Less than two years ago my “opinion” of transfolk was one of extreme othering, of downright transphobia – I didn’t hate transpeople but I knew nothing about them and deemed from my place of ignorance that they were weird, freakish, incomprehensible.
Then I met, or rather came across, a transwoman named Alison. I saw her as a man in a dress. A big man in a dress, a hairy one, wearing – ridiculously – make-up and nylons while camping in a muddy field with a bunch of hippies. She said very little – she was attending a workshop / discussion about what it means to be a woman, and she was there to listen, not to speak*. I didn’t want a man in a dress in the Women’s Dome. I didn’t want her to be there, but I didn’t want to be the one who said “No”, either.
(*It turned out that she was much less intrusive, much less imposing, than a young woman who liked to dress as a boy and play with gender, a young woman whose presence was not put to the vote, and who was so busy denying that motherhood has any necessary connection with womanhood that she did not stop to hear that for many women, for me, experiences of motherhood and womanhood are in fact connected…)
I didn’t want a man in a dress in the Women’s Dome. Yet out of that discomfort, out of that politeness, came a process in which I began to question for myself what it means to be a woman, what it means to be trans. I began to question my own bigotry – and it was not an easy journey. (Here are some posts I wrote as I travelled: one, two, three.)
I found that transgenderism / transsexualism is not the weird fetish of disturbed freaks, but a genuine – and very difficult – lived reality. I looked at some of the statistics for mental health and suicide rates among transpeople – both those who transition and those who do not. I read the blogs of transfolk, mainly transwomen – some who are out in real life, some who are not. I looked into medical evidence about the causes of transgenderism and found that there is no certainty about the true cause – whether it is physical / biological or whether it is mental / emotional / social or whether the individual cause varies from person to person. Sometimes intersex biology is relevant, sometimes not. From all this I learned that gender identity is a real phenomenon, even if we do not all consciously experience it; and I learned that gender dysphoria (where gender identify does not match biological sex attributes) is a real phenomenon, even if few of us are unfortunate enough to experience it.
What I found is that the definition of class Woman is not a simple matter, and I am not the person who can define what a woman is.
Radical feminists – especially those who are separatists or who advocate (as I do) the need for woman-only space – often struggle with this. We often act as though we know exactly what a woman is, and that a transwoman is not a woman. Even if we recognise that the question is not straightforward, we still struggle with the inclusion of transwomen in women-only spaces.
Sometimes our exclusion is expressed by straightforwardly characterising transwomen as men, so that it is then self-evident that they should be excluded from woman-only spaces. This really isn’t a very profound analysis. I was saddened to see Debs using it the other day to justify the exclusion of transwomen from her otherwise excellent proposal for a national meeting of radical feminists.
Debs uses the following quotes (taken from the anti-trans site Questioning Transgender) to explain her position:
Womyn only space is time and place where the welfare of the class of womyn and its core constituents, females who were raised as girls and perceive themselves as womyn, are the primary concern. In this space the desires of others are secondary. If even one womon’s perception of safety from male violence is diminished by the presence of individuals who are or were or claim to be members of the class of men, those individuals should be excluded. If any womyn find it easier to try new things or to explore their lives without the presence of non-womyn, that should be allowed.
from “Exploring the Value of Women-Only Spaces” by Kya Ogyn
[T]he transgender movement has been taken so unquestioningly to heart by so many lesbians, feminists, and progressives, there is such dogma surrounding it, and there is such a taboo on challenging it, that I am unwilling to fudge even a little on how dangerous it is to feminism and women… Somehow we have a movement whereby men’s interests have found a clever way to siphon off lesbian and feminist energies into a liberal agenda of identity politics, individual freedom, and inclusion which make us forget altogether about challenging patriarchy. To the extent feminists partake in this, we have nursed a viper to our movement which is now out to destroy what precious little women’s space we have managed to eke out.
from “Men in Ewes’ Clothing: The Stealth Politics of the Transgender Movement” by Karla Mantilla
These writers, as portrayed in these quotes anyway, are not speaking truth.
They fail to consider at all the very first question, whether transwomen are in fact “men” at all or whether they should be acknowledged as members of “the class of womyn”. They assume that transwomen are “really” men, and take it from there. They posit a gender binary and place transwomen firmly, unanalytically, on the male side: pretty unradical for a movement that is supposed to be about questioning the gender binary. Ogyn asserts that “females who were raised as girls” are primary – without saying why. Is it simply because this is, numerically and in terms of sheer weight of privilege, the dominant group? If so then again this is hardly a strong radical feminist position. If not – what? (more on this below) Mantilla asserts that the transgender movement is dangerous to feminism and women because it involves the promotion of “men’s interests” at the expense of feminist energy. But, even if we overlook this blunt non-analysis of gender identity, we are not talking about diverting the radical feminist movement into a transgender movement; we are talking about the inclusion of radical feminist transwomen in a radical feminist woman-only space. The one does not lead to the other.
There are more subtle arguments in favour of excluding transwomen. The second part of that Ogyn quote is a good example of one of these: the appeal for consideration to be given to women who fear male violence or who may be discouraged or intimidated if they had to worry about the sneering of “non-womyn”. But again don’t we need to think and explore a bit more carefully before defining transwomen as “non-women”? And we need to remember also that transwomen are often often at huge risk themselves from the same male sexual violence and the same male sneering. (Some data, stats about young queers, a personal perspective.)
I do get that this is hard. I get that – especially for women who have been traumatised by men, women who have good reason to fear men, women who do in fact (as I once did) view transwomen as just men in drag – this is very hard indeed. Doing the right thing is often hard. It is still the right thing.
I keep making a connection in my mind with people who have suffered in war or conflict who are then asked to make peace with those whom they identify as their (former) enemies. We can understand if a person who suffered and was traumatised by long years in a prison camp, a rape camp, a concentration camp, if this person cannot forgive the group of people responsible for the suffering, is intensely distrustful and triggered by the mere presence of a person who looks like those people or shares their nationality… We understand, but understanding is not the same as condoning the organisation of, say, racist mental health spaces from which even innocent members of that group or nation are excluded – even members who were themselves traumatised, who fled as refugees, who reject their birth nationality and claim citizenship in their place of asylum…
I understand that this is hard. We want to protect those among us who have been hurt, who are still hurting. The question is not whether we want to protect women who are asking for safety. The question is whether we can actually achieve that by the exclusion of transwomen, and whether it is even acceptable to offer such protection when it comes at the expense of transwomen, by perpetuating the poorly analysed othering of transwomen, by ignoring the hurts and the violence that transwomen experience precisely because of their (desire to have) membership of class Woman. I don’t think so.
There is one more argument for trans-exclusion that I want to cover. It is touched upon in the Ogyn quote about “females who were raised as girls.” The idea is that transwomen, because they were raised as boys, cannot understand female oppression, that they have absorbed a degree of male entitlement that is impossible to reconcile with radical feminist women-only spaces. This is a big fat stereotype. If you tell a radical, young, woman-loving transwoman of colour that she is too dangerous and privileged to be allowed into your radfem women-only space then she will, if she is strong enough, laugh in your face. Rightly so.
Undoubtedly there are transwomen who fit this stereotype. I have come across them, or at least come across transwomen who present that way. They have a sense of entitlement that seems wholly incompatible with their membership of class (trans)Woman. A lifestory that seems to me not uncommon – and I appreciate that this is in itself a stereotype – is the story of a person who has lived and survived well as a man until middle age, a person who may be married or even have children, who is typically white and middle class, typically well-educated and/or fairly successful in their chosen (traditional, male-dominated) occupation. In middle age the person begins to feel safe enough, or desperate enough, to come out and/or transition. These transwomen certainly do have a good chance of ending up with major entitlement complexes – but it is not because they were “raised as boys” – it is because they have lived the whole damn white supremacist hetero-patriarchal male wet dream. They have experienced huge levels of race / sex / class privilege despite their (closet) transgenderism. It is hardly surprising if such a person develops an unhealthy sense of entitlement, leading to an exaggerated (but genuinely felt) outrage at the new experience of exclusion and oppression after coming out or transitioning. These are the transwomen who give transfolk a bad name: protected as they are by their whiteness, money, class, it is hard for them to have any real clue that theirs is not the only oppression in town. This lack of clue can indeed make them a potential danger – especially since they are likely to be the most powerful activists in the transgender lobby, the least desperate to stay under the radar, the most likely to turn up and protest their exclusion from women-only events.
Transwomen like this do, I think, exist.
Nevertheless, I still advocate the inclusion of transwomen in woman-only spaces. Even the entitled / privileged ones.
Let’s remember that many women – even self-professed radical feminist women – have entitlement complexes as well. Those of us who are (or in some cases have been) white, middle-class, well-educated, married, able-bodied – we too are indoctrinated into a sense of entitlement, despite our vaginas, that we must fight to recognise and abandon.
Let’s also remember that the sometimes disproportionately vocal group of entitled / privileged transwomen are not representative of all transwomen. There are some amazing, consciouis, wonderful, feminist transwomen out there. Women who have been trans since forever, women who have never felt comfort or experienced freedom in the “privilege” of being raised as a gender dysphoric boy. These are the transwomen that I want to reach out to, to welcome, to engage with, to just include.
I’d like to introduce a couple of them.
SabrinaStar, who sadly seems to have stopped blogging at Monstrous Regiment is a transwoman who showed me a lot of things. I am grateful to her. In this post on the right to be equally objectified she writes thoughtfully about why it is that transwomen squee about being called “pretty” and about why feminist WBW find that annoying.
Little Light, who I never did read as much as I should have, is another awesome transwoman. Her iconic prose poem the seam of skin and scales is so powerful and amazing that I’m going to have to insist you read it, or at least this excerpt:
What I say may be in a language incomprehensible, but there is a time for that, and it is right now, because this is a monster’s creed. It is for the cobbled-together, the sewn-up, the grafted-on. It is for the golden, the under-the-earth, the foreign, the travels-by-night; the filthy ship-sinking cave-dwelling bone-cracking gorgeousness that says hell no, I am not tidy. I am not easy. I am not what you suppose me to be and until you listen to my voice and look me in my eyes, I will cling fast to this life no matter how far you drive me, how deep, with how many torches and pitchforks, biting back the whole way down. I will not give you my suicide. I will not give you my surrender.
Read this one too. In it Little Light shares a story of what it was like one night to be (young and) transgendered and idealistic.
