Is There Such a Thing as Trans-Male Privilege?

Poc's "What's the Point?" thread got me thinking about a blog entry which I recently read - and I didn't want to commandeer his thread, so I'll start this one. The blog entry was written by a (transguy) friend of mine and in it he debated whether to attend a party where the invitation read "women and transmen only". According to the party organizers, the point of the exclusivity was to create a safe and friendly space for women (queer women, I believe - and I can't remember if transwomen were invited) and transguys.

My friend argued that this implies the presence of (any) genetic men makes places unsafe and unfriendly for women and transguys, and that GMs are the only ones that would cause these problems. He also argued that by including transmen in the invitation, it's as if they're saying we're okay because we're not "real men". And it sounds to me as if that same invitation is implying that we (transmen) should be honored that we're included ('cause we're considered safe and friendly) and not feel insulted that we're not considered "real men".

So my point here is: Poc asked about the negative part of being a different kind of man than a regular guy is (correct me if I'm wrong, Purser Poc), and my friend's blog entry brought to my attention how some people (maybe even some of us) may consider that we're in a better category than regular men because we're trans. Still with me? I hope I didn't lose anyone.

So, what do you think? Is being a transman better, worse or neither than being a genetic man? And regardless of how you feel about it, how do you think society in general feels about it? This question is open to everyone.

Hmmm. That is an interesting debacle (if that's anywhere close to the right word).
On the one hand, it's saying that transmen are, as you put it, 'better'-- or 'safer'-- but on the other hand, it's saying we're different. And on the other hand (Yes, I've got three hands, lol), One could choose to take it as, 'well, you're really women so you pose no threat.' If you were being pessimistic about the whole thing.

It seems to me that there are four ways to look at things: Different is good, different is bad, different is just different (as in, not good or bad), or different is the same (meaning, that it doesn't matter if someone's different, cos we're all people, or humanoids, or what-have-you).
And I suppose there can be any combination of these ways of thinking.

Hope I haven't confused anybody too terribly yet-- brain's not yet been switched on.

What was the question? Oh, yeah. Is being trans better? I honestly don't think that a conclusion can be reached. That's like asking which ethnicity is best. Everyone's different. There are perverts, theives, and criminals in every group-- yes, with varying percentages, but it all goes back to, you can't judge a book by its cover.
As for what society thinks... I don't think they see us as a real threat, in general (but there are always those over the top right wing/ religious types who'll see us as a threat to the 'sanctity of such-and-such' or whatever). However, I also think that society, in general, doesn't understand us (or even, at times, acknowledge us), so they have no right to form an opinion one way or the other, and I have no interest in listening to said opinion. Unless someone takes the time to understand the inner workings of something, they can't have a viable opinion.

Make any sense? Again, still not firing on all cylinders (if that was the right metaphor, which it probably wasn't).

Hey Cap do you know what? I am starting to think that there are 2, or a few, different types of transmen.....
(yeah every single person is different but what I mean is....to divide that mass of types very roughly and simply: )

It seems that there are a kind of transman... that is just a man... nothing more, nothing less. Just a regular average Joe, run of the mill dude that was accidentally born with boobs lol.

And it seems that there is another type that is more... "scene" (for want of a better word). Who is strongly proud to be a transman and that is their lifestyle and some even like to flaunt it (not in a horrible way)...like on some of the websites we see.

And some it seems are almost seen as lesbians rather than men (and choose to be like that). :worried: (This one confuses me a bit lol)

I guess that different types of transmen thing (average joe vs scene) is a bit like....some gay people are just gay people... it's a small part of their life but it doesn't define them. It's pretty insignificant in the whole picture of their lives.
But some gay people... a large part of their life is about being gay.. and doing gay scene activities and being proud of being gay.

---

Hmmm if I had got that invitation I would have felt cross and insulted on behalf of transmen and genetic men. Because it's like saying 1) transmen aren't proper men (GRRRR) and 2) Men are horrible.

I can see that it could be nice for some transmen, but I think it's pretty insulting to men (any men) to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptLex

So, what do you think? Is being a transman better, worse or neither than being a genetic man?

