When the limit of feminism is trans femininities
Why is there still reluctance within some feminist groups to integrate and make visible trans women in their struggles? Activist Violeta Alegre writes about the dangers of falling into biological determinism and the need for recognition of dissident femininities in the fight against patriarchy.
Share
Why is there still reluctance within some feminist groups to integrate and make trans people visible in their struggles? Activist Violeta Alegre writes about the dangers of falling into biological determinism and the need for recognition of dissident femininities in the battle against patriarchy. By Violeta Alegre* Photo: Ariel Gutraich One of the conversations taking place among fellow activists in the trans and travesti movement is the surprising appearance of several posts from women who identify as feminists but with strong messages of hate toward the trans community. Not everything that resonates is sisterhood when we talk about trans identities. It would seem there is a limit that prevents us from seeing ourselves as facing a common enemy, facing the same oppression. Sadly, this limit manifests itself in biological discourses, with binary thinking and cis-sexism seeming to be much stronger, granting certain privileges. Or at least providing the masses needed to challenge some of the power that is so vehemently rejected.
[READ ALSO: “Transphobia is not a phobia: it is not an illness”]
One example of this, which has generated much discussion and outrage on social media, was a post by a self-proclaimed “radical feminist.” It reads: “A few days ago, the radical feminist website Plataforma Antipatriarcado (Anti-Patriarchy Platform) published a lengthy article justifying its criticism of trans feminism, among other things, because being a woman is not a feeling, but rather involves biological traits that are socially interpreted as femininity. And because, following the emergence of trans women as leaders in feminism, they foresee a re-capture of feminism by men (this time claiming they “feel” like women). The website never expressed criticism of trans people themselves, but rather of their interpretation of gender as a kind of internal and individual essence that is “true.” In short, the issue is complex, but if you can access the article again, you will see that it was not a crude and transphobic attack, but rather a theoretical and political call to attention.” (…)Biology (again) as destiny
I'm not so interested in analyzing this post—its author has absolute freedom to think and say whatever she wants—but rather in using it as a springboard to explore some issues. In recent years, the phenomenon of increased visibility of gender issues and feminism has brought many people together, offering relief and answers to the oppression they feel, to all inequalities, to violence. Through women's gatherings, strikes, assemblies, and more, spaces of sisterhood have been created. We, all women, embrace and celebrate this. However, it seems that for many sectors of feminism, sisterhood ends with a person's genitalia, even if they are equally or even more violated. And this is especially true when trans people ask to unite their struggles, since we are victims of the same system. What the patriarchal system punishes is, among other things, the body socially interpreted as feminine: becoming queer, androgynous, ambiguous.[READ ALSO: “We need to assemble the genome of trans people”]
Much of our identity is shaped by culture, the very culture we question because it generates violence and death every day. That's why I think it's not enough for a group to simply call themselves "feminist." Without culture, that movement can be very violent toward others who also suffer the same oppressions. If we consider Simone de Beauvoir's premise that "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" because "biology is not destiny," it seems inconceivable that biological criteria continue to be applied to trans people. Even more so when we all agree that gender is a construct, a political fiction used to control bodies and the ways of life of each individual. It's the same patriarchal thinking that sees "phallus" and can't move beyond the idea of man. This way of thinking operates within countless people and femininities.Lohana, the brilliant feminist
I don't want to get into the cis* (people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth) vs. trans debate, although I will touch on some of its edges. I don't feel the problem is cis people, but rather cis-sexism and the exploitation of the privileges it grants. I experience this concretely, almost subtly, at massive women's gatherings where there's always someone who approaches me and says, "Thank you for joining us." In reality, we're not part of it. Why wouldn't we be? Why don't some women want to pay for their identity with their bodies? In that case, wouldn't they be siding with the sciences that try to binary-convert us through surgeries and hormone treatments to make us as close as possible to being perceived as women? When I say that the trans body challenges, I see that I'm not just talking about masculinities.[READ ALSO: A year without Lohana Berkins, commander of the Butterflies]
I don't think it's a coincidence that these kinds of debates are happening in this context, a context without Lohana Berkins, who was one of the key figures who learned so much and contributed significantly to feminist movements. Often, these feminist perspectives applied a biological determinism to her work. Undoubtedly, these sectors offer a perspective that sets us back and undermines everything that has been built. What is really missing is not a brilliant transvestite activist like Lohana, but, above all, a brilliant feminist who was also a transvestite. That's why, and for many other reasons, some of us ask to be named—to be included—with our specificities, with our dissident femininities. Because what isn't named doesn't exist. Because we know the power of language, because we contribute to the massive marches, but we've never been named from within them. There's still resistance when we ask for a "national gathering of femininities," a "national strike of femininities." Because while we are few—and we're learning to understand each other—the enemy is the same, and it doesn't hesitate to kill us. *Trans activist, dcent, cconsultant for the World Bank, dGraduated in Gender Studies from the National University of General Sarmiento. ]]>Share
We are Present
We are committed to a type of journalism that delves deeply into the realm of the world and offers in-depth research, combined with new technologies and narrative formats. We want the protagonists, their stories, and their struggles to be present.
