Radical feminist analysis is complicated. But our ideas are too important for only a handful of people to understand them. So it is vital that writers do everything we can to communicate those ideas in ways that more women can grasp and so do something with. Someone asked me recently if anyone had written a basic feminist explanation of the difference between sex and gender and why it matters. Of course many people have tackled this subject, but we were looking for something that explained all the concepts in one place and as clearly as possible. As I looked for such a thing, it occurred to me that I should just try to do it myself. It would be an opportunity to cut through the obfuscations of biased framing to get to what is at the heart of the matter for girls and women (that is, females). And at the same time lead a reader through a radical feminist reframing of things we just don’t normally think about.
The result is this page: Feminism, sex, and gender.
You did a nice job on the article at The Hub.
Feminism can be a real paradox, it actually is incredibly simple, straight forward, logical. Unfortunately it also taps into huge emotional, psychological, social issues, and becomes unbelievably complex. I remember when I first read Dworkin. Dworkin wasn’t speaking intellectually, she wasn’t making academic arguments, you don’t have to be well educated to understand what she was saying, but good grief, reading her was hard work! When you read a rad/fem piece, it’s familiar, it’s almost like stating the obvious and yet most women have so much baggage and cultural programming to overcome it becomes a lot of work to accept what you are reading, what some part of you already knows to be the truth. For many women, denial is a survival mechanism, it’s something you have to be invested in your whole life just to get by.
Today, rad/fem analysis seems so simple to me. It’s the programming, the mental brainwashing, the conditioning, that makes everything so complicated. For example, it’s so easy to see some woman being physically abused by some guy and think, just leave, GTFO! That’s the simple, rational, rad/fem argument, but of course the woman in that situation has a thousand other programmed messages playing non stop in her head. She’s thinking this is normal or she deserves it or it’s not his fault, or maybe he’ll stop one day, or he doesn’t really mean it, or maybe if she just became a better person…..and on and on the BS goes. Feminism, rad/fem ideas, are about challenging that kind of learned behavior and cultural conditioning with such simple, basic concepts, like women don’t deserve to be abused.
Yes, it’s absolutely clear, once you can see and accept the new framing. But it is not that it’s simple. The way we put information together into a coherent whole is complicated; it just seems “simple” because we can see the whole when it all comes together for us. But then we take that for granted.
And for more women to get that whole picture, it’s very important that we’re clear about just how demanding radical feminist ideas really are. Basic human decency says women don’t deserve to be abused. Basic liberal feminism says women who are in abusive relationships should find a way to leave the relationships. That’s what the whole safe house movement was built on. Radical feminism says, the entire nature of male-female relationships starts and ends in abuse through the continuation of a dominance/submission framework that IS the patriarchy. And there is no rescuing those relationships as long as that system remains in place. The male-female relationship in a patriarchy includes the notion of property ownership of a human being, mandatory PIV sex, impregnability on demand, and a whole range of social, cultural, and legal demands on all women, even the ones who aren’t in relationships with men. That reality is very hard to stomach for a whole lot of women who would really rather bury their heads in the idea that happy talk and half measures will fix things.
Thank you.
I can tell you put quite a bit of thought into the article on sex, gender, and feminism.
If we’re talking about why MtFs are not really women, though, I just think it does not only come down to their inability to get pregnant; there’s a whole world of female socialization they’ve missed out on. Also, what if pregnancy what was made out to be a terrific, very valued and precious, ability that women have? I guess my point is that it’s not so much the biology that’s important, but what society makes of it.
Oh my goddess, I love that post, Noan!! It’s my new BFF. Will you marry me, please? Ok, fine, I will just love you from afar. <3
WOAJ said:
MtFs are not really women for 2 reasons: one is that their genetic make-up and biological reproductive functions are NOT female. It doesn’t matter that they cannot GET pregnant. Many women are infertile. What matters is that males (aka MtFs) have penises, which CAUSE impregnation. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is keeping our eye on the ball–nothing else is relevant in a discussion about trans women’s bodies and female harm. For the GROUP: female safety, not female purity! That’s the first part.
The second part is that female socialization is VERY MUCH INFORMED BY assumptions about female reproductive functioning– some of which is true, and some of which (or most of which) is NOT true. (See “Rape as Oppression”– it continues to happen disproportionately TO women BY men via PIV for a reason. That reason is undeniably associated with the reality of female impregnation BY men.) Society’s handling of/response to female reproduction is problematic. No doubt. But FURTHER, the biological process of impregnation, gestation, and birth are extremely arduous for the person inhabiting that bio female body– physically (and emotionally). Or, as I was saying yesterday on my blog about menstruation: it’s REAL. It’s physical. For all I know, I *am* infertile. Who knows, right? I’m a lesbian. But I am still biologically female. I still bleed and get sore breasts and fear unwanted pregnancy (aka rape). Yes, my social LOCATION in the world is deeply informed by what is between my legs. Post-revolution, however, female reproductive organs would still exist. Therefore, the realities of the female SEX would STILL need to be accounted for in terms of social structuring (female safety from PIV rape, community child rearing, extended rest for females during and after pregnancy, etc). Biology is still important. Very important.
What UP said.
Some of us have been having this discussion for a long, long time (decades) and we’ve heard all the arguments. And some people are very new to it and don’t realize all the distance we’ve covered (and haven’t done a lot of work to look at all the discussions or to sort out the arguments).
The trans argument started out with this: I FEEL like a woman therefore I AM a woman. And everyone was just supposed to take them at their word. It has been radical feminists who have said over and over and over:
1) there are females who don’t FEEL like “women” they FEEL like HUMANS, yet they ARE objectively females, so the trans argument is false for that reason alone;
2) the socialization of females is important in our society, but that is what makes the discussion about GENDER important, but that has nothing to do with SEX (biological reality);
3) it is SEX, biological reality, that separates males from females. And it is not how we feel about that biological reality (which is the trans argument in a nutshell: it should all be about how one FEELS, not about what one IS).
This argument confuses even radical feminists. And that is why I talked in my post on HUB about frame-changing. If you’re not changing your frame, you’re using the one you’ve been provided by your training in the patriarchy. The frame change of radical feminists is to show the very specific experiences that females have in a biologically factual world. This is confusing because the male frame says that female biological reality is a) unimportant b) trivial c) suitable for pillory (and hence, thousands of years of women feeling shitty about their bodies) d) a source of all that men think is wrong with females (and hence something women should hate in themselves and each other) e) grotesque, bizarre, and strange (and again, a reason for females themselves to downplay the actual experience of their biology) f) laughable and ridiculous (see above for what that does for women) g) ET CETERA.
The reason we have this change of frame and argument based on actual biological fact is because trans arguments have settled into one version or another of conflating (mashing together, grouping, melding, confusing the boundaries between, blending, mixing, fusing, merging, and combining!!!) gender and sex. So any time you get into that bath with them, you’re going to not only confuse yourself, but your arguments, and the whole point of having this discussion: to preserve the notion of sex discrimination, which females benefit from.
The bottom line: A biological male can rape me today and it won’t matter what he “makes of” my impregnability. It will not matter what I “make of” my impregnability. It will only matter that I AM impregnable and will bear the biological physical reality of that.
Here is what the very next thing people who have not been steeped in this discussion for a long time say:
BUT THERE ARE GIRLS AND WOMEN WHO CAN’T GET PREGNANT!
And the answer to that is:
If 98% of the women in the world didn’t spend over 75% of their lives as impregnable, that would be a very interesting thought.
BUT THEY DO. And men know that and count on it throughout 95% of THEIR lives when they can impregnate. It is a power dynamic based in biology!
If you want to really get this: CHANGE YOUR FRAME!
CHANGE THE GAME!!
CHANGE YOUR FRAME!!
Oh, that female purity shit is sooooo annoying. We’re talking about HARM and they want to know, what about no harm? We’re talking about normative male biology and they want to know, what about non-normative female biology? STOP FLIPPING THE SCRIPT, yo. Stay focused. Impregnation. It’s a big deal. Exceptions exist. Who cares. That’s not how we design theory. And that’s not we make community standards. If we need to create an exceptions PROCESS, then so be it. But we do not invalidate self-evident truths in order to make outliers happy.
Amen, Noan! That last paragraph was crystal clear.
Thoughts and feelings, even genital reconstruction, do NOT MAKE one female. Being female is biological state. It exists on the PHYSICAL plane of reality. Hello, Cartesian dualism! On this plane, you can think and feelall you want, it’s not gonna CHANGE the objective physical properties of things.
As Noan said in Feminism, sex, and gender: gender is nothing more than superstition. Women cannot afford to indulge that magikal bullshit. We have to PROTECT ourselves and our female children.
“And some people are very new to it and don’t realize all the distance we’ve covered (and haven’t done a lot of work to look at all the discussions or to sort out the arguments).”
If this comment was directed at me, I’m a little hurt. I do know how long these discussions have been going on, I’ve spent hours and hours reading the MWMF boards as well as Sheila Jeffreys work and Jan Raymonds. I could go more into my radfem creds, but I don’t think that’s necessary.
I completely agree that socialization is very much informed by biology. I also agree with what you are saying re: the potential for females to become pregnant. I just worry it’s better not to use purely biological arguments. Radfems are constantly accused of being “essentialist,” when really it’s the tranzfolks who are essentialist, thinking their brain is born a certain way. Of course, now some tranz are arguing that there is scientific evidence to “prove” their tranzness. Right…because boys can be born liking pink which makes them really a girl! :rolls eyes:
To be honest, your argument is new to me, and perhaps I will try it on pro-tranz folks sometimes. Nothing seems to get through to the younger generation as it is, but I won’t stop trying!
I’m sorry that what I said hurt your feelings, WOAJ.
