I have increasingly mixed feelings about this book. Shon Faye, I believe, wrote this in nothing but good faith and a desire to structure a well-thought out argument regarding trans rights. There were many things that I agreed with--the fact that trans people deserve housing, access to food and transportation, job security, access to jobs with higher wages, health care and mental health care. These are things everybody deserves, and no human being should be without these. Trans people also deserve a like-minded community. But...
And oh, is it a big but.
But, there are multiple spots where Faye's argument doesn't stand on its own two feet. I appreciate nonetheless Faye's willingness to discuss these topics, and overall, I think it's a fascinating read. The reason this book ultimately gets 2 stars from me, an "It's okay" rating, is simply because the basis of Faye's argument, the final chapter, does not follow logically. We'll get to the final chapter later. And in all transparency, the below quotes were the ones that made me go, "Huh??" So. That being said, let's dive in.
Faye states near the beginning that, "Such debates [gender neutral pronouns, dysphoric children, toilets, women's sports] are time-consuming, exhausting distractions from what we should really be focusing on: the material ways in which we are oppressed." I don't disagree with Faye. Topics such as pronouns and whether gender=sex do prevent the larger, more important conversation of ensuring housing security and job security, to name a few. However, radical feminists would argue exactly the same thing, right down to the final sentiment: topics such as pronouns, what-about-the-children, and sports expend energy into distracting us from how we are oppressed--our sex. We instead must discuss what is a woman and are met frequently with purposefully obtuse responses. If we cannot define what a woman is, we cannot discuss the material--biologically physical--ways in which we're oppressed.
Later, Faye pulls an extremely smart move and uses a Dworkin quote about how we only use male/female and man/woman because we don't have words for what exists out there in our bodies and society. However, we have the word trans woman, for example, to denote a male person who has transitioned (or is in the process of transitioning) to be perceived as a woman. So, in arguing that trans women are women, and trans women are female, Faye's use of Dworkin's quote no longer holds up. We are now just using the same terminology instead of creating terminology to better identify the ways gender and sex intersect.
Faye also makes an incredible point regarding medical transphobia--or at the very least, misguidance. To paraphrase, cis society forced trans people into a specific box both medically and socially. This resulted in mockery towards trans people when they tried to fit into this box. Perhaps, Faye argues, if they had not been forced into these boxes in the first place, the resulting mockery would not have happened. Faye also argues that trans people challenge the gender/sex binary and shakes it to its core. But trans people--not all, but a large portion--rely upon passing through means of surgery and beauty rituals. Facial feminization surgery. Breast implants. Phalloplasty. Make-up. Hair dye. Wigs. Hyperfeminine clothes. This is not Faye arguing here, but the community at large when I say that the trans women community says that these hyperfeminine signals are required in order to secure their place in womanhood, which is completely opposed to the radical feminist argument that none of these things are necessary for a woman to be a woman. In fact, these surgeries and rituals only serve to financially and physically impede us. Therefore, trans women in performing these rituals are not expanding the boxes. In fact, they seem quite content to fit into the very mold from which women are trying to break free.
Later, Faye states, "In South Africa, ... trans men have -- like butch lesbians -- been subjected to so-called 'corrective' rape: a use of rape as punishment for gender deviance intended to force them 'back' into being (heterosexual) women." Here, then, it sounds like Faye is stating that rape is used as a punishment largely towards female people. That trans men, butch lesbians, and even cis women all have something in common that is used as punishment as means of correction.
This is interesting considering Faye argues, "[Whiteness and unexamined colonialism of mainstream UK feminism] reinforce the central belief of most anti-trans feminism: that women are a global 'sex class' of everyone who shares female biology (including trans men and non-binary people born with vaginas and uteri), who are all raised as girls in a similar way (usually termed 'female socialization') and then have a particular experience in common that no cis man and no trans woman could ever access, having been born into the other, dominant, 'sex class'." So, it sounds like men of color--regardless of whiteness and colonialism, which is a vaguely racist claim that posits people of color didn't know what sex was nor how they culturally profited or suffered from it--know who to correctively rape, just as how white men knew who to correctively rape in predominantly white countries. It's almost like there is a global sex class, but Faye clearly does not wish to admit this.