Read those blogs, read those posts and tell me which of these writers are “non-women”. Tell me which of them is dangerous, anti-feminist. Tell me which of them is labouring under the weight of unexamined privilege. Tell me which is a viper in our midst, too entitled / privileged to have any hope of understanding the radical feminist perspective. Can you do that? I can’t.
*********************************
It is time that radical feminism did some analysis of this transphobia. It is time we tried to understand why Alison dressed in drag. It is time we learned to recognise that the boundary between male and female is not what patriarchy has taught us, and stopped abusing our power as gatekeepers of class Woman. It is time we moved away from imagining all transwomen as dangerous imposters, men in drag seeking to infiltrate our movement, our spaces.
This is difficult. I know it is. If we renounce the privilege of policing the boundaries of woman-only space, then how can we keep out the truly dangerous elements? If transwomen are permitted entry to class Woman, then where shall we draw the line? These are difficult questions. I don’t pretend that I know the answers. But not knowing the answers is not a reason to cling to our WBW privilege, to continuing excluding and rejecting the feminism of transwomen.
Working out exactly how to make a trans-inclusive woman only space may be difficult, it may be a challenge. I would like us to try and meet that challenge. Or maybe, if we don’t yet know how to do that, at least to acknowledge that it exists… Anyone?
Touchingly Naive 
15 March 2008 at 2:38 am
You might consider how offensive all of what you wrote is to male allies who don’t transition.
Tell me why I — as someone who rejects masculinity, patriarchy, fatherhood, patriarchal sexuality, and even using patriarchal medicine and law to transition and gain access to womanhood — should be excluded from spaces that you’re willing to share with males who often have willingly done the exact opposite, up until (and often after) the point where they transitioned?
What makes them “better” than me? True, I’m not a “woman” like they are, but I’ve never been (and refuse to be) the “men” that they also are, have been, and often will always be (can they take back rapes they’ve comitted? Or even the times they “just” used patriarchy as their pimp in obtaining “consent?”).
Why even rally around womanhood (and woman only spaces) if you believe in a gnostic (unprovable) trans-gene, anyway? I see what’s in it for them, it’s the ultimate Passing Test, but what do you get out of it since you don’t believe in gender?
“is a real phenomenon, even if few of us are unfortunate enough to experience it.”
By that same logic, Jesus is 100% real and is truly the Son of God. In other words, it’s not logic, it’s just a belief you have, one that requires faith. One person can’t expect another person to share faith. It’s politically unviable and patently unfair: it says that people who don’t transition really ARE the gender identity that they’re cast into.
At any rate, I want to remind you again that transwomen often say VERY male-phobic things, they act like being called male is the worst thing in the world (akin to the nword) just because it clashes with their identity, and they think they can get away with this often highly essentialist invective just because males are “their oppressors.”
That’s not necessarily true, however: most transfolk agree that transitioning itself is “privileged” (so post-ops are privileged over pre-ops) as it protects non-conforming people from abuse. If that’s true, pro-radical feminist males who don’t transition are less privileged than those who fit into the much neater and publicized trans category (especially the pro BDSM and pornstitution stances that often comes with trans rhetoric). Thus, I don’t feel out of place saying that many transwomen are MY oppressor, as they help to turn the wheel of gender that grinds me down.
I don’t think my perspective on this is a needed one. I don’t think females should, necessarily, give two shits about what I have to say. OTOH, I think my perspective complicates the message you’re trying to send about inclusivity, which, I suppose, is why so many transwomen seem to want events that exclude people like me! That’s not very nice.
15 March 2008 at 2:47 am
“but what do you get out of it since you don’t believe in gender? ”
Please don’t answer that question because I didn’t mean to ask it; I don’t want to imply that I believe in gender outside of a social construction nor imply that you necessarily do, either. I was only venting a frustration that people who believe in gender as an inherent or godd/ess given attribute often want to take advantage of and co-opt systems and commonalities created by people who want to destroy gender and the social forces that create it.
15 March 2008 at 7:01 am
Ewwwww.
Rich, your whole argument – one that merits consideration – is overshadowed by the overbearing and aggressive tone you adopt.
Could you please re-state your thesis in a less violent way?
15 March 2008 at 7:13 am
Maia, thank you so much for this piece, to say nothing of your kind words about me. It means a lot to me to know that something I wrote was powerful for you; it means much more to know that someone who has previously been hostile to trans people can, simply through listening to us as human beings and caring enough about justice weigh carefully the implications, become an eloquent, principled, and compassionate ally.
You’re welcome around my place any time, and I’m proud to work for equality and justice alongside someone like you.
And Rich? I would be concerned that your logic doesn’t follow, but even the premises it follows from don’t really make sense. I have never understood your hatred of trans people, but considering the things you’ve said about me alone–things I’m used to hearing out of the run-of-the-mill bigots I can get dime-a-dozen from the crews that used to bash me back home, if they were less polite–the thought that we’re the ones oppressing you is risible at best.
You clearly have a thing going about trans people, and I don’t expect that, as Maia has, you’ll ever change your mind. And I doubt you’re going to convince me that I’m a patriarchal abomination any time soon. But the notion that you, a nominally straight cissexual white man who is as we speak attempting to dictate the realities and identities of others, have abandoned all your privilege somehow and become the Most Oppressed–especially in relation to a minority with more than ten times the rate of violent-crime-victimization of the general population and a fifty-per-cent sexual assault rate, a minority that just last month was publicly losing someone to murder weekly…well. At this point I can only commend your hard work in sticking to your beliefs.
15 March 2008 at 7:15 am
I’m sorry; that was “enough about justice to weigh…”
I’m not much for typing tonight, I’m afraid.
15 March 2008 at 8:43 am
I really am sorry Maia, but I have to say that, not for the first time, I am dismayed by your extremely patronising tone.
You seem to be making the assumption that I think all the same things about transwomen that you used to think. Why would you assume that? I have made it very clear why the event is to be female-born women only, and I’m not going to start repeating myself.
Just to clear one thing up, Questioning Transgender is not an “anti-trans site” – it is a questioning and challenging site, just as this post is questioning and challenging. The site is actually called Questioning Transgender *Politics*, which obviously places the challenges on the politics and not the people.
I am also surprised that you don’t seem to be able to see that demanding as a right female-born women-only spaces does not equal transphobia.
15 March 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hi Debs!
Female-born women-only… so what about those with 5ARD or 17BHDD? Infants born with either mutation look female, regardless of their chromosomes. As do those with CAIS. They’re raised as girls. But unlike those with CAIS, about half masculinise later in life. They’re Female-born men. Well, most are. Not all. You see, some have feminine brains, and for them, sex reassignment surgery before their bodies betray them is a medical emergency.
Then there are those women who have other, rarer conditions. They look male at birth, but they don’t always have a complete male puberty. They have a more complete, but still partial female puberty later, sometimes months later, sometimes decades later. They’re rare, but every one has identified as female while still small children.
What about those girls who are *not* White, who are *not* American, who are not privileged enough to have even $1 a day to live on as children, and whose upbringing as girls in a non-US context are totally different from your conception of how “real womyn” are socialised?
Your views may not be transphobic : but if they’re not, I’m unable to see the difference. As an American citizen, you’re not even aware of how privileged even the most disenfranchised, disempowered, and poverty-stricken woman in the US is, compared with most in the world. You don’t see yourself as empowered, or arrogant, because it would never occur to you that the USA is not the whole world.
I guess that in order to avoid well-founded charges of hypocrisy, I better give you some background. I’m Intersexed, and my Birth Certificate will always say “boy”, no matter what my OB/GYN might testify to. I looked male for most of my life, well, mostly male. In return for having my femininity denied by society at large, I partook of every male privilege you can think of (Well, as many as anyone without a penis can…) and wasn’t even aware of how privileged I was. Any more than you are aware of your own position of empowerment.
As the result of my second, late, puberty, after whole batteries of tests and medical examinations, the 1985 diagnosis of “mildly intersexed male” was changed to “severely intersexed female”. I started treatment to make my body look normal shortly thereafter.
The transition from 1st class citizen to 4th was a bit of a shock, I’ll admit. Thank goodness for my girlfriends – for I’ve always been unambiguously female between my ears, and have been treated as such by other women, no matter what I looked like. They gave me tips on how to handle the Patriarchy from the outside, something I would have learnt in my teens under normal circumstances.
You know what? The male privilege? Not worth it. Gender Dysphoria is a price far too high to pay for that, and guys have problems too you may not realise. Please read Norah Vincent’s “Self Made Man” on the subject. She had a nervous breakdown after 18 months, yet TS and IS women have to endure that predicament since birth. No wonder so many die. But you see, they don’t get a choice.
I’ll take back one thing I said – I do see your blindness to your own tunnel vision as different from transphobia after all. A true transphobe would see nothing wrong with being transphobic, and wouldn’t be at such pains to deny it. I also can’t possibly blame you for suffering something I too suffered for so long. It’s not your fault, it’s the cultural matrix of privilege you were born into.
I wouldn’t blame any womyn-only organisers that wouldn’t admit women like me. Legal, Theological, and Medical authorities all have problems with us after all. But Maia’s views – that even if she might not know how to handle the whole TS/IS mess, she’s working on it, and not being as exclusionist as the Patriarchy, well, that gives me hope. With that kind of open-mindedness, it would be up to women like us to show, just by living our lives, how we should be treated by the privileged majority. Whether you actually do that or not is up to you.
One final thing: have you ever had a Karyotype – a chromosome test? You see, the majority of IS conditions are asymptomatic, requiring medical tests to detect. It’s not impossible that you could be one of “them”, the “excluded”. Even if you’ve given birth.
15 March 2008 at 1:55 pm
Maia, thank you for posting this. I really appreciate seeing words like yours.
The woman who wrote the original “Questioning Transgender Politics” essay recently posted something similar – she acknowledged her privilege and lack of understanding about trans people.
Debs,
Questioning Transgender Politics is about dismissing the lives of experiences of trans people. The idea that it’s about “politics” and not “people” is just a matter of sophistry intended to deflect from the fact that some of the contributors have written screeds posted on the site that come just short of saying that allowing trans women into women-only spaces is likely to result in a raping spree.
I’ve gone over that site fairly thoroughly and I haven’t found any actual criticisms of politics but I have found bigoted – transphobic – generalizations about people.
At least one article bases a large number of its arguments about why trans women are horrible people on an event that never happened (alleged trans women exposing their penises in the showers at MWMF – it was a trans man, and while he screwed up, he wasn’t flaunting or making any kind of statement by trying to take a shower).
Questioning Transgender Politics is not a questioning or challenging site. Its articles are not intended to drive people to come to their own conclusions about trans people. It is intended to lead readers to the desired conclusion that trans people, transgenderism, and transsexualism are bad. It is the product of cissexual privilege, not keen insight into the motivations and people that drive so-called “transgender politics.” It’s cissexual people imposing their beliefs on trans people, othering us and marking us as the enemy. It lacks any acknowledgement that trans people have or should be allowed our own voices in these discussions.
You can repeat what you just said, that it’s simply a critique of transgender politics, but I have to ask: If you came across a site devoted to denigrating women with foul stereotypes that labeled itself as “questioning feminist politics” would you believe the supporters when they came around to stress that it’s only about the politics, and not about the people? Or would you rightly criticize it as misogynistic? I know I would.
Just like I rightly criticize QTP as transphobic.
As an example: Karla Mantilla implies rather strongly that trans women allowed into MWMF would start raping cis women, and uses the above-mentioned semi-fictional shower incident to support that premise. If you’d like, I’ll quote the relevant passages.
To put it another way, those with privilege are not really able to describe, define, or really understand oppressed lives without listening to those who live those oppressed lives. This is true of men regarding women, straight people regarding gay and lesbian people, white people regarding people of color, and cis people regarding trans people. Being privileged doesn’t grant you the authority to speak on trans lives, or point to the most nearly accurate depiction of trans lives. Being privileged simply means you’re likely to think you have that authority, and you exercise it thoughtlessly.
Rich, little light addressed your points rather thoroughly, but I have a couple of questions:
First, you say that the post is offensive to male allies who choose not to transition. Are you saying that you desire to transition, but choose not to? Or are you just saying you chose not to because, since you don’t really want to, you wouldn’t have chosen anyway?
If you never wanted to transition, then please don’t try to appropriate trans women’s voices by claiming that your life is more important than ours because you didn’t transition. If you wanted to transition but have decided against it, please do not try to appropraite trans women’s voices by claiming that your life is more important than ours because you didn’t transition.
Second, do you have any kind of rape statistics for trans women? You talk like pre-transition, trans women rape rather frequently. That’s a rather hideous and emotionally manipulative distortion. Since any trans woman you ever meet is unlikely to have ever committed rape, what does rape even have to do with accepting trans women as women?
15 March 2008 at 1:55 pm
Maia, sorry, I somehow left an open link in my last post. 😦
Just a head’s up if you’d like to edit it, this post doesn’t need approval. 🙂
15 March 2008 at 3:20 pm
“Could you please re-state your thesis in a less violent way?”
I consider *your* post an act of rape. Please don’t speak to me.
15 March 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hi Debs
Of course, it would have helped my own case if you hadn’t have been from the UK….
Sometimes you have to laugh at your own errors. Well, I have to laugh at my own. The point I raised remains valid though.
15 March 2008 at 3:47 pm
Rich, comparing a post to rape is dehumanizing to those who’ve actually been raped. Knock it off.
15 March 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Rich, comparing a post to rape is dehumanizing to those who’ve actually been raped.”
No shit. I was pointing out the utter ridiculousness of what was said to me.
It’s also dehumanizing to have someone try to “man you” in order to un-man themselves. I’ve never had a female lesbian separatist tell me that my speech is “too violent.” And yet, in order to push me around, control me, in order to divide hirself from me, in order to prove that I’m not “one of the good feminist folk,” a trans advocate can call my speech violent (and thus my entire identity violent), in order to make hirself look safe by way of comparison.
Zoe = Sugar and Spice
Rich = Ewww
I’m sorry, but that was another case of someone in the trans camp aping the superficial kind of essentialism that they like to try to pin on radical feminists.
Thanks for encouraging that kind of behavior Maia.
15 March 2008 at 4:40 pm
You’re trivializing rape by comparing the act of being asked to restate your argument to being raped. That’s not exactly a feminist ally kind of thing to do.
Also, considering all of the phobic things you’ve ever said about trans identities in the past, you don’t have an inch of room to complain that any trans person called your speech violent. It is. Anything you say about trans people that isn’t hate speech is just shy of it. You talk about trans women rapists as if that’s the norm to expect, as if it’s a common experience.
I also wanted to address this:
As a woman who would be described as trans, I find that when people refer to me as male, they’re doing it to deny my identity, my life, my experiences. Being referred to as a man doesn’t bother me because I hate men, or I think that being a man is the worst thing ever. It bothers me because it shows a profound disrespect for who I am and how I’ve lived my life.
It’s not just because it clashes with my identity, it’s because it’s used as a weapon, an insult, and is intended to degrade who I am, by imposing an essentialist definition upon my life: “Born a boy, always a boy.”
15 March 2008 at 5:05 pm
“You’re trivializing rape”
Actually I was using rhetorical hyperbole to point out that Zoe was trivializing it. Rape is violent, my post was supposedly violent, therefor my post was akin to rape. That’s an accurate syllogism and one I’ve come to expect from trans advocates who want to silence me. I also expect you to repeat that I’m a rape trivializer often like a pitbull on a chew toy.
But: You’re showing a profound lack of respect for me right there. My identity is non-violent. My internal identity is that of a feminist ally and you have no right to question that. Your identity is no more real and no more existentially provable than mine. You’re the one uttering hate speech there, the one being phobic.
Maia, see how silly this is? Just because one side in this argument has more numbers here (and indeed has taken to using your space to crusade against women like Debs), doesn’t make them right, it doesn’t make the arguments they’re making more sensible, even though you’re used to hearing them.
I’ve said everything I have to say on this matter here, Maia, I just wanted to expose the arbitrary nature of “phobic” and claims of “disrespect of identity.” All identities certainly don’t get the same protection. Keep that in mind.
Also, Maia, I don’t expect you to trust me.
There’s no way I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that I’m not a rapist to you. I’m not asking for your unconditional trust, or even conditional trust, any trust. Beware of males, whether they identify as men, women, or anyone else, who do otherwise, who expect you to value their identities over your own safety. Being pro-feminist and an ally means giving things up, not asking for more things.
Like I said, that’s the message I wanted to convey.
15 March 2008 at 5:35 pm
You know what, Rich, as a supposedly legit, aka xx-gonaded and female genitalia-equipped born female person, I have to say, you’ve got one -hell- of a lot of gall. -Trust-, nothing; no one owes you that -or- respect, or frankly anything else. Your -identity as a female ally-? Is a) equivalent to that of someone else’s -gender- identity (as though one’s status as an “ally” were not dependent on the supposed recipients’ acceptance of the supposed alliance b) -beyond question-. -Please,- Mary.
Personally, I don’t care whether this whatever-it-is is caused by male privilege, internalized transphobia or christ knows what went wrong with your inner moppet: bottom line, it’s one -hell- of a lot of entitlement, lack of empathy, and plain old hatefulness. The fact that a few gynocentric radical feminist women keep you around as their token pitbull to tear into transwomen, sex workers, and other not-exactly-top-of-the-privileged-heap folk speaks volumes about them as well as you.
And you know what else: no one actually cares what you -gave up.- You’re a bitter, unpleasant man and you apparently have nothing better to offer the vast majority of women or the world but offloads of your own toxic misery. Newsflash: this isn’t because you’re male. This is because you’re a sad, self-loathing mess and you apparently can’t see your way clear of it. Which, I’d feel bad for you? but your cure is apparently worse than the disease.
Do the world a favor: do -yourself- a favor. Do something to make yourself -happy- already for fuckssake. Seriously. The hairshirt helps -nothing.- Not you, not anyone else.
Sorry, Maia, I came in to say how much I admired this post, but got distracted.
15 March 2008 at 5:41 pm
“chromosomed,” not gonaded. not that I actually know, really…it’s not like anyone’s ever demanded proof.
which that there would be yep uh huh privilege.
not beating myself up for it either, thanks. just…not being a ratfuck to people who -don’t- have it, as though womanhood or feminism were all about Star-Bellied Sneetch-ism, though. is that really so damn difficult, is it?
15 March 2008 at 5:49 pm
“Zoe Brain Says:
15 March 2008 at 7:01 am
Ewwwww.
Rich, your whole argument – one that merits consideration – is overshadowed by the overbearing and aggressive tone you adopt.
Could you please re-state your thesis in a less violent way?”
“Rich Says:
15 March 2008 at 5:05 pm
“You’re trivializing rape”
Actually I was using rhetorical hyperbole to point out that Zoe was trivializing it.”
Rich, she didn’t mention rape. Surely if you believe it’s a crass thing to do (equating someone’s opinion about your posting style with rape) then you can make objections to let the blogsphere know without comparing it to rape. “It was hyperbole!” doesn’t cut it. Especially as Zoe didn’t mention rape in the first place.
15 March 2008 at 7:03 pm
With respect to Zoe, I’m not sure why Rich’s argument merits consideration, as he answers his own question:
“Tell me why I — as someone who rejects masculinity, patriarchy, fatherhood, patriarchal sexuality, and even using patriarchal medicine and law to transition and gain access to womanhood — should be excluded from spaces {where transwomen are allowed]?”
Here’s the answer you gave:
“I’m not a ‘woman’ like they are”
While the point about “most transfolk agree that transitioning itself is ‘privileged’ (so post-ops are privileged over pre-ops)” may be worthwhile, it doesn’t seem relevant to the question of why transwomen should be included in women-only events that do not include you. You have not identified as being in any stage of transition.
15 March 2008 at 7:54 pm
Rich’s comment sets out quite clearly why WBW are the only women only spaces that are practical to have. Because otherwise where do you draw the line? If you say ‘anyone who self defines as a woman’ you let in anyone at all, because you can’t read people’s minds. If you say ‘only transwomen who have transitioned’ then you are saying that the act of surgery and taking hormones makes that person a woman. Which sounds pretty essentialist to me.
If by contrast you say ‘those assigned female at birth’ you are including all those (including intersex people who appear ‘female’) who are treated as being of the class of woman by society from birth. Now transwomen who transition (assuming they ‘pass’ of course) may experience anti female discrimination as soon as they do that, and yes it may seem unfair to exclude them from women only spaces, but that doesn’t mean it’s ‘transphobic’. Denying someone employment rights, or state benefits, or housing, or beating them up in the street, or yelling abuse at them would be transphobic, but all they are being denied is the right to attend a private gathering.
