Today’s post may end up being a short one, because I just want to get it out there in the world asap.
First, some housekeeping. I’m sure many—if not most—of my thoughts here at TBR will not be original, but rather things I’ve learned from radical feminist spaces, reading, and chats with other feminists. My aim isn’t to reinvent the wheel, though—I feel that we, as radical feminists, as what I consider part of the dwindling population of real feminists, haven’t succeeded in the game of internet PR. That isn’t to say it’s our fault—with being deplatformed, censored, silenced, banned, suspended, fired, how could I blame us, really? So part of my goal with TBR is to add one more space to the Internet which consolidates our thinking, our perspectives, and our voices. (To that end, if you ever want to write something on TBR, send me a DM on Twitter with your idea!)
Now. Can we talk about this chart? Because to me it is literal proof of sex-based oppression.
It is on page 205 of this report, from the 2015 US Transgender Survey. Now if you’ve never seen this chart before, or if, like my cousin, you are brilliant at writing but challenged when it comes to visual information, I’ve annotated it below:
(I will be using the language of the trans activism, here: AFAB and AMAB, “Assigned Female/Male at Birth.” You may take this to mean male or female, or if you believe that transwomen cease to be male—or were never male—when they transition, this will be helpful to you.)
What this chart shows is that, in a survey of transgender Americans, the AFAB trans people were more likely to be raped across their lifetime than the AMAB trans people.
If you are an AFAB nonbinary person, you are 40% more likely to be raped in your lifetime than an AMAB nonbinary person. If you are an AFAB trans man, you are 37% more likely to be raped than an AMAB trans woman.
I wonder why that is? Could it be….because of their sex?!
And here’s something as alarming as it is revealing. We’ve all seen the rhetoric about how transwomen are especially vulnerable, perhaps even the most oppressed people in society. And yet here is data that is suggesting that transmen are sexually assaulted more often than transwomen. Think about how rarely we hear about this. I’d never even heard this fact until I saw this chart. You’d think that if we truly cared about transmen we would be shouting this from the rooftops. Why don’t we?
The radical feminist answer? Because transmen are female, and no matter how much we try to deny that fact, patriarchy will out. Female bodies, female voices, female minds do not matter as much as male ones, under patriarchy, no matter how they identify. Female bodies are more likely to be violated and male voices are more likely to be listened to. And deep down, despite its best intentions, society gives transwomen more airtime because transwomen are AMAB.
The most interesting part of this, by the way, is the way the report frames these findings. Have a look:
“Experiences also varied across gender, with transgender men (51%) and non-binary people with female on their original birth certificate (58%) being more likely to have been sexually assaulted, in contrast to transgender women (37%) and non-binary people with male on their original birth certificate (41%) (Figure 15.16).”
Experiences don’t “vary across gender” so much as they don’t vary within sex. I find it tragically comical how this report tries so hard to gloss over the word “female” as if under duress. It is as if the authors of the report are afraid to frame the finding as “if you are female you are more likely to have been raped” for fear of being called transphobic and invalidating gender identities.
And again, in what is turning into a recurring theme here at TBR, this is another example of why preserving the language we use to describe female experiences is important. The fact that this study cannot draw a clear line between “transgender men” and “nonbinary with female on their birth certificate” and say “female,” is obfuscating rather than illuminating—it erases a pattern that lies in sex, not gender. And language, especially language in science and academia, should illuminate, not obfuscate.
“Transgender men and non-binary people with female on their original birth certificates” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “female people,” does it? But we aren’t allowed to say that anymore:
“Among transgender men and non-binary people with female on their original birth certificates, rates of sexual assault were higher among people of color, particularly American Indian, Middle Eastern, and multiracial people.”
Translation: female humans of colour are more likely to be sexually assaulted.
Look, if you are AFAB and want to identify as something else, identify away. But do not hinder our ability to talk about sex-based oppression, misogyny, and patriarchy. Don’t prevent the discussion of very obvious trends that affect us all. Because as you can see from this chart, it affects both of us, no matter how you identify. We are both more likely to be sexually assaulted in our lifetimes than male people. That isn’t to invalidate your identity, it isn’t said with any kind of malice. It’s just the opposite—it’s said with passion, because this is something I want to protect all female people from. Denying it doesn’t make it go away.
If only it did.
Now, the caveats.
The implications of this should be huge. It is a very clear suggestion that sex plays a part in oppression. But it is also a suggestion that more research is needed to determine precisely when the assaults occur. Because note that this doesn’t say when they were assaulted. It simply says that they were assaulted. The assault could have happened before they transitioned, it could have happened after, it could well be why they transitioned. If I were designing a study like this, I would ask, were you assaulted before you transitioned, or after? But I would also ask, do they pass? My guess is that transmen were assaulted, on the whole, before they transitioned/if they didn’t pass, and transwomen were assaulted after they transitioned. Ie, my guess is that if you seem female you are more likely to be raped. If this were the case, this would bolster the reality of misogyny. But as it stands we just don’t know.
Now because I used to be a TRA, I can guess at what the rebuttal to this would be. “Well,” my past TRA self is saying, “this is still gender based violence because it’s about the gender the rapist thinks you are. Maybe trans men were assaulted more often before they transitioned, because they passed as women. And all this talk of passing sounds a lot like gender, not sex! Also, trans women are women, you terf scum!”
Yes, you could say that it’s perceived gender that plays a part in this, but I would argue that perceived gender is really just sex, and you can attach all the made up terms to it that you like, but sex characteristics for women, such as breasts, wider hips, facial structure, voice, indicate to a violent male the sex of the person they’re assaulting.
And then of course there’s the case that nonbinary AFAB people are assaulted more often than nonbinary AMAB people. If gender is the basis of such violence, how come AFAB enbies are more likely to be assaulted than their AMAB counterparts? Were they simply assaulted more often before they transitioned because they passed as woman, the gender, or were they assaulted more often because they are female, the sex?
Rapists don’t assault a gender and it is ludicrous to make that case. For AMAB trans victims, yes, being a GNC male places you at risk of male violence—because that’s how patriarchy is reinforced, through the maintenance of gender roles and the punishment of those who deviate.
I want to end with this. These numbers are remarkably high. They are higher than most lifetime sexual assault rates of women in the West. It is remarkably clear that those who are gender non conforming are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, whether before their transition or after.
And this is exactly why radical feminists want to abolish the concept of gender. Gender is a cage of expectations and stereotypes, and those who do not fit their box are singled out, targeted. But what if there were no boxes? What if, instead of making more boxes for people to fit in, we simply removed the boxes? That is why radical feminists want to abolish gender—gendered expectations on females reinforce patriarchy and focus male violence. Whatever you take away from this chart, I am sure we can agree that being gender nonconforming makes you a target. And that’s why more gender isn’t the answer—no gender is, so that there’s nothing to conform to, there’s just you, me, and our shared humanity.
thank you Zara
Dynamite. Good work!