Feminism, Language, Philosophy, Theory

Sex Essentialists don’t understand materialist analysis

November 19, 2017
Cristan

I spent a few days trying to reason with a sex essentialist activist regarding their ideological claims, clearly pulled straight from the quagmire of confusion that is Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist analysis.

Here’s the materialist logic I tried (and I believe failed) to get the sex essentialist activist to grasp:

Here’s are the implications of the materialist logic I tried (and I believe failed) to get the sex essentialist activist to grasp:

Here’s a summary of the sex essentialist activist ideological positions:

Sex essentialist ideology masquerades as a materialist argument because the sex essentialist confuses their ontology obsession with engaging the material conditions of bodies and their existence. For sex essentialists, trans women are men because the sex essentialist will appeal to some presumed body attribute (eg, presumed male chromosome) in order to reduce the entire body to the asserted ontology, thereby objectifying the material body as ontology so that the material conditions the trans body exists within can be rhetorically ignored. The circular logic claims that since their label appeals to a presumed male chromosome, theirs must be a materialist claim… all while rhetorically erasing any and all female phenotype attributes of the trans body in question, along with its resulting material conditions.

The Discussion

The sex essentialist begins the discussion by responding to the following definitions:

Definitions the sex essentialist found problematic

Sex Essentialist:

Sex: A social identifier assigned to babies at birth.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. Sex is an evolved biological mechanism for facilitating reproduction through combining parental genetic information. The vast majority of mammal bodies, including humans, have the requisite anatomy for impregnating, or for gestating, birthing and feeding offspring. Sex is identified at birth, not “assigned”. If you think that is essentialism, then you have clearly internalised the idea that a person’s sexual anatomy must dictate their personality and their capabilities.

Humans, because we’re social animals, have created cultural meanings around sex – these cultural meanings are what we call gender. In particular, gender serves to elevate males and subordinate females; which is why feminists refer to gender as a hierarchy.

From another article on your site: “TERFs generally claim that gender identity is the same thing as gender role, that gender is the same thing as sexism, and that sexed ontologies are produced by nature, not culture.”

Trans activists have never produced an explanation that meaningfully differentiates gender identity from gender roles.

Believing that people’s capabilities and value are based upon their sex – ie: the gender hierarchy – is sexism, pure and simple.

And sex is a naturally evolved mechanism for reproduction. Gender is a social construct. Trans activists, not feminists, are invested in the conflation of these two concepts.

My Response:

Are you claiming that nature constructs ontology?

Sex Essentialist:

I think I understand what you’re trying to achieve with all your talk about ontology – but I don’t think it achieves what you believe it does, or even that it can achieve this. Changing the way we speak of material reality doesn’t change the material reality.

And no, pointing out that sex is determined by reproductive function is not reductive – at least, not if you don’t have a highly gendered understanding of the nature of male and female humans. Whatever genitalia a person has, their personality is their own and is unique – just because a person doesn’t fit socially constructed stereotypes, we don’t have to classify them as something they are physically not. That approach is deeply regressive.

My Response:

No, that’s not at all what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to say this:

How YOU choose to classify feminized bodies has nothing to do with phenotype, does it? You seem to be saying that feminized bodies with female phenotypes are male bodies, correct? Because of some asserted sexed essence (like a presumed chromosome), yes?

I’m saying that what you are doing is called gender. The objectification of a body as sex is gender. The constructed object (sex) and the material reality of a body are not the same things.

For instance, someone sexed female at birth, but who cannot reproduce is, under your asserted metric, not female because, as you say “pointing out that sex is determined by reproductive function is not reductive.” However, I’m sure you would be happy to shift your goalpost metric to appeal to some other sexed essence (maybe her phenotype?) to which you would appeal to in order to objectify her body as the sexed essence itself, right? Again, the mental shell game you’re playing is called gender.

