There have been high profile cases on the matter of which toilets trans people should be able to use - see here, for instance.
A solution from Thailand: the ‘third sex’ toilets. This link is to a short video, explaining why a school in Thailand introduced a toilet for those pupils who considered themselves transsexual. The pupil interviewed seems quite content with the set up.
A model to be replicated? Or a risk of further marginalisation?
Sophia Wong has posted a short essay on “how to mentor someone who doesn’t look like you”, but as she notes the issues are much broader than those related to appearance– how, for example do you mentor a student with kids if you don’t have kids? Or a trans person if you’re not trans? A disabled person if you’re not disabled? Since under-represented groups *are* under-represented, people from the better represented groups need to do some thinking about how to be good mentors to those unlike them. And Wong lists some simple, useful tips. Go check it out!
As folks around here know, I work hard to be kind and civil to everyone even vaguely feminist or possibly sympathetic to feminism. But I’m going to make an exception for Germaine Greer. Stoat’s criticisms are spot-on, but, well, too polite for my taste.
The Feminist Blogosphere has been filled with discussions of whether Amanda Marcotte’s and SEAL Press’s apologies and promises to change are an adequate response to criticisms. Greer, as Stoat notes, belittled the injustices faced by Muslims and racial minorities while at the same time demonstrating her view that the only women (who count) are white and secular. AND SHE IS COMPLETELY UNREPENTANT. As far as I know, she has never in her life apologised for anything, or conceded that she has anything to learn from those who are not her. As Laura Miller from Salon said 9 years ago, Greer’s method is “inflating her own personal trials into theories about the condition of women”. Sounds almost precisely like what Elizabeth Spelman calls the method of White Solipsism. She is totally uninterested in women’s health, as shown by her opposition to PAP smears and the HPV vaccine, and her support for FGM; and she has a long history of transphobia.* Why the hell are we are all being so tolerant of her? Because she wrote an important book a long time ago? Well, a lot has happened since then and she should have made an effort to keep up.
For a much funnier, better-written take on Greer from roughly the same perspective, check out Natalia Antonova. And for another excellent post by someone just as annoyed as me by the FEM 08 talk, go here.
*In general, I think that feminism is enriched by a diversity of views, when these views are backed up by well-reasoned arguments. But Greer’s are not. Instead, they’re based on ignoring the perspectives of those who are unlike her. This does not enrich feminism.
For a Special Issue of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities Edited by Talia Mae Bettcher and Ann Garry.
The recent publication of The Transgender Studies Reader (ed. Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle, New York: Routledge, 2006) marks a watershed in the development of trans studies. Arising in the early nineties in close relation to queer theory, trans studies is characterized by the coming-to-voice of trans people, long the theorized and researched objects of sexology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and even feminist theory. Sandy Stone’s groundbreaking “The Empire Strikes Back: A PosttranssexualManifesto” sought the end of monolithic accounts of trans people (authored by non-trans) to reveal a multiplicity of trans narratives told by trans people themselves.
By recognizing trans people as flesh and blood humanbeings with particular access to experiences of “transness” and transphobic oppression, as its starting point, trans studies opens up a way of theorizing “transgender”–for trans and non-trans people alike–that ideally resists, rather than reinforces, mechanisms of transphobia. This raises important questions in feminist theory and politics. How can feminist theory best understand transphobia and trans resistance? Where do feminist and trans politics meet? Where are the overlaps and gaps, the points ofconnection and disconnection?
Hypatia invites submissions to a special issue on transgender studies and feminism, which recognizes the emergence of trans studies.We welcome articles that investigate the relations between feminism and transgender studies. Articles exploring the intersections of multiple oppressions are especially welcome, as are submissions that come from subject-positions outside the United States (and North America more generally). We seek a collection of papers that is international in scope.We also welcome articles that focus on issues specific to trans studies,trans politics, and trans people. This includes (but is hardly limited to) the following: medical regulations of trans bodies; transphobic violence ;transphobia in housing, employment, education, medical treatment, and the like; sexual violence against trans people; critiques and concerns about various views within trans studies or politics, tensions between queer theory and trans studies.
Submissions need not be limited to the discipline of philosophy; we encourage interdisciplinary submissions. Regardless of disciplinary orientation, all submissions need to be theoretically sophisticated.Submissions that show a sensitivity to the interrelations among theory,politics, and real impacts upon flesh and blood human beings are especially welcome.