But it does mean that they are different from those assigned female at birth. Just as non violent pro feminist men are. Attending a woman only space, which is women’s personal space, isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. I don’t consider I have the right to invade anyone else’s personal space, so why does anybody else? It sounds a lot like the way entitled males behave to me.
15 March 2008 at 8:20 pm
Polly, do you actually know any transwomen?
15 March 2008 at 8:24 pm
And I’ve been in plenty of spaces where the line is perfectly well kept. People who live fulltime as women, surgery -not- required, and yes, it’s taken on the honor system, but you know, in my fairly extensive experience with trans-inclusive womens’-only spaces, generally, gawking fratboys who just want to see the wimmins’ commune and dress up in drag for a gag don’t exist outside of movies like “Sorority Boys.”
As for why they want to come: because they’re women, because they’re feminists, because they have things to offer the community, because they’re (sometimes, yeah) lesbian, for the same damn reasons everyone else wants to be there.
Rich, on the other hand, I have -no- idea what he wants, and I rather suspect that he doesn’t either.
15 March 2008 at 8:29 pm
Maia: this post is very well said, and I remember reading a couple of your previous ones on the topic, as well. It really pleases me to see this kind of acceptance, and especially the thought processes involved in it. Bigotry is not conquered by siege engines and slogans, but by each of us conquering our own — a more difficult thing than a conventional battle, and one which requires more strength and sanity in the end. I congratulate you.
Rich: I don’t get it. If you want to transition, is your objection using patriarchal medicine? If so, I am wondering what you do when you contract bacterial infections, or other ills that require treatment. Suffer in silence?
If you don’t want to transition, why did you bring it up?
Here’s the thing: your examples defeat your own argument — that women’s space is a slippery slope, that if they let women with certain backgrounds in (a hundred years ago, those backgrounds were different ones, I daresay) well, anyone can get in next time.
Because, for one, it’s often easy enough to tell the difference between someone who has experienced oppression, and someone who is lying about it; and because, when it comes down to that, the risk of letting in a few who are acting on entitlement is worth it in order to provide support to those who have suffered genuine oppression.
Since you decided to invoke rape: consider, at least, the hullaballoo about “women lying about rape.” I use this in quotation marks because it rarely ever happens, yet those few instances are used as “examples” to deny services, to prevent prosecution of the guilty, to belittle and mock women who’ve suffered untold horrors. To narrow and block access for those who most need it.
It’s always easier to interrogate the victims of oppression about what has happened to them than to interrogate the culture about why it has happened.
15 March 2008 at 8:43 pm
I am pretty stunned by all this going on here on my blog. This is – unexpected. I didn’t write this piece to get a reaction, only to get something off my chest.
First off, I’d like to thank the transwomen who came here and wrote on comments or e-mail their appreciation. I am happy about that 🙂
Secondly I’d like to say to Rich – get a life, and stop calling yourself a feminist ally when you so clearly are not. Your method of communication is aggressive, and not welcome in this woman-centred space. I will not engage with your arguments, such as they are, because I’m a little tired right now of dealing with male entitlement on feminist blogs. Besides, I can’t help but feel that you would not hear.
Mostly, I’d like to say to Debs – ouch.
I understood that you wouldn’t agree with me and feared that you would not wish to engage with me (although I did hope that you would) but – “I am dismayed by your extremely patronising tone”?… “not for the first time”? Ouch.
Debs, I hear that you don’t like my writing style and that you find it patronising. That’s a shame, because “patronising” is totally not my intention. I try to explain where I am coming from and what I believe as clearly as I can (as long as I am clear on it myself, which is not always the case, but which is increasingly the case on this particular topic).
I re-read my post and I still don’t see “patronising” in there. Upset, disappointed, annoyed, argumentative, challenging, yes. I’m trying to read every sentence, every paragraph to guess which bits you found extremely patronising and which you didn’t but since you have not said I am only guessing. I am wondering what else I have written that you found patronising, but again you didn’t say and I am having to guess. What I’m saying is – it would really help me to understand where you are coming from if you could be more specific in what you found patronising and why. I am experiencing your indirectness on this as passive-aggressive. I have been enjoying your blog, enjoying your visits to my blog, coming to see and like you as a person and not just as a writer, so this hurts. My problem? Maybe. Still hurts.
You also say: “You seem to be making the assumption that I think all the same things about transwomen that you used to think. Why would you assume that? I have made it very clear why the event is to be female-born women only, and I’m not going to start repeating myself.”
I was not making that assumption. I was sharing my own journey, not presuming to guess what yours might be. You made clear your reasons for wishing to exclude transwomen, which (as I read it, and please correct me if I missed or misinterpreted something) were the reasons I discussed in my post, reasons which I have seen often relied on, not just by you, and reasons which I strongly disagree with. The views your expressed are certainly not unique or even unusual, I have encountered them often and processed them thoroughly, which is why seeing them on your blog resulted in a big post here rather than anything else. I hope you will understand and believe me when I say that this post was “not about you” in the sense that although it was written in reaction to the thread about the radfem event it was not written with the intention of being specifically addressed to you – if it was intended as a message specifically to you then I would have left a comment on your blog or sent you an e-mail.
Insofar as my post was addressed to anyone (not far, since I mainly write for myself) it was addressed to radical feminism / radical feminists generally. That’s why, after I posted it, I decided to submit it to you for the carnival. That you are hosting the carnival was serendipitous to me because I felt that I was giving you as the only radical feminist actually referenced by name in the post the choice/challenge as to whether or not you felt comfortable publishing it in the carnival – I probably would not have submitted it if someone else had been the host.
I note that you disagree with my characterisation of the QTP site as anti-trans. That is how I read it, although I recognise that others read it in the way you have described.
I see also that you do not equate the exclusion of transwomen from women-only spaces with transphobia. I guess the whole point of my post is that, in my view, it is.
Debs, I hear that you don’t wish to repeat yourself, but I would welcome engaging with your or any other radical feminist on this topic if you feel that you have more to add.
Maia x
15 March 2008 at 9:13 pm
Oh – a bunch of comments appeared while I was writing the last one!
I wanted particularly to answer Polly Styrene (hello!):
My reaction to Rich’s comment was actually that it showed quite clearly why we need women-only spaces. But since Rich does not appear to be a transwoman (although who knows, really, since he himself appears to be confused) I don’t think his behaviour shows us anything about transwomen.
Where do you draw the line? I don’t know. I think it may be difficult to get specific or legalistic about this. My general feel is that, as per Belledame’s experience, if someone lives full time as a woman – surgery not required – then that is good enough for me. (Although obviously, as she says, you have to take that on trust, same as you have to take anyone’s status on trust unless there is going to be an inspection of credentials at the door…)
I accept that the experience of a transwoman is going to be different from the experience of a WBW. But neither transwomen nor WBW are heterogenous groups. There is diversity of experience and privilege and oppression among any group of women, whether or not they were raised as female right from birth. WBW’s experiences of girlhood are often radically different from one another – varying degrees of privilege, freedom, education, consciousness just for starters. So I just don’t believe that the way we were raised (i.e. as girls) should be the defining criteria of who we want to hang with when we decide to make some woman-only space – especially if it is a public event but even if it is a private meeting*. I guess where I get to is that, just as it would be racist to exclude WOC and ablist to exclude disabled women, it strikes me as anti-trans / transphobic to exclude transwomen. If we acknowledge that we are being “unfair” – the word you used which I agree with – to transwomen when we exclude them (on the basis that they are trans) then that strikes me as just wrong.
15 March 2008 at 9:18 pm
Thanks for this Maia,
I wanted to say something like this but I didn’t know how to articulate it
15 March 2008 at 9:28 pm
I’ve emailed you Maia. x
15 March 2008 at 9:31 pm
Debs – yes, thank you, I’ve replied 🙂
15 March 2008 at 10:38 pm
I know (to my knowledge) about 7 transwomen personally. All of whom have fully transitioned. And all of whom would respect a woman only space.
So that gets rid of that old chestnut.
15 March 2008 at 10:43 pm
Also maia – how do you decide who lives full time as a woman? Because I know someone who reckons they live full time as a woman because they occasionally wear dresses. But they have a beard and a penis and no more intention of having any kind of physical gender reassignment than I do of playing in the world cup squad.
Questions…questions….
(nb I should have written wbw only instead of wbw only above.
15 March 2008 at 10:53 pm
(serial posting). But Maia – the reason why it would be racist to exclude woc is that the event is women only – race isn’t relevant. It wouldn’t be racist to exclude white women from an event for WOC would it?
If the event is for women assigned female at birth, then excluding transwomen isn’t transphobic. It IS saying they are different from those assigned female at birth. Because they are. It’s nothing to do with defining whether they are a ‘woman’ or not. It is about saying that they have a different life experience from the other people there.
I do not identify in any way as transsexual. Would I be allowed into a trans only event? No? Why not? I frequently experience abuse in the streets and homophobic remarks because I’m not a traditionally feminine woman. So don’t I experience the same kind of thing trans people do?
15 March 2008 at 11:06 pm
hi polly
Which old chestnut? (did I miss one?)
(ETA Ah, I see – you were responding to belledame’s question… I guess the way I would put it is that I’m not asking whether transwomen are actively seeking to enter spaces set up to exclude them – as far as I can make out some are, some (most) aren’t, for a variety of reasons – but more about whether it is right for us to set up such spaces in the first place.)
How would I decide who lives full time as a woman? As I said, I’m not sure how to lay down a definition or rule of some kind – not claiming this is easy or clearcut in that sense. Having said that, in most cases I wouldn’t really expect it to be a difficult question to answer in practice.
Although – in the example you described it does seem that the person’s self-perception as someone living full time as a woman may well be incorrect: it would be a very unusual transwoman, I suspect, who chose to wear a beard.
15 March 2008 at 11:23 pm
Ha – serial responding, too 🙂
You say “If the event is for women assigned female at birth, then excluding transwomen … is about saying that they have a different life experience from the other people there.”
I get this.
Where I disagree is in whether it is appropriate to set up an event as “for women assigned female at birth” in the first place, unless of course that event is specifically about the experience of being assigned female at birth, as opposed to being about or in celebration of womanhood / feminism more generally.
