Argument Against Haslanger

Isabella Corredor

Professor Richardson

PHI/WGS 297

Blog Post #3

Haslanger's main claim is that you are a woman if 1) You are usually observed or imagined to have a female body, 2) If according to the custom of your society, those who have female bodies should occupy subordinate positions, and 3) As a result of 1 and 2, you occupy a subordinate position. Jenkins has several objections to Haslanger's definition of what a woman is, specifically she makes the argument that Haslanger doesn't include trans people. The part that I find particularly troubling about Haslanger's definition is what she means by the word "usually". Does it mean on a day to day basis are you observed as being a woman or does it mean for the majority of your life have people seen you as a woman? If she meant the first definition of usually then trans people would fit her definition; however, the second definition of usually would exclude trans woman, particularly ones who transitioned later on in their lives so they haven't "been a woman" for that long yet. So it brings up the question of time. How long do you have to be a woman for you to be considered one? The idea of their being a standard amount of time you have to be a woman for it to be "official" seems weird to me (i.e If you have been a woman for x amount of years you are a woman according to Haslanger). Another aspect would be drag queens. They are only a woman for a night or maybe a couple nights out of the week. Would Haslanger count them as woman? I would think no since they do not fit the "usually" part of her definition.

Haslanger's response to the argument that she doesn't include trans women would be that her account only excludes females who are not observed or imagined to be females, and so are not viewed and treated as members of a subordinate gender class. My issue with this is that I feel this implies that trans woman can only be considered a woman if they physically transform their body from a male to a female so that they can be observed to be a woman. Also, I feel it brings into question not just trans women, but women who don't look "female" on the outside. What about a woman with short hair who wears baggy clothing or clothes that are typically seen as "boy clothes"? If people get confused with whether she is a man or a woman than according to Haslanger she wouldn't be a woman. Particularly the issue is with the words "observed" and "imagined". They imply that Haslanger's definition solely depends on how other people see you, as opposed to how you see yourself. Therefore, women themselves can't identify themselves as women, others have to identify them as a female. At its core feminism is about the advocacy of women's rights and having equality to men in all aspects of life, social, political and economic. So to say that a woman must depend on other people to define who she is suggests that she can never truly be independent. No man needs other people to observe them as a man for them to be a "real" man; So why do women need other people to imagine them as a women for them to be a "real" women? It implies a huge imbalance between men and women in the way we can and can not identify ourselves. Her definition focuses so much on appearances which is analogous to gender expression; however, gender identity is more how you personally see yourself on the inside, which in my opinion Haslanger doesn't do a good job of addressing. Jenkins would say that Haslanger discusses gender as a social class, but doesn't address gender as a lived identity which is the category trans people would fit into it.