First of all, we don't think there is biological sex | Trans-Children's Center Response

Author/hc, Executive Director of the Trans-Children Center

Starter / Women in New Media

Strictly speaking, "woman" cannot be said to exist.

— Julia Kristeva, feminist and founder of the Beauvoir Prize

The gender category is a political category that creates heterosexual societies.

—Lesbian feminist and author Monique Wittig

This construct called "gender" is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it has always been gender, and it turns out that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no difference at all.

—Queer, third-wave feminist Judith Butler

Yesterday, I saw Liu Manxin 's "Whether transgender women are "women", what can decide? " (hereinafter referred to as "Cross") , the article directly establishes feminism and transgender as irreconcilable opposites with too many undiscussed presuppositions. As a feminist transgender Lara, I can't agree with this at all.

The article "Trans" first presupposes how feminists view biological sex and social gender (maybe some feminists have the same views as described in this article, but they can never represent feminism's consistent views as described), presupposed How transgender groups view gender and social gender (in fact, what they quote is basically how transgender groups view gender as often described in their discourse, while domestic or international nonprofit organizations led by transgender groups do not view it this way) , then presupposes the irreconcilable opposition of feminism and trans;

On the other hand, it also presupposes the absolute separation of biological sex and social gender (or gender roles) and presupposes that this is an accepted fact (the article "Trans" says "In the discussion of gender, we generally believe that biological sex is a different attribute than gender roles”), ignoring the attacks on the term biological sex in third-wave feminism and the transgender movement. In fact the term "assigned gender" (assigned gender: or "assigned gender", referring to a person's social/hospital-assigned gender marker at birth) has been coined by the transgender movement decades ago as an alternative The backward concept of "biological gender", third-wave feminism also attacked "biological gender" as early as the last century, in fact, it is also a social gender in essence.

The definition of transgender by the transgender movement does not include "confusion about one's biological sex at birth" as described in the Transgender article, nor does it describe transgender people as "not identifying with their biological sex." Both expressions imply the existence and orthodoxy of biological sex, the former even describes trans people as pathological and ignorant (a typical weakening phenomenon in patriarchal arrogance discourses, such as women in patriarchal discourses that often describe women as hysterical morbid or ignorant image). And "confusion" and "disapproval" are not necessary for transgender people. Acknowledging the gender identity of transgender people is not based on the inner pain of transgender people, but is based on the original genderlessness of physiology. Not required for transgender people;

In fact, both international and domestic, the transgender movement is advocating the use of "sex assigned as birth" and "gender identity" to replace "biological gender" and "psychological gender," respectively. The definition of "transgender" by nonprofit organizations led by the transgender community almost never uses the word "biological gender", but uses "assigned gender" and "gender identity" to illustrate: transgender, used to describe a A person's gender identity is not the same as the gender marker assigned at birth (ie, assigned gender). Because the transgender movement believes that there are only sexual characteristics and not gender in physiology, gender is a cultural category, not a biological category, and the so-called biological gender is only a gender identifier assigned by the outside world based on sexual characteristics in order to maintain a certain order (reproductive, heterosexual). . Because such a gender identity is assigned by the outside world and not with the consent of the person, I may or may not agree with it, or I have no thought of agreeing or not at all. Just as a person may approve, disapprove, or have no thought of recognizing or disapproving of the names assigned by their parents, disapproval does not mean that there is a problem with the person, but rather the problem with the assignment without the person's consent.

The "Trans" article is questionable about the trans movement's perceptions of sex and gender. In fact, the definition of transgender by the transgender movement does not include the concepts of biological sex and gender at all, and gender and gender identity are not completely equivalent.

Transgender women are not as "transgender women's transformation is that she discovers that she wants to be a woman in her heart" as the article "Transgender" said. In the hearts of transgender women, they are more aware that the word "female" is a gender identity that truly describes themselves . Instead of discovering an inner desire to be a woman. Realizing that one's gender identity is not the same as wanting to be a gender, the latter statement is in fact still a biased description of cisgender people based on cisgender as orthodox and transgender as "variant". For example, sometimes trans women say that they want to be women, a more accurate expression of this statement because of the prevailing belief in their society that a person must have a vagina and breasts to be recognized as a woman It should be "hope for public or legal recognition of gender-affirming surgery to change sexual characteristics"; for transgender women who say this, it is at this time that they have realized that the word "female" really describes their gender identity, hoping Gain public or legal recognition through surgery , rather than relying on surgery to change her gender identity to female .

In my opinion, when trans people declare their gender identity, that sense of identity is certainly real. But this is not the same as thinking that gender is a natural fact . It is a logo that transgender people choose to describe themselves under the current social background, historical background, personal knowledge and cognition. For example, it is a very real feeling that I recognize that I am a feminist, and I have a very close connection with my life, but it does not mean that feminism is a natural fact or a natural attribute. On the contrary, this feeling of genuine identification does nothing to prevent me from simultaneously seeing feminism as an opinion and an identity rather than a natural attribute. Therefore, in my opinion, the article "Trans" says that "if the transformation of a transgender woman lies in the fact that she discovers that she wants to be a woman in her heart, the gender identity of this 'female' is naturally an attribute of reality" is a reasoning that neither condition nor conclusion can be established. .

