The term TERF, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, has become more known in recent years as the fight for (and unfortunately, the fight against) trans rights continues. But what exactly is the deal with TERFs and what relevance do they have with trans people?
This post will give an explanation of TERF ideology and why it is harmful towards transgender people.
Feminism and Radical Feminism
First, what is feminism? I like the simple definition given by bell hooks that encompasses various strands of feminism throughout history – “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” Radical feminism can be described as a strand of feminism which seeks to eliminate the patriarchy with a re-ordering and re-structuration of society.
Feminists and radical feminists point out the existence of the patriarchy, which can be roughly described as a social system in place that advantages men and disadvantages women in various social aspects of their lives. Such social aspects include one’s social standing, access to material resources, how they are affected in the political sphere, etc. The advantages that men have in society in virtue of being men is what makes them privileged, in contrast with women who are oppressed due to the disadvantages they have in virtue of being women.
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, or TERF, can be described as believing in these two points:
Following feminism in seeking to end oppression towards women
Gender is identical to sex and is thus a biological phenomenon
As explained in a previous post by Cloud Dancers, those who believe that gender is a biological phenomenon believe that whether a person is a man/woman is based on biological features, typically one’s sex chromosome make-up and their sex organs. For such people, what it is to be a woman is to be a person with XX sex chromosomes and a vagina. This is also how one’s gender is assigned at birth.
Those who believe that gender is a strictly biological phenomenon typically deny the existence and identity of transgender people – people whose gender does not align with one’s sex assigned at birth.
So for TERFs, trans-women do not count as women. As such, they are excluded from being considered oppressed as women in following their project of feminism.
Furthermore, it is seemingly the case that those associated with the term TERF also vehemently criticize trans activism. For instance, J.K. Rowling and Dave Chappelle are two such notable individuals and have criticized trans activism and trans people within their fields of work. For more on this, see Cloud Dancer’s posts on Rowling and Chappelle.
As seen through the actions and reception towards Rowling and Chappelle, those associated with TERFs see much support due to their public endorsement of feminist ideals, yet their ideology continues to hurt trans people by denying their existence and identity or painting their activism in a negative light.
On April 13, 2023, an emergency rule from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was introduced that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender people in the state. According to an article by AP News, the ruling “will impose numerous restrictions on both adults and children before they can receive puberty blocking drugs, hormones or surgeries ‘for the purpose of transitioning gender.’” It goes into effect on April 27 and expires in February 2024.
Such restrictions include:
Transgender patients must have undergone at least 15 hour-long sessions in therapy over a course of at least 18 months prior to seeking gender-affirming care
Patients must be screened for autism and “social-media addiction,”
Patients with psychiatric symptoms due to mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, must first be treated and resolved
As we can see, Missouri has made it nearly impossible for transgender people to attain gender-affirming care. As noted in previous posts from Cloud Dancers, transgender people often go through various mental health struggles due to the discrimination and stigma they face.
In fact, according to the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, “research demonstrates that gender-affirming care… greatly improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse, transgender, and non-binary children and adolescents.” Furthermore, a 2021 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health involving 11,000 gender-diverse youth found that access to such care reduced depression and suicidality.
Additionally, the ruling is harmful in an intersectional manner as it denies access to gender-affirming care to autistic transgender people. In other words, the ruling is harmful towards transgender people, autistic people, and autistic transgender people.
Unfortunately, Missouri isn’t the only state to see bans on gender-affirming care. Other states such as Alabama and Florida have had similar rulings implemented.
Not too long ago, “[Texas] Gov. Greg Abbott told state health agencies… that medical treatments provided to transgender adolescents, widely considered to be the standard of care in medicine, should be classified as ‘child abuse’ under existing state law” according to a 2022 article by the New York Times.
Many organizations are already looking to challenge this ruling. For instance, the ACLU and Lambda Legal said in a joint statement that they would “take any necessary legal action” and urged those affected to call, according to another article by AP News.
The Current State of the Data on the Trans Community
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), “Transgender people, and the issues they face, are under-studied because surveys of the general population rarely ask whether a respondent is transgender.” Furthermore, “Without including questions to determine whether a person is transgender on general population surveys, we lack official information about unemployment rates, income and poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and all other data that are regularly measured in the general population.”
This point is echoed by the U.S. Foundation Funding for Trans Communities, stating that “Many federal programs and major surveys do not collect data on gender identity. This lack of data has made it difficult to identify and fully understand the unique needs of transgender communities.”
