I’m writing this in response to some discussions I’ve observed on Twitter between cis and trans women, most of them feminists. I want to write honestly about my own feelings because there is some disjuncture between what I feel and what I actually want to feel. This is an odd post to write because I’m terrified of upsetting people who’ve experienced far greater difficulties than me, plus it’s hardly as though the world is crying out for my personal views on cis and trans identities. On top of that, I don’t want it to be felt that I’m having a moan or comparing forms of discrimination. All the same, I feel like a fraud if I’m sitting there tweeting “fuck off Julie Burchill” and not being totally honest about the gaps in my understanding. In some ways I feel it’s even more cissexist to work on the assumption that a substitute for understanding is silence; I can’t help feeling that buried within this is an even greater assumption of cis superiority.
I am a cis woman. According to Wikipedia, one definition of cisgender is a label for “individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity”. Referencing Julia Serano, the entry also describes as cissexual “people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their mental and physical sexes as being aligned”. A quotation from Eli R. Green states that “the term ‘cisgendered’ is used [instead of the more popular 'gender normative'] to refer to people who do not identify with a gender diverse experience, without enforcing existence of a ‘normative’ gender expression”. I am sure there is a great deal more I could learn about this. I haven’t learned it yet. This is just where I am.
While I find the idea of “a ‘normative’ gender expression” not being enforced reassuring, words such as “match” and “aligned” unsettle me. I don’t know what they mean in this context. I know I am called a woman, but going along with the words you’ve been given – and we are only ever told there are two, man / woman, nothing more – is not the same as actively consenting to the conditions of their use. It’s not even the same as passive acceptance. I chip away, with partial success, at challenging the definition of what a woman is, but I worry that unless I cling on to some of the inaccurate bits, I’ll be left with nothing and that won’t be allowed in my own environment. I am not passivity, not prettiness, not powerlessness, not reproduction, not nurturing, not domesticity. All of these things should be choices, not womanhood itself. But then what am I? If I am also not my womb, not my vulva, not my hormones, not the sound of my voice, where are the conditions of my womanhood? Are there any at all?
My reproductive system does not define me or make me “more woman” than other women, trans or cis. Nevertheless, the discrimination faced by people who have this reproductive system – in attitudes towards, and experiences of, periods, pregnancy, breastfeeding, abortion, menopause, hysterectomy etc. – is not random but systematic. I think there is a fear – and I share this fear – of not having a name for this in particular. These things have been, and continue to be, a focus for feminism, but I notice that increasingly this focus is perceived to be cissexist. I’m not disputing this - if I’ve got the terminology right (and I’m still working on it), it does seem to me to be cissentialist. Even so, I talk about my own experiences with my physical self in terms of a broader feminist project because I don’t have any other place for them. It’s not meant to be exclusive or defining, but it is. Fertile people with wombs – the leaky, breedy, bleedy people, not necessarily women – have an insurance deal with feminism, but at some stage the terms and conditions will have to be reviewed. They have to be, otherwise it’s not fair. But all the same, we’re scared of losing out.
I’m scared of losing the structures in which I understand and communicate my feminism. I don’t want my feminism to be a feminism that excludes, but I want to know my place in it. I don’t want to look like a caring person, I want to be one, and I don’t know how to do this when it feels like we don’t have enough definitions to go round. I don’t want to admit I’m greedy and protective of words that aren’t mine alone, yet I’m scared that if I let go, I’ll have nothing on standby. Discrimination is reinforced when it’s discrimination for which you don’t have a name; that’s no excuse to jealously guard terms which should not be exclusive, but often it’s why people do it.
Well, those are my thoughts at this stage in my life. I would not be surprised if much of this isn’t a stage people go to before reaching a better understanding of things, but I don’t know how to reach it yet. Right now I don’t feel as though we have enough words for who each of us are, or perhaps by having two – man, woman – we have too many already.
January 13, 2013 at 11:14 pm
Thank you for a very personal and brave post. For me the important thing is the quote from Wikki
“ndividuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity”
This isnt so much about being male or female, as I understand it, as not having that dislocation of personal identity. There are women of colour, white women, working class women, women in lesser developed countries, trans women, middle class women, women with disabilities. They all are individuals but all within a group share similar problems,problems that may at times mean they are closer to ppl who share their particular oppression regardless of gender. Then there are problems the majority of women share, such as more likely to be victims of rape.
