Resistance as a Foundational Commons: Intersectionality,Transfeminism,and the Future of Critical Feminisms

Abstract

The paradigms of academic and activist feminisms in the United States in the middle and later half of the 20th century were developed in part as critical explorations of exclusionary practices within feminist ideology. The strength of critical feminisms is their capacity to reimagine the limiting parameters of exclusion (e.g., of Black people and people of color, of butch lesbians, etc.) that are based in many of the same principles that bolster patriarchal definitions of gender and sexuality. Such patriarchal definitions include the pressure to express and experience gender and sexuality in a static manner that relegates all other expressions as Other or merely transitional. If the purpose of critical feminisms is to explore the “issues of power [and]…the ways that gender ideology… is produced, reproduced, resisted, and changed in and through the everyday experiences of” people, then the concepts that this paper explores should be of the utmost importance within critical feminisms. In doing so critical feminisms must examine the contributions and experiences of trans, non-binary, and queer people that help us to reimagine what it means to be a feminist in a world of free expression.

Across the United States and elsewhere, the rights, autonomy, and freedoms of trans and non-binary people are being threatened, attacked, and repealed in legislative, judicial, and social spheres. Transphobic lawmakers, pundits, and trans exclusionary radical feminists push narratives that mischaracterize trans and non-binary communities as perpetrators of threats, violence, and inauthenticity often in the name of a “feminism” that is designed to coddle strictly cis-gender heterosexual (cishet) white women. However, what is often missing yet surreptitiously emboldened by these narratives are the disproportionate rates in which trans and non-binary people suffer physical violence, sexual violence, exploitation, homelessness, joblessness, and discrimination across the lifespan when compared with the general U.S. population (Kattari & Begun, 2017; Matsuzaka & Koch, 2019). Seemingly every day in the United States new bills, laws, or discourses are being proposed to further limit the very right of existence for trans and non-binary people; a cruelty of which extends not just to trans/non-binary adults but also directly targets trans/non-binary children (Conron et al., 2021). Almost every aspect of trans and non-binary individuals’ lives are policed and diminished, from bathroom use and sports participation to general healthcare access and bodily autonomy. All dissected and put on a national stage for others to judge and decide using the lens of trans exclusionary radical feminism, gender conforming feminism, and a myopic view of gender that only recognizes a cissexist and oppressive binary (Burkett, 2015). These issues have and will always be a central tenet for action for practitioners of critical feminism because trans and non-binary people are an integral and crucial part of all communities, all disciplines, and all feminisms. In order to confront the attacks on the very right to life members of our community experience in the United States and elsewhere, we must acknowledge the contributions of trans and non-binary scholars, reposition ourselves as critical feminist social workers, and align our resistance strategies with guidance from trans and non-binary scholars who have created methodologies for such foundational change (Aultman, 2019; Bettcher, 2021; Dembroff, 2020; Feinberg, 1992; Halberstam, 2017; Johnson, 2015; Koyama, 2000, 2020; Penny, 2015; Salamon, 2010; Wilchins, 2017).

Feminism as an applied theoretical concept has historically bolstered the “belief that all [‘women’] and [‘men’] should have the same equal rights and opportunities” (Wade & Ferree, 2019, p.184). Utilized as an epistemology in academia and the social sciences, contemporary feminisms in the United States must move beyond the limiting parameters of 20th and early 21st century feminisms that utilize limited language to gatekeep who can practice feminisms and who can be included within its paradigms. In the current era of the 21st century, we must expand our efforts as critical feminists to incorporate those who remain on the margins of mainstream binarisms and sexualities. Historically, social work as a profession has taken the position that we are an inclusive and progressive discipline. Staying true to this practice requires continued self-evaluation and reflexivity of our praxis by interrogating our scholarship and practices. This article highlights some of the ways scholars and practitioners push feminisms forward in the social and academic realms through coalition building, reevaluating subject matter to include those who have already contributed to trans and non-binary voices in social work, and determining how to be genuinely inclusive in social work research, writing, and organizing.