(The famous Michfest for example is not an event that focusses much if any attention on the experience of being assigned female at birth, yet it is still a WBW event.)
Transwomen clearly do have some very different life experiences, but I guess my point was that we *all* have different life experiences, and I don’t see being assigned female at birth as so fundamentally unifying that WBW events (unless actually about being assigned female at birth) make sense other than for the purpose of specifically excluding transwomen. Which, if exclusion is not justified (which I think it isn’t), comes home to me as pretty unfair.
15 March 2008 at 11:34 pm
Oh here’s an idea:
(only works in the UK)
If someone has changed their legal gender under the Gender Recognition Act, they should be allowed to attend women-only events.
Takes all the fuzzy stuff away.
Not saying this is perfect but – it sure is an easy way to draw the line.
16 March 2008 at 12:32 am
When male persons claim the right to access women only spaces they are defining those spaces according to their own interests – not the interests of women. In order for male persons to claim identities as ‘women’ they must first deny the existence of women.
I left a similar comment on your blog a while back. It was quite revealing, I thought, that a sexist comment (see below) made by a male person identifying as a ‘woman’, was left unchallenged by you and other visitors to this blog. It seems that not only are women not to organise autonomously or question the idea of transgenderism but, also, they must women offend ‘transwomen’ by pointing out their sexism.
Comment by ‘Marti’:
I know what it’s like to have a man look at your chest instead of your face. I know what it’s like to suddenly not have a brain in my head when it comes to automobile repair. I know what its like to not get a job because of my gender identity. I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted.
16 March 2008 at 1:11 am
“It is time we learned to recognise that the boundary between male and female is not what patriarchy has taught us, and stopped abusing our power as gatekeepers of class Woman”
I really do find it incomprehensible given the level of violence against trans women that Little Light mentioned, that more feminists don’t think that any border that is *that* violently policed might be a patriarchal one.
I think that often feminist transphobia is an unfortunate substitution of prejudice for politics, one that ignores or elides the ways in which transphobia *is* part of a broader misogynistic and homophobic system of gender policing. It does my heart good seeing you reflect so thoughtfully on your own previously-held prejudices and investments, thanks.
16 March 2008 at 1:55 am
Odd that I got a completely different hit from this quote:
“It is time we learned to recognise that the boundary between male and female is not what patriarchy has taught us, and stopped abusing our power as gatekeepers of class Woman.”
Women are abusing their power as gatekeepers of class woman by trying to claim a room of their own?
Please see John 11:35
16 March 2008 at 1:59 am
>>If the event is for women assigned female at birth, then excluding transwomen isn’t transphobic.>>
Shrug. Okay. And if the event is for o say straight women only, or at minimum we want a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy about queer womens’ experience and lives and at minimum give tacit acceptance to but it’s calling itself womens’ festival of universal womanhood or whatever it is, it can’t be lesbophobic. In fact the whole argument is a “lavender herring,” and…
Yeah, see, that actually happened. And in fact, ironically enough, was one of the catalysts for the creation of the whole “woman-identified-woman” blahblee in the damn first place: because -as a minority within a minority,- lesbians were being discriminated against within the feminist movement.
The fact that some people invoke those same writings, activists, (and sadly, in some, thankfully not all, cases are or were those same activists in order to turn around and do basically the same damn thing to yet another even more marginalized group is both ironic and revolting.
It’s not bloody -male privilege- if you’ve just made the choice to raise your likelihood of being beaten, raped, killed, not even to mention legal discriminations that in fact -no-, non-trans women do -not- share, simply in order to finally feel comfortable in your own damn skin.
And no, speaking of chestnuts, your not being allowed into a trans-only group is not equivalent to a transwoman being excluded from a broader womens’ organization.
1) The problem with the latter is that the transwoman is clear that she -is-, in fact, a woman; what’s being contested is her womanhood. Whereas -you- are not claiming to be transgendered, ergo, you don’t belong in a trans-only group.
2) In case you never noticed, resources for transfolk? Festivals? Compare them with the womens’ organizations sometime. Then compare -both- with traditional mens’-only organizations (which is, hello! NOT the bloody same thing as a trans event AT ALL): who’s funding them and by how much, just how much support each gets. Go look up the word “privilege” again. Consider your response -very carefully- the next time some not-at-all-trans, just some dude, whines about the unfairness of the existence of women-only events.
Oh, wait, one just did right here in this thread, more or less. And you approved, apparently.
16 March 2008 at 2:00 am
AS for gatekeeping: you know, I think this piece by Bernice Johnson Reagon is highly relevant here, even though she doesn’t explicitly mention transpeople at all (it’s from 1981)
16 March 2008 at 2:04 am
And yeah, actually, women -can- have that power. In many ways, not just this one, It may be a smaller room, but if you’ve sealed off access to people who don’t even have a closet of their own, then yep! you, too, are being a gatekeeper. The fact that there’s a bigger space being monopolized by still another group, not available to either of you, doesn’t make your position any more morally defensible.
16 March 2008 at 2:08 am
>>I frequently experience abuse in the streets and homophobic remarks because I’m not a traditionally feminine woman. So don’t I experience the same kind of thing trans people do?>>
Possibly, although you know, if you’ve never had legal trouble because your birth gender doesn’t match your presentation and it’s impossible to do certain basic things without official government identification, that’s something you -wouldn’t- share.
But the real question is: um, yeah, okay, there’s a way you could potentially empathize. Yep, homophobia and other forms of gender policing are very much related to the crap transfolk are subject to on a daily basis. So remind me why it’s so very very important to you to keep transfolk separate from your “safe” spaces?
16 March 2008 at 2:16 am
Maia,
I just wanted to leave a comment to say how much I appreciate this post.
I have always found it difficult to understand the transphobia I have seen in radical feminist communities, and where it comes from. Your willingness to share your initial discomfort and preconceptions, and your process toward unraveling your own privilege is refreshing to see. Not only because you have become an ally, but also because it helps me to understand where other women are coming from when they express their own discomfort with transwomen in women spaces.
It is easy for me to rule out radical feminists as bigoted and blinded by their own privilege, and though there certainly are some, I think there are perhaps more with whom we could be building a more cohesive, inclusive community if we were all willing to focus on dismantling our own privileges and do this kind of difficult work. I think as a member of any oppressed group, it is sometimes easy to get lost in pointing out and asserting that oppression, without checking what privileges we do have and how they contribute to the oppression of others. Challenging the prejudice that we are taught– sexism, racism, classism, abelism, homophobia, transphobia, ad infinitum– has always required us to move outside our comfort zones, but is there any other way? And nobody ever wins the who-is-more-oppressed-than-who game.
Thank you for opening this conversation, I hope that it continues.
16 March 2008 at 2:22 am
Arantxa, Marti’s not literally saying that as a woman, she has no brain in her head when it comes to automobile repair. She’s saying that’s how men treat her – that they treat her as if she’s completely mechanically stupid.
I find it difficult to accept most “questioning” of transgender that I see from many radical feminists because it’s not questioning – it’s an imposition of privilege. You’re saying, as a woman, that you’re in a position to judge my life, my choices, and my identity. You’re also saying you can do these things without my input, without listening to what I have to say about my life. This isn’t analysis, nor is it theory.
I’ve seen very few informed discussions about transgender and transsexualism. Most of what I see is centered around trying to force us to remain identified as our birth sex, or denying that our lived experiences could possibly be real. Our own words are rejected outright as biased and subjective, while your words are enshrined as theory, analysis, questions, and challenges.
M Andrea says that no trans woman ever answers her questions when she demands they justify their existence and choices to her. Isn’t the assumption that she can interrogate trans women and demand justifications for being trans a privileged assumption? What exalts her gender as a woman above my gender as a woman that she could possibly have a right to insist that I subject myself to 20 questions from her so that she can use that information to confirm or (more likely) deny the validity of my gender?
Polly,
When a cis woman denies a trans woman access to a woman-only space, that’s exercising privilege – asserting that a trans woman’s womanhood is counterfeit, suspect, and probably dangerous. When trans people create trans people (men or women)-only spaces, it’s to form a space away from cis people who like to define trans people as invalid, suspect, or even possibly dangerous. A born female-only space is more similar to a space for white women only than it is to a space for black women only.
The argument that we’re effectively the same as men just because we were born male denies our own experiences and realities. It denies the trans woman who is groped on the bus, who is raped, who suffers domestic abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or husband. It denies trans women who are treated as literal garbage for not being attractive or feminine enough. It denies the trans women who are fired from their jobs and even murdered for being trans.
Maia, I agree on the gender recognition act, at least in the UK. Things are fuzzier in the US, unfortunately (although the gathering in question is in the UK?). I really hope that in the near future, the US does implement something like the GRA, especially with the spectre of real ID in the future and the current Social Security practice of outing trans people who haven’t yet had surgery (and thus haven’t changed their ID, birth certificate, and social security records to match their proper gender).
16 March 2008 at 2:23 am
Uh…Arantxa…I know, being a trans woman, I’m not worth listening to, but Marti’s comment it…how can I say this…ironic. It’s sarcastic. In the context of even just the sentence you provided, it’s about how she’s subject to sexist assumptions about women (for instance, male mechanics assuming women can’t operate engines), not about sharing those assumptions.
It’s a clear dismissal of such attitudes, not an endorsement.
For another example, if I were to say, “Yep, you’ve got me pegged. I’m all about denying the existence of women,” that would be a sarcastic statement. I would be suggesting that I think the sentiment is ludicrous, not that I actually do deny the existence of women.
16 March 2008 at 2:33 am
Sorry, I meant to respond to this:
No. You experience something similar and related, but you don’t experience transphobia. You don’t have to deal with presenting yourself as one sex while your ID betrays you as your birth sex. You don’t have to deal with people interrogating you about your medical history just because they think they’re entitled to know what your crotch looks like when there’s no chance you’d sleep with them. You don’t have to deal with losing your job because your employer found out that you weren’t born as the sex you were hired as. You don’t have to deal with losing your life because your date found out you weren’t born as the sex you were asked out on a date as. You don’t have to worry about being denied services because you’re “really a man,” and thus not eligible. You don’t have to worry about being denied access to women’s spaces because the women who run that space believe that your state at birth defines your entire life.
You’re experiencing an iota of what trans people deal with.