Your thoughts about the material reality of bodies and reproduction are thoughts, not material reality; your thoughts have no independent existence outside your head. The sexed objects YOU construct do not exist within material reality. Believing otherwise is to assert some good ol’ POMO magical thinking.

Sex Essentialist:

“You seem to be saying that feminized bodies with female phenotypes are male bodies, correct? Because of some asserted sexed essence (like a presumed chromosome), yes?”

What do you classify as a ‘feminised’ body? Do you include artificially feminised bodies that are the result of synthetic hormone consumption and plastic surgery? Which has been done on the basis of a claimed “female” essence that doesn’t “match” the male body in which it resides?

No matter how much you scream at feminists for being “biological essentialists”, you really can’t get away from the fact that transgenderism is based upon an assertion of gender essentialism. At the very least, acknowledging biological reality makes no further assumptions as to how a person should behave or present, or what talents and interests they should have. Gender essentialism cannot do otherwise than stamp the individual with a sex/gender label (and therefore a restrictive definition) on the basis of their personality and preferences because gender is fundamentally grounded in the idea that male and female humans must behave in certain socially prescribed ways.

The irony of you accusing me of pomo ‘magical’ thinking is extreme. I am not the one claiming that a person can change the physical reality of his or her body by changing their pronouns and assuming a gender label.

The fact that physical sex is a matter of normative classification doesn’t mean one can therefore throw away all such classification in favour of personal identification. Human bodies, in the vast majority of cases, fall into a binary distribution in terms of sexual anatomy. Within that distribution, there are individuals who are for whatever reason unable to reproduce – however, their body pattern is still broadly male or female. This holds even for many individuals who are born with intersex conditions. The entire existence of sex in the first place is due to the evolution of reproductive processes. Humans are but one species among many in which sexual reproduction is the means to the end of passing on genetic information. We evolved from ancestors whose means were thus, who evolved from other sexually reproducing ancestors, and so on and on and on… An individual person might not be successful at reproducing – but their body pattern exists because their ancestors were successful in this regard. There is not a single human alive now, nor any human who ever lived, whose existence as a unique individual was not the result of the combination of an egg (female gamete) and sperm (male gamete), and who was not carried and birthed by a female body.

I myself have a female-patterned body, which I have chosen not to use for reproductive purposes. That alone is a violation of gender norms – but there is not one person I’ve ever met who imagined for a moment that I am not female. For all I know, I may be unable to reproduce – but the physical realities of my life experience are still based upon the fact that I have the kind of body that generally tends towards the gestation and nurturance of offspring. I am obliged to make decisions on the basis of the hypothesis that I have this capacity, even though, strictly speaking, the hypothesis remains unconfirmed.

Biology is complex, yes. There are grey areas everywhere you turn. But an individual with a penis and testes is still male, no matter how much he claims to ‘feel’ female. How could he possibly know what it means to ‘feel’ female or to experience life in a female-patterned body? What does he even have to base these notions upon, other than sexist assumptions about how men and women “should” feel and behave? Assumptions which, I will add (again), are only reinforced by the claim that gender identity is innate and immutable.

Thoughts about material reality don’t have much use unless they actually correspond to the material reality in question. The relationship of the map to the territory, of the mental model to the physical state of affairs, is what grounds all human communication, ultimately. Collective understanding is facilitated by the use of shared concepts. When you try to push a concept of gender identity that is yours alone, there should be no surprise when others find it meaningless.

My Response:

Q: What do you classify as a ‘feminised‘ body?
A: I consider the standard “female phenotype” to be a “feminized” body. You can do a google image search for “female phenotype” to get a better idea of what I’m referring to.

Q: Do you include artificially feminised bodies that are the result of synthetic hormone consumption and plastic surgery?
A: Are you really going to assert the ad naturam fallacy to distinguish between “real/authentic/good” and “fake/inauthentic/bad” feminized bodies? Tell me, how many billions do non-trans women spend on “synthetic hormone consumption”? How many billions do non-trans women spend on “plastic surgery”? How much money do YOU spend on sexed diets, exercise, scents, hairstyles, etc? In light of this, are you really going to attempt to construct an ad naturam argument for body shapes? Am I understanding you correctly?

