The Cotton Ceiling. Really.
Porn rockstar Drew Deveaux recently linked this disturbing, uh, thing, on twitter. It presents an email conversation between a lesbian activist and a trans activist. In summary, the lesbian activist asked the trans activist what the “cotton ceiling” was. The term, which was entirely new to me, deals with the concept that trans women are welcomed into feminist/lesbian spaces, but they are largely ignored as potential sexual partners in these spaces. Think the feminist concept of a workplace “glass ceiling”, but with panties. I’ll admit that I’m biased against any glimmer of transphobia, but to my eye, the conversation quickly descended to the lesbian activist more or less asking the trans activist “Why are you trying to force me to acknowledge you as a woman and touch your penis!? Eeeeww!” Of course, this is just my interpretation, but here’s a direct quote:
Lesbians are sexually attracted to females. This does not include trans women with penises.
Hold the fuck up there.
First off, hasn’t feminism– especially queer feminism– been dealing for over a century with how fucked up it is that other people try to define “correct” womanhood for us? Distinguishing between “female” and “woman” here may seem deceptively okay because “female” refers to sex and “woman” refers to gender. But sex is so much more than genitals, and I cannot imagine feeling comfortable telling anyone else what their sex or gender is. If you feel comfortable doing that, please spend the next month speaking as little as possible and concentrating hard on listening to the people around you. You are not the boss of the planet: you can certainly say that women with penises aren’t female, but your simplistic view of bodies and selfhood and reality is not fooling the rest of us.
Second of all, and I can’t believe there’s even a remote possibility that this is going to blow anyone’s mind: Some lesbians want to have sex with women who have penises. Yes, really. Accept it now. I’m a queer woman. I love women. I am absolutely open to dating and fucking trans* people, including trans women. You don’t get to dictate to me whom I am attracted to. You don’t get to tell me what girl love means. I realize that my bisexuality might cloud this issue, but let me assure you that there exist full-blooded lesbians who feel the same way. Let’s put it this way: I can also have completely male-free lady sex involving a penis at any time with a cis woman. It’s called a strap-on. A penis doesn’t make someone male; I speak from a place of experience here.
I don’t think the trans activist or anyone else was saying that all lesbians are transphobic meanies unless they go out immediately and find trans women to have sex with. Obviously, each of us has the inalienable right to be attracted to the people we end up being attracted to. At the same time, there’s a big difference between saying “You’re not the type of woman I’m into” and saying “I’m into women and you don’t count.” I suspect that the plea here is to fully acknowledge trans women in the queer community as women, as lesbians (if applicable), to acknowledge their partners as female-loving people, and to open up to the idea that female-on-female sexuality is more diverse than all vaginas all the time.
In short, stop trying to make goddamn rules about other people’s sex lives. Maybe even consider reevaluating some of the assumptions that led you to create rules for your own.
Feminism doesn’t get to be an exclusive club. Feminism is the anti-exclusive club. We will joyfully include everyone in our goal of equality– including men with penises, women with penises, marginalized groups of all kinds, and even people we don’t particularly agree with, or we’ve already failed. We’re either dismantling hierarchy or we’re just rearranging it.
I can see both sides of this one, honestly. I think the lesbian is less saying “your self image is invalid” and more saying “wait you want me to consider you female sexed when you have a penis? I don’t think it works that way.” Not very clearly, but I think that’s the angle she’s trying for.
And the trans woman is trying for “Look we just want people to think about things enough so that the people who might be attracted to us get a chance to peek around preconceptions.”
They’re both coming across as “la la la la I can’t hear you” in spots, though.
I think the lesbian lady should have recognized that some lesbians would like to have sex with someone who has a penis. I think the trans lady should have recognized that not everyone wants to have sex with someone who has a penis. She made a big deal out of consent early on, but then seemed to have the idea that if people would just stop thinking of them as scary, scary trannies, everyone in the world would want to have sex with them. Which isn’t true.
I don’t think anyone is in the right on this one. I can see how there could be difficulties finding partners for the trans women, but if you have to change someone’s mind for them to find you sexually attractive, it’s probably not going to work out the way you want it to. Not to mention that strikes me as manipulative.
And now I’ll stop rambling.
QP, how is your first point anything but anti-intellectual fundamentalist belief that matter is subordinate to faith, that biology is a tool of the devil?
@Jonathan Um… the same way it’s not a haiku about ham?
If the gametes you produce are larger than the complimentary gametes, congratulations, you’re female sexed, end of discussion.
What you do with that from there, be it frilly pink sundresses or declaring yourself to be a third gender known as Bob, that requires use of the personal pronoun “purple pistachio nipple,” go nuts and rock out with whatever you want. But purple pistachio nipple’s gametes are still bigger than the complementary ones, so once you nod and smile at the pitch, that Bob is a girl. ;)
…maybe I shouldn’t have a bag of pistachios on my desk when I’m trying to think of random terms.
@Stingray Per that logic, why can’t someone who produces smaller gametes go nuts and call herself female? Even if you strictly define “female” as biological and chromosomal, it still has massive social and emotional repercussions. I feel like the percentage of us who need to be concerned with what reproductive cells any individual does or does not produce is vanishingly small.
My main complaint here, however, is people imposing their personal viewpoints onto the identities and orientations of others. If someone balks at the scientific(-ish) term “female” with regards to a trans woman, but is otherwise totally supportive of her identity and expression as a woman, is that a problem? I would actually be interested to hear/read a trans woman’s opinion on that because I lack the experience to know whether it’s hurtful or not. My gut says “It certainly could be, so why bother with pedantry?”
Lesbians who want to have sex with women with penises are called “bisexuals” or “queer.” No hate, just the facts.
Be upset that they are pushing this lesbophobic bullshit, why don’t you?
And stop elevating gender over sex, it hurts females when you do that.
PS – I am super transphobic. Boo.
http://smashesthep.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/on-the-cotton-ceiling-rape-culture-and-feministe/
(ps – feel free to email if you need help figuring out where babies come from – bugbrennan at gmail dot com
Speaking as someone who’s admittedly mildly transphobic:
A: Feminism ain’t just for women. Tons of us straight men are pretty hardcore feminists, too. (This is where Stingray and I would, if we were so inclined, exchange a pound. And I would take his pistachios.)
B: I don’t care for other penis. Oh, I’m a huge fan of my own, but in sex, I’ve an admittedly socially-inate mild aversion to other penis. This is actually quite common among straight men, to varying degrees. I don’t judge the straight man who has no problem with other male genitalia at all. Our social construct has pretty much declared that the straight man who has sex (or even has willingly and unapologetically had sex) with other penis-bearing men is gay, or bi.
C: If my buddy chooses to go out with a self-identified female trans who still retains her penis, I’ll likely roll with it with no more concern than whether they’ve seen The Crying Game, so that I’ll know if references are got, and make judgements on an individual basis.
D: This includes if my buddy is a chick.
E: Some of my lesbian friends are pretty much terrified of penis because of trauma from early childhood. This is abnormal, yet competely understandable. We like what we like. We fear what we fear. Given that life is so full of options, is it worth trying to overcome the fear of penis, or just move on with a penis-free lifestyle?
F: I am defensive for QP when someone tells her to “stop doing that,” which is silly, because it’s quite clear that she can take care of herself around here, and also because I can see Cathy’s side in this.
___________
Interesting discussion.
@Cathy Brennan Hi, Cathy. I believe my original post (which I stand by) probably already made it clear that we don’t agree on this issue. But thank you for sharing your thoughts.
http://bugbrennan.com/2012/03/21/lesbophobia-and-the-cotton-ceiling/
Quizzical Pussy – Love the name, btw. So, you think lesbians are bigots for not wanting penis? Is that right?
Per that logic, why can’t someone who produces smaller gametes go nuts and call herself female?
I thought that was rather my point with the whole go nuts and make up whatever social version you want bit. And if wasn’t clear, I’m entirely with Matt on this, and the only real concern I have in dealing with anyone regardless of where their purple-pistachio-nipple line on the spectrum lands, is whether or not that’s the *only* thing about their personality.
Socially I’m with you all the way. But scientifically? Sorry, that one’s already on the books, and, well, the nerd part is openly advertised. (And you’ll note I said female *sexed*. Some fish have a huge spectrum of genders, which must make for even more awkward undersea cocktail parties than under consideration here, but the mines-bigger-than-yours rule still holds as it remains a binary system in that respect.)
@Cathy Brennan That’s incorrect. If that’s what comes across from this post, I’m flat-out dismayed.
I think anyone who tells someone how to identify needs to check themselves. I think anyone who tells someone else whom they’re allowed to be attracted to because of their identity needs to check themselves.
I think each and every lesbian has every right to prefer sex with cisgendered women with vaginas. I simply disagree with any cultural pressure that says or implies “If we sleep with trans women we are betraying our lesbian-ness.”
I also disagree with anyone– trans or otherwise– who tries to coerce and pressure another person into feeling obligated to have sex with them.
@Stingray Gotcha. I did indeed misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
Ugh. That conversation was awful. I had to stop halfway through. They both kind of have a point, but the trans* activist was acting so entitled to pussy, and the lesbian activist was acting so… authoritative, I guess, like she’s the final authority on what makes a woman a woman and what lesbians want to sleep with. YOU GUYS. STOP IT.
I see where they’re both coming from, though. The trans* activist thinks it’s unfair that so many queer women don’t want to sleep with her, not because they’re not attracted to her, but because they’ve categorized “trans” as either “not really a women, really” or “not the kind of person lesbians sleep with”. That’s totally unfair! But the problem isn’t that they won’t sleep with you, it’s that they don’t think of you as a real woman.
On the other hand, (and I think this is what the lesbian activist was hung up on), some people just aren’t attracted to real penises. They just aren’t. And if you have one, their crank stops turning the second your pants come off. That totally sucks for the trans* partner. But it really isn’t transphobic to be averse to penises. It can be a woman’s penis all it wants, but it’s still a penis. Sorry.
The lesbian activist really needs to brush up on not being a dick, though. She was basically saying that not only was this woman not a real woman, but that lesbians who sleep with her aren’t real lesbians. And if “You don’t count as lesbian if you sleep with trans women” is a prevalent attitude… yeah, there’s a real problem here.
In communities that are very open about sex (I’m in one) there’s an odd kind of etiquette dilemma.
Normally, you’d presume that being a decent human being doesn’t require you to include people in your sex life if you’re not interested. I am not being “mean” if I don’t want to sleep with you, even if you are a lovely person — I have the right to pick who I do and don’t have sex with.
But when the trans ladies *consistently* get no love, you start to wonder — is this discrimination? On the one hand, I still think people have the absolute right not to have sex unless they want to; and that includes not having sex with trans women, if they’re not attracted to trans women. On the other hand, if the trans people can *never* find partners, maybe there’s some kind of cultural stigma at play. It certainly sounds non-PC coming from, say, bisexuals: “I like manly men and feminine women, but androgyny creeps me out in bed.” Something there doesn’t sound right. But if the alternative is to guilt-trip people into having sex with folks who just don’t turn them on, then I’m pretty sure I want no part in it.
So I have thoughts in extensiveness, and I started to write them down, and then I went out for pizza with derby girls which turned out to drinking with derby girls plus one guy who is possibly the entirety of Los Alamos’s minority alternative scene.
…So I’ll have to finish them tomorrow.
I am disappointed to see situations that could be “this is my view but I respect your differing opinion” but instead are spittle-flecked arguments where no resolution is possible. It seems to me that one of the great miracles of technology is that so much exploration and sharing of information is possible and that eyes will be opened that there is an entire, hanky-coded (or not) spectrum of options beyond “thou shalt hetero/missionary only, you drab motherfuckers.” The insistence upon narrowly defining points for a varied group of folks seems as claustrophobic to me as the same old/shame old hierarchy from which people who rilly like sex seem to have liberated themselves recently. We’re humans, though, and will fall back into silly patterns at times, and we are also prone to being jerks, myself included at time. Having had friends/associates who were cis, though, I balk at them being treated with wholesale hostility by another group who, frankly, still grapples with a lot of prejudices. Irony much? Definitely.
My concern is for the young person who is coming to terms with their own transgendery who might read such a thing and feel they will be met with hostility and abhorrence, when in fact, they should be encouraged and told there is a world of possibilities out there, and they can find warmth and acceptance as they are, or in whatever way they need to modify to bring the outer in alignment with their innermost being.
Consenting adults can find their sexual complement of whatever stripe they most prefer. Trying to pre-package an identity so we can neatly compartmentalize ourselves is as boring and staid as the sexual ruts mainstream western society has been lumbering along since there has been a mainstream westerns society. I think most people are more sexually complex (if they are honest with themselves) than may be expressed in a one, two or three-word label.
I will say to you, QP, that as awful as negative and limiting arguments can be, I find the discussions here stimulating and I am heartened that there are sex-positive places like yours where people can explore ideas and find a greater comfort level with owning who and what they are.
“please spend the next month speaking as little as possible and concentrating hard on listening to the people around you”
Unfortunately, the way the world is, anyone who did that would mostly hear transphobic viewpoints.
“the trans* activist was acting so entitled to pussy, and the lesbian activist was acting so… authoritative, I guess, like she’s the final authority on what makes a woman a woman and what lesbians want to sleep with.”
Yeah, that’s how I felt about the whole thing too.
