I have read some writing by anti-gender reassignment transgender women which is pretty hostile to the transgender adoption of femininity. I have read of reassignment surgeons being uncomfortable about reassigning “lesbian” transgenders, of transgenders having to prove how “womanly” they are before receiving reassignment, and of stereotypical femininity being used as a definition of “success” in transgender communities. This is also part of the argument which some feminists have used to defend their position that transgender women are a kind of fifth column in the women’s movement. Certain attitudes in the transgender community have been characterised in this writing as crass caricatures of womanhood. I think there are two sides to this story.

I read this book too and I thought it was terribly mind-opening! I also highly recommend it. Serano’s thesis that even Feminists devalue the feminine is extremely true in my case; it was great for me to see it for what it is, ie, I have been brainwashed by the Patriarchy in ways that even I, a thoughtful Feminist, aren’t even aware of.

Honestly, I didn’t think the Mr. T ad for Snickers was nearly as bad as the one back during the Super Bowl where you had two guys guzzling motor oil and beating each other with hammers because they accidentally lip-bumped.  Which isn’t saying a whole lot.  Just that - standing alone - it wouldn’t have looked like anything more than over-hyped machoism.  They were leading in with Mr. T for christ’s sake.  You don’t get more ridiculously overblown machoism than with Mr. T.  But yeah, with Snickers’ history… you’d think they could take a step back from this sort of thing.  :-p

The sheepish pride men who do things like forget their wives’ birthday should be disgusting, but for huge percentages of people in this culture, that’s cute and thank god boys will be boys.

WOW!  Please introduce me to the woman who feels that way.  I have never, in my entire life, met a single girl who considered forgetting her birthday less than a first degree offense.  I’ve seen relationships end on it.  The woman who considers it “cute” and that “boys will be boys” is so in the can it boggles my mind.

That said, it all makes a certain degree of sense.  That a person born a man would willingly embrace the feminine archtype gives a certain degree of value to it that is generally lacking in American society.  I never really got the feminine hate-on.  There’s always been a line between “how boys act” and “how girls act”, but it was never really defined as “good” or “bad”.  Generally speaking, I’m a little jealous of women who have the leeway to act like a tom boy today and be all pretty in pink tomorrow.  Guys kinda damned themselves when they locked into the “all macho, all-the-time”.  I imagine its magnitudes worse for a guy who actively breaks the mold and goes in the complete opposite direction.

Flashheart,

I have a friend with two acquaintences who in the past year revealed to her that they are transitioning from men to women, and I read about some who have done so.  We’re both befuddled at the notion that a person who wants to change their body has to conform to societal expectations of the sex.  It just doesn’t make any sense to me that the gender and the sex must always match.  (I use “sex” to mean the body and “gender” to mean the societal pressures that correspond to that body.)

We both understand that transsexual surgery shouldn’t be something a drop-in patient at a clinic should be able to just pop in and get done, but there’s something out of whack about making an adult play dress up for a year or so.  Maybe they don’t want to wear a dress until the penis is gone, perhaps?  Or maybe they just plain don’t want to be a woman until they are.  But there are protocols to protect someone or other, not necessarily the patients.  It’s just like the idiocy that involved my then-wife having to consent to my vasectomy or the nonsense the Republicans want to pull in regard to contraception and abortions but not breast implants or laser hair removal.  Our bodies aren’t our own unless we’re doing what’s expected of them, I guess.

WOW!  Please introduce me to the woman who feels that way.  I have never, in my entire life, met a single girl who considered forgetting her birthday less than a first degree offense.  I’ve seen relationships end on it.  The woman who considers it “cute” and that “boys will be boys” is so in the can it boggles my mind.

It’s not that the woman whose birthday was forgotten thinks it’s no big deal.  It’s that there’s a lot of male passive-aggressiveness that’s allowed to let slide by the larger society.  Do you forget to pick up milk at the store every time your wife asks you to?  Or drive right on past the dry cleaners to pick up your shirts even though she reminded you to do it?  Oh, well, it’s not like she can expect you to remember to do things when she asks—men are just like that!

Birthdays often fall under the same thing—gosh, men are just so stupid and absent-minded that you can’t possibly expect him to remember your birthday!

I am ashamed to say that there was a several-year breach between me and my father which was partly because I forgot his birthday two years in a row.  So it’s not like being upset that someone forgot your birthday is a gender-exclusive trait, and yet it always seems to be treated that way.  Trust me, if you forget a man’s birthday, he’s going to be just as pissed as a woman would be in the same situation.

I have a friend whose boyfriend regularly cheats on her, but would leave her and never speak to her again if she screwed around on him. She doesn’t mind, because “that’s just the way he is.” It boggles.

Whipping Girl is very awesome. I’m about a hundred pages into it. Her writing style is extremely clear. It’s a great read.

I think there’s a view, Amanda, that transgender people - and also the medical community who prey on them - can fetishize femininity, as if the outward trappings of femininity can make one a woman. I’m not particularly supportive of the view that there is no place for transgender women in in women’s spaces or women’s activism, but I am sympathetic to the idea that their fetishization of femininity is representative of an overly gendered view of what it is to be female - and I think it is important to remember that to some extent all transgender women were raised as men, with the expectations and assumptions that men make about women, about how women should behave and how women should behave towards men. It’s difficult to believe that they just shed that and step into the other gender’s skin as soon as they get the outward trappings. Or that (as jon alluded to) ostentatious displays of feminine conformity prior to reassignment are somehow a ticket into womanhood. This is why some feminists are extremely suspicious about drag and camp culture, and I think they have some reason to be.