Q: Which has been done on the basis of a claimed “female” essence that doesn’t “match” the male body in which it resides?
A: It seems to me the one making the ad naturam claims is the one attempting to make an essentialist claim, not me. I didn’t transition because I had some “female essence” that didn’t match “the male body in which it resides”; rather, I was suicidal at the age of 5 because I knew my body was not right and my suicidal ideation didn’t stop until I transitioned. I’m telling you I transitioned to save my life. I get that you’re happy to tell me that I transitioned for other reasons, but I want to invite you to consider that your apriori beliefs are standing in the way of effective communication and understanding.

What I “can’t get away from” is sex essentialists telling me I’m appealing to gender essentialism even when they can’t point to anything I’ve said that qualifies as such. Please, paste into a reply wherein I’ve asserted that one, as you claim I assert, “should have” a “a sex/gender label (and therefore a restrictive definition) on the basis of their personality and preferences.” If you can’t do that, I want you to consider that perhaps your apriori beliefs are standing in the way of effective communication and understanding.

You wrote:

I am not the one claiming that a person can change the physical reality of his or her body by changing their pronouns and assuming a gender label.

Please paste into a reply where I’ve made the claim that: “a person can change the physical reality of his or her body by changing their pronouns and assuming a gender label.”

I think I’m been quite clear on drawing distinctions between material reality and thoughts.

You wrote:

The fact that physical sex is a matter of normative classification doesn’t mean one can therefore throw away all such classification in favour of personal identification

Please paste into a reply where I’ve made the claim that: “one can therefore throw away all such classification in favour of personal identification.”

I think I’ve been quite clear that CULTURE places people into sex classes, not personal whim.

You wrote:

Thoughts about material reality don’t have much use unless they actually correspond to the material reality in question.

Precisely my point. Culture defines the material condition we live in, not your thoughts about what essentially constitutes “real” men and “real” women. Essentialist reductivism is about a close to a POMO understanding of the material conditions intersex, trans, and cis women live in as those who believe labels form the basis of liberation. Did your definition of “real woman” stop a man from putting his penis into my vagina while I was unconscious? Does your definition of “real woman” stop men from sexually harassing me online? Will your definition of “real woman” stop men from harassing me as I walk down the street? Your labels obscure rather than clarify the specific material conditions that define the material experience of all women.

Sex Essentialist:

Since you claim to have felt that your body was “not right” from the age of 5, you must have gained some insight into why this should have been the case. There are many, many people who experience profound dissatisfaction with their bodies, for various reasons. Your dissatisfaction, as you’ve claimed, manifested as the need to assume the appearance of the other sex.

I actually don’t see a significant difference between so-called ‘sex-reassignment’ surgery and other forms of elective cosmetic surgery. People have their own reasons for pursuing such serious measures; but it’s difficult not to suspect at least some motivation comes from internalised social pressure to conform to certain standards and aesthetics.

What do you consider to be the ‘standard female phenotype’? Does it include internal organs or just external appearance? The latter is all that is available to trans women via surgery and hormones. It is not an ad naturam fallacy to point this out – it’s simply an observation of physical fact.

“How much money do YOU spend on sexed diets, exercise, scents, hair styles, etc? In light of this, are you really going to attempt to construct an ad naturam argument for body shapes?”

It’s interesting that you ask me this, on the assumption that because I am female, I tend to conform to social expectations of femininity. The answer to your question is virtually none whatsoever. I spend money on food and personal hygiene – the latter of which, incidentally, for me includes things like tampons, which are necessitated by the facts of my female (not gendered, not ‘feminised’) body. Other than that, my spending on self-care is about as gender-neutral as it’s possible to be in a patriarchal capitalist society.

