Violence Against Women

EleanorHandbasket

"Women can no longer meet etc...that's just not true.just because a handful of people have brought a handful of legal cases doesn't mean you need to campaign against Trans people loading what previous few rights they have."

I take it you have never faced a wall of transactivists, MRAs and handmaidens who work together to prevent women meeting then? It is organised and vicious.

"Its like saying that a few women murder children, so all women should be sterilised."

This is so far from what I'm saying I won't go there - since I know you are cooking.

"I'm leaving this thread again now, I only rejoined because of Kim's post and Kritiq's arguments. Ive no interest in conversing with bigots."

Bigot! a quick insult and you're off

Also, the truth can be painful, and I don't like hurting people for whom reality really hurts, but I don't think that's a reason to be silent on an issue that affects women in a forum about feminism and women's rights.

KRITIQ it wasn't the 'woman' bit your aunt Rose had a problem with, but the 'human' bit. This is where it diverges - because people of colour ARE people, you don't have to redefine 'human' or 'person' to include them. Completely changing the definition of man and woman to have nothing to do with reproductive dimorphism, is a completely different situation, with huge implications. Including the erasure of the hugely structured actual oppression of one sex by the other to the point it cannot be analysed or challenged.

"I'm glad that as you say, "time is telling this suppressed truth about people of colour." I also hope that time will also "tell this suppressed truth about trans men and women.""

What suppressed truth? That there is more than gender and reproductive sex-classification? Do tell me more...

food, i am not going to get drawn into tit for tat with you. as you said, you know that what you are saying is upsetting at least one poster. but you don't care.

all for the greater good, eh? I'm leaving this thread again now, I only rejoined because of Kim's post and Kritiq's arguments. Ive no interest in conversing with bigots.

"I really don't think there's a danger of women's rights being erased by definition. Unless the fear is that all the men who are sexist bastards might decide to go for gender reassignment so that they can subvert the movement from within."

It really is happening. Women can no longer meet in women-only space, rape crisis, women's shelters, and other women specific services and places of refuge from men without legal threats and challenges.

I've got to leave to take a small hairy creature to the vets, but just wanted to pop in a few more things if I might.

Food Unit, you said, ". . . but a person denying the white/black binary that has been a historical justification for something as blatant as slavery, would be on very shaky ground with all the evidence to the contrary."

Ah, but my ancestors were all from North of the Mason Dixon line. Slavery was confined to the Confederate States. At least three of my ancestors fought in the Union Army to defeat the Confederacy and abolish slavery. What does slavery have to do with me?

All of those statements are true, bar the question at the end. Plenty of white folks in the US will claim that slavery was in the past and is irrelevant today. They'll point out that white indentured servants suffered slavery-like conditions. They'll insist that Africans sold other Africans into slavery, so it wasn't just white people were bad. There are as many "excuses" for denying the reality of slavery as there are white people who use them.

I totally agree that Aunt Rose was dead wrong in not accepting that African American women were "genuine" women like herself. But, her belief was unshakeable throughout her life, as perhaps yours is regarding trans people. Her beliefs were shored up for generations by laws, traditions, religion, the media, etc. Sadly, that's not yet been entirely erased.

I'm glad that as you say, "time is telling this suppressed truth about people of colour." I also hope that time will also "tell this suppressed truth about trans men and women."

"And fgs its a tiny amount of people who choose to change."

And an even smaller minority of those who are making a BIG impact. They are organised, aggressive, misogynist and currently get to define the terms of the debate - even feminist debate.

blame "and screw any other marginalised people who get in the way?"

That is what transactivists do as they screw over women's rights.

BTW I wrote my post to Kim before your rude order that I should do so.

Sorry Kim I didn't see this post:

"Most people on here know that I'm trans. I don't know why I feel this way. I can't explain how it started but I've been transitioning for several years and it's not an easy process. It does not just happen. I don't want to upset people or step on anyone's definitions. I just want to be happy and get on with my life. Hormone treatment has really helped my feelings and I cannot wait for the "op". But it is a long slow process. Lots of assessments."

"I face prejudice and discrimination because of who I am. I'm struggling to find a job - is it age or is it because I'm trans. Who knows?"

"Why the hell would I go through all this? Just for fun or because of a massive feeling inside that something is really really wrong."

"Then I read all this stuff on here and it's really upsetting. I can really understand the reasons people get upset by people saying "they feel like women". No ones that and it's arrogant to say that."

