12 ms·

Curious based on this comment what you see as the rift in trans identity, as I also see unresolved opinions there.

• erikpukinskis 9y ago
  I should preface that some trans people find the discussion itself deeply offensive and unwelcoming, so it's a very sensitive subject, but I'll try to sum it up respectfully... The basic question is whether something like whether "visible performance of femininity and recognition as women" is fundamentally what differentiates men and women. Some radical feminists would say that requiring women to behave in a way that they are recognizable "as women" is a primary mechanism for domination of women. These women want to consider themselves to BE women, while they do things which make them unrecognizable "as women" according to norms. Many (not all) trans women seek to do somewhat the opposite... they WANT to be recognized "as women". And they will hold up both their desire to perform femininity and their experiences while being recognized "as women" as a thing which makes them women. I think fundamentally both groups are correct. Trans women are correct that in practice recognition and performance constitute gender and even sex in a very literal way. But the radical feminists are correct that gender recognition and performance is only one aspect of womanhood, and for some women's groups, it's not central at all. MichFest is the historical event where I think all of this came to a head. Many women rightly valued MichFest for being a place where they were not recognized "as women" and no one expected anyone to perform femininity. Trans women rightly felt that the rule excluding them from MichFest was anti-woman, that performance and recognition aside, trans women are women because they "be women" all year, not because of femininty or genitals or anything other than their own discrete self concept. Personally, I suspect there is some sort of Hegelian dialectic here, and there is no resolution possible, only an infinite regress.