The Importance of Data Collection
As noted above, the lack of data on transgender people has made it difficult to accurately identify and understand the depth of the issues they face. As such, it is clear that the more data we have on trans people, the better we are able to understand their plights and act accordingly to deal with those issues.
For instance, let’s consider the importance of data collection in other social spheres. This article by the NCBI notes that “Racial and ethnic disparities in health have been extensively documented… Making progress toward the goal of eliminating disparities will require widespread, reliable, and consistent data about the racial and ethnic characteristics of the U.S. population.”
Insofar as there are health disparities between the trans community and the general population (and there definitely are), then eliminating these disparities will also require collecting reliable and consistent data on trans people.
First, we encourage transgender people to participate in the NCTE’s United States Transgender Survey (USTS). The 2015 USTS has been to date the largest national survey that has collected information on transgender people, covering their experiences and the issues they face. The next one started in October 2022. The more transgender people that participate in the survey, the more accurate data we will have on the community.
Second, we call for more investigations and research into transgender people and the issues they face. As noted above, transgender people and the issues they face are under-studied.
In January of this year, Taylor Swift released the music video for her chart-topping song Lavender Haze, which included transgender model Laith Ashley playing Swift’s love interest through the ‘hazy,’ cloudy, purple realm of the video. If you didn’t know Ashley to begin with, you likely would have never noticed; and yet the decision to include a transgender model — even if not the focal point of the video — is still a powerful political and social decision.
In one of our previous articles, I briefly broke down how transgender lives easily become a market scheme for elites to build platforms. These stories, more often than not, are focused on the suffering of transgender people: the exclusion one might face, the familial and platonic distancing, the unemployment, et cetera. But that is not the focus of Ashley’s inclusion in the Lavender Haze music video, and nor is in the point of various pieces of media where transgender people are represented and included but not made out to be the epitome of suffering. Transgender people can be who they are: they can have girlfriends, and go to parties, and do not have to exist in expulsion.
Transgender people can be who they are: they can have girlfriends, and go to parties, and do not have to exist in expulsion.
In the Lavender Haze music video, released in January, model Laith Ashley played the romantic lead opposed to Taylor Swift.
Swift is not the only artist who has been so directly involved in transgender inclusion and the fight for LGBTQ rights, but she is also one of the most prevalent in today’s view — Swift, who has maintained one of the top artists of 2023 and dominated the Top Music Billboard in the end of 2022, has a “fandom” (that is, a group of fans) of people who are openly queer, one of which she is an active ally for.
Other artists who do the same? The list is long and includes other notable figures like Beyonce, for example, who has proven herself to be a queer and trans ally time and time again. Certainly the list of artists who claim to be allies is even longer. Notable change, however, comes from movement — it comes from representation and action; action by these notable elites who can, and should, fight for true change above all else. And an example of that? Bad Bunny.
Like Swift, Bad Bunny maintained his legacy as an artist with the most-streamed album of 2022, Un Verano Sin Ti, but has for even longer been an ally to the transgender community. In 2020, Bad Bunny paid tribute to Alexa Negrón Luciano, a transgender woman who was murdered in Puerto Rico, when he wore to his performance on The Tonight Show a black skirt and a t-shirt stating: Mataron a Alexa, no a un hombre con falda.
They killed Alexa, not a man in a skirt.
Image taken from Billboard
It takes open, honest allyship — openness to hiring transgender actors and models, openness to advocate, openness to fight — to make real change against all odds. We, as individuals, only hold so much power over the media, politics, and policing, but the artists, musicians, actors, and elites that we look up to can do so much more; and should.
Many people believe that ‘gender’ is simply another word for ‘sex.’ As such, to say that one is male is identical to saying that one is a man, and to say that one is female is identical to saying that one is a woman.
Additionally, it is believed that whether a person is a woman/man (and thus whether that person is female/male) is based on biological features. The main features that are said to determine whether one is a man/woman are typically one’s chromosomes and sex organs. Women are people with XX sex chromosomes and have vaginas; men are people with XY sex chromosomes and have penises.
These coupled beliefs are typically held by those who deny the existence and identity of transgender people. For instance, Maya Forstater, a researcher who worked for the Center for Global Development, has previously tweeted “… male people are not women. I dont think being a woman/female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology.” For more on Forstater and her involvement in J.K. Rowling’s transphobia, see Cloud Dancer’s previous post on the matter.
Sex and Gender as Distinct
In contrast to the idea that gender is simply synonymous with sex, or that one’s gender is identical to one’s sex, many feminists believe that sex and gender are distinct. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article ‘Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender,’ the distinction is characterized as follows:
Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity).
The idea is that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ refer to two different phenomena – the former referring to a biological phenomenon and the latter to a latter phenomenon. Since they refer to different phenomena, then it does not make sense to say that they are identical.
Unlike the idea that sex and gender are identical, this distinction between sex and gender is able to explain and account for the existence and identity of transgender and non-binary people – those whose gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.
What exactly does it mean to say that one’s gender identity does not “align” with one’s sex assigned at birth? It’s helpful to understand this idea by first understanding what makes someone cisgender – when one’s gender identity does align with their sex at birth.
Typically, cisgender people are characterized as one of these two:
People who identify as a woman and were assigned female from birth (Cis women)
People who identify as a man and were assigned male from birth (Cis men)
People who do not find themselves under one of these two relationships are said to be transgender or non-binary.
People who identify as a woman and were assigned male from birth (Transwomen)
People who identify as a man and were assigned female from birth (Transmen)
People who neither identify as a a man or a woman despite their assigned sex from birth (Non-binary people)
One of the key focus areas of the Cloud Dancers Foundation is documenting transgender stories. We have previously documented the stories of trans seniors such as Petra Wenham and Maeve DuVally who have shared their journeys in becoming their true selves and the hardships they faced along the way. But why is it so important to document the stories of trans people?
Feminist Standpoints and Situated Knowledge
Storytelling is important because it allows people to listen to and better understand the realities of marginalized individuals. These stories consist of the personal experiences of marginalized people, experiences that non-marginalized people never had. As such, people who don’t identify with certain marginalized groups have a harder time identifying and understanding the issues that these groups face. Such theses are discussed within feminist social philosophy, mostly in the idea of standpoint theory.
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, two relevant claims of feminist standpoint theory are “(1) Knowledge is socially situated. (2) Marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things and ask questions than it is for the non-marginalized.”
The idea is that insofar as the situations and experiences of marginalized groups are different from that of non-marginalized groups, they will come to have different understandings and interpretations of their social situations. As Sandra Harding, one of the seminal authors on standpoint theory, puts it, “knowledge is supposed to be based on experiences, and so different experiences should enable different perceptions of ourselves and our environments.”
One important aspect of this concerns matters of discrimination and oppression. Oppression is typically taken to involve two parties – the oppressed and the oppressors. Given the nature of oppression, the social situation of the two groups is radically different. While one experiences privilege and advantages along some social dimension (e.g. economic, material, etc.), the other experiences discrimination and disadvantages along those same dimensions. As such, the oppressed group who experience systematic disadvantages are in a better position to understand their plights than the non-oppressed group, who do not experience disadvantages and thus are not usually conscious of the issues that marginalized groups face.
It’s important to clarify that belonging to one marginalized group doesn’t mean you better understand the plights of other marginalized groups. For instance, being a cisgender black woman doesn’t mean you better understand the experiences of trans people than trans people themselves. To draw back on the main thesis of standpoint theory, this is because cisgender black women have never experienced what it is like to be trans.
This is a point made in a previous Cloud Dancers blog post concerning Dave Chappelle’s comments on the transgender community. As a non-trans individual, Chappelle has never experienced what it is like to be transgender and thus has never experienced transphobia. Despite this, Chappelle makes claims that imply he understands transphobia better than trans people themselves. However, his claims are uninformed by the actual realities of trans people and what they are saying.
Storytelling – Critical Race Theory
These sentiments are also echoed in the works of critical race theorists. One of the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory is what Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic call the voice-of-color thesis. Due to the different experiences that individuals from marginalized groups have, especially with respect to discrimination and oppression, they are able to communicate matters that non-marginalized individuals are unlikely to know. Within the context of race, it is difficult for America’s dominant racial group to understand what being non-white is like.
With this in mind, critical race scholars promote the practice of storytelling – for black and brown people to describe their personal experiences. The goal of storytelling is to describe the realities of marginalized individuals, realities that involve experiencing discrimination and systematic disadvantages, realities that non black and brown people will likely have a harder time understanding.
Transgender Storytelling
Similarly, Cloud Dancers looks to document the stories of transgender people, to cover their journeys and hardships in order for non-trans people to better identify and understand the issues that they face. From the activism within feminism, which brings attention to the realities of women, and critical race theory, which brings attention to the realities of non-white people, a similar practice can be made with respect to transgender storytelling, which brings attention to the realities of transgender people.