As for your gender essentialism, it’s revealed by your casual presumption of my behaviour on the basis of my sex; on a deeper level, your comments tend to reveal your adherence to transgender theory and ideology, of which gender essentialism is the core.

You say, in a previous comment:

To pretend that you don’t know what it means when I tell you that, within trans discourse, “gender identity” means “gender orientation, one’s sexed persona, or both” is either an enormous failure of self-reflection on your part or a capricious lie. If, on the other hand, you happen to be the first conscious individual I’ve met walking the face of the earth that does not have a “gender orientation” and does not engage in constructing sexed personas to use within culture, please do tell me about that.

What you’re doing here – apart from assuming the quality of my experience, which is what you’ve accused me of doing with regard to you – is, fundamentally, conflating gender and sex, which is standard practice in trans theory and discourse. I have a sex – that does not automatically mean that I have anything that could meaningfully be described as a “gender orientation” or, for that matter, a gender identity. I have a sexual orientation – but that is a different phenomenon with a quite specific – and physically grounded – definition. I also possess a personality. I exist as a body classified as female, on account of my sexed anatomy. Genderism assumes that personality and sexed anatomy are causally linked in regular and predictable ways – apparently in both directions. I don’t believe that in expressing my individual personality, in behaving according to my beliefs and preferences, I am thus constructing a specifically sexed or gendered persona – it is simply my persona. I don’t see why my sex should be any more or less relevant to my personality than my height, for example, or my skin and hair colour, or the fact that I was raised in a religious household, or any of the myriad other factors that shape a person’s identity whilst also having squat to do with gender.

Whatever categories you choose, there must be material criteria upon which to base those categories. Otherwise, the categories are effectively meaningless.

Biologists determine their categorisations on the basis of various physical characteristics – and the more fundamental the characteristic, the more firmly any individual falls within a particular category.

It’s interesting to me that sex is now treated by a vocal minority as a feature that is entirely plastic – whilst gender, which is entirely a social construct, is treated as fundamental.

It’s even more interesting that many among the same vocal minority are so quick to condemn the idea of ‘transracial’ identities – because as a matter of physical reality, race is a far more superficial characteristic than sex; indeed, a black woman has more in common with a white woman, in physical terms, than she has with a black man. However, the sociocultural implications and realities of race discrimination are such that it is held to be deeply problematic for a white woman such as Rachel Dolezal to identify as black. Funny how quickly we forget the ways in which male humans have oppressed and continue to oppress female humans, to the point where now any man who “identifies” as a woman gains widespread sympathy, no matter how appalling his behaviour, no matter how misogynist his attitude.

My Response:

You wrote:

Whatever categories you choose, there must be material criteria upon which to base those categories.

I take my cue from the pioneering radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon who states:

To me, women is a political group. I never had much occasion to say that, or work with it, until the last few years when there has been a lot of discussion about whether transwomen are women… Simone de Beauvoir said one is not born, one becomes a woman. Now we’re supposed to care how, as if being a woman suddenly became a turf to be defended… I always thought I don’t care how someone becomes a woman or a man; it does not matter to me. It is just part of their specificity, their uniqueness, like everyone else’s. Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman.

You wrote:

Biologists determine their categorisations on the basis of various physical characteristics

This is certainly true. When it comes down to it, gamete size is the name of the ontological construct game… At the same time, radical feminists like Ruth Herschberger was critiquing physical “biological” constructs in the 1940s for what they are: cultural constructs. As she says, almost nobody matches what biologists claim the “normal” and “average” male and female body is supposed to naturally be. We see the truth of this in all the surgeries non-trans people undergo in their effort to force their phenotype to more closely resembling the “natural” male and female phenotype biology says is the norm.

So, when you talk about the biology of “sex”, are you merely talking about gamete size or are you talking about body types, as distinguished in everyday life by phenotype, and the resulting material conditions of culture’s understanding of that phenotype?