SUPPORT US
FOLLOW US
Related Notes
We Are Present
This and other stories don't usually make the media's attention. Together, we can make them known.
I reject the term "femininity"!!!! I don't feel called to fight for femininity, you understand? That term doesn't resonate with me; in fact, I want to fight against the very idea of femininity!!!! I deeply reject and fight against the idea that, simply because I have certain genital organs, I should be raised and expected to behave in a "feminine" way, to adopt "feminine" roles, with all that entails. I don't want femininity or masculinity; I want us to be free to feel however we want, and it doesn't have to be dichotomous or even classifiable.
I would be drawn to a slogan that fights against the assignment of specific gender roles based on being born with certain genitals. I think that's what unites us.
I understand your oppression, but sisterhood certainly isn't about shutting down a page that was working hard to achieve equality. If you're so supportive of each other, you must understand why we need to appeal to biology simply to reject its linking to specific roles. We turn to biology to, in fact, question it completely. But in that process of questioning it, we need to name it because it entails specific problems. Things can be discussed.
Very wrong and low of a certain part of the trans community!!
Not like this!!
Here we have a case which explains why part of feminism needs to be educated.
The use of "femininities" reveals a glaring error in the interpretation of feminism. The goal of feminism is not to defend femininity at all! It doesn't appeal to me or call me to fight! The concept of femininity is a social construct! Let everyone feel however they want! Let's build and enrich our feelings beyond a simple dichotomy. Until you understand this, we won't move forward together.
While cis and trans women have some struggles specific to each group, such as the right to access abortion, hormone therapy and surgeries, or the right to gender identity, the rest of our struggles are shared, and we have seen this for years. And we have supported each other. I find it hard to believe that women who call themselves feminists think biology is destiny, since it is not biology that relegated us to the place we occupy.
Feminism is so wonderful because it questions the entire society, it questions all the classes and hierarchies that patriarchy imposed for centuries. It questions everything from the family model to the economy, racism, and violence in all its forms and specificities.
Perhaps part of what is happening is that, living once again under a neoliberal government that fosters individualism, many fall into the trap of forgetting about others, of narrowing their horizons, of repeating old rhetoric.
I understood the article differently; at no point does it equate feminism with femininity, it speaks of the expulsion of dissident femininities from feminism. However, considering the causes that feminism champions as a movement, I found it excellent. The concept of woman is a social construct, and that is clearly explained.
Feminism is the most important social movement of this century. It is a movement made up of men and women who strive and fight to end inequalities and discrimination, regardless of whether you are a woman, a girl, or a boy. It doesn't matter if you are trans or what you feel or how you identify. Human rights belong to all people, regardless of your skin color or identity. That is what feminism is; anything else is not feminism.
I don't believe that, on my part, or on the part of many other people who consider themselves feminists, there's any ill intent in saying "national women's strike" or similar things. From my perspective, I've always understood that it calls on all women, regardless of how they express themselves or understand themselves. Perhaps I'm making a mistake out of ignorance by assuming that "women" encompasses cis women, trans women, and others... But I don't believe there's any ill intent in this, and that's true for a broader group.