Violence Against Women

"Well, actually, if I'm to be part of the solution and not still be part of the perpetuation of racial oppression, means that I as a white person must re-define who I am as well. I might not think of myself as white, or even think much about my ethnicity at all. I'm just a person. I don't actually have to think about what being white "means." It's something that just is, and I think that's the case for most white people."

I completely agree, 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.

"I'm kind of seeking this idea of, "I don't want trans women to be regarded as women like me," as similar to Aunt Rose not wanting Black women to be regarded as women like her."

I know you are, but there is a lot more to being a woman than identifying as a woman. And yes Aunt Rose and many other white people have difficulty accepting people of colour as human, but Aunt Rose and all those others are wrong, people of colour are human beings and in no way inferior to white ones. Time is telling this suppressed truth about people of colour.

So this is where it differs. I am not denying the humanity of transpeople, I am denying that a man can become a woman or vice versa.

"Please explain how a woman becoming a man (because after all that's the premise of this thread) affects how I am defined as a woman?"

Because if the definition of a woman is 'to have a strong feeling, and to identify as a woman', then if you couldn't find this feeling within yourself, you might actually be a man- even if all the physical evidence tells you otherwise.

The logic is this:

If 'woman' is no longer defined as:

A woman is an adult person who was assigned female at birth,

to

A woman is an adult person who 'feels like a woman' and identifies as a woman

Then there is no physical, or evidence-based definition of woman. Just a 'feeling' and declaration of identity.

So if you don't have that feeling, then you could equally, by this new definition, be a man.

Well, actually, if I'm to be part of the solution and not still be part of the perpetuation of racial oppression, means that I as a white person must re-define who I am as well. I might not think of myself as white, or even think much about my ethnicity at all. I'm just a person. I don't actually have to think about what being white "means." It's something that just is, and I think that's the case for most white people.

Going back 50 years, my aunt from Louisiana bitterly resented the end of racial segregation. She didn't want to share restaurants, hotels, public transport or public toilets with Black people. She genuinely didn't believe they were people the same as she was. She certainly didn't believe African American women were the same as white American women or that they were entitled to any of the same rights or status.

I'm kind of seeking this idea of, "I don't want trans women to be regarded as women like me," as similar to Aunt Rose not wanting Black women to be regarded as women like her.

"Well, quite simply then Food Unit, you and I disagree on the issue of whether trans people face institutionalised oppression and whether cis people experience cis-privileged."

Absolutely. I do not believe acute gender dysphoria trumps all other psychological disorders, and requires a new binary description of the world to which we all must adhere.

"It's just the same as when I disagree with white folks who deny the existence of institutionalised racism and their own white privilege, or straight people who deny the existence of institutionalised heterosexism and their own heterosexist privilege."

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

"I also disagree that one's "sexuality" can be defined so rigidly as you suggest. It's not necessarily an immutable factor and is very much about the individual's identity. For example, Andrea Dworkin identified herself as a Lesbian and John Stoltenberg as Gay, but they were life partners and were married. Someone I knew through feminist activism many years ago identified as Lesbian then, but 10 years later identified as straight and is now married to a man and has a child with him. Susie Orbach describes herself as "post heterosexual" having previously been in committed relationships with men, but now in a committed relationship with a woman. My former boss has always identified as Lesbian, but had sexual relationships with men and women. She has never seen herself, however as straight or bisexual because she would not choose a committed relationship with a man. One can be Lesbian or gay but be celibate. Sexuality is about far more than who you sleep with. Some people feel or know that they are Lesbian, Gay, straight, bisexual or asexual from childhood. For others, their identity changes during their lifetime."

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 also don't believe I'm moving from the concept of structural/institutional oppression related to racism. There may be people of colour who experience differing forms or levels of institutionalised racism based on how they are perceived by others and how they identify themselves, and linked to other forms of privilege or oppression that may intersect with racism. This doesn't mean it's automatically better or worse for some people of colour than others. It does mean I do not believe I am entitled to define whether their experience "qualifies" as oppression or not."

