Transfeminism
by Susan Forrest

I started out with the intention to write an article on transfeminism and afer sex negotiation. My original premise was that transgendered[1] women - women who had been socialized for some portion of their lives as boys - would have a unique insight into negotiation of sexual behavior. I thought that they would have a sense of power that female-socialized adults don't come to the table with. What I failed to take into consideration was that the real-life experience of these people may not have been as cut and dried as I'd imagined. So this might be a more useful and interesting paper if, instead, I look at the similarities between being socialized and perceived (and perceiving ones self) as female in a patriarchal culture, and finding ones self to be gendered outside the stereotypical norm of acceptability. There are a number of common themes: gendered violence, denial of personhood, and, I would argue, the necessity of feminism as a tool and as a respite. This article will focus on the issue of gender as a construct, which is implicated in the maintenance of our deeply sexist culture. I will address what we as feminists, must look at if we hope to extricate ourselves from a culture based on the values we traditionally assign as "male". Further, my paper will point out how our refusal to unhook these, as well as other, traits and characteristics from particularly sexed bodies will continue to be a flaw in "feminism" - a flaw, I argue, that will keep us from forming alliances, and which ultimately devalue the practice of feminism. As you will notice, this paper is heavily informed by personal experiences, and I want to state at the outset that it is rather reflective of my particular biases. Because I started thinking of this paper with regards to heterosexual sexual negotiations and harm reduction, I want to point out that while I feel this issue is critically important, I donęt think that it is something I can address without looking at the sexism in our culture which surrounds everything, but is a particular stumbling block to womenęs health. Writing about sexism in the United States is a task beyond me, so I decided that I would narrow my scope to gender, and the feminist response to the idea of "transgender" in particular.ľ

The Dating Game (hetero)

Within the context of heterosexual sexual negotiations, transwomen are situated in much the same way as nontranswomen. Both are in a position about which they have been taught (regardless of gendered socialization) that the male is the one with the edge. He is the one who leads the way. She is expected to defend herself, however her defense is expected to be illusory - part of the game. Heteronormative dating rituals are inherently sexist. For a transwoman, there is an equal, if not increased, threat of retaliation if she doesnęt acquiesce to sexual advances; and there is an equal, if not increased, expectation of acquiescence.ľ There is always the threat of coercion, which is seen as normative sexual flirting, however for transwomen there are additional factors to consider. On a practical, physical level, the transwoman is forced into a situation where she is faced with a number of options: she can "come out" as trans, she can be "discovered", or she can work the situation in such a way that it will be possible that her partner likely won't know.

Behind all of these options rests the implication that there is something amiss about this woman, or that her womanhood is up for scrutiny. This is very sort of •biology is destinyę, though. The idea that whatęs between our legs is determinant of who we are, of what we are capable to do or be, or to whom we are attracted. Many feminists have spent much time attempting to eradicate this ideology, rightly seeing it as what was keeping women of previous generations "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".ľ That it has popped up again is indicative of the deeply sexist roots of our culture. As feminists, it is clear that this is our issue. We can ill-afford to look the other way as transwomen struggle with sexism, and see it as a "trans issue" Ŕ or, worse Ŕ not see it at all.

ľ

"Gender is not solely a psychological state of being, it is a political status"[i].

I am a girl, socialized in many ways, as a girl. Because of my age, race, my parentęs socioeconomic status and religion, I did not get the 'father-knows-bestę, a-woman's-place-is-in-the-home upbringing. But I did notice, or feel, the sting of lower expectations - or, rather, the lesser importance imparted on my choices.ľ As a result of my race & class privilege, when I became old enough, I was able to analyze and reject many of the cultural assumptions about what it means to be a woman. For me.

But I never thought to question the category "Woman". Even in my burgeoning teenage feminism, when I called all of the auspices of "patriarchy" into question, I never thought to extricate gender as a construct like I did class or race.

Why would I?

We live in a world of polarities - we appreciate binaries for some reason. Male/female, strong/weak, wrong/right, femme/butch, top/bottom. Accepting our propensity for binaries, I offer the idea that a gendered binary is completely arbitrary and that it would be much more useful to categorize people (assuming it is useful to categorize people) along lines of behavior rather than of being. It's so much easier to identify one's friends and enemies if we look at what they do rather than what they look like. I feel that I might have much more in common with John Leguizamo than Anne Coulter. And I would feel much safer in a dark alley with RuPaul than I would with Phyllis Schlafley.

