Reply to comment

As a response, but not really an answer, to Alex's second question:

I get the feeling that, as much as this course is designed to help us understand what we mean when we say "feminism," it is also about questioning the necessity of gender itself, not even just the gender binary. So there is no "tranliness": this may be part of the way to break out of the high emphasis we place on gender to distinguish people. Certainly, no one completely aligns with some definition of "femininity" or "masculinity" all the time. Perhaps the first step in eliminating the gender binary is to alter our perceptions of characteristics from "either masculine or feminine" to "human."

In "Gender Terror, Gender Rage," Kate Bornstein proclaims: "I agree that hiding, and not proclaiming one's transsexual status, is an unworthy stance, more heinous if one's invisible status is maintained with the purpose of gaining power" (239). I could not agree with such an accusation: don't some people have to—or at least feel like they have to—maintain secrecy for protection? Depending on the place, it may or may not be safe (i.e. one's life might come into harm) to express political or religious opinions, sexual preferences, heritage, etc. Just because some of us might want transgender people to be open and honest as part of the way to disrupt the gender binary does not give us to right to mandate their participation in our efforts, nor to condemn them if they do not wish to comply.