💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › carolyn-politicizing-gender.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:44:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Politicizing Gender Author: Carolyn Date: 1994 Language: en Topics: gender, anarcha-feminism, transgender, Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation Source: 1994 Oct/Nov issue of L&R Newspaper. Retrieved on 2016-06-13 from https://web.archive.org/web/20160613055819/http://loveandrage.org/?q=node/67
The ongoing challenge in feminist discourse over social constructionist
versus biological determinist views of gender often remove us from the
people feminists would hope to liberate. In writing a critical analysis
of the issues involved, it’s important for me to locate myself in
relation to a politic born of my own contradictions and necessities. As
a 26 year old transgender woman I did not come upon these issues solely
as a feminist and anarchist. My gender politics developed from my
personal struggles starting at an early age. As I grew to recognize the
painful disparity between my self-identification as a young girl, then a
woman and my socialized identity as a boy, I began challenging gender.
Articulating my identity has not been easy. Coming to understand my
gender identity has led me to undertake the process of a sex-change.
This ongoing process has been augmented by other factors including my
economic status. I recognize my white, middle-class and “male”
privileges, even while I have lived with a great dissonance of being
invisible as a woman-passing as a boy. Gender is imposed. Claiming a
biological foundation, gender categories serve to limit freedom. In this
sense none of us have any choice.
It is important for me to confront the differences and similarities
between myself and other women. It’s essential that we don’t ignore our
uniqueness nor rank our oppression. Acknowledging the specific nature of
the oppression transgender people face, we can begin to deal with
oppression not just from a theoretical base, but by “grappling with”
what Cherrie Moraga describes as “the source of our own oppression,
without naming the enemy within ourselves and outside of us, no
authentic, non-hierarchical connection among oppressed groups can take
place.”
People who do not fit into the gender binaries of female and male have
always been with us. “Transsexualism” or “Gender Dysphoria” are
historically recent definitions used by the medical and psychiatric
establishments. A transsexual is basically defined as a person who has a
long-standing, internal image of possessing inappropriate sexual
characteristics. From this reductionist conception, those transgender
people who (mis)happen to seek help from the medical and psychological
establishments, (and can afford it) are rated on a gender scale, modeled
after Alfred Kinsey’s scale to measure sexual orientation. They are then
encouraged/told what they are to do to actualize their gender. Make no
mistake, the options the medical “experts” are willing to provide are
quite conservative. They range from cases of imposed heterosexuality to
rigid dress codes and standards of behavior. When we consider
homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder until 1973, and
transsexualism is still defined as such by the psychiatric
establishment, we must regard even their most well intentioned help with
serious skepticism.
Gender is not solely a psychological state of being, it is a political
status. I’ve chosen to identify Transgender as a word of liberation in
my hopes of forging a common language of liberation with all gender
outlaws. Transgender identity indicates a refusal to separate
transsexuals from bulldaggers, transvestites, drag kings, drag queens,
femmes, intersexes, androgynies, genderfucks and those who refuse all
stated categories. However, this position is not necessarily widely held
in these communities.
The second wave of feminism emerged out of the civil rights and anti-war
movements in the late 1960s. Women began to recognize their oppressed
status and talk, originally in consciousness-raising groups, about how
they were oppressed. Growing out of other radical movements, these early
radical feminists tended to be anti-capitalist and to look toward
revolutionary strategies for the liberation of all women. Gender was
understood as oppressive because it created artificially constructed
roles of feminine and masculine to legitimate male supremacy. The
destruction of capitalism was not enough, since capitalism only
buttressed male supremacy. Different groups of women sought different
strategies. Aspects of gender essentialist politics had been with the
movement since its inception, but it was only around 1973 that cultural
feminism became the dominant form of feminism. Alice Echols has argued
that as the “possibilities for radical structural change seemed remote,”
feminism began to be reinterpreted as the “female principle.”
