While your use of the dog whistle “trans activism” as a catch all for theoretical work about trans women tells me more than enough about your politics, two brief points.
- I am not claiming Beauvoir is a class based thinker; shes not. Wittig isn’t claiming that either when she quotes parts of Beauvoir that lend themselves to a class based perspective. Wittig shamelessly, and I think usefully, takes what helps her project from Beauvoir and leaves that tied with the baggage of heterosexual ideology (which fills Beauvoir, like have you read the Lesbian chapter). So I don’t think its fair to say my use of Beauvoir is dishonest, as much as its heterodox. Your problem seems mostly that you don’t like the move Wittig makes which I mirror here.
2. Cutting individual quotes from the second sex is tricky because Beauvoir on the surface level contradicts herself. She writes the history section and the biology section in Part 1 of the text which she explains is about women from the perspective of men (where Part 2 is about women from the perspective of men). As such she makes statements that are paraphrases of patriarchal ideology throughout the History, Biology, and Psychoanalysis, and Myths chapters. She also towards the end usually gives her own assessment but both are presented in her voice (This is a tricky writing style many Beauvoir scholars have commented on including Bonnie Mann and Toril Moi). As such, we could both pull single sentence quotes all day, and without the context or a broader exegetical discussion (which medium or any social media is a tragically bad platform for) we will not, likely, reach resolution. But, for me, its irrelevant. I think Beauvoir’s theory is of utmost importance but is not perfect and I use what is useful and don’t use what isn’t. I’m not a Beauvoirian literalist of some sort, and am much more indebted to Wittig.