Lesbian cis women feminists express greater levels of negativity toward trans women than other cis women (heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual) do

This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of Trans Women. Meredith G. F. Worthen. Sexuality & Culture, Apr 26 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-09970-w

Abstract: Though there is evidence of an historical exclusion of trans women from lesbian feminist separatist spaces supported by radical feminist lesbian anti-trans discourse as well as modern examples of anti-trans perspectives promoted by feminists sometimes described as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, it remains unclear as to if there is a significant association between being a lesbian cis woman feminist and harboring negative attitudes toward trans women or alternatively, if the recent proliferation of exclusionary tactics directed toward trans women’s rights (especially via social media) has been the result of loud voices among a minority who have been successful anti-trans mouthpieces as of late. The current study utilizes survey data (N = 1461 cis women; n = 331 lesbian cis women) to investigate the following research questions: (1) do lesbian cis women feminists express greater levels of negativity toward trans women than other cis women (heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual) do? and (2) is there a relationship between feminist identity among lesbian cis women and the stigmatization of trans women (as undeserving of rights, as incapable parents/mothers, as excluded from the military, and as sexually problematic)? Results provide ample evidence of anti-trans perspectives among some lesbian cis women feminists. Overall, the findings provide a starting point to begin to understand how to dismantle the complexities embedded in the relationships between feminism, lesbian identity, and trans negativity and work toward a trans-inclusive future of feminism.

Notes

1 “Womyn-born womyn” is a phrase used to describe those who were born and labeled female as their sex assigned at birth and who have lived their entire lives as females. It emphasizes the significance of sex essentialism and the uniqueness of “female experiences.” In this conceptualization, females who are “womyn-born womyn” endure the oppressions of patriarchy in distinct ways that differ from those are not “womyn-born womyn” (Browne, 2009, p. 548).

2 This is despite the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 statute that now (as of 2019) explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

3 Reforms to the U.K. GRA Gender Recognition Act (GRA) were suggested in 2018 and were denied in 2020. If put into place, the reforms would have made it easier for trans people to self-identify their genders because the requirements to provide a Gender Recognition Certificate and gender dysphoria diagnoses from two different medical professionals would have been dropped.

4 Trans-exclusionary feminists who reinforce sex essentialism incorrectly argue that if trans women were allowed into “women’s only” spaces, they could subject cis women to “unwanted exposure of male genitalia,” “male sexual objectification,” “male sexual violence,” and “male predation” (Burt, 2020, p. 375).

5 Numerous scholars have documented that trans women are at very high risk of sexualized violence (James et al., 2016; Meyer, 2015; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Wodda & Panfil, 2014) and sexual objectification (Sevelius, 2013) by hetero cis men.

6 It is unknown how many of these emails were actually received and read by the potential respondents so an exact response rate is also unknown. For example, junk mail filters could have prevented potential respondents from seeing the email invitation, some may have opened the email but decided not to click the link to access the survey, and some may have been deemed ineligible due to identity quotas being met as requested by the author set by SSI (5 of the 8 identity quotas were met).

7 For gender identity, respondents were asked “What best describes your gender?” with responses that were coded as cis men (those that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was male”), cis women (those that indicated: “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans men (those that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans women (those that indicated “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was male”), and non-binary (those that indicated “I am gender-nonbinary, gender fluid, or genderqueer”).

8 The survey was held open for 19 days in efforts to meet the quotas set for the LGBT groups. Five quotas were met as follows: gay men (5 days in), bisexual women (7 days in), lesbian women (8 days in), cis men and cis women (16 days in). The quotas for the remaining three groups (bisexual men, trans men, and trans women) were not met. The survey was closed because SSI believed it was not realistic to expect these quotas to fill in a reasonable amount of time.

9 Ancillary analyses (results not shown but available upon request) were conducted using (1) a subsample of only lesbian cis women and hetero cis women (n = 1081) so that lesbian women could be compared to only hetero cis women and (2) a subsample of only lesbian cis women and BPA cis women (n = 726) so that lesbian women could be compared to only BPA cis women. Results demonstrate similar patterns to those presented in Table 3 and there were no new patterns found in any of these analyses thus confirming that the relationships in Table 3 hold true even when the reference groups differ in these ways.