(This is not the most academic examination of the topic, it’s just some thoughts that have been rolling around in my head. I might write something deeper and more thorough on the topic in the future.)
It is a common refrain from the more cowardly online transphobe to declare that trans women are “male socialised”. These are people who would never go so far as to declare that trans women aren’t women (at least not in public), but they do think we have some things we need to unlearn now that we’re women. I reject this. Firstly all children socialised under patriarchy are “male socialised” in effect. Secondly, accusations of having been “socialised” in any particular manner is only ever levelled at trans women. Further trans women do not have conventional childhoods, even those of us who only came out as adults cannot be said to have conventional boyhoods and much of the socialisation we were exposed to was cruel and traumatising. Finally what is the act of transitioning but a rejection of our “male socialisation”?
It is undoubtable that society teaches boys harmful misogynistic things about women, that these teachings are reinforced through the social interactions that young boys (or those believed to be boys) are subjected to. Young boys are taught by every structure of society that to be grown up, to be a man, to be what they were born to be is to hold power over women, be that socially, sexually, financially or otherwise. However, if we are to understand anything about the way that children are socialised under patriarchy beyond a simplistic dichotomy of “male socialisation” & “female socialisation” (the former being a vile corruption that trans women must work to over come, the latter being a way of being raised that imposes no moral obligation on those subjected to it), then we must understand that all children whether cis or trans, boy or girl or neither are socialised by and for the benefit of patriarchy. Where boys are taught to dominate, girls are taught to be dominated. Where boys are taught command, girls are taught to obey. Where boys are taught to be strong, girls are taught to be weak. From this formulation we can see a very stark divide in the lessons that are taught to boys and girls. But further examination makes clear that these are not two sets of lessons one for boys & one for girls but the same lesson imparted to different groups in slightly different ways. How can a boy be taught to be strong unless there is a girl being taught that she must be weak. How can a boy learn to lead unless a girl learns to follow. At its most basic girls learn to be dominated, but this lesson is imparted to boys too. They are taught to follow, to allow themselves to be dominated. The reason that boys are given dominion over girls and men over women is to affirm the naturalness of domination, of hierarchy. Just as the husband may exert economic domination over his wife, capital exerts economic control over the worker, just as the father uses force to discipline his children, so does the state use force to discipline the working classes. These lessons are imparted to all children, regardless of real or perceived gender, and all for the benefit of the prevailing social order. No child truly benefits from this upbringing, and all children are harmed by it, merely in different ways, and it is for each person to overcome the lessons taught to them by patriarchy. To fight against their patriarchal socialisation.
Secondly this accusation of being “male socialised” is never used when referring to cis men, it is only ever used to delegitimise the womanhood of trans women, the language of socialisation is used because it is an abstraction which allows for delegitimisation while not crossing the line of merely calling trans women, men. There is never an implication that trans men or indeed cis women could benefit from unlearning the lessons that patriarchy taught them. Rather being “raised male” is seen to impart a moral obligation on trans women that we must unlearn the things taught to us. Once this language around “male socialisation”is recognised not as a genuine discussion of the way that children are raised and merely as a rhetorical weapon to be used against trans women it becomes easy to see that it had no substance to it. That it is just one example of the way that “authentic womanhood” is used to demean and degender trans women. This perverse argument states that it is nurture not nature which determines who we are, and because we were “nurtured” as men then we’re not real women. There is no consideration of course of trans women who transitioned very young, and were raised as trans girl. These women (few that they are) are erased in service of this argument. Indeed trans women being forced to grow up as boys and be subjected to male puberty are “male socialised” entirely against their will.
One simple fact ignored by this rhetoric is that trans women do not have conventional “boyhoods” many of us were victims of the corrective bullying that exists under patriarchy to remove femininity from those patriarchy deems to be boys. Those who lived as gay men before were subject to rank homophobia, including often physical abuse, from other children but adults as well. When the girls and boys in your primary school class make fun of you for being gay because you do ballet, is this “male socialisation”? When you are subjected to physical violence because of perceived femininity is this “male socialisation”? When you are sent to a gay “conversion” torture camp, is this male socialisation”? Undoubtedly these are all examples of “male socialisation” even those who throw the accusation around would concede to that. They would likely say that this is exactly the kind of thing that trans women need to unlearn. In fact, if we argue that we shouldn’t have to unlearn such harmful socialisation surely this is just evidence of how deep the socialisation goes. As always with these people their accusations, their arguments, their “legitimate concerns” are only ever rhetorical traps. Admit and they will hound you to prostrate yourself due to your “male socialisation” but if you deny this and fight against the framing without dismantling it you are merely proving their point. There is no consideration of the fact that trans women are by their nature people who have undergone the radical act of rejecting patriarchy and their place within it.
It has been said that the opposite of killing yourself is to transition. Transition is the choice to embrace life. It is also the singular act that most rejects “male socialisation”. Patriarchy hates trans women, because to become a woman is to reject the static fixed roles that society predetermines for you, and to reject the hierarchy of patriarchy, to willingly subject yourself to the utmost cruelty that patriarchy can subject you too. How could any trans woman reach the conclusion that transitioning is a desirable, life affirming decision unless she has unlearned the lessons taught to her as a child. Unless she has unlearned the “male socialisation” that has taught her that men and women are two completely different species with women being fundamentally lower than men. Every accusation is a confession, and when the transphobe accuses trans women of being “male socialised” they admit their own “male socialisation” because they betray their belief that women are lower than men and that trans women must “become women” for some ulterior motive. To them a “male socialised” person would never choose to become a woman unless it was to harm women. This is why they hurl the accusation at us. Because to admit that trans women are not “male socialised” is to admit that trans women are in fact women.
girlinrobot