I hope to prove that rather than mining the differences between 'female-born-women' and 'transgendered' womenľ (which just lends credence to our mistaken belief that we are Other to one another), to find hidden strengths we can locate our common realities, and apply the feminist principles of honest discourse and analysis to ourselves and each other to dismantle a common enemy which is not gendered, but may well be hiding in the construct of gender. If there must be a power binary, let it be structured around the concept of vulnerablity.

Vulnerability: 2 Sides

Vulnerability charged word. I know that it has two primary connotations: negative and sexual. I believe there is a different way to look at vulnerability and to see it as a source of strength.

First, to be vulnerable is virtually equated with being not-male. Those of us who are not male are raised with the notion that we are potential victims of rape. To be vulnerable is to be weak, powerless, penetrable. Essentially, our vulnerability is a cornerstone of both cultural male supremacy and capitalism. Likewise, invulnerability is seen as strength. When one is invulnerable, one is impenetrable. The physiology of men is seen to confirm this notion of impenetrable and male superiority. That is why male receptive anal sex is such a traitorous crime, as one is actually exposing the weakness in the system, making it literally and figuratively vulnerable. Anyone who does this would, obviously, be cast out of the realm of male. That is where the notion of people who have penises being seen as not "real men" even by people who subscribe to the gender binary comes from. Based on this argument, I believe we can see vulnerability as a construct that is more inclusive then gender as a category. I argue that if one factors race/ethnicity and class into the picture (and it would be impossible not to) that we can see how this construct applies to men of color.

The other side of vulnerability is this: possibility. To want, to desire, to need, to create all require a lack, a vulnerability, a loss, or an emptiness. To be invulnerable, one must want nothing. One must have no feelings. One must be rigid, and one must maintain this rigidity with the tool of brute strength, since any other tool (discourse, for example) requires listening Ŕ the penetration of otheręs needs or wants into oneęs psyche. So vulnerability is a requirement for change. Vulnerability is the source from which we make our art, discover our dreams and forge our ideologies. However lovely that is in a theoretical sense, we live in the real world, where we are punished for our vulnerabilities. This is where feminism sprang from.

So the power associated with vulnerability is the power toÄ, and the power associated with invulnerability is power overÄ

In an ideal world, we would be able to Ŕ indeed, we would be encouraged Ŕ to be completely honest and open. We would be rewarded for our vulnerabilities. In such a world our actions would reflect the cultural values and we would find ourselves in positions where we had to "confess" a lot less of the time. We are nowhere near that world now, and for those of us who are not men with power to navigate the world safely, we must play the game to the extent we can. By no means am I implying that female strength is bad, or that we need to lead with the jugular in every interaction. While I differ with friends on what "feminine" and "masculine" traits and characteristics are, I think that there is room for all of these modes of expression. My bias is toward femininity, however I appreciate that masculinity is attractive to a large number of people, and I donęt meant to imply that masculinity is bad or sexist. We all express our strengths differently. We also have, and have ways to express, our weaknesses. And I love a world with multiple aesthetics. I do believe that there are characteristics that within the context of a deeply sexist society are completely unacceptable, albeit common, and commonly rewarded.

I believe that if we substitute the language of "vulnerable" and "not-male" for "feminist" and "women" that the concepts and practices of feminism would expand exponentially, and would naturally encompass inequalities based on race, class, looks, and other constructs which keep most people in the United States disempowered.

Feminism

Feminism is a response to a system in which a class of people - women - are assigned less importance and power in the culture we helped to create. Common to the many brands of feminism and womanism I have learned about, is the basic premise that women and men should be equal politically, economically and socially. Feminism is also a response to gendered aggression. Just as we see racism as race-based aggression, we recognize race as a construct that is useful to people in power. The same is true of gender. And I believe that while we understand the impossibility, and the undesirability of doing away with race and it's associated colors, ethnicities, heritages and histories, we see the necessity of doing away with the construct of race as a tool of power and control. The same can and must be applied to gender.

