[–] NotCis [OP] 36 points (+36|-0) Edited

Either self-identity is paramount or it isn't. This pseudo-intellectual piece does not deal with that. Also, this is crap:

"This is not to say that gender inequality is ahistorical. To the contrary, gender inequality is rooted in historical and continuing manifestations of sexism and misogyny, from policies that economically exploit women and undermine their reproductive autonomy to social practices like sexual harassment and rape culture. Young girls inherit the same sexism and misogyny that their mothers faced as young girls, regardless of whether they are transgender or cisgender. But importantly, all women inherit the historical accumulation of societal sexism. This marks a central difference between transgender-inclusive classification in the category “woman” and transracial-inclusive classification in the category “Black.” While transracial individuals like Krug and Diallo eschew much of the weight of anti-Black oppression and white supremacy, trans women and cis women alike are burdened by the legacy of patriarchy."

Without female biology, you do not and cannot experience female oppression.

[–] drdee 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

'regardless of whether they are transgender or cisgender' No.

'While transracial individuals like Krug and Diallo eschew much of the weight of anti-Black oppression and white supremacy, trans women and cis women alike are burdened by the legacy of patriarchy.' I guess this is technically true--TIMs and women are both affected by patriarchy. I wonder if 'in the same way' was deliberately left out by the author?

[–] NotCis [OP] 23 points (+23|-0)

Ok, and comment 2, how can they argue that TIMs experience the same "legacy of patriarchy" when a TIM can identify as a woman while maintaining a 100% male appearance and male genitalia and availing himself of every male privilege there is? There is no requirement to "live as a woman" to call oneself trans. Men can do it while assuming literally none of the burdens women face and we get called transphobic for highlighting how offensive that is.

[–] Carthimundia 23 points (+23|-0)

Ok so first off, the opposite of social construction is not “essentialism” as this piece suggests. Essentialism is the view that a thing needs a certain property in order to be that thing, and that can apply just as easily to a socially constructed concept. An essential feature of money is that it has a value, and money is socially constructed. The opposite of social construction is actually realism or objectivism- the idea that things exist independently of human thought. So the article makes a massive mistake straight off the bat because gender critical feminists claim that sex is real, and don’t necessary make any claim about its essential properties. So the author hasn’t even engaged with the right arguments at the outset.

Second, because there is no essential race or sex the question isn’t what sex or race is but what it should be- who should be women? And this is where everything falls to shit. Imagine if black people were to get reparations for slavery. Well, you’d want that money to only go to people who had a history of that trauma. So there’s a good reason to exclude white people from the category “black” even if they self identity. The trauma of racism is inherited and white people can’t just identify into that.

But this is incredibly American centric. Most people in the world are black, and most of them have not experienced the unique traumas of African Americans. So does this mean I can identify as a member of the Kung! Tribe or the Himbas because they have no trauma? What does trauma have to do with identification anyway? And does this mean that once the trauma of racism has been dealt with ... white people are then free to identify as black?

The absolute worst bit is the article says that the trauma of “gender” is not hereditary. The idea that women aren’t born into trauma from their historical oppression is laughable. You can get easily apply the reparations test - if we were to pay compensation for sexism who would we want to exclude? Male humans.

[–] AmyHousewine 10 points (+10|-0)

Ok so first off, the opposite of social construction is not “essentialism” as this piece suggests.


Essentialism is just another kind of woowoo.

I'm a staunch constructivist when it comes to analysing culture, institutions, social structures, etc. That doesn't work so much in science, which sadly still includes biology.

[–] bannedrui_resin 5 points (+5|-0)

Thank you for explaining the constructionism/essentialism/realism thing--that's super useful! Realism for the win, I reckon.

[–] AmyHousewine 16 points (+16|-0)

We leave space for unique circumstances in which someone who has deeply invested in a Black community and been forthcoming about their racial history is nevertheless accepted within that community as Black.

Translation: while you can opt into womanhood, you cannot opt into blackness. Unless black people decide we like you, then it's kindasorta ok.

From any sane perspective, it's clear that race is socially constructed (usually by racism) and sex is biology. Crucially, gender is socially constructed (usually by misogynists.) This is peak academic pomo mediocrity.

[–] femuhnist 10 points (+10|-0)

Was just about to quote this exact sentence. It's fantastic, it gives away the whole thing. Gender (sex) is CONSTRUCTED and changeable at a whim. Race is REAL and not changeable -- unless black people say it's OK, then it's OK! What absolute garbage.

