Review of: Trans identities and first person authority, Bettcher (added some extra thoughts too)

“ My goal is to understand FPA as an ideal for that which already exists in less-than-politically-ideal practice, to help transpeople treat ourselves and each other better, and to offer it to those who also exist and struggle in various subaltern places, who do not know transpeople well but want to form meaningful friendships and political partnerships with (some of) us. “

This is good. I hope the article lives up to this and I can share it with people. 

One of the things Bettcher addresses is the variance that even experts, like Roughgarden and Fausto-Sterling (hey, we know them!), don’t agree on what makes what gender outside of sex (or whether it is purely based on sex). If I’ve learned anything, it’s that maybe there doesn’t need to be a solid definition everyone can agree on. Maybe there can’t be. Actually, just it can’t be. Because there’s a zillion people on this earth with different experiences and different personalities that form a myriad of identities. And trying to come to one conclusion is ultimately going to exclude someone. Whether or not a person wants to stand for total inclusion or not, variance is inevitable and that’s okay. I think it’s kinda good that we’re not all one way or think one way. Sure some people might be right or wrong, some people are ethical and unethical. Anytime a person degrades another human being is wrong. But in general, differences in definitions aren’t inherently bad. Differences allow people to come up with their own thoughts, and identify and express themselves in ways they feel connected to. 

“ However, it does seem that in the case of the world imagined above, the very meaning of the word would have changed, if “girly” should be a good way to describe ditch digging. So it again seems that cultural roles assigned on the basis of sex are part of the semantic content. And this suggests that there is something wrong with this definitional account of gender. “

In regards to adjectives such as “womanly” or “manly” or “girly” that pack lots of cultural meaning and signify wanted or unwanted associations, I am very much bothered. But even I felt a little struck by how strongly Bettcher claimed use of them to be wrong and verging on unethical. Even though I do kinda agree that there could be something wrong with how we “inherently” think about gender. I thought an interesting point she addressed was that the meaning of those adjectives shift over time and cultural context. Which continues to say that there isn’t a set meaning of those identities. 

Hey, she talks about Hale! Is this article just a nice wrap up of our course? I see what Harmon’s doing...

“ While an individual may fail to live up to prevailing cultural role, this will not undermine her status as female. Instead, she will simply be assessed negatively for failure to conform to standards of excellence. In cases in which she fully adopts the cultural role of man, she will be regarded as a woman pretending to be a man. Thus there is not merely a difference in weighting sex and conformity to cultural role. There is a difference in kind  of semantic contribution made to category terms: sex determines individual category membership; role, while involved in normative assessments, does not.”

This is the struggle of my life. 

Bettcher:  So the only answer I can think of why “woman” has such a nice definition is just this: because “woman” is frequently used to convey information about sex and because it is frequently used  to convey information about adulthood, it acquires such explicit contrasts. In other words, it seems to me that the uses must ultimately explain the appearance of a definition, rather than the definition itself explaining the uses.

Me: !!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 Bettcher: “No wonder people are curious. They’re used to knowing .” [speaking about “the surgery” and gender presentation]

This is another struggle of humanity: the desire to be known and know things and people, and how we don’t know how to handle not knowing something. For like, all areas of life, such as not knowing whether someone likes you back or not, not knowing what to do after graduation or with their lives. Not knowing how to treat a baby or an adult until you know their gender, or in this case, not knowing if a person is trans or not, is hard for people to grasp. But the more I’ve dealt with life’s not knowing (specifically with things like graduation, jobs, and my (nonexistent?) love life, despite the pressure to know, the more I’m learning to be okay with not knowing. A lot of times, people confuse not knowing with being stuck. But they’re not the same thing. In fact, there is potential for great growth in character and understanding of the world when a person who “does not know” something continues through life anyway, learning and learning how to learn. One of my favorite opportunities are those where I’m in a situation with a person that is gender ambiguous or racially ambiguous--it’s just great. I love being in them, and I love observing others in them. It makes me aware of thoughts and actions that I may not even realize I do and challenges me to find new ways to interact and think with people. I think that if more people were encouraged in being okay with not knowing, rather than needing to know everything in this highly pressurized for success world (fueled by social media), and if more people were shown mentors/examples and put in learning situations, we could maybe find a better way to help non trans people understand and interact with trans people, or heterosexual people to accept the gay community, or just people to love other people.

Somewhere in the middle, I honestly lost track of what I was reading and rereading. 

 Trans politics must require that bodily privacy be expanded to include information

about genital status. Gender presentation may not be taken to communicate

genital status

This claim that altering the basis of distinguishing men and women by genital information to protect trans people from being seen as deceivers or pretenders is probably one that I like, because it respects people’s privacy and prevents ill opinions of trans people, but it also seems somewhat utopian. At this stage of existence, an alternative or separation of gender from genital status, however justified, doesn’t seem likely to happen. And even if, suppose it could, who’s to say it would actually work out positively? 

 “gender presentation is not understood to communicate genital status but, instead, indicates how persons want to be treated.”

I like the above statement. I concur. I think most people would agree after thinking about it before they act or form opinions. 

Bettcher mentions how MTFs or transwomen have trouble accepting or interacting with FTMs or transmen, and while only briefly mentioned, really bothers me. Why? I hesitate to jump to the idea of men’s upbringing and status, because I could be wrong and have no idea why. But I really don’t like that. 

It is, however, yet another example of how differences within people of a shared oppressed community actually reveal more tensions under the surface of unification or being lumped together. 

Bettcher: “If so, to believe one is a woman is to believe one believes one is a woman.”

Me: Ahh, the philosophy

Next interesting Bettcher statement: FPA is important (yes). If a transperson says they are a man or woman, and express how they identify themselves, their statement is still subject to people’s definition/understanding/interpretation of how said person is expressing themselves. 

This is why it is hard to really understand and retell how people understood themselves and wanted to be known unless explicitly stated. And even then, there’s the issue of the person saying things a certain way because of context that would be explained differently in a separate context. 

I also wondered about people like Teena Brandon and that one male singer who at death was discovered to be female (whose name I forgot...) and Prof Harmon’s comment about generational differences in privacy. Like maybe they (especially the singer) just didn’t think to share that part of their life because the value for privacy was higher or it just wasn’t something they necessarily wanted to share (whether that be because of pressure or personal preference). 

Oh? A woman has less credible fpa than men? yeah, i know.

Gender representation signals genital status whether we like it or not? 

Violence galore?

Hooray...


So basically, Transpeople (and women) deserve legitimate voices and deserve for them to be taken seriously because only they can really avow for themselves. And sometimes people are jerks. but maybe we can work on fixing that.
Yep.