5 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Trans Women, Male Privilege, and the Intersectionality of Patriarchal Oppression
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.
Comment by Cevari at 30/01/2025 at 15:38 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think I understand now where the miscommunication happened in this comment thread. First of all, neither I nor /u/FeelGuiltThrowaway94 (I assume, obviously I cannot speak for her directly) were questioning or attacking the criticism of the OP by the original commenter. I think the criticism itself was perfectly valid, and in general I found the OP rather generalizing and oversimplifying when it came to both trans and cis experiences. It also would've been better off as a conversation starter, not as trying to condense an incredibly nuanced subject as a preachy post of "let me tell you how it is".
What I believe she was trying to say was exactly what I also said later - that the last paragraph of the original commenters post is dismissive and leans heavily into completely made up stereotypes of what trans women are like, and what transitioning actually means. She did not express this very clearly, and since you're unfamiliar with the microaggression that prompted it I don't blame you for misinterpreting her post as being an attempt at a rebuke of the original commenter's points about many cis women also facing significant struggles with gender identity in their lives.
I'd also like to say that I definitely don't agree with it being somehow a negative thing to say that sometimes people belonging to specific groups categorically cannot understand the full extent of something people belonging to another group experience. As a trans woman, I will never have a full understanding of menstruation and the physical and cultural implications of it. That doesn't mean I can't have empathy for people who do - it's just an acknowledgment that my body does not do that, and that experience is not mine. Similarly someone who has not experienced gender dysphoria or a cross-sex transition will never have a full understanding of that experience. Stating that is not asserting some kind of competition, or an attack on anyone.