[–] remquarqk 14 points (+14|-0) Edited

Notice that this argument does not apply in the case of gender and gender inequality.Gender inequality, unlike racial inequality, does not primarily accumulate intergenerationally, if only for the obvious reason that the vast majority of households are multi-gendered. While parents often are responsible for ingraining patriarchal ideas and rigid gender norms in their children (it is extremely difficult to avoid!), this is not a “passing down” of socioeconomic inequality itself but, rather, of a socialization that perpetuates gender inequality.

So the presence of MEN in a household of women is enough evidence to conclude that women don't experience intergenerational trauma, got it.

Notice no mention of lesbian women here, or households that intentionally exclude men.

That said, it's hilarious to me that these long, pseudo-intellectual mental gymnastics essays are the only evidence out there for why transracial=bad and transgender=good. Usually with anything else, if there is not one straightforward reason you can eventually distill an issue down to, usually that means it's a bunch of BS.

[–] Carthimundia 12 points (+12|-0)

If we take their argument seriously (which I don’t - it’s shit) does this mean that mixed race households gets rid of racial trauma? So if you have one white person in a black household that cancels out racism? But this doesn’t make any sense - how does living with your oppressor cancel out racial oppression? In fact, you can argue that the inter generational trauma of women is made worse by the fact their lives are so closely tied up to men’s. Women are the only oppressed group who are inherently tied to their oppressors - they can create new men! So why does this make all their trauma go away as opposed to cementing it even more? Racial minorities at least have the opportunity to have spaces and a culture away from whiteness. This whole thing is just so dumb. And it’s just some post hoc justification because they don’t want trans racialism to be a thing.

[–] lucrecia 7 points (+7|-0)

If they were aware of the existence of mixed race people (big if), I imagine the article-writers would have to say something like 'you have inherited wealth off the white half of your family so you experience 50% less racism', and then as far as sexism goes, they'd just ignore the way people learn relationship norms from their family, and how abuse is passed down from generation to generation.

[–] remquarqk 4 points (+4|-0)

does this mean that mixed race households gets rid of racial trauma?

The logical conclusion of their argument would be yes, a "white passing" enough household gets rid of racial trauma, an example being two mixed-raced people having a baby that "passes" as white.

And turning the logical back around in a circle, it would also mean that transgender women might be offensive to women living in a no-men household, but not to women living with a husband and two sons because yeah----living with the opressor cancels it out? Or maybe because there are *enough *women living with men in society, it also cancels out the few households of lesbian couples and single mom households? Like would we be in the same spot when more and more mixed-race households become more and more common? They talk about some population-level vs. individual level mental gymnastics as well but I can't figure it out.

I agree it's completely bonkers.

[–] femuhnist 11 points (+11|-0)

Transracial identity is distinct from transgender identity because we say it is. One is socially acceptable, one is not. That's it, that's the social psychology difference.

These transracial people are mostly white women trying to appropriate black and Latina identities, and black people and Latinas are not having it. Trans "women" are just trying to appropriate women, who famously appease their oppressors and don't see themselves as a political class. That's the other difference.

[–] NotCis [OP] 7 points (+7|-0)

"Because we say it is" is really what it comes down to. It reminds me of that video years ago that proclaimed "transgender rights advocate absolutely owns people arguing that Dolezal is black, you HAVE to see this takedown" and the big reveal was literally "Dolezal is living a lie. Trans people are living their truth." It was...underwhelming.

[–] pennygadget 3 points (+3|-0)

I remember that video (I think it was Kat Blaque). It was hilarious because he just couldn't see the hypocrisy in declaring Dolezal a bigot because her "Black identity" rested on stereotypes. Yet he considered himself a woman because....he likes makeup and long hair.

[–] PotatoParameter 9 points (+9|-0)

What the actual fuck is this word avalanche of an essay.

I can't believe two whyte women are trying to convince to me, a black woman, why transracial isn't the same as transgender. (To be fair, Dee Payton is racially ambiguous, but if libfems can assume the wildest shit about rad fems, then I'm going to assume she's white).

We think that the categories “woman” and “Black” are similar to categories like “eligible voters” or “food” in the sense that currently accepted rules about gender and race classification are neither fixed nor guaranteed to be legitimate. Hopefully we all agree that the 1970 rules for who counted as “eligible voters” did not settle who should be counted as eligible voters—these rules were changed to accommodate the political interests of young adults. Similarly, we think that there is room to question whether currently accepted rules about who counts as women or as Black ought to be changed in the interests of gender or racial justice.


But, you might think, we don’t settle the rules about who is a woman or who is Black—those rules are determined by the world, not society. In philosophy, this view is called essentialism. It is the idea that the rules for gender and race classification are grounded in eternal truths—rules that we can only discover, not revise, and therefore rules that we cannot question. [...] But essentialism fares poorly against the historical record. Gender essentialists typically insist that there is a single, fixed trait—biological sex—that always has and will determine gender.

pinches nose bridge You fuckers just don't get it huh. Please for once just stop building a strawman.