I’m also sympathetic to the view that femininity is not a bad thing, and that differences between men and women are more than just socialised phenomena. I think it’s interesting if it’s a transgender feminist (assuming one believes these two things can exist together) who is making the point - interesting it what it might say about modern feminism, or what it might say about the strength of the theory, depending on one’s position in the continuum of theory about transgender women’s relationship to feminism.

I think in a perfect world we’d all just be David Bowie.

I think in a perfect world we’d all just be David Bowie.

Well, yeah.  That goes without saying. 

Many older transwomen grew up in a time when women did regularly dress and act in a very feminine manner, so its not surprising that they’d emulate that style. Also, many middle aged transwomen may very well not know how to dress like a 20 something woman either.

It used to be (and still is in many quarters) necessary to be ultra femme in order to get the go ahead from many therapists. That, and being attracted towards men, and not giving any hint that you may be bi or attracted to women.

SOME trans women fetishize femininity.  But you know what?  So do some cis women.  Boys are raised with certain expectations of how women behave…  and so are girls.  The part of the feminist community that has a problem with trans women, and to a lesser extent trans men, does what everyone else that hates on another group…  generalize and stereotype.  Yes, sure, there are some trans women that get way carried away with makeup or what not…  say, sort of like some girls when they go through puberty and are trying to find themselves.  A big problem with the trans community is that many trans people disassociate from the community when they are at last comfortable with themselves, and so there are fewer “normal” trans people and the “younger” (i.e. earlier in transition) trans women end up being the public face.  They’re also a lot easier to pick out in a crowd.  Yes, they seem odd sometimes and act strangely, but they are in a way relearning who they are and how to behave.  Also, I would think that the femininity-fetishizing trans women are not the ones that are trying to participate in feminist groups or discussions, and are really a red herring to legitimize hating on the trans community as a whole.

My department at work has me (a trans woman) and a trans man (I never would have guessed if he hadn’t told me) sitting right next to each other.  He’s a great guy.  We work, we are who we are, we get along with our coworkers.  It’s all really a lot less strange and fetishistic and a lot more boring than most people realize.  It’s just life.

It’s not that the woman whose birthday was forgotten thinks it’s no big deal.  It’s that there’s a lot of male passive-aggressiveness that’s allowed to let slide by the larger society.  Do you forget to pick up milk at the store every time your wife asks you to?  Or drive right on past the dry cleaners to pick up your shirts even though she reminded you to do it?  Oh, well, it’s not like she can expect you to remember to do things when she asks—men are just like that!

That’s what I’m saying.  I’ve never been the “victim” of this stereotype.  Never seen women let it slide.  I know men who think they can drive past the grocery store or not pick up the dry cleaning, but they spend a lot of time sleeping on the couch.

I know a few relationships that ended because the guy got lazy and the girl kicked him to the curb.  I just don’t think the girl who tolerates this sort of shit exists, at least in the aggregate.

As far as gender expression goes, I feel feminism should have two goals: To prove (to both women and men) that women don’t have to conform to stereotypes of femininity, and to prove (to both women and men) that stereotypes of femininity are not necessarily bad.

I am a woman of transsexual history.  I had my sex change operation over 35 years ago.  (And yes we called it a sex change operation back then).

I’ve beenan activist and feminist since the 1960s.  Femme/Butch… We had those discussions way back in the 1970s.  Was I feminine because I wore dresses and make up like I did for work or masculine because I did Tae Kwon Do, photography and wore a black leather jacket when I went slam dancing in the punk clubs?

When we had that consciousness raising session the conclusion was. “Compared to who.”

A lot of people placed expectations upon me, feminists include as well as the doctors who treated me.  But I was a blend of masculine and feminine when I was a transkid and after I had my surgery I was also a blend.

From experience it is a lot easier to have that patch work mix of traits if you are a feminine looking girl than if you are a feminine looking boy and that continues into adulthood.  Because half of what allows some women to do things often deemed masculine without being thought odd is if they are physically feminine in appearance.

And yeah I kind of did take crap from some ideologue feminists way back when.  Like being told I was pandering..  But a lot of lesbians had a gaze that was just as objectifying as the male gaze… And lots of time I wore the tight jeans and sexy tops to get them hot and bothered.

I think when people tried to beat your femininity out of you when you were a transkid..  Some of us paid dearly to be who we are and the femininity has always been something we had to defend.

As a trans-woman, I think someone could fairly claim that I fetishize the very feminine.

I’m not someone who is ever going to be able to fully transition.  I’m too fat/hypertensive to do hormone therapy, and I my bodily dysphoria is too diffuse to be addressed by SRS (While swapping my outie for an innie would be cool, it would do nothing to address the fact that I also want to be eight inches shorter, two hundred pounds lighter and to lose half a dozen shoe sizes)

Also, where I live now is not a place where it is safe for me to really dress fem in public. (A trans-woman was beaten to death just a couple of miles away from me last month)

So, I like what things I can do, i.e. socks, underwear, etc., to be uber-feminine, because that’s all I can do.  Wearing tights, pink socks, lacy underwear, and what ever other flouncy things makes it a little bit easier for me to live with the fact that I can’t fully be who I know myself to be.

In other words, I can’t do all I want, so I overdo what I can do to compensate.

The book is well worth reading.

