Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men has not exactly shown much of an interest in trans* issues in the past. Indeed, the only time I can recall founder Paul Elam ever even mentioning trans* people was in the context of a vicious attack on a Men’s Studies expert who happens to be a trans woman; he suggested she was a mentally ill man-hater whose “so hated the sex they were born with that it sparked a life long academic quest to deconstruct it into something that did not disgust them.”
So it’s a little surprising to see a post on AVFM now with the seemingly dispassionate, slightly turgid, title “Male/female discrepancies in transsexualism.” The post starts out as dry as its title, but it soon becomes clear that it is “scientific” in style only. It’s not an attempt to understand trans women or trans people in general; it’s an attempt to use the existence of trans women as a helpful prop in an old Men’s Rights argument.
After declaring that “the inherent,prenatal explanations for transsexualism are highly questionable” — without actually examining any of these explanations beyond mentioning one study — Jesse Folsom offers his own crackpot theory to explain why, in his words, there are more “male-to-female [than] female-to-male transsexuals.”
In short, he asserts, our society is so biased against boys and men that a lot of boys and men have decided that they want to become girls and women. And naturally, feminists are largely to blame.
[W]hy would a young boy associate more with the stereotypes assigned to girls? Well, one good reason would be because he wants to, because he regards his stereotypes of women as superior. For instance, in a feminist household, expressions of masculinity may be viewed with derision, or, when there is a father present, as a source of shame.
Also, in case you hadn’t realized this, most mothers are women as well:
Even without such associations, however, a child often just spends more time with his or her mother.
Oh, and so are teachers. It’s like there’s some sort of plot!
While it does not occur until after a large proportion of gender ideas are formed, school also exposes children, primarily, to female role models. Not to mention the fact that many behaviors typical of boys are frowned upon and even drugged out of them in modern school environments.
As a result, young boys have no real role models in society.
And where do boys find themselves today? Today, women can be anything they want. Women can be action heroes, happy homemakers, corporate executives, and powerful politicians.
Obviously there are no examples of men in any of these roles for boys to look up to.
There are two categories of fashion, fashion for everyone and fashion for women only. Women are the ones seen as beautiful and glamorous. Women are kind, gentle, empathetic, and allowed to freely express emotion. With the traditional strengths of men now seen as irrelevant or even negative, why wouldn’t a boy rather be a girl? Is this not as good an explanation as any for the discrepancies between MtF and FtM transsexualism?
Well, actually, no. But Folsom continues, insinuating that this evil feministy brainwashing does terrible damage to all the poor little boys who have decided that they want to be girls:
It is simply implausible that a child that associates with the opposite sex label has any real understanding of what that means, but unfortunately, such associations often stick. Further, this gender dysphoria is extremely harmful, frequently leading to severe depression and high suicide and poverty rates for transsexuals. As one might expect, researchers believe that male-to-female transsexuals are the hardest-hit by these problems.
Aside from all the general bullshittery of Folsom’s not-very-original theory here, it’s telling that he never refers to trans women as, well, women, preferring instead to refer to them either as male-to-female transsexuals — or to actually refer to them as male. Like Elam, clearly doesn’t see trans women as real women, but rather as men suffering from some sort of delusion, driven by internalized misandry.
And that’s really the only way that AVFM can have any sympathy for trans women at all: if they’re seen as male victims of feminism, and not as women at all.