In addition, the article "Trans" often confuses gender identity with social gender and gender roles . Taking myself as an example, my gender identity is female, but it does not mean that I will necessarily "transform" to the mainstream female social gender. After all, I am a transgender lesbian P who does not meet the gender requirements of mainstream women - tattoos on the face, falls in love with girls, does not like to wear skirts, and likes T-dressing. The term "po" in Chinese) - properly break down various social genders. In fact, there is no uniform image among trans women that women should have, and the images of trans women are also very diverse. Like cisgender women, everyone has their own understanding of the female image, and does not think that gender identity is female and must cater to the mainstream female social gender. Transgender women, like cisgender women, have breakthroughs or conformity to gender, and they don't think it's necessary to be a woman . The article "Trans" argues that acknowledging the gender identity of transgender people will lead to the recognition that "women should conform to social gender norms" is not in line with community facts.

On the other hand, when we look at feminism, unlike the article "Trans," which is irreconcilable, the development of feminism and the transgender movement are not irreconcilable or even reach the same goal. The third wave of feminism represented by Judith Butler The subject of feminism, the word woman itself, and the nature of sex are revisited. As quoted earlier in the article, third-wave feminism deconstructed the gender of “female” itself, questioning the so-called common experience of women, believing that biological gender does not exist, biological gender is also a social construction, and its essence is also social gender. From this, it can be seen that feminism and transgender are not only opposed to each other, but have the same goal.

Feminism has discussed whether there is a "female common experience", including physical experience, life experience and so on. In fact, hormone levels, hormone types, chromosome types, sexual orientation, menstrual experience, pregnancy experience, pregnancy ability, breast development, whether breasts exist or even vaginas (stone girl phenomenon), etc., everyone subconsciously thinks that in cisgender There should be a common common experience among women, but in fact, they cannot be unified among the groups of women under the traditionally recognized classification of women . In other words, for women, pregnancy ability, menstruation, breast development, vagina, etc. may not be necessary factors.

Third-wave feminism’s discussion of the absence of gender in biology can be found in the books of Butler et al. It will not be repeated here, and if it is introduced in detail, it will not be covered in an article. But still to quote Butler briefly in a passage in Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity: "We can refer to a 'specific' biological sex or a 'specific' social gender without First, is sex and/or gender given by what means and how? What exactly is 'sex'? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal? What should feminist critics do? Evaluate the scientific discourse that seeks to establish these 'facts' for us?"

To give a simple example, we usually think that chromosomes determine gender, but human society formed the concept of gender long before the discovery of chromosomes. In fact, after human beings first formed a gender culture that divides people according to genitals (the political purpose behind this division is worth considering, especially its connection with reproductive management), the chromosome matching corresponding to vaginal sexual characteristics is divided into female sex chromosome matching , the chromosome matching corresponding to the sex characteristics of the penis is divided into male sex chromosome matching, and then this classification method is used to judge the gender according to the individual chromosome matching in application. This division seems to be based on scientific facts, but the source is a gender-cultural construction that has been ingrained in the mind. The so-called chromosomal sex is actually a social gender, not the chromosomes determine the sex, but the sex determines how the chromosomes will be divided.

Regarding the sports competition part of the article "Cross", I would like to thank my friends for recommending Liu Lucen's "Gender, Sex or Femininity? The article "What Does the Gender Test in Competitive Sports Test" saves me the energy of the discussion. The article has a detailed explanation, so I won't repeat it here, just a brief summary of the content of the article:

• The first case of gender detection in the Olympic Games occurred because a female sprinter performed "too" and won the championship. People questioned her as a man disguised as a woman, so she became the first to experience and pass the gender test by visual method. ;
• The gender questioning incidents that have occurred since then are often aimed at women with outstanding performance and masculine appearance, but gender monitoring is not required in male sports fields, and the subtext is "women can't be so powerful";
• There are also so-called "excessive" testosterone in female athletes. The testosterone level of cisgender women is not necessarily the same, and there are also high testosterone. In fact, it is different from the "generally agreed by the scientific community" testosterone in the article "Cross". On the effect on physical fitness, bioethics scholars criticized: "The relationship between testosterone and strength or speed is not a simple linear, not an increase of x nmol/L of testosterone corresponds to an increase in speed x or an increase in strength x. This relationship is not even a The curve... There is still a lot of unknown about how testosterone affects athletic performance, but one thing is clear: you can't use testosterone to predict who will perform better on which physical skills. You can't infer that people with more testosterone perform better ” (see the original note for the source);
• Gender tests may not be identifying sex, but measuring female sexual characteristics, considering how masculine female athletes are, especially how much outstanding female athletes are male (from appearance, hormones, chromosomes, etc.) , Gender testing is not so much about protecting women as it is about screening "qualified" women who are weaker than men and in line with men's aesthetics for women, and constantly rejecting women with outstanding performance and diverse appearances, which is a restriction and disguised humiliation of women. .

The problem in the "Cross" article may be that the author's vision of gender studies is too narrow, and the response to writing the article is that it cannot stand being represented, pathologicalized, and inexplicably opposed. At the same time, I hope that through this opportunity, it will illustrate the importance of women and the LGBT+ community having knowledge and methods of gender studies. The knowledge and methods of gender studies can empower us to say who we are, to retort "gender is not what you say it is", and "we don't have to be."

This article is an original manuscript by new media women, please do not reprint without authorization