I read this week’s readings after having recently watched a
video about being transgender in America. The video is a 20min panel that
started off talking about the Canadian women who was not allowed to compete in
the Miss Universe pageant because she was not a naturalized woman. With that
discussion in the back of my head many of Beauvoir’s remarks sounded limiting.
From the beginning of the introduction Beauvoir asks the
question, “what is a woman?” Then she goes on to answer her own question in a
variety of ways. However, none of her answers adequately include transgender
individuals. Many of her explanation about what it means to be a woman include
the reproductive organs of being female. Since transgender women do not have
the same reproductive organs as a “naturalized women” then Beauvoir’s
explanation excludes them.
At one point Beauvoir says, “the hermaphrodite is not really
the combination of a whole man or a whole woman, but consists of parts of each
and thus is neither.” This sentence is very troubling. If hermaphrodites and
transgender people are neither men nor women, then what are they?
Since this book was published
in 1949 many issues in relation to transgender were not being discussed, and so
Beauvoir’s perspective makes sense in the context. Many scholars now refer to
gender as a social construct instead of a person’s biology. I think if Beauvoir
was writing today she would be interested in writing about transgender because
of her discussions of “the Other”. By saying there is only men and women,
Beauvoir herself is creating an Other, which she probably does not intend to
do.
[Here is the video I
mentioned earlier if you want to watch it: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/melissa-harris-perry/47054424]
----At one point Beauvoir says, “the hermaphrodite is not really the combination of a whole man or a whole woman, but consists of parts of each and thus is neither.” This sentence is very troubling. If hermaphrodites and transgender people are neither men nor women, then what are they?----
ReplyDeleteI agree that this sentiment is very offensive and insensitive to transgendered people. To say that a person is not enough of a man or woman and therefore is neither is depriving them the right of being a distinct gender, further being human. I think with such an outlook a negative an alienated view point is established which leads to discrimination. However, this intolerant perspective is more understandable because it was produced in 1949, a time where gender roles were very dead set. Also, since this was so long ago a lot of scientific research has come out about why some individuals are transgendered.
In essence I totally agree with the concerns you proposed about the reading and I appreciate the link to the video.
I also found Beauvoir's statement, "The hermaphrodite is not really the combination of a whole man or a whole woman, but consists of parts of each and thus is neither," to be troubling and too defined as well. I agree with you that Beauvoir should focus more on transgender people as well, but like you said, this could have much to do with the time she was writing. As you pointed out, Beauvoir focuses on the idea that women have been created socially as the other, and by focusing on the binary between men and women she has created another “other” of those who do not completely fit into either man, or woman. Given that Beauvoir’s focus is on women and how women are treated as the other, you are right that she most likely is separating another “other” from men and women unintentionally; however, this is still dangerous.
ReplyDelete