16 March 2008 at 3:44 am
Well, one way to get readers is to attack radical feminists while pretending to be one, right Maia? Hail, hail, the gang’s all here.
16 March 2008 at 3:59 am
Julia
I don’t think shes attacking radical feminists, shes just expecting us to examine and critique our positions, also radical feminists are not the borg, we do not all believe exactly the same things.
I do consider myself a radical feminist but I consider the idea that its somehow forbidden to examine and question and disagree with other radical feminists really disturbing. I dont think you get to decide what kind of feminist Maia is, I especialy dont think you should acuse her of “pretending” to be something which is clearly very important to her.
16 March 2008 at 4:29 am
Hey Maia. This is a great post.
I have to say, though, that I have some reservations about the “…yeah, I don’t doubt some male-privilege-affected trans women exist” bit.
Not because I necessarily disagree. I’m sure there are people who, because of past entitlement in their lives, are huge jerks. (Though I’ve also heard from many transwomen that they became acquainied with feminism quickly after transition — suddenly sexism became real to them in a new way as they were treated differently. So the transwoman who remains this way may well be very rare.)
But because, even if that *is* so, I’m not sure it’s worth the space to type it. Because that person is an asshole, really, and that’s all there is to it. I’m not sure it advances anyone’s feminist politics to decide that some people are jerks especially because they once had privileged status. People either wise up and care about others or they don’t, afaik.
16 March 2008 at 8:53 am
(Am ignoring many of the comments from folks like Rich and TheBewilderness, because Zoh my gods, old meme)
Re: trans*folks and socialization.
People really can’t assume that trans*folks, or masculine women or feminine men too for that matter, had uncomplicated socializations or that we all had the same socializations. Of course you have differences in times and cultures and race and whatnot, but then there is the fact that trans*folks don’t always get internally socialized with the programing for our assigned-sex; I realize that I was socialized with a mix of both ‘man’ and ‘woman’ sets.
It’s different for each person, we can’t, or don’t, always recognize it and whatnot, but a lot of other trans*folk I’ve spoken to have also noticed this. Specific example: I often have the conflicting feelings that I need to be both protected and protector; I think it’s because, in my case at least, throughout my early childhood I both knew I’m a guy and I knew everyone else thought I was a girl–so I internalized both messages. Other times I internalized only one set; and still others…it’s an odd mix of both.
Re: Trans*folk, other gender-varient folk, privilege, etc.
I happen to think there are two parts of privilege and socialization. Theres the external parts (like getting more of the teachers’ attention because you’re asssigned-male) and the internal parts (how you interpret the messages society sends you–like comercials).
You also have the complex interplay of cissexual privilege (subconscious sex same as assigned/biological sex), gender conforming privilege (being an ‘appropriately’ feminine woman or masculine man), and maculine privilege (masculinity is generally seen in the US and other places as being more natural and/or better and/or neutral than femininity). (I got this wording mostly from here.
Re: QT//politics//
I first read that site a few years ago when I was first exploring feminism (I was about 15 or so); by this time I knew I was some sort of trans*person, though I didn’t know if I was genderqueer(no), if I was a male tomboy(yes), or a feminine guy(yes), a man(yes), or what.
Honestly, that site was a major reason I chose not to explore or identify as a feminist for a while.
To most trans*people or anyone who actualy knows (and listens to) trans*folk, it is made up of a great deal of ignorance, lies, misplaced fears, and stereotypes about trans*folk. Many of the times I’ve seen it linked to on trans* or trans*-friendly forums it was with the warning “may induce vomiting or nausea”; it has actually induced nausea in me because of how it portrays us–just as clasist or racist screeds from feminists do (or other ‘progressive’ folks–I tend to expect it from the Phelps clan and the like).
It’s no more questioning our “politics” than the Religious Riech is questioning the politics and agenda of queer folk.
Moreover, “Trans*” includes: transsexuals, transgender folk, genderqueer folk, nongendered folk, bigender folk, etc.
And sometimes: intersexed folk, crossdressers, drag performers, butches, etc.
And there are overlaps,boundary wars, definitions fighting, etc.
There is no common ideology, goal, identity, experience, etc. to critique; it makes as much sense as critiquing the politics of people who like eating apples or those who have to wear glasses. Yeah, there is stuff to look at or critique, but it’s more about how they got the apple or why they can afford the glasses or the stereotypes around glasses and such; not about the apple-eaters or the glasses-wearers themselves (and rarely about actually eating apples or wearing glasses).
Even though I spent my first decade-and-a-half or so being seen by others as a girl, it doesn’t mean I am one or the I expereinced and interpreted things the same way as a girl would.
A girl doesn’t see getting a dress in a “conventional nuclear family” as being a neat trick (for a while I liked pretending to be a girl–it was like a giant practical joke on my family; until I realized the joke was on me). Most girls don’t think that eventually their balls will drop and everyone will realize that ‘she’ is really a boy (this happened with one of the kittens we adopted when I was 7 or so).
(Gah, long comment is long)
16 March 2008 at 9:16 am
Hi Maia
I don’t want to keep commenting and monopolising your blog, (also I’ve also written shed loads on this subject and I’m beginning to get intellectual repetitive strain injury) so if you (or anybody else who is interested) follows the link they can read a piece I wrote for a queer zine on this subject, which more or less sets out everything I want to say apart from this-
On the subject of “cisgender privilege” Cis gender is defined in Wikipedia as:
a type of gender identity formed by a match between an individual’s biological sex and the behaviour or role considered appropriate for one’s sex.
I don’t know any woman born woman who identifies 100% with and is happy with her gender role (ok I know a lot of feminists). But I personally certainly get loads of shit for not acting out the expected gender role of ‘woman’. So I don’t see what this cisgender privilege I’m meant to have is. If it’s not physically wanting to change the external appearance of my genitals, then I’m afraid that will have to be taken up with goddess, or whoever you believe gets to decide these things because it sure as hell wasn’t me.
‘Privilege’ is only relevant when it is one person who is part of a privileged group in society using that privilege to disadvantage another person. Which brings us to:
“Gatekeeper of the class of women”. The problem here is that if we say some transwomen are women because they’re living full time as women, or legally defined as women, or any other definition you care to mention, we are STILL DEFINING WHO IS AND IS NOT A WOMAN. You can’t get away from that. The only logical alternative position is to say anyone who self defines a woman is a woman. Otherwise we are still acting as ‘gatekeepers of the class of woman’. Which I don’t believe we do anyway, but anyone who wants to read my full opinion can go to
http://www.sizeofacow.wordpress.com
That’s it – I’m outta here.
16 March 2008 at 11:14 am
Hello.
I was there at the women’s dome when Maia encountered ‘Alison’. This is how I felt (not about anybody else or their politics – ME):
It took a long time for me to become confident enough to go to the Women’s Dome. My male friends laughed at me and make jokes about girls rubbing olive oil on each others breasts and calling up the Goddess. It took me many years until I had enough courage to go to a women only place. Some of the women there scared the shit out of me, they were older and wiser and I seemed like I was at Feminism 101 compared to them. I hadn’t thought out many of the thorny issues surrounding gender. All I knew is that I have been on the receiving end of Patriarchal Bullshit and I wasn’t going to take it anymore. Even that took a great deal of courage to discover – it wasn’t me and my horrible body and ugly face that was the problem, it was the system. Saying that out loud means someone can say to you “Yes it is you, you’re foul”. Being strong makes you vulnerable too.
One year Maia came with me to the Women’s dome and for the first time I felt like I had someone who would take it seriously and not laugh at me for wanting to go to a session called “what it means to be a woman”.
Then there was a man in the ‘safe space’.
He wasn’t threatening, but he was a man: in a dress. He was the same kind of creature that I wanted to escape from. That’s all I saw. I felt if he was going to make it difficult then he had a job on his hands as all the other woman there were the scary confident types.
I understand everything that is being said here about trans-women and I really don’t want to exclude people from women spaces who identify as being women but my only experience of this was that I was not comfortable talking about myself in front of a person who I couldn’t help thinking was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
After all, I could don a pair of trousers and stroll on into the Men’s Dome and claim I was living as a man and find out what the Menz are up to…and who wouldn’t want to overhear their conversations? Their probably only covering each other with olive oil and rubbing their willys together anyway.
BUT my point is this…a lot of the people here sound like very confident, articulate people who are far far along their journey. For someone who has only just started out and has crept into a women space wanting protection from the male world it might be very hard for her to see a man in a dress as anything other than that. It might make her creep out again and go back to blaming herself.
The end
You can all start calling me names now.
16 March 2008 at 12:21 pm
Polly, while we’re laying to rest “old chestnuts”? I’ve never particularly found “I know seven trans women and they all know their place” to be that convincing.
After all, it’s easy for me to say, “I know more than seven cissexual women who believe that a woman’s sphere is the home and childrearing, and they have no place in men’s spaces like upper management and the Senate,” or “I know a whole lot more than seven women of color who buy into the notion that white people’s dominance in our society is due to their being better and more hardworking, not any kind of uneven distribution of opportunity.” I wouldn’t say that means those attitudes are correct or helpful, just because some women hold them, or that that small sample of women are somehow representative of–or should dictate policy to–everyone else. I’d say they’ve internalized oppressive messages about themselves, and I’d call it unfortunate, and I might participate in a movement that helps let people know they don’t have to take that nonsense any more.
But you have laid to rest one “old chestnut” at least: that knowing people in person will necessarily make you more compassionate and understanding about them.
16 March 2008 at 12:35 pm
Firstly, the issue is not one of totally excluding transpersons totally from the feminist movement. To title your post ‘transphobic’ implies a blanket ‘ban’ on those not born female from feminism, particularly radical feminism. Such BS, as we have a number, albeit small, of male-born allies within the movement. The issue is of claiming that some, and only some, feminist spaces are ‘woman-only’ (implying the female-born and raised). Sincere allies have no problem respecting those boundaries, only those promoting their own agenda refuse to respect those boundaries and demand entry.
It is important to have both personal and political boundaries. A personal boundary would be that kissing someone is not an automatic consent to either full sex or sexual fondling. On political boundaries, deeming that some spaces are female-only (I dislike the term woman-only) is not automatically ‘transphobic’ (nor even ‘malephobic’) as is always implied by criticisms directed towards radical feminists. It is about drawing a line, for the trans/queer movement encompass a varied mix of persons, from post-op trans through to cross-dressers (who have no intention to trans, and primarily identify as male for the majority of the time, yet also demand entry into ‘woman-only’ spaces).
