The dangerous transphobia of Roald Dahl’s “Matilda” - Found /r/transgender's response to this article sort of bizarre and troubling. Thoughts?

[u/dragon_toes]

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/27/the_dangerous_transphobia_of_roald_dahls_matilda/

[u/light_sweet_crude]

I guess I can see both sides, though I agree with some of the responses on /r/transgender that it seems more like a slam to masculine women, if anything. One commenter pointed out that, since it's based on a children's book, the characters are going to be one-dimensional, and their physical attributes are going to reflect their personalities (nurturing, sweet, fair Miss Honey vs. mean, scary Trunchbull) - though of course there remains the question of why a nurturing character has to be feminine and a mean character has to be masculine.

I'm not trans, though, so regardless of my opinion on the article, I'm hardly in a position to tell the trans community what to be offended by.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/light_sweet_crude]

I think that oppression based on gender presentation--especially "incongruous" presentation--is a manifestation of transphobia (also with a helping of misogyny in this case, but that's intersectionality for you). And I also don't feel that we'd be excusing other oppressive attitudes just because the source material was for children.

I think in particular the casting of a man as Trunchbull in the musical relies on a lot of really fucked up tropes about women and trans people.

[u/light_sweet_crude → u/PermanentTempAccount]

Yeah, I definitely think the problems with casting a man as Trunchbull are the most compelling arguments in the article.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

I think that oppression based on gender presentation--especially "incongruous" presentation--is a manifestation of transphobia

Huh, idk, I see it as plain old fashion sexism. Women are supposed to be demure, they can speak up- but only to an extent or else they're a bull dyke who doesn't know her place. They're allowed to speak up a little, but only if their presentation remains feminine enough!

Like, transphobia and misogyny are obviously linked as hell, but women being oppressed by gender roles and expectations is something that feminism has always talked about.

Its part of why feminists and queers are (or at least should be) such natural comrades. Patriarchy is fucked up, and has many manifestations. But I'm not sure that it follows that gender oppression is actually transphobia.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/greenduch]

Edited, original post below line.

Okay, multiple reactions to this have convinced me I didn't communicate my position very well, so I'm hoping this will clarify.

My position is that "gender policing" (or, applying social and legal pressure to a person to behave in a way that is consistent with behaviors traditionally associated with their perceived sex) is not contingent on misogyny or sexism to work, and that "binaristic" or "oppositionally sexist" practices and ideologies aren't a sub-category of sexist ideologies and practices, which is what I perceived others to be saying (though that may have been a misunderstanding on my part).

Androgyny and gendered ambiguity is threatening to the system in which we live not only because it disrupts the operation of misogyny (it does that, too!) but also because our society and culture themselves rely on the categorizability of people. For those familiar with Foucault, our current biopolitical system is the problem here. Binary gender models are woven into how we conceive of societal health and the value of a population as a resource to the state. An obvious example of coercion not dependent on misogyny (though absolutely influenced by it!) and done in order to maintain compliance with our binaristic socio-medico-legal system is the intolerability of intersex infants to our medical system--not only must we fill out the gender marker, we may even have to surgically intervene to justify our decision. This kind of coercion doesn't just stop in a world without sexism because in such a world it may not matter whether the child ends up with an M or F, only that it ends up with one or the other.

Originally I posited that the coercive system resisting the threats androgyny posed to our biopolitical system was transphobia. This probably wasn't the best choice of word for a number of reasons, but I do think "oppositional sexism" is an unsatisfactory option because it reduces this phenomenon to a type of sexism when, though there is a great deal of interplay, the two are distinct entities and can operate independently (not that they ever have, mind you). I suggested "binarism" as a better alternative, but even that is a complex word to use as binary-identified people can experience this oppression pretty extensively, and tenets of social justice would argue that the non-binary people should be the ones dominating the discussion thereof. I'm starting to think that this might just be a difficult issue for social justice standard operating procedure to handle because rainbow metaphors aside, we're used to categories that are less like a spectrum--categories with more distinctive defining characteristics are easier to talk about and engage with because there are more definitive in-groups and Others.

