Buried Alive

I am not comfortable being my radical feminist self amongst transpersons.
Excellent point! (Now, bear with me whilst I recall the trans usual response)

You’re denying my reality, my experience, you’re disrespecting me (as a radfem), and [drumroll] you’re radfemphobic!

The kicker would be of course, demanding entry into transwoman spaces. After all, they consider themselves “women, just like us” — so what right do they have to exclude us?

Ah, the same … but different!
I get it, but do they?

“How can I, a gender abolitionist, feel comfortable speaking out against gender and its manifestations in the company of a transperson?”

I feel the same way.

Coincidentally, I’ve just read this post on radical feminism and the transgendered. It’s good.

And if I may quote you also, pisaquari:

“So you know, if a group of radfems (and I do mean group) want to get together and make a day of it exclusively then what the hell is the problem with it? What life shattering thing could possibly result that would have us labeled transphobic and the Grand Haters of transpersons?”

Exactly! You have actually made my day with this post, thanks xx

Wonderful post, Pisquarise!

Janice Raymond suffers from the same level of ‘critique’ as Andrea Dworkin- ridiculously hateful screeds by those who have never read anything by either of them, and never intend to. Shame on them. Those muppets should actually read Raymond and Dworkin… and get a spine and a clue.

[...] March 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm (radical feminism, transmisogyny, transphobia) (radical feminism, sophistry, transphobia) I remember back in the 90s getting into arguments with homophobes about how they couldn’t be homophobic because they weren’t afraid of gay men and lesbian women. Rather than address the substance of the statement - homophobia means you’re prejudiced against gay men, lesbian women, and probably bisexual people - these prejudiced people would shift the goalposts and make it not about whether or not they hated GLB people, but how they weren’t <em>afraid</em>. Belledame compares this kind of argument to a more recent post from a radical feminist proclaiming that she’s not afraid of trans people. [...]

Good post and rightful pointing out of the differences in choice of tactics of radical feminists vs the queer movement.

And in regard to the pingback just above–”phobia” does NOT mean “prejudice.” The correct term for the political prejudice and discrimination, whether on an individual or systemic level, against lesbian and gay (and, ironically, trans) persons is “heterosexism.” If one chooses to use psychological terminology in your “fight against oppression” you can’t define it to mean whatever you want it to mean, and you will have to fight the battle on the ground you’ve picked.

But doesn’t your reasoning assume that transwomen can’t be radical feminists? I don’t see that thats true. I’m sure most are not just as most cisgendered women are not but I’m sure some are.

Yes well, behold!!: this post has already been responded to in some of those non-response kind of ways.

It’s no wonder Conservatives still have the power they do–they’re sneaking out the back door while people can’t quit knocking down the radfems.

Long hail Right Wingdom!
(that’s all I got right now–thanks for the replies haters!)

Welcome Out Loud!

“But doesn’t your reasoning assume that transwomen can’t be radical feminists?”

I recognize there are radical feminists that feel differently–and I have never made any such blanket statement. I spoke for myself and in defense of an event, a rather minor one at that, which I felt was perfectly reasonable for people who wanted a comfort zone to express their beliefs.
I in no way advocate for, or believe, transpersons should be ignored from feminist or radical feminist movements.

“But doesn’t your reasoning assume that transwomen can’t be radical feminists?”

Speaking for myself, Out Loud, I don’t assume that transwomen cannot be radical feminists. What I do feel strongly about is the need for women-born-women only spaces, which as far as I can see is a simple matter of respect. Male born people have different experiences to female born people and we need our own space to discuss these things. I don’t expect to be invited into a space for transpeople, or for BME women- it would be disrespectful for me to barge in.

I just do not understand the mentality that makes one demand entrance to a safe space for a group of people of which one is not a member. ‘Women-born-women’ is very clear.

Idiots.
You can CHOOSE to be a radical feminist. You can’t choose to be born in the wrong sex body.
Yeah, being *born in the wrong body* is really all the fault of gender…obviously gender stereotypes are bad, but if there were none, there would still be transpeople.
THIS is why so many people are turned off feminism.
What the hell is your problem?

reasonablefeminist/anon1/anon2,

No one is blaming anyone for the way they feel. We are just recognizing the chasm and compensating for our discomfort with some ancillary gatherings.

Yes, we blame it on gender–and no I don’t feel trans’ experience of gender is always the typical binary. But gender binary, or gender cut-and-paste style is still gender.

Starting another comment off with “idiots” or something equally useless won’t get your comment approved.

This muppet has read Raymond, and was duly unimpressed.

Naturally Natalia.

“This muppet has read Raymond, and was duly unimpressed.”

Then you are no muppet, because you have done your homework.

Reasonable feminist - To be “trans” you have to have something to “transition”. If gender does not exist, it is impossible to “transition” between genders. It would still be possible to change one’s physical body/biological sex of course, but there is no way of knowing if some people’s desire to do this would still exist if we got rid of gender, because we haven’t got rid of gender yet.

Or, you know, you could actually listen to transsexuals and other trans* folks.
Plenty of us have been saying for years that it’s a physical, genital related thing (for us, not all trans*folk–the communities are far to varied for most generalizations).
Julia Serano’s written on it, I have, so fucking many of the folks I’ve read on livejournal…
Moreover, for almost all of us gender roles (masculinity/femininity) have got nothing to do with anything except maybe giving us a clue or causing us to question things.
And I have read some Raymond (and Greer), I don’t have the money to buy their books (nor do I wish to support them) and I can’t go to any libraries now, but Vancouver Rape Relief has a bit of their work on their ‘theories’ on trans*folk online for viewing.
Both failed completely and were building castles in the sky; this is especially true if you know anything about the actual history of trans*folk and the Medical industries (US and European). Or if you know anything about actual trans*folks and actual trans* communities.

Welcome Drakyn!

Well, I’ve read some of your stuff, known trans personally, and I’ve read a couple books which gave me some insight to the history. Painting me as ignoramus before taking more time to understand my own history does not bode well for how well you are willing to “listen.”

The “physical things” comment is too broad for me to understand. Obviously it is *your choice* to elaborate further.

I am confused as well because you say: “it’s a physical, genital related thing (for us, not all trans*folk–the communities are far to varied for most generalizations).” and then say:
“for almost all of us gender roles (masculinity/femininity) have got nothing to do with anything except…”

I don’t know what to take from these statements–they seem contradictory. “Thing” and “anything” respectively–are they two different topics?

Plenty of radical feminists have read and *listened* as you say, more than myself for many years, and remain unchanged. Clearly there is no save-all.