Sexual harassment is one sort of violence that is gendered. Certainly men get sexually harassed, and it hurts, but the power to humiliate someone merely by pointing out their essential non-maleness is indicative of a gender-biased culture. The reverse is not true, however, which implies the a priori importance of maleness in our society. Even in masculine or butch women, I would argue that it is not a lack of femininity which causes them to be singled out as 'wrong', 'deviant' or 'bad', but a cultural insistence that, no matter what, they are not male. They will never gain admittance to that club. Even FTMs (transmen) can't get in. That's why uncovering (sometimes, all too literally) the "genital status" in gender divergent or ambiguous people is so important to so many people. The fear, shame or humiliation that a transgender woman might experience during a forced genital exposure[2], I would argue, is not necessarily internalized transphobia as much as it is an obvious invitation to violence and even death. It is likely, at least in some part, transphobia-phobia. The disgust that some heterosexual men profess at finding that a woman has a penis might be homophobia, but it might also be a dangerous brand of sexism, wherein which anyone who is not-male (whether they perceive the person to be female or not) is of expendable. Coupled with homophobia[3], the transgendered woman is both dangerous and expendable.

And we are guilty of this violence too - even us feminists - by enforcing a specifically-gendered "Women's Space" without ever interrogating the category "woman".[4]

Women

So, the first question I would put to myself is the obvious one: What is woman? In this culture, I believe the default answer is: that which is not male. [Some might take exception to that, but not me. I like being lumped into a big underclass].

Are there male behaviors? Male feelings? A male physiology? A male mentality? Male chromosomes? And if I exhibit any of these, that doesn't afford me entry into the category male. (It's much easier to be thrown out of the power structure than to get into it.) So, if I exhibit any of these "male" signifiers, does that make me, if not male, than not-female? Conversely, Are there female behaviors, feelings? A female physiology or mentality? Female chromosomes? And if I exhibit these, does that make me female, or just not-male? What if I have some signifiers of both? How do I decide which I am? How do you decide which I am? Why gets the final say?

Is there a difference between being not-male and being female? Between being not-female and being male? We already know that male is exclusive. I think it's a caste rather than a class - if one isn't born into it, one will never been seen as being a part of it. Female, though, is an exile. Anyone can be exiled, and even if one never gets the official stamp female, one can certainly expect to be treated by society as a female if one is not protected by a recognized male-ness.

Screw the 'chromosomes theory' I've never been asked by a potential employer, a lover or even an insurance company about my chromosomes. Ięve never been karyotyped. I can't believe they have anything to do with enforced gender presentation or behavior. We certainly have different sets of chromosomes Ŕ no one is arguing that. Ięm arguing that it is irrelevant, as so few people are ever tested, and we never know for sure who has what. The fact that one out of every 400 female athletes who gets tested has a chromosomal pattern that is atypical for females may indicate something. But I am not sure what.

So, what - can I be both? Can I be neither? I argue that if society says that I look - and I do - like what I've been told I am: a girl - than as long as I'm willing to accept the mantle 'girl' (I know that's not PC, but indulge me), than as a feminist I can be/do/think whatever the fuck I want. As long as I donęt question the construct of gender

Everyone - from the rabid right to the radical separatists - freaks out when one starts to question gender itself.

Why?

I have the right (or, it appears, the responsibility) to own my gender, why don't I have the right as well as the responsibility to interrogate it - or change it as I see fit?

So many hours have been spent by white feminists confronting their racism in an effort to loosen the constraints that divide us from other women. Why haven't we done the same with gender?

So, again: what is female? I guess I can say female is the category of people who belong in "Women's Space".

Women's Space

A safe zone, "womenęs space" came to be seen as necessary for our physical and emotional well-being, and for our discoveries of ourselves as authentic beings. "Womenęs Space" may be articulated as an actual location (Michigan Womenęs Music Festival, the womenęs bathroom) or psychological space (a conversation, a poem, a dream).