---

I think that being a transman can be better than being a gm for the simple reason that having a bit of experience seeing things from female point of view can make you a more balanced and nicer person. But to be honest I also know quite a few very caring, sensitive genetic men that have almost lived "female" roles and are very respectful of women/people.
So perhaps a transman's experience/spirit is just the same as some GM's in the experience and niceness respect.

Quote:

---

And regardless of how you feel about it, how do you think society in general feels about it? This question is open to everyone.

---

I think that many people in society in general wouldn't accept a transman as a proper man unless they didn't know they were a transman.
Others however would.
I think that most "average, normal" people wouldn't understand... or would find it very hard to get their heads round though.

Sometimes though... people shock me... and are much cooler about stuff than I'd expect....

If I may comment on my own experience in regards to the 'safety' (of not having GMs there) issue.

I'm quite familar with that GM exclusion clause from living with a partner who is feminist (as I guess I am too). I have been exposed to a number of safety and security (emotional and physical) concerns that may arise when women are in mixed company. The reason things like this are necessary sometimes isn't because GMs are bad people - but they are taught inappropriate and sometimes abusive behaviour by the society at large. There are some people that are going to be rotters no matter how they were born or raised, but for the most part I believe many of our behaviour patterns are formed through our environment. Much of society teaches men to be disrepectful or ignorant of what women need to feel safe and relaxed. Hence excluding the GM factor to make for a safe environment.

The fact that transmen are excluded from the GM exclusion is likely due to them having a better understanding of what women need to feel safe and secure. There are many GMs who also fall into that catagory, but too many don't, especially in the company of each other. I know some GMs won't like what I'm saying in general about men here, and maybe you guys don't either, but it is from my experience that I speak.

Of course being transmen doesn't mean you won't act like jerks and make people uncomfortable, but you are less likely too because you haven't been targeted with negative male messaging since birth. Like a sensitive GM who felt different and didn't fit in with the guys, or who was brought up well, most (not nec all) transmen likely haven't adopted some of the less desirable traits males are encouraged to have (like taking up too much space).

I think some of us get confused about where on the opposite gender scale we should be. Society pedals us stereotypes everyday and it's easier to fall into that thinking - in my case "oh I don't want to chip my nails so I'll let the boys handle that." As if that's how it really works. We're unique beings and most people slide along both gender scales at different points. It is unfortunate that exclusion of one genetic gender is used, but I don't think it implies that transmen are less than the GM equivalent. It just recognizes that they aren't likely to have adopted many of the negative behaviours of that gender. To me that's a good thing. :happy:

Thanks for your responses, guys and doll. I know it's kind of a complex question and there's probably no definitive answer.

Abraxas, you made perfect sense to me (of course, I'm kind of used to not firing on all cylinders myself). I agree with the four "differents" - it can mean various things to various people, and there is no one answer.

Poccy, I liked your comparison of gay people to trans people. You're right that it certainly doesn't define all, but for some people it does. And I'm sure that receiving an invitation like that would have upset me too.

Kerri, I totally get where you're coming from and thanks for sharing your experiences and point of view. I think, however, that the invitation shouldn't have been exclusive, but instead should have stated that anyone who starts trouble (male, female, trans, cis, gay, hetero, etc.) would be removed from the premises or dealt with in some way.

I guess I just don't like generalizations and things that cause rifts among groups. Something like this can cause more divisions than what we already have in society - it can make genetic men who are caring and supportive (and we know they exist) decide that they're considered "the enemy" and that their friendships and support are not wanted. And it can cause those that have not yet made up their minds about us become less understanding and more close-minded. It's kind of sad, really.

Put simply Cap, some just do not "get it" and it seems, never will. Sometimes I think things would be better if they were that simplistic for me but I'm glad they are not because I value people too much. It's totally worth the effort.

It's a complicated issue, and forgive me for plaing the devil's advocate. On one hand, many transmen still have to deal with certain issues that only women have to deal with. Such as periods and health problems that occur on parts of the body that GMs don't have. Even if a transman has fully transitioned, there are still leftover things of being a woman. For example, genetics dictates that female brains develop differently than male brains, and while a transman could fully transition, he can't change the structure of his brain. That's just one example. Likewise, they make multivitamins to help men to avoid prostrate problems, a transman would never need that but he might need the multivitamin formulated for women because it deals with problems they might develop that a GM wouldn't. And if a transman hasn't had a chest operation yet, he'd still have to be aware of possible breast health problems like women do.

