[Blog/Commentary] [USA] A feminist critique of “cisgender”

[Stephanie Stevens]

Liberation Collective, USA


A feminist critique of “cisgender”

June 8, 2012 · by ehungerford
<http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/author/ehungerford/> · in
Gender


Consistent with common usage of the term “cisgender,” the graphic
below explains that “…if you identify with the gender you were
assigened [sic] at birth, you are cis.”

[Graphic <http://bit.ly/LE5wBy> ]

Another Trans 101: Cisgender webpage describes cis this way: “For
example, if a doctor said “it’s a boy!” when you were born, and you
identify as a man, then you could be described as cisgender.” [i]
Likewise, girl-born people who identify as women are also considered
cisgender. WBW are cis.

Framing gender as a medically determined assignment may seem like a
good start to explaining gendered oppression because it purports to
make a distinction between physical sex and gender. Feminism similarly
understands masculinity and femininity (e.g., gender) as strictly
enforced social constructs neither of which are the “normal” or
inevitable result of one’s reproductive sex organs. Feminism and trans
theory agree that coercive gender assignments are a significant source
of oppression.

On closer inspection of the concept of “cisgender,” however, feminism
and trans theory quickly diverge. Feminism does not believe that
asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social
characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a
politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender.
Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one
of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the
existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is a not progressive
social goal that will advance women’s liberation. Feminism claims
that gender is a much more complicated (and sinister) social
phenomenon than this popular cis/trans binary has any hope of
capturing.

First, “masculinity” and “femininity” are not monolithic, static
concepts that are wholly embraced or wholly discarded. Socially
assigned gender roles encompass entire lives’ worth of behaviors and
expectations, from cradle to grave. Most people’s identification with
their “gender” assignment is not a simple Y/N. One may be
aesthetically gender conforming, but at the same time, behaviorally
non-conforming. Or vice versa. Or some combination of both. Most of us
are not walking, talking stereotypes. It is unusual for a person to
both appear and behave in unmodified identification with their
assigned gender at birth. For example, a female-born person might wear
pink dresses and lots of makeup, but behave in an assertive, detached,
and highly intellectual manner. Or a female-born person might appear
very androgynous, without any feminine adornment at all, but express
herself gently, quietly, and with graceful concern for those around
her. What about a female who is aggressive and competitive in her
professional life, but submissive and emotional in her personal life?
Who decides whether an individual is sufficiently identified with to
be considered “cis”? Or sufficiently non-identified with to be
“trans”? “Cis” and “trans” do not describe discrete social classes
from which political analysis can be extrapolated.

Additionally, one’s identification with their “gender” may change over
time. Gender is not an immutable characteristic. While some people
argue that “gender identity” is a deeply felt, unchanging personal
quality;[ii] the existence and prominence of late-transitioning[iii]
trans people drags this claim into very questionable territory. One
may be gender conforming for many years, then slowly or suddenly
reject the characteristics of their assigned gender. How an individual
identifies in reference to their gender, whether it be masculinity or
femininity, is not necessarily stable, nor should it have to be.

The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences
of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;”
nor does it address people with hostile relationships to gender in
general. As a woman-born-woman who rejects femininity as females’
destiny, I surely do not identify with my assigned gender in the way
that “cis” describes. Indeed, no one holding radical
feminist/anti-essentialist views about gender could be considered
“cis” because, by definition of these views, we reject gender as a
natural social category that every person identifies with. Feminists
do not believe that everyone has a “gender identity,” or that we all
possess some kind of internal compass directing our identification
with “gender.”

Identifying with something is an internal, subjective experience.
Self-assessments of gender do not equal self-awareness, nor do they
provide insight as to how gendered oppression operates in the broader,
external social sphere.

By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not
trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as
“normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other.

See graphic, above. The cis/trans* binary does not break down any
structures of normalcy because it doesn’t describe how such systems
operate. It doesn’t explain how a person will be treated by society or
what kind(s) of power they hold relative to others. External observers
cannot reliably determine whether someone considers herself “cis” or
“trans;” they simply pass judgment by categorizing superficial
expressions of masculinity or femininity as appropriate or
inappropriate. In reality, any person who significantly defies the
gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social
treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless
of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not.
Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated
by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people
who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians
and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were
“trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of
self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist
political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and
how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of
years.

“IT’S A GIRL!” (see graphic above) means something in regard to that
baby’s life. Assuming she makes it to adulthood, that is.[iv]

For “It’s a girl!” to make sense, it must refer to a long string
of gendered words that help the community understand what to expect
out of babies called “girls.”

…

The single utterance, “It’s a girl!” does not a baby girl make.
The drama of gender is a repeat performance—it must be reenacted
continually to form a pattern. Butler writes, “the body becomes its
gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and
consolidated through time.” 273 She explains, “[t]his repetition is at
once a reenactment and reexperiencing of a set of meanings already
socially established…[v]

The pattern of gender, constituted through gender’s repeated
performance on the stage of life, demonstrates that males and
masculinity are institutionally dominant over females and femininity.
Gender is not just a fun dress up game that individuals merely
identify with in isolation from all contextual and historical meaning,
but the most powerful tool of structural oppression ever created by
humans.

Notwithstanding variations caused by intersecting factors such as
economic class, national jurisdiction, and cultural differences; the
collective female social location is consistently less than similarly
situated males in terms of: (i) material resources received as an
infant and child, (ii) respect, attention, and intellectual
encouragement received as an infant and child, (iii) risk of being
sexually exploited or victimized, (iv) role within the hetero family
unit, (v) representation and power in government, (vi) access to
education, jobs, and promotions in the workforce, (vii) property
ownership and dominion over space.[vi]

Recognizing this, feminism understands gender as a powerful– but not
inevitable– tool of organizing social relations and distributing
power, including physical resources, between the sexes. The
near-universal quality of life disparities enumerated above are
created, enforced, and replicated through the enforcement of gendered
difference and the meanings assigned to these differences. Being born
with female appearing genitals and, as a direct result, being
coercively assigned the feminine gender at birth, is clearly not a
(cis) privilege, nor is it socially equivalent to males’ masculine
gender assignment. Female-bodied people and male-bodied people are not
similarly situated persons in regard to gender based oppression.
Gender is not simply a neutral binary. More importantly, it is a
hierarchy.

Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or
not) from gendered oppression. While a man’s gender conformity with
masculinity—both aesthetic and behavioral— will substantially insulate
him from sex and gender motivated oppression and violence, a woman’s
appropriate conformity to stereotypical femininity does not. The 2011
SlutWalk campaign (hopefully) served as a grave reminder that
victim-blaming, woman-blaming rhetoric is alive and well in mainstream
social discourse. The perception that women “bring it on ourselves” or
“ask for it” when we dress in certain, undeniably feminine ways is
very wrong, but also very real. Some predators are even documented as
specifically targeting conventionally “attractive” women.

The first good-looking girl I see tonight is going to die.

Edward Kemper, serial killer.[vii]

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard
of beauty for women, feminine-appearing women (trans or not) will be
eye-catching targets for misogynistic violence because of their
perceived “beauty.” In other words, because they are
feminine-conforming.

Further, socially defined feminine behaviors such as hospitality,
care-taking, and a socially structured desire for male sexual
attention contribute to women’s vulnerability to exploitation. When a
woman’s social performance (trans or not) is consistent with feminine
subordination to male authority, rapists and other abusers may target
these women as easy victims on the assumption that they will be less
likely to resist unwanted advances.

Rapists often select potential victims using gut feeling. Subtle
attempts to invade our personal space and to force conversation with
us are tests of our boundaries used by rapists to confirm their gut
feeling. We send a strong message when we enforce our limits and
preferences for touching, revealing personal information and feelings,
and having people in the space that surrounds us.[viii]

Feminine socialization conditions women to be accommodating to others,
listen politely and attentively, and express emotional concern for
those who appear downtrodden. As a result, women still make up the
majority of workers in underpaid “caring professions” such as social
work, teaching, and nursing. This tendency towards altruism and giving
of trust allow feminine-behaving people to be taken advantage of by
those who recognize it as an opportunity to leverage their “feminine”
generosity for personal gain.

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard
of appropriate behavior for women (trans or not), we will continue to
struggle not only with setting boundaries against others’ predatory
and/or exploitative intentions, but we are also doomed to walk uphill
against the professional double standard recognized in the
groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v.
Hopkins:

An employer who objects to aggressiveness in women but whose
positions require this trait places women in an intolerable and
impermissible Catch-22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and
out of a job if they do not. [ix]

The behavioral characteristics of femininity are economically and
intellectually devalued as compared to the traits of masculinity.
Power is gendered. As a result, males continue to control almost all
of the world’s resources and power, including the positions of
institutional authority required to direct social reform. Within this
patriarchal context, women’s compliance with feminine behavioral norms
simply does not result in social empowerment. It can’t. And it won’t.
Because “gender” isn’t designed to work that way.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic
masculinity and femininity intact, isn’t going to rectify this
imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the
gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of
male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy
that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering,
individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from
all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes
female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and
women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified
people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a
significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression
caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables
male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because
fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it
has only served to make things more confusing.

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop
promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist
objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced
glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male
supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”

--

[i] http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/

[ii] Levi, Jennifer L., The Interplay Between Disability and
Sexuality: Clothes Don’t Make the Man (or Woman), but Gender Identity
Might. 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 90 (2006)
<http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=facschol>
.

[iii] http://ensuringfairness.wordpress.com/statistics/

[iv] Femicide is real. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/femaleinfanticide.html

[v] Clarke, Jessica A., Adverse Possession of Identity: Radical
Theory, Conventional Practice. Oregon Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2,
2005.

[vi] Special thanks to Virginia Brown for articulating these disparities.

[vii] http://www.examiner.com/true-crime-in-los-angeles/the-cold-blooded-killer-part-2-serial-killers

[viii] http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?a=61860&c=35911

[ix] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 U.S. 228
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0490_0228_ZO.html>
, 251).

[x] Here is an example
<http://www.transadvocate.com/on-die-cis-scum.htm> of a trans woman
listening, understanding, and incorporating feminist critique of
gender into her work. It is possible.


http://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/