Sex Essentialist:

There are a lot of possible approaches to these questions.

The one I’m going to take here and now is basically a step back to the broader perspective of why sex matters at a biological (and therefore social) level.

When Simone de Beauvoir referred to “becoming” a woman, I doubt she was thinking in terms of cross-sex hormone therapy and plastic surgery – her point was that people are socialised into their respective gender roles. Most human cultures have established social roles for male and female members of society, which are ultimately based upon reproductive capacity – actual or presumed. There is not a single human being who has not absorbed a certain amount of social conditioning – and broadly speaking, female humans are conditioned in different ways than are male humans. I don’t think we disagree on this latter point.

To the extent that it is possible to isolate biological conditions from social conditions, the fact is that human bodies fall into three broad categories – male, female and intersex (and the latter is comparatively rare). It’s true there are sets of criteria corresponding to male and female bodies – gametes, genitalia, internal sex organs, secondary sex characteristics, hormonal balances, chromosomes, etc – but it’s also true that, again, the vast majority of humans present with sets of criteria that broadly conform to a male or female pattern (and those who are ambiguously endowed are classified as intersex). Humans, like all other mammals and most sexually reproducing species in general, tend to be sexually dimorphic – humans rather less so than some other species, but we are so none the less. If anything, people born with intersex conditions are the exception that proves the rule; and indeed, most people who are born intersex tend towards male or female anatomical patterns, just with some anomalies. They also tend to have self-concepts that lean towards male or female (though this is probably strongly related to socialisation as well).

Yes, of course biologists work with averages. There is no general description that is going to encompass all the minutiae of individual human variation. And it has to be said that it’s not science that sets up and reinforces an “ideal” human form – leave that to the advertisers, social media shills and other promotional toadies who serve the capitalist masters.

When I talk about the biology of sex, therefore, I am thinking in terms of the whole pattern of a person’s body – the pattern that we are, very likely, hardwired to recognise in our fellow humans. Some body patterns indicate the likely ability to gestate, bear and nurture offspring; other body patterns indicate the likely ability to impregnate. From a pragmatic and social perspective, this matters. When we get down to basics, sex is ultimately about one’s presumed reproductive capacity, since that is why sexual dimorphism evolved in the first place.

Yes, I do believe there is a qualitative difference between a person who is born as an individual of one sex, and a person born as an individual of one sex who then makes a conscious effort to invest time, money and emotion in assuming the appearance of the other sex. I don’t think this difference should affect the latter person’s entitlement to be treated with the respect and compassion to which all humans have a claim; but neither do I think it is helpful to confuse the concept of ‘phenotype’ by including within it the deliberate artificial modifications made by transsexual or transgender people. Environmental effects can be painted with a broad brush – and if we don’t distinguish between conscious choices and other kinds of influences, how much does that muddy our ethical and sociological waters? No-one is born with a tattoo, for example – it’s a deliberate (if not always sober!) choice to get one, not a spontaneously occurring phenomenon. Why not own the body modifications necessary to appear more like a member of the sex one is not but wants to be?

My Response:

You wrote:

When Simone de Beauvoir referred to “becoming” a woman, I doubt she was thinking in terms of cross-sex hormone therapy and plastic surgery – her point was that people are socialised into their respective gender roles…

I sometimes wish we’d stop using the term “role” because, as with “gender performance,” there is an embedded notion that roles are choices. The reality is that when we’re talking about “gender role,” we’re actually talking about cultural function. “Woman,” in the sense that Catharine MacKinnon is talking about, is the group that is coerced into functioning in a certain cultural way. Certainly, this is (at least partly) the sense de Beauvoir is speaking to: cultural function.