Sourced from ThoughtCo: https://www.thoughtco.com/seven-sisters-colleges-historical-background-3528803
Sourced from ThoughtCo: https://www.thoughtco.com/seven-sisters-colleges-historical-background-3528803
From the beginning of their existence, the meaning of a women’s college and its relevance has plagued the political sphere of the United States.
Questions have morphed over the decades—“Do women deserve spaces dedicated to education? Should women go to college?” or “Do we still need women’s colleges in a time when the majority of colleges admit women?”—but the main examination plaguing women’s colleges today remains the same as it was a hundred years ago: what is the meaning of “women’s college”?In a time when what it means to be a gender minority and what it means to be a woman is constantly shifting, this question has remained strong in the minds of feminists and gender theorists alike. As a non-binary person attending a women’s college, this question has been a core factor in my daily life.
The History of Women’s Colleges
When the idea of a “women’s college” was first introduced, it was in response to the fact that very few colleges would admit women into their institutions. Over the course of several years, hundreds of women’s colleges opened and, in response, many high-level institutions, such as the Ivy League, established women’s colleges to admit women when the main college refused to do so. However, as male-dominated colleges began to admit more and more women, the number of those women-only institutions began to fall, and fall dramatically: although there were hundreds of colleges in the early 1900s, only 40 remained in 2020. That number is even lower in 2023, sitting around 27 or 28. (“The History and Impact of Women’s Colleges”)
But what does this mean to the importance of a women’s college? Why did so many colleges close—or be absorbed into their main parent institutions (like Radcliffe College and Harvard University)?
The Identity of Women’s Colleges
The focus of a women’s college is undoubtedly that—women—and, in that identity, women’s colleges have been in the forefront of many discussions regarding the meaning of womanhood and the expectations of gender performance.
Wellesley College, for example, states that while they accept the applications of transgender women and non-binary applicants, they particularly only accept non-binary applicants who “were assigned female at birth and who feel they belong in our community of women” (FAQ – Wellesley College). Bryn Mawr College states the same, but in longer terms:
Bryn Mawr College considers as eligible to apply to the undergraduate college all individuals who have identified and continue to identify as women (including cisgender and trans women), intersex individuals who do not identify as male, individuals assigned female at birth who have not taken medical or legal steps to identify as male, and individuals assigned female at birth who do not identify within the gender binary.
My own college, Barnard, makes note of only accepting women (including transgender women, as of 2015). In the FAQ section of their Transgender Policy, there is one particular question of interest: Are individuals who identify as non-binary or gender non-conforming eligible for admission? The answer? “Barnard accepts applications from those who consistently live and identify as women. To be considered for admission, application materials should support this self-identification” (Transgender Policy – Barnard College). Bummer.
All three of these colleges are members of the Seven Sisters, or at least what remains of the Seven Sisters that still consider themselves women’s colleges (Radcliffe College, aforementioned, no longer exists as an undergraduate or women’s college, and Vassar began admitting men in 1969). All of these colleges were considered, at their peaks, the “Ivies for women.” All of them are strictly managed, rigorous, and difficult to gain admissions to; and they all, at some point, have worked together—that all being said, what marks such a large difference in their interpretations of “women’s college”?
Is there a singular interpretation of what makes a women’s college? Better yet, is there a singular or correct interpretation of what makes a woman, or what makes a gender minority? These are just more of the questions that these colleges have battled with for decades, but let’s try to grapple with them in a few simple ways.
Is there a singular or correct interpretation of what makes a woman, or what makes a gender minority?
Gender in the 21st century is a complicated topic affected by all avenues of thought — philosophy, religion, morality, politics, and more. Keeping this all in mind, what describes a “gender minority”? What is the meaning of “gender” in the first place?
The Purpose of a Women’s College in Modern Day
Let’s assume that a college is built for the advancement of education (an oversimplified idea by far); therefore, a women’s college is built for the advancement of women in education. If a women’s college is built for the advancement of women, why? A possible answer…? when women’s colleges were first established, women were underrepresented in higher education.
How has that goal changed with time? If the ultimate goal of a women’s college is to represent and serve a community with a low level of representation in higher education, then that goal is now void: in 2021, a study revealed that women outnumber men in completing a college degree (Georgetown University). Certainly women still face many, many injustices in a patriarchal society like the United States, but is that something women’s colleges are equipped to respond to, or are these colleges more-so a facade of previous goals — an institution built for maintaining the wealth and class of those in power above them? Barnard, for example, has a long history of indebtedness, struggling since its founding to maintain a stream of wealth able to support its students and faculty; in modern day, the College is astronomically reliant upon extreme donations from families like that of the Vageloses (multiple buildings on the small, four-block campus) and Glicker-Milsteins (other buildings and programs); not only that, but it is reliant upon Columbia, a co-ed university. As compared to the other sister schools, Barnard’s endowment fund is considerably smaller.
