This is bullshit thread #3

Oscar

I have no issue with that and will support it.

Other trans won't because it feels that it others them and they have deep unresolved internalised transphobia.

I think it should be, has to be, the end goal. We have to start with what the medical profession tells trans people.

So what is wrong with:
Women
Men
Transwomen
Transmen

And afford the transgroups the appropriate protections (as listed elsewhere on these threads in great detail in order to 'prove' I and others are not bigoted and hateful)?

Why in order to achieve this do we have to erase the reality and immutability of biological sex and insist that transwomen are women as much as women are?

That is the real question. Why is working within reality and science and working to ensure no discrimination etc not good enough? There is a tendency to tie ourselves up in knots trying to work out how to accommodate MTT within womanhood, or include MTT in (some but not all, and then which, why, when and how) women's spaces. Thinking about what we would each be happy with and why. This still ends up making it women's problem to solve. It's not.

Flora

Sorry. I apologise.

Oscar totally agree with your comparison with whites people being offended at black activism. Men who believe they are not consciously contributing to male oppression should not tell women they are offended as part of discussions of class analysis nor pop up with a NAM especially not in response to a Susan Brownmiller quote FFS

Do you know how much shit I get from trans people for being able to say that I'm a man

You are entitled to your view. There are many who would disagree with you. It's how they disagree that is important.

Not stereotypical man does not = therefore woman. This is what is so deeply offensive and wrong.

Yes I agree. Do you know how much shit I get from trans people for being able to say that I'm a man? Not just TRA's but prettty much the entire trans community.

I get told that I'm not really trans because a real trans person would never be able to say that. I get called an Uncle Tom (which is also appropriative and deeply offensive on that level). I get told that I'm hateful and that my words are violence. I get told that If I don't detransition that I'm a hypocrite.

The views that are so offensive are so deeply ingrained in society.

Apropos of 'passing', over quarter of a century of moving in gay/trans/alt circles, I have consistently found that very little gives a TW away more than the tell-tale signs of their male socialisation particularly male entitlement. Add to that the (usually) autogynephilic (thus objectifying and misogynistic) view/presentation of 'what it means to be a woman' and it's a dead giveaway.

Fritz

Actually I totally agree with you. It's totally wrong and I think it's because TA's act with male entitlement and are extremely manipulative that they achieve this. I think so many people are blind to the way that women are treated (women included) because it's just what they are used to.

It's easier to see someone as discriminiated against if they are obviously different so TA's perhaps have an easier ride than women.

I think that the things that for example the Trans Enquiry started by Maria Miller are listening to and takimg note of are deeply one sided and are extremely damaging for women. This is what we need to take a stand against. Women, and sympathetic trans women need to stand together and not be silenced. We need policy makers to listen.

Oscar said it so much better

Not all men!

(sorry I couldn't resist )

Indeed!

I think the interesting thing is the 'conscious process' part of it. If someone is consciously resisting that process, then that's a different thing from someone who is consciously presenting as broadening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman by growing a beard while dressing in feminine clothes.

Personally, I disagree with virtually everyone except a few postmodern feminists because I think that sex is a social construct, so I have no problem with a penis being female. My concern with the Alex Drummonds of this world is that they haven't really thought much about what a female penis symbolises. So they're still part of that conscious process of keeping women in a constant state of fear.

to think about taking gender off passports, look at new titles eg mx etc

I think that has nothing to do with trans people - why would a TW want to remove M or F from passports or use Mx.

I think that's the new world of gender queer? Neither M or F, not wanting titles - which seems to be to rejecting gender.

I agree that male violence is a major issue but there is also a tendency of women to accept without hesitation that MTTs are at risk of male violence in sex segregated spaces. This is not surprising because women understand the fear of male violence although women are socialised not to express this (through devices like NAM, among others). It's gone so far as an unquestioned acceptance that MTTs are at risk while poo-pooing concerns that women are at risk from MTTs or other men. There are many reported cases of women being attacked by men in women's spaces, sometimes dressed as women sometimes not. I'm not aware of reported cases of MTTs being attacked by men in public toilets. While some MTTs may be genuinely fearful of male violence, there are MTTs who want to use women's spaces for validation of their "womanhood" or to avoid outing themselves if they pass.

But even though we all know that I'm male. Society does not include me in the "man" group because I'm trans

But that was my point, what needs to happen is widening the bandwith of what is seen as man. And stop calling everyone else woman as well. Not stereotypical man does not = therefore woman. This is what is so deeply offensive and wrong.

helen, you might completely.disagree here, but one of the reasons I am angry (with wider society, life) is that it appears people do listen to transwomen more than women - look at how quick the government is to think about taking gender off passports, look at new titles eg mx etc etc. it feels like lifetime campaigns pushed through in seconds once "a man" thinks it is useful. so imo tw are still accorded male privilege

This is the point - this is about classes not individuals.

Oppression, discrimination, etc is about classs, not individuals, although oppression is obviously perpetrated and experienced by individuals. But the reasons behind it are class reasons, not because of the qualities of individuals. It's ALL black people, or ALL Jews, etc.

I get the offence. As a white person, if I lived in some southern US states, I am sure I would detest the way that many white people talked about black people behind closed doors and that I would do my utmost to distance myself from that. Whilst on an individual level, I may not be an oppressor (although I may need to examine the ways in which I behave), I would still be a member of the class of people that oppress the class of black people on racial grounds.

Being hurt by being included in that class is unfortunate, but I am still a member of that class. My issues concerning not wanting to be one of 'those white people' are wholly separate from the issues black people experience at the hands of 'those white people'.

My individual feelings as a white person who objects to racism are important. Certainly to me. And probably shared by other white people who object to and reject that socially constructed and socially acceptable aspect of whiteness. But when it comes to respecting that e.g. some Black Lives Matter protests need to be a unified BLACK voice and BLACK presence, that funding etc earmarked for black people is because of class based oppression, with me as part of the oppressor class and them as part of the oppressed class, I think I actually need to suck it up and butt out.

I would hate for class-based analysis to get in the way of personal friendships and relating on an individual level. But this is not what this is about. It's not personal. It can't be personal.

Wench

You are absolutely right by the way. I totally agree.

but I think that you have to pair class analysis with individual rights

I don't agree that's always the case. If the class analysis is that men as a class are dangerous to women as a class we therefore segregate the sexes where there is particular risk. The individual rights are presumably that a particular man is no threat to women and therefore should be entitled to access the segregated space (although I don't agree that necessarily follows). That completely undermines the segregation and the protection it gives women as an individual woman cannot assess the threat from a single male stranger.

'a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear.'

Not all men!

(sorry I couldn't resist )

Sorry that all sounded a bit defeatist. I'm not defeatist or I wouldn't be here. I want to support these aims as much as I can.

Still ploughing through thread 2 but just wanted to pop on and say thank you to everone for such a calm, sensitive, intelligent discussion It's amazing what can be achieved when people are not shut down!

Fugg

I agree. But even though we all know that I'm male. Society does not include me in the "man" group because I'm trans.

I can stand up and say that I'm a man and I respect women but nobody is going to listen. 99% of people have absolutely no understanding of this whole conversation.

I agree that male violence, and especially sexual violence, is one of the biggest issues in this debate.

I think as a society we urgently need to improve the way rape is dealt with in the criminal justice system. At the moment, millions (literally) of men get away with it, and the very small percentage who are convicted are given absurdly light sentences (especially when we consider the impact on the women they raped). There is no real deterrent, and in some places men encourage each other to commit acts of violence (I'm thinking of new stories about sexual assaults on university campuses).

I haven't seen anyone quote Susan Brownmiller yet, so I'm going to: she says that rape is 'a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear.' That was back in 1975, and I think many feminists feel it just as strongly today.

Flora

How is this different from a man saying NAMALT and taking offence at feminist class analysis?

Yeah maybe it is exactly the same.

I've got to be honest I do struggle with class analysis. I get it, but I think that you have to pair class analysis with individual rights. Having either without the other is always going to cause problems.

NAMALT is often used as to derail discussions about issues which face women and changing the focus back to men.

I'm sorry if I'm guilty of that but this is a discussion specifically about issues that impact women and TW?

I hate the way men behave. I hate the way they treat women.

But you are a man Helen and you don't behave that way, or treat women that way. If you remove yourself from the collective 'men' you are allowing that group a proportionate increase of individuals who do behave that way. Which in turn gives the collective 'men' more power to continue being oppressive to women.

Not all men are bigoted, mysogonistic arseholes. You included Helen. That's what we must teach our sons. How to be a man who respects all others.

helen
It makes sense to me. It is a bit NAMALT but I think the fact you are aware of it and have made a conscious decision to reject masculine behaviour puts you ahead of many others in that class.