At the same time, part of the coercion is to assume a certain material form, is it not? In de Beauvoir’s time, were not those being coerced into functioning as women also coerced into binding their wastes, dieting, and spending an enormous amount of attention on their appearance? Is this form not incredibly important to the political construction of cultural function? Why do non-trans people work so hard at constructing and accentuating that which is, we are told by everything from our biology books to our media, supposedly naturally different about male and female phenotypes? How many billions would you say non-trans and non-intersex people spend each year in constructing their physicality in ways that mimic the body binary we are told exists naturally?

You wrote:

Yes, I do believe there is a qualitative difference between a person who is born as an individual of one sex, and a person born as an individual of one sex who then makes a conscious effort to invest time, money and emotion in assuming the appearance of the other sex

You say that as if FAAB women do not make a “conscious effort to invest time, money and emotion in assuming the” cultural form of woman. You say that as if many non-trans women don’t spend as much (or more) as trans and intersex women into embodying the form they were told they are supposed to have naturally.

Point me to a non-trans/intersex woman –you included– that has never before worked to alter her physicality (weight, strength, hair, etc) in order to physically embody that which we are told is supposedly “natural” for a female form and I will be shocked. Yes, one becomes “woman” in function, but let’s not pretend that trans women are the only women becoming women in form as well. All women –to one degree or another– do this.

You wrote:

When we get down to basics, sex is ultimately about one’s presumed reproductive capacity

I appreciate that you used the “presumed” qualifier in your statement. The reality is, culture places people into cultural contexts based upon form, not biological function. Prepubescent and postmenopausal women do not stop existing in the cultural context we call ‘woman’ just because she is not fertile. In this way, we know fecundity is not the one thing that is essential to the material contexts women live in.

That men in our culture have a habit of treating trans women the way they wish they could treat cis women means that the transmisogyny trans women face is linked to the misogyny cis women face. This means that when a man stuck his penis inside my unconscious body’s “neovagina” without a condom, he did so because culture identified me as a member of a class who should be raped if unconscious. That I am told to smile more by strangers, that I am cat called for walking down the street, and that I am demeaned for not sexually engaging a man’s online advances are all part of the system of sexism cis women face. My liberation from my culture’s sexist system will not happen without the liberation of all those sex essentialist activists who want trans bodies eradicated from the world. In this way, my fate as a trans woman is tied to the fate of every woman, you included.

Sex Essentialist:

When it comes down to basics, sex is a physical feature, like height, or skin colour, or body fat distribution, or any other aspect of individual morphology. Socially, different features have different currency, different assumptions attached to them – for example, many people assume that an obese person lacks will-power, when in fact it’s more likely to be a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influences that lead to obesity.

Like any other physical feature, sex affects a person’s experience – both in terms of primary bodily conditions and the social implications of having that feature.

The problem I have with current transgender activism is that its focus is on body modification, not on changing attitudes to allow people more freedom for self-expression. Sure, you can argue that trans activists really are trying to change attitudes – but only after the fact of body modification.

My Response:

You wrote:

The problem I have with current transgender activism is that its focus is on body modification, not on changing attitudes to allow people more freedom for self-expression.

The problem I have with sex essentialist activists is that they’re focused on pretending that they themselves are not heavily into body modification (adding/removing hair, gaining/losing weight, adding bulk/tone, obesity surgeries, supplements, styling their hair, playing with body scents, an enough plastic surgery to keep a multi-billion dollar industry afloat, year after year — all in an effort to better approximate what the tell each other is the “male” and “female” body type), all the while, obsessing over what trans people are doing to save their own lives.

What I wouldn’t give for a sex essentialist activist to own the behavior of non-trans people for a change.

Sex Essentialist:

I think the most pertinent point here is the claim that non-trans women invest as much or more than trans women in the effort to uphold certain social/cultural ideals of femininity. I will say, first of all, that there is a qualitative (and even quantitative) difference between a woman seeking to meet expectations of femininity and a man seeking to refashion himself as a woman. Surely even you can acknowledge this.