Papers should be no more than 8000 words, prepared for anonymous review, andaccompanied by an abstract of no more than 75 words. Please provide a cover letter identifying your paper as a submission for the special issue“Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities.”
The deadline for submissions is 15 April, 2008. Papers should be submitted by electronic attachment in Word to Ann Garry at agarry AT calstatela.edu.Submissions should follow Hypatia guidelines.Please address all correspondence, questionsand suggestions to Ann Garry or Talia Bettcher at tbettch AT calstatela.edu.
Gender issues are suddenly in the news, and Bob Herbert is wondering where we’ve all been. As in, could people in the US possibly just be beginning to think about these issues? If so, what’s the big deal?
If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.
The pervasive violence against women is not even reported as revealing the mysogyny:
The cable news channels revel in stories about women (almost always young and attractive) who come to a gruesome end at the hands of violent men. The stories seldom, if ever, raise the issue of misogyny, which permeates not just the crimes themselves, but the coverage as well.
The media is perfectly aware that there are hate crimes that occur against racial and sexual minorities, even if its record of accurate reporting leaves much to be desired. But crimes against women don’t seem to count as hate crimes, Herbert is telling us.
We’ve become so used to the disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous and even violent treatment of women that we hardly notice it. Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed against women and girls every day. Fashionable ads in mainstream publications play off of that violence, exploiting themes of death and dismemberment, female submissiveness and child pornography.
If we’ve opened the door to the issue of sexism in the presidential campaign, then let’s have at it. It’s a big and important issue that deserves much more than lip service.
Given the mysogyny that so many women face every day, let’s forget about who’s playing the gender card. What is much more important is that a wise parent may well feel that girls need to be brought up to be wary and fearful.
Note tight deadline:
WUN Gender Studies Global Network
International Workshop
Genders/Sexualities/Bodies/Identities
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
3rd/4th of April 2008
Call for Papers The aim of this two-day event is to bring together researchers from different disciplines (including PhD students) who work on questions of
gender/transgender, sexuality, the body and identity
with the view of identifying common interests and initiating future international research projects. Depending on the number of participants, we will have plenary sessions and/or different subgroups for individual presentations of 15 to 20 minutes. If you would like to take part, please send the title of your presentation plus an abstract of about 100 words and a brief version of your biographical/academic details by
15 January 2008 to:
Prof. Dr. Eveline KilianHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinInstitut für Anglistik und AmerikanistikUnter den Linden 6D-10099 BerlinGermanyEmail: eveline.kilian AT rz.hu-berlin.de (send details by e-mail, if possible)
There’s currently a huge amount of momentum around the issue of improving numbers of women and minorities in philosophy. A major catalyst for this has been Sally Haslanger’s incredibly important paper on the topic. I know that many women just starting out in philosophy found that paper a very depressing read. But the extremely good news is that it’s serving as a real catalyst for discussion and action, and there’s actually a lot of optimism and energy. There’s a nice example in this post from Evelyn Brister:
In the last decade, at least half of U.S. college graduates have been women. But less than a third of philosophy majors have been women. Women have not reached workplace equity at the beginning of the 21st century, but there are only a few places and ways in which they are not reaching educational parity. Philosophy—the discipline that takes as its subjects ethics, justice, consistency, and self-reflection—is one of those places.What does this gender inequality indicate about our discipline? Some have taken it to indicate that the material itself is gender-biased, that the methods of argumentation reflect masculine psychology, or that philosophy is a bastion of cultural traditionalism that incubates sexist practices.That assessment is too negative, in my opinion. As an optimist, a meliorist, and a pragmatist, I think that it indicates first and foremost that philosophers, unlike other analytic disciplines, have not made gender parity a priority.
Brister argues for greater attention to undergraduate recruitment and retention. If you have thoughts on this, head over to her post and share them! Sharon Crasnow suggests that those of us from under-represented groups who have persevered or even thrived in philosophy should reflect on what helped us to do this and to talk about this. If you have stories on this to share, go tell Sharon. There are also some very important data collection efforts getting underway– more on those in a later post.