Real Experience

I am a lesbian. Always have been - ever since I started making my own sexual choices. Some of my friends call me butch-phobic. I'm attracted to femininity. Believe me, I've spent ages trying to figure out what that mean. But I think I have discovered what it means to me. Femininity is the potential and/or the presence of emotional vulnerability. Masculinity is the desire to control or an absence of emotional vulnerability. Obviously, no one is 100% in either camp. I believe that we donęt live in either camp full-time, and the way we present ourselves to the world is as reflective of personality and personal aesthetic as it is an indicator of our emotional vulnerability. When I use the terms "femininityę and •masculinityę I am referring to a state of mind rather than a propensity toward Levis or Agent Provocateur. I wouldnęt call my butch friends •feminineę when they break down and cry, but I use the term to describe the feeling of going the distance emotionally. Does that make sense? I elevate emotional strength over overt (physical or intellectual) strength, but that is my propensity, and I would shudder at a world which didnęt honor all forms of strength in all sorts of people. To me, emotional vulnerability is where life is possible. That's where life is worthwhile. And I also think that these are not fixed identities. I believe that me "identity-shift" as situations and interactions warrant. And I think thatęs good. It requires a constant communication with others. And, by that, I mean to say that it requires that we listen to each other constantly.

Women's Space II

Women's Space is a place in which people are emotionally vulnerable. It is a place in which vulnerability is a sign of trust and strength. A source of pride. Where feminization is good. Obviously, Women's Space is hiding outside the realm of culture.

Transgendered women are sometimes denied the opportunity to apprehend both real and figurative Women's Space. Our culture enforces, with threats of physical abuse, the silence and abnegation of transwomen's selves. It is dangerous for transwomen to be "out" about being transgender. Regardless of her individual declaration of selfhood, to the culture at large, an out transwoman is "a man in a dress" which, as we know, is laughable at best, punishable at worst. If transwomen are not out and vocal about themselves as being trans, if, in an effort to get through the day without being harassed or hurt, a transwoman "passes" as non-trans, she is denied the opportunity of honor: the ability to declare who she is. I would add that transwomen are not even allowed to depoliticize their decision to be "out" or not. If she is found out (and by that, what I mean to say is that if it is discovered that her history includes her ever having had a penis) she is cynically judged as a trickster, deceitful and untrustworthy.

"On the one hand, visibility yields a position in which what one is doing is represented as "make-believe", "pretending", or "playing dress-up". At the most general level, some of the general difficulties with this side of the bind run as follows: (1) Having oneęs life constructed as fictitious; and so (2) failing to have oneęs own identifications taken seriously; (3) being viewed in a highly condescending way; (5) being the subject of homophobic contempt; (6) living in fear of violence and murder; (7) being the subject of violence and even murder." Writes Dr. Talia Bettcher. "By contrast, to opt for invisibility is to remove oneęs life from the domain of masquerade into actual reality. Yet this is complicated by the way in which the visible/invisible contrast tracks the •deceptionę side of the bind. For the movement from invisible to visible generates the effect of •revelationę, •disclosureę, or •exposureę of •hidden truthę.ľ Hence, some of the possible consequences are: (i) living in constant fear of exposure, extreme violence, and death; (ii) disclosure as a •deceiverę or •liarę (possibly through forced genital exposure); (iii) being the subject violence and even murder; (iv) being constructed as responsible for this violence."[ii]

Since the key to "Women's Space" is openness, transgender women are seen as not-women, because they are seen as inherently dishonest or, to rephrase it, inherently male. There is a misguided and inaccurate feminist supposition that people who fall into our culture's definition of 'women' are inherently able to negotiate in a feminist manner, and that people assigned male are not.. So, for the transgendered "men disguised as women" we have set up a no-win situation. Most transwomen have no choice but to go along with the program because any questioning of a professed feminist stance is seen as an exertion of "male energy", a charge by which many transwomen mightľ be particularly affected.

Not-Women's Space (the World)

Try reading Adrienne Rich's "Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying" ["On Lies, Secrets and Silence"] through transgendered eyes. I tried it. After reading my friend Talia Bettcher's essay "Reflections on Transphobic Violence and the Politics of Pretense"[iii] I was drawn back to the article that was my moral compass through much of my early adult life. The integrity Rich requires as both a necessity and a privilege between woman must exist in "Womenęs Space" but can only exist subliminally in greater society because of the danger inherent in that level of openness. She articulates that it is imperative that we do the work with each other just so we can exist. She argues successfully for the existence of "Women's Space" as not only a physical location, but the space in which we have room to claim ourselves and to accept each other. Richęs requirements are absolute, and I agree with her absolutely butÄI think that she gives no credence to the strength of selfhood that it takes many of us to be ourselves in this society, even though in some ways this selfhood appears as deceit to others. And I have to reflect on my own prejudices about butch women, and the characteristics I assign to them based of looks. I believe certain genders requireľ so much fortitude, so much endurance, and so much bravery, that we canęt apply the black and white "this is a lie/this is the truth" to them, because that binary doesnęt fit.

I have recently developed a friendship with this woman.ľľ Talia is a Professor of Philosophy (she has a Ph.D. Ŕ my three favorite letters in the entire English language!). She says that she has always been a feminist, and she's studied and she teaches gender theory. A reflective belief in feminism, like I have, is good. A well thought out, studied relationship with feminist theory and feminism is better. She has the gut response and the discourse to back it up. We really connected the first time we met. I had a feeling we would get really close. I believed that this would be one of those relationships that Adrienne Rich talked about. A life-giver. A life-saver. "The possibility of life between us[iv]", Rich says.

"An honorable human relationship - that is, one in which two people have the right to use the word "love" -ľ is a process, delicate, violent, often terrifying to both persons involved, a process of refining the truths they can tell each otherÄIt is important to do this because it breaks down human self-delusion and isolation. It is important to do this because in ding so we do justice to our own complexity. It is important to do this because we can count on so few people to go that hard way with us."[v]

I knew it was going to be that kind of a relationship.

Being Trans in our CultureÄ

sucks. Whereas feminism offers a way of acting and being based on honesty, where, as Audre Lorde says "our silence will not protect us", the culture in which we are situated - including, unfortunately, some "Women's Space" does not afford transwomen that reprieve. This alarms me because it indicates a critical flaw in the construction of feminism. People in a sexist society are divided into male/not-male (not necessarily male/female, though thatęs the way it is recognized, because we often deny other ways that people are disempowered). There is an elevation of the category Male. So how can we, as feminists, deny other people their personhood, their right to self-identification by accepting the categories female/not female and enforcing these as stridently and blindly as the larger culture enforces male/female (which reads as power over/powerless) which we profess to abhor? It seems to that we are cruel, in our abandonment other people who don't have power either. There is a big difference between privilege and power. Neither is easy to give up. And it's so hard to admit to privilege, isn't it? Those of us who are white women (and you feminists know what Ięm talking about) are uniquely situated (especially if weęre thin, have blue eyes and blonde hair), and have a unique relationship with power and privilege.

We are taught a shorthand in which we can place people into boxes that are labeled and use those labels as a springboard to relationship. Given that we are operating in a world in which these categories exist, how do we know how to relate to transfolk? The boxes that are socially assigned often look like "liar", "fake", "joke" or "traitor". So what can I do to stop looking at the boxes? By listening. I know when Ięm safe because we go into "Women's Space" together and we talk to and listen to each other's stories. I believe my friends' lives like I believe my own life. How can I believe that I am who I say I am if I don't believe you are who you say you are?

Some might counter that there are men who will go there with me if I let them. Well, good. That just shows that male/female is a ridiculous binary to use when constructing feminist theory, or when we are trying to decide who our allies and enemies are. Some women won't. Some men will. Doesn't that serve to illustrate the lack of traction this male/female thing really has? What would contaminate women's space? Would it be the politics and attitudes associated with dominance and power over, or the presence of a person who may have at one time, and may still be in possession of a penis?

Out, Outing, Why?

ľIęm all excited about my new relationship with a woman who is trans. We never discussed her genitals. It looks funny to have to write that as a disclaimer to the rest of this paragraph, but, when I tell people about my friendship with her, each and every one, including a woman of trans experience, has one question: does she still have a dick? They don't say that, though. They say, "Has she had surgery yet?" "Is she pre- or post-op?" What are they asking? Is she going to turn me straight if we fuck? My friend says that they are trying to uncover whether or not she is really a woman, even if they are unwilling to articulate it that way. Until I eventually talked to her about it, I lacked the vocabulary to describe the hurt I felt in hearing the question being posed. I feel a shame creep over me. And it occurred to me that (a) I had no idea about her "surgical status", and (b) I had never thought about it. But once the question was posed, I started to think about it. And I did come up with an image in my head. Just those private thoughts (and believe me, they felt private. Private like I couldn't even tell her about them sort of private) made me feel like I was violating her in some way. So I find that in my community , there areľ people, even self-described 'gender queers' who quickly reduce a woman - a woman with a Ph.D. for Christ's sake! - to her genitals. Like all of her contributions, all of her accomplishments have less to do with their accepting her identity claim than the fascinating possibility of her having a dick or the excitement of discovering how 'real' her pussy seems.

Does the absence of a vagina or the presence of a penis really make a difference to people who are never going to come into contact with her genitalia? Does either skew the quality of her personality, the depth of what goes on in her mind, or the honesty of what she feels in her heart in a way that would affect other people? I would venture to say that the answer would have to be no, because if it was yes, there would be no question as to what is between her legs. We would know by those other attributes. But since we don't, I would offer up the idea that those are the qualities that people bring to the social table, and what they screw with is irrelevant unless they're screwing you. And even thenÄ

Does a vagina make a woman? There is little a vagina can do that makes it a useful determinant of attitudes, behaviors, values or the right or ability of the possessor of said vagina to define herself. I think that we can all agree that pregnancy doesn't make a woman any more a woman, and a sterile woman, a post-menopausal woman, a pre-adolescent girl, and a chick who doesn't want to get pregnant are no less female than their sisters who do get pregnant. So, it begs the question:

Who the Fuck Cares?

This is a privileged question. By that I mean that this is a question that only someone who is privileged to not be confronted with one's own gender ambiguity can ask. It resonates as much as a white person asking "does racism still exist?". Nevertheless, I know the answer to despite having the privilege of not being hassled by the gender-police.

This is who: Stupid, dangerous, motherfuckers. They care a lot. They care to the tune of at least one transgender murder per month, every month, all year long. There are people who feel it's perfectly acceptable to clock someone who is engaged in the transgressive act of walking down the street, or just being herself. Who find it perfectly appropriate to call someone outside of her name, to attempt to humiliate her in public by pointing her out as a potential victim, and thereby victimizing her, with the possibility of escalation to an assault on her physically[5].

And who else cares? Women who argue that "womyn-born-womyn" are the only "real" women. What the hell does that mean? It's a 100% turnaround from the feminist politic of vulnerability and communication. We become invulnerable as soon as we start to police other people's sense of self. We exclude women based on absolutely nothing tangible.

What does this collection of gender-arbiters have in common? POWER. The power to ridicule or deny some one else's selfhood. This is the most antifeminist thing I ever heard.

Safe Women's Space

Why does a lesbian who beats her lover have the right to be in women's space? Why does an antifeminist woman have the right to own the identity of female? Why does a transguy have the category female imposed on him? Why do I, someone who has never even bothered to read the wrapper of womanhood, have more of a right to self identification than transwoman who has made gender her life's study and feminism her life's practice? Why do I get, and why does she get denied, the right to have my claim of female identity accepted as true and authentic, without being brought into question? Who is making these decisions and why do we continue to buy into them, not only culturally, but on a gut level?

Conclusion

I end this with the hope that we can all take a deep breath and sort of reassess what it means to us, as individuals, to maintain the right to self-identification, and how important it is to allow others the same freedoms. I hope that we can expand our definitions of who can, and canęt access "womenęs space" Ŕ and to think abut how these rules of exclusion actually threaten the foundation of "womenęs space". I hope that we can find ways in our lives to admit our privilege where we have it, and use our power where we have it. I think that we have to be very conscious of language, and to listen closely to what people mean, and to find a common language that doesnęt disenfranchise anyone. And then I hope we use it.ľ I hope, most of all, that we can find time to listen to each other, and to be the type of people that we want our world to be populated by, regardless of the packages we come in. And I hope that we continue to come in a multiplicity of packages.