I can certainly acknowledge that some natal women, perhaps most, do indeed buy into the idea that women should present in particular ways (though I know several who really can’t be bothered meeting any kind of ‘feminine’ ideal and have far more important things to worry about) – but I am also a gender abolitionist, so I can’t see this capitulation to social pressure as a positive thing. Many women are deeply harmed by their efforts to meet unrealistic notions about what a woman “should” be like. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that if our cultural notions of what men and women are permitted to be were expanded to encompass all the possible personalities that actual male and female humans exhibit, there are many people who would feel no pressure to transition to another gender in order to express themselves comfortably.

The belief in gender identity that is inherent in the currently accepted transgender philosophy is limiting to everyone, especially women – since the social construction of gender is ultimately designed to keep female humans subordinate to male humans (as it is also designed to create male hierarchies on the basis of presumed degrees of ‘masculinity’).

You say, “My liberation from my culture’s sexist system will not happen without the liberation of all those sex essentialist activists who want trans bodies eradicated from the world. In this way, my fate as a trans woman is tied to the fate of every woman, you included.” But liberation from this system will not happen while gender is reified as an innate and all-defining feature of a person. Liberation will ultimately mean that there is no need for gender transition. When men can be feminine and women masculine without the expectation that they will, in order to conform to social expectations of gender, “identify” as the sex they are not, we will have reached a level of social freedom hitherto unrealised.

My Response:

You wrote:

I think the most pertinent point here is the claim that non-trans women invest as much or more than trans women in the effort to uphold certain social/cultural ideals of femininity.

You’ve missed the point by a mile. I’ve never worn heels, have you? I wear army boots most of the time, do you? I ride a Harley most of the time, does your transportation conform to a female stereotype? You seem hell-bent on believing the BS narrative that trans people transition to obtain stereotype status instead of accepting the truth: I transitioned to save my life.

You wrote:

I can certainly acknowledge that some natal women, perhaps most, do indeed buy into the idea that women should present in particular ways (though I know several who really can’t be bothered meeting any kind of ‘feminine’ ideal and have far more important things to worry about) – but I am also a gender abolitionist, so I can’t see this capitulation to social pressure as a positive thing.

You can abolish sexism (gender hierarchies, stereotypes, & roles). You can’t abolish people contextualizing their bodies (gender orientation), expressing the meanings they give their body experience (gender expression), and identifying with descriptive terms (gender identity).

You wrote:

The belief in gender identity that is inherent in the currently accepted transgender philosophy is limiting to everyone, especially women.

If you can understand that sexual identity isn’t itself the foundation of sex abuse, how can you not grasp that gender identity isn’t itself the foundation of sexism? How is it that you think the labels are the cause of rape, for instance? Words and thoughts do not construct material reality. You calling me a man won’t stop a rapist, will it? How is it that you believe that if you can just switch around the labels I use, that will change the material condition I live in? Again, POMO nonsense.

You wrote:

But liberation from this system will not happen while gender is reified as an innate and all-defining feature of a person.

Here again, you’re claiming that switching around some labels will end sexism. That’s not how sexism is overcome. That’s the furthest thing from a materialist analysis one can assert.

You controlling how I identify won’t make you free. Sexism isn’t overcome by wordplay.

You wrote:

Liberation will ultimately mean that there is no need for gender transition.

You’re claiming to know the cause and its effect with regard to transness. Out of all the trans and intersex people, all the scientists, doctors, trans-inclusive radical feminists, and mental health professionals in the world, YOU clearly believe that YOU know what caused me to be trans. I’m calling BS on that hubris.

I don’t know what causes people to be trans and neither do you. Nobody does. Pretending that YOU know is a really shitty thing to do. You pretending to know what you can’t know is standing in the way of an honest conversation. Please stop.

Go to top

Lastly, if you’re wondering why I didn’t respond to the sex essentialist activist’s initial challenge to “explanation that meaningfully differentiates gender identity from gender roles,” I did so elsewhere in our discussion:

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger... Tags:

Leave a Reply