Suppose a transgender president (cisgender man turned woman) is elected as the nation’s first female president. Would this be considered by most of society to be a “true” case of breaking the glass ceiling, or would a large contingent claim that this wasn’t the same as a cisgender “real” woman having made it there?
Also: We won’t have truly broken the glass ceiling until we elect the second transgender president.
I am far from an expert on transgender issues, but I can see that there is so much wrong with your op as to be unanswerable as is.
First: Gender has two main factors: body and soul (there may be many other factors but let’s stick with those 2 for now). When the body and the soul align, that is considered cis gendered. When they don’t align, that’s trans. So a person doesn’t start out cisgenderd and then change to trans.
On a personal level the soul (mind and emotions) is really where we experience our sense of self. How we think about ourselves is more important than how we look. So from that perspective a trans women is a “real” woman.
To the rest of the world, how we look is what really matters. You can never really know what’s going on at the personal level for anyone. All we really have to judge someone by is the appearance they project. That’s why it’s so important to alot of trans people to bring their body inline with their soul; so that others may truly see them as they see themselves.
As to where transgender people fit in the gender political spectrum of man vs woman? That is alot trickier. Women have long been deemed as unfit to participate in a man’s world and many have worked hard to change that. And some see the transgendered as a fellow marginalized minority and welcome them and revel in their victories while others see it as just one more way where men can push aside women.
Me, personally, I think we can see the glass ceiling not as preventing only women from achieving success, but from preventing all non-men from succeeding. So, therefore, whether you believe a transwoman is a “real” woman (which I do, btw) or something in between, then the glass ceiling is still broken.
Given that the sort of people who are bothered by a woman being president would probably be apoplectic at the idea of a non-cisgendered person of either sex being president, I think 3 or 4 glass ceilings would have to have been effectively shattered in order for such a person to become president.
In order of likelihood to be breached I would say
- non-white (already done)
- openly gay
- openly non-christian
- openly transgendered.
On what basis do you believe that an openly gay person will be president before an openly non-Christian person?
This implies that the hypothetical gay president will be Christian. OK. But I feel like the type of Christians in America who are liberal enough to be comfortable with a gay president are also the same people who would be comfortable with a non-Christian president.
Right now, that might still be true, but attitudes about homosexuality are changing a lot more quickly than attitudes about religion.
That said, however, we’ve already had multiple openly non-Christian Presidents: Both Adamses, for instance, were Unitarians.
And while there probably is a strong bias against transsexual folks among the American electorate, it’s hard to conclude that just from the data: Zero women out of 45, when women are half the population, is certainly significant. One black person out of 45, when blacks are 12% of the population, is still significant, though not as much so. But transsexual folks are, what, a couple percent of the population? Just by the numbers, it isn’t very surprising that we haven’t yet had a trans President.
Nor am I sure that there would be all that much bias against a hypothetical Jewish President, though they’re subject to the same small numbers. We’ve never had a Jewish President, but they are significantly overrepresented in Congress and in the courts.
I think it’s likely that the first Jewish president will be a Republican. American conservatives, even the most extreme far-right ideologues, have an odd relationship with Jews. They seem to be accepting of Jews as long as they’re on their side. They’re willing to employ anti-Semitic dog whistles against Jews who are perceived as NOT being on their side, but then they enthusiastically get behind guys like Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and Michael Savage. Andrew Breitbart was Jewish. Stephen Miller (!) is Jewish. Donald Trump is the first president to have Jews in his actual family, and he’s made Israel a huge part of his platform.
If a Jewish Democrat was the nominee for president, they’d launch an endless smear campaign of dog whistles with the ((())) and all the rest of it. If a conservative Jewish Republican was the nominee, they’d circle the wagons, flip the script, and call the left anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and turn the whole thing around. That’s the kind of shit that they do.
I think the probability of a religious non-Christian president is higher than it has been historically. But I think even as the number of open atheists in the population has increased somewhat, the sentiment of the majority against atheism may even have regressed as atheists are seen as a credible enemy rather than just a bizarre curiosity. Is the probability of an openly atheist president today any higher than it was 100 or 200 years ago?
Yup, the election of Obama led to the tea party and Donald Trump.
A single transgender president followed by a wave of christian white nationalism is a sign we still have a long way to go.
I can not see that happening in 100 years. Is there even a transgender politician at the state level?
A Transgender President? Forget breaking the glass ceiling, that would be ripping the foundation clean off the house. The world would not be ready for that
Yes, several in the US, currently. There’s been a few dozen over the years. There are have been many world-wide. (And humans being humans, undoubtedly there have been many over the years that we don’t know about.)
Here’s the list from wiki -