Even though I'm a man stuck in a woman's body, I still have to worry about women's health problems. I think that's more what the invitation meant. A room full of women and transmen could talk about periods, cervical cancer, and other similar things, but it wouldn't work as well if there were men or transwomen because they can't really relate to those things. I've been with a group of women who would talk about stuff like that and whenever there was a GM present, the atmosphere didn't work so well for the topics at hand. This also brings up the difference between gender and sex, but I won't go into that.

I'm not saying the invitation handled it very well, especially with that wording, but I don't think they were trying to discount transmen as being less than men.

Hrm what an interesting topic. I definitely see both sides for the invite. That it does imply that transmen aren't real men in some important way (like I said back in Poc's thread, there's men, and within that there's regular guys and football jocks and metros and transmen and what have you...that transmen are a subset of real men, but not necessarily the stereotypical guy. At least that's what I was trying to say.) and therefore is insulting. I also don't like the implication that men are dangerous...I get nervous when people draw that line that men are scary animals or something. On the other hand, like Zen said, peroid talk can get awkward with male bodied people around. Ionno, I would've stuck to girls only, and if there were health issues or whatnot then the transmen can have their own shindig. Baby talk and romance novels aren't going to come off any better with transmen than with GMs.

As for transmen being better, worse, or the same, I'm going with the third choice. There are so many ways to experience life, and to make a sweeping generalization like "transmen aren't as good as GMs because they're not real men" or "transmen are better 'cause they can see both sides"... that's just not taking into account individual differences. Heck, you aren't even going to get all women to be openminded about womens issues, the idea that all people who have lived as a woman, no matter how unwillingly, get how women work, that's a bit overgeneralized. (*laughs* heck, I'm pretty sure I don't get how women work...I'll be honest) Transman is just another way to be human. It's just another identity, and can lead to people of every type. The only thing I will say about transmen is that I do feel they (we? I've got to figure out if I put myself in this category...) are more likely to be open minded, just by the nature of the beast. But open mindedness (in my experience with other groups...don't know enough trans people yet to really draw a lot of conclusions) is often countered by busybody tendencies and other similar things. So I'm still going with breaking even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptLex

Kerri, I totally get where you're coming from and thanks for sharing your experiences and point of view. I think, however, that the invitation shouldn't have been exclusive, but instead should have stated that anyone who starts trouble (male, female, trans, cis, gay, hetero, etc.) would be removed from the premises or dealt with in some way.

I guess I just don't like generalizations and things that cause rifts among groups. Something like this can cause more divisions than what we already have in society - it can make genetic men who are caring and supportive (and we know they exist) decide that they're considered "the enemy" and that their friendships and support are not wanted. And it can cause those that have not yet made up their minds about us become less understanding and more close-minded. It's kind of sad, really.

---

I agree with you and it is sad, but I have hope that it's people like you and I and the others here that will help bring us together more. There are a lot of dividing factors, not just of gender, but also class, race, etc, in our society and it's when people work together at a grassroots level that lasting changes can work their way into society.

I really liked what Bi said.

I think Zen might have hit it more on the head than I did as for motivation. I was going to use the example of guys having a no women allowed club so they could smoke stinky cigars, drink too much, and talk about whatever they wanted to talk about, including women, and make dirty tasteles jokes without worrying about what the ladies thought.

:thinking: Hmmm, come to think of it...YOU boys have a Clubhouse here don't you? I thought I could hear rude laughter and smell pungent smoke and hear the clinking of ice cubes when I was listening at the do....de da di do. :shifty: :blushing:

Hmmm.... (sorry about the annoying bold bits below, but I thought it helped make this waffle clearer to read lol)

I think that some transmen's brains are actually almost if not identical to some gm brains.
I think like, there have possibly been studies on some transpeople's brains
and I also THINK I read something about the new hormones affecting them slightly too.. but I may have dreamed that bit....

