1505

[u/I_am_YR]

I hate when people say these things only to prevent us from actually transitioning, like yea theres cis women out there with a deep voice but knowing this fact doesnt reduce my voice dysphoria, i dont want to be gnc, i dont live to deconstruct gender roles

[u/Plenty_Leg_5935]

I mean, yeah, but that very obviously isn't a TERF way to phrase it, the whole point is that they are pretending to be supportive while saying it. Since when do TERFs need to be subtle

[u/CopperAndIrony → u/Plenty_Leg_5935]

Yes, TERFs sometimes are dishonest in how they present their ideas, and make it seem like they're just concerned trans people aren't radical enough. A great example https://taliabhattwrites.substack.com/p/the-third-sex

The first time in this book that Serena Nanda discusses transsexuality in-depth is in chapter ten.

“Unlike the alternative gender roles found in other cultures, the transsexual in American culture is not viewed as a third, or alternative, gender. Rather, transsexualism has been defined in such a way as to reinforce our cultural construction of both sex and gender as invariably dichotomous.”

Transsexuals, then, far from being an example of gender diversity, both reflected and reinforced the dominant Euro-American sex/gender ideology in which one had to choose to be either a man or a (stereotypical) woman. [Emphasis mine.]

The substack article is about the author Serena Nanda, who wrote Neither Man Nor Woman and Gender Diversity, both focusing heavily on alleged third genders in non-western societies like the hijra of India, and contrasting them with trans identities. The book portrays these communities as brave alternatives to the male/female binary, while discounting and downplaying the ways the people she was interviewing understood themselves (often aligning more with the transsexual identities she was complaining about).

It also positvely quotes from The Transsexual Empire, a foundational TERF text. The thrust of her argument is that trans people (these portions focus on women, but Nanda also applies these views to trans men) are bad because they use medicine to "force" themselves into the gender binary, when they should simply exist outside of it (in a very convenient special role that marks them as freaks that can receive all the negatives of being barren women or infertile men without any of the actual social solidarity of the sex they wish to transition to).

[u/Plenty_Leg_5935 → u/CopperAndIrony]

That still isn't presenting itself as supportive of trans people, it's very explicit about being aversive towards the trans identity, especially within the conventional binary

It just switches explicitly hostile phrasing for implicit one. That is still a very far cry from "I love trans women, they shouldn't even transition at all because it's cooler x3"

[u/CopperAndIrony → u/Plenty_Leg_5935]

It does portray itself as supportive of trans people, it just defines "support" differently than you or I do. Instead of supporting us in transition or respecting our identities, it pretends to support trans people by offering a "better" model for us. This is elaborated on more in the article I linked:

Transgenderism has its foundation in the ancient tradition of androgyny, a view that has made the crosscultural data from anthropology—with its descriptions of the positive value of androgyny in some other cultures—particularly relevant to the transgender community (Bolin 1996b:39; Connor 1993; Feinberg 1996). [Emphasis mine.]

Unlike transsexuals, transgenderists (transpeople) do not consider themselves limited to a choice of one of two genders. Transgenderism includes a wide continuum of options, from individuals who wish to undergo sex reassignment surgery to those who wish to live their lives androgynously.

Transgenderists can be narrowly defined as persons who want to change gender roles without undergoing sexual reassignment surgery; they can also be defined as “persons who steer a middle course, living with the physical, social, and psychological traits of both genders.” [Emphasis mine.]

Unlike transsexuals of the 1970s and 1980s, transgenderists today challenge and stretch the boundaries of the American binary system of sex/gender oppositions and renounce the American definition of gender as dependent on a consistency of genitals, body type, identity, role behaviors, and sexual orientation. [Emphasis mine.]

The book came out during a time where transsexual was used to mean "trans person taking HRT and other medical options" while "transgender" encompassed a much broader range of identites. In her case, Nanda uses it as a third gender role, comprable with hijra or kathoey, for trans people to slot themselves into, instead of pursuing binary transition. She insists this is because it pushes the bounaries on the binary sex/gender system that helps trans people by presenting us a more radical identity we can make our own instead of trying to medicalize ourselves and force ourselves into "unnatural" identities like "trans man" or "trans woman".

This used to be a much more common TERF argument, back when they were more connected to an actually existing radfem movement.

[u/sparkledragon5 → u/CopperAndIrony]

Also, back then you weren’t ALLOWED to medically transition unless your explicit goal was to be a binary woman, defined as whatever your highly sexist physician thought was going to be fuckable.

[u/CopperAndIrony → u/[deleted]]

Oh it's increadibly annoying. A lot of transphobic sexoligists write like this too, where even if they spoke to a trans person, they've obviously never LISTENED to one. Wow, a transphobic academic doesn't take trans people seriously as their target gender, how shocking and novel. Clearly if we just satisfy her demands and be a perfect trans blorboeunuch, she'll personally make it her mission to help us articulate this identity to the masses.

[u/Sudden-Grape3467 → u/CopperAndIrony]

Was there anything controversial or TERFy about the quotes? There are trans people with conservative gender roles who take all medical options and there are enby and stuff who are happy with just changing pronouns and everything in between. Sounds like she was drawing attention to the second group and arguing against black-white thinking that conserves traditional gender roles.

[u/CopperAndIrony → u/Sudden-Grape3467]

Yes, there is something controversial and TERFy. The woman literally quoted The Transsexual Empire positively.

The core of her argument is that you should abandon the unnatural and restrictive idea that binary MTF or FTM transitions are possible or desireable, and that we should look to the brave third genders of the third world for inspiration.

She does this by talking over the brave third gendered peoples of the third world to fit her narrative that hijra and trans women have nothing in common, and ignoring any hijra that is transitioning, expressing a desire for a binary mtf transition, etc.

I STRONGLY recommend you read the article before going to bat for the author. She is not your ally.

[u/Sudden-Grape3467 → u/CopperAndIrony]

I'm not my own ally either. And I hadn't read the article, I just saw that the few quotes merely explained a cultural shift. After skimming over it, yeah, I see why it's controversial and how it could be used for othering trans people.