http://rocredandblack.org/hateful-sophistry-the-misguided-transphobia-of-deep-green-resistance/
This article is a critique of a presentation
given by a member of Deep Green Resistance on their official gender
politics. Deep Green Resistance (or DGR) is a US radical environmental
organization founded by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay (who is no longer associated with DGR) that advocates, among other things, the forcible dismantling of industrial civilization. Recently, a controversy at a conference in Portland involving several DGR members has brought increased focus on DGR’s trans-exclusive brand of gender politics, as exemplified by Lierre Keith.
First thing’s first: Trigger Warning. The contents of this
article may be triggering or otherwise disturbing. I have attempted to
minimize this as best I can. I only wish that discussing the content of
DGR’s gender politics wasn’t so unavoidably taxing.
Transphobia (or cis-sexism) is the oppression and marginalization of transgender people, genderqueer
people, and others who don’t conform to traditional gender norms. The
harmful effects of transphobia can be seen in higher rates of homelessness, sexual assault, drug addiction, unemployment, murder, and incarceration
of trans folks, to say nothing of being seen by many as “freaks.” It is
a crucial part of building an inclusive revolutionary movement to take a
firm principled stand against transphobic bigotry, never more so than
within supposedly radical organizations and movements. DGR’s transphobic
politics are a dangerous and harmful insertion of bigotry into a
radical activist scene that claims to fight for equality and justice. It
is important for revolutionaries to stand against all transphobia. And
while DGR’s transphobic politics are both wrong and harmful, it is
important to realize that many have joined the ranks of DGR for
unrelated reasons such as caring deeply about radical ecological
struggle. Therefore it is important not to just dismiss these
wrongheaded ideas, but to confront them and disprove them for all to
see. That is the task of this article.
Second, I’m a cis-gendered, straight, white, working-class
male. The style of this debate is frank and direct, I am sure that as a
result of these two things some will see this critique as belittling the
views of the DGR Presenter (a woman) or of radical feminists in
general. I would say, in answer to that, my candor trusts that anyone of
any gender who claims to be a revolutionary should be able to handle
frank rational critique. And if they can’t, they should get out of
revolutionary politics.
Third, in this article I will not attempt to critique DGR’s
primitivist or anti-civilization politics. To do this would simply take
too long.
Liberalism as an Easy Target:
The entire presentation is basically a strawman argument.
It presents only two possible kinds of feminism: their position vs.
liberal/academic/postmodern feminism. This would seem like a simple
oversight, except for the fact that the video is specifically introduced
as being (at least in part) for the purpose of responding to the many
criticisms made of DGR’s transphobia “by the wider activist community.”
So far as I can tell, these critiques are being made largely by
anarchists, socialist/communist revolutionaries, and other radical
organizations like Earth First! Liberals, as far as i know, have been
pretty silent on this. One can only conclude from this that the “DGR vs.
Liberalism” setup is an attempt to paint revolutionary transfeminist
arguments as liberal and to paint DGR as the only radical answer. This
an historically common smear tactic of highly authoritarian
organizations.
On that note, the presenter makes sure to state that before
she begins that she’s “not presenting this topic for debate. Not in the
slightest…. This represents DGR’s policy.” This is another tell-tale
symptom of authoritarianism. If the membership is forbidden to debate
(much less change) organizational policy, you’re in an authoritarian
organization. Who sets policy? How can it be revised? As far as I can
tell as an outsider, this policy has been decreed and maintained by
Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen. The Presenter even says that there have
been DGR members who’ve attempted to change their gender policy. The
Presenter says they were unsuccessful and are no longer in DGR. Whether
because of expulsion or social pressure to resign, the inability to
tolerate internal dissent is yet another marker of authoritarianism. It
also seems, from some recently leaked internal emails,
that Jensen and Keith constitute a so-far permanent leadership body
with the power to order members about (and berate their work) on a whim.
Definition 1: “Liberal” Feminism
It must be said that there is an abundance of things to
criticize about liberal feminism as embodied by Women’s Studies academia
and the corresponding publishing industry. Not the least of these are
idealism, post-modernism, hyper-abstraction, impossible jargon, and a
near-total inability to confront class politics. However the DGR
Presenter, far from making such pertinent critiques, makes many of the
same mistakes as the liberals do: failure to think about the material
class reality of gender struggle, convenient confusion based on
semantics, and over-reliance on abstract metaphor.
The Presenter confuses the concept of ‘gender identity’
with one’s position in relation to gender struggle. The phrase “innate
gender identity” is a contradiction in terms. Identity, by definition,
is as fluid and moveable (or as inflexible and rigid) as the person
whose identity it is.
