Share

Share

Share on Facebook Share on Facebook Tweet Share on Twitter Share on WhatsApp Share on WhatsApp

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

By Violeta Alegre

Photo: Luli Leiras/Present Archive

In recent days, media transphobia—and thankfully its condemnation—has once again become a trending topic on social media. The reason? A new chapter in Harry Potter author JK Rowling's disdain for the trans community.

After posting a tweet mocking the expression "people who menstruate," in which she reiterated her defense of biologism, last week we learned that her latest novel, written under a pseudonym, is about a serial killer who dresses as a woman to prey on his victims. The novel, not yet published in Spanish, is titled " Troubled Blood" and can be interpreted as a literary campaign against trans identity. These latest actions have revived applause and encouragement from TERF feminists, who see Rowling as a spokesperson for self-described "born women."

TERF is a word that combines the initials of the English word Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. They are a group of feminists whose theoretical basis generates the exclusion of trans women and men. By exclusion, I mean the violation, stigmatization, criminalization, pathologization, and denial of our identities and life stories.

But where do TERFs come from?

Radical feminism emerged in the United States in the late 1960s. It's a movement that sought to uncover the roots of the domination and oppression suffered only by cis women (that is, those who respond to the medico-legal system's assignment: penis/male and vulva/female).

One of the foundations is based on the production-reproduction relationship and the inequalities that arise from this binomial pair: public and private world, masters and slaves, dominators and dominated.

Within this Western, binary, and dichotomous thinking, radical feminisms continued to embrace heterosexual models of production and reproduction. This resulted in many women entering feminism through an understanding of the oppression and violence suffered by cis men.

In this binary, artificial, and biological relationship, in which if you were born with a certain genitalia and organs, you are obligated to be a certain way, radical feminists fail to recognize the artificiality of their own gender. At the same time, they fail to recognize the violence they reproduce and exert as a hegemonic systemic pair with the trans community.

In the face of debates surrounding the productivity and reproducibility of the body, such as those surrounding the right to abortion, biological discourses are resurfacing, finding their foundations in reproducing the anatomical difference of this systemic pair as the only way to challenge, inconvenience, demand rights, and engage in politics.

Transvestite as a non-binary identity

In contrast to the victim figure of these feminisms, we find the survivor, as articulated by transvestite activist Marlene Wayar. Unlike the victim, the survivor has political power, since recognizing ourselves in this way allows us to fight to prevent further violence. And this further collectivizes and intersects struggles.

Furthermore, Wayar mentions that these hegemonic labels are full of meanings, and trying to redefine, define, or expand them is a struggle that will take years, and in some cases, a lifetime. 

That's why it's important to share with our siblings in other latitudes the creative power of our South American and indigenous migrant transvestites, to give them—not to say toss them over the head—a label laden with biologicalism, inequality, and limitations, and to begin calling ourselves Travestis. Neither men nor women. We are the transvestites.

In both Europe and the United States, trans people are redefining the words and expressions that have been given to them by oppressive powers: "tranny" "shemale ( which comes from the porn industry). But also "transsexual" or "trans woman," which can provoke a reaction from TERFs. Thus, the transvestite is fleeing from that place.

The dangers of staging "transvestism"

The documentary Disclosure references historical representations of trans people in cinema and shows how the first technology of gender (clothing) was used by those who "didn't fit" to embody murderous, treacherous, and untrustworthy characters (particularly for cis women). Could Rowling have been inspired by this history of transphobia?

The terms "transvestite" or "transvestism" were first used in European theater during the 16th century, as women were not allowed in theater, and the female roles were played by men. These roles were later played by upper-middle-class prostitutes who were transvestites. They gave the world the first discourse on what a transvestite means from a cis perspective: "people who sporadically dress and act according to the 'codes' of the opposite sex or gender, although in their social and daily lives they 'identify' with the gender assigned to them at birth."

Let's keep in mind, as I mentioned earlier, that the first technology of gender is clothing. Back then, the gender technologies that came in the 20th century, such as surgery, didn't exist, so there was a lot of emphasis on clothing as a sporadic instrument (as if identity ended when we took off our clothes). This gave rise to an assumed artificial identity that persists to this day, not just for transvestites but for all trans people. This is where the TERF discourse also makes a dent, highlighting biological differences (which no one denies) to justify oppression (which is also not denied) toward cis women, but which has nothing to do with "natural" issues.

TERFs are advancing and gaining followers. Many of them are young women who experience patriarchal violence but don't question the oppressive regimes to which they are "affiliated." They don't tend to verbalize "we hate trans people" and justify themselves with phrases (like Rowling's) like: "I have trans friends. How can you say I hate them?"

In this way, they divert the message and lose track of the symbolic messages they send to society. We can no longer say they are few, we can no longer minimize them . We can no longer allow other feminists, supposedly "trans-inclusive," to ask us to "ignore them."

Medical biologicism mutilates and kills us. We are not locked in the wrong bodies; there is no right body . This kind of discourse has been a source of stigma, segregation, and death for many years. We are offended by its "feminist" approach. We will not allow it, and we want TERFs far away.