Regular Man Boobz commenter Ally S ventured into the Men’s Rights subreddit to offer a rather more nuanced view of the subject. Some highlights:
This article is almost exactly like countless articles written by trans-exclusionary radical feminists. The only real difference is that the arguments are being used to further support MRA talking points rather than TERF talking points. …
When I was little, I didn’t identify as a girl because I associated more with femininity and stereotypes about girls. It was the other way around: I came to associate more with femininity and stereotypes about girls because I identified as a girl. Just as cis girls associate with stereotypes related to their own gender. …
I guarantee that virtually any trans woman will say that adherence to stereotypes and misandry have nothing to do with identifying as female. That’s because there’s a difference between gender identity and gender expression. Personally, I am a trans woman, but my clothing style is basically agender and I engage in what are often considered masculine activities, such as programming. And when I was a child, I actually saw feminine traits as inferior, not superior – yet I still identified as a girl. I have many friends who have had similar experiences. …
Lastly, deliberately misgendering trans women (you know, what the author does in every other sentence) is completely unacceptable, even if one is speaking about young children. We are not and never will be men.
You can see Ally’s entire comment here, as well as a number of detailed followups. Amazingly, they actually got upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit, where Folsom’s article received a generally hostile reception. Apparently some of AVFM’s bullshit is so bullshitty that even Men’s Rights Redditors can recognize it as such.
Thanks for that explanation, Ally. I’ve never seen it before posting here or on Feministe, and only use it because it seems to be the norm, and have some sort of meaning, which I don’t think I’ve actually seen explained till now. I don’t care for it either, stylistically (oh, and to space or not to space after it – wut?) and it doesn’t seem to add meaning. If anything it looks like communication meant for an in-group that already knows the meaning, like jargon. I’m happy to drop it.
Another thing: many trans women associate the asterisk with the tendency of some CAFAB trans people to want to use women-only spaces. I have seen some trans men actually argue that they should be allowed in women’s spaces (cis or trans) because “all trans* people are oppressed by trans*phobia” and similar nonsensical excuses.
What’s CAFAB, Ally?
CAFAB stands for “coercively assigned female at birth.” I should have used DFAB (designated female at birth) instead because CAFAB is typically used to describe intersex people who underwent “corrective” surgery at birth.
Coercively seems … an odd term, when used of a baby. Everything is coercive in that sense, from surgery down to everyday things, because you can’t get a baby’s permission. I’m not saying intersex babies should be operated on, only that it seems to be stretching the meaning of coercion way too far. DFAB makes more sense to me for both trans people (not least since how’s anyone going to know if an infant is cis or trans?) and intersex people.
I think the purpose of the adverb “coercively” is to highlight the coercive nature of the surgery, given that society at large still believes that “corrective” surgeries are totally okay and not unnecessarily invasive. It’s also because these surgeries are part of a system that is intended to maintain the patriarchy by erasing the existence of intersexuality.
Huh, so, I obviously wasn’t paying attention as closely as I thought. Lyss, I apologize for the snottiness. Everyone else, I apologize for making assumptions.
Hmm, good point, Ally. I’m not wild about the word choice – coercion means threats and forcing compliance, and that hardly applies here – but I do see the point about society not recognising intersexuality. I was surprised recently by an article in the Age that mentioned the more minor forms are more common than being red-headed. That was a striking comparison, and sure points up the “why is this being operated on?” question.
Okay, I hafta disappear and get back to my knitting. I’m not going to get my jacket finished before I go back to work at this rate! Catch yez later. 🙂
@Ally S
I’m relieved to read your posts, because I was a bit strident about rejecting trans with an asterisk in my posts and feared I’d get a Feministe-style talking to. Thankfully Manboobz isn’t that sort of place. I didn’t know the asterisk is problematic for trans women, thanks for the info.
I also can’t stand “trans umbrella” talk, because while I’m supportive of non-gender conforming people, it takes focus away from the legal and, more importantly, medical issues trans women and men face pre and post transition. Cutting edge Gender Theory talk is nice and all, but I’d chuck most of it for a bunch of rigorous clinical studies of hormonal treatment effects and effective gender identity anti-discrimination laws.
You know and care a whole hell of a lot more about these issues then I do for obvious reasons, but I’m annoyed when trans allies post trans umbrella graphics that list every non-gender normative and non-binary group under the sun. There is more important work to be done than language policing and complaining about Dan Savage. (Dan is a textbook example of a asshat though.)