It may be difficult for us today to resurrect the intoxicating sense of
empowerment these women must have felt as they forged the way for
women’s liberation. “Sisterhood is powerful” was more than a rallying
cry or book title, it was a part of the sudden mass recognition that
women were systematically oppressed. For many feminists, the movement
held the common assumption that women’s experience was similar and that
differences were only imposed from without. This is not without some
logic. Most of the early feminists were college-educated, politically
left, middle to upper class white women. As the women’s movement grew,
many of the women who joined came from diverse backgrounds, some of whom
were interested only in finding self-help, not in the radical politics
of societal transformation.
While the women’s movement may have seemed like a united front in 1968,
by 1970 it had exploded into many warring factions. It is in this state
of intense factionalism and the right-wing backlash of the election of
Nixon that the insular counter-culture and liberal politics of cultural
feminism must have seemed inviting.
Cultural feminists like Kathleen Barry and Robin Morgan offered the
vision of a conflict-free state of global sisterhood. Liberation was
defined as a state of femaleness, whereby racial, class, sexual and
cultural differences were de-emphasized. In a feminist counter-culture,
or women’s community, which subordinated political struggle for
lifestylism and imposed homogeneity, speaking of revolution was to risk
being considered “male-identified.”
Conversely, radical feminists, like Ann Snitow and Pat Parker, beginning
in 1967 had recognized the material basis of women’s oppression in
capitalism and male supremacy. Sexism was viewed as a psychological
condition and men were the enemy only so long as they were complicit in
the past and present oppression of women. Radical feminists thus adopted
parts of the methodology of Marxists and the left, while critiquing them
for not addressing women’s issues comprehensively. For cultural
feminists, the left, along with all things male, was a contaminating
influence. This led women to policing one another to reject “male”
political categories and solutions.
The cultural feminists argued that there are innate and immutable
differences between women and men. Regardless of whether they stem from
the totality of women’s history, socialization or biological factors,
they argued, these differences should be valued, preserved and
protected. All men or those deemed “male-identified” are considered
equally oppressive (non-sexist behavior not withstanding). This has
included: Butch and femme lesbians, S/M dykes, pro-pornography
feminists, sex workers, transvestites, transsexuals, revolutionary and
anti-imperialist women. Such was the case of Jane Alpert.
Alpert was an anti-war activist and member of an independent collective
committed to armed struggle in 1969. After being caught, along with
three others, including her lover Sam Melville, Alpert jumped bail and
went underground. Soon afterward Alpert joined the Weather Underground
Organization (WUO), a group of mostly white revolutionary
anti-imperialists. Soon Alpert left the WUO. It was then that she wrote
the widely read and influential essay “Mother Right: A New Feminist
Theory,” considered a ground-breaking work of cultural feminist theory.
In it, Alpert attacks all leftist revolutionary politics for their
inherent maleness, details the sexism in the WUO, and describes
intimacies relating to her lover, Sam Melville, who had been murdered in
1971 during the Attica prison uprising. She ends with the crass
declaration: “And so, my sisters in the Weatherman, you fast and
organize and demonstrate for Attica. Don’t send me news clippings about
it, don’t tell me how much the deaths moved you. I will mourn the loss
of 42 male supremacists no longer.”
Alpert soon surrendered to the FBI, who proudly said she was cooperating
fully and providing details of her years underground. What information
she did give is up for debate. Alpert maintains she fed the FBI lies.
However, in March 1975 Pat Swinton was arrested with information Alpert
provided. Fortunately for Swinton, Alpert refused to testify, pleading
“self-preservation.” This because the prison newsletter Midnight Special
had “alerted women in the prison that there was a traitor in their
midst.”
A Feminist Circle of Support for Jane Alpert, founded by Robin Morgan,
celebrated her refuting the “male violence” of the WUO and provided aid
during her 2-year prison sentence. Yet when out lesbian and
revolutionary anti-imperialist Susan Saxe was captured later that same
year, much of the lesbian-feminist community blamed her for FBI snooping
in their community and claimed “anyone accused of bank robbery is not a
lesbian.” Finally, in Ellen Frankfort’s Kathy Boudin and the Dance of
Death, a sensationalist account of the former WUO leader, Frankfort
links these women’s role in armed struggle with an inability to remove
power from their sexual relationships and rejection of the nurturing of
motherhood and the pacifism of Kathy Boudin’s mother.