"All I know is that this is what I want and what I need to do. All that desperation and suicidal feelings have passed now. I might have really screwed up my life in terms of relationships and job prospects because trans people do face issues that others don't pass. No doubt some will say I have the benefit of male privilege - well reading the stuff on the sexism page, there is no doubt I have."

"I am happy with my decision. I don't know what I've become - except I have become me. And that is important."

"You can debate all you like but at the end of the day, we are real people with real issues. No doubt trans activists get on people's nerves and there are real issues that need to be addressed. "

"All I want to do is be me and try to be accepted."

I am sorry this thread is painful for you. And I don't want what I say here to hurt you, although I've no doubt it does.

Kim, I can't possibly know what your life has been like. But good luck with your op, I truly hope that it will make you happier. I'm sure it will.

I will second that. I wish you all the best Kim.

Some posters forget in their desperation to uphold theory, that they are discussing real people and real situations.

I totally agree. Life would be a lot simpler if human beings conformed to some sort of text book definition. They don't.

I really don't think there's a danger of women's rights being erased by definition. Unless the fear is that all the men who are sexist bastards might decide to go for gender reassignment so that they can subvert the movement from within.

I'm not actually pushing anything really. Perhaps defending is a better word. Defending women's rights from being 'erased by definition'.

and screw any other marginalised people who get in the way?

read Kim's post again.

I just want to say that I am finding the discussion really interesting, really thought provoking. Although there is considerable disagreement, and I would imagine some of the comments extremely painful for trans women or transmen reading to hear (and I don't want to diminish that because I know that as a cis-person, nothing being said here is challenging my identity, my right to exist, my right to be regarded as a human being,) it is helping me to think and further affirm what I believe about this issue. For that, I am very grateful.

Just a few more wee things from your recent post Food Unit, if I might . . .

I find its more the case that this trans/cis binary is used to conceptually erase male privilege.

I don't have the book to hand just now, but there is definitely a passage in bell hooks' Ain?t I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism where she says that women of colour raise the issues of race and class oppression that they are often met with claims that this is likewise used to minimise (or erase if you will) the concept of male privilege.

I agree, sexuality is changeable. But if your 'sexual identity' is totally at odds with your sexual behaviour then something a bit dysfunctional is going on.

I can't accept that this means "something a bit dysfunctional is going on." I simply don't accept that sexual identity is all down to who one has sex with. It's interesting that you feel you can label people whose sexual behaviour doesn't neatly line up with their identity as "dysfunctional." Having an identity that lines up with one's behaviour, and society's expectations, is actually a form of privilege. Also, I don't think I'd regard Andrea Dworkin, John Stoltenberg, Susie Orbach or any of the other folks mentioned above as "a bit dysfunctional."

The horse comparison, if I may say so, is rather crass and silly. We are talking about human beings here, not animals. I also find the willingness of lay people to label other people as having a "psychological disorder" because they do not like their identity or what it represents very troubling on many levels. As others have said, this claim was levelled at gay men and Lesbians until relatively recently (and is still the case in some parts of the world.) Also, using a claim that someone is mentally ill to dismiss the validity of their views is hurtful both to those targeted, but also for people who experience mental illness, generally.

Eleanor I believe there is "a living as a woman" test - so it has to be a consistent long term choice.

Nola "What exactly are you pushing for? A ban on gender reassignment?"

I'm not actually pushing anything really. Perhaps defending is a better word. Defending women's rights from being 'erased by definition'.

Kim thank you for a great post.

Food "There is a lot more to being a woman than identifying as a woman"

Like what? You define woman as someone born with female anatomy, which seems simplistic to me. Do you think part of being a woman is living a life of oppression, and it's unfair for a man who has hitherto experienced male privilege to adopt womanhood with any understanding?

Sorry to dip in and out btw.

EleanorHandbasket "The new definition would be more like 'a woman is an adult person who was assigned female at birth OR an adult person who has been through gender reassignment and now identifies as female'."

No it wouldn't, you are missing out transmen and transsexuals who don't want hormones or surgery

It would be:

A woman is an adult person who was either assigned female at birth and does not identify as male or identifies as female irrespective of birth assignment.

When put like this, the birth assignment bit is actually irrelevant.

Kim, I can't possibly know what your life has been like. But good luck with your op, I truly hope that it will make you happier. I'm sure it will. Some posters forget in their desperation to uphold theory, that they are discussing real people and real situations.

Kritiq, I think I love you, you have said everything I wanted to, but better.

That still doesn't affect me because I am fortunate enough to have been born a woman, assigned as female, and to not feel "wrong" within myself.

What exactly are you pushing for? A ban on gender reassignment?