Violence Against Women

Sorry tapping on smartphone should read "those not suffering from psychological problems' have privilege over those suffering phsychological problems"

I would say 'those not suffering from psychological problems' have privilege over those not suffering phsychological problems, but I don't think 'gender dysphoria' requires its own binary to define the world and that the world should accept being defined by it, just because that particular pshychological problem can be somewhat eased by physical solutions.

""Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out"

I'm not going anywhere - just not engaging with your simplistic argument.

Given that trans people face prejudice and get discriminated against for being trans (that is, identifying as the opposite sex and going through a transition process), then surely people who aren't trans and therefore don't face that particular prejudice/discrimination are benefitting from privilege, in the same way as straight people gain from straight privilege because they don't face the prejudice/discrimination gay people do?

I know that rad fems don't like the term 'cis' but otherwise don't see why this is such a controversial argument?

I think you're fed up with the fact that even here, with some strong minded people about you don't have a claque nodding agreement.

I won't waste my time on it.

As my auntie used to say if someone had a snit on and left, "Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out".

"I thought - with a science background about a hundred years ago - that is something wasn't cis, it was trans. FoodUnit you're saying you're not cis-privileged. I can say I'm not male-privileged. Just because I don't recognise my privilege, doesn't make it disappear. Does yours?"

I am getting fed up with this nursery level reasoning of 'A seems a bit like B, therefore A is B'.

I won't waste my time on it.

I thought - with a science background about a hundred years ago - that is something wasn't cis, it was trans.

"There is no 'structural oppression' of trans people"
cf. with "Women aren't really oppressed in this day and age"

FoodUnit you're saying you're not cis-privileged.
I can say I'm not male-privileged.

Just because I don't recognise my privilege, doesn't make it disappear. Does yours?

"We both benefit from cis privilege (the privilege of identifying as and being identified by others as the same sex we we /re assigned at birth,) whether or not we want to believe that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there."

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.

And since being trans is a 'strong feeling', combined with efforts to live as the opposite sex, up to and including hormones and surgery to make this more realistic, it is a psychological problem seeking physical solutions, not a form of structural oppression.

Hi Food Unit. No, I don't think I'm missing the power dynamic that underpins "splaining."

It's true, neither of us as visibly white people can speak about living under the structural oppressions experienced by Black women. We both benefit from white privilege, whether or not we want to believe that that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there.

But, neither can either of us claim to speak on behalf of trans women or transmen about the structural experiences they face for being trans. We both benefit from cis privilege (the privilege of identifying as and being identified by others as the same sex we were assigned at birth,) whether or not we want to believe that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there.

I don't have that much time but check this link.

People have asked for evidence to back up things that have been stated as fact in this thread about trans people and they haven't done so. Also I have asked for evidence where radical feminist analysis analysis has actually helped these people and been told it isn't a feminists job to help them. So what is the actual difference between this and Christian fundamentalists offended by the very existence of gay people?
If the gender confusion is really caused by the patriarchy then I would like to see that incorporated into their therapy. It might actually help them but reading this thread I see no evidence that is the case. Just some people trying to shoe horn trans people into their personal view of the world.

A quick question - have there actually been cases of trans sex offenders trying to attend support groups for victims,or is it merely an example of the kind of situation that you think would be inappropriate for a transperson with specific criminal tendencies to be present at? If it's hypothetical, isn't it a bit off to say that some trans may be sex offenders so we should bar all of them from women-only spaces altogether? Seems a bit sweeping.

"Isn't it freedom of choice to undergo such surgery? Be it cosmetic or the need for major reconstructive surgery? Would you deny women the right to cosmetic surgery?"

There is a difference between critique and denial of rights.

" DS has awoken so my own reproductive ability now hinders me. Will pop back later" ..

Ahhh yes - I have let things slide - must get on myself

Thanks for your considered responses FoodUnit . DS has awoken so my own reproductive ability now hinders me. Will pop back later

KRITIQ in this: "Also, per my comment last night about "splaining." Food Unit, you may be a woman, but you aren't a transman or a trans woman. In the same way I could never claim to speak from the experience of being a Black woman or a disabled woman, I can't speak from the experience of being either a transman or a trans woman."