In examining armed struggle it is wise to be aware of the potential for
self-indulgent adventurism, nihilism and reactionary violence.
Macho-posturing is legendary in the WUO history. However, cultural
feminists seem only interested in dividing people and behaviors into
maleness and femaleness, not questioning whether revolutionary armed
struggle might be necessary.
Cultural feminists are a far cry from nurturant in their attacks against
male-to-female transsexuals. Transsexualism is troubling to cultural
feminists because it illustrates the mutability of gender. In Janice
Raymond’s book The Transsexual Empire, she criticizes transsexuals’
“usurpation of female biology,” although “he” can never really pass
among real women. Transsexuals, according to Raymond, “rape all women,”
especially lesbian transsexuals, who are appealing to lesbians’
“residual heterosexuality.” In Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly reasons that
transsexuals want to destroy the burgeoning women’s community, stating,
“their whole presence becomes a member invading women’s presence and
dividing us once more from each other.” These theories, with their
conspiratorial undertones, wouldn’t be nearly so offensive if it weren’t
for their widespread acceptance. From former editor of Ms. Robin
Morgan’s attacks on all things “male-identified” to the Michigan Womyn’s
Festival’s standing policy of “women born/women only” to the feminist
press coverage of the murder of Brandon Teena, gender-phobia is alive
and well.
Brandon Teena was a transgender man. Born Teena Brandon, he escaped from
his home at an early age to get lost in the bigger city of Falls City,
Nebraska. There he lived full time as a man and chose to engage in
heterosexual relationships, going steady with Lana Tisdel. Brandon
resorted to petty theft and writing false checks. After being arrested
for forgery, Brandon’s birth identity was intentionally released in the
local papers. Soon after, on Christmas Eve, 1993, Brandon was brutally
raped by Lana’s ex-boyfriend and his friend. Brandon reported these
crimes to the same police who had arrested him but they did nothing. One
week later, on New Year’s eve, Brandon was repeatedly stabbed and shot
to death by the same two men. In the mainstream and radical press,
Brandon was repeatedly referred to as a woman—a deceptive woman and a
self-hating lesbian.
This was the case with Donna Minkowitz’s article “Love Hurts” in The
Village Voice. Brandon, Minkowitz argued, was a self-hating lesbian, who
only donned male drag out of necessity. That Brandon defined himself as
a male who wanted a sex change is just “false consciousness” to
Minkowitz. Here there is no proof, only Minkowitz’s insight based on her
desire to essentialize all “women’s” experiences. That she doesn’t know
any transsexuals and hasn’t taken the time to study our history might
have something to do with it.
After the article appeared, a transsexual woman wrote in to The Voice
stating that she had not addressed Brandon with male pronouns and had
robbed him of his identity, concluding that Brandon was a true
transsexual. Minkowitz responded that she didn’t believe there are any
essential gender categories, and while transsexual’s choice should be
respected, there is no such thing as a true transsexual. Interestingly,
in other columns Donna Minkowitz has stated there are no essential
sexual categories, therefore she has chosen to be a lesbian. Yet, if we
use the same logic in Brandon’s case, can’t she accept and respect his
choices? In this sense I do claim Brandon a transgender man, not out of
my desire to fulfill an agenda, but based on how he lived his life and
how he defined himself. The Village Voice is only repeating a familiar
pattern. As the weekly is statedly pro-queer, this has meant lesbian and
gay, not transgender or bisexual. Over the past three years, The Voice
has only recently published one article by a transgender person.
In “The Menace In Michigan” by Riki Anne Wilchins, she chronicles her
experiences at this year’s Michigan Womyn’s Festival held in August. Up
until this year, Michigan has had a standing policy of “womyn born/womyn
only,” officially barring the transgender community. This policy has not
been revised. As Wilchins reports, transgendered women were only allowed
in for a single event—being met with cheers, jeers and quite a few
threats of violence. It is unclear what the Festival will do in the
future. However, I wonder if this small success may divert transgender
activism from the necessity of liberating gender in the larger society
we live in to carving a niche in the lesbian and gay ghetto.