Feminist social work organizations and publications such as Affilia: Feminist Inquiry in Social Work, have initiated this approach by shifting the language within their title and scope. Goodkind and the Affilia Editorial Board (2021) asserted that the changes made to the journal's name and scope reflect the idea that “feminism has never been solely for or about ‘women’ and that it is more than a fixed personal identity or political doctrine” (p. 481). In honoring this doctrine critical feminism must examine the contributions and experiences of trans, non-binary, and queer people that help us to reimagine what it means to be a feminist in a world of free expression. The changes made within Affilia are a step in the right direction within academia and other scholarly venues that must lead to larger changes within both the academy and activism which this paper will address.

Audre Lorde (1984/2007a, 1984/2007b) and bell hooks (1981, 1984, 2000, 2006) reflect on the Othering of theorists through exclusion from cultural movements because of race, ethnicity, class, disability, sexuality, and/or gender which leads to erasure and appropriation of revolutionary thought. This concept aptly applies to the movement of trans, non-binary, and queer feminists who have unique experiences within a social world that structurally adheres to definitive binaries. Binaries of gender and sexuality are useful for those who identify within the parameters of male, female, woman, man, gay, or straight but are exclusionary to those who contribute to the principles of feminism but do not adhere to such binaries. To dismantle the lingering ideologies of either/or we must enhance our feminist understandings of both/and as well as neither. The purpose of this article is to briefly trace the development of influential concepts that have shaped contemporary feminist social movements, how these developments contribute to trans and non-binary inclusive feminism, and to highlight the contributions that trans and non-binary feminist scholars, activists, and everyday people have offered as a path to a more inclusive critical feminism.

When writing about the influence of trans and non-binary theories, concepts, and thoughts to critical feminisms and how they shape the subject of feminisms, it is important to acknowledge the authors positionalities and motivations. The first author identifies as a bisexual+, white, cis-woman whose investment in writing about this topic stems from her commitment to the LGBTQIA2S+ ¹ community and all of its members rights to self-determination, freedom of expression, and right to exist in equality. She is an anthropologist who focuses on amplifying the important experiences and contributions of bisexual+ and queer people in everyday life as well as in academia, the mental health care system, and social organizations. She also actively practices the principles and actions of antiracism, transfeminism, and decolonization within her politics, and her professional and personal life.

The second author identifies as a Black, non-disabled, straight, cis-woman whose investment in writing about the inclusion of trans and non-binary individuals in the feminism discussion are both personal and professional. This author is a social work professor and licensed clinical social worker whose areas of clinical practice and research include intersectional identity, mental health disparities, and access to culturally responsive treatment and services. Additionally, she is the mother of a non-binary trans-masculine individual. Our subject position is one of privilege and proximity to access and power by way of our identities and we acknowledge that we do not share the lived experiences that trans and non-binary people do. Our motivation for writing this article is to bolster the contributions to critical feminism that trans and non-binary people have made, to not appropriate these contributions as our own, and to not talk over their voices but to amplify the work they are already doing. We have also made the explicit purpose of this article to inform readers of the shifting dynamics within critical feminisms that realize the critical importance of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (IPOC), trans, and non-binary contributions to feminist thought, methodology, and activism. What the authors contribute to this conversation as two cis-women is a critical demonstration of how the commitment and adoption of transfeminism informs, transforms, and progresses feminist scholarship, social work, and activism. Since this article is specifically attempting to expand the ways we understand intersectional feminism, throughout this article we have chosen to highlight authors who identify as trans and non-binary.

For purposes of this article, we will be utilizing the term “trans” to incorporate any person who identifies with a particular gender identity although they may have been perceived to be another gender at birth. We conceptualize non-binary to incorporate any person who identifies outside of or in between the gender binary as well as those who do not identify as any part of the binary, only some parts, as well as those who embody the entire gender spectrum. Cisgender refers to any person whose gender identity corresponds with the gender they were perceived to be at birth. We understand that these are not exhaustive definitions of these terms and that there are many more ways to define one's trans or non-binary identity but hope that these definitions can represent the community we intend to discuss.

