Jenkins response to Haslanger

     Jenkins’s argument against Haslanger’s analysis is something that was different than the other arguments we had read so far in class. To begin, Jenkins’s states that “the proposition that trans gender identities are entire valid… is a foundational premise of my argument, which I will not discuss further” (396). The bluntness and no room for argument is something that is foundational in my feminism, and it is the first time so far this semester where an author has said something along these lines. This is very important because trans women and trans people in general are very much so marginalized. In fact, they are more marginalized than cisgender women. To be skeptical of the marginalization of trans women, or excluding them from one’s definition of being a woman is trans-misogynistic, and also ignores the implications of being a trans woman of color as well, especially since the murder rates of these women are so high. Something else that Haslanger’s argument ignores is that trans men are also marginalized in ways that cisgender women still are not. However, it is important to note that trans men, while marginalized because of their gender identity, still can perpetrate misogyny, and this is also certainly an intra-community issue in the trans community. This is especially in the cases of trans men who pass. With that being said, Haslanger’s argument also makes it seem as though passing is the end goal for all trans people. However, that also ignores non-binary people, as well as ignores the classist implications because not everyone can afford to go through with surgeries or hormones. The lack of surgeries or hormones does not make someone less trans than someone who has gone through them.

     Also, another point that Jenkins makes is that “some trans women make their gender identity public,” (399) and some do not, which also does not invalidate their identity and their existence as being a woman. Additionally, Haslanger ignores the historical context of gender as well, since the way that gender roles and the way that they are enforced currently did not happen until colonialism. In many societies before Europe invaded, while there were gender roles, the presentation and the idea of only having two genders did not exist the way it does today. One example of this would be the Philippines, which has been colonized for most of its history. Countries such as the Philippines were not homophobic or marginalizing in those aspects until the West became involved, and thus so did the Catholic Church. While Haslanger’s argument may make sense to some people, especially those who may identity as trans-exclusionary readical feminists (TERFS),  there is an overall consensus that this is not a type of feminism people should adopt because being exclusionary is the exact opposite of what feminism is trying to do.