Honestly, I didn’t get the impression from this entry that you’d read much of anything from trans*folk. I don’t read you journal regularly, I only followed the trackback from Maia’s wonderful post.
There is a difference between listening and listening; just because you know people and hear what they say doesn’t mean that you (general you) listen and believe them. There is a lot of history with the medical industries and society labeling trans*folk, as well as other oppressed groups, as liars and unable to speak reliably on their experiences. In fact, after doctors realized that a lot of trans*folk were altering their stories to fit the doctors’ strict (heterosexist and gender normative) requirements to get treatment they began to officially label us as pathological liars and whatnot–those that went public and tried to get some benefit from their trans* status were labeled as sociopathic.

Physical as in sex, genitals, bodies, secondary sex characteristics, etc.

I apologize for being unclear, sometimes my typing and my thinking don’t match up. “for almost all of us” refers to the more feminist and feminist-aware trans*folks as well as pretty much every trans*person I generally interact with (online and off). Just as many cis*folks in the general population would say things that imply or state feminine=woman and masculine=man, so do some trans*folk. Especially the drivel that often gets published (and it was a requirement for treatment, and still is in many places, to be as gender-normative as a cardboard cutout of Father Knows Best).

“didn’t get the impression from this entry that you’d read much of anything from trans*folk.”

Why is that?

“just because you know people and hear what they say doesn’t mean that you (general you) listen and believe them.”

See, now, this statement to me implies unless someone agrees with you they are not listening. I know you said “believe”-not agree.
I don’t see believing as necessarily “listening.” I gauge that by assessing how many of my points they respond to and how accurately they could frame my position if they had to objectively.

If believing you is your measure then this might be a lost cause.

“There is a lot of history with the medical industries and society labeling trans*folk, as well as other oppressed groups, as liars and unable to speak reliably on their experiences…”

Okay–that’s terrible yes. Do you think, because of my stance, I think this is a *good* or *okay* thing to to happen to transpersons?
Because I don’t.

Yes I get what “physical” applies to I just don’t understand how you say, for transfolk, “not all” of it is genital-related–are you saying for “not all” transfolk,the desire to transition (as in “it) is related to genitals?

And also, do you mean: “For most of “us feminist and feminist-aware trans*folks” gender roles have nothing to do with transitioning? (as applied to your first post, “transitioning” replacing “anything”).

Trans* and transgender are umbrella terms; including transsexuals, transgender, genderqueer, bigender, nongender, etc folks.
It also sometimes (depending on context and who’s talking) can include intersexed folks, crossdressers, bois, butches, fairies, etc. (generally with the idea that “if you feel you belong then you do”).
Some folks’ gender isn’t binary, some folks have no gender, for some folks it is about having an internal map of your body and a body that don’t match. And there are more types of experiences, as well as overlaps.
For many trans* folk, medical transition (there are at least four types of transition) is about changing our bodies to fit what we feel they should be (not the best way of saying, but there isn’t really language to describe this feeling–body dissonance comes close); it isn’t that we think boys=penis, feminine=girls, likes boys=girl, etc. like some people argue.
If it were, then we wouldn’t have all the fem ftm-spectrum folks, butch trans*women, queer trans*folk, etc. that we do (and we do exist actually, the media just doesn’t report on us much and we often have to keep quiet about it if we want medical transition).

And yes, I meant transitioning (all aspects, though mostly medical since that’s what people generally mean by transition) as well as being trans*, etc. by “anything”.

I have no trouble understanding why transpersons would want to be in women’s spaces. Women’s spaces are safer for people than men’s.
What I do not understand is why transpersons would want to be in radfems spaces. Radfems repudiate gender constructs. Transperson are so deeply committed to gender constructs that they are willing to alter their bodies to conform with gender constructs. Personhood, ungendered, is a goal of radical feminism.
As Drayken states in the above comment, transpersons want more gender, to separate “transsexuals, transgender, genderqueer, bigender, nongender, etc folks.
It also sometimes (depending on context and who’s talking) can include intersexed folks, crossdressers, bois, butches, fairies, etc. (generally with the idea that “if you feel you belong then you do”).” under the umbrella term transgender.

So, transgendered people seem to be saying that you deconstruct gender by having more and more gender differentiation, while radfems say you deconstruct gender by having less and less gender differentiation.
I think we probably want to get to the same place, we just don’t agree on the method. So again, I do not understand why transpersons wish to participate in an effort that they are in opposition to.

Yes drakyn, I recall those definitions via one of your posts actually (fancy that!).

“For many trans* folk, medical transition is about changing our bodies to fit what we feel they should be…”

–See, I think there is a problematic message in that line of thinking. The only way to go further though would be to ask more personal info about trans or from yourself (which I understand isn’t always comfortable). I will pose the question with no expectation: how/why does a body not “fit” what it *should* be?

“If it were, then we wouldn’t have all the fem ftm-spectrum folks, butch trans*women, queer trans*folk, etc. that we do”

Right and to me, by the time one address all these categories I’m thinking: why can’t people just be people, whatever they come out, with varied characteristics?
I’m a female with a male partner–if I *transitioned* I guess I could/would be a queer transperson but why would I? What is so necessary about the transition that corrects the “problem”?
To me there is an added complication there relying on societal/patriarchal presets.

“So, transgendered people seem to be saying that you deconstruct gender by having more and more gender differentiation, while radfems say you deconstruct gender by having less and less gender differentiation.
I think we probably want to get to the same place, we just don’t agree on the method. So again, I do not understand why transpersons wish to participate in an effort that they are in opposition to.”

Could not agree more.

Did you read the one where I talk about how i experience transsexuality? I explain why there (I’d summarize or something, but I have to go to work) and it has a link to a friend of mine’s post on the same subject. Mine is still somewhat rough–afterall, my understanding of myself is constantly deepening and gettng more refined, but it’s alright do far.
Basically, some folks have a map, an image, a blueprint, etc. of what they’re supposed to be shaped like (remember the Matrix? the residual image of yourself is how some describe it) and sometimes that doesn’t match your physical body. And that’s just what a lot of transsexuals feel, I don’t have time to go into what ‘ve heard from genderqueer or bigender folks, I’ve got to go.

What people do with their own bodies is their own business. I would not tell someone that they should not have breast implants, but as a feminist I might question why that person thinks having large breasts is so desirable they are willing to have surgery, with its attendant risks and spend a lot of money to do it. Now that person might tell me that it is purely an individual decision and nothing to do with social pressure. But in that case I would ask why the numbers of breast implant operations have climbed hugely in recent years, at exactly the same time as increasing pressure on women to fit a pornified ideal of skinny frame with unnaturally large breasts.