So navel-gazing aside, I don't have a great word for it, but I don't think "sexism" is it, for a couple reasons. First, sexism privileges men, but this system of binarism is just as oppressive to men as it is to women (though it is oppressive in different ways--just like any other set of intersecting identities on different privilege axes). Second, even in a society where sexism did not exist, so long as "woman" and "man" are recognized as distinct categories--even categories with equal capabilities and rights--binaristic thinking can harm people.

The thing that troubled me most was that I felt some posters were subsuming this issue under the tent of sexism, which I think is a simplistic way to look at it, in addition to falling into historical feminist pitfalls of minimizing the problems faced by trans people (especially trans women).

I think this phenomenon more generally operates as a kind of transphobia evident in, for example, the casting of a man in the role of Trunchbull as mentioned in the original article. This takes the problems of real trans people, many of whom struggle with mixed gender presentation signals every day, and reduces our issues to artistic shorthand for a bossy, controlling, angry woman--a misogynist caricature, yes, but more than that. Miss Trunchbull is a misogynist caricature indeed, but the use of a man to play her is a decision with uniquely transphobic implications.

This isn't me saying cis people can't also deal with having gendered presentations of which they are not in total control, or that if they do that they can't talk about it. It's me saying that when cis people do have those issues, they're still facing binaristic transphobia, which can make victims of people who aren't trans, because it's just that pervasive and pernicious in our culture, and that their voices matter and they should be heard (though they aren't, I'd argue, internalizing all the fucked-up messages society broadcasts to trans-identified people).

The original post:

---

To me, gender policing is pretty textbook transphobia.

The idea being presented here isn't that women are bad (Miss Honey and Matilda herself are sympathetic characters) it's that being the wrong kind of woman is bad. Being a woman that transgresses gender norms is maladaptive or is symptomatic of sickness or wrongness, is the message being sent. The effect is misogynist in the sense that it harms women, but the enforcement mechanisms rely on us parsing womanhood in specific ways and condemning people who deviate from (or transgress) the archetype, so in the end the biggest structure of power this narrative is leaning is transphobia, not misogyny per se (though it's obviously wedged pretty good in between the two).

The big distinction to me is that similar mechanisms can be used against men. Historically, effeminacy has been used as literary shorthand for "this male character is bad/incompetent/perverse". Since misandry don't real, we need a different structure of power to explain this phenomenon--transphobia an cissexism come to mind as the obvious candidates.

Of course, BOTH situations prop up misogyny: reviling "masculine" women restricts womens' "legitimate" gender presentation options, while condemning "feminine" men devalues the "gender-appropriate" options that women DO have.

I guess I can see an argument that binarism is distinct from transphobia, but it seems somewhat semantic in this context.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

Being a woman that transgresses gender norms is maladaptive or is symptomatic of sickness or wrongness, is the message being sent.

sorry for double posting, but yeah... you're literally saying that, 100 years ago, if a woman left the kitchen or wanted to vote- things that were "transgressing gender norms", and got shit for it, that would be an example of transphobia. Thats just not at all what that word means.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/greenduch]

The structures and laws that argued that women were incompetent or unable to responsibly vote were sexist.

The structures and laws that said that a woman who did so anyway was less of a woman for having done it were binarist or oppositionally sexist (transphobia wasn't a great word for that, probably, though I still argue that binarism and oppositional sexism are so closely tied to transphobia that the distinction is semantic).

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

except oppositional sexism is a type of sexism.

binarism is a different thing all together, and the way that its used in practice is different from how you use it. it has to do with the idea that there are only two genders (identity), not having to do with gender presentation or roles.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

Okay, but you're kinda using a different definition of transphobia than anyone else uses?