One thing that’s struck me is that there actually are a lot of genuinely well-meaning people in philosophy who would like to improve recruitment and retention of women and minorities in philosophy, at all levels, but who need some guidance about how to do so. I’m going to be working on providing a document with such guidance, and would appreciate any suggestions you may have. One thing I’d particularly like to hear about is what sorts of techniques actually help one to correct against the very unconscious biases that Haslanger and Valian have drawn our attention to. But I’m really interested in hearing about any ideas you may have– or reports of efforts, even those that haven’t worked. Please put them in the comments!
Note: Categories have been updated as a result of comments.
Some good news: Michigan has barred discrimination against transgender state employees. (Thanks, Jender-Parents!)
Gov. Jennifer Granholm has issued an order that bars discrimination against state workers based on their “gender identity or expression,” which protects the rights of those who behave, dress or identify as members of the opposite sex.
The order, which Granholm signed Wednesday, adds gender identity to a list of other prohibited grounds for discrimination that includes religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, marital status, politics, disability or genetic information.
A top Microsoft executive is transitioning from male to female, and apparently the big question isn’t whether colleagues will be accepting of a transwoman, but whether they will be accepting of a woman.
He’s unlikely to encounter blatant transphobia on the job. He should worry instead about plain old-fashioned sexism. How will Wallent’s developers react when they come to work on January 2 and it hits them: They’re working for a girl?
Thanks, Mr Jender, for the link.
We’ve already touched upon ENDA, the US anti-discrimination law that is likely to pass the congress in some form or other and certain to be vetoed by Bush. As the issue is laid out by some such as John Aravosis, the law will either protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or do this and also protect against discrimination against trans-people. Aravosis has been strongly criticised for asking why a single bill should include protection for both gay and trans people, since being gay and being trans are importantly different. I think it’s always a reasonable thing to ask why particular groups should or shouldn’t be grouped together, both conceptually and practically (and the practical issues are strange here, since the bill is certain to be vetoed)– though apparently Aravosis has a lot of historical facts wrong when he suggests that trans-people are latecomers to the long established and hard-working gay rights movement. And I also think that Aravosis poses the question in quite a dismissive and disrespectful way at times. But this important article by Susan Stryker suggests that Aravosis is utterly wrong to set out the legislative issues as he does. Gay people will not be properly protected unless trans-people are too, because anyone who is attracted to those of the “wrong” sex is not engaging in conventional gender expression. If you want to actually protect gay people who aren’t totally straight-acting and successfully closeted, you need to protect against discrimination on the basis of gender expression.
Protecting the rights of transgender people specifically is just one welcome byproduct of the version of ENDA that forbids discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender expression or identity. This full version of ENDA, rather than the nearly introduced one that stripped away previously agreed-upon protections against gender-based discrimination and would protect only sexual orientation, is the one that is of potential benefit to all Americans, and not just to a narrow demographic slice of straight-looking, straight-acting gays and lesbians. It doesn’t really even do that much good for this group, as Lambda Legal points out, because of a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.Now here’s the rub — but it requires another of those fancy words my academic colleagues and I like to throw around: heteronormativity, the idea that whatever straight people do is really what’s what, and that whatever anybody else does is deviant to some degree. To want to have sex with somebody of the same gender violates heteronormative expectations of gender behavior as much as it does heteronormative expectations of sexual behavior. Simply put: Real men don’t suck cock. Nor do they use the word “fabulous” when describing a pair of women’s shoes. Nor do they keep a picture of their husband pinned to the wall of their office cubicle. All of the above violates conventional or stereotypical expectations of proper masculine gender, and as Lambda Legal’s preliminary analysis of ENDA makes clear, none would be protected under the rubric of sexual orientation alone. It’s OK to be gay, in other words, just so long as you don’t act like a fag.
Some very important arguments here.
Intersectionality– roughly, the way that multiple oppressions may interact, and may even not be clearly separable– is rightly a major topic that receives a lot of attention in academia (though arguably still not as much as it should). But some intersections get more attention than others, and one that doesn’t really get a lot of attention is the intersection of ageism and homophobia. But it should, as this New York Times article makes clear. There always has been a large gay elderly population (as a few seconds’ reflection would make clear to anyone but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), but now things are a bit different: many of these people have eventually managed to live openly as gay in a world that is more tolerant than the one that they grew up in, partly by choosing the communities in which they live. But when they need long-term residential care things turn ugly– they’re forced to live in close quarters in homophobic communities (both residents and staff). Most of them return to their closets, and at a time when life is getting enormously difficult anyway this is a huge burden. Some commit suicide, and many suffer depression. The good news is that there are some– though surely not enough– retirement centers that cater to gay people; and that gay rights organizations are working very hard to educate those running and working retirement centers, in order to improve things. One of those working to do this, by the way, is Amber Hollibaugh, known to me for her writings on sexuality. (Although the article is primarily focused on homophobia, the work being done includes work against transphobia as well.)