Also ... "male-bodied".... well if a transman had transitioned... then he WOULD be male bodied...!

and also if he'd had certain surgeries and stuff, he wouldn't be worrying about women's issues more than any other man.
E.g. Captlex for example (sorry Lex) doesn't have to worry about "period talk" ever EVER again!

It's funny actually that you 2 mentioned transmen which hadn't transitioned going to this party... because I hadn't actually thought of it like that. I had only imagined transitioned/partially transitioned transmen going (I don't know why!)

Lol Bi I love what you said about even lots of women don't know about/talk about women's issues. I think thats very true.

I get what you 2 mean about perhaps if a non-transitioned transman was at a party with women they might have some stuff in common, but some transmen don't even like to feel or admit they'd had female bodies...and so wouldn't want to talk about "women's things" even if they had experienced them before. I think some guys just think of them as an unfortunate side effect of accidentally being born female lol!
I guess though that the "scene" type transguys that flaunt (can't think of a better word) their transness might be the type that would go to and appreciate that party.

Quote:

---

transmen are a subset of real men

---

Yay :D

Quote:

---

Baby talk and romance novels aren't going to come off any better with transmen than with GMs.

---

Hahaha so true!

.

Yeah, personaly I would not be with the group of XX's having a conversation about cervical cancer... *shudders* I'm one of those who can't even say "my v#$&^%" without wanting to wash my mouth out with soap... Guh.

I can't answer in general, but for me personally, being transgendered is probably better that being a GM. I was raised by strict Roman Cathoic parents and relatives, so was not really taught to think outside of gender norms and old-fashioned sexism. Everything was either "right" or "wrong", and if you didn't choose carefully... I mean, I've met someone who called herself a "recovering Catholic." :p So I honestly think that, having been born as a GM, I would've turned out just like all the other sexist, dogmatic, alcoholic men in my family. When I was a young kid, I really bought into all that stuff, and I doubt that I would've come to terms even with being gay as a GM. (Internalized homophobia is something I can't deny having to a certain extent, even still. Sadly.)

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a fully-functional male body. Even when I was young I used to get upset to the point of tears that I would never be able to biologically father children. Didn't understand what it meant back then, but it made sense to me. And these days I get tired of being a bottom, haha. But I still try to see that I'm a much... well, I'm going to say a much healthier guy that I would've been were I XY, and leave it at that.

Had a long reply that the computer just ate, so let me put it succintly.

I wonder how the women putting on this party would respond to an event that was for "GM and transmen only," where the point was to provide a safe and friendly space for men? If there was a male equivalent of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival they'd probably out in front of the gates decrying how sexist it was.

And yeah, there's definitely a strain of superiorist feminism/(lesbian) separatist feminism that does see things as "two legs good, three legs bad," with all sorts of presumptions about sex/gender when it comes to GMs. Of course the irony that stereotyping people on the basis of sex/gender being the thing that feminism objects to seems to elude them.

BTW, from what I've seen of these folks, they do seem to not fully respect transguys' identities either -- i.e. while you may see yourself as men, you're not one of those awful Men because you're still part -- or should be part -- of "the tribe that bleeds" (even if you don't anymore).

Thanks, Marlena. I'd love to have seen the whole reply (bad computer!), but you made your point well. I was wondering about that too - if this was their thinking. And would I want to associate with people of this mindset? I don't think so. :nono:

Let's see if I can recall the points I was thinking of... :thinking:

Let me preface it by saying there are times where I think gender-exclusive groups are appropriate -- for example, victims of physical and/or sexual abuse, discussions about sexuality, gynecological issues, etc. -- if it makes the participants more comfortable. But a party? :confused:

For starters, while it's often denied if you ask point-blank, it is often based on biological-determinist sort of stereotyping -- i.e. the "all men are potential rapists" sort of language that was sadly all-too-often thrown around by "Take Back the Night" organizers back when I was in college. Who thereby alienated a lot of men who might have otherwise been allies. Or the whole sort of neo-Victorian notions about how women are inherently nuturing, living in blissful concensus while men are inherently aggressive hierarchial jerks.

Typically, the sort of feminists who take this sort of view will justify it by saying that men have been so indoctrinated by Patriarchy (capital "P) that they're inherently going to made things unsafe and unfriendly to women. Which is an objectionable argument in a variety of ways.

First one, it's making assumptions about individuals based on their sex/gender, which IIRC is a Bad Thing according to feminism (and common sense). As Gabriel said, there's definitely some transguys (like the macho jerk on Dr. Keith) who are far more likely to provoke trouble than the average bioguy.

For another, it conveniently overlooks female-on-female aggression and even violence. Partner battering is a dirty little secret of both the gay and lesbian communities, and certain the feminist movement has had no shortage of power mongering, abusive behavior towards others, etc.

For another, it reinforces notions of victimology -- that even a single guy is going to somehow inherently overpower a roomful of women. As Naomi Wolf noted in her excellent "Fire With Fire," (which argues feminism needs to be become comfortable with "masculine" aspects like competition and using power) has it never occurred to these folks that if a guy is dominating a discussion that the women could tell him to shut up for awhile? Or that they could set the groundrules with men upfront, asking them them to focus on listening rather than speaking.

Another thing that probably annoys you guys more than me, is that (from what I've seen) these folks are also usually the ones who tend to insist FTMs are "really" just very masculine butches, and/or decry "butch flight" and complain FTMs are somehow "bretraying" feminism by joining the other team.

What annoys me is that they simultaneously tend to be pretty transphobic towards MTFs. In her infamous book "Transsexual Empire," Janice Raymond argued the MTFs where patriarchial inflitrators who were somehow going to take over women's organizations. A bit extreme yes, but it set the tone for a far more widespread hostility in certain feminist circles towards MTF trans people. So MTF TSs are still turned away from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival because they're "really men" (even though FTM TSs are accepted because they're "really women.")

All which reflects a tendency to view people not as individuals, but as ideological abstractions. And the irony being that trans folks are living proof of feminist arguments about how gender roles aren't tied to one's biological sex.

Hey Marlena that was well put. I've had poor male role models in my own life so I sometimes forget (emotionally) that GMs aren't all evil. There are many here on this forum who prove that. Many in my life too. It's just that the jerks always ruin it for the rest of us. And I've met so many jerks along the road.

I do believe that we still live in a "man's world" these days (ie a patriarchy). Most political, economic and military leaders are male still. Male violence still dominates the planet. It's the way things are right now.

But I like the points you made about seeing the individual. I wish our society was more accepting of ALL of us as individuals. But when we get together in groups we tend to take on a group mentality. This forum has one. I carry it with me into the outer world. I have to be careful about how it colours the way I treat people as individuals.

I think you make a really good point about the type of event where the exclusion was made. Certainly seems restrictive for a party. On the other hand if someone wants to throw a party and doesn't want dog-owners there that's their right. Just as it's my right to decide I don't want to attend a party that excludes dog-owners.

Marlena that was an excellent post. I've never understood the feminist idea of hating men and feeling that they're all animals. Especially as there are straight feminists...

Quote:

---

FTMs are somehow "bretraying" feminism by joining the other team.

---

I know, my opinion doesn't count 'cause I'm not a 'real' woman (yes, sarcasm), but why does it have to be teams? That form of feminism has never worked for me. I've got three brothers, and lemme tell ya, we're all on the same team. It's called 'human'. I dunno. It's an easy trap to fall into, to hate the group that has victimized you, but I don't want to give them that much power. It's just hard, from where I am, because I'm a loud voice in my social circle for gender equality, and I end up getting lumped in with that other type of feminists, the man hating kind. So I end up really not liking them.

Thanks for taking the time to spell it out, Marlena. It makes me sad to read this stuff, but it needs to be said. A real eye-opener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marlena Dahlstrom

Another thing that probably annoys you guys more than me, is that (from what I've seen) these folks are also usually the ones who tend to insist FTMs are "really" just very masculine butches, and/or decry "butch flight" and complain FTMs are somehow "bretraying" feminism by joining the other team.

---

Yeah... that's just weird (not to mention, ignorant!)
Erm especially as some of us identify as gay men lol

I have never really got feminism. Some of the original ideas seem good.
Some feminists seem to go too far the other way though, sadly.
I believe in equality.

Like bi said.. we're all on the same team, "human"!