As for The Village Voice, this article cannot negate its history of
silence and subtle attacks towards the transgender community. In their
special edition debating the homophobia in the film Silence of the
Lambs, two avowed feminists did not find the killing of a transgender
character troubling, considering the strong feminist overtones in Jodie
Foster’s portrayal of an FBI agent. In the review of the film “Female
Behavior,” a German documentary by lesbian feminist Monica Treut,
another woman in The Voice attacked the transgender male character for
disavowing “her” femaleness. These small examples I believe illustrate a
larger pattern of transgenderphobia in the lesbian and gay community.
As queers gathered in NYC for Stonewall 25, transgender people were
again relegated to the familiar status of cheerleaders. Good to have
around for a laugh, but not good enough to be a part of the stated
demands of the June 26 march on the United Nations. It was all too
apparent that no longer are queers struggling for sexual and gender
liberation, but for the civil rights of an increasingly small group of
people, abandoning everybody else.
Due to our often ambiguous appearance, transgender people present easy
targets both for homophobes and sexists. Passing, meaning being able to
assimilate in a society governed by gender rigidity, is often necessary
and at times desired. Ultimately, it is an acceptance of invisibility.
By our acceptance of just passing we are often denying our history,
reinforcing a system based on neat and polarized gender roles. But let’s
face it, gender outlaws have a harder time getting work than most people
and if getting a job means wearing clothes and performing tasks that are
traditionally gendered then that’s survival. Any theories purporting to
liberate gender must be located in the day-to-day struggles of
transgender people. Also, because of the lack of support in radical
circles, transgender people are left to struggle alone—even in the
larger queer community support is minimal.
empower one another
The cruelest aspect of how oppression operates is how it teaches us to
hate ourselves. Dealing with our own internalized oppression is often
the hardest thing to do. Especially when I’m in progressive circles, it
hurts so much when I realize that I want to distance myself from other
transgender persons. I’ll critique drag queens’ campy humor as
apolitical or I will remark about some transsexuals’ “overdone” make-up,
as if I wasn’t secretly jealous of her “more feminine” appearance. Or
I’ll just ignore other transgender people because sometimes I want to
pretend that they’re not me.
At the same time, progressives shouldn’t assume that because they’ve
dealt with sexism, racism or homophobia on a theoretical level, they’re
beyond prejudice or insensitivity. I am sick and tired of people telling
me I’m in a “queer safe space,” while they tell humiliating jokes about
a person’s gender difference or discuss whether transgenderism isn’t in
fact oppressive!
The transgender movement is only in its initial stages. Because of this,
anti-authoritarians can find possible allies in gender outlaws—we both
want to overthrow authoritarian constructs. The transgender movement
needs to broaden its analysis of oppression, while striking at the
institutions that oppress us. A transgender “free space” is important.
However, that space won’t mean much if we don’t become committed to
challenging the larger society.
For many anti-authoritarians there may be the temptation to “smash
gender” or “destroy gender roles.” This may seem logical to some.
However, I believe this too leads to an alternate form of
authoritarianism. The transgender community is neither inherently
radical or reactionary, just like any other social grouping, we span
racial, sexual, class and political backgrounds—a gender revolution will
only be meaningful if it substantively empowers everyone. A part of any
revolutionary process involves listening to oppressed communities
without assumptions. Questions and criticisms are a part of this, though
they hopefully will be aware of their potential to limit the expansion
of needed dialogue.
In reality our vision is largely determined by where our identity and
its power is located within a society of gender hierarchies and
rigidity. In the 1970s, feminists (defined as middle-class
college-educated white women) banished Butch and femme lesbians from
their movement for some 10 years for their “male-identified” gender
roles. Let’s not make the same mistakes again. Gender must be liberated,
but we all must have a voice in what that means, not from an abstract
pre-determined theory, but a synthesis of real people’s experiences.
From this I believe we will see that many people find gendered roles
liberating, while others experience serious oppression through these
roles. Any strategy toward liberation must maintain the integrity of all
our experiences and be willing to question how different communities can
accept divergent and antagonistic needs without creating an atmosphere
of punishing silences and real violence. We have a long way to go; our
power is in drawing on our collective weaknesses and strengths.