This is a problem that has been resolved in the past through mergers with parent colleges, like Radcliffe and Harvard, but that isn’t particularly an efficient solution either, and still does not serve towards the goal that colleges like these were built for. Aside from “a community of women,” what do these schools provide that others do not? — An institution built by and for women. Even in an age where women complete more degrees than men, it is still comforting to find solace from a patriarchal world in the presence of people like you (a woman surrounded by women). That is a purpose which should not be ignored.
Womanhood and Gender Minority Statuses
Womanhood can be defined in many different ways, but all of these colleges seem to have taken that identity in the same direction: placing it into the hands of the applicant and student. That is important because it assists in recognizing the blurred lines between gender identities: while one may not hold every identity placed upon womanhood in a particular person’s opinion, they may in another, and they may even in their own. That is what matters: to “live and identify as a woman,” whether that means by being a cisgender woman, transgender woman regardless of how far in their transition they may be or their understanding of what that transition would look like, or etc.
Where do genderqueer people fall into this? Within the past twenty or so years, the identities of genderqueer people have become incredibly visible in the United States in a way that they had not been in the past (and, by the way, gender non-conforming people are not a new concept). This is a group of people who are marginalized in more ways than one: economically, educationally, socially, and more — people whose entire lives are constantly in question, whose identities have become the plaything of governmental bodies, whose existence has become a legal matter which in some cases has been pushed to mean imprisonment (like this proposed law in West Virginia or these many bills introduced in Texas and a variety of others). All of this is to say — do genderqueer people not fall into the categories prescribed in the very goal of women’s colleges? If the purpose of a women’s college is, we assume, to educate the “women who will make a difference in the world” (Wellesley), then why not apply that to all gender minorities, to non-men? If the goal of these colleges is to fight against the patriarchy, what is this risking?
Do genderqueer people not fall into the categories prescribed in the very goal of women’s colleges?
… Of course, this opens up entire new doors on the problem: if we can define womanhood as one identifying and living as a woman under their own beliefs, then what can we define as genderqueer, or as non-man? Two of the three colleges mentioned earlier in this article do admit genderqueer/non-binary applicants, but only those assigned female at birth. What does this mean to genderqueerness? What does the fact that these people are allowed in at all mean to the identity of a woman’s college?
The main problem is that this perpetuates the idea that non-binary people, as a conglomerate, only identify with femininity and only require the support that women receive; they are forced, therefore, into a binary that their identity was meant to let them escape. This is marked even more by the fact that at these colleges, only AFAB (assigned female at birth) non-binary people are allowed to apply.
This article does a great job at identifying the problems with throwing “non-binary” or “genderqueer” people into a space with women and calling it inclusivity, but I think there is one major factor often overlooked: although these colleges or, in the context of the article, careers and clubs, may want to be more inclusive with their language, that is not the only problem afoot. The most major issue, in my opinion, is that of false security.
Support and Security
A false sense of security is defined as any situation that “makes you believe that you are safe when you are not” (Collins Dictionary).
Applicably, this is more than clear at the majority of women’s colleges today. Out of those that claim to accept gender non-conforming people, for example, actual resources for these people are few and far between; of those colleges which do not accept gender non-conforming people but claim to support those already within the institution who are transitioning, support is typically impossible to find anywhere but in close friends and partners. The facilities and services at these multi-million-dollar institutions lack in almost every way, guiding applicants into a false sense of security which suffocates those within and pushes many to end up leaving their educational journey behind before graduating. Colleges will continue to use feminine language, offer health services excluding transgender health and offered only in regards to female-born bodies, or have record-keeping programs which cannot support name-changes, for example. This goes beyond just education: it expands to the entire experience of university life, a time where one needs as much support as necessary.
In Finality
The debate about women’s colleges goes beyond what can be briefed in an article — it’s an entire subject that could be divided amongst a career of research. Those whom we turn to with answers are still faced with confusion and insecurity: the anxieties of institutions and the conflicting beliefs of different sources can be felt deep into the political sphere of the United States, which has already been heavily affected by transphobia, gender revolution, and acts of violence.