This is also ignoring the fact that Faye clearly doesn't understand what socialization is. 50% of all cultures has the possibility of bearing children, and the way that their role in their culture/society/country depends upon their biology. Whether or not they do bear children is an entirely other thing--I am simply stating here that women (ie female people), or however they are referred to in other cultures, uphold certain roles. This may be in the form of gatherer, warrior, ruler, helper, or whatever the culture may ask of women in that society. But they would not ask this of men, because they have a different role.
And still regarding trans men, Faye assures us that trans women do not speak over trans men: "To use trans women's commodification and objectification in the media ... to suggest that trans women speak over, control or 'dominate' trans men is misogyny." Certainly, the commodification and objectification is stereotyping and terrible, but...where are the trans men agreeing with you? Right about now, a quotation would be helpful.
Additionally, Faye offers us this fantastic quote: "Dismantling patriarchy requires a full analysis of all the ways it manifests itself." Yes! Agreed! However...how are you analyzing the way you fit within the patriarchy? How do you justify the ways in which the trans community has used postmodernism to essentially decry definitions that we use in order to discuss our oppression and liberation? How do you reckon with the fact that you are pushing for surgeries that further force women into hyperfeminine boxes? And, for surgeries that are actually subtly racist (how many women have gotten a rhinoplasty to look more Middle Eastern?)? And, how do you reckon with the fact that feminists fight against sex-based oppression and you say that sex and gender are the same, so that male-bodied people are actually the same as women? Or how by saying that (trans) men also can get pregnant, you are inviting cis men into the conversation and allowing them a platform to denounce female health care, abortion, and reproductive justice?
But of course, we must center trans women in all things, all the time: "Understanding that patriarchy polices and punishes trans women with the same weapons it forged to punish women generally is crucial to understanding why feminism needs trans women's perspective to succeed."
WHAT?? So our experiences of and activism against these weapons forged to punish women must rely upon trans women's help? Are you kidding me? This is insulting. We know what we're dealing with better than you. Plastic surgeons CHOOSE to target women, selling them ugliness to force them to buy beauty. Trans women CHOOSE to get these surgeries. Women HATE getting cat called. Trans women find this AFFIRMING. Women going shopping for clothes that are lower-quality, have less fabric, and more expensive is just a day-to-day necessity. For trans women, this is EUPHORIC. You claim to know our struggles but you love them. You think that they're fucking fun.
And now, Faye says, "...it is safe to say that trans women as a group are either subject to misogyny in one form or another, or are at perpetual risk of being so." Compare this, again, to where Faye states, "...[UK feminism] reinforce[s] the central belief of most anti-trans feminism: that women are a global 'sex class' of everyone who shares female biology ..., who are all raised as girls in a similar way ... and thus have a particular experience in common." So trans women as a group--everyone who shares male biology but chooses to identify as a woman--all have something in common. But female people don't, and to suggest that they do is somehow eurocentric, colonial, and racist. Right.
And, it takes Faye until the final fifty pages of the book to define terms such as "woman" and "female". These definitions take up more than a page. These are terms that should have been defined in the introduction or first chapter for ease of understanding, for the sake of argument. Obviously, our definitions are different, and I as someone who knows about this topic knows the difference, but to someone less well-versed, this assumes a lack of sociological education, knowledge in this topic, and preys upon it. Faye also spends less than a paragraph defining "man" or "male". So once again, this is about taking up women's spaces and redefining our words rather than redefining sex and gender as a whole.
Faye also wonders, "The debate over someone like Beth Elliott or me being offered a platform at specific events may well speak to profound feminist anxieties: 'What is a woman?', 'How and why are women oppressed?', 'What is the purpose of feminism?'" These aren't anxieties. We can answer these questions easily. They're anxieties to YOU because you don't actually understand what radical feminists are fighting for.