I cannot know what it is to be a woman of colour, but that does not mean she should not identify particular oppression that she faces, including that from other women. I cannot understand what is like to not be considered a woman simply because I choose to have short hair or wear doc martens. Again it does not mean I should not care about that oppression.
I suppose this is why I dislike the idea of sisterhood, being female does not make you good, or better, it is after all nothing more than an accident of birth, just as being born with a physical gender that does not match your internal one. (Apologies, i know it is slightly more complex than that)
As for the idea there is only male and female, well I suppose I see that as outdated as the idea there are just 2 sexualities. Gender, like sexuality is a spectrum. Of course this does challenge some second wave ideas, but they need to be. It should never have been vagina right, penis wrong.
January 13, 2013 at 11:18 pm
I guess on matching and allignment this quotation might help:
gender is like underwear: if it fits ya don’t notice. If it doesn’t you can’t avoid noticing
(http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2013/01/04/graces-trans-101/)
I think one of the good things about learning about trans issues is it means we have to start unpacking all these things – what do we mean by “woman”? We can start splitting things up – gender roles, gender expression, gender identity. The last is trickiest – the underwear. What happens to that once we’ve separated out the social stuff in the first two? The best I’ve got is the underwear feeling – am I ok with being called a woman, female, “she”?
I went to a workshop on being a trans ally during Trans Awareness Week and we talked about pronouns. A couple of (cis) people said they hadn’t thought about it and didn’t really mind what they were called. The trans person leading the group said that perhaps that was because they hadn’t had to think about it, hadn’t been misgendered on a regular basis. That definitely gave me something to think about too.
January 13, 2013 at 11:41 pm
I feel you so hard. Except in amongst the perplexity there is also a lot of anger at a feeling of disenfranchisement from my feminism, and especially having my identity defined as against the experiences of others.
January 14, 2013 at 9:41 am
I blow hot and cold over the term cis-privilige. In fact I’m keen on it at all. I think because I have mental health problems, BPD a RAD *and* a language disability I can do without anymore labels!
January 14, 2013 at 10:57 am
Brave and i liked it. Loved the last sentence. I have these dilemmas all the time. Another rung on the ladder to a greater understanding.. At least that’s what i tell myself!
January 14, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Thanks for this. Honest and courageous. My take on this, for what it’s worth, is that definitions are a useful device and enable us to talk about things, but as soon as they become things with which to undermine or attack others we are all in trouble. Attempts to establish some sort of reductionist ‘heirarchy of privelige’ are a cul de sac which serves nobody in my experience .The real world is always, always more complex than that and I often find myself wondering why – why waste energy competing over who has the most ‘victim points’. What’s the pay off here? Isn’t it mirroring the dominanator system? “Check your privelige” can all too easily become a covert way of undermining and disempowering the target, in other words in some instances at least it can operate as just as much of a power play as the overt opression it purports to oppose. At it’s worst it degenerates into “I have decided that you are more priveliged than me, therefore you must put up with me shouting at you. In transactional analysis it’s called the drama triangle and there is always fierce competition for the victim role because it has moral superiority in the game, the other roles are rescuer and persecutor. Persecutor has no moral authority of course but lots of control. There’s usually lots of switching. In truth everyone’s stuck and nobody is empowered. The only real way out is to choose authenticity over persecuting, rescuing or being a victim and stand firm in your own truth, which requires no explanation and nobody elses permission. If I was to play that game I could probably score quite highly on the victim scale but it doesn’t interest me. None of this prevents us from recognizing bullying and opression when it occure and saying ‘stop’. . Just my two penny worth. . .
January 15, 2013 at 11:54 pm
Fabulous two penny worth response to a real cog turning blog. One of my fave (George Bernard Shaw) quotes ‘a great mind is androgynous’ seems appropriate here.
May 4, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Hello, your articles here Not enough words for “woman”: Locating my own cissexism | glosswatch to write well, thanks for sharing!