Polly said it better with “Because otherwise where do you draw the line?”. I would agree with her ‘those assigned female at birth’ being the criteria for the few female-only spaces that we wish to have. Females are socialised from birth to not have any boundaries of their own and to always put others ahead of themselves.
I take issue with the vocal sector of the trans/queer movement, they state their enemy is ‘the establishment’ or patriarchy, yet spend the majority of time criticising radical feminists. My response is “tell it to The Man”.
Erika, I hear what you are saying. It is what many women, particularly those who have been on the receiving end of male violence and rape feel (the need to be away from anyone ‘remotely’ male). To deny the female-born, solidarity within female-only spaces, is a denial of our life-long struggle. Do all of you all-inclusive lot (who will accept anyone who ‘identifies as woman’) want to throw these female survivors to the wind? Thank you for your comment Erika, you have articulated that ‘deep down feeling’ of why we need to have some female-only spaces. I also have a friend who, when requesting to be referred to a lesbian counsellor, was referred to a TW. The problem she wanted to talk about was premature menopause.
For the record, I did not find Rich’s comments aggressive nor violent. It is clear that by TQ self-declaration of their position within the feminist movement, it excludes genuine pro-feminist males. I see his point as a valid one. I also know that Rich has respect for our few female-only spaces within the movement, hence, he gets my respect.
Finally, I take issue with any identified feminist labelling others as ‘phobic’ because they choose to have political boundaries. This continual labelling of radical feminists as ‘transphobic’ is exactly the same as calling us ‘man-haters’ and ‘anti-sex [prudes]’. A swift way to elevate yourself into being ‘one of the good feminists/women’. Good luck with that.
16 March 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hi Erika, you have just demonstrated why I personally think there is a place for protected spaces for any group of people and it is important that such spaces be protected. I’ve spent a lot of my working life counselling rape and sexual abuse survivors – and many (not all) of my women clients would be deterred from attending events where (as you have described) a certain degree of vulnerability was inevitable. Of course I use my client group as an example but there are many women who even without a history of sexual abuse and for their own and very personal reasons would withdraw and not take full advantage of a female only space if the women attending were not born women. I think your comment Erika demonstrates this perfectly and who is to argue? This is your reality.
This is not phobic about men who transition to women – it is about respect for others and their boundaries. Women notoriously are socially conditioned to have fuzzy boundaries and the last thing many women need on a journey to wellness or simply personal development is to feel unsafe. Subjective – yes it is.
What I see is some women’s real experiences (and how they react to these experiences) been made to be wrong.
16 March 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yes, I said to Maia in our email exchange it was her use of the word ‘transphobia’ I really took issue with. It will surprise nobody to find that I agree with Stormy and Polly.
I have a nagging feeling in my gut that this post is actually ‘anti-radical feminism’. That’s what it feels like. I keep trying to shake that feeling, but I just can’t get rid of it. I really want someone to come along and convince me otherwise.
16 March 2008 at 1:49 pm
Yes Debs, *that* T-word was not only used, but the first word in the title.
I too took a gulp when Questioning Transgender Politics was described as “anti-trans”.
It is about the politics, questioning the need for people to surgically cut up their bodies to conform to society’s expectation that people fit neatly into pink and blue boxes. Because that is what post-op trans is — upholding that idea.
I don’t have anything personal against transpersons. They have their own issues, own experiences. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are exactly the same as the female-born either. For transpersons to declare that they are the same as born females, actually denies their own experiences and reality. I call ‘shooting themselves in the foot’.
16 March 2008 at 1:59 pm
“For transpersons to declare that they are the same as born females, actually denies their own experiences and reality.
And there you go, denying someone’s experience of themselves. Hold on, I need to work up a look of surprise. ….Nope, can’t do it.
16 March 2008 at 2:23 pm
Dah arrogantworm.
Let me edit that comment so that YOU can understand the full meaning:
For transpersons to declare that they are the same as born females, actually denies their (transpersons’) own experiences and reality (that of being transpersons, in a gender-binary society). I call ’shooting themselves in the foot’.
Even before the addition, it makes no sense to be read the other way.
The name suits you arrogantworm. It’s a keeper. Hopefully you can understand a more simplistic message, that of “fuck off”.
16 March 2008 at 2:30 pm
It isn’t your perogative to decide what is phobic about a group you’re not in. As an ally you’re supposed to listen. If you’re not an ally then attempts at declaring what’s transphobic to trans people is moot, because you wouldn’t care about the repercussions those views you agree with have on us. I consider the Questioning Transgender site to be extremely neausiating, crass, deliberately misinformed, et cetera, because the premises that Questioning Transgender uses to make their bigoted statements are wrong. In no uncertain terms, that site *is* transphobic. The warnings the trans communities that Drakyn mentioned are proof enough of that.
-Maia, you have a nice post, wonderfully introspective, your honesty is refreshing. Unfortunately comments to posts on sensitive topics tend to descend into a shitstorm rather fast because of disagreement and strong emotions from both parties, people lose sense of their better behavior. What I’m rather weakly attempting to do is give you a heads up, if you don’t know already.
16 March 2008 at 2:36 pm
Actually, I am going to post script the comment above, to add:
In the context that arrogantworm took the comment to mean, that of (supposedly) denying transpersons their experiences — this means of course that is denying the female-born, female-raised, their own space and the ability to decide for themselves, that is in fact, denying the female-born THEIR reality. And don’t start with the cisgender privilege crap, because there wouldn’t be a need for feminism if we were rolling around in all this ‘cisgender privilege’. Straw privilege.
16 March 2008 at 2:37 pm
“For transpersons to declare that they are the same as born females, actually denies their (transpersons’) own experiences and reality (that of being transpersons, in a gender-binary society). I call ’shooting themselves in the foot’.”
That doesn’t make sense. You also don’t get to tell me how my identity is formed and whether the formation of it is ‘shooting myself in the foot’. I acknowledge I’m a trans person in my identity, as trans person and man are not mutually exclusive. Form me, that makes up part of my identity, along with many other things, like artist and visually impaired. It isn’t ‘Trans person or bust’, as you seem to think. I do just fine having an identity made of more than one part. You also might be interested to know, since you’ve stooped so low as insulting my moniker as some form of rebuttal, that it came from the musical band.
16 March 2008 at 2:44 pm
I have no interest in conversation with you arrogantworm. Your first comment, whilst mis-interpreting mine, was that of contempt.
I merely returned the favour.
16 March 2008 at 2:46 pm
Cisgender privilege denial, oh, what to do with that. Here’s a link to a cisgender privilege checklist. Piny and Nexyjo make some salient points there.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/22/the-non-trans-privilege-checklist/
16 March 2008 at 2:48 pm
I wasn’t aiming for contempt, I’m a bit surprised you mistook it as such. If I was aiming for contempt, it would’ve been much harsher with many puns and snide remarks instead of merely critically blunt.
16 March 2008 at 2:49 pm
Also, I wasn’t aware contempt was changed to me ‘not in agreement with people whose believes and views make my life difficult’.
16 March 2008 at 2:49 pm
Mean*, not me.
16 March 2008 at 3:23 pm
>>>It is about the politics, questioning the need for people to surgically cut up their bodies to conform to society’s expectation that people fit neatly into pink and blue boxes. Because that is what post-op trans is — upholding that idea.
Whereas being received as one gender your entire life problematises *anyone’s* sense of gender as an ontology, a once-and-forever given at birth and you’re stuck with it kinda deal? Your logic, it does not make sense. Transgression does not uphold a binary, it exposes how arbitary and changeable it is. What happened to “biology is not destiny?”
Besides, the notion that post-operatives fit neatly into gender normativity is faintly laughable and has little to do with the lived realities of trans life.
When post-op trans people are outed by social security checks, or if this Real ID thing goes through in the US, or just by the way they look, and are discriminated against accorindingly, it shows exactly how easily trans people fit into a system that marks gender as once-and-forever. A trans person’s gender identitiy is *always* up for grabs, because as you yourself prove, it is hardly universally accepted. Not by family, friends, and certainly not by institutions.
How neat is it when your pre transition “real” name and gender can be used against you, in such small matters as employment or, oh I dunno, violence. Like the post-operative trans woman in Sydney beaten up by her partner after the police revealed her “true” gender to him. Or the coverage of Sanesha Stewart’s murder last month that suggested that gosh darn it she deserved it because the journalist just *assumed* she deceived him. “Really” a man or woman is one meme that can and does have deadly consequences.
Trans genders are many things, but the one thing they are not is a neat fit into patriarchal boxes.
16 March 2008 at 4:11 pm
The superawesome double bind that patriarchal, homophobic and yes transphobic society at large puts MtF trans* people in:
Being “out” as trans – having your identity not respected by practically everyone, and facing prejudice, discrimination and possibly even violence for that fact.
Not being “out” as trans – having your gender identity as a woman respected, but then being subject to the same possible discrimination and violence as any other woman. With the added bonus that if you *do* get outed as trans, you’re the subject to a bunch more discrimination, and possible even violence.
Neat innit.
16 March 2008 at 4:46 pm
>>
Well, one way to get readers is to attack radical feminists while pretending to be one, right Maia? Hail, hail, the gang’s all here>>
Oh, for Christ’s sake.
For the record: as far as I know I’ve never had an encounter with Maia before in my blogging life. Someone pointed me to this as a nice post, I came over to read, got caught up in Rich’s assery. Which, for the record? For all y’all’s whinging about how the badbad whatever it is this week type of pro-porner/trans/*queer* (yes, terrific, that too, we *are* riding dangerous tonight, tell us all about it) only focus on radical feminists and not The Man, you’re awfully quiet about dear Rich’s contributions here, neh?
And you know, last I checked, none of us had a site called “Questioning Radical Feminism,” although frankly it would be a lot more appropriate than the horrible QT site. Basically, “Questioning Transgender” is the exact equivalent but -exactly- of “Questioning Homosexuality.” Go check out an ex-gay site sometime, mkay? Check the rhetoric, not just the ideology. Compare and contrast. It feels exactly the goddam same. “Oh, we don’t hate the sinner, we feel compassion for these poor unfortunate souls…I myself was once tempted, but…” Yeah. Terrific.
And of course it’s -worth- creating an entire bloody site for this because transfolk are -so threatening-, as opposed to, you know, The Man.
Oh, wait. Basically you’re saying that transfolk ARE the Man, isn’t that so?
God.
Anyway. I -am- sorry, Maia, I really am. Contrary to the belief of certain people, I do not, in fact, have any vested interest (paid OR otherwise) in dividing people from their friends and allies, loathsome as I personally may happen to find the friends and allies in question. If my very presence here is sufficient to make certain people question the veracity of the author here, all I can say to those people is: you’re not much of a friend. Shame on you.
And that goes double for casting doubt on her because transpeople are here thanking her for a -rare- expression of empathy; what the hell do you expect? Can you read? Did she bash “radical feminism” in -any- way? Or you? She was widening her horizons; is it -that- hard for you to share?
I just–
Yeah.
Whatever.
God.
16 March 2008 at 5:02 pm
And for crying out loud, are you suggesting that transwomen don’t get raped? Or that it’s -rarer- than for non-trans women?
And yeah, it matters. Some crappy festival in the woods is one thing, -maybe-; the Vancouver Rape Relief business? Brought to you by exactly the same people defending the MWMF business in many cases. For the same reasons, certainly. No fucking excuse whatsoever. Exactly how many places do you imagine there -are- for abused or raped transwomen to go? Why would having a counselor who could actually relate to them be a problem for any sane, compassionate organization? What is wrong with you, anyway?
16 March 2008 at 5:19 pm
Erika,
What you wrote makes sense to me. Feeling a need to separate from men because as women, we have been hurt, makes sense to me, and I don’t to trivialize those feelings or that need. I relate to them.
You talked about how much courage it took for you to go to a women-only space. It probably took just as much for Alison. I’ve heard over and over again from transwomen that I know, how much courage it often takes to go into women-only spaces, never being sure if they will be welcome, if they will be told that their genders are invalid and their experiences are not real.
As cisgendered women, isn’t that one of the messages we have to fight hardest against? Being told by a patriarchal world that our experiences are not real, that our gender is inferior, that our voices don’t count.
Transwomen face this just as much as cisgendered women. If they pass well, then they will face the discrimination of any other ciswoman. If they don’t pass, they will face much, much more.
Transwomen not only face this in the world at large, as ciswomen do, but then face this again coming from other women. It makes me so sad to see women blockading other women from entering a safe space.
I don’t say this to tell you that your feelings were wrong, or that you should have been comfortable. Like I said, what you wrote makes sense to me, and I can understand why it would have felt so disappointing to be entering a women-only space for first time and then perceive something potentially threating within that space.
But I would say that this is the challenge– to work through that discomfort, to try to understand where others are coming from, to do our homework before drawing conclusions.
“For someone who has only just started out and has crept into a women space wanting protection from the male world it might be very hard for her to see a man in a dress as anything other than that. It might make her creep out again and go back to blaming herself.”
You said that you are just beginning your ‘feminist journey’ so to speak– the difficulty of understanding trans issues or seeing a transwoman as anything other than a ‘man in a dress’ is a place that a lot of people start out from. These conversations are the beginning of doing one’s homework. Just as straight women often perceived lesbians as threatening to women-spaces prior to actually talking with or learning about lesbian women, perhaps transwomen will seem less threatening to you if you do the same.
The last thing you said also really struck me– “It might make her creep out again and go back to blaming herself”.
I think this comes up over and over again for us as we develop a feminist consciousness. Even if we immerse ourselves in feminist communities, we can never fully remove ourselves from the “real world” so to speak, and we all have at least some internal oppressions that we need to unravel. Which is to say, those internalized oppressions will come up even if you’re interacting with exclusively with women. And that’s just part of the process. We’re triggered, we have to challenge the trigger, trigger, challenge. Just because the emotions we feel when a trigger goes off are totally real and valid, doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t need work on changing some of the thought process around it.
16 March 2008 at 6:22 pm
I think you’re making a bit of a mistake pigeon if you think the “challenge” for radical feminists is to learn to ignore our feelings of discomfort about males who insist on breaching the boundaries of our self-defined spaces.
Developing a feminist consciousness is actually stopping blaming ourselves or our feelings about our triggers and instead to start acknowledging the events that are causing us pain.
And what are feminist communities if not the real world? Fairyland?
16 March 2008 at 6:25 pm
GAH, that stupid “trans* folks change to fit into binaries” crap.
Sorry, not true.
There are trans*folk that are androgynous, feminine, masculine, and everything in between. There are gay, lesbian, queer, bi, pan, straight, etc trans*folk.
For a lot of transsexuals, medical transition (yeah, it’s more than just surgery) is about making our body match what our minds expect–and not because “boys have peen and girls don’t”.
And I know I don’t claim that trans*women experience life the same way as any given cis*woman, but then two cis*women won’t have the same experiences either. Trans*women just have one more ‘type’ of womanly experience because trans*women are just another type of woman.
16 March 2008 at 6:36 pm
Could you define what you mean by woman please Drakyn.
16 March 2008 at 6:38 pm
I was not suggesting that the “challenge” was to ignore one’s feelings. I tried to be very clear that the emotions we feel when we feel threatened or uncomfortable are real and valid, even is we still need to examine and challenge some of the thoughts that surround them.
The lavender menace example is pretty apt here– say straight woman is uncomfortable knowing that there are lesbian women in women-space, and feels threatened because she correlates people who could potentially hit on her (lesbians) with the predatory men who *have* hit on her, pursued her, perhaps assaulted her, etc. Is that discomfort and fear real and valid and deserve to be honored as such? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean that the thoughts surrounding those feelings (equating lesbians with predators because they orient sexually and romantically towards other women) doesn’t merit challenging.
That is the challenge– honoring our emotions and experiences while challenging internalized and learned prejudices, so that we can validate our truths without perpetuating the oppression of others.
And I was using “the real world” somewhat flippantly– hence the quotes. You can replace it with ‘the dominant, mainstream patriarchal society’ if you prefer.
16 March 2008 at 6:45 pm
No pigeon, that isn’t the challenge. The challenge for us is to respect our own boundaries and request that others do the same. In this case it would be requesting that trans do not breach the boundaries of WBWs’ spaces.
16 March 2008 at 6:58 pm
Women are people that define themselves generally as such; and/or people that generally accept being defined as women.
PS: I’ve seen your arguments before Delpyne, I’m not saying biological sex doesn’t exist, it’s just more complicated than what the P says. So don’t go talking about “everyone has a mommy and a daddy” again.
16 March 2008 at 6:59 pm
I agree that there are times that WBW spaces are appropriate– and in those cases absolutely should be respected. However, I think there is often an assumption that *all* women-only spaces should be default be WBW-only spaces, and that is an assumption and practice I find incredibly troubling and discriminatory.
Yes, it is a challenge to respect our own boundaries, and the boundaries of others, even if we disagree with them. But we need to respect more than boundaries. We need to respect other people’s paths, experiences, emotions and needs. And insisting that transwomen are truly men and denying them the right to enter women-only safe spaces shows no respect for any of the above, boundaries included.
16 March 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Women are people that define themselves generally as such; and/or people that generally accept being defined as women.”
Could you be more specific please Drakyn. What is this “woman” that people are defining themselves as or being defined as? “Woman” had to exist in the first place, before people decided they were one. At the moment it’s circular reasoning “I’m a woman because I say I am”. What does someone *mean* when they say “I’m a woman”?
16 March 2008 at 7:14 pm
“It isn’t your perogative to decide what is phobic about a group you’re not in.”
This makes no sense. It is not appropriate for the person who is fearful to determine what they are fearful of, but rather the perogative of the feared group to determine what the fearful person fears.
The fear that abused women have of men is not an unreasoned fear and so not a phobia. The assumption that fear is the same as hatred is simply incorrect.
The “transphobia” that this post seems to be about is just another exercise in blaming the women for the abuses of the menz.
Hi Drayken,
It is an old meme. Not surprising, since I am an old woman. Yours is an old argument against women defining their own boundaries.
16 March 2008 at 7:28 pm
I was referring to someone saying the Questioning Transgender site isn’t transphobic. More simply, she doesn’t get to decide what isn’t transphobic to me or other trans people, like she was doing. The general rule when one doesn’t identify with a group is that those same people don’t decide what is and is not hate speech for members of that group.
16 March 2008 at 7:31 pm
Which really, now that I think about it, is part of Human Relations 101.
16 March 2008 at 7:34 pm
…Actually, Human Relations 101 might be something someone should actually write down, like the various privilege lists, if it isn’t written already.
16 March 2008 at 8:02 pm
I think everyone has said what they want to say. Out of respect for my own boundaries and limited personal capacity for dealing with impassioned conflict – not to mention assorted accusations against me personally, including that I am lying about being a radical feminist, that I am inciting radfem bashing or indeed that my whole post is an attack on radical feminism – enough.
Comments are now closed.
17 March 2008 at 1:44 am
[…] (cisgender privilege, radical feminism, transphobia) Maia, a radical feminist blogger posted Transphobia and Radical Feminism – a challenge a couple of days ago, calling out radical feminists for transphobic policies and prejudices. Her […]
17 March 2008 at 6:35 pm
[…] as laid out in the post, would be woman only, of the female born and raised variety. All but a few seemed down with it. I’m down with it. And since I cannot speak for all radfems let me give […]
19 March 2008 at 4:47 am
[…] Well worth a read. […]
26 March 2008 at 8:01 am
[…] https://touchinglynaive.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/transphobia-and-radical-feminism-a-challenge/ […]
20 May 2008 at 2:31 pm
[…] Transphobia and Radical Feminism – A Challenge (Touchingly Naive) […]
29 August 2008 at 9:57 am
[…] 29, 2008 Radfem recants transphobia, transphobic radfems plus one very confused and hateful person come in an… (ok, she does […]
29 August 2008 at 6:27 pm
[…] lesbian-feminists/separatists don’t need instructions from sanctimonious straight white women about what we should prioritize politically and/or who we ought to socialize with, or how, or when. […]
3 September 2008 at 10:17 pm
[…] remember Maia recanting transphobia? I don’t. Oh, sure, I remember the post she made which was immediately overrun with anti-trans radical feminists riding their hobby horses. But the […]
5 September 2008 at 11:21 pm
[…] Some time ago I wrote a post that proved rather more controversial than I was ready or able to deal with. This one. […]