Contributing Editor Koan Bremner also blogs at Multidimensional.Me

I'm proud to call myself a feminist - prouder than I am of being a transsexual woman (since I made a conscious decision to be the former, while I had no say in the latter). But there are aspects of some feminisms (and some feminists) that disgust me - transphobia not the least.

I was already planning to make this the subject of my first post on returning from medical leave - but, yesterday, the publication of the fifth edition of the Carnival of Bent Attractions at "jay sennett jaywalks" sealed it for me. For the last post Jay highlights was from earlbecke at "Definition" - a post entitled "Trans Issues are Women's Issues":

...the real issue is that, at the root of transphobia are all the beliefs that feminism is supposed to be fighting.

The insistence that transwomen are not "real" women, is, at its heart, fueled by the idea that biology equals destiny: the idea that one's body parts define that person completely, that there is no individual room for change or variation, that a woman is only as good as her ability to give birth (therefore, as good as her uterus), or to serve as a sex object (therefore, as good as her vagina, as good as her breasts), or as a caretaker, a mother, a housewife, a passive decoration (therefore, as good as her ability to conform to "acceptable" gender roles).

And that, no matter how you disguise it or dress it up, no matter what excuses you might give about male privilege or socialization or experience in a transwoman's history, is not feminism.

Quite simply, I have never seen the point nailed so well - and the rest of that post is just as good.

Lest you think that I protest too much, here are some examples from other bloggers on the less than harmonious relationship between some feminists and trans people...

At "Transcending Gender", Jen Burke recently pointed to feminist trans woman Rahne Alexander's account of meeting one of her feminist idols:

So in came Alison Jaggar, and I got really excited. I wished she'd come, and here she was. I stumbled nervously through the exposition of my paper. But it seemed that Jaggar - one of four audience members - was not reacting well. When I finished speaking, she abruptly left. Twenty minutes vanished, and she returned to ask me whether my agenda was to destroy the gender binary, or expand it. Then she posed the Famous Feminist Transphobia Chestnut Question (the FFTCQ): isn't my gender presentation simply a reification of existent gender stereotypes? Jaggar pretended to listen to my answer, and when she had enough, picked up again and left the room, never to return. So much for her signing my book.

A few months ago, the aforementioned Jay Sennett posted about his experiences as the recipient of praise from "two transphobic radical feminists" - the upshot of which is that the individuals concerned find it easier to relate to FtMs (i.e. those who were born physically female, but who identify as male, like Jay) than to MtFs (born physically male but identify as female) - the entire post (and the comments thereon) are worth reading, but here's a taster:

Wretched stuff, this is. Like I give a shit that she thinks I'm nice, or the folks who answered my questions are nice. Nice, of course, represents a short-hand for, "Well, gee, they don't call me out when I say their just women on hormones!" She likes to believe MtFs are rude to her and her friends because it is a function of their residual male privilege.

No, Sophia. MtFs call you on your shit because you makes hateful, rude, and just downright stupid comments about their lives.

If Jay's writing (and the contributions from his commenters) intrigue you, I can also recommend the post "Why do Anti-Trans Feminists Cease to Think Like Feminists?"

There comes a point when it might seem tempting to coin a new brand of feminism - "trans-feminism", say - to provide a space where feminism and transgender issues don't collide (not that, in my opinion, there's any reason why they *should* collide). BlogHer Contributing Editor Melissa Gira pointed me to a great post on this very subject by charliegrrl - "Prefix-less feminism?"

I've received a call for presenters for yet another conference about trans-feminism, which is a term I can't really pretend to understand. I *think* it has to do with integrating transgender perspectives into feminist discourse. I definitely think trannies can -- and should -- be feminists, and may have a lot to offer in feminist spaces. But I've gone from thinking, "yay! trans-feminism!" to being a tad uneasy with the idea.

Why have I changed my mind? Well, I'm still all "yay!" about the idea of trannies being feminist and feminists welcoming trannies. But what worries me about the term "trans-feminism" is the idea that we need our own kind of feminism. Or the idea that we, as gender-remaking cool rebel tykes and turks, have something unique and shiny to offer feminism. Something that feminism needs. Either because:

a) we've had to work extra hard to attain our "correct" position in the gender binary, or

b) we've rejected the gender binary altogether and proved that gender is socially constructed.

Either one of those perspectives is totally valid in my view, and I'm by no means putting either of them down. And they're both valuable worldviews to bring to any feminist discourse. But do they deserve their own brand of feminism?

Maybe Tammy Wynette really *was* onto something when she sang:

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman

And sometimes it's even harder because other women (or those who claim to support the cause of women) make it so. Whether out of fear, ignorance, prejudice or something else - transphobia is anti-feminist.

In my opinion.

Koan Bremner

Blog: Multidimensional.Me