screenshot of portions of both linked articles.
transcript for first article:
I wrote The Transfeminist Manifesto in summer 2000, only a couple of months after I had moved to Portland, found transgender and transsexual communities and began exploring the intersections of feminism and trans experiences. I guess I was naive, but initially I was surprised when I found out that there was anti-trans sentiments among some feminists, and anti-feminist sentiment among some trans people, because the trans people I had met were the kind of people I respect as both feminists and trans activists. I wrote this manifesto in order to articulate a feminist theory that is decidedly pro-trans, and a trans rhetoric that is rooted in feminism. I think I succeeded.
There are, however, problems with this manifesto that I am not very happy with. In several revisions I made over the last two years, I fixed some of the minor problems, but there are larger problems that are left intact, because they cannot be fixed without re-writing the entire piece. But I think it is important to discuss what these problems are, and why they crept into this manifesto. Two of these larger problems are:
Overemphasis on male-to-female trans people at the expense of female-to-male trans people and others who identify as transgender or genderqueer. I take full blame for the fact that this manifesto is heavily focused on issues male-to-female transsexual people face, while neglecting unique struggles that female-to-male trans people and other transgender and genderqueer people face. At the time I wrote this piece, I felt the need to restrict the focus of feminism to “women” because I feared that expanding the
focus would permit non-trans men to exploit feminism for their interest, as some so-called men’s rights groups do. While I still feel that this fear is justified, I now realize that privileging transsexual women’s issues at the expense of other trans and genderqueer people was a mistake.
Inadequate intersectional analysis. The manifesto focuses mainly on the intersection of sexism and the oppression against trans people, yet fails to address how these issues intersect with other social injustices. For example, the manifesto references the critiques made by women of color against white women’s racism within the feminist movement, but fails to address how trans women can become allies to women of color. Again, I hesitated moving the focus away from sexism at the time I wrote this manifesto, as I feared other (non-trans) feminists’ criticisms. Now I agree with the notion that any feminist theory that fails to account for racism, classism, ableism, etc. operating amongst women is incomplete, and I concede that this manifesto is incomplete.
While these are very different critiques, they both come from the same source: the idea that feminists should focus primarily – sometimes solely – on the oppression that all women experience. In this worldview, issues such as racism and classism can be addressed only when it furthers the battle against the patriarchy – for example, addressing white men’s racism against women of color – but not when it is seen as “divisive” for – or rather, exposes the hidden divisions within – the women’s movement. This manifesto for the most part plays into this trajectory while failing to challenge its racist, classist, etc., implications, and it deserves criticism for that. I realize now that, at the time I wrote the manifesto, I did not feel secure enough in my own conviction in multi-issue organizing, and gave into the fear that I would be criticized for diluting feminism. It was through the camaraderie with other fierce women of color, working-class women, and women with disabilities I gained in the last couple of years that I became free from this fear.I have thought about writing a new manifesto to address these and other insights I gained since 2000, with the confidence and clarity I have now, but for now I am leaving the task to others. If you write one, please send it to me.
transcript for the second article:
Multiple things can be true at once. Transmisogyny can be a vital term for some of us to communicate the intersection of transphobia and misogyny that we face. But others may experience it more complicatedly or severely, as in the case of transmisogynoir. And for others (e.g., certain nonbinary people, trans male/masculine-spectrum people), misogyny may intersect with transphobia in different ways that aren’t adequately articulated by transmisogyny. This doesn’t necessarily make transmisogyny “wrong”; it may simply mean that we need additional language.
