Kontextualisierung zu Federici und geschlechtliche Sozialisation

We have received criticism regarding our latest texts, which are very much based on Silvia Federici's book “Caliban and the Witch” and her text “Wages Against Housework”. In particular, we were made aware of the author's transphobic positions. We also used the term “female socialization” in the last text and were made aware of the general problematic nature of the term. We have therefore taken a little time to discuss the criticism and have not published further texts as usual. We are very grateful if you send us criticism of this kind and would like to take this opportunity to address some of the points mentioned and publish a subsequent, brief (incomplete!) assessment from our side.

Federici has attracted particular attention in her more recent books¹ “Witch Hunt” and “Beyond Our Skin” as well as in various interviews with queerphobic arguments that are very close to the self-described “gender critical feminists” - a transphobic current of radical feminism, especially in the UK. Among other things, she argues in favor of biologically defined gender, describes feminism as a struggle exclusively by and for women and associates “large section” of “the trans movement” with a neoliberal pseudo-feminism, which she attacks.

While her older book “Caliban and the Witch” is not so obvious on these points, it is also noticeable here that queer identities are not part of her analysis. This should definitely be criticized: Anyone who wants to make feminist analyses must also include the realities of the lives of all those who are to be liberated from feminism. This naturally includes queer, trans and non-binary identities. These are even central, as their very existence can represent resistance to patriarchal and capitalist power structures and role distributions. Fundamentally, however, it is not only about who Federici's analyses are about, but also about the basic assumptions she makes about gender in her analyses and the consequences that result from her analyses.
And we should also take a close look at “Caliban and the Witch”. The text can also be read as an attempt to stabilize binary, unchangeable gender, calling for a “feminist” liberation movement with “the woman” at its center. Nevertheless, we do not consider the book to be useless. With a queer understanding of gender, Federici's historical analyses can help us to understand how and why certain gender roles were and are created and enforced in the first place. However, we have made the mistake of adopting Federici's exclusion of queer identities in parts and not researching their current prescription in transphobic discourse in advance.

The concept of gender socialization (or socialization) has now become a fighting concept of various transphobic “feminist” movements (so-called TERFs: trans exclusive radical feminists or “gender critical feminists”). TERFs claim that socialization takes place strictly according to the gender ascribed to the person and that there is a clear division into a largely uniform female and an equally uniform male socialization.
This view is incompatible with the reality of life for many queer, non-binary and trans people. The argument continues to be used to deny people their gender identity and to be openly transphobic. The socialization argument is often used to deny trans women access to women's spaces and safe spaces, for example, because they are “socialized as men”, cannot shed this and would therefore continue to pose a danger to cis women. Here it becomes clear what a rigid, binary, under-complex and simply wrong understanding TERFs have of the process of socialization.

We understand gender socialization as a never-ending process. This is shaped both individually by familial, traumatic and other personality-forming experiences, as well as by structural levels such as class, race, (dis)ability and other positioning. Socialization is always in a field of tension between gender identity and external demands.