Does anyone remember the 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”?  (text here - http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm )

I think that the (perhaps natural) feminist response to the wider culture’s “compulsory femininity complex”* for women is to rebel against ALL aspects of the femininity complex, and assume that women who voluntarily enjoy some aspect of the F.C. are either not feminist or have “false consciousness”, ie, are half-feminist. This was my stance as a teen and young adult in the late 1960s through 1980s, the era when I wore male-colored preppie or “dress for success” clothing and flat wingtips or loafers. I figured that no-one would take me seriously as a woman student, worker, or later, science/medical professional if I wore noticeable jewelry, bright colors, or non-preppie style pants, pantsuit, skirt in colors other than black or navy. This may have been true in part, but the larger issue was learning how to claim intellectual equality with my male peers and supervisors, while maintaining my dignity by being direct and honest, and refusing to play the false flattery game and the flirty game at work and school. As I have gained seniority and respect from colleagues, I have found that I wear more bright colors and jewelry, though I still dress modestly (even socially - I am too shy to flaunt) and insist on comfortable shoes and practical clothing. I have experience in dealing with hostile or dismissive colleagues, and can’t be intimidated or kept quiet (except when dealing with a dishonest dick who has some direct power over me - avoidance and lateral office politics was the effective strategy for getting him out of my workplace, certainly more productive than talking to him).

Serano is asking all of us to disconnect the neutral and bad aspects of “compulsory femininity”. It’s bad to be a doormat or an enabler. Clothing is seen as neutral by her. As it should be.

Re: fetishization of femininity by transgender women. I would guess that TG women are most femme when first having the freedom to be femme, ie, early in the transition process (first few years of hormone therapy). Some of this may have to do with developing confidence in presentation and with trying to emphasize to others that they have a female identity, especially if they aren’t “passing” due to height, skin, Adam’s apple, hands, and so on. I would also guess that looking femme 24/7/365 becomes less important with post-transition maturity. It could be generational, also. A 30 year old transwoman I know started out wearing both jeans and tees and dresses, as she pleased. Most transwomen start out life being misfit boys with “effeminate” presentation, so their life experience differs from both cisgender women and from ordinary non-misfit men. Many report post-transition “aha” moments about how women are treated - by being overlooked and thought stupid by possible employers, car repairmen or salesmen, bank officers. Concerning the year-long “real life test” and stereotypical heterosexual ultra-femme presentation - the requirement for this straight femme presentation was the result of “gatekeeper” psychologists and physicians who would decide which candidates “deserved” surgery. By necessity, transgender women got good at fulfilling the doctors’ expectations. This may not be necessary anymore, since more surgeons are around and more psychologists are willing to accept that women need not be stereotypically feminine.

Re: fetishization of femininity by (generally femme gay) male drag artists. From the few I know, it’s the glamour experience - be a favorite movie star for a night, complete with long sequined gown. I used to think it disrespectful of women, but I don’t read much into it now. The (amateur drag artist) men I know wear fancy patterned/colored shirts and accessories when in daily life not constrained by employer dress codes.

From what I can tell, there are transfeminists out there, writing books and blogs. Here’s one: Transfeminist Voices Speak Out edited by Krista Scott-Dixon.  http://www.sumachpress.com/transfem.htm

*(effort and discomfort required to maintain acceptable appearance; deference to or flattery of men; willingness to assume all responsibility for relationship emotional tasks and unpaid household tasks)

Thanks for writing this, Amanda. I think both of your criticisms of Serano are spot-on, actually. Those are the two things that bugged me the most about the book. The first criticism (why does the way people express their gender need to have a biological link) bugged me a lot in part because it felt like a lot of hand-waving.

She’s not even all that adamant about the “biological” part since she’s careful to say that based on her observations, there’s something innate about the way people relate to gender, which only means that gender identity and expression seem to solidify fairly early on in life and isn’t easy to change, whether through drugs, electroshock therapy, or force of will. But what does it mean for something to be “innate” beyond that? Who knows. There’s no real theory here, especially not one that accounts for all the diversity you see—people whose gender expression is very fluid and changing, or who don’t relate much to gender at all except insofar as it’s forced onto them. I guess you can chalk all that diversity up to what a biologist friend of mine likes to say on this kind of subject, “I’d be more suprised if we DIDN’T observe bewildering diversity in nature.” But it’s all a bit muddled.

As for the second criticism, that she doesn’t really tackle the kinds of mandatory bullshit femininities that get pushed on women all the time, it also bothered me for the same reasons you mention. I guess you could argue that this aspect of feminism wasn’t her focus, or that that kind of crap doesn’t necessarily contradict her basic examples because they’re pressure to be overly extreme in your behavior—like, it’s fine to wait on people, defer to others, and apologize to them sometimes, it’s the mandatory and constant, always-on version that’s horrifying. (And the extreme opposite macho end is as well.) Something still rankles me though—and it’s probably that I feel like trans women end up facing a stringent requirement to prove that we’re not totally clueless on the basics of feminism. But that’s just some “gotta work twice as hard” bullshit.

We both understand that transsexual surgery shouldn’t be something a drop-in patient at a clinic should be able to just pop in and get done, but there’s something out of whack about making an adult play dress up for a year or so.

These requirements are falling by the wayside more and more, but you should pick up the book if you’re curious—she has several excellent sections analyzing why there’s so much policing around this kind of stuff, delving into the history of how something as uncomfortable to gender-authoritarian sensibilities as changing sex could only be allowed if it involved trying to mold trans people into “totally normal” men and women who would behave like they were supposed to, not rock the boat, little Ken and Barbie dolls. The disturbing thing is that although we had decades worth of this kind of “gender factory” institutional process here and in other countries, a lot of people still blame trans people themselves for being “caricatures of femininity / masculinity” as opposed to the structures society has tried to mash trans people into. (Which really, are the same gender-coercive structures we all face in one way or another.)

flashheart,

I have read some writing by anti-gender reassignment transgender women which is pretty hostile to the transgender adoption of femininity. I have read of reassignment surgeons being uncomfortable about reassigning “lesbian” transgenders, of transgenders having to prove how “womanly” they are before receiving reassignment, and of stereotypical femininity being used as a definition of “success” in transgender communities.

Again, Serano has some great sections on the history of this kind of crap. Thankfully a lot of the more institutional pressures (doctors refusing treatment based on “not being feminine enough” is largely falling by the wayside these days. I’m very curious about the writing by anti-gender-reassignment transgender women though, I’ve never run across something I’d describe that way. What authors?

I am sympathetic to the idea that their fetishization of femininity is representative of an overly gendered view of what it is to be female - and I think it is important to remember that to some extent all transgender women were raised as men, with the expectations and assumptions that men make about women, about how women should behave and how women should behave towards men. It’s difficult to believe that they just shed that and step into the other gender’s skin as soon as they get the outward trappings.

I think Mireille and NancyP are both right about the fetishization thing—some trans women do this, not all trans women by a longshot, and some non-trans people fetishize femininity as well. I think fetishizing the feminine is actually pretty damn common in our culture, whether on yourself or on others—across the board, straights and gays, etc. Gender expression stuff is so heavily laced into our sexuality, although I have to say it’s not really what floats my boat. Amanda’s right too—I think our perceptions are colored by notions of who is supposed to be performing femininity and what’s grotesque or a “caricature.” Two people wearing the exact same makeup, hairstyle, and clothing—but if we perceive one of them as “just another woman dressed up for a night out” and the other as “a male-bodied person wearing clothes that look funny” then can we really say who is the caricature and who’s not?

As for this part, “some extent all transgender women were raised as men, with the expectations and assumptions that men make about women, about how women should behave and how women should behave towards men” I think you’re making some pretty wild assumptions about how trans people are raised and experience messages about gender during childhood. Have you experienced a childhood as a transgender person? Do you know if it resembles the childhood of a non-trans person? Maybe outwardly it might look similar—a bunch of boys being targeted by one set of messages, a bunch of girls by others. But if some of those kids are trans, if they have any awareness of how their gender differs from their peers (and most trans people do report being aware) then you can be sure they’re receiving different messages and in different ways than other kids they’re grouped with outwardly. If you don’t know what it’s like, I wouldn’t go anywhere close to assuming that trans women are socialized as kids just like non-trans men are, or vice versa for trans men.

i know (at least) 3 MTF transgender women. all three of them had to tell me - none of them seemed to be at all “male” or “less female them I” or anything like that. although one of them IS often over-the-top femme, for months i just thought she was having fun. until she hit on me, and i told her i was straight, and she said “its ok, i still have my set”

took me an HOUR to figure out what she meant. then there was the conversation of “ok, you have a penis, but you’re still a WOMAN. you have tits, damnit!”. very surreal at the time, funny to laugh at now when we hang out.

but i can SEE the issues. this particular friend of mine has had a couple different guys sleep with her, because she LOOKS like a girl but is still “equipped” like a guy, to see if they liked having sex with a guy, or because they were very closeted and a MTF was the closest they could come to what they really wanted, etc. i don’t get it - i’m girly or not, as i choose, and i mostly too lazy, but i do see it. it hurts to watch; i can’t imagine doing it. i really wish that homophobia would just GO AWAY and let people be who they are

It’s interesting that some one brought up “Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence”?”

I just finished reading Sue O’Sullivan’s “I Used to be Nice” and I’ve been reading a bunch of Ellen Willis work.

I remember the trashings surrounding “proper feminist” appearance that went on at one point more among the lesbian feminist than the heterosexual.  Over the years I’ve noticed women do a lot of appearance policing.  women notice each others clothes more than men seem to.

A lot of the appearance policing is about what I call the proper team uniform.  No matter if one is playing in a punk band, working in an office or sales, an academic or a feminist writer.  The type and degree of femininity is a matter of conforming to that shown by your peers.  It’s like how no one noticed I had a half dozen piercings in each ear until one day I went in after an evening at a club and I forgot to take most of my ear rings out.  I might as well have worn my leather jacket and Patty Smith t-shirt from then on out.

And it wasn’t the male boss but the other cubicle women.

Holly, the stuff I read was mostly ‘zine stuff and pamphlets and cheap polemics in Australia, at about the time that a certain transgender support centre was going through a major bust-up over the issue of femininity and gatekeepers. Also during the now-infamous “women’s space” dustups in Australia I recall some feminists had some (mostly pretty nasty) things to say on the issue but I don’t recall the names. Maybe Germaine Greer put in her 2 cents worth, which is always entertaining but not always constructive since she became a pederast. At the time these things were happening I worked with a transgender researcher, and knew some others in the anarchist movement. I think this stuff was also debated pretty hotly in the local lesbian magazine, but again… it was a long time ago, and peripheral to the interests of most of the feminists I knew (who were generally suspicious of the idea of women’s space themselves). I have no strong opinions on the topic, but I think transgender women who successfully reassign have a lot invested in this issue on a personal, psychological level, as do those who uncritically support or engage in the process (I don’t know if Serano is such a person). Sunk losses, I suppose.

However, I remain entirely opposed to drag (in its professional form, not, you know, at fancy dress parties). I think it deliberately, self-consciously mocks women and it is a repulsive representation of gay misogyny. Some men fetishize women’s difference (think Tom Robbins novels, or Pedro Almodovar) in variously harmless or harmful ways, and drag is a very clear, nasty fetishization.

Amanda, I think it’s fair to say that there are a lot of feminists who are aware of the encroachment of male power onto “feminine” domains - through, for example, trying to technologize birth, colonize traditionally female spaces in the home in very arrogant ways (I’m thinking of celebrity chefs here) and, of course, drag. I don’t necessarily agree with their position, but I think it’s reasonable for these women to be suspicious about these encroachments and in some crass way, men in a dress (as you put it) could be construed as another encroachment. Depending on the validity of the pyschiatric assessment of the phenomenon, I tend to disagree with these women. But I don’t think their objections need to be construed as homophobia.

I don’t know about the assessment of straight women fetishizing femininity. Can one fetishize something that is in some sense (not necessarily biological) one’s “natural” domain? Certainly some women overdo it. I remember in Sydney’s Eastern suburbs once seeing 4 rich women at a cafe whose style was so overboard that they really did look like women impersonating drag artists. But I don’t know if they were fetishizing femininity - I think they were just tasteless.

So…  If a trans woman is extremely feminine, she is fetishizing femininity, but if a cis woman is etremely feminine, she’s not fetishizing femininity?  So cis men, then, can’t fetishize masculinity by that logic, and I’ve seen too much proof that it is all too common (Republican party, anyone?).  Anyone is, of course, free to choose not to attempt to understand trans people or not believe transexuality is valid, but it would be nice if they recognized that’s a problem originating in themselves and not others.  It’s not as if trans people are nowhere to be found.  There are thousands and thousands, in all cultures and throughout history.  To try and write it off as only a modern-day attempt to subvert feminism (when by many accounts, trans men are nearly, if not equally, as common as trans women) is willful ignorance.  I don’t need anyone’s validation to confirm my own lived experiences.  Just like I really don’t care if there is any biological foundation found for homosexuality or transexuality.  If it were proven that it is genetically based or proved it was not, it would not change the person I am.  And why that endangers feminism is beyond me.

What is femininity?  Is it skirts?  Is it makeup?  Is it being nice to people you’d rather not be nice to?  I guess my problem as one of those feminists who reviles femininity is that femininity seems like a combination of porntastic sexiness, and common courtesy that isn’t expected of men.

So, I’m not trying to hate on women or things that are female by hating on makeup and leg shaving and skirts- it’s just my position that those things are not innately female.  All of those things are imposed on women by society.

Therefore, I don’t see it as giving sexists fuel for their fire by me bashing “femininity,” as femininity, to me, has nothing to do with actual women, and everything to do with how women are taught to act.

RE: MTF trans people- to me, if someone is raised as a boy, and chooses to become a feminine woman in public appearance, that all they are doing is changing the signals they give to the dominant class (straight men) in a way to symbolize their desire to please the dominant class, instead of be a part of the dominant class.

Larger question- is everyone taking it as a given that “femininity” is innate?  That if women and men were equal in our society and had equal agency, that women would still shave their legs, wear form-fitting clothing, uncomfortable shoes, makeup, and styled hair?

That’s funny Mireille, I was trying to think of examples of fetishized masculinity when I wrote that last comment, and the best I could come up with was sportsmen. I was going to ask (rhetorically, I suppose) “Is Mike Tyson fetishizing masculinity?” I don’t think he is, just maybe doing it a lot. Certainly the sportsmen of my experience - rugby players, swimmers, cricketers - aren’t fetishizing masculinity. But I didn’t think of the Republican party. Ha! I present to you my non-Americanness as an excuse.

Now you’ve got me thinking about examples of American fetishization of masculinity and I’m intrigued. American Football, for example, is hideously camp in a way that non-American Football just can’t live up to. What’s that about? Is there a cultural difference here? I’m remembering Kate Millett’s analysis of Norman Mailer now and thinking, wow, maybe there is something about American sport that is quite unique…

In answer to the other part of your point… I think it’s possible to look critically at a particular group in terms of their historical development and experience, and to think the same behaviour in different groups can have different motivations and consequences, without necessarily denying that group its right to speak or the validity of its opinions. This is an essential part of the recognition and acceptance of difference. One can accept transgender women as women now without denying that they are different, with different experiences.

Babs, I don’t think “femininity” is innate but I do think that men and women are different and those differences will always be expressed, with part of that expression being differences in opinion. I think the majority of people will adopt those differences. Whether the “femininity” we see now is the inevitable natural expression of the difference between men and women is a very interesting question, but given the social and cultural pressures for men and women to behave the way we do, kind of irrelevant. By the time we have managed to make the huge leap in maturity necessary to not criticise or stigmatise men and women who don’t adhere to the cultural standards, the particular definition of “femininity” will probably be irrelevant.

Debating the validity of my existance as a woman. *looks at calendar* Yup, it’s August!

Babs, no, I don’t think “leg shaving” and “makeup” are inherently feminine. But I think a desire for embellishment and transformative dressing is innate—innately human.

Given equal agency, I don’t think women would stop embellishing. I think men would step it up; and I think everyone would be doing it differently from the current norm. Like someone said above, and it was a joke, but I think it has meat—We’d all be more like David Bowie. I certainly (as a woman) wouldn’t mind it, and I know more than a few guys (socialized to be more or less rigidly Dudely) who’d be on board as well.

I think the damaging part of femininity is the compulsory part. Nothing is damaging about a skirt. Nothing is inherently damaging about makeup (it’s been a part—and NOT just a female part—of world cultures for as long as there have been cultures). What’s damaging is the expectation that a certain class of people perform in a certain way, day-in, day-out, to be deemed acceptable.

I’m lucky—in my industry and personal life, there’s not a soul who gives a damn whether I wear makeup. I still do, maybe 3 days out of 7. It’s fun to have blue eyelashes for a day. It’s fun because it’s truly my choice. I don’t face any penalty for going bare-faced. If I did, it would move from fun expression to restrictive, damaging sexism.

Shorter this post: Ain’t the trappings at fault, it’s the being trapped.

I’m probably going to be way off on this and say something stupid that comes across as offensive but, hey, it wouldn’t be the first time. 

It does sometimes seem to me that the people who insist on “performing” their gender are usually insecure with it.  I don’t mean trans people (though it includes some of them)—I’ve seen cisgender women who are trying way, way too hard to signal not that they’re “sexy,” but that they’re women.  Since gender does seem to come on a sliding scale, I can’t help wondering if those women (and men) who put on a big gender performance are the ones who feel least sure that they’re in the right gender.

I can’t agree that drag performances are always misogynistic, but there can definitely be that overtone depending on the performer.  Priscilla, Queen of the Desert is one of the most misogynistic movies I’ve ever seen.

I think one reason why doctors may have enforced an ultra-femme dress standard before performing MTF surgery is a way of ensuring that gender stereotypes and structures are preserved.  I’m thinking about that interesting article in the NYT about women who can become men in Algeria? Morocco? (I can’t remember now which country, which is lame).  They’re allowed to assume all the rights of men, but in no way can they act like women or upset the existing patriarchal structure.  I’m sure that one reason transgender women were forced to dress in uber-girly clothing before getting surgery is that it’s perceived as a kind of guarantee or reassurance that they’ll uphold traditional gender norms, even if they’re crossing over.  Obviously it doesn’t work that way for the transgender person—they will act however they feel comfortable and can navigate society once the reassignment occurs.  But I do think that’s why this was expected.  Ultimately, I think our society is fine with a few people from one category or another changing how they’re coded (black, woman, etc.), as long as they don’t upset the overall structure.  I think one reason such pre-surgery dress requirements may be falling by the wayside is that women themselves aren’t adhering so rigidly to gender norms (at least when it comes to clothing), and so there’s less of that particular structure to protect.

Also, while I agree that there are some aspects of femininity that are denigrated because they’re feminine, I don’t know that I’d agree that high-fashion is a neutral thing that gets bashed just because women are into it.  High-fashion is super elitist, it requires that you put a ton of effort, money, and time into your appearance, and it often dictates that you to wear really uncomfortable things, like ultra high stiletto heels.  To me the assumptions undergirding all of this are: a) women need to do a ton just to be attractive and palatable for male consumption b) your primary achievement is to be pretty/attractive, and therefore it’s reasonable to spend an inordinate amount of time on it c) attractiveness in women = uselessness, at least when it comes to physical tasks, because the clothing deemed most attractive is also the least functional (high heels, ultra tight clothing, earrings that are painful and prevent you from doing stuff, etc.).

That said, I do wear heels and makeup when I feel like it, and the idea of fashion as individual self-[removed]as opposed to high fashion, which posits an extremely limited and narrow definition of beauty) is cool.  I don’t think wanting to look pretty is wrong or anti-feminist.  But I do think its dangerous for women to get so into the kind of fashion the Sex and the City set are obsessed with, because fashion mags, runway culture, etc., masks so much ugly thought about women and so much elitism and white privilege.  It’s hard not to internalize the nasty stuff while enjoying the aesthetics and the fun part of it.

“I think one reason why doctors may have enforced an ultra-femme dress standard before performing MTF surgery is a way of ensuring that gender stereotypes and structures are preserved.”

This is a bit of a bullshit myth.  Perpetuated by people like Janice Raymond and by people quite frankly were insane and delusional regarding their appearance.  ie the ones who would show up with full beards, a few womens clothes and wonder why no one accepted them as women.

I went through a major University program in 1972.  We ranged from a woman who modeled in for a major agency to the woman trashed by Robin Morgan in “Going too Far”.

Many of us were hippies and/or going to school.  An equal number of us were middle aged, married to women and had fathered children.

One did not have to be ultra-femme.  Some of us were very cute, sexy, attractive women and were feminine.  Others of us fit so well in the feminist community that Janice Raymond and others trashed us for blending in so well.

Those that perpetuated that stereotypical thinking tended to often be those who were unable to fit in well enough to actually make there way in the world.  Many years later plastic surgeons developed Facial Feminization Surgery that helped people who otherwise would have had a hard time surviving ouside the transcommunity.

Sometime stuff like this falls within the category of misinformation other time it is pure disinformation.

Ultra high fashion has little or no real world context.  And seems to be run by mainly gay men of a certain type given to rabid misogyny.

Otherwise it is just peddling schmatas.

Normally I just lurk and enjoy the crunchy intelligent goodness, but this really tweaked it for me:

...there’s a lot of male passive-aggressiveness that’s allowed to let slide by the larger society.  Do you forget to pick up milk at the store every time your wife asks you to?  Or drive right on past the dry cleaners to pick up your shirts even though she reminded you to do it?  [...] Birthdays often fall under the same thing—gosh, men are just so stupid and absent-minded that you can’t possibly expect him to remember your birthday!

I have been married for seven years, and if you ask me for my husband’s birthday, I have to think for a few minutes. It’s become a bit of a running gag, too, when we finish a fancy dinner and I ask: what’s the occasion? The answer: it’s our anniversary. Uhm, whoops? Yes, I also forget to pick up milk, almost every single time. Yes, I’ve also forgotten post office errands, and, obviously, anniversaries and birthdays. Pretty regularly, too.

Does this make me passive-aggressive, too? Or am I exempt from that charge because I only have two legs? Or maybe being forgetful is a human trait and I just accept my memory sucks instead of beating myself up about it? Does my lack of anxiety indicate that these tasks, deadlines, what-have-you aren’t my priorities—and that’s why they’re not burned into my brain? Does that mean men unbothered about their forgetfulness (beyond being sheepish) are selfish—or is it that they’re more self-accepting and it’s the memory-obsessed who need to chill out?

Telling women they “should” remember such things, telling men they’re stupid for not remembering, is this some kind of whacked sharing of the misery: if I have to tattoo this trivia on my eyelids, I’m going to make you regret it if you don’t do the same? Or am I just an outlier—along with every SO I’ve had—because it’s always the men around me who remember dates, tasks, and deadlines, while I forget? Does this mean I’ve adopted a masculine trait, adjusted my gender-role somehow, maybe even forced the men around me to “take over” a traditionally feminine role?

Does it make a difference that my SO does all the cooking, feeds the animals, cleans the kitchen, and always does the grocery shopping? Does it matter that I’m the breadwinner? Is this gender-role messiness cumulative, or are we graded on a curve? Err, so to speak. 

As for this:

I have never, in my entire life, met a single girl who considered forgetting her birthday less than a first degree offense.

If the internet counts as an introduction, now you have. Hello! Forgetting my birthday isn’t even a misdemeanor, or I’d have spent most my adult life in the pokey for all the times I’ve let that day pass without realizing it myself. I may be absentminded, but I’m damn sure not hypocritical.

Amanda, et al., thank you for the fascinating post and discussion. This is a subject which I have pondered and researched for the last twenty odd years, after falling in with a group of M2F women in the early ‘80s. I have not read Julia Serano’s book; however, I will add it to my reading list today.

Though this is a very complex subject, the notion, however, that there is any kind of biological or genetic imperative towards femininity or masculinity strikes me as a basically flawed. Masculinity/Femininity are cultural constructions - which may include some natural biological differences between male/female (the very fact we tend to discuss these issues within a simple bifurcated framework illustrates part of the problem). Femininity, for instance, stresses passivity, poise, grace, and aesthetics: It is the fetishizing of the passive female body. Note: I am not suggesting that the qualities of femininity are inherently bad, simply that they should be recognized within their cultural context.

There is an ineffable quality to sexual identity - what it means to ourselves to be a woman or a man. The expression of this quality seems to be heavily influenced by the constructions within the culture we find ourselves. For instance, I am sure many of you are familiar with the NPR series on childhood gender reassignment. Within that story a mother commented on how her young son expressed unhappiness with his sex by constantly needing to don pink clothing and play with dolls.  Through his parents, and culture at large, this boy had learned that the color pink was associated with the other (sex). His ability to express his own unhappiness with his sex was left to utilizing the basic constructed signs of gender: blue for boys, pink for girls. Among the M2F women I have known those signs become a very powerful way of expressing their identity or, in some ways, the identity they are not. 

Whether or not the use of these cultural signs, among those transitioning, reinforces gender constructs for all of us becomes the major point of debate. Personally, I believe they may; however, I believe we are approaching a point where (within femininity) the choice of which attributes or signs to express is becoming less important and more flexible within our culture. Of course, signs still matter: masculinity remains a fairly inflexible construct, and there are powerful desires within society working to ensure that a polarized construct of femininity remains to differentiate masculinity.

Thanks again

“Masculinity/Femininity are cultural constructions - which may include some natural biological differences between male/female (the very fact we tend to discuss these issues within a simple bifurcated framework illustrates part of the problem).”

Some are/is social construct but animals show differences too and they don’t do social constructs.  they do biology and evolution.

Social constructionism is a gender studies version of Intelligent Design.  A faith based proposition that ignores the entire field of biology the same way ID ignores evolution.

Go watch some Nature Shows.

I never said, or implied, that there were not biological differences between males and female. Rather,my suggestion was that the cultural constructions of femininity/masculinity make use of those differences but both exaggerate and extend them. Human beings, unlike other animals, build extremely complex cultural artifices and signs. The notion of a natural gender identity or a natural law governing that identity seems contradicted by this very discussion.

  Social constructionism is a gender studies version of Intelligent Design.

I’m sorry, this is simply naive or uninformed. I could supply a reading list on linguistics, law, politics, art, and history if you like. Or you could go and simply pick up a copy of Vogue and ask yourself to consider the origins of the images contained within. The fact that these images and signs change over time is evidence that they are constructed and not simply a product of natural law.

Very early gender reassignment clinics required that the candidate have an ultra-femme heterosexual presentation, and doctors occasionally complained that transsexuals were prone to lying, since followup studies showed that some TSs maintained existing marriages or otherwise preferred women as sexual partners, or didn’t remain ultra-femme but became ordinary or androgynous in presentation. Remember, this was before the second wave of feminism, when all women were expected to be like Donna Reed, waxing the kitchen floor in heels and perfect hair.

Re: fetishized masculinity. See: Maureen Dowd and the female conservative commentariat, salivating over manly men such as firemen and heavy equipment operators, right after 9/11. IRL, these female pundits wouldn’t give the blue collar man the time of day, preferring Manhattan Upper East Side types, preferably hedge fund managers. Also see: a large percentage of gay men. Being ripped and finding a ripped man are big priorities. Also popular are (IRL or fantasy) firemen, policemen, cowboys, sailors, soldiers - basically any man in a uniform.

NancyP, your point about Maureen Dowd et al is interesting, because it places them in an anxious pre-war context. I wonder if that is the cause of fetishized masculinity in this case? But all the people you are talking about are people who find men sexually attractive and are fetishizing a sort of man. This is the correct definition of fetish I grant you, but it’s not what we are talking about here. We’re talking about straight men fetishizing their own masculinity (on a par with the notion of straight women fetishizing their own femininity). It seems reasonable to me that people who find men sexually attractive might fetishize their preferred version of masculinity. But do straight men? Do the firemen fetishize themselves? That’s what we were getting at earlier.

SuzyQ, when I lived in Japan I had satellite tv with out of date docos on, and after 11pm on weeknights I could flick between Big Cat Diary and Cheaters. The behaviour of the male cats and the male men on those shows was fascinatingly similar, so similar sometimes that I would have to do a double-take.

Very early gender reassignment clinics required that the candidate have an ultra-femme heterosexual presentation, and doctors occasionally complained that transsexuals were prone to lying, since followup studies showed that some TSs maintained existing marriages or otherwise preferred women as sexual partners, or didn’t remain ultra-femme but became ordinary or androgynous in presentation. Remember, this was before the second wave of feminism, when all women were expected to be like Donna Reed, waxing the kitchen floor in heels and perfect hair.  Nancy P

Were you there?

I co-ran the National Transsexual Counseling Unit in San Francisco from 1971-1973.  It was funded by Reed Erickson, an F to M.

I went through the Stanford University program run by Dr. Laub.  I have pictures of the people that went through the program.  Maybe one quarter to one third fit the description of “ultra-femme” and most of them look no more ultra-femme than one would see in the mall or on the campus of any University at the time.  They were physically female in appearance rather than exaggerated in their clothing.  You have a stereotype more commonally applicable to drag queens, particularly those in the sex industry.

For what it is worth the Stanford Program knew I was bisexual and aso did SRS on two of the lesbian T to F women who were the focus of the feminist trashings of the 1970s.

But over and above that Stanford had another quarter to a third of it’s patients who were in relationships to women, often married and with children.

Indeed if anything the group sessions of the time were vastly more diverse than similar meetings I have attended recently.  The diversity not only included those who came out as teenagers/young adults and those who came out in middle age.  Those attracted to men as well as those attracted to women but the group of people I went through the program with wasn’t all lily white and middle class.  There were poor people and people of color represented as well.

What you say is an example of historical revisionism.

SuzyQ, I remember Susan Faludi’s Backlash making the claim that the 70s were a very gender-liberated time. I wonder if these clinics have actually regressed over the intervening 30 years? I have definitely spoken to a transgender woman in Australia who claimed that the Australian clinics (mid-90s) required this sort of feminine-allegiance type of proof. This was the cause of much debate amongst transgenders. I had heard the stories about “living for a year as a woman” before I met this transgender woman and I didn’t believe them, but she confirmed their truth. I wonder if your 70s experiences were more liberated? Or if the requirements vary from State to State and country to country? (I think even in Australia the requirements are different from clinic to clinic and State to State).

SuzyQ, I remember Susan Faludi’s Backlash making the claim that the 70s were a very gender-liberated time. I wonder if these clinics have actually regressed over the intervening 30 years? (flashheart)

I’m working on a book and I’m writing about the period of 1971 and the Stanford Program.  Indeed it’s on my esk top in Word right now.

What happened was that in 1979 Gender Identity Disorder was placed in the DSM.  Over all there has been a very anti-sex backlash.  On the part of both the religious right and a feminist faction that seems to me to not be all that different from those feminists of a century ago who had their energies diverted from the cause of Suffrage to Prohibition.  I have a hard time reconciling the thinking of the movement that put out “Our Bodies, Ourselves” complete with self examination with the anti-sex movement.

That said there has been a parallel.  In the early 1970s the gender group at the clinic was a wide cross section because it included the professionals from the Silicon Valley.  Had some one based their idea on what was representative from the clientele of our counseling center one would have had a different picture.

What I see now is that transsexual and transgender activism has pretty much disappeared the transkid from the picture except as martyrs.  Most of the time when I do see some one young who is feminine and likes guys I see them in a photograph of a murder victim like Angie Zapata.

I almost never hear people who are like my friends and I were of the 1970s in today’s on line world.

Further a lot of us might have worn mini skirts and Mary Quant make up and had boyfriends..  But I had been in SDS and my boyfriend was a deserter who I sheltered.  My library had Kate Millett, Robin Morgan, Shulamith Firestone, Ti Grace Atkinson, and Simone de Beauvoir.  I read “Off Our Backs” and “It Ain’t Me Babe”

We called our rap groups CR Consciousness Raising sessions too.

We live in conservative times.  Those who dominate the transsexual discourse all have gender therapist, something we never had to have.

I am involved in a movement to remove GID from the DSM.  The therapist have to maintain certain myths regarding those of us who went before the therapists pathologized us.

One of those myths is that those of us who were lesbian and or feminist were excluded from SRS.  Yet during the 1970s I was involved with the Los Angeles Women’s Building and I was a sttaff photographer and a production artist for the Lesbian Tide.”

I don’t care about hair styles or what people wear or how they make up—I’m an actor: to me it is all costume and presentation.  But surgery upsets me, from ear-piercing through breast augmentation through face lifts to re-arranging the genitalia.  Why must we be surgically altered to fit some formula in order to be comfortable in our skins and in social groups? Why can’t we accept that there is a whole range of human beings who do not fit into binary categories, and not feel dismay if we are not sure what pronoun to use or what to expect to find under the covers when we find someone attractive—or if what attracts us changes over the course of our lifetime?

suzyq - I thought so! Your reading list brings a tear to my eye!

that some young men feel feminine even when they’re scolded for it is evidence, in her eyes, that “feminine” is partly natural but that it spreads out over different people.

Wait, so everything I want to do even if I’m not “supposed to” want it, or even if I’m scolded or punished for wanting it is therefore biologically oriented?

That is so offensively simplistic it hurts.

Oh and re the birthday thing—my father routinely forgets my birthday and has for pretty much my whole life.  Even though my parents were married to each other when I was born and throughout my childhood, and he was as active a part of my life as fathers are supposed to be.  The reaction from my mother was always a sort of resigned shrug; “you know how clueless your dad can be about this stuff…”  And that’s HIS FUCKING DAUGHTER.  His firstborn.  If you don’t remember that particular date, and your wife doesn’t even bother to get worked up about your lack of awareness on that front, then, yeah, that’s pretty much the dictionary definition of “boys will be boys” oriented sexism.