In an attempt to transgender IR, starting with feminist research makes sense because, when queer theorizing has been incorporated into IR, it has usually been in explicitly feminist work (e.g., Weber forthcoming; Wilcox 2009; Peterson 1999). Still, it is important to note that a number of trans- theorists have been explicitly critical of both feminism and queer theory (Stryker 2006, 2). Some, though not all, trans- theorists have often noted a discomfort with feminist theorizing, largely related to feminist theory’s reaction to the trans-. While feminist IR has not engaged in these problematic modes of theorizing, many feminist theorists outside of IR have eschewed trans- advocacy, arguing that there is tension between trans experiences and claims to legitimacy and rights and women’s claims about gender hierarchy in the social and political world. According to Shotwell and Sangray, this creates a double bind for trans- persons in (especially liberal) feminisms, where, trans women are framed as men stealthily “while infiltrating the last bastions of women’s space, men [are framed as] lesbians with a ….trans … particularly bad case of patriarchy-induced false consciousness” (2009, 70). Trans- theorists have also argued that feminisms sometimes hold an understanding of gender that is injurous to trans- people’s interests, especially to the extent that feminisms refuse to recognize some trans- people’s claim to a primordial biological sex. While some scholars and activists think that feminism and trans- theorizing are fundamentally at odds (where trans- people are an affront to femininity and feminism uses/abuses trans- people), others think that these tensions can be transformative for feminist theorizing, such that trans- theory insights make feminist theory stronger and better, politically and ontologically. In trans- theorist Cressida Heyes’ terms, it is a question of developing and broadening feminist theorizing:
In an attempt to transgender IR, starting with feminist research makes sense because, when queer theorizing has been incorporated into IR, it has usually been in explicitly feminist work (e.g., Weber forthcoming; Wilcox 2009; Peterson 1999). Still, it is important to note that a number of trans- theorists have been explicitly critical of both feminism and queer theory (Stryker 2006, 2). Some, though not all, trans- theorists have often noted a discomfort with feminist theorizing, largely related to feminist theory’s reaction to the trans-. While feminist IR has not engaged in these problematic modes of theorizing, many feminist theorists outside of IR have eschewed trans- advocacy, arguing that there is tension between trans experiences and claims to legitimacy and rights and women’s claims about gender hierarchy in the social and political world. According to Shotwell and Sangray, this creates a double bind for trans- persons in (especially liberal) feminisms, where, “while trans women are framed as men stealthily infiltrating the last bastions of women’s space, ….trans men … [are framed as] lesbians with a particularly bad case of patriarchy-induced false consciousness” (2009, 70). Trans- theorists have also argued that feminisms sometimes hold an understanding of gender that is injurous to trans- people’s interests, especially to the extent that feminisms refuse to recognize some trans- people’s claim to a primordial biological sex. While some scholars and activists think that feminism and trans- theorizing are fundamentally at odds (where trans- people are an affront to femininity and feminism uses/abuses trans- people), others think that these tensions can be transformative for feminist theorizing, such that trans- theory insights make feminist theory stronger and better, politically and ontologically. In trans- theorist Cressida Heyes’ terms, it is a question of developing and broadening feminist theorizing: