!

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

%d bloggers like this: