8 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Trans Women, Male Privilege, and the Intersectionality of Patriarchal Oppression
I don't think there's anything wrong with the vast majority of what you've written here, but there is absolutely no question the original commenter was being dismissive. Generally speaking "welcome to being a woman / welcome to womanhood" is always a dismissive phrase when said to trans women, and in this case it really did not even feel well-intentioned as it most often does. They were directly implying that pre-transition trans women are essentially just men, which is simply untrue and is never applied the same way when it comes to, for example, closeted gay or lesbian folks.
I also don't think that the person you're replying to was in any way saying her experiences are "worse and beyond your appreciation". She was doing the exact same thing as the commenter she's replying to - expanding on what exactly her own struggles are like to someone who has not experienced them. The fact you read her as confrontational and dismissive while not getting the same from the original comment seems to me to imply a certain bias - one that is not surprising in a space dominated by cis women, but is also very well reflected in how everyone who has called the original commenter out in any way is getting heavily downvoted.
Comment by radical_hectic at 30/01/2025 at 12:52 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I can see how it could be read that way…but I pointed it out bc in my experience this is a common phrase other cis women have said to ME as a cis woman of various ages when I’ve expressed distress at being sexually harassed or discriminated against by a man, or been dismissed, belittled, ignored etc. I appreciate that it comes across differently in this context but given how broadly the phrase is used outside that context I think it is a little lacking in generosity to assume the worst. Therefore I didn’t view it as a “direct implication” that pre-transition trans women aren’t women, but rather as the kind of grim acknowledgment of misogyny and patriarchy I’ve become used to in feminist circles these days particularly.
I’d consider that much like when I’ve had women say this to me, it was intended as an acknowledgement of an attitude of surprise. The commenter was ultimately coming across as realising or caring about the impacts of misogyny only in respect to how it applies to her, and therefore there is that similar attitude of surprise. Their point was that girls and women rapidly become used to being unheard and ignored…as soon as they start presenting as and moving through the world as a woman. Not denying it can happen to trans women who are pre transition and don’t present or identify in society as women, ofc these people can be dismissed etc bc of their transness, even if that is not being identified as an influence. But there is a specific, intentional interest in disbelieving women that has a particular flavour. I don’t disagree w the commenter that the OP expresses a degree of surprise at experiencing this treatment as a woman, and has ALSO taken it upon themselves to speak for experiences they clearly lack knowledge and understanding on. Saying cis women will never have to worry about hormone treatment is plain ignorant. That’s fine! This was an opportunity to learn from each other. But the commenter did not profess to speak for trans women. While the OP was verrrrry confident in (inaccurately) asserting other women’s experiences or lack thereof.
Tbh I often see this tension bw AMAB trans queer people and cis (often queer, BIPOC, disabled etc) women. Bc while one group is outraged that they are not being directly and specifically catered to, the other is outraged that they would even imagine they would or should be. It’s unproductive and shitty, and I appreciate it was clumsily done in the above comment, but I don’t think it should be assumed to be intended w the level of vitriol you and others are ascribing. Again I think it’s an opportunity to learn from each other that is abrogated by this insistence on comparison and competition.
And the comment implied exactly that—they said cis women will never be able to understand going through a lifelong journey of gender identity beyond our understanding. The reply didn’t say “no, trans women do not go through why”. It simply said that cis women also experience challenges re gender identity.
I don’t disagree w the comments assertion that trans women space specific challenges.
What I disagree w is her assertion that various, specific outcomes and challenges are EXCLUSIVE to her own experience, that she can determine for ALL what others do or do not experience, and that any expression of others’ lived experience as a woman is inherently in competition/mutually exclusive to her own.
There is a BIG difference bw saying “this group of people of which I am not a part CANNOT EVER experience or understand xyz” (like the post and comment I replied to did) and saying “as a member of x group, I HAVE experience of xyz in unique and specific ways that differ from others”. One speaks for your own experience and seeks to relate and connect without negation. The other seeks to speak for the experience of others and frames differing testimony of lived experience as inherently negatory. Can you tell which? You don’t seem to be able to.