Last week, President Ahmadinejad declared that there is no homosexuality in Iran. In reality, of course, it is a crime punishable by death, and there have been such executions very recently. However, there may well be fewer homosexuals in Iran than elsewhere, and not just because they’ve been killed. There’s also the interesting fact that transsexuality is considered a treatable disease rather than a crime. Many of those who find themselves attracted to the “wrong” sex in Iran wind up undergoing sex change surgery, which allows them to live on the right side of the law. Of course, this means many face a choice between being the sex/gender they want to be/are and loving the sex/gender they want to love. Scary. But also interesting to see that transsexuality is more accepted in Iran than homosexuality, when the reverse seems to be true in the West, as we can see from debates over the inclusion of transsexuals in ENDA in the US.
It’s interesting, also, as a way of calling attention to the way these issues are related. If ENDA passes without protection for transsexuals (likely) and doesn’t get vetoed (unlikely), it will be illegal to discriminate against gay people but legal to discriminate against transsexuals. (It will of course be vetoed, but set that aside– we’re philosophers, and we can imagine a possible world with a sane president. Ahhhhh.) Now consider consider an American trans-woman, who is attracted to men. This person, in our sane-president-world, would fare best (so far as anti-discrimination law goes) if she concealed her womanhood and instead presented herself as a gay man. In Iran, a man who identifies himself as a man but is also attracted to men would be better off having a sex change operation and presenting himself as a straight woman. (Well, except that he’d then have to live under the laws that apply to women!)
By the way, the issue of whether or not one should support a non-trans-inclusive ENDA is immensely complicated. To read more about this issue from both sides, I recommend John Aravosis’s article at Salon, and the comments discussing it there; and this excellent article from Susan Stryker suggested by reader Kathy. (Updated to include Stryker reference.)
Reader Cassandra sent us this article, on the rise of single-sex state education in the US, particularly in the early teen years. I expected my reaction to be wholly negative, and there’s plenty there to trigger a negative response: Throwing balls to boys when they’re called on to keep their attention! Having girls analyse makeup in chemistry classes! I mean, Stereotypes R US, right? But… one girl who chose single sex classes (over her parents’ protests) talks about how it gave her the confidence boost she needed to be more assertive when she returned to mixed-sex classes. This is just the kind of argument we hear for keeping all-women’s colleges, and feminists are often receptive to these arguments. And: think about the age range we’re discussing. At a very early age, it would look like simply gender indoctrination, and we’ve already got too much of that. But by the early teen years, these forces have already done much of their work and pressure to conform is at its highest. Is it so crazy to suppose that the result of these pressures *could* be boys and girls benefiting from different kinds of classes? And think again about the makeup analysis. Is it really clearly mistaken to use the undeniably widespread teenage girl interest in makeup to get teenage girls interested in chemistry? If pressure to think about makeup could make chemistry cool, wouldn’t this be a good thing? (Similar thoughts apply to the ball-throwing, arguably.) Sure, it would be better to get rid of all the gender-conformity pressure. But since it *is* there right now, we should also try to do the best we can for the kids who are already its victims. Still, of course huge and troubling issues remain: is this just enhancing the gender-conformity pressure? Will boys who don’t like balls and girls who don’t like makeup just find life even harder? I know I myself would have hated the idea. And what about trans-kids? I’m certainly not convinced that this is the right approach– a part of me still hates it quite viscerally, and on balance I still probably oppose it. But I’m surprised to find myself not just dismissing it out of hand.
It’s been a big week for the Society for Women in Philosophy, Cyberspace Division. First Sally Haslanger set up a Facebook group for SWIP, and now Anne Jacobson is offering SWIP the use of her virtual office in Second Life. She writes:
Apparently some companies use it for training sessions; I’ve been to a conference and seen a pretty good photography exhibit. I have met up with people (my avatar has talked to theirs with my words); that’s as good as instant messaging. Presumably, everyone with a microphone can talk to or at others. If SWIP were interested, we could get together avatars from Europe and North American to discuss having a conference or starting an online journal, for example. And a feminist presence in Second Life would be a good thing, I think.