If a person has a penis and testes and decides to have surgery so that they have a vagina and clitoris instead, that’s their decision to make. But most (I’m not saying all) people who do this seem to do it because they want to move from what society sees as ‘male’ to what society sees as ‘female’. (or vice versa) Otherwise worry about being referred to as ’she’ rather than ‘he’, or want to change a birth certificate so that it reads ‘female’ rather than ‘male’? These things are nothing to do with genitals, but they have a lot to do with gender. To say that for the majority of people who have surgery it’s just about body modification seems disingenuous. Because if it is, why all the fuss about the definition of the term woman? Or being allowed into certain spaces? I’ve never, ever heard of anybody having surgery to alter their genitals, but continuing to live in the gender role commonly associated with their body pre surgery.

Throughout history people have always lived outside their assigned gender roles for a variety of reasons. But it was only in the 20th century that ‘transsexual’ surgery and hormone treatment was introduced. Coincidentally (or maybe not?) the development of surgical techniques happened at almost exactly the same time as the rise of ‘medical’ theories of transsexuality from Harry Benjamin and the like.

Polly,

Harry Benjamin didn’t introduce the idea of transsexuality. He encountered cases of women who would take birth control pills and present themselves as intersexed for “corrective surgery.” No one really knew that anyone born male wanted to be women or anyone born female wanted to be men, but there were people born female who lived as men, and people born male who lived as women, and people who obtained hormones to induce the changes they wanted, and who would lie to surgeons to “correct an intersex birth defect.”

Harry Benjamin came across these people and studied them, and realized that this was a real condition, that other forms of treatment did not work, and the best thing to do for these people was to give them hormones and surgery so they could live as the sex they knew they should be.

The idea that the medical profession invented transsexuality and started applying it to people is backwards, and really insulting to those of us who have had to live with it - who grew up with it knowing what was wrong with us before we’d ever talked to a doctor about it, let alone heard the word “transsexual.”

Vaginoplasty existed before transsexualism was identified or diagnosed, and was used on intersexed children (which, I might add, is one area where modern medicine really has harmed people and reinforced the gender binary).

If certain self-declared ‘radical feminists’ don’t believe in gender, then how come they spend so much time frantically insisting, and attempting to prove, that all transpeople are either fundamentally male or fundamentally female?

Well I don’t for one Carola - what I am interested in as a feminist is which people are deemed to be ‘women’ under patriarchy - ie those who suffer discrimination. Now for me this includes intersex people who are assigned female at birth. But they are clearly NOT male or female. And the idea that there are just 2 biological sexes (male and female) is patently untrue - just as it is untrue to say everyone is white or black, or everyone is straight or gay. But the fact is that all people, even intersex people are placed in the categories of either ‘male’ or ‘female’ and treated accordingly under patriarchy. However the genders ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are assigned to ‘male’ and ‘female’ respectively under the patriarchal binary gender system.

Lisa - I am well aware that transsexual surgery has existed since the early 20th century although - to be correct I should have said ‘popularisation’ instead of development. Harry Benjamin popularised the concept of transsexuality and it his theories that are still used today in psychiatric ‘medicine’ to ‘assess’ whether or not someone is transsexual. As I said, people have transcended gender roles for centuries and in other societies than western capitalism, the idea of binary gender has been considerably less important.

Carola
You have mixed two different issues.

The desire for female-only space (and excluding the male-born) is one of sanctuary and a feeling of safety, especially from those who have suffered from male violence. Anyone ‘remotely’ male can trigger feelings of anxiety.

However, that is not stating that people come as ‘fundamentally male’ and ‘fundamentally female’. The correct term we would use is ‘biological male’ and ‘biological female’ which covers around or over 99% of the population.

For the purpose of female-only space (sometimes referred to as WBW space, but I dislike the term), the criteria is ‘born and raised’ (or in the case of intersexed, ‘assigned and raised’ as female. It is merely a question of setting a boundary, and that boundary is NOT on all feminist spaces, but just a few selected ones (if organisers deem it necessary).

The problem with not setting a boundary, particularly with the trans community, is that it is one-in, all-in, and because of their eagerness to include anyone (including males who live as men and just like to cross-dress, yet declare themselves “women”), means that males can enter a female-only space.

I think that most radfems, who want to declare female-only spaces, would have no problem with intersexed persons that were assigned and raised as female from birth, as their life-long experience is fairly close to females-at-birth (FAB).

From what I have seen from figures, intersexed persons outnumber trans by 2 to 1 or 4 to 1. Yet we rarely hear from the intersexed in great numbers, usually only MTF trans (and usually demanding entry into female-only spaces).

In the recent IWD march in London, a male, who was dressed as a man, thought he had every right to crash the march – right in the middle of it. He was muttering such shit as “it’s a public street and I can be here if I want to”. We got the police to remove him. It is such arrogance and entitlement such as this that makes radfems particularly, defend the right to female-only spaces (in this case, it was actually woman-only, and trans were not excluded).

I cross-posted with Polly.
My post was more about the defining of female-only spaces, and the criteria used. Which some people twist into being obsessed with ‘fundamentally male/female’ categories and similar terms.

*warning, a Laurelin rant follows*

re what Stormy said, it’s also worth mentioning that people raised as male do not lose all the privileges and the socialisation that comes with this when they transsex. Feminist women have long had problems with males in their spaces, as their behaviour of entitlement (whether intentional or not) renders the atmosphere hostile and makes it harder for a number of women to speak honestly and openly about their experiences. And as Stormy says, even the presence of male-born persons can be traumatic for women in thes circumstances.

It’s not a matter of pickiness, or sacred womanlyness, or whatever stupid charge our detractors are laying on us this week. It’s a matter of respect and of safety, and I don’t get why this is such a hard concept to grasp. It is up to the marginalised group itself to decide who does and does not get to be present at their meetings- not the decision of someone who is uninvited who reckons they meet the criteria. Female-born persons do not crash transperson events. I sincerely hope that white feminists do not crash BME women events.

A male-born person does not have the right to impose themselves on female-born person spaces. Simple as that. If you don’t like the policy, go elsewhere, the vast majority of feminist events include transwomen.

The sheer callousness of some of the respondents to this post (not the published comments here, I’m refering to the posts at other blogs in response to this) disgusts me but does not surprise me. That anyone believes that their right to occupy a space into which they are not invited is more important than an abused woman’s comfort in a safe space is anathema to me. I simply cannot describe this as being other than selfish, and yes, very masculine. On a personal level, if someone says ‘Laurelin, I don’t want to talk about this around you, fuck off’, then I fuck off. It’s respect. It’s courtesy. It’s honour and responsibility.

I’ve also noted the tone of typing on other blogs that appears to me to be nothing other than revolting taunting and condescention towards abused women who need their space. Perhaps it’s not intentional, but it sure as hell isn’t helpful or courageous. If you personally are happy telling your experiences around male-born persons, then good for you. No-one will stop you from doing so, and radical feminists will not be bothered by this. But, it’s not all about you. And your denial that some women need female-born only space to discuss the most traumatic events of their lives, is a denial of those women’s reality and their pain. Shame on you.

DISCLAIMER: whoever, if you are not guilty of any of the things I condemn in the above rant, then I’m not accusing you. So save the personal offense for when I actually intend to accuse you of something. Ta.

oh good god, how pompous I am when I lose my temper! *sneaks away*

“On a personal level, if someone says ‘Laurelin, I don’t want to talk about this around you, fuck off’, then I fuck off. It’s respect. It’s courtesy. It’s honour and responsibility”

Exactly, it is about other people’s feelings and their right to autonomy, even if your own are hurt that they don’t want to include you. If I wanted someone to be my friend/lover or whatever and they didn’t want to, yes I would be hurt. But it wouldn’t mean they had discriminated against me or treated me unfairly, they have freedom of choice.

Everyone has the right to define their own private space and who they want in it. And feminist gatherings are private spaces, even if there are a large number of people there. If a transperson is discriminated against by their work colleagues, in receiving goods and services, in receiving state benefits or simply abused in the street because of who they are, they have every right to cry foul. But nobody has a right to demand someone has a personal relationship with them, and by demanding to enter someone else’s safe, private space you are doing exactly that.

Oh and it’s worth adding of course stormy, that the reason we don’t hear from the intersexed in great numbers on issues of gender, is that most DO NOT identify as trans gender or anything of the kind but simply as ‘male’ or ‘female’. By and large intersex people identify with their assigned gender at birth, one of their main issues being the media representations of them as equivalent to trans people. See for instance the Androgen insensitivity syndrome society who are pretty pissed off with trans activists attempts to co-opt them to the cause.

http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM

(From Polly’s link)

Intersex is not the same as a transsexual (gender dysphoria) or as a transgender state. Neither term is one that we recognise as belonging in any general discussion of intersex. We are not happy with the recent tendency of some trans groups/people to promote transgender as an umbrella term to encompass, for example, transsexuality, transvestitism and intersex. We object to other organisations/individuals putting us in categories without consulting us, especially categories that imply that interexed people, of necessity, have gender identity issues.

We are constantly trying to get away from the idea that intersex is necessarily to do with gender identity, a notion that others (including the press/media) like to impose on us. Moreover, the prefix trans- infers a “moving across” and although a few people with intersex conditions may choose to change their gender role, the vast majority never “go” anywhere in terms of their sex or their gender, but are happy to stay in the status in which they grew up.

Mmmm, they seem to be saying similar things to we do about the trans activists.

One thing that bugs me is that trans insist on insulting radfems by naming us things like ‘cisgender’ and then making upthings like ‘cisgender privilege’.

If they keep this up, I shall start making up names for the trans activists, stuff like genderdefender and perhaps make a list of ‘genderdefender privileges’ to go along with it.

Can you really not see how hypocritical it is to quote that piece that says

We object to other organisations/individuals putting us in categories without consulting us

when that is exactly what you are doing to transgendered people?

“We object to other organisations/individuals putting us in categories without consulting us”

And how are we doing this precisely, by simply asking for some respect for our space? Enlighten me.

scuze the bad grammar on my last comment. Should read ‘precisely how are we doing this…’

Can you really not see how hypocritical it is to quote that piece that says

We object to other organisations/individuals putting us in categories without consulting us

when that is exactly what you are doing to transgendered people?

Comment by Out Loud March 20, 2008 @ 12:40 am

That is a load of BS. I don’t categorize myself as “cis”, whatever the hell that is. Transpersons categorize me as that cis thingamy. I categorize myself as a radfem woman who wants to deconstruct gender, and I am promptly instructed that doing so makes me responsible for oppressing transpersons because they claim the right to define any and all gender as whatever they say it is. Criminy!

Exactly bewilderness.
Trans call themselves trans, so we call them trans.
Radfems do NOT call themselves ‘cisgender’, YET trans call us ‘cisgender’.

Why is it ok for trans to insult us?
Then in the next breath, expect to be greeted with open arms?

We are not categorising trans persons as such, more that we get to define ourselves (instead of men defining us). Because of our own self definition, that will necessarily exclude others.

I even reject the category ‘woman’ as something with artificial baggage. I am female.

From now on, every time a trans activist labels us ‘cisgender’, I will label them genderdefender. We shall see how they like being labelled with things they don’t like.

It seems odd to me. Those most vocal in their claim to be gender abolitionists are those who are the most fanatical about gender segregation. They don’t even want anyone with the merest suggestion of the other gender around them, while they discuss the essential fictionality of gender.

I would not find myself comfortable about having such people in women’s places. They can stay in their own.

I’m a nonwhite woman. I don’t think that the categories of white or nonwhite reflect biological or any other reality, and I’m all for getting rid of us and just letting us be humans who happen to have different types of features, skin color, hair texture, etc etc.
But I’ll still insist that race is a social reality, and demand that white people acknowledge the role that white privilege has in their lives. I don’t have a lot of patience for people - especially if they are white - who say that race doesn’t exist or otherwise deny its effects. Because I acknowledge the social reality of race, though I don’t believe in its physical or other reality, does that make me a racist?

It seems odd to me. Those most vocal in their claim to be gender abolitionists are those who are the most fanatical about gender segregation.

Pay attention Zoe. The last two words above should read “sex segregation”, because we are NOT fanatical about ‘gender segregation’ at all. And the segregation part is only for a few gatherings (a few female-only meetings/events)… not all the time. So get your damn facts straight whilst you are at it. I really get sick of the way radfem words/views are twisted for the trans/porn agenda.

Polly Styrene/Stormy:

So, although both identifying as ‘radical feminist’, you disagree with each other that there are primarily two biological sexes - female and male? ie: Polly thinks that there are more than two sexes, whilst stormy believes that most people (if not all - 99 per cent) are either biologically male or female.

If anyone who comes across as ‘remotely male’ will cause anxiety and will not be desirable within a ‘woman-only’ group, would this discomfort also extend to those ‘women-born’ individuals who present as stereotypically non-feminine but whom, at the same time, are biologically female?

Sorry above should read: (stormy believes possibly that ‘over’ 99 per cent of people are biologically male or female).

Whoa–lotsa Welcomes!: Carola, Littoral Mermaid and Zoe Brain.

To Carola and Zoe Brain (b/c I see what you’ve said as roughly the same thing):

The reason for radical feminists making these “women” distinctions is that it would be pretty unbelievably irresponsible to treat people like “woman” did not exist when people right now, right this minute are being hurt for their status as “woman.”

One can work to remove gender in most aspects of their life while still having spaces that recognize “woman” exists. It’s not like the whole world is a radical feminist.

I’ve waved my magic wand *several* times now and still *women* as a class of people are getting shit on–I can’t ignore that.

I think L.M.’s comment does a fine job of saying this.