See, this is where it all gets a bit weird...

I completely agree that in the cases of structural oppression such as racism it is not for anyone to give a laundry list of 'qualifiers' for the status of oppressions..

But at the same time, if I believe myself to be a horse, want to live in a stable and eat hay, - it would not qualify as 'structural oppression' if someone said - no, you aren't a horse, you are human. It would be the truth, it would be fact. If I said 'its not for you to tell the barriers to my being trans-horse aren't oppressive' - it would be fair enough for them to say - 'you have a psychological disorder, its not structural oppression at the crux of this matter'. This would be very different from someone denying the structural oppression faced by people of colour.

How? Please explain how a woman becoming a man (because after all that's the premise of this thread) affects how I am defined as a woman?

"But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? You're not a lesbian so wouldn't seek to become embroiled in that"

No it isn't hypocritical

"you're quite happy to proclaim that transgender issues are psychological and all about "vague" feelings."

Transgender issues, require that I must re-define myself as a woman, by a psychological 'sense' or 'feeling' that I am a woman, rather than by my assignment at birth, in order to accommodate people who were assigned male at birth as women.

Lesbians, political or otherwise are not encroaching upon me in the same way. The two are very different scenarios in relation to me.

Well, quite simply then Food Unit, you and I disagree on the issue of whether trans people face institutionalised oppression and whether cis people experience cis-privileged.

It's just the same as when I disagree with white folks who deny the existence of institutionalised racism and their own white privilege, or straight people who deny the existence of institutionalised heterosexism and their own heterosexist privilege.

I also disagree that one's "sexuality" can be defined so rigidly as you suggest. It's not necessarily an immutable factor and is very much about the individual's identity. For example, Andrea Dworkin identified herself as a Lesbian and John Stoltenberg as Gay, but they were life partners and were married. Someone I knew through feminist activism many years ago identified as Lesbian then, but 10 years later identified as straight and is now married to a man and has a child with him. Susie Orbach describes herself as "post heterosexual" having previously been in committed relationships with men, but now in a committed relationship with a woman. My former boss has always identified as Lesbian, but had sexual relationships with men and women. She has never seen herself, however as straight or bisexual because she would not choose a committed relationship with a man. One can be Lesbian or gay but be celibate. Sexuality is about far more than who you sleep with. Some people feel or know that they are Lesbian, Gay, straight, bisexual or asexual from childhood. For others, their identity changes during their lifetime.

I also don't believe I'm moving from the concept of structural/institutional oppression related to racism. There may be people of colour who experience differing forms or levels of institutionalised racism based on how they are perceived by others and how they identify themselves, and linked to other forms of privilege or oppression that may intersect with racism. This doesn't mean it's automatically better or worse for some people of colour than others. It does mean I do not believe I am entitled to define whether their experience "qualifies" as oppression or not.

NolaFfing Wed 03-Oct-12 15:50:18
But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? made me smile.

You'll shortly get an explanation about how it's different, and there's no such thing as cis-plaining.

But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? You're not a lesbian so wouldn't seek to become embroiled in that - but you're quite happy to proclaim that transgender issues are psychological and all about "vague" feelings.

"I meant women. I meant "sexual relationships with women"

Thanks for clearing that one up. I am not a lesbian, political or otherwise, so I am only speaking from what I have heard political lesbians say. I'm sure there is a whole other world of contention I am not embroiled in on that front.

I meant women. I meant "sexual relationships with women"

"So women can define themselves as lesbians - even if they don't have sexual relationships with men? Isn't that just re-defining what they actually are (straight women) because of the way they feel?"

Sorry, I'm not being deliberately obtuse - I don't know what you mean - is there a typo somewhere - do you mean 'even if they do have sexual relationships with men'?

I wonder if lesbians get all bent out of shape about "political" lesbians.

It's a bit of a side issue, but one can decide to have sexual relationships/partner with specific groups of people by choice. For example, a Jewish person may want to only have relationships with other Jewish people in keeping with their faith and culture. Someone with strong left of centre political views may not wish to have a relationship with someone who does not share those views. A vegetarian may only wish to partner with other vegetarians because of their personal or environmental beliefs. If a woman only wishes to have relationships with other women because that fits with her political beliefs, in my view, that's similarly okay.

So women can define themselves as lesbians - even if they don't have sexual relationships with men?

Isn't that just re-defining what they actually are (straight women) because of the way they feel?

"Political lesbians (if they are purely in it for the politics) aren't lesbians. they are straight women who sleep with women because they believe sleeping with men is letting the cause down. Unless they actually fancy women, in which case it comes back to feelings."

They believe any woman can be a lesbian and it is not all about sex.

Anyway if you think women cannot 'define themselves as lesbians' for political reasons, because they are not real lesbians, then the whole identity argument is even weaker.

I thought KRITIQ and I were possibly arguing the same point, but San Fairy Ann.

K
"Same applies here with regard to cis privilege."
FU
No it doesn't

Ah, that would be one of your facts, then. Not an opinion

"I know many white people who don't see themselves as "white," often don't like being referred to as white (e.g. "I'm colourblind me," or "my skin is cream/beige/tan, not white.") and don't accept that they have any social, economic or political privilege because they are white."

Yup, I'm with you there.

"That doesn't mean that white privilege doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it. Rejecting the term or the concept doesn't change that, no matter how much they want to believe it does, no matter how many times they insist it isn't valid."

Yup, I'm with you there too

"Same applies here with regard to cis privilege."

No it doesn't

"Being trans is a "feeling" in the same way that being Lesbian, gay or bisexual is a "feeling.""

Now here you are piling in the assumptions. Some lesbians are political, for example.

"It's a human being's identity."

No, being gay or lesbian or bi is a human being's (or other species's) sexuality. It only becomes their 'identity' in a culture that is so geared against it, that it becomes their defining characteristic.

"Similarly, a person of colour isn't just about the proportion of you DNA that's not caucasian or your appearance. It's also about how one sees themselves, how others engage with them, how they experience life."

Now you have moved way off from structural oppression. A person of colour experiences barriers, conditioning, etc that are shaped to hold a person of colour back, to the benefit of white people. Its not vague 'how I see myself' story-telling.

Food Unit you said, "This is where our opinions widely diverge. I don't feel comfortable with my gender. I am not 'cis'. I think it is weird to think that a MTF suddenly has no male privilege over a woman. There is no 'structural oppression' of trans people (above and beyond all gender restrictions or the fear of deviants) , because being trans is a 'feeling' not a societal structure. "

Well, yes, this is something I can't agree with.

I know many white people who don't see themselves as "white," often don't like being referred to as white (e.g. "I'm colourblind me," or "my skin is cream/beige/tan, not white.") and don't accept that they have any social, economic or political privilege because they are white.

That doesn't mean that white privilege doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it. Rejecting the term or the concept doesn't change that, no matter how much they want to believe it does, no matter how many times they insist it isn't valid.

Same applies here with regard to cis privilege.

Being trans is a "feeling" in the same way that being Lesbian, gay or bisexual is a "feeling." It's a human being's identity. How they see themselves, how they are seen by others, how they experience life. Similarly, a person of colour isn't just about the proportion of you DNA that's not caucasian or your appearance. It's also about how one sees themselves, how others engage with them, how they experience life.

We live in a society that is institutionally racist, institutionally heterosexist and institutionally cis-sexist. That means there is structural oppression of and discrimination against people of colour, Lesbian, gay and bisexual people and trans people. Just believing that's not the case doesn't make this disappear.

In fact, denying the existence of such oppression is actually a way of actively perpetuating that discrimination and oppression.

I've been engaging with lots of arguments omc, but not yours.

Mine, or MooncupGoddess, or KRITIQ, or kim147 or NolaFfing or inde and so on?