I’m extremely ignorant of what can be done with these technologies, and I’m hoping some of you may be more knowledgeable. What does Facebook give us that we don’t get through having web pages? An easy way to find other SWIP members? More? And what about Second Life? Is the virtual office basically a chat room? What can be done with these, either in terms of philosophy or activism? What has been done? I know that there are some actual university courses being offered in second life– what do these get someone that they can’t get by more traditional online learning? I know there are also political groups in Second Life. Is there a feminist presence? With SWIP, of course, there are further complications. It’s a Society for *Women* in Philosophy, and I don’t think non-women members are allowed in any divisions. All-women spaces already raise lots of issues regarding sex and gender identity when decisions have to be made about who is a woman. But in Second Life, as I understand it, anyone can have a woman avatar. What do we do about membership there? Another thought, given Second Life flexibility regarding gender, is that it could be used (to some limited extent) to help men learn what it’s like to be a woman, and to help women learn what it’s like to be a man. (Apparently, it’s been successfully used to help show trainee psychiatrists what schizophrenia feels like.) All thoughts very welcome. As I said, I’m totally out of my depth on this stuff.
I just received an email from the National Geographic Channel about their upcoming series “Taboo”, sent because of our posts on trans issues. It pointed my attention to a particular video clip, described as follows:
One of the topics covered is transgenderism, and NGC has just posted this clip sharing the life of a pre-op transsexual, who has everyone confused about what it means to be a man, but herself.
And here’s the video clip:
Many things struck me about the email, after viewing the video-clip. (1) The man in the clip has had surgery to remove his breasts and his uterus, so he’s not pre-operative. But clearly the email’s author is focussed on the lack of a penis. He doesn’t express any interest in getting a penis, so he doesn’t seem to be pre-that-op either. (2) I don’t see anything at all confusing about this man’s description of his life– I’d expected him to do something like reject both gender identities, but he’s very strongly identified as a man. (3) The email’s author persists in using a feminine pronoun, which does indeed generate a confusing sentence. It really seems to me like most of the confusion is generated by the way the clip is described.
New Jersey has just made it illegal for landlords and employers to discriminate against transgender people, or against people who fail to conform to gender stereotypes, joining 8 other states that ban discrimination against the transgendered. Pathetic that it’s still legal in 42 states, but still– progress is good. In the UK, it is currently legal to discriminate against transgendered people in the provision of goods, services, and housing, although not employment. More on UK law here. Thanks to S for passing this on to me.
Article here about individual whose ‘gender identity disorder’ specialist referred her - and a number of other patients - for surgery after inadequate consultations. Legal proceedings are apparently underway.
It reminded me of a paper presented recently by Christine Overall at a recent SWIP-UK conference. The abstract is here. These kinds of cases might be understood as supporting her proposal about how to understand transsexualism - not involving a ‘masquerade’ metaphor (taking of the mask of previous sex/ putting on a mask of assumed sex)- but rather like other important transitions; voluntarily engaged in, a significant project for the individual.
Cases where individuals regret sex changes undergone after misinformation - or insufficient information - seem to fit nicely in her model, which can presumably account for these cases in terms of taking on a (significant, life-changing) project without knowing enough about what you’re getting into. It’s harder to see what the ‘masquerade’ views would have to say - that individuals were confused about whether they were ‘wearing a mask’, say, which seems implausible.
Newsweek has a lot articles on trans issues here. Great that these issues are being covered in the mainstream media– quite striking to see Judith Butler being quoted! Lots of interesting material to be found in the stories of trans-people who are profiled. Perhaps especially relevant to this blog are comments from a woman who “lost 20 IQ” points in other people’s eyes when she stopped being a man; and another who found that people in shops who had previously deferred to her (at the time, his) engineering expertise now refused to believe that she knew what she was talking about.
 | Brandon on Irshad Manji |
 | profbigk on Begging on panted knees: How a… |
 | Scrambled “McE… on Let’s Talk About Eg… |
 | jj on Begging on panted knees: How a… |
 | j on Begging on panted knees: How a… |