“The last two words above should read “sex segregation”…”

This point too.

Telling transpeople wether they are men or women is putting them in categories without consulting them.

And really the whole “I’m not cisgendered” thing sounds suspiciously like “I’m not like those people I’m normal”

Stormy

whats with the conflation of being trans supportive with being pro porn? I am in no way pro porn but I definitely support transpeople

Once more, from the top:

No, Out Loud, we distinguish between female-born and male-born persons because female=born persons have different experiences, and the presence of male=born persons can be very silencing for women who have suffered male violence.

Did you miss that part of my comment? Do you not think that that is important?

So, although both identifying as ‘radical feminist’, you disagree with each other that there are primarily two biological sexes - female and male? ie: Polly thinks that there are more than two sexes, whilst stormy believes that most people (if not all - 99 per cent) are either biologically male or female.

I don’t see any disagreement between polly and myself. I recognise that a very small percentage of the population do not ‘neatly’ fit into the biological category of fe/male. However, it is not the masses and masses that the trans lobby make out, it is less than 1%.

So are the trans lobby now saying that most humans do not fit into the fe/male biological categories?

If I meant to say ALL HUMANS, I would have said ALL HUMANS. But I said 99%, which, drawing on my ace maths skills, does not mean ALL. 100% means ALL for those who are mathematically challenged. And 1% is a statistically small number.

whats with the conflation of being trans supportive with being pro porn? I am in no way pro porn but I definitely support transpeople

Well, it seems to be based on an observation that the trans lobby’s most vocal supporters are the (self-defined) pro-porn feminists and ’sex positive’ crowd. That, and the fact that the arguments are similar in tone and substance.

It is an understandable and easy dot-joining assumption to make.

If you don’t want to be tarred with the pro-porn brush, then don’t hang around with pro-pornys.

Also, there is a difference between ’supporting’ people on an individual level, and the political ramifications of ‘choices’. (note that I did put choices in ’s to somewhat acknowledge the trans argument of “it’s not a choice!” I have nothing personal against trans persons, but I politically disagree with the institution of trans.

In a serial posting frenzy, my calculation basis for comments made above.

Intersex births I have read are about 1 in 2,500 which sounds about right. (0.04%)

There are about 5,000 trans persons in the UK with a population of ~60 million. Most of these are MTF, so even using half of the UK population (to boost the trans figures) still only scrapes in at 0.02%. It’s 0.01% if you use the total population figures.

Adding 0.04% and 0.02% equals (drumroll please) 0.06%.

Again, for the mathematically challenged, I point out that 0.06% is less than 1%. Therefore saying that “99% or more” is an accurate statement.

Even if the intersex births are higher than that, it would have to be considerably higher to impact the figures above 1% of the population. 1% is 1 per 100 BTW. I am fairly certain that intersex births are nowhere near 1 in 100.

Don’t force me to do a pie chart.

Polly thinks that binary sex is a patriarchal construct - she also speaks for no one but herself (but is prone to referring to herself in the third person, slightly pretentiously). In actual fact (in terms of there being definitive sexes) we are all placed somewhere along a continuum. But a binary gender system demands two sexes - so most intersex people will appear to be and will be placed in one of two sexes, and will in fact appear on the surface to be either ‘male’ or ‘female’. There is no ‘intersex’ option on a birth certificate.

I’ve just written something on the trans/intersex issue, so I suggest anyone who wants to know further of my views scoots over to mine to avoid me taking up further space here and to avoid Stormy’s pie chart. Oh noes not the pie chart.

And BTW Carola - I present as stereotypically non feminine. I think you are resorting to the butch intersex herring…

Oh and out loud. I’m not putting you in a category without consulting you. I am in fact using a category that already exists (assigned female at birth) to decide who gets into a private space. That is in no way the same as trans organisations lumping intersex people in with trans people without consent, which is what they’re complaining about. I’m not saying you’re not a woman, a man, or indeed a giraffe. I’m saying that for my purposes you are not the type of woman who can enter a private space. That is not the same as claiming your support for a cause you don’t actually support.

Stormy would agree with the continuum Polly. She was really only pointing the arbitrary categories for the purposes of defining female spaces, not the mega picture, or the details of chromosome/genital combinations.

Nor would you be the only pretentious one here either! It’s fun!

[...] usual–has already devoted many paragraphs to responding to this post, but I’m adding my contribution here, because I read this comment and sorta went, [...]

Well.

There is a lot of blanket-statementing going on here, on all sides, and I am finding a lot with which I agree and also a lot with which I disagree. I have only mildly skimmed thru the posts, so if I am repeating a point that has already been made, then I apologize.

Whatever the differences are in political views, which I know can grow problematic from the standpoint of a radfem in the trans-sphere, we have to recognize some things here- and these are, bulleted but for no particular reason, 1. every transperson experiences oppression based on their, conscious or not (or even inadvertent) oppositional positioning as regards the imposed gender binary and the patriarchy in general. 2. Every transperson, I think, could be welcome in women’s space, given an honest committment to follow the ground rules set forth for whatever particular space they are in- on the basis of lived experience. I mean, MtF transpeople have willingly stepped away from male privilege, and I think we radfems who don’t have close contact with that experience don’t really get a good understanding of how dehumanizing it is; also FtM’s, have a material history of womanhood and really don’t need to be let that far away from it, because their experience counts, too.

I think we radfems are at a point where we need to weigh more carefully risks and benefits when it comes to this question. There is much more common ground here than people realize and there is no need for name-calling on either side.

And I have to just be blunt. Yes, there are women who are traumatized, I’m sure, by any vestige of “manhood” on any kind of person. But in a group setting, I think that women can safely hold their own in a worst-case-scenario; but we have to fight back against notions of biological determinism not only lobbed against us WOMEN but also against all other people. Women are not the sum of our parts. I can just go on and on all day about how I’m more than just a fucking vagina. And that is a speech I could address towards the sex-pos crowd, the trans-crowd, and the rad-fem crowd. Infighting only serves to make it easier for us to believe the lies that The Man tells us about each other, and it only makes our internalized oppression worse.

So if radfems really do have it going on then we need to find a way to make our movement open to all women. That doesn’t seem as impossible when one does muster up the “guts,” as the original author put it, to talk about radical feminist ideas in a group of transpeople. It’s organizing 101. More people relate to our stuff than we realize, and I fear that the lack of realization does indeed come from fear to try and move people from one way of thinking to the other.

Just a humble two cents. Thanks for letting me chime in in this space.

“I am in fact using a category that already exists (assigned female at birth) to decide who gets into a private space”

Perfect! Trans women are all born female but assigned some incorrect body genes. Glad you understand and are willing to let them into your little club.
Of course, if I thought you were going to discriminate based on the fact that they weren’t born with vaginas, well I’d probably call you no better than the old boys’ clubs.