What can you do? Go out, learn more, and do your own research – develop your own opinions. Advocate, raise your own voice and the voices of transgender people, and be your own person.
Halloween is a holiday that allows many to express themselves and have fun outside the confines of day-to-day life. We made a list of Halloween movies to watch this weekend that have LGBTQ+ representation and that embody this freedom.
Our favorite spooky gang is back! If you’re reading this, you’ve probably been aware for years that Velma’s character in the Scooby Doo series is queer coded (it definitely wasn’t subtle), but this movie officially let her out of the closet!
Hulu pulled through for fans of drag this year with their “Dragstravaganza” hosted by queens Ginger Minj and Monet X Change. With many amazing drag kings and queens, a great soundtrack, and all the fun and opulence you could ask for from a drag special, this spectacular is sure to get you ready for spooky season!
We all know and love the Sanderson Sisters, and while they still rule the screen in the Hocus Pocus sequel, three drag queens briefly take the stage impersonating them. I would happily watch a fully dragged-out version of the film, but allowing queens to showcase their art in such an iconic Disney movie is a huge win for the LGBTQ+ community.
No list of LGBTQ+ Halloween movies would be complete without mentioning The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Honestly, there are so many ways this movie could have gone wrong. We could’ve ended up with another Jame Gumb perpetuating harmful stereotypes, but instead we ended up with pure camp, bliss, and self-expression. Put on some fishnets, cinch that waist, and get ready for a night that will live in your memory forever.
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a time to unite survivors of domestic violence, to highlight the organizations offering support, and to raise awareness of this pervasive and critical issue. Domestic violence can also be referred to as domestic abuse or intimate partner violence. This can take on many forms as abuse can be perpetrated physically, sexually, emotionally, economically, verbally, and more. The United Nations defines it broadly as “a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.”
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that compared to cisgender individuals, trans* individuals are twice as likely to experience intimate partner violence. Trans* is a term meant to be inclusive of all identities along the gender spectrum, and even though anyone can experience domestic abuse, those who identify as trans* are especially at risk. Besides this added vulnerability, though, these same individuals face exponentially more obstacles to getting help. Not only are there added complexities to the violence committed against them, but systemic inequities deny them certain protections when they speak out.
Abuse against trans* individuals is more prevalent than among cisgender people, and it also contains layers of transphobia, homophobia, heterosexism, transmisogyny, and threats of outing the partner’s identity. In a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a transgender woman recounts her ex-boyfriend threatening her life and telling her, “no one else would ever want a freak like me, that I’m not a real woman, and that I’m worthless.” In a world that perpetuates these negative views, abusers play on internalized stigma and insecurities in order to further control their partner.
Similarly, perpetrators may threaten to “out” their victim to friends, coworkers, or family members. Everyone deserves the right to share such intimate aspects of their identity with people of their choosing, under their own terms. People may feel like being out will devastate certain aspects of their lives, so such threats can be terrifying and real, making them feel trapped in the relationship.
Beyond this, the stigma around being trans* acts as yet another barrier to getting help. These people therefore not only have to deal with the stigma around being a victim of abuse, but they also have to face prejudice against their own gender identity. Even if their abuser is not threatening to out them or if they are already out, some individuals who are “passing” may fear that seeking help through organizations will require them to disclose their history.
All this converges into systemic inequities which deprive trans* individuals of the protections which do exist for survivors. Unfortunately, many of the organizations and programs that are readily available for abuse victims are not equipped to serve the trans* community. Some shelters do not recognize gender identities unless they have fully transitioned. A transgender woman recounts seeking help but being denied shelter because they still considered her male. Reaching out is a huge and difficult step in escaping an abusive environment, and having these negative experiences can prevent them from continuing their fight.
Another recourse available to survivors are protection orders. These may help create physical distance between partners, halt communication, and create a safe home environment among other things. However, the American Bar Association states that protection orders are often denied to LGBTQ individuals, and especially to trans* people. Different states have varying policies on this issue and hold different standards for what they consider a “domestic partnership,” especially in regards to LGBTQ relationships. In this way, the system is further stacked against the trans* community, and those in perilous situations may feel even more attacked, hopeless, and alone.
With the legalization of gay marriage, and increased understanding of what it means to be trans*, there is some improvement being made. But these are just the first steps in correcting a system of oppression and violence which has already damaged the lives of so many. We have to keep demanding change, to advocate for the people that need it, to support those who are seeking help, and to be the change we wish to see in the world.