In trying to pull at our heartstrings, "...for some cisgender women (and men), feminism was a justification for smears, abuse and cruelty, purely because I had been born with XY chromosomes." But honestly, tell this to every woman also on the internet who've been told to choke on girldick because they dare question this ideology. Also, it's typically been people with XY chromosomes preventing women from getting their rights...but of course, you're not like other XYs. How many rape and death threats has JK Rowling gotten for just writing an essay? Where are the rape and death threats to the actual politicians who are making these bills? To Graham Lineham? To the MEN who are doing the raping and murdering of trans people? Because yeah, JK Rowling is a feminist, but everyone else who is doing actual real, physical harm aren't.
In continuing to try to argue against biological essentialism (which, radical feminists do too, by the way): "I believe most people, including feminists, would intuitively decide to momentarily leave a child, if absolutely necessary, in the care of a stranger they perceive as a woman rather than a stranger they perceive as a man. I would argue that this gut feeling--'the woman is a safer bet'--arises from a deep-seated cultural idea that women are more likely to be kind, nurturing and capable with children and less likely than men to be risky, harmful, or predatory. Yet is is a judgement that, on the spur of the moment, would be made solely based on observable physical traits, and would incorporate some pretty regressive gender stereotypes about women being 'natural' caregivers purely because of their physical appearance."
90% of homicides worldwide are committed by males. 99% of perpetrators of rape are male. 96% of DV perpetrators are male. So excuse us for not trusting someone we don't know or don't think is a woman. It's not that we think women are just oh-so-caring, it's that we have a significantly less chance of murdering, abusing, or raping someone. This isn't a cis-women's problem. It's a MALE VIOLENCE ISSUE. You want women to trust men? Make men be better.
Continuing Faye's train of thought, "Feminism, though, ought always to interrogate biological essentialism ... The idea that anyone born with a penis is inherently more aggressive or violent because they have a penis is an anti-feminist idea: it actually suggests that male violence is linked to biological 'essence' and is therefore inevitable, immutable, perhaps not even truly men's fault."
Again, this is interesting considering Faye doesn't seem to believe in socialization: "[Whiteness and unexamined colonialism of mainstream UK feminism] reinforce the central belief of most anti-trans feminism: that women are a global 'sex class' of everyone who shares female biology (including trans men and non-binary people born with vaginas and uteri), who are all raised as girls in a similar way (usually termed 'female socialization') and then have a particular experience in common that no cis man and no trans woman could ever access, having been born into the other, dominant, 'sex class'."
So which is it? Faye says socialization doesn't exist, but it makes Faye upset that male-bodied people are perceived as violent on account of their male bodies. Yet male people are the most violent. It seems like Faye is trying to say "not all men". Faye also says that women aren't inherently nurturing. Which, women have been saying this forever. But we also don't commit 90+% of all violent crimes. So it seems that radical feminists are just relying upon pattern observations and that there is real socialization happening, because of socialization weren't real, women would be equal-opportunist-violent-crime-committers. But we aren't. So maybe, women are socialized to be less violent and angry and men are socialized to go ballistic the moment they hear the word "no".
There were so many good points: that biology does not determine what someone will be like. That trans people deserve access to income and housing and food and community. That there is a root to so many of these problems--the bathroom debate, sports, shelter access--but Faye doesn't actually seem concerned about all this, in the end. Faye instead seems more preoccupied with putting women in their place and telling us to shut up and sit down and let trans women do the talking because they know so much more about oppression after living as male and reaping the benefits (that they're oh so sad about :( ) for decades of their lives. Just...come on.
Has Faye ever actually talked to a real feminist? Not the kind that buys tote bags with cute sayings on it? Has Faye looked at the trans women on Twitter? Or tried to argue against their desire to shove girldick down women's--not people's, but women's--throats? Has Faye looked at the violence trans people want to perpetrate against women? Because it's not eurocentric. It's not just "terf island" that's perpetrating this. It's South American women. It's African women. It's Asian women. It seems that for the most part, it's white trans women who cannot comprehend that you cannot identify outside of FGM or menstruating huts or corrective rape.
This book had a lot of potential, but it's mostly just hugely insulting.