a future female cyborg, why not?
I wish to follow this piece of news, which turned into this and this and worse, this (that's lots of ricochets blurring the issue at hand).
Caitlyn Jenner you do not understand what being a woman is about at all. You want to be a woman and stand with us— well learn us.The point is correct but misplaced. McGowan is a biological woman, not a transgender female. Caitlyn Jenner will never be the woman McGowan has in mind. Mrs. Jenner is what McGowan could never come to be, even if she wants to.
We belong in both a biological club and a gender club. Biology is DNA-bounded. Gender is role-bounded. The TRANS club is gender-bounded. Its members feel and desire other than their respective DNA-bounds. They don't ever leave —can't— their biological clubs. Transgender individuals fiddle with their bodies to make it look different (a M-F seeks a female body, the F-M transgender seeks a male body), but that's not a biological change. Some transgender individuals may not want neither male nor female bodies to fit their gender choice.
Why not accept that the TRANS club is a form of otherness beyond biology?*
Caitlyn Jenner's boobs, makeup, garments etc, are non-essential —if that's what drives McGowan's point. Does Jenner minus her boobs makes her any less a female? Does McGowan's menstrual cycles more of a woman? Methinks not. A female coming from a M-F TRANS club cannot be like a "female" in her WOMEN's club.
This fight over being a woman is not literal! (which both McGowan and Andi Dier miss).
Moreover, the gender-bounded club is not, like its DNA counterpart, permanent. One can enter and leave it. It happens all the time).
*Imagine the possibility of a cyborg gender club. I sympathize with Donna Haraway's desire to expand Feminist take on gender, but disagree that cyborgs are necessarily genderless (all we need are female-isomorphic algorithms).