Transpeople can be just as big an asshole as anybody else.
Do you really think that people don’t know their own plumbing and biology? You say that you’re not transphobic, but you seem to think trans people are idiots.
I’ll let someone who’s actually had to deal with being misgendered handle this, but I hope you realize that people regularly use third-person to refer to other people who are standing right there.
As noted, Murray was investigated formally by a committee, which found that both terms were intended as abuse. Murray has had other instances of aggressive and abusive behavior as well, several of them towards women.
There was a coffee shop around the corner from where I lived.
I went in one day and there was a sign by the register that said, “Do not assume my gender” (or something to that effect…it has been a while).
The person behind the counter was androgynous look-wise.
The sign didn’t tell me how that person would like to be addressed. It just told me not to make any assumptions about their gender.
So is sir bad? Miss? Ma’am? I can just try to avoid gendered pronouns and say “hey you” I guess but that sounds rude to my ear.
Frankly what the clerk did is annoying as hell. We have all spent a lifetime saying he/she and the language does not really accommodate the gray areas. Does that suck for those people? Sure and it is something to be worked on but it will take generations for non-gendered pronouns to become common parlance (if ever).
I am more than happy to refer to someone the way they would like to be addressed but they have to tell me what that is. Otherwise I will default, as pretty much anyone on the planet does, to making a best guess and using the language that has been imprinted through decades of use in casual conversation (i.e. when talking you are not not working at inspecting every word but just…talking).
If I refer to someone as he or she but have it reversed or they prefer something else they need to not take offense because none was intended. It is an honest, simple and super-easy mistake to make. Chill out and politely tell me how you (general “you”) want to be referred to and I am more than happy to do that.
I don’t think #1 is common. But profoundly unlikely? I just can’t agree with this. I say this because of my experiences with people. I’ve met feminine males who could very well identify as women (I’ve never asked), but despite their non-macho style there is nothing apparently “woman” about them. They still look like men in their manner and dress. Just not macho men. So if they do identify as woman, it would be a shock.
We have a poster here who looks like a man in all of the pictures I’ve seen of him. But he identifies as a male woman while still accepting male pronouns.
I once had a PM conversation on Reddit with someone who identifies as non-binary. Everything about their photo screamed “woman” to me. Yet they are non-binary and go by “they” and “them”. Now I understand that “non-binary” and “woman” are different things. But since I have met this person, it has opened my eyes to the good possibility that there are others like them, except that they identify as men. And thus it seems logical to assume that there are folks who have an appearance that screams “man” but who identify as women. Why wouldn’t this occur at some non-zero frequency, if we allow everyone to define gender however they want?
Of course I can never say with 100% certainty that the individual cases I’ve bumped into have never been immediately perceived as their preferred gender by anyone in the world. But talk about a bizarro world condition! And while I will concede that this may be a rare phenomenon, I can imagine how it might not be so rare going forward, as the stigma of transgenderism and gender fluidity lessens.
At any rate, fixating on the “profound unlikelihood” of this seems like a major dodge of my question. If I were able to show that there are millions of male-presenting women walking around, would you suddenly grok the point I’m trying to make and finally be able to answer my question? ]I’m asking you to consider a situation that isn’t as crazy as you’re portraying it as. What is the etiquette for dealing with a person who isn’t “doing” a particular gender in a recognizable, socially established way but who still claims that gender? We should treat that person respectfully, always. We are not in disagreement there. But does respectful treatment require no critical judgment and no statements that could be construed as a challenge to a person’s self-identification? Or is there some room to at least ask a person to explain the discordancy between their appearance and their professed gender? Ignore the hypotheticals if they are way too “bizarro world” for you.
So I’m taking this to mean you think that “You don’t face racial harrassment because you look white” to be equally bizarro world? White people can face racial harrassment. But they aren’t likely to be called a “black bitch” or be profiled at the store. Can we at least agree on that? A male-presenting woman may very well face lots of racial harrassment. But she isn’t likely to face the same kind of harrassment a female-presenting woman is. Reword the “bizarro wrong thing” however you see fit and then try to receive what I’m saying.
I have a sister (not you with the face) who is very very sexual. Much more sexual than the norm for men or women. And I’m not judging her for this. (In fact, I’m kind of envious). She is fond of saying that she feels like a “man trapped in a woman’s body”. I don’t think she really identifies as a man, but maybe she does. I kinda think that’s just something she says to explain why she does what she does. I just roll with it because why not? Gender is whatever a person says it is.
