Cos see, I think a lot of the reason why I find the flexibility thing so frustrating is that cissexism as a regime is elastic enough to incorporate *both* flexibility and elasticity.

Trans people seem to get always-already excluded from legitimacy – too fake, *and* too invested in “real” genders (which no-one else really really believes in).

I’ve lost track of the number of so-called “liberal” people who’ve told me that “no-one feels they fit their gender.. and therefore no-one should transition.”

And I am aware of the baggage involved and the slippery slope that this line of questioning treads dangerously near to, so I really do understand the caution here. And I often hesitate to bring this up because of this, and because I realize that I’m not the one who has to deal with the crap that follows from a misapplication of these ideas on a daily basis, except in a theoretical sort of way.

I’ve just noticed a trend lately of defining cis not just as a position in the hierarchy, which it definitely is, but also as a sort of condition in which one’s inner gender identity matches one’s gender and/or sex at birth. And I’m sure that may be true for many people, but it muddies the waters a bit when it comes to those for whom the best thing would be a more flexible gender system. In my mind a more flexible system benefits trans and genderqueer and cis identities of all stripes. But I am aware of the ways this ideology has been used against trans folk, and I would hate to feed into that.

That being said, I don’t think that a position which questions the binary and encourages flexibility has to be anti-trans. On the other hand, I’m not sure how to characterize it in a way that will prevent it from being used in this role by those who are grasping for ways to defend their position of privilege. So perhaps that’s where the work lies right now.

At any rate, I really do appreciate discussions like these and think they offer an opportunity for constructive dialogue that often gets missed.

And your new layout is kicking some serious ass. =)

She has exactly one conversation when trans comes up: “No trans person has ever justified her decision to transition to my satisfaction, because I reject everything I say because I think I know their motives better than they do. Therefore, I will derail this thread that has nothing to do with transitioning, and demand that trans people again explain to me why they need to transition, if all they want is to be seen as women – isn’t it possible to be seen as a woman whatever your body looks like?”

Occasionally, she’ll demand that someone prove that “transgenderism” isn’t a fetish or she’ll simply continue to assume that we all do it for the jollies.

And if you can get her to talk about race, she’ll go on about how she’s not racist but women of color are just too *angry and mean* to ever get anything done, and why don’t they listen to her advice?

She’s either one of the worst people to ever live, or she’s a long-term troll. Wait, I don’t mean to imply those are exclusive categories.

what I’m questioning is this conception of all cis people as having an inner gender identity that effortlessly meshes with the identity they were assigned at birth. And my experience makes me wonder if it really is the case that each and every individual has a strong inner gender identity prior to socialization. I don’t doubt that this is the case for many people, but I still maintain that it doesn’t seem to have been the case for me.

I imagine you’re right, that not every person has a strong sense of their gender above and beyond what they’ve been socialized as. (Although I would wager that this is the exception, rather than the rule.) Likewise, it is counterproductive to discount lived experiences as “being blinded by privilege.” (I don’t think anyone here has been saying that, but many of us have touched on situations where that does happen, or people who do say that.)

That said, Lisa seems to be saying that cis, as a concept, is useful in identifying the societal and cultural power structure around gender identities and identifying with (or against) one’s assigned sex. Likewise, saying “gender is based on socialization, and is a learned concept” (even if you’re not saying that’s true for everybody!) often leads to saying “…and those who chose to transition do so because they’re buying into the binary gender system in spite of its false and constructed nature.”

Now, nothing that I’ve read of yours leads me to believe this is what you’re saying. But it seems like Lisa worries that you’re unaware of the baggage attached to what you are saying. (And I apologize profusely if I’m putting words into either of your mouths.)

Because you’re right, in that an understanding of gender where one can not identify with their assigned gender while still not transitioning can (and should!) lead to more openness and acceptance to all identities. But it can also lead to saying that those who do chose to transition are buying into a false and outdated concept of gender and should be pitied (at best) or mocked and scorned (at worst).

PS – don’t think you’ve caused any trouble! I am glad you’ve been part of this discussion, and hope you haven’t felt picked on.

Gender’s not important, I don’t fit…

is not really at all what my concern is with. I think that gender is unavoidable in our culture, and my (sort of) failure to fit in my gender is not at all what I’m trying to get at here. And FWIW, I really don’t believe that my experience equates to the discrimination and stigma and personal danger that trans people experience regularly, and I’m sorry I gave that impression. I do agree that that would be a profoundly offensive attitude.

It seems obvious to me that many people have a very strong, immediate, and intuitive sense of their gender identity. And I’m in no way trying to cast any doubt on that or invalidate that experience in any way. And I recognize the danger and the stigma and the heartbreak that often comes with having a gender identity opposite from the gender and/or sex assigned at birth. In this way I acknowledge my privilege. In fact, my privilege goes beyond that in many ways. But what I’m questioning is this conception of all cis people as having an inner gender identity that effortlessly meshes with the identity they were assigned at birth. And my experience makes me wonder if it really is the case that each and every individual has a strong inner gender identity prior to socialization. I don’t doubt that this is the case for many people, but I still maintain that it doesn’t seem to have been the case for me. So this makes me think that instead of dismissing the experiences of people who never wanted to transition to the opposite gender but nevertheless experienced a complete lack of correspondence with the one they were assigned, we should work to open up the range of options so that everyone can find a niche that works for them.

Maybe a part of the issue is that I don’t see a movement to acknowledge identities and experiences all along the gender spectrum as an inherently anti-trans position. The way I’ve always interpreted feminist theory in this area, trans-exclusion does not follow from a move to loosen the binary. In contrast, the move is toward affirming whatever identity works for each individual, and even though that does open up all the space in the middle of the spectrum, the extremes are still included. And obviously a feminism that’s grounded in social justice has to concern itself with those who are marginalized and mistreated. (I realize that many people don’t share this view of feminism, to put it mildly) On the other hand, I can see why feminist rejections of the binary would seem trans-exclusionary and I recognize that this kind of theory has often been used in hateful ways. But I’m not sure if that’s your take on this or not, and I apologize if I’ve misunderstood your thoughts here.

Cis isn’t really something people identify as, it’s a way to identify the institutional, legal, social ways in which cis people are privileged over trans people. People who talk about not identifying strongly as a man or woman still frequently benefit from cis privilege – they don’t have to spend any part of their life in a legally incoherent state (living as male or female, with identification that says the opposite).

Debates about whether people truly identify as cis sort of miss the point, and frequently help to divert attention from the fact that in general, society privileges and positions cis people as natural, normal, biological, honest, real, genuine, authentic, and trans people as unnatural, abnormal, artificial, deceptive, false, imitative, and fake.

Well said. I’ve been sitting here trying to think of something to add, but I think you said it.