Without getting into the gender question, the lesbian is being insensitive at best, but the trans woman is fundamentally wrong.
Given that the arguments are strictly geared towards trans women with penises, I can’t even see that discrimination enters into it. The trans woman’s positions just seem patently ridiculous with that added in. Lesbians by and large are attracted to, specifically, the female form – not the human form, the female form. Self-described lesbians are, by virtue of having overcome social pressures, more likely strongly preferenced for the female form. And sexual identity just don’t enter it. (into physical attraction, I mean.)
I think most people are more sexually complex (if they are honest with themselves) than may be expressed in a one, two or three-word label.
Nope! I can do me in three, easy! :D
Ready?
“I like fuckin’.”
Three words and done. You owe me a coke.
@CheckeredFoxglove In my opinion you are spot on in your assessment, in the article linked by QP the trans-activist does come across as acting ‘entitled to pussy’.
I think what irks me most is this (quoted from the article) “The cotton ceiling is a theory proposed by trans porn star and activist Drew DeVeaux to explain the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, it means that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.”
I cannot help but feel like i’ve heard the same sort of sentiment from ‘nice-guys’ on ‘What About Teh Menz’ whining about “Why do I always get friend zoned” or “Why is it that women only see me as a friend but never a sexual partner”.
Worse still is the term ‘Cotton Ceiling’. The ‘Glass Ceiling’ refers to the barrier between women and positions of power within organisations as a result of sexism, a position that they deserve (out of competence or skill) – but are denied. The ‘Cotton Ceiling’ – as it apes the term therefore implies that trans-women are owed sexual partners among the lesbian community (because they are competent).
It reeks of ‘nice-guy’ syndrome as I mentioned. Yeah it must really suck to have friends who support you, fight for your rights but doesn’t see you as sexually attractive – for whatever reason. Why can’t you be happy that you are accepted socially and let sexual partnerships occur naturally instead of calling out a group as transphobic’ for not wanting to sleep with you. Certainly the lesbian-activist pushes her own point and comes across as transphobic, but I imagine there certainly many other reasons lesbians might not consider trans-lesbians desirable partners, and that just comes down to the fickle nature of personal preference.
I’m not part of any of these groups, i’m a Caucasian cis-male bisexual. So I don’t have any stake in this, except that this topic pushes my buttons the way that the trans-activist in this exchange sounds so goddamn pushy, as well as throwing blanket statements about entire groups.
Just because it needs to be said: The readers/commenters on this blog are amazing and I love you guys. I feel like I said my piece, but I am really enjoying the often-more-nuanced opinions in these comments, and it’s giving me a lot to think about. So thank you.
I really do live in a wonderfully insulated internet bubble. Transphobia is some incredibly terrifying shit.
It’s all well and good to chatter on about delightful academic hoohay with regards to those icky others and their identities, but then we tend to forget how trans people are significantly more likely to be murdered. Not just fired, or treated mean, or not sexed. MURDERED.
And then this “Oh what a fun entertaining thought experiment” bullshit is revealed for the smelly excrement it is.
@KarenElhyan, I fail to see how this applies to the topic here. No one is debating that transphobia is a terrible thing, but the issue of bodily harm doesn’t come up in this article. How many trans-persons are killed by members of the queer community?
The issue here is a matter of sexual desirability rather than outright discrimination.
If someone tells you they are a woman, is there anything you can legitimately infer about them from that statement? If so, what?
So I went and read that exchange, and BOY does it ever feel similar to the “I’m not racist because I don’t like to have sex with X people” discussion.
I dunno, as a cis woman of color who has definitely experienced the “I simply don’t see you in that way” because of race, I understand the frustration. I don’t want to have sex with people who aren’t attracted to me, but I also would like wider acknowledgment that the reason I don’t get as much love as white women is because white women are seen as more sexually attractive than I am….because of racism.
The linked discussion is obviously a different dynamic, but at the end of the day, it’s a similar frustration. The cis woman in the conversation can’t even accept the basic premise – trans women are women – so she can’t have a conversation about transphobia, because she’s IN IT. She’s doing the basic transphobic thing – claiming that trans women aren’t women.
God, it is so TIRING to be polite in discussions like that, where someone’s questioning your basic humanity/identity. That trans woman is a friggin’ saint.
vagina is not an “identity” – female is not an “identity” – you hurt females when you reduce female to an “identity” – it is not some fashion you adopt at will.
it is not denying someone’s existence to acknowledge difference. males are not females. lesbians desire other females. trans women are women, but they are not female.