We have very different takes on sexual harrassment. I think catcalling is harrassment. She thinks that’s crazy since you can just ignore it and its coming from a nice place. I think it is inappropriate for coworkers to make overt passes in the workplace. She thinks it’s totally acceptable. She invites men to stare at her body and touch her. I find this invasive and creepy. Once she was telling me a story about a socially inept coworker of hers who creeped out a female coworker with his over-the-top advances and heartache. I told her he should have been reprimanded. She immediately took his side. “He’s lonely! GIVE HIM A BREAK!” She identified with that guy’s unmet sexual needs and sense of entitlement. I identified with the woman he harrassed, having been in a similar situation myself.
One day my sis was giving me a hard time after I told her I try to maintain some emotional distance from my single heterosexual male coworkers. I don’t want to send mixed messages or put myself in a bad situations (I’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirt). After she was done ragging on me for being such a prude, I told her that she needed to check herself. Of course she doesn’t get my feelings or experiences–she’s a big ole horndog! She’s in the privileged position of being the pursuer in her relationships. Sex is a freakin’ game for her, so it is always enjoyable for her. It isn’t enjoyable to me.
Now did I say, “You don’t get sexually harrassed because you look like a man” to her? No, because it wouldn’t have made any sense. But I did suggest to her that she doesn’t see sex the same way that I and lots of women do because she is in the privileged position of having a male brain. She didn’t have much to say to that. See, she can’t keep telling me she’s a “man in a woman’s body” and then turn around and downplay the meaning of that. Words are supposed to mean something.
Now if it was another ciswoman who downplayed female-centered sexual harrassment, I might argue with her differently. Or I might not argue with her at all. It depends on how strident she’s being. In my sister’s case, 1) she was being dismissive of my feelings and experiences and 2) her fixation with “being a man”, despite presenting as very feminine, does work my nerves a little, not gonna lie. Not just because she says it way too much, but also because I think she thinks she’s better than “women in women’s bodies”. It just seems to be something to say to get a rise out of people (especially women).
Would I do the “check your privilege” thing with a male-presenting woman? It totally depends on how obnoxious they are being and just how invested I am in setting them straight. But I don’t think I would stop myself from thinking critical thoughts if I suspected their cluelessness was due in part to the discordancy in their appearance and their gender self-identity. If I can think something like for a person I love very much, I know I’m not gonna have a problem thinking that for someone I have no feelings for.
Which brings us back full circle to the original question.
Maya Forstater was fired. JK Rowling said, quite clearly, that the existence of trans-people does not harm her but that it’s wrong to force someone out of their job for their opinions.
I don’t get how you think that is evidence of JK Rowling being shitty to trans-people.
You give this, and a lot of other examples, of folks who get misgendered a lot. Which, of course that happens. Getting misgendered was the theme song of my adolescence, and I kinda wonder whether my apathy about my own gender is a defense mechanism against that (more likely that’s pop-psychology bullshit, but I wonder).
But that’s not what we’re talking about. Your example deals with someone who’s very self-righteous about being a woman, but who actively grooms themselves as a man. That’s what I think is super unlikely.
If there were a lot of goateed, moustachioed transwomen walking around, that would change our culture. In that scenario, people wouldn’t be surprised to have a goateed lumberjack–err, lumberjill–speak as a woman. If that were the case, then the people who called this woman a man would be acting like jerks. And if this were the case, I guarandamntee you that moustachioed women would face SOOOOPER harassment from transphobes.
Your transwoman has to pee sometimes, you know–maybe even in North Carolina.
Not at all. These scenarios are really, really different. I mean, you’re not a black person who looks white but goes and pees in the black bathroom, are you?
“Excuse me” works as a way of drawing attention to oneself and commencing the conversation without using an honorific or pronoun at all. If the interaction starts without needing to draw their attention, just a “Hello…” followed by stating your order works.
It isn’t really often the case that you even need to use a gender-specific honorific or pronoun when talking to someone.
That’s total nonsense. You’re arguing with an imaginary opponent.
WTF. This is such a weird thing to say in response to what my post.
No, they aren’t really, really different. But maybe our experiences on this planet are really, really different and you just haven’t been exposed to the same things I have, so your ability to see what I’m talking about is very very weak.
One observation: you are the only one calling these folks “transwoman”. I’m not doing that. They could be transwoman. They could be a hirsute ciswomen. They could be gender fluid people–woman today, man tomorrow, woman two days from now. I can think of a number of ways a goateed, mustached male-presenting individual could come to the “woman” identity.
Now to go back to what you said here: Why would it necessarily change our culture? And would it change our culture in a bad way or just a different way? Would you be concerned if there was a big uptick of goated, mustached women walking around? If so, why? If gender ain’t no big deal, why be concerned how people self-identify?
My only concern about a big uptick is that speaking about the “woman experience” will be even more complicated than it already is. Because if we were to ask something like “Are women more likely to face workplace discrimination than men?”, then it seems to me (and maybe I’m wrong) then we would have to do some screening. We couldn’t just rely on self-identification in our female subject pool. Maybe we wouldn’t want to include the person who is gender fluid since they don’t present enough as female, and females-presenting folks (whether they be trans or cis) are really who we are really interested in. Maybe we would include the agendered person who presents as female and accepts female pronouns. Maybe we would not includethe transwoman who is still pretty masculine in appearance since she is still working out how she want to present her femaleness. Are there ethical problems with defining “women” in a research study so that not everyone who identifies as a woman gets to be considered a woman? Is this harmful somehow? Do you have a problem with a researcher setting up some parameters?
Because I do not. I just want to know if this an enlightened view to take. And it is OK if you decide you do not want to answer.
Transphobia harrassment and the harrassment disproportionately encountered by female-presenting women are not the same thing, though. There must be space to be able to talk about the latter without also hearing about the former, correct? Is it possible to do this without causing offense?
Acceptance of transgenderism increasingly seems to require belief in things that have nothing to do with tolerance and respecting others’ the right to live freely, and I think this is worth discussion.
If someone believes gender isn’t really a thing that can be separated from biological sex and socialization, this will put them at odds with trans advocates who believe people of one gender can be born with the wrong biological sex. So I guess this would make them transphobic, right? If that’s where we’re going with that term, ok. I guess that would make me transphobic because I don’t believe gender is a thing really eligible for self-identification. And to whatever extent there is a ideological basis for me believing this, the trans movement has nothing to do with it. It is probably gender critical feminism that has shaped my views on this more than anything else.
Wanting to be seen and treated as a member of a particular sex/gender should not be conflated with actually being a particular sex/gender. I think this is the crux of the debate. I can certainly see why Rowling’s tweet is an offensive dig at trans women. But I also understand why people like her aren’t buying into the idea that all it takes to be a woman is to call or think of yourself as a woman. Being a woman can’t be reduced to a feeling. In a lot of ways, it’s like saying you’re a fat person just because you “feel” fat. If you’re not a fat person and have never been one, what does it mean to feel like a state of being that you’ve never been before? If this feeling comes with body dysmorphia, there is certainly something in the mind and brain going on, but this doesn’t mean that there is truly a fat person residing within a thin person’s body.
It has become socially taboo to throw these points out for consideration, and God forbid you admit to being a feminist. You’re opening yourself up to all kind of TERF accusations. But we do need to keep dialogue open.
I understand your concern, but if you are a decent human being who is trying to avoid actively offending people, I think you’ll be okay. I have a lot of transgender and non-binary friends. And honestly, sometimes I have trouble remembering the right gender, especially with people who look a lot like some other gender. But I remain friends with them, and they are comfortable with me, because I try.
Here’s my go-to advice:
As has already been explained in this thread, that is a gross mischaracterization of what transgenderism is. You are attacking a strawman of your own devising.
Thanks for providing this context, monstro. I’ve always really enjoyed your posts, and I believe you’re asking these questions in good faith, even though I disagree with your position.
Apologies if someone beat me to this point; this thread is moving as fast as I can read. But I think you’ve already answered your question of what to do with the burly, bearded college student who identifies as female and says she’s never been mansplained. Call her out, without misgendering her. Point out the very obvious fact that her appearance is masculine, and that 10/10 strangers would assume she’s male and treat her accordingly. Therefore, of course she doesn’t get mansplained. She’s essentially conducting some bizarre, reverse Black Like Me experiment. She could be very much a woman, and we don’t have to question her on that. But as long as she’s perceived as male, she doesn’t have much personal experience with how women are treated in casual social interactions.
You could explain how I’ve mischaracterized it, if it is that gross. I sincerely don’t see how it’s a straw man.
For me, I don’t have a problem with reducing “woman” to a feeling. But I guess I personally do expect slightly more than a feeling. I will be looking for some demonstration of “woman” if you tell me that’s what you are. I am finally 100% comfortable acknowledging this, even if I know it will mark me as some kind of knuckle-dragger in someone’s eyes. I don’t think expecting more than a feeling is inherently oppressive or hateful. I just think it indicates that I have an internal classification system that uses multiple lines of evidences.
I still think people should be treated respectfully, with preferred pronouns and all that. People shouldn’t be harrassed or discriminated against for identifying how they want to identify. But as you said, I think this is as much as people should expect. Everything else seems to be bordering on “thought police.”
Is post 41, the OP said this:
psychonaut, the idea in bold is what I believe perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted people can disagree with. Please don’t accuse me of strawmanning or mischaracterizing a viewpoint plainly and explicitly articulated in this very thread.
Thanks for taking the time to engage me respectfully! 
Well, I don’t know if it would be appropriate for the professor in my scenario to do that. That’s why I posed the scenario in the first place. I could see it being more appropriate for a friend to say “check your privilege”. Like, I think if a white male professor told me to check my light-skinned privilege, I wouldn’t receive it very well. But I would listen if it came from friends or family.
Re mansplaining.
I don’t think I have a “male brain”. But I am not feminine. Other women have called me out for being such a “dude”. It doesn’t bother me none.
Because I’m not feminine, I always have to be aware that my experience as a woman is not representative. That I’m more out on the edge than in the middle. Just as a I tend to be a listener in racism conversations, I am the same way when it comes to misogyny and sexism. I can talk about mansplaining because I see that shit happening on the internet all the time. But I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been mansplained to. For lots of women, it’s a daily thing.
I’m 42 years old, so I know all the ways I’m privileged. I usually know when to keep my mouth shut and when not to. But I didn’t know shit when I was in my 20s. My mind is flashing (and cringing) on all the times I used to talk to my sister like she was an idiot, because my understanding of a particular concept was just a smidge stronger than hers. So I can easily see myself being like the linebacker in my scenario. Blind to my own masculinity and thus blind to my own obnoxiousness.
In my understanding, being trans is a lot more than just a feeling. It’s certainly nothing close to flippant or casual, like “I think I’ll wear this hat today”. It’s entirely possible for someone to dishonestly claim to be trans, whether to try and gain some benefit or just because they’re a real-life troll. But since we can’t read minds, especially with strangers over the internet, I think we owe it to trans folks to take people at their word, barring evidence of dishonesty. It’s not like we’re in a society that comes close to treating trans people with respect and decency, generally speaking. So I think we should be very, very careful about criticizing the gender identity of people based on (what appears to be) superficial traits, at least until we build that fair and decent society in which trans folks aren’t facing a big ol’ pile of hateful shit every day.
If social media is anything to go by, no. Women can’t even talk about their periods and pregnancy without causing offense these days. “Some men have periods too!” is a common correction in discussions like that, and of course we get told that we’re causing some people to feel dysphoria by implying that women have periods or can have babies when not everyone who identifies as a woman is capable of doing so or conversely that if they have the biological capability they are women even though they identify otherwise. Wording like “pregnant people” and “menstruators” get thrown around in earnest in attempts to appease.
Women are asked to walk on eggshells and police their language in case they might cause offense to people who decide to join the conversation and then feel slighted by women’s discussions about their own bodies. But men aren’t often asked any of this, oddly.
So no, if we can’t talk about our experiences inside our bodies, we of course cannot talk about external issues like harassment that women who were raised female face without also having the conversation broadened to include those who adopted femaleness later in life.
In my experience, whenever I face something like this (i.e. I forget to mention a certain group that might sometimes experience the same thing as whatever I’m talking about), I can simply apologize and move on, and this has uniformly been accepted graciously. I’m sure there are some assholes who deliberately try and hold onto and elevate grievances, but in my experience, as long as you’re compassionate and reasonable in your apology, this won’t gain any traction. “I’m really sorry I forgot to mention that [XYZ group] also faces [difficult circumstance] – I’ll definitely try and keep this in mind in future discussions” always works, at least for me.