Intersectionality, Critical Feminisms, and the Development of a “Both/And/Neither” Framework

Throughout feminism social lives and movements, feminism has often been defined through the language of normativities. Normativities within this framework are characteristics of feminist actors and organizations that catalogue demographics/identities such as race, class, sexuality, and gender into categories of unmarked (and therefore the “norm”) and deviant (anything outside of that “norm”). Lorde (1984/2007b) conceptualized this normativity framework through what they termed as the “mythical norm,” a set of features that is widely acknowledged as the baseline identity for a group but is not saliently represented on the individual level (p. 855). Mid-20th century mainstream feminist movements exercised such mythical normativity frameworks by excluding Black people and people of color as well as lesbians who presented as too masculine because the baseline and therefore the center of the movement was considered white, cis-female, and femme-presenting (Feinberg, 1992). Black feminists and feminists of color have contributed consistently important and profound theories, methodologies, and actions since the inception of the U.S. women's suffrage and the organization of feminist movements. Crenshaw (1989, 1991), Davis (2016), Lorde (1984/2007a, 1984/2007b), hooks (1981, 1984, 2006), and more called out and called in racist exclusionary feminist practices through the development of intersectional approaches and studies thereby activating a crucial turning point across disciplines and theories. It is useful here to briefly define what intersectionality is, what it entails in terms of feminism, and how it is integrated into critical feminisms and contemporary modes of feminist thought. Intersectionality as defined by Cho et al. (2013) is “a heuristic term to focus attention on the vexed dynamics of difference and the solidarities of sameness in the context of antidiscrimination and social movement politics” (p. 787). Intersectionality in feminism entails a critical analysis of these differences and similarities not as a point of fracturing departure but as a generative tool for the development of critical feminisms and dismantling of oppressive systems of power. Integrating intersectional approaches within critical feminisms and contemporary modes of feminist thought requires actors, activists, and academics to understand their own reflexivity within their objectives and to build coalitions under the banner of feminism.

Utilizing an intersectional approach toward feminist ideology, critical feminism has demonstrated that there are still yet sections of the population that are left in the margins of both activist and academic feminisms. Critical feminism, defined by Cifor and Wood (2017), is an “intersectional political philosophy committed to the dismantling of heteronormative, capitalist, racist patriarchy” and “a tool for coalitional work around overlapping and interconnected political realities” (p.2). This approach to feminist critique is a key component in struggling out the contributions of feminist scholars whose revolutionary thought has been pushed to the margins because their intersecting identities did not (or do not) fit within the criteria of normativity.

This marginalization of trans, non-binary, Black, and IPOC voices and experiences can be seen in activist movements such as the Women's March on Washington and various Slutwalks and Take Back the Night demonstrations across U.S. college campuses (Schiappa, 2018; Xiao, 2017). Within these activist demonstrations, the incorporation of non-white, non-cis voices seem to be an afterthought hurriedly tacked on after criticisms of an overwhelmingly white and ciscentric program of speakers have been publicly lobbied (Xiao, 2017). Additionally, the consideration of violence and oppression experienced by trans women, trans men, masculine presenting non-binary, feminine presenting non-binary, and gender non-conforming non-binary people, survivors, allies, and attendees are overlooked, ignored, and even antagonized in such demonstrations because these communities do not fit within a ciscentric white normativity feminist structure (Schiappa, 2018).

Feminisms within academia have been resistant to the integration of trans and non-binary feminist contributions because much of the contextual basis of feminism has relied on the categorical definition of the word woman (Bettcher, 2021; Salamon, 2010). As Bettcher (2021) stated, “women's studies as a field defines itself in terms of the category ‘woman,’ it necessarily requires an additive model that allows for the inclusion of identities excluded by a partial perspective that had hitherto passed itself off as universal” (p. 537). This universal assumption leads to a generalization of perspectives, experiences, and oppressions that does not consider the intersections of identities including race, class, and non-cisness while simultaneously working to reinforce white supremacist cissexist philosophy and methodology as the universal norm. It also situates trans and non-binary communities outside of the scope of feminist goals and resistance through positioning trans people outside of the binary (and therefore the movement) altogether whether they identify as anti-binary or not. As will be addressed later in this article, such an assumption adheres to an either/or dichotomy that does not respect the autonomy and identity of many trans and non-binary feminists. We will address this dichotomy by exploring a both/and/neither positionality that reinforces the autonomy of all feminists who identify with the goal of resisting systemic oppression.

Trans and non-binary feminist voices are critical to the progression of critical feminisms in both the academic and activist spheres. However, as the examples above demonstrate, mere inclusion is not enough. As Johnson (2015) states, we must move “beyond the inclusion to the full integration” of trans and non-binary voices, thought, and methodologies within feminist theory and action in order to progress the movement as a whole” (p. 37). Alongside critical feminism, the concept of plural feminisms is presented as a paradigmatic challenge to heyday feminism that locates axes of oppression and discrimination and confront the underlying powers that perpetuate these axes through an intersectional approach (Platero & Ortega-Arjonilla, 2016, pp. 58–59). Using feminisms in the plural highlights the intersectional experience of discrimination, violence, oppression, and domination within the systems of white supremacy, patriarchy, imperialism, and colonization both within and beyond the United States. This plural view opens up the concept of feminisms beyond the narrow (and normative) and anachronistic mission statement at the beginning of this article that states feminism is the “belief that all women and men should have the same equal rights and opportunities” (Wade & Ferree, 2019, p. 184). Critical feminisms ask: who counts within such a belief?. Throughout the mid-20th century of feminism, Black people and people of color did not count and neither did masculine presenting lesbians. During the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, identities outside of white and heterosexual might be tolerated but not integrated and certainly no one outside of the cisgender binary should make any noise. Accompanying oppressions were not to be centered as they were coded as transgressive to what was considered the essentialism of general feminisms. So, we ask again: who counts?

The politics of “either/or” in feminisms and in western European history has dictated you are either a man or a woman, straight or gay, Black, or white, “dominant/subordinate, good/bad, up/down, superior/inferior” (Lorde, 1984/2007b, p.854). Lorde understood that the hyper fixation of “either/or” politics within the social movement of feminism is a “tool of social control” passed down from patriarchal, colonialist, imperialist, and racist systems of dominance meant to disrupt progression against such oppressive systems (p. 859). Lorde expresses this point clearly by stating “the failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson” (p. 99). This type of intersectional framework of “both/and/neither” demonstrates the capacity of feminisms and feminists to recognize their own interlocking identities and contribute knowledge on the basis of lived experiences and not of proximity to power/access. Lorde (1984/2007b), as a Black lesbian feminist, is intimating that she is Black AND a lesbian AND a woman AND a feminist and to silence one aspect of her identity to make it palatable to a white-hetero-cis feminism is an intentional silencing of her lived experience and erasure of her validity as a social actor . Therefore, feminisms that embrace intersectionality in the contemporary world must entail the integration of “both/and/neither” frameworks in all aspects of identity including race, gender, class, disability, and more within the feminist movement and feminist politics. We use the concept of “both/and/neither” to further illustrate the importance of trans and non-binary feminist lived experiences and how the reduction of identities to binarisms (specifically gender in this case) is a patriarchal strategy and therefore counter to the subject of feminism. Applying a “both/and/neither” framework celebrates all aspects of a feminist's existence without the aggressive gatekeeping that has become akin to a violating strip search of physical bodies and autonomous identities. It turns away from forcing a member of our group (feminism) to be made an “object of other's self-conception” in order to gain entry into a space where the very directive is to dismantle oppressive gender systems (Santos Elpes, 2020, p. 308).

Trans and Non-Binary Feminisms

Unsurprisingly yet all the same disturbing, some current feminist politics have still maintained a white-woman focus and have created new (and sustained old) lines of normativity demarcations to exclude the contributions and lived experience of trans and non-binary people. Meaning the patriarchal tool of “either/or” is still maintained in many foundational corners of social and academic feminisms. One of the main purposes of this article is to demonstrate how the exclusion of trans and non-binary feminists from the larger movement and from the annals of the academy, while not a new phenomenon, is an epistemological and ontological regression that utilizes the same tools of social control that Lorde (1984/2007b) emphasized several decades past. In line with Talia Bettcher's (2021) approach towards an integrated trans feminist methodology and philosophy, this article highlights concepts and methods from specifically trans and non-binary scholars to steer critical feminists away from such pitfalls and to demonstrate “what concept[s] feminists should aim to get people to use in light of their goals of ending sexist oppression” (p. 535).

The contributions of trans and non-binary+ people have and continue to shape critical feminisms through academia, activism, and their everyday lived experiences (Aultman, 2019; Dembroff, 2020; Feinberg, 1992; Johnson, 2015; Koyama, 2000; 2020; Penny, 2015; Wilchins, 2017). B. Lee-Harrison Aultman (2019), a non-binary trans-feminine scholar of Women's and Gender Studies, offers an in-depth exploration of the lived embodiment of non-binary people, how such embodiment is crucial to generative feminisms, and critiques of “either/or” feminist frameworks. Aultman illustrates the relationships and solidarities many non-binary and trans feminists share with other feminists who seek to dismantle oppressive systems of dominance through challenging the hegemonic binarisms, social policing, and discrimination that keeps our movement stagnant. They disrupt the essentialist view of womanhood, a concept that has and can never be universally applied but is used as a technique to diminish the experiences of trans/non-binary (NBi) feminists, by acknowledging that “many kinds of non-binary identities have mutually constitutive relationships that spring from lived tensions with accepted norms about the gender binary itself” (p. 9). This is in response to the false claims against the lived experiences of trans women (i.e., they were socialized with male privilege and therefore the enemy), trans men (i.e., they have sided with the oppressor and/or reinvigorate gender norms), and non-binary people (i.e., they are too individualistic and therefore out of touch with cultural/political contexts) that position these marginalized groups further along the margins of the feminist movement (Aultman, 2019; Koyama, 2000). Aultman (2019) demonstrates the both/and/neither framework through the idea that two things can be true at the same time. A person can live in their identity without forgetting the social and gendered conditioning they faced, they can enjoy their relationships with masculinity, femininity, and neutrality without enforcing normativity (or anti-normativity), and they can fight to dismantle oppressive systems while still surviving in that system. Two things can be true at the same time.

Emi Koyama (2000), an Asian social justice activist who does not subscribe to gender identity labels, has provided many contributions to feminisms such as critical analyses of feminisms over time, contemporary issues in feminisms, and the concept of transfeminism. In her essay, “The Transfeminist Manifesto,” Koyama lays the foundational objectives of a trans-inclusive feminism that functions as the necessary path towards broadening the scope of contemporary feminisms. Koyama defines transfeminism as “a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond. It is also open to other queers, intersex people, trans men, non-trans women, non-trans men, and others who are sympathetic toward needs of trans women and consider their alliance with trans women to be essential for their own liberation” (p. 1).

Transfeminism introduces a different vantage point towards integrating intersectionality and shedding the exclusionary skin of feminisms past. According to Santos Elpes (2020), transfeminism is also “a political effort to incorporate intersectional feminist epistemologies into a project of undoing ontological narratives of the self” (p. 305). Santos Elpes (2020) emphasized that transfeminism is a framework in which agency and autonomy of the self is not an object to be scrutinized through the view of “other's self-conception” but a strong point within a “shared culture of resistance” (pp. 306–308). In other words, who you determine yourself to be is not up for debate when resistance against oppressive gender systems is the common goal. Koyama's (2000) manifesto, along with their revisions that emphasize the importance of dismantling racism, classism, ableism and more within transfeminist theory, made profound statements about the climate of contemporary feminisms and how transfeminism can facilitate meaningful social change in our society. They bridge the gap between the various forms of social movements who challenge oppressive systems of dominance by exposing the circular rhetoric of exclusion and opposition which can be found in current feminist practices. Koyama details the primary principles of transfeminism while also emphasizing the strength inherent in building coalitions: “Sum of our small rebellions combined with destabilize the normative gender system as we know it. Various forms of feminisms, queer activism, transfeminism, and other progressive movements all attack different portions of the common target, which is the heterosexist [white supremacist] patriarchy” (p. 6).

The exclusion of trans and non-binary people within feminisms is the same old strategy reinvigorated anew. Advocates for such exclusions rely on the logic of the same oppressive gender/power systems that wrought cis women unequal to cis men, Black people unequal to whites, homosexuality as pathological deviance, and differently abled people as less than normatively abled people. The logistical thread between all of these discriminations is the patriarchal white supremacist notion that there is normative way of being and it is white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, and cisgender. How is it that feminisms can purport to see through the fallacies of the former while rejecting the latter?

If the “subject of feminism is [for] anyone discriminated against by oppressive gender systems” then it cannot be only for cis white women (Platero & Ortega-Arjonilla, 2016, p. 59). Gender identities that are not included within the hegemonic gender binary are also oppressed by the gender system and experience disproportional discrimination and violence in the social world, including within feminisms, and especially if they are Black or a person of color (Koyama, 2000, p. 7). Beyond suffering, trans and non-binary people also contribute significantly to feminist thought, action, and activism by creating revolutionary thought, organizing for feminist objectives, and enacting meaningful change for all oppressed people including cis women. Yet they are still told they are not part, they will not be centered, and they ought not make too much noise. Social work is a discipline that fosters equity, integrity, dignity, and justice and as such is perfectly suited towards illustrating the crucial importance of trans and non-binary scholarship and activism. As social work continues to expand and engage with critical feminisms let it be the light that exposes the pitfalls of exclusionary practice and the strengths of coalition.

Integration and Coalition in Social Work

There are many ways to align critical feminisms and social work praxis towards an inclusive and integrated space that works for all persons subjected to oppressive systems of dominance. This article contributes to that goal by seeking to include trans and non-binary perspectives in critical feminisms and to bolster the contributions of trans and non-binary scholars within social work research and practice. This follows the core values of social work with specific attention to the tenets of cultural competence of social work practitioners, social justice, and dignity and worth of the person (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2021). In order to continually develop and enhance one's competence as a social worker, new theories and methodologies must be considered and incorporated in social work praxis. This means when working with the LGBTQIA2S+ community or specifically the trans or non-binary community, social workers must look to the scholars and activists of that community who have provided such guidance. For example, Austin Johnson (2015) provided detailed tenets towards the full integration of transfeminist methodology in academic writing. Johnson entitled his article “Beyond Inclusion: Thinking Toward a Transfeminist Methodology” to illustrate the necessity of integrating trans and non-binary perspectives into feminist works, works that often tokenize such identities to seem inclusive. He suggested four measures for achieving trans/non-binary integration in feminist writing:

Inclusion of a transfeminist standpoint epistemology.

Acknowledgement of author reflexivity.

Clearly stated motivations of the researcher.

A consistent troubling of objectivity (Johnson, 2015, p. 30).

Johnson expanded upon the pitfalls of academic feminist writings that do not include each of these methods and the harm it reinforces on non-binary and trans communities. Johnson outlined that a transfeminist standpoint epistemology “should do the methodological work of engaging with the multiplicity of lived experiences of transgender people in order to offer a more accurate understanding that does not impose and reproduce cissexist authority over transgender experience” (p. 25). This approach to researching and writing about trans and non-binary communities helps to attenuate the harm that can be done when researchers are simply talking about but not to a particular community. Author reflexivity and motivations are also a critical aspect of a transfeminist methodology as it allows the reader to understand the context of both the author and the research as well as author acknowledgement of their positionality and access to power. In tandem with author reflexivity and motivations, researchers of trans and non-binary communities must consistently trouble their objectivity by understanding their subjective perspectives while also cultivating a genuine rapport with research peers (also called “participants”) (p. 25). Adopting these tenets of transfeminist methodology will help researchers of trans and non-binary communities, practices, and subject matter to “break the cycle of transgender marginalization” within research and writing (p. 26).

The ethical principle of social justice requires social workers to pursue social change especially for populations who are currently or have historically been marginalized (NASW, 2021). Trans and non-binary people are not a new community, but they are a marginalized community in the United States and as social workers interested in engaging with critical feminisms we must create policy, organize, research, and write with this in mind. In both academia and activism, feminist social workers must create intentional space for the common resistance that we share as well as the unique experiences that we may not in order to genuinely bring about social change. It may also be helpful to look to successful movements beyond the United States to see how such social justice and change can be achieved for social workers interested in activism as well as academic cohesion. Scholars such as Platero and Ortega-Arjonilla (2016) and Santos Elpes (2020) suggest that coalition building between trans feminist and feminist movements are not only possible but have been successfully integrated through their analyses of the Spanish (Spain) feminist collectives since the 1990s. Santos Elpes (2020) describes intersectional coalition building as “the fight against multiplying oppressions, drawing attention to some not-yet-fully visible intersectional struggles in the face of economic and ontological crisis” (p. 303). Within the context of Spain the willingness of trans feminist and feminists movements to band together against oppressive systems of power was facilitated through discussions between the two groups and the development of “interpersonal links for mutual care” (Platero & Ortega-Arjonilla, 2016, p. 56). Reimagining the paradigmatic lines drawn around essentialist feminism (where equality for women and men is the focus) to not only include but to integrate gender, race, class, and sexual identities, contributions from trans, non-binary, and bisexual feminist scholars must be visible and viable through coalition building. In place of the old taglines of essentialist feminism that cling to anachronistic binaries (such as male/female, man/woman) and rely upon the misdirection of marked and unmarked identities (transwoman vs. woman, transman vs. man, etc.) scholars such as Platero and Ortega-Arjonilla (2016) suggested that the “subject of feminism is [for]…anyone who is discriminated against by the gender systems” (p. 59). This type of approach for critical feminisms integrates intersectional, interlocked, and interconnected systems of oppression that are not limited to nor attenuated by essentialist feminist movements and academic frameworks.

Within this article there are examples from trans and non-binary academics and activists who shed light on the importance of coalition building among social movements in an effort to resist an oppressive system of dominance (Platero & Ortega-Arjonilla, 2016; Santos Elpes, 2020). This could not be a more apt time to learn from these examples and implement them in the current fight for reproductive rights and bodily autonomy in the United States. As of June 24th, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in an attack on the rights of millions of people in the United States. We must learn from and grow with trans and non-binary feminist movements to resist this undemocratic attack on the reproductive rights of people with and without uteruses and the domino effect of other newly gained rights that will surely be destabilized with this unprecedented ruling. The social work principle of dignity and worth of a person drives home the concept of self-determination which is of the utmost importance within this discussion of trans and non-binary feminist social work. Reproductive rights and bodily autonomy within our society are issues that the trans, non-binary, and cis communities all have the need for and should have the right to, yet are consistently denied, abused, or made into public issues. Illustrating the connection between trans rights and the reproductive rights located within Roe v. Wade, Koyama (2020) states: “Such hysteria over our personal choices is fueled in part by society's taboo against self-determination of our reproductive organs: like women seeking an abortion, our bodies have become an open territory, a battleground” (p. 8). Social workers must advocate for policies that support the presence of trans and non-binary perspectives in all areas of feminisms. As feminists, social workers, academics, and activists we must learn from the lineages and successes of transfeminist movements worldwide and strengthen the alliances among social movements to attack the common target of a heterosexist racist colonialist patriarchy (Koyama, 2000).

Conclusion

Throughout this article we have explored the meaningful contributions of Black scholars and scholars of color who have shaped the way we understand intersectional feminism, plural feminisms, transfeminism, and critical feminisms. We have also highlighted the way such contributions have catalyzed and strengthened the movement towards trans and non-binary integrated feminisms. More importantly, we have detailed the numerous articles, approaches, and actions created by trans and non-binary academics and activists that are progressively shaping the field of critical feminisms. As cis-women feminists we not only see the importance of integrating and building coalitions with trans and non-binary feminist activists/scholars but also seek to adopt the methodologies and pathways they have created while simultaneously bringing attention to the influential power of their work. This article has demonstrated how trans and non-binary exclusionary feminist standpoints are hypocritically repeating patriarchal white supremacist strategies to the detriment of the entire feminist movement and to the subject of feminism itself. We believe, following the footsteps of Johnson (2015) and Platero and Ortega-Arjonilla (2016), that trans and non-binary objectives are feminist objectives and building coalitions is the only way to progress the subject of feminisms and protect the rights of all people who are subjected to oppressive systems of dominance. Most importantly, we have detailed the way trans and non-binary feminist integration has and will continue to be successful towards meaningful change through centering trans and non-binary voices, bolstering discussions among movements, and celebrating differences and solidarities in the foundational commons of resistance.

The personal is still political (Barker, 2022).