'Transness'

[flexibeast]

Earlier today i had an interesting discussion with someone about what constitutes 'transness'. The person in question was assigned 'male' at birth, but would rather not be assigned a gender at all; and if a gender had to be assigned to em, would prefer 'female'. Personally, i think it would be entirely reasonable for this person to identify as trans if ey wanted to (and i certainly think that it would be odd if ey identified as cisgendered!), regardless of the fact that ey isn't taking hormones, wearing dresses to work¹, etc. And there's no way i think ey identifying as trans is at all problematic in the way that i feel it's problematic for, say, a trans man, who identifies unambiguously as male, to identify as a lesbian, as discussed in this post by foibey.

In a recent post to the Trans-Academics group, i wrote that i used the phrase 'trans communities' rather than 'trans community' because

i think it shows an awareness of diversity whilst at the same time recognising that there are commonalities that can bring us together in alliances against transphobia. 'Alliances', too, is an important word for me: it suggests to me individuals and groups with different motivation and goals being willing to work together, at least temporarily, to use strength in numbers to achieve a common goal. Then, too, alliances can help us gain a deeper insight into the lives, needs, and desires of those we work alongside, and perhaps help us to develop a greater sensitivity to how the actions we undertake in our struggles might impact on the struggles of others. i feel the Golden Rule applies here: How can we trans*-identifying people expect other trans*-identifying people to make an effort to respect and understand our identities, experiences and perspectives, if we are not willing to do the same for them?

---

1. We actually also discussed how, when either of us wear dresses, it's not a sexual thing, but (a) sometimes more comfortable, and (b) an attempt to disrupt any notion that others may have that we're cis males. However, i also noted that i object to the idea that i have to wear dresses / skirts / "women's clothing" in order to 'prove' my womanhood - if it's not regularly expected that cis women have 'prove' their womanhood in such a manner, why should i have to do so?
 

Comments

[not-in-denial.livejournal.com]

This is more of a response to the post you linked to rather than your point in of itself (which I agree with so have nothing to add on).

There's a problem in denying transguys the ability to identify as dykes as well. I can only use myself as an example here - I'm not a dyke, but I do seem to have something of a double-life in terms of my gender identity.

My gender, as far as I'm concerned, is intergendered. A little male-dominant perhaps, but that mainly comes from my gender presentation rather than the identity itself. But... when I meet people, especially non-trans-savvy people, and for most of life, I put myself in the ftm group because it is the simplest way to explain why I'm trying to take the steps I am (and why I live like I do). If I go around using only intergendered as my gender expression (which I did for a while and discovered this:) I am not taken seriously. People will not use the right pronouns, they will not take me seriously.

Even going around and shouting "I AM A MAN!" at the top of my lungs (er, metaphorically, obviously, not literally :)) I still don't get taken seriously a lot of the time because of my other various bits and pieces (being disabled, being overweight, etc). But the being-taken-seriously side of things is substantially better, even if not good, if I present to the world as an ftm rather than the intergendered freak I am.

So where does that put me? I don't feel I'm appropriating anyone's identity because I am intergendered and I am transitioning from female to male, so I can't really see a way in which these identities are opposed to each other in any way. But following along with the string of reasoning behind transmen identifying as dykes, if we follow that, how many of my identities do I have to give up? Can I still be a fag because I'm intergendered, or does my transitioning to male mean it's okay? Can I still discuss myself as a woman? Because I'm not really not a woman at this point in my life, even if that definition of woman is a little broader than might be expected.

I dunno. I'm not sure how I feel about it. While I see the point, I also think it's pretty scary to start calling the identity police on anyone. Because if we say one person's identity is invalid, how long will it take before mine is too?

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Well, whilst i very much share your concerns about identity policing, i also think that when people redefine a word to mean something substantially different - perhaps even the opposite - of what it's otherwise (and perhaps generally) intended to mean, then that word effectively becomes useless in contexts where more than one meaning is possible. (Non-political example: "to table [something]" is used in the US to mean precisely the opposite of what we mean when we in Australia say it. We mean: "raise something for immediate discussion"; they seem to mean "put something off from immediate discussion, perhaps indefinitely". So it's not a wise idea to use that verb in a context where both US and Australian speakers are present.)

Now 'dyke' to me (and, i would suggest, to most people) suggests "a woman who is attracted primarily to other women". So when someone who, unlike yourself, identifies as a (female-to-)male unambiguously, and not because many people can't deal with someone being intergendered, it seems to directly contradict the above definition. Whereas in your case, if i understand you correctly, you're saying "i'm not completely male, but i call myself 'ftm' in an attempt to avoid the problems that arise when i simply call myself 'intergendered'", and thus acknowledge that you still have an 'womanhood' such that calling yourself a dyke makes sense according to that same definition.

Does that make sense? If so, what do you think?

[not-in-denial.livejournal.com]

Yep, that definitely makes sense, and yep, you understand me correctly :)

I guess if such a person wanted to use that term they'd have to fiddle it a bit. For example, a lot of girls identify as fags - but they do this by tweaking the word and identifying as girlfags. I guess I'm curious about this because I have seen boydyke, mandyke and male lesbian used but most people bristle at these terms while they seem to have no problem with girlfags. Do you suppose people are just bristling at the idea of a higher person on the pyramid taking an identity that generally belongs to someone with less privilege? Is it somehow okay to claim a label used by someone with more privilege than yourself?

I dunno... it feels to me like people only have a problem with this when there's a power dynamic going on. If a man (trans or not) wants to identify as a dyke, people have a problem with this, but I've not really heard much (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I'm not claiming that) of people having a problem with women identifying as fags.

So I have to wonder if people (not you, it seems to me like you're pretty level-headed on this issue) are really having issues with the fact people are using terms in the opposite way they are generally designed to be, or if it's more that people have a problem with perceived privilege which may or may not be there.

What do you think? As I understand your position (which seems to be more focussed on the problem of mis-using terms rather than people's actual identities), do you think others share your views or do you think there's a certain degree of backlash going on?

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

*embarrassed* Er, well, i must say i've not heard of the terms 'girlfag', 'boydyke', 'mandyke' and/or 'male lesbian' being used seriously until your comment; but that aside . . . .

Yes, i must say that it seems absurd to me for someone who entirely identifies as 'woman' to also identify as 'fag', which to me has 'maleness' as an integral part of its definition. And in the case of trans men, i'm not of the opinion that trans men automatically get complete male privilege by virtue of identifying as men, and consequently i'm not sure that a trans man who identifies as a dyke necessarily falls into the category of "man attempting to colonise women's space". So yeah, i'm basically objecting to completely-male 'dykes' and completely-female 'fags' more on linguistic grounds than on privilege grounds. But i tend to agree with you that it's more likely that for many people the reverse is true; although i'm always trying to further my education on the workings of privilege, and so there may be specific cases where i additionally, or primarily, object to a person using a particular term on the grounds of privilege.

i can't help but wonder if part of the problem stems from people actually identifying with certain characteristics that they ascribe to a particular community (whether correctly or not), and then conflating that with having the identity that assigns a person to that community? Erk, i don't think that's particularly clear, so i'll give an example. In recent times, i've felt an increasing affinity for a number of perceived aspects of Jewish spirituality and culture - to the extent that i've occasionally unconsciously spoke as though i'm Jewish myself (which i've only realised when it's been pointed out to me). Yet consciously, i feel it's not reasonable to call myself Jewish, because (a) i don't have Jewish ancestry, as far as i'm aware; (b) i haven't formally converted; and (c) i'm unlikely to convert (unless i hear some very persuasive arguments from proponents of Reform or Reconstructionist Judaism :-) ). However, i can imagine other people in this situation nevertheless wanting to identify as Jewish because they're "Jewish at heart" etc.

Similarly, perhaps women who identify solely as women want to non-jokingly call themselves 'fags' because they they feel they share an affinity for what they perceive to be 'fag culture'? What do you think?

[weavingfire.livejournal.com]

I love reading your journal, makes me think.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Thanks! That means a lot to me, because 'thought-provoking' is often what i aim for. :-)