I have to say, and then I’ll step back ‘cus it’s been a while since I hung out in radfemland- but I have to say that I am disappointed in the misinformation that women I know as well-educated feminists are flinging around.

You can’t accuse transactivists of not “reading the theory” when we haven’t read theirs- and the cisgender thing only means that a person’s assigned gender is corrolary to the “biological sex” they are born with. And these are totally random estimated numbers in regards to people who genetically deviate from 100% male or 100% female. We have to remember that biological essentialism isn’t a good thing. The way folks tend to work it only supports the existing system, it doesn’t leave that much work to fight the system.

Remember, it’s Andrea Dworkin who wrote <a href=”http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html”"Biological Determinism: The World’s Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea.”

Maybe birth-assigned (cisgendered) women do need their own space. And maybe transwomen need their own space. Transmen, too, I’d say.

But I tell ya what. We ain’t gonna get anywhere pointing fingers and slurring and namecalling another group that could be potential allies in this war. You cannot treat transpeople as if they are all white male vikings ready to rape and pillage at the next consciousness raising meeting.

And while I’m at it I need to remind everybody here that transpeople are raped and murdered violently at very high rates due to the fact that the patriarchy sees them as SUBHUMANS, so I don’t think that any of us do any good to feminism when we take that same attitude.

This is infighting. We can talk, in a civil way, about how we divvy up meeting spaces. But the namecalling and the faulty logic and the invented facts are all BAD FEMINISM and it’s just about to give me a fuckin’ coronary.

polly

I’m not putting you in a category without consulting you…’m not saying you’re not a woman, a man, or indeed a giraffe. I’m saying that for my purposes you are not the type of woman who can enter a private space.

Dont make assumptions about people I’m a woman and I was born a woman, I’m not a transwoman. I’m also a radical feminist.

so yeah actualy you are putting me in a catogory I don’t belong to without consuluting me

I am not comfortable being my radical feminist self amongst transpersons.

So, you’re scared to be a radical feminist when you’re talking to a radical feminist whom you know probably has XY chromosomes.

And you don’t like calling this irrational fear you have out “transphobia”, because…?

Well, at a guess, for the same reason Orson Scott Card doesn’t like to be called “homophobic” - because if you admit it’s bigotry, you have to admit it’s a problem you have that you are forcing the group you are bigoted about to make their problem.

If you have spent much time with any large groups of radical feminists, you have spent time with transwomen and were perfectly comfortable being “your radical feminist self” around them. Now get over it.

Welcome Jesurgslac.

“So, you’re scared to be a radical feminist when you’re talking to a radical feminist whom you know probably has XY chromosomes.”

Makes absolutely zero sense.

Try again.

Makes absolutely zero sense.

I agree. But I don’t quite understand why you invite me to “try again”.

You are the one who asserted you felt this fear of being a radical feminist around women whom you knew to be transgender. If you agree this “makes zero sense”, what are you doing to overcome your irrational fear?

Geeezus Jesur–your comment-which I quoted-was what made “zero sense”. Clearly I understand my position (wrote a whole post on it).

And PS–I nowhere said I *feared* transpersons (quite the opposite, -2 for reading comprehension).
The point of the post was to question the apparent fear (and other manifestations of it) being lodged at radfems.

The whole “not being radical feminist self” point was more along the lines of “don’t kick them while they are down.” As in, recognizing the huge and painful chasm between radfems and trans (who already get enough shit from Right Wingers) and, thusly, not wanting to indulge it further.

Here’s hoping 3rd time’s a charm…

Welcome Elaina!

I appreciate your comments and agree that there is more opportunity for positive exchanges between radfems and transpersons than has been represented on the blogosphere.

“Yes, there are women who are traumatized, I’m sure, by any vestige of “manhood” on any kind of person. But in a group setting, I think that women can safely hold their own in a worst-case-scenario”

Do you advocate for no female born spaces?
Would you not advocate for transwomen only spaces?
–I get that you want radfems to recognize the unique oppressions of transpersons and I agree–but does that extend to female born as well? (this is the point which I hold strong)

The whole “not being radical feminist self” point was more along the lines of “don’t kick them while they are down.” As in, recognizing the huge and painful chasm between radfems and trans (who already get enough shit from Right Wingers) and, thusly, not wanting to indulge it further.

Ah: so you want to ban transwomen from radical feminist space for their own good. Riiight In your post you say “you don’t have the guts” to speak your mind about gender to a transwoman: in your comment your claim is that not having the guts to speak your mind in front of transwomen is not the same thing as being afraid.

I gather from your rather confused but still clarifying comments that what you mean is:

1. You think things about gender that you think would be hurtful to say in front of transgendered women.

2. You want to say these things at radical feminist gatherings, so you want women known to be transgendered banned from those gatherings.

Your mocking of the word “transphobia” because what you feel about transgendered people is not something you want to describe as “fear” is exactly the same kind of mocking one finds in homophobic circles about the word “homophobia”.

Any move to ban transwomen from women only space ensures only that the only transwomen to be admitted are those who successfully “pass” and who remain in the closet about being trans while in the women-only space.

Your argument that it’s better to exclude transwomen from radical feminist space so that they won’t hear the hurtful remarks you intend to make about them within radical feminist space is so idiotic it’s worthy of Dick Cheney. Excluding a group of people from a space in order to make hurtful remarks about them behind their backs is bad enough: telling them that this is why you want to exclude them…? (”You can’t come into this whites-only club because we like to make racist comments about black people, and your feelings would be hurt if you heard them.” Yeah, right.)

So you’re transphobic. Trying to argue that you’re not, you expound your bigotry about trans people further.

OK, jesurgislac, you can leave black people out of this, and you can especially leave black women out of it. Men looking to occupy a status that is beneath them in patriarchy - womanhood - are not in any way in the same position as black people, especially black women. I know because I am one.

Women telling men who’d like to occupy a status beneath them that they’re not welcome in women-only spaces is like black people telling white people, “We like to speak the truth about white people here, including the white people who don’t match up with the heternormative, heterosexist ideals of the patriarchy. Unfortunately, white people who don’t fit the heteronormative, heterosexist bill tend to be pretty down about all the social opprobrium they garner and don’t like it when we tell them that this social opprobrium doesn’t shield them from our critiques of white people. So, in order to continue on with our critiques of white people, including the ones not particularly favored by the patriarchy, we just won’t invite *any* white people, even, and perhaps especially, the ones who go around saying at every turn, “Hey, I experience oppression TOO.”

Now, please stop talking about black people, especially black women, as if you know anything at all about our struggles, which are not like those of the male-born transsexual. We are not pawns to be bandied about in support of any and every claim to oppression. Our tribulations are not yours to play with.

justicewalks, I think we’re trying to have a conversation about transphobia and transwomen and radical feminism here, and you are confusing the issue by trying to talk about “Men looking to occupy a status that is beneath them in patriarchy” which suggests that you know nothing about trans issues.

You also seem to be working from the presumption that all trans people are white. This is not true.

Finally, I did not intend to start playing the “Who’s experienced worst bigotry!” game: I consider this to be futile as a game, and pointless when you consider that there are black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people, whose experience of racism, homophobia, and transphobia ought not to be disregarded or ignored.

But: my point remains. To argue that it’s less shitty to ban people from a space because you intend to make hurtful remarks about them in that space, and letting people know that’s why you’re banning them, than it is to make hurtful remarks about people to their face: this is an absurdity. As my use of the whites-only space illustrated. I could equally say that it’s absurd for straight people to claim they’re entitled to a straights-only space to make homophobic remarks without worrying about whether LGB people will hear.

No, transwomen are like white people in women’s spaces. I’m not confused. You deliberately obfuscate the point by saying I don’t know anything about trans issues, when all I was saying is that trans don’t get to use black people as support for their theories.

Why don’t you address the fact that transwomen are coming from a privileged position to a disadvantaged one, and that this puts them in a position more similar to white people in black folks’ spaces than the other way around.

That white folks/transwomen might be hurt by some of the things said about them in black/women’s spaces has nothing to do with bigotry on the part of the black/women and everything to do with entitlement on the part of the transwomen/white folks to not have people say anything that hurts their precious feelings. Not every hurt feeling is the result of oppression. Sometimes it’s just ego.

And I never said all transfolks are white. Please brush up on your reading comprehension.

White folks : black folks :: transwomen : women.

“so you want to ban transwomen from radical feminist space for their own good.”

Because, like I said, I’m not going to go out of my way for a conference to get into a fight for godssake. I also wouldn’t go if people attending were pro-porn or bdsm or, even, *you* were on the guest list. It’s called: don’t feel like getting into it today.

Something I seem to be able to do just fine on my blog with no special arrangements.

“You think things about gender that you think would be hurtful to say in front of transgendered women.”

Where have you been?
Prior discussions have already been had, people are already upset, have a long history of fighting.
(Do you realize this is a one time gathering I have advocated for–very small and very private. As well, I have advocated for female born spaces of sensitive situations–what is your position with those?)

“Any move to ban transwomen from women only space…”

Exactly how many spaces do you think I am talking about here?

Justicewalks is absolutely correct to call you out on that conflation. Female born only spaces are not *for* excluding anyone as much as they are *for* helping those in need/abused/raped–which can be inclusive or exclusive for both female born and transwomen depending on the abuses they’ve endured.
As well, the *one* radfem gathering I have advocated for excludes male born, ftm, transwomen, female born nonradfems–it excludes a whole bunch of people for involuntary and voluntary statuses they hold. If you want to try and squeeze analogy between these instances and poc’s history of oppression then you may be on the wrong blog.

pisaquaririse: Because, like I said, I’m not going to go out of my way for a conference to get into a fight for godssake.

So rather than just, well, plan on not getting into a fight at the conference, your only solution is to just not go? Because obviously, while you can try to ensure that out transwomen are banned, you cannot possibly ensure that everyone at a radical feminist conference is going to be transphobic, or at least not transphobic in the same way you are.

You could plan on having discussions and conversations and even passionate arguments with radical feminists who nonetheless hold different opinions from you. I find that the most exciting part of conferences: I don’t tend to get into fights, though.

Do you realize this is a one time gathering I have advocated for–very small and very private.

If you’re advocating that you should be entitled to organize a private party of just your radical feminist friends, and warn your friends they can’t bring their trans friends to your private party even when their trans friends are radical feminists, well of course you can do that. Good way to lose some of your friends, but they’ll probably figure you were never really their friend anyway.

Exactly how many spaces do you think I am talking about here?

Does it matter? Like I said: if what you are really talking about is a private party for just yourself and likeminded individuals, by which you seem to mean no one who is not radical feminist and transphobic, well, yes - private parties are, well, private. You’re certainly entitled to get together and all be transphobic in unity.

If you want to run a radical feminist conference, you have to be prepared to admit radical feminists without demanding to know what their chromosomes look like or what their medical history is. If you plan to ban some transwomen because of what they look like, but admit others because they can pass and won’t out themselves and make transphobic radical feminists uncomfortable, you are straightforwardly going by a bigotry of appearance as definite as the “brown paper bag” test.

justicewalks, if you’re still trying to argue that women who are transgendered are “really” men, you really don’t know a thing about trans issues, and there is no point continuing this discussion with you.

Jesu, I don’t care whether or not transwomen are really men or not. I just know that they aren’t female.

Sexism is about male supremacy, not man supremacy.

Jesurgislac–you do not understand. This is not a “conference” of any typical scale. We are talking a *small group* of individuals who know each other very well, have laid out our feelings very specifically, and are organizing everything privately.

As well, the following points of yours make no sense:
“your only solution is to just not go?”
-What?

“Good way to lose some of your friends, but they’ll probably figure you were never really their friend anyway.”
-Ad Hom in the most confusing of ways.

“Does it matter?”

-yes–the comment was referring to women only (female born) spaces for the abused–but you do not want to address those. You want to exaggerate a radical feminist gathering which you know very little about and really aren’t aware of enough to comment further.
Ignoring the issue of the female born spaces for very horrific situations is the largest point here and it makes perfect sense to me you skirt around it every time.

“If you plan to ban some transwomen because of what they look like…”

-Meanwhile back on Earth…

Your points are bloated in obnoxiousness Jesur.
Get it together or I ban you.

justicewalks: Jesu, I don’t care whether or not transwomen are really men or not. I just know that they aren’t female.

Depends whether you see gender as a patriarchal construct - as I do - or as something inherent amd unchangeable in the flesh, as apparently you do.

pisaquaririse: We are talking a *small group* of individuals who know each other very well, have laid out our feelings very specifically, and are organizing everything privately.

So why the need to tell everyone that you’re excluding transwomen?

You want to exaggerate a radical feminist gathering which you know very little about and really aren’t aware of enough to comment further.

If you didn’t want people to know about it and know that trans women are excluded from it, why mention this on a public blog?

Ad Hom in the most confusing of ways.

Let’s see: I have several friends who belong to group A and group B. You are organising an event to which you are inviting members of group B. I say “hey, cool event, can I bring *list mutual friends*” and you say “No, you can’t bring X, Y, and Z, they’re all in group A, and I’m excluding everyone in group A from my event.”