This issue is not just theoretical, it is affecting our daily lives and we must fight the fight. And that fight is with people who have brought out yet another weapon against females (erasing sex discrimination laws). We are fully half the human beings on the planet, but our concerns, based in reality, are twisted and spun to appear to be “hateful” or “essentialist” — these are only silencing techniques, they are not the truth and we don’t have to respond to them as if they are. I’m not sure why you want our arguments to be understood and accepted by trans. The whole point is that they are not our friends; not friends of females and not friends of lesbians. Their entire credo is based on debasing the female experience (either by claiming that it’s easy peasy for someone to become one or that it’s so disgusting and awful that one must escape from it). Conservative gender ideals will NEVER, EVER be good for born females.
Biology is essential. And anyone who tells you that it’s wrong to point that out is trying to get you to work against your own best interest.
The fact that I was born with a vagina does not make me (or any other female-at-birth) an oppressor of males at birth who want to be women (and I am not suggesting this is a casual want, I believe transwomen when they say it is a matter of live or death for them to escape the wrong body into which they were born) . However, the fact that I – and others – recognize that it is a different experience to be born into this world with a vagina than it is to be born into this world with a penis does not make me “essentialist.” It makes us cognizant.
Irrational discrimination is wrong, and should be rooted out, but not at the expense of female reality. Period.
Word.
Essentialism is NOT a bad word. It’s often used as one, but I think that’s more because it sounds fancy so people like throwing it around–makes it sound like they know what they’re talking ’bout. In certain contexts, essentialism can be bad. For example, GENDER essentialism IS bad and NOT TRUE. It is human superstition masquerading as inevitable. This is inaccurate. But sex/reproductive essentialism is REALITY. It IS inevitable and nothing can change that. Naturally, trans people do not like this. It means that they actually CAN’T change their sex. Oh noes!!! But really, it’s not entirely different than saying that no matter how tan I get, I will never BE a “person of color.” I could get facial surgery, but I will never BE Vietnamese. (Please excuse the crude analogy.) That’s essentialism. It’s just fucking TRUE. Trans want to obscure reality in order to serve their own delusions. And it is happening at OUR EXPENSE.
Noan, as you also say, this is NOT THEORETICAL. Females are being raped and impregnated by MALES every minute of every hour of every day. Our biology matters. To be honest, it really boggles my mind that anyone can believe that biology is not a problem. Even a man! It’s so obvious. It’s WHY we live in a rape culture. And it’s also why radical feminism makes sense and trans ideology does NOT.
The really sad thing is that we have been led so, so far astray from female reality that it is currently RADICAL to speak about the importance of reproductive inevitabilities.
I love this post, thanks.
Really great job with this, thanks!!!
Such a wonderful, important post and discussion.
“Feminism, Sex and Gender” really outlines “Why Gender Identity Protections are Harmful to Women”.
one for the spiders, lol
Here, spider, spider, spider
Mag makes a very good point with her comment about the title of the page I created. When I was working on it I considered all kinds of options and my choices were based on one thing: do WE own this conversation or do they? We are radical feminists, they are conservative genderists. They want to tear down everything women — FEMALES — have been struggling to gain since, well, forever basically. They seek to downplay the damage that females experience all over the world because of their sex, so they can force their way to the front of the line. Who does that sound like? Entitled men.
Males are raised and groomed and trained to believe that their concerns, ideas, feelings, and experiences trump everything and everyone. Male choices are almost universally and always bad for females. Porn, prostitution, war, rape, abuse, and all other forms of violence and degradation are overwhelmingly the realm of males. But we’re supposed to suspend our knowledge of all that and go on slutwalks, believe in the fantasy of “feminist porn,” and believe that there is anything redeemable in “sex work.” These are all spin to get every female to stop knowing what she knows. “Gender identity” is yet another scheme by males. What do YOU think will be the outcome?
Indeed: Gender Identity Protections are Harmful to Women. They protect males at the expense of females. They protect the idea that sex discrimination is a thing of the past and needn’t be the basis for legal remedies for females. They protect the idea of Gender at the expense of Sex. Well I don’t have a fucking gender, I’ve rejecting being put in that box my entire life. Trans nation wants to be yet another force to put me in that box. I fought my family, my teachers, my employers, acquaintances, and strangers to keep from being forced to live in the gender box and now I have yet another fight. I’m not simply allowed to be who I am, I must choose a bullshit “gender identity.” And so must every other female. Instead of getting to be just who we are, males have found yet another way to force us to conform to conservative ideas of what a “woman” is. By protecting gender identity, women are screwed yet again.
Haven’t we all had enough of that?
“I’m sorry that what I said hurt your feelings, WOAJ.”
Thanks, noanodyne. I can be a bit oversensitive.
I’ve been thinking about this discussion as well as what I’ve read from tranz activists. A lot of them really do see something as basic as having a vagina as being “essentialist” because “not all women have vaginas.” It’s incredibly dumb; the only ones willing to be THIS careful about what we say–i.e. that we can’t say women get their periods–are, well, born females!