Jenkins on Haslanger

            In Katharine Jenkins, Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman, Jenkins Comments on Hanslanger’s definition of a women. Hanslanger defines a woman by how often you are observed having a female body, if the majority of the time you are observed to have a female body, then you are a woman and you are subordinated. Jenkins main concern with Haslangers definition of women is that it excludes the trans women. Although both feminist philosopher’s, they have differing views on what it is to be a women more specifically what is it to be a trans woman. First it must be clear though that trans women are oppressed. They are discriminated against in employment, they are often the victims of hate crimes, and are denied housing. This poses a question though are they oppressed in the same way as a female who was born a female? Possibly, if she presents herself as a woman, or she is imagined by society to be a woman she will most likely be subordinated like a woman who was born that gender. But it is important to remember there is intersectionality for oppression due to being a woman and due to being a trans woman.

            I agree with Jenkins that Haslanger is leaving out trans woman. In a scenario where a trans woman appearance as a woman and it is not respected or she is seen to be “dressing up as a man”, that means a trans woman is not always imagined to be a woman because people believe she is man dressing up as a woman. So by Haslangers definition if the trans woman dressed as she wants to dress and is still not always imagined to be a woman therefore she isn’t one? For me that just seems like a big gap in thinking. Or what about drag queens? They are not always dressed in drag; they aren’t always imagined as a woman so that means they aren’t woman according to Haslangers definition of woman. But being a woman is feeling like a woman, not always dressing or trying to convince the public you are a woman. Haslanger excludes a whole kind of woman by keeping her definition so restricted. For example, a man meets a woman at a bar. They share a conversation over drinks, she sounds like a woman, and it looks like she has breasts. But if you were to see this same woman naked she may or may not have female genitalia, if she does not have this female genitalia and somebody sees her according to Haslanger in the moment she takes off her clothes she is male because you cannot imagine her to be female. The main issue I have with this is how can gender be temporary and simply based of appearance? Like a flick of a switch if you don’t look woman enough you aren’t one. Or maybe you are a female who just shaved her head, the person at the register calls you sir, just because one person “imagined” you as a male means you just instantly become one? I find that hard to believe. So maybe we should just all shave our heads so we can look like men and hey maybe get equal pay in the workplace, sound like a simple enough fix? NO. Because appearance is just a speck of what it means to be a woman and there is much more to it then how you look.

            The cis women and the trans women, should be working together, not classifying each other into groups excluding others, fighting the wrong battle like if you fit the definition of a woman enough to consider yourself a woman, when we should be working for equality for all woman, all of us. The idea of excluding some women from the freedom to call themselves women in society is just like excluding women from being able to do the things men do.