Let’s suppose I happen to know that though you have only told me I can’t invite Pam, Sarah, and Jane, because you know they’re transwomen, you have not told me I can’t invite Julie, another mutual friend of both of ours, whom I know is trans. I ask Julie, and she says “Yes, I’ve never told Pisaquaririse I’m trans because she’s so phobic about transwomen, I just didn’t want to have that discussion. I guess she really doesn’t know!”

Do I invite Julie? Do you think Julie wants to come? Do I want to have to explain to Pam, Sarah, and Jane that although they’d love your event, they’re not allowed to come because Pam’s very open about being trans and Sarah and Jane just don’t pass very well? Do I explain your reasoning that you want to be shitty about transwomen and you’re being kind not inviting them so you can be shitty about about them behind their backs? Either way, it’s not going to be pretty. Like I said: good way to lose your friends, assuming Sarah and Jane thought they were your friends.

None of this applies, because we’re actually talking about a tiny transphobic private party for transphobic friends, but one which you made a point of blogging about and a special point that you weren’t going to invite a specific group of women because you “feel uncomfortable” around them.

If you can’t stand getting negative comments about being transphobic, don’t blog about your transphobia! Simple, really.

“So why the need to tell everyone that you’re excluding transwomen?” & “If you didn’t want people to know about it and know that trans women are excluded from it, why mention this on a public blog?”

The original announcement (one I linked to which you have clearly not reviewed) was public so far as it began as a suggestion to gauge response/interest within a portion of the radfem community. The responses/criticisms ensued from there and I felt the “transphobic” assessment was unnecessary–unnecessary *because* of the minor-ness of the whole gathering, for one.
No one was trying to make this a big deal–no radfem was trying to engage a whole bunch of other people (it was addressed to a pretty small group who correspond regularly). The reactions coupled with the name-calling was what I brought to my blog to discuss (not much I can do if another blog links to it–just because the blog is public does not mean I am writing for everyone that ends up here.)

“Let’s see: I have several friends…”

Oh this part is just a laugh Jesur–I GOT the point, the *analogy*, the first time.
The confusing part was how far you took the analogy–the mentioning of my “friends” or what would make me lose them–pretty presumptuous, unnecessary, and oddly detailed. It only continues with this multi-paragraph analogy that is littered with insults.

There is a naivety in these responses from you that’s almost endearing-almost. Were you not so insulting your denseness might be bearable. Since it is not, and since you’ve remained insulting to me in a way I am not to you (or trans for that matter) I feel you are wasting your time belaboring your points here.
You think I am transphobic. I get it.
Move on.

P.S. I will be kind and let you know your comments are stuck in the moderation que indefinitely. Though the thought of you typing away with your bullshit-of-the-mouth “gonna show that pisaquari what’s up!” and clickclickclicking my blog waiting *forever* to see your masterpieces appear in anticipation of a response did delight me…I must say my tiny transphobic heart won and I’m letting you know so you are at least saved the time and effort.

Good day!

Criminy! Was that one of those “if you don’t want to get mugged you should stay inside your room with the doors locked and nevernevernever be seen or speak a word in public” routines?

Out loud - where I come from ‘you’ is used to mean ‘people in general’ - not just ‘the person I am addressing directly”. Don’t make assumptions about my linguistic patterns!

Thanks to Lost Clown for this link:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/transsexuals_UK.html

(not sure, but my last comment may have ended up in the spammie bin)

I’m not a spammer!!

Fixed–sorry stormy.

No worries pisaquari, I thought it may have been the dreaded radfem-phobia kicking in!

It was actually a minor case of RadfemLinkPhobia.
It comes and goes.

I’m sorry but I am so fucking sick of this. Hi, yes it’s me, brave suggester of radical feminist conference. I did not mention trans-people, nor did I intend to, but when asked directly (by Maia) whether ‘women-only’ meant excluding transwomen, I responded that it means exactly that and explained why. Maia has since blogged about this issue, and, having started this stupid blogwar of which we are all experiencing the fallout, has now gone very quiet.

I have also, as a result of all this going on, come to the conclusion that transwomen sometimes speak just like men, with the same obvious privilege as men, and allowing them to speak on your blog is just like allowing men to speak on your blog. All of which seems to me like a great reason to exclude them from a ‘women-only’ gathering.

To me the size of the gathering is irrelevant. I want the conference to be as big as it can be, and no matter how big it gets transwomen will still be excluded. They will be excluded not because of ‘transphobia’ or bigotry, or because I am oppressing them, but out of respect for the women who do attend, expecting a ‘women-only’ conference. They will be excluded for the same reasons that men are excluded. Which, also does not make me a ‘man-hater’, by the way.

Sorry, Pisaquari, maybe I should have said this on my own blog, but it was the “So why the need to tell everyone that you’re excluding transwomen?” from Jesu that got to me.

I will shut up now.

“Sorry, Pisaquari, maybe I should have said this on my own blog, but it was the “So why the need to tell everyone that you’re excluding transwomen?” from Jesu that got to me.”

No need for apologies Debs–speak your truth. I hope I did not come off as trivializing the event because indeed I think it will be rather cool. But in terms of an entire movement, of the fab radfems spaces available, I thought it rather absurd to attack something that was only getting tossed around b/w a subset of feminist bloggers with likely a scaled down attendance (it’s not easy for everyone to travel)–not to mention it not being organized yet.

Jesur out stayed his welcome. I don’t see his comments making it through again in this lifetime.

Yep, just a few women getting together, because that is all it will be, is apparently very threatening. Proof if ever it were needed that we live in a woman-hating world. x

Um…stormy. I did actually reiterate in my comment on your post that you were saying most (if not all) people. For the ‘linguistically challenged’: the phrase ‘if not all’ doesn’t linguistically equal ‘all’.

Polly: what’s a ‘butch intersex herring’?

you tell me

I’m guessing red.

Noes - not the red straw herring?

Is it the herring that needs radical feminism like a fish needs a bicycle:)?

I think it’s really a prairie dog…

It IS a prairie dawg… gawd damn.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xWWNG0JBMCg

But if the prairie dawg identifies as a chipmunk…

Anyway, you can just tell from that clip that the dude is chipmunkphobic.

Chipmunkphobics have *striking* similarities to Conservative Loonies.

For instance: they both use words.

Radfemphobia does not only exist, it is widespread. It is also an extension of misogyny due to the fact that radical feminism is *real feminism*. So, anti-feminism is simply the logical continuation of misogyny in patriarchy.

I take great exception to the following monolithic characterization:

“Transperson[sic] are so deeply committed to gender constructs that they are willing to alter their bodies to conform with

gender constructs.”

There’s a lot of assumptions there. This
(A) excludes any non-op people of transgendered experience, for starters. The above also
(2) looks only at those whose presentation are perceived to match societies dominant gender-sex linked stereotypes (insert

here non-herring example trans women who are usually classified by society as butch lesbians or tomboys… but for their

biological birth and later transition