all power to the imagination

i am a radical feminist, writer, and jewelry designer/maker who loves reading, collecting turquoise, and learning new languages.

Posts tagged gender theory

Aug 1



In order to follow up from my question yesterday about how one can argue that “trans people are killed for being trans, but cis women aren’t killed for being cis,” I made a good-faith effort to ask kinseysixbitch to explain her stance on the matter. While I appreciate that she took the time to answer my questions to the best of her ability without rancor or vitriol, I remained unsatisfied by the evidence she provided.

I followed the link to this article which posits the idea that society in general does not see gender as a binary, but rather a “ternary” — that is, people fall into three categories: women, men, or “freaks.” Though I found this article to be very problematic (not least because it seriously touts the idea of “misogyny recipient privilege.”), I did agree that, for the average person not immersed in gender theory and trans thought, the categories of “cis” doesn’t exist at all and anyone who deviates from their assigned gender role is indeed simply viewed as a “freak.”

This article however did confirm for me what I’ve believed all along: it is impossible to say that trans women are subject to violence “for being women” at the same time they are subject to violence “for being trans.” If a person is genuinely unaware of the trans status of a person (i.e., that person is completely “passing” as their desired gender identity) then if they are subject to violence, it is because they are seen as a woman. If the person is subject to violence because of unsuccessful passing or discovery of their biological sex, then they are not being seen as a woman, they are being seen as a nonconforming “freak.” So it doesn’t stand to reason that those two “reasons” for violence can exist in the same situation — one is either subject to violence because they are perceived as a woman, or because they are perceived as a “freak.” It isnota “double whammy” of prejudice and motivation, because those two perceptions are rooted in the same thing — misogyny. The belief that women are inferior and subjugated to men, so either one is subject to violence because they are perceived as a woman, or one is subject to violence because they are seen as deviant for intentionally taking on the inferior and subjugated role. It is impossible for this to be “double prejudice” because the two mental states can’t exist at the same time, and, ultimately, because it is the same prejudice.

Which brings me back to my original supposition — there is no such thing as “cis privilege” when applied to “cis” women, because misogyny is the root of all violence against women, trans or not. Saying “a cis woman is attacked because she is a woman, not because she is cis” is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate and mislabel the real root of (male) violence, misogyny. In the eyes of larger society, there is no difference between “cis woman” and simply “woman,” because deviation from “woman” or “man” is “freak.” And the way to correct this is not to pretend that it isn’t all caused by the same thing: misogyny generated by the patriarchy. Keeping our “eye on the prize” of targeting the patriarchy and male violence is the only way to help all women.

Great commentary.

fanfuckingtastic post.

(via ann-tagonist-deactivated2012110)