You are missing an important element of 'splaining and that is the actual power dynamic that underpins it. I agree that I cannot speak about living under the structural oppressions experienced by a black woman.

Aside from that, in your comment, you were responding to something I said that wasn't pretending to speak from the perspective of someone with gender dysphoria - so it was even less relevant to suggest I was 'splaining in any way.

"But they do feel wrong And this is such a strong feeling. Transitioning makes them feel right. It's really that simple."

But I think that it is worth considering why women are led to feel wrong in their bodies per se, and whether it is possible that they could be led to the conclusion that they are in the wrong sexedbody and go for this very invasive and dangerous surgery to 'correct' it. In other words, whether there are aspects of FTM surgery that could be rooted in the same misogyny as labiaplasty, breast reshaping and other cosmetic surgery.

"The idea that trans erodes the concept of what a woman is. Surely there are so, so few that it makes zero difference?"

If transactivists weren't actually eroding the legal definition of what a woman is, I agree it wouldn't make a difference.

But since it is resulting in some pretty dangerous things when a bloke - male sex offenders in fact -can legally 'define' as a woman in order to get close to their targets, amongst others, this tiny group of transactivists are actually making a disproportionately large and damaging difference.

"these people have real problems and shouldn't be used as political footballs because they don't fit with your view of the world."

I know transsexuals have real problems, and I certainly don't use them as political footballs.

I don't think being a woman is nothing more than declaring that you are one. And I would argue women are the ones being used as political footballs (particularly radfem ones), along with homosexuals and intersex people, by transactivists.

KRITIQ

Wow, another top post.

Can I refer back to my post at Tue 02-Oct-12 11:58:39 please?

I believe (and please correct me if I got this wrong,) Food Unit, you are suggesting that when a person who has been assigned as female at birth chooses to have medical or surgical treatment to alter their body to become a man (or to become what they view as "not a woman," at least) that this is should be seen as a form of Violence Against Women.

Even where the person has made the choice to undertake treatment, fully informed of available information on the risks, they should still be prevented from undertaking the treatment.

I am aware that this is exactly the same argument proposed by many "pro life" campaigners. They understand that women have to give consent to have an abortion, but they also see abortion as an act of violence against both the woman and the fetus/unborn child. They also suggest (as some have here) that patients aren't fully informed of the risks of abortion so can't make a valid, informed choice.

I'm struggling to see what the difference is here. In both cases, campaigners insist that individuals should not have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies and wish to impose their own moral values on other people.

I like the old pro choice slogan, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." I'd suggest the same should apply thus, "If you don't want gender reassignment surgery, don't have it."

Also, per my comment last night about "splaining." Food Unit, you may be a woman, but you aren't a transman or a trans woman. In the same way I could never claim to speak from the experience of being a Black woman or a disabled woman, I can't speak from the experience of being either a transman or a trans woman.

Let's say there is a woman over there who identifies as a woman of colour. I might look at her, see that her skin tone is not very dark, decide her features aren't "typical" of a woman of colour. I might believe she's not actually a woman of colour. That, however, gives me no right to insist that she's white, let alone that I can speak for her and her experience. Same thing goes for a person who's not a trans woman or transman insisting they are entitled to speak for them, just because they don't accept their self-chosen identity.

No, sorry HoopdePoop. I will not be accused of dismissing, mischaraterising, silencing and insulting merely because I have read the thread and can see parallels between the way the church talks about homosexuality and the way that the OP has talked about transgender issues.

No, sorry, I won't.

"I am a feminist but I can't accept this idea that the only difference between men and women is willies and vaginas - it's so much more than that, surely?"

I think there is serious danger of stereotyping if you take that as a starting point. What about all the people who strongly diverge from all the other 'differences' that could be put forth to define their reproductive sex? Are they all transsexuals? Isn't it the reality of the situation that we have two reproductive sexes but human beings have a whole host of innate characteristics that fall in line with or diverge from their conditioned gender role? It is more than just a spectrum of male to female 'characteristics'...