First Wave feminism (19th and early 20th centuries) set up a concept of of female essentialism - female as a "class" have certain set characteristics and oppressions.
Second Wave Feminism (early 1960s) began to challenge this assertion and others with diverse perspectives and began the project of deconstruction of this ideal calling forth intersectionality and the different perspectives of women around the world working in different ways on different forms of oppression.
Third Wave Feminism introduced more identity politics and the rise in struggling with gender as a shared social concept that is enforced and privileged across society.
The question: As we begin to really talk turkey about trans realities, are we again essentializing what a "woman is" or "what a man is" that has roots more based in cis-privilege than fairness to the wealth and breadth of either "class" or the great amount of cross over between the sex classes?
In
plain language .....does anyone see us a society making up the
following groups "women" "trans women" "trans men" "men" because the
trans parts may not have been raised with the social conditioning of
either other category and may experience some degree of complicated
"maleness" "femaleness" attribute crossover.....all the while negating
the unique experiences of trans folk which not only ostracize them from
the other two classes but go as unrecognized.
Example for illustration:
Cis-women
may grow up with the overhwhelming statistic that 1 in 4 women will be
raped before attending college. Trans women may/may not, but the
overwhelming statistics of homicide, the experiences of being sidelined
once transitioning, ex too often do not get factored into the trans
women are women calculus.
Or,
more basic...transwomen may not have grow up with the biological
components and cycles that cis-sisters do, but does this really make
them "non women" somehow?