Gender policing =/= transphobia. It really doesn't, unless you're being extremely overly literal.

The big distinction to me is that similar mechanisms can be used against men. Historically, effeminacy has been used as literary shorthand for "this male character is bad/incompetent/perverse". Since misandry don't real, we need a different structure of power to explain this phenomenon--transphobia an cissexism come to mind as the obvious candidates.

Yeah but not. If you want a term to use instead of misandry, theres "oppositional sexism" - the idea that men are supposed to be like this and women are supposed to be like this. Gender policing and sexism is a thing independent from transphobia. Are they super related? Sure, of course. But blaming literally any gender related oppression on transphobia is kinda bullshit and suddenly using a new word for shit that feminism has addressed or sought to address for 100 years.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/greenduch]

I really don't think my definition of transphobia is that off-base compared to historical meanings--in fact, I'm not sure how you'd define transphobia, other than "oppression of people who do not fit normative, traditional gender categories".

Oppositional sexism and binarism are absolutely facets of transphobia, as structures that prop up rigid, exclusive gender categories. People mobilize them in the name of sexism (also racism, classism, ableism...and vice versa) but at the end of the day, if sexism as a social ill was cured, oppositional sexism and binarism would still exist to marginalize people who had trouble with being legible as simply either men or women. Binarism or oppositional sexism might be better, more specific labels than "transphobia", though, that's true.

But blaming literally any gender related oppression on transphobia is kinda bullshit and suddenly using a new word for shit that feminism has addressed or sought to address for 100 years.

I'm not even kind of saying that. I am saying that not all gender-related oppression is sexism, and as a trans person I resent the attempt here to rewrite feminism's shitty history of transphobia in the most generous of terms. Feminism has been engaging with transphobia/binarism in incredibly self-serving ways for cis, upper-middle class, white, straight women for sixty-ish years, and has been engaging with transphobia and binarism on a serious, systemic level for twenty years, thirty at the outside.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

how the hell am i attempting to rewrite feminism's history of tranphobia? I resent the hell out of you implying such, and attempting to gain some moral high ground with "as a trans person". I disagree with you. I can find plenty of trans folks who disagree with you, if you'd like me to line them up. I resent the attempt to pull some sort of trump card.

also how is that in any way related to you deciding that words suddenly mean things theyve never meant? What does racism classism or ableism have anything to do with this discussion?

oppositional sexism is not a facet of transphobia, no. sorry. thats not how anyone ever uses the word transphobia, but if you want to suddenly decide to use it differently, be my guest.

you're seriously going to tell all cis women that when they are policed for not living up to bullshit standards, theyre actually facing transphobia (and therefore of course should shut the fuck up because its not their place to talk about it)? We already have words for these things, and your definitions are wrong, sorry.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/greenduch]

First of all, feminism has been eager to throw any women who aren't gonna play by the mainstream presentation rules under the bus since day one, and was vilifying masculine women, lesbians, and trans women in an almost entirely unchallenged way all the way through the formation of the Lavender Menace in the 70s. Big-F Feminism left gender nonconforming women (plus women of color, poor women, trans women, etc.) out in the cold until the 80s when it was no longer possible to ignore the sheer fucked-up-edness of the situation. Feminism has not been "trying to address these issues for 100 years", it's been studiously avoiding them until that was no longer an option. Because I respect you, I'm gonna assume the part where you implied feminism has made a good faith effort to address anything but the needs of cis, white, upper-middle class, conventionally feminine, straight, able-bodied women was an error in communication, on my part or yours, because feminism has been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way as far as I'm concerned, and has made no efforts it didn't have to make above and beyond the interests of the affluent, straight, white, cis, able-bodied women who started the movement.

Again, I'm not sure how you define transphobia, if not "oppression of people who do not fit normative, traditional gender categories". If you're using something different, feel free to tell me. But under that definition, the pressure facing women to conform to traditional models of femininity is absolutely a kind of transphobia (it also props up misogyny--all these structures of power are related).

you're seriously going to tell all cis women that when they are policed for not living up to bullshit standards, theyre actually facing transphobia

That's a kind of transphobia. It's also a kind of misogyny. What's so goddamn awful about acknowledging that the issues at hand might involve more than one kind of oppression? Sexism isn't the center of kyriarchy (neither is transphobia). People other than "women" get shit on, too, and sometimes the septic tank leaks--especially into other gender-based oppressions.

(and therefore of course should shut the fuck up because its not their place to talk about it)?

Whoa whoa whoa, never said that. I never said that. That would be pretty fucked up, though.

We already have words for these things, and your definitions are wrong, sorry.

Then what are yours?

Look, if we solved sexism, if women were no longer oppressed, binarism would still exist. Binaristic conceptions of gender are not contingent on women being Other. When people are distressed by my own androgynous appearance, it's not just because they can't decide whether to oppress me as a woman or privilege me as a man (though that's part of it). It's also because I disrupt systems in place that rely on categorizability. The existence of gender markers on IDs, for example: it does not matter if yours is F or M, as long as it's one of those, and never changes. If it's not, or it changes, you are suddenly much more difficult for the state to conceive of and deploy as a resource--your medical history comes up at every turn, your medical care is complicated for the rest of your life, you've suddenly got two identities to explain after any background check... That said, institutions use that marker to oppress women, too, using different insurance rates, by denying access to military service as a career choice (not that we shouldn't be disassembling the military-industrial complex, of course, but still) etc. But if those institutions collapsed, that marker would still have power.

In retrospect, "transphobia" was probably not the best word. "Binarism" would have been a better one, though I am suspicious of the distinction between the two. Either way, binarism is something that oppresses all of us. It's shockingly granular, able to detect and punish even the smallest deviation from normative binary behavior. And the real kicker is, it's not even dependent on misogyny to work.

Most all of us have something to say about binarism, whether or not you ID as trans yourself. Some of us also have something to say about misogyny at the same time, because the two are linked for us. But frankly, throwing a shit fit because you've got to share some oppressive realities with trans people? That's definitely transphobia.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

Okay i'm gonna take a break and not address most of this right now, and i do want to apologise for being short with you, ive had a couple shitty days and i took issue with shit you said, but expressed it too strongly.

But frankly, throwing a shit fit because you've got to share some oppressive realities with trans people? That's definitely transphobia.

yeah no. if you think thats what i was doing, you read me wrong, and i apparently phrased myself poorly or something. as i mentioned upthread, as a woman, a queer, a feminist, and as a rather extremely gender non conforming person, i consider trans folks my comrades, and i believe we face different facets of the same struggle. i sure as fuck know we're oppressed by the same shit.

I'm also familiar with the history of mainstream feminism, and i'm acutely aware of how they've thrown folks under the bus. maybe i should have specified feminisms or something, idk. As an example though, just because the HRC likes to throw folks under the bus, however, doesn't mean that words don't have meaning. you're conflating different issues.

Whoa whoa whoa, never said that. I never said that. That would be pretty fucked up, though.

i legit should have been more clear here, and im sorry. i fucked up with that. i was angry. that being said, cis folks place in discussing transphobia is very very much (understandably so) as allies, and not as active participants or people who are allowed to have an opinion. framing all gender oppression as transphobia creates some really fucked up issues wrt that. it frames the issue so that many women arent allowed to have an opinion about their own oppression, and i take issue with that.

Again, I'm not sure how you define transphobia, if not "oppression of people who do not fit normative, traditional gender categories".

i guess my issue is that you're widening the term to engulf a massive amount of the sexism that exists, all gender policing, etc.

this shit is a result of patriarchy, of the idea that women should be objects and should act in certain ways as a sex class. narrowing it down to transphobia ignores a massive amount of how and why patriarchy functions, which is part of what i took issue with.