The Presenter says that the liberal definition treats both
sex (biology) and gender (social behavior) as “apolitical.” This might
be an accurate representation of some actual liberal feminists (I’m not a
liberal feminist), but it certainly does not represent the position of
revolutionary transfeminists (or, for that matter, the truth). Of course
masculinity and femininity have differing political content;
masculinity is constructed around dominance and violence, femininity is
constructed around submission to masculinity. The arrangement of any
person’s gender and sex has political implications, but acknowledging
this doesn’t automatically prove any particular political conclusion –
it’s just part of the complex reality of the fucked up world we all live
in.
The Presenter says liberals believe that, “Sex and gender
are not necessarily connected.” While not strictly incorrect, this is
such a vast oversimplification that it leaves usefulness and common
sense behind. It’s true that Sex alone does not determine Gender, but to
imply that they have no connection at all is just stupid. Again, this
is a misrepresentation intended to make transfeminist arguments sound
stupid.
The characterization of trans and genderqueer identities as
turning the binary into a spectrum is misleading. While sometimes the
metaphor of a gender spectrum may be useful for explaining
non-traditional gender, the ultimate aim of revolutionary transfeminism
is not to turn the rigid binary into a gentler spectrum between the
binary poles – it is to totally deconstruct and disassemble the very
notion of gender until there is nothing left but an infinitely diverse
array of human character.
Definition 2: “Radical” Feminism
It must be said, in fairness, that most of what is said in
this section is more or less correct, so far as it goes, in pointing out
the forced subordination and exploitation of women by men. What is
objectionable here is that the presentation turns on sophistry and
semantic misdirection.
The Presenter says that, unlike liberals (and anyone who
disagrees with DGR), radicals reject that gender is either “natural” or
“voluntary.” This is put forward as a major point of contention, when in
fact it’s just verbal trickery. Setting up these ideas of “natural” or
“voluntary” as points of debate is false. “Natural” is false because
there can be no denying that what genitalia one is born with (plumbing,
as my mother would say) is the result of one’s genes. Nothing beyond
that can be said to be entirely “natural,” though one’s biology may well
factor into various things. As for “voluntary,” we have to understand
that in an unfree world, the world voluntary is always relative. Of
course people’s choices and behavior (including gender performance) are
influenced by the socially and psychologically coercive elements of
society. So in an absolute sense, gender isn’t voluntary, but then
neither is anything else (from one’s moral beliefs to one’s choice of
breakfast cereal). The point is that Gender can be as voluntary as any
other behavioral choice that people can make, under the present
circumstances.
As an aside, many femmes would strongly object to the
Presenter’s characterization of femininity as reducible to “ritualized
displays of submission to males.”
It must also be said that this second perspective is itself
highly reformist because it treats gender as a separate system of power
from others. For instance, it is inaccurate to simply say that women
are oppressed by men. It is certainly true that men are privileged above
women and are all too often the casual enforcers of day-to-day
patriarchy. But one cannot hope to solve that problem without first
examining where the power behind this arrangement comes from and who the
administrators of patriarchy are. Where it comes from is the same place
that the power for all oppression comes from: the ruling class state
and its institutions. The struggle of “women” against “men” without
confronting the state that is run by particular rich white men can, at
best, result in some nice reforms. The evil soul of patriarchy lives in
the ruling state and must be destroyed there if it is to be destroyed
anywhere.
Individualism:
The point made by the Presenter that lifestylism (including
gender non-conformity) isn’t, in itself, a significant form of struggle
is absolutely correct and any revolutionary would agree. Having said
that, individuals may find it personally empowering, and that’s not
nothing. And we shouldn’t scoff at that unless it’s meant to be a
substitute for struggle.
The Presenter has a big applause line arguing that gender
isn’t voluntary because no one would choose the brutal subordination
that comes with being a woman. This is just dumb. Of course no one would
choose that, but she confuses identity with socialization. No one
chooses to be socialized as either male or female, and to equate that
with identity is both wrong and insulting.
The idea that the existence of trans or genderqueer implies
that cis-women are by contrast “capitulating” or “taking the easy way
out” is again inaccurate and even more insulting. I have yet to meet a
trans or genderqueer person who has seen cis-women this way. Their
yardstick has always been (in every instance I’ve known of) whether or
not those cis-women (and cis-men) are willing to stand as principled
allies in the struggle against transphobia and capitalist patriarchy.
This is the barometer for actual struggle, rather than simple
denunciation-fodder.
The Presenter reads a Lierre Keith quote: “Gender is not a binary. It is a hierarchy.” It is both. And anyone who can’t fit that into their head should retire from revolutionary politics.
The Presenter’s comparison that we wouldn’t accept someone
who claimed to be trans-black, trans-rich, or trans-indigenous
illustrates how incredibly bankrupt the ideological development of DGR
is. This comparison misses the most basic of distinctions. The Presenter
says that if we accept gender as a “class condition” rather than an
individual one, then the analogy holds. But the basis for calling
anything a “class condition” is a materialist analysis of reality.