Biological sex determines one thing: your biological sex. Just like how your race determines your race. Sex does not equal gender!

The authors go on to say that the difference between racism and sexism is that the racial oppression accumulate over generations, and transracial people would not have that accumulated oppression. Let's consider the disabled. Not all disabilities are inherited, so disability oppression can't accumulate over generations. The authors say that sexism isn't oppression that accumulates, so transgender people shouldn't be vilified. So with that logic, transdisabled people shouldn't be as well? And the accumulation argument falls apart as well:

While parents often are responsible for ingraining patriarchal ideas and rigid gender norms in their children (it is extremely difficult to avoid!), this is not a “passing down” of socioeconomic inequality itself but, rather, of a socialization that perpetuates gender inequality.

WAIT, IT IS EXACTLY THAT! If you are teaching your child patriarchal norms, you are passing those attitudes down to the next generation! And it is socioeconomic as these children will go out to the world with these prejudices that will impact how they interact with others in school, playground, and eventually the workforce, political scene, and their platonic/romantic lives. These children will inherent their parents biases but also create biases of their own which can all be passed down to their children. That is accumulation.

If the idpol kiddos wanna chat about this and want to follow their word, the only people that should be taken seriously in the "is transracial the same as transgender" are black/latino/asian/native/etc women, and if anyone should have more of a say it should be black women (and I'm not saying thing because I am one, but because black people are constantly shit on by society and most other PoC cultures have a prejudice against dark skin). Only they have the experience of both sides to accurately compare the two. Now if you excuse me I'm gonna shoot some digital Nazis in the balls in slow mo to cool off.

[–] drdee 0 points (+0|-0)

'What the actual fuck is this word avalanche of an essay.' Good start, and only gets better :) Good point about using disability as an analog.

[–] dalyandot 9 points (+9|-0)

Jane Clare Jones summed this up for me. Trans racialism is rejected because the category black people includes men Men are allowed to set boundaries and black men said no. Women are not so our no is ignored

[–] pennygadget 4 points (+4|-0)

So true. The reason trans-racial didn't take off is because 50% of Black people are men. And men won't put up with this shit.

[–] fallingwater 1 points (+1|-0)

to be fair i don't think black women have had a lot of time for it either. transracialism never got off the ground because black people never let it. women as a whole have been huge supporters of transgenderism by contrast. without the enthusiastic and willing support of a lot of very vocal women, transgenderism would never have succeeded.

[–] How 8 points (+9|-1)

This is a bunch of nonsense. I read this and I understand it but it doesn't mean anything. I don't know how to express how much I despise this pseudo intellectual claptrap. How many people are going to be fooled by this?

[–] lucrecia 7 points (+7|-0)

There are a lot of tangents that don't relate to their argument; if anyone would like a tl;dr, l'd summarise it as:

"'Transgender' is different to 'transracial' because racism doesn't have serious costs for white people who think of themselves as black, but misogyny does have serious costs for male people who think of themselves as women."

There's a lot of waffle; I think they believe that anyone who looks like a woman will be treated badly, and that the full extent of sexism is being treated badly in the moment in these ways. Whereas they think racism causes suffering over generations that accumulates in those it affects. So they think that a white person who tries to be perceived as black will not experience racism to its full extent, because they lack the accumulated suffering, but a male person who tries to be perceived as female will experience sexism to its full extent. They do accept that sexism has some kind of vague historical legacy, but they think it is 'mistake' to debate whether females or males experience more misogyny.

Fundamentally, I get the impression they don't see women as a class with a culture and history (and trauma, and responses to trauma) of our own, and they are unaware of the ways in which society is centered around males.

[–] AmyHousewine 11 points (+11|-0)

While I think Jessica Krug is nuts, she 'passed' as being from 'El Barrio' well enough to fool everyone she interacted with, including professors of Latinx Studies (sic). I'm comfortable asserting she therefore probably experienced a degree of the bigotry women with that ancestry experience in the US.

I'm also comfortable suggesting that Krug 'passed' among her target demographic far more often than TIMs do. If Krug experienced racism from cops or officials who thought she was a disliked minority, that's a function of racism. If TIMs experience hostility for performing femininity while being men, that's nothing to do with misogyny, it's hostility toward weirdos/people who break social norms, homophobia, or other issues that are not misogyny because nobody thinks they're women.

[–] Fpccgc 5 points (+5|-0)

Misogyny has existed since time immemorial, whereas modern day racism in America is more noticeable and therefore easier to solve. People don’t want to recognize the hate that this entire planet has for women, so of course they don’t want to recognize the concept of “woman face.” My oppression is not up for grabs by men. Period.

Load more (2 comments)