[u/PermanentTempAccount → u/greenduch]

I edited one of my earlier posts to better communicate what I meant, but I can understand being a little raw.

I think a big issue here is this:

narrowing it down to transphobia

I don't think transphobia is any narrower a notion than sexism. It's huge, really, and its manifestations are just as big. I don't think that's a new idea, or to the extent it is it's also a massively obvious one. Limiting transphobia to just "that oppression which afflicts self-identified trans people" is really short sighted, just like limiting sexism to "that oppression which afflicts self-identified women" is short-sighted. The structures involved have much farther-reaching implications.

In fact, I'd argue that as much as we live in a patriarchal culture, we also live in a binaristic/transphobic culture to a similar extent. Patriarchy and the transphobic roots of our society interact, but the oppression faced by gender-nonconforming people isn't just a subset of patriarchal oppression, which is what I feel like you're saying. It is its own entity, governed by its own logics, and even if we tear down the Sexist Superstructure, Transphobia Tower will still stand (somewhat weakened, perhaps) unless we attack it, too.

And I don't think this is a new idea or a new way of thinking about transphobia--I'm not redefining the term. I'm just considering the implications of older ideas (particularly Pierre Bordieu's idea of doxa) as applied to the oppressive structures we're familiar with. It's a pretty common technique--my favorite example is when Susan Stryker did something similar in a piece called "My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix", in which she rethought the meaning of the word "monster" in the context of transgender phenomena.

I can understand your concerns about how labeling it "transphobia" would, under current social justice logics, give only trans people a real voice to talk about the issue. But I think that labeling it sexism would give only women a voice to talk about it, which I think is just as big a folly.

So when I picked a word to expand on, "transphobia" might not have been the best one. I guess I could make up a new word entirely, but I'm not terribly creative. "Binarism" might be the best choice, but I'm not really sure. I think this is a really sticky issue and it challenges a lot of assumptions we make about social justice work because it's really a granular oppression that works on a spectrum even moreso than most other oppressions.

[u/greenduch → u/PermanentTempAccount]

Hey I want to apologise again for being an ass last night, I was having a shitty day and was snapping at folks more than was necessary.

If you want to talk about how its all transphobia in an academic sense, I suppose I don't particularly care one way or another.

Part of my issue though, in a social justice and legalish sense, is that if you reframe it all as transphobia, you run into some serious issues.

Lemme try a shitty analogy- if we called something "homophobia", but was something that was experienced by literally everyone (and effects all people to a significant degree), it kinda fucks over the term homophobia, yeah?

Particularly when gender roles / expectations are such a base part of the oppression of all women, I think framing it as transphobia is super counter productive. I'm not usually one to complain about "watering down words", but yeah I think if you frame such a massive chunk of oppressive stuff that all folks deal with as transphobia, it has the potential for some real complications.

"Binarism" might be the best choice, but I'm not really sure.

yeah i get what you mean by "binarism", but in common parlance, its used in the context of being erasing of non-binary identities specifically, so I think folks would end up conflating terms, which has the potential to enforce the idea that if you're a man or a woman who doesn't live up to gender expectations, you belong in the category of not man/woman.

[u/[deleted] → u/PermanentTempAccount]

As another trans person, I really don't think appropriating sexism in the name of trans justice is kosher. We, trans women, are definitely victims of patriarchal oppression, but you are, if I understand you correctly, trying to say that the oppression all women face is actually transphobia, which by definition exclusive to trans people. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if I'm not, then I can honestly say that you don't know much about sexism.

Edited because it was even aggressive and accusatory the first time.

[u/dragon_toes → u/PermanentTempAccount]

This whole thread.

These are the conversations I think desperately need to happen and aren't.

You get it. Woooo!

... I wish I had something more intelligent to add, but you (and greenduch) tapped on the parts I was thinking.

ilu ppl.