Even the most cursory glance at this analogy using a
materialist analysis tells us that the analogy doesn’t hold at all;
gender functions differently from race or class or colonization. White
Supremacy is a hierarchical system based on skin color and other
phenotypical markers. These things are innate. You can’t very well
change your racial categorization at will. Gender isn’t like that; it’s a
highly nuanced pattern of social behavior and presentation. It is thus a
more malleable category. Economic class is primarily determined by
one’s relationship to the means of production. This is alterable, but
not very easily – and certainly not just by changing one’s outward
behavior and presentation. Colonization is based on the forced
dispossession of one’s people, land, and history by an invading settler
state. The idea that this is comparable to gender is patently
ridiculous.
Gender is not only based on social presentation: gender is
social presentation. Ergo transgression against gender norms isn’t only
subverting the basis for gender, it’s the subversion of gender itself.
Transgender People Aren’t Real:
The Presenter tells the story of a transwoman who once told
her, “I don’t have the male privilege that I was raised with anymore.”
Of course this is a problematic thing to say. The Presenter points to
psychological gender conditioning of children as the basis for
privilege/oppression, and that this cannot be transcended and thus
gender cannot be transcended. But this argument is also problematic.
Gendered upbringing is one of the bases for gender privilege/oppression,
but there are others as well. For example, if you present as female you
run a higher risk of harassment of all kinds regardless of your
upbringing (because harassers don’t much care about your childhood). And
should one present in a way that does not “pass,” marking you as gender
non-conforming in some way, you run even higher risks of harassment. So
it would’ve been more accurate of the person quoted to have said, “I
don’t have all of the male privilege I was raised with anymore.”
DGR has also been known to make the inverse argument that
transwomen are just men trying to somehow encroach on women’s spaces and
struggles. This argument is baffling. First off, being a cis-dude comes
with some pretty great perks that women don’t have (this part I do know
first-hand). Why anyone would instead opt for not only all the bullshit
that women have to put up with, but also with all the bullshit that
trans folks have to put up with is frankly fucking beyond me. What would
be the point? Getting to go to the women’s caucus at radical
gatherings? Anybody who thinks that that would be worth frivolously
subjecting oneself to all the oppression of being a transwoman has
probably spent too much time at radical gatherings and should go outside
and make some new friends.
The Presenter tells a moving story about a person who was
born/assigned female and experienced a gluttony of patriarchal horrors
(sex trafficking, etc) and who came out as transmale while in a care
program. The Presenter tells how he drew images of female and male
versions of himself with the female image associated with fear and pain
and the male image associated with confidence and happiness. The
Presenter tells us that this project contained the sentence “If I wasn’t
a girl, I wouldn’t have been raped.” While this story is certainly a
deeply stirring one, it presents a number of problems. First, the story
is anecdotal. DGR and other “radical” feminists are fond of the argument
that transmen are just women trying to escape their oppression or
assimilate into the privileges of patriarchy. This may well be a factor
for some trans folks, for many it may not be. The point is: it’s none of
our fucking business!
There are likely as many reasons for being trans or
genderqueer as there are trans and genderqueer people in the world,
ranging from the biological to the abstract. Given that, there are two
choices: either gender identity is determined for people by some outside authority (the state, parents, schools, the DGR cabal) or it is determined by
people for themselves. And it is not up to trans and genderqueer folks
to justify themselves and who they are to the world. No one ever
expects cis men and women to justify why we are our gender. What does it
cost, really, to not be a disrespectful douchebag to folks who are
already catching hell? It’s not at all difficult.
The Presenter’s use of this story also reveals the
callousness of DGR’s policy. If this young person was able to find some
solace from the horrible ravages of patriarchal trauma by identifying as
male, then who the fuck is anybody to tell him he can’t? You’d think
that so-called “radical” feminists would be the last to add gender
policing on top of the trauma of a trafficking survivor trying to live
their life. The hubris here is fucking staggering.
Conclusion:
At this point, a wide variety of radicals have weighed in on DGR’s transphobia. Whether it’s Earth First refusing to reprint their material, radical spaces refusing to host their events, DGR members defecting from the organization, or the vocal disavowal of DGR’s transphobia by Aric McBay, one of its 3 major founders;
Deep Green Resistance has inadvertently called the question on
trans-inclusion in the US radical activist scene. And for all the
problems of the US radical activist scene, it is to our credit that DGR
seems to stand alone in their transphobia. We still have a long way to
go, but the recent controversy in Portland has (at least for the moment)
united the US radical left in opposition to bigotry in our midst. And,
oddly enough, maybe we should thank DGR for that.
Note: This article was originally posted using a banner image from the blog A Radical TransFeminist.
The image was found on a google image search and used without the
knowledge of the blogger. It has since been removed at her request. As
an aside, I would encourage anyone interested to check out some of the
blog’s truly insightful articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment