Reading dialog between radical feminists and trans women on the subject of trans women in lesbian spaces a pattern emerges rather quickly of the arguments on both sides. Both sides have a very rigid and static set of language and beliefs that they shout at each other in increasing intensity until one side rolls their eyes and decides not to bother responding. If there is a function to this, it is more for passersby who happen to be reading than for the participants involved. The pattern goes like this:
The pro trans woman side: As trans women we reject the cultural definition of all trans women as automatically unattractive based solely on being trans. It negates all other aspects of our existence, it is very demeaning and unfair. We wish for you, as feminists, to question this cultural belief and examine the inherent misogyny within it. It is an extremely negative form of objectification, as a person is reduced entirely to their genitals and presentation and it is presumed that either no personality exists or such a personality is trivial and not worth any thought or consideration. It also presumes that a woman’s only value as a partner is her reproductive organs, since without them she is automatically valueless in the dating scene. We have given this concept the problematic name “cotton ceiling” because the glass ceiling refers to the unspoken lack of value for female workers reflected by a total and automatic dismissal of female workers as managers and leaders, the analogy being that the manager/leadership position is parallel to the lover position in the dating scene.
The radical feminist side: Trans women are men, and it is unfeminist for women to solve men’s problems is the central theme. From this, we as radical feminists conclude that trans women don’t belong in lesbian spaces, period. It is not our job to accommodate men, and we are appalled at the entitlement displayed by trans women who seek to gain entry in our personal space. This entitlement is a reflection of the patriarchal value that all space is men’s space and women’s role is to serve men. The term cotton ceiling is particularly offensive because the glass ceiling needs to be broken through, and the cotton ceiling is in my panties, and it’s difficult to imagine a better visual for rape than that. It is our right as women to define our sexual identities and have sexual autonomy, and the cotton ceiling concept takes that away from us.
There are two fundamental differences between these views, and they are less that the views are diametrically opposed and more that they stem from two points in which trans women’s and radical feminist view points disagree, and then a solid train of logic takes them on two diverging paths. The first key point is whether or not trans women are men or women, and the second key point is what exactly defines the cotton ceiling.
The first point is the more basic point, and in this trans women have the more consistent viewpoint. Fundamentalism is attractive because it makes everything simple. If everything is either male or female, and these categories are completely static through the course of one’s entire life, then life seems to naturally make sense in a very clean and tidy way. It’s a powerful appeal. But it’s also too good to be true. After all it used to be the prevailing fundamentalist belief that all women were genetically hard wired to be heterosexual, but lesbians refused to accept this definition imposed on them by sticking to their identity, asserting who they are at all times, creating spaces for themselves and ultimately finding a place in greater society. Trans women are very much doing the same thing, except instead of challenging the fundamentalism of sexuality, they’re challenging the fundamentalism of sex and gender itself. Radical feminists, the once revolutionary voice of individualism and autonomy now have the shoe on the other foot, and are telling trans women that their identities aren’t real because they don’t fit with the radical feminist underlying fundamentalism about sex and gender. This is what trans women mean when they say radical feminism isn’t radical and is outdated. This is what radical feminism has in common with the patriarchy.
Trans women are women. They have decided that their identities as women are more important than male privilege. They’ve decided their identities as women are more important to them than the privileges they enjoy from having their physical sex match their outward appearance. Many also have chosen their identities over having friends and families. Many have chosen their over money, or even being employed. Almost all have chosen their identities over their physical safety. Doesn’t it follow that their identities are extremely important to them? Isn’t it worth at least some consideration for why someone who is in all other respects functional and logical would do such a thing? Even if you have no interest in the answer, at least accept that they have every bit the right to self identify and have that identity accepted as lesbians have to identify as lesbians. That’s the consistent thing to do.
The cotton ceiling is more nuanced and understandable point of contention. The problem here is that both sides are thinking of two separate concepts, mostly due to the unfortunate name. I sympathize with the radical feminist stance a little bit on this one: the words “cotton ceiling” conjure up an image of rape. Period. There’s no way around it. It’s a horrible, triggering soundbyte and everyone should stop using it, because it’s a distraction from the real issue at best, and a horrible trigger at worst. If you are reading this and are triggered right now, I apologize, and please take a moment to come to whatever peace you can, and if you have it within you, please bookmark this spot and read on when you feel ready: I promise the real concept isn’t as horrible.
The real concept being discussed is that as a culture, not just in lesbian culture but in all American culture, trans women are generally considered somewhere in the area of de-sexed/pathetic to joke to freaky abomination. This perception comes from a couple places, the most dominant one being media and television, and a book could be written on all the ways this influences destructive behavior. Trans women’s point here, is that this perception influences how lesbian communities treat them. Trans women are often unanimously excluded from parties, and when they are included physically it’s expected that they won’t participate. It’s not as simple as no woman wants to play with them either—lesbians actively shame each other out of playing with trans women. This is what oppression looks like, and trans women and their admirers are well justified to be angry about it. Nobody’s taking away anyone’s right to sleep with cis women and only cis women. What trans women are objecting to is both the policing, and the thoughtless acceptance of the ugly trans woman trope. That’s all.
The rift between these communities is intense, even without touching on the history of writing, policies and practice over the years. It’s not a lost cause though. It’s worth pointing out that neither of the two points of divergence are inherently threatening to feminism. Allowing trans women to identify themselves as women doesn’t negate anything women do, nor does it hold in place anything about the patriarchy. If anything the patriarchy is terrified of allowing trans women to identify as women, because in doing so they reject the idea that masculinity and maleness is superior, for if one was granted those things, why would they throw them away? Feminism also loses nothing from critically analyzing how the ugly trans woman cultural trope plays out in our spaces, how it is based on objectification and denial of agency. It should be an excellent dialog for critical thinking, even.
If we can rise above knee-jerk reactions to all these things, and be more sensitive about our language on both sides, I think real healing can happen.