But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.
Wow, I never knew that! I guess I really am a rare bird, then!
Re the asterisk: Thanks so much, Ally and Lyss, for clearing up the confusion around that. I felt somewhat guilty about not using it before, wondering if my erring on the side of economy (along with writing just “LGBT” instead of the whole alphabet soup of other sex/gender variant acronyms) was somehow inadvertently stepping on someone else’s toes. I feel better knowing now that it’s not necessary…and surprised to learn that it comes off as alienating to some. The last thing I want to do is alienate anyone (unless, of course, it’s MRAsshats).
If complaining about Dan Savage is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
@katz
I cringe every time I hear his name. Seriously.
I’m occasionally tempted to use his name as an illustration of what happens when gay men try to splain sexualities that they don’t share and clearly don’t understand, kind of like he did with “santorum”. Why exactly does he think he’s qualified to give women advice about how they should fuck?
“…but I’m annoyed when trans allies post trans umbrella graphics that list every non-gender normative and non-binary group under the sun.”
Um, I’m gonna go debate, again, whether my non-binary ass is trans* or an ally or what…
In any case, that’s why I use the asterisk, it is, in my mind, more inclusive. Clearly ymmv on that.
Argenti, I’m sorry if I came across as judgmental or silencing when I talked about why some trans women don’t like the asterisk. I don’t want to engage in non-binary erasure.
Because being a gay guy makes you sex-on-legs, apparently.
And yes, I’m all for using “DanSavage” as a verb for giving shitty, solipsistic advice. Example: “That asshole totally DanSavaged me when I only wanted to know how to fix my windshield wiper!”
Someone explain Dan Savage to me? I’ve no idea who the guy is.
Alice, here’s an example of Dan Savage’s terribleness:
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/dan_savage_gets_glitter_bombed_for_being_transphob.php
Dan Savage writes a column called Savage Love. He’s essentially (warning, snark ahead) of the view that if you’re not a thinwhitegayman who sleeps around, then you’re really not worth much, but he knows everything and especially how you should be fucking.
He once abused a rape survivor, a woman, who asked his advice. She was in a poly relationship and found she could have sex with her boyfriend, but not her husband, because sex with him was triggering. Savage treated her like shit and heaped blame on her for being horrible and cruel to her husband, blah blah blah.
He really is a piece of shit.
EWWW THIS GUY IS A FUCKING ASSHAT. May he find out he’s a terrible person.
RE: Ally
Basically, my advice for anyone who is confused about the asterisk is to just avoid using it.
THANK YOU! I pretty much missed that terminology battle, and just had no fucks to give after all the fights I’d seen. (Oh god, the transgender vs. transsexual wars… oh god make them stop.) And seeing the douchebaggery I’ve seen from other trans men… yeah, now I don’t feel bad for ever using that stupid fucking asterisk.
RE: Brooked
while I’m supportive of non-gender conforming people, it takes focus away from the legal and, more importantly, medical issues trans women and men face pre and post transition.
Um, keep in mind, not all trans women and men choose or are able to medically transition. Legal issues and medical issues are a total problem, but I’ve also seen my non-binary friends get tossed under the bus (or beaten, in one case) too many times to be okay with what you just said.
RE: Argenti
In my opinion, if YOU see yourself as trans, then you are trans. The rest of em can go piss in a fire.
RE: katz
But we’re still allowed to complain about Dan Savage, right? I mean, he’s a total asshole.
Everyone is totally allowed to complain about Dan Savage as much as they damn well please, in my opinion. I hate that guy.
Huh. I didn’t know that the asterisk for trans was in huge contention. Thanks for educating me on it, Ally. I’ll try to not use it anymore.
Also adding: non-binary folk transition as well. My genderqueer friend has done more shit than I have, and gone through more trouble. Hell, had we survived to adulthood singlet, WE would’ve been genderqueer; I’m the outlier.
So yeah, it’s a false comparison.