Miranda Yardley's contribution to the Woman's Place meeting on Tuesday

TheUterati

It’s always better to fight from the inside.

Transsexual also does not make sense and has no meaningful use

Transsexual (in the sense that Miranda has used it) does have a meaningful referent. I feel strongly that women are right to refuse to allow non-women to define 'woman' and I think it's equally problematic for people who aren't transsexuals to decide what 'transsexual' means and whether it's a useful category.

Also, disagreement is OK!

THIS. It doesn't make us terrible. It's OK (and indeed necessary) to disagree on the substance, to thrash it all out, without claiming that some of us are letting the side down.

loveyouradvice - I think the really important thing is that we will NOT win unless we build broad alliances... and it feels crucial to give transpeople support when they speak out against the mainstream transspeak of today... I strongly believe we need to find more of them so that people begin to understand that transdogma is NOT coming from the whole transcommunity, and then start to question the dogma itself, rather than just accepting it .... SO I ACTIVELY WELCOME ANY TRANSPERSON WHO IS PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR DISCUSSIONS and applaud them for working alongside us to create real change on this which affects BOTH groups - trans and women (and men if they but knew it - but that is a whole bigger campaign!)

I think this is a bit arse about face. I absolutely agree we need to be building broad alliances. I disagree that 'we need to find more of them'. GC transsexuals need to be finding each other so it's no longer just a case of them contributing to 'our' discussions, but of building their own movement, producing their own 'reasonable demands', which may overlap significantly with feminists' concerns but will also address concerns unique to them. THEN we can build broad alliances because there will be something to build an alliance with, if that makes sense.

None of this is to say that trans people should not speak at WPUK or similar events. At the moment though, it's very much 'our' discussion, with a few 'good ones' kind of wheeled out to show we are not transphobic. It all feels a bit awkward to me.

I agree with what you say about language TheUterati but we need some words to describe what's happening that people new to the debate can relate to, and that won't instantly alienate them.

Miranda - solution to what? Language use? The general (initially mis-typed as genderal - LOL) shit storm we are in? Where you sit in things? Workable for whom?

Miranda - the trans in respect of children vs adults was more directed to other posters, but thanks for re-stating your position.

TheUterati

What do you think would be a workable solution?

Miranda - but using the word transsexual to refer to a man post surgery is problematic. If it is not, then using the words transracial to refer to RD or that other woman who has made actual surgical and medical changes to her appearance also makes sense.

Transracial does not make sense and has no meaningful use. Transsexual also does not make sense and has no meaningful use.

TheUterati

^If we challenge the belief that trans can be an actual thing in respect of children, why do we accept that it can be an actual thing in respect of adults? (Even if we simultaneously state that trans does not make a man a woman and vice versa.)

If we are reluctant to use the word 'trans' to refer to children, why will we use it to refer to adults? Why will we accept the validity of the concept then?^

Please see my earlier responses. I’ve stated many times there is no validity.

TheUterati

^Miranda - fine. If transsexual is a thing, then so is transracial/ transethic/whatever. So if X, Y, Z are transsexual (where transsexuals are a subset of men), then Rachel Dolezal is transracial (where transracials are a subset of White people).
No difference.^

I’ve already conceded this and affirmed use of ‘transsexual’ is limited to surgical status. When the Dolezal story broke, I stated many times how it’s no different to trans, structural power dynamics etc.

If we challenge the belief that trans can be an actual thing in respect of children, why do we accept that it can be an actual thing in respect of adults? (Even if we simultaneously state that trans does not make a man a woman and vice versa.)

If we are reluctant to use the word 'trans' to refer to children, why will we use it to refer to adults? Why will we accept the validity of the concept then?

Miranda - fine. If transsexual is a thing, then so is transracial/transethic/whatever.
So if X, Y, Z are transsexual (where transsexuals are a subset of men), then Rachel Dolezal is transracial (where transracials are a subset of White people).
No difference.

Surely Miranda just being there to point out there is, and should be, plurality for those who are non-conforming and that TRAs don't represent everyone is half the point?

The same way that lesbians need to stress the point that LGBT is failing to represent them.

It is for women to make the argument, but alongside that, I think showing up that we should never treat this as a battle against a monolith of thought and ideology.

Part of the point is the very idea that representation needs to be actually representative rather than just having a narrow set of people all who are all the same (both across society and also within groups within society) and that democracy needs a multitude of voices which come from different places and political ideology.

This feeds into women being unrepresented, but also that voices from within the non-conforming community who fall under the T are not being represented and that those who fall under the L are not being represented in their community.

It doesn't matter, in that context, whether Miranda is simply trans, a man or a transwoman. Merely that Miranda should be able to voice an opinion and that voice is as valid as any other voice speaking on this. Miranda does have a vested interest, that does stand which again remains regardless of whether Miranda is simply trans, a man or a transwoman.

Also, disagreement is OK! That's also a part of female socialization, the idea that disagreement is terrible and it's incumbent upon us to resolve it ASAP in order to smooth over any tension. It's not terrible though, it's normal and to be expected that we'll disagree on some thing.

Like take the pronoun thing. I won't use pronouns that don't match the person's sex in these kinds of discussions. I'll avoid pronouns entirely if it's a matter of doing so or having a thread deleted (this has happened with some of the Lily Madigan thread), but I'm not going to do that thing where we "reward" people who we like and approve of by giving them the pronouns they want while not using them for people who we like less. Part of that is political in terms of thinking it's an illogical distinction and is ceding ground to the idea that "gender" is real for some people, but most of it is because I think of people as the sex they are rather than their "gender", which I don't believe in, so in order to avoid "misgendering" I'd have to translate every single reference to that person while writing about them from what's happening in my head and what ends up on the page. It's not a matter of ideological purity, it's just a matter of using the words that feel natural and accurate and not trying to force myself to adhere to the newspeak. If other women use the "preferred" pronouns it seems odd and awkward and I wonder why they're doing it, but I'm generally not going to say anything about it because I think that would be unproductive in most situations.

If that's not enough in terms of meeting people where they are then I'm not sure what else to say.

I'm with Annie (again).

I think two separate issues are being conflated here.

What Tallulah said.

There has to be a way to work with women who're at different stages on this particular journey without it turning into attempts to shut each other up.

And what Kittens said.

There has to be a way to work with women who're at different stages on this particular journey without it turning into attempts to shut each other up.

Yes, this - and I liked that at the meeting not every woman agreed with each other.

I'm experiencing the shutting up from a different direction from you, though, I suspect. I've got absolutely no problem with any woman saying whatever the hell they like about the issue in general, and I think the discussion - in general - about the language we use is really interesting and really necessary, but I do really object to any woman here telling others where they must be at this point, if they aren't to come across as a man-pleasing handmaiden. That's really not helpful at all.

Maybe, TheUterati, what we do need is a return to old-fashioned, second-wave consciousness-raising groups.

TheUterati

Thus, if Miranda or Debbie or Kristina, or whoever (just picking names here - nothing personal!) is a transwoman, then Rachel Dolezal is transblack.

I’m against men using ‘woman’ in any form. I said this at the meeting.

And those who're further ahead on the journey are going to use the language that makes sense to them based on where they are, rather than the softer, more conciliatory language that some women who're not quite there yet might be more comfortable with them using. I don't mean just being an arsehole for the sake of it, which we shouldn't be doing to each other, I mean exactly what I said earlier - trans women are men, trans men are women, this is a statement of fact rather than ideology for the people saying it.

There has to be a way to work with women who're at different stages on this particular journey without it turning into attempts to shut each other up.

I haven't said anywhere to exclude any woman.

You don't need to say it in those words, if by framing the discussion as one where some of us are less good and less woke and less worthy than others, as women will just exclude themselves.

I get what you are trying to do, and I understand why you are trying to do it, but there are risks.

Inthink two separate issues are being conflated here.

1. Whose fight is this? As I've said upthread, I don't think this is primarily a woman's fight. We're carrying the can for it because we always carry the can for everything but arguments from a male perspective are more important because this is a problem about masculinity. Ideally fora would be developed to make those arguments independently but given that we're all struggling to be heard I think joining forces makes pragmatic sense.

1. How do we deal with our socialisation? Collaborate with men whilst overriding it as consciously as possible in order to change the rules for ourselves and those who might learn from us? Avoid male voices as the only way to avoid being talked over? Or both?

TheUterati

Thank you for the reply.

I also firmly believe that using 'trans' in ANY context is problematic. It reifies something that does not exist. It is an agreement with TRA that this concept exists and can be meaningfully used to communicate about reality (notwithstanding that the conceptualisation and use of the concept may differ).

I use the term ‘transsexual’ as most people seem to know what that means, as a male who has been through surgery. The TRAs are doing their best to make this word redundant. However I do agree that ‘trans’ is very much a disputed thing, is a symptom rather than a discrete condition, and ‘transsexual’ isn’t what it says on the tin; my use though is political and I do not believe our sex can be changed or we can negate our male socialisation. My use of ‘transsexual’ may change in future.

Hence and use of trans gives TRA a victory. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSWOMAN.

Whereas I don’t think impossible that word can be sanely and consistently defined, I disavow it for political reasons: it’s a thin end of the wedge and however it is defined, males are not females and males socialised as males cannot be women. So, yes, I agree with you.

Why are we (and I include my historical self in this) are obsessed with finding and centering 'the good ones'? Why are we so obsessed with praising men like you who, despite participation in 'trans', assert biological reality? I do not believe it is only because he 'good ones' and their words can be a useful weapon in this fight.

Please don’t centre ‘the good ones’. It doesn’t do anyone any favours, if anyone needs validation to say what they say, they’re no ally. I have seen so many trans identified males come and go from this, my trust is limited. I say what I say because I think it’s the right thing to do.

What would you say to the use of language around this? Should we refer to these people as 'trans-racial', or should we just call them White?

No and I’m aware of the inconsistencies. I know I’m a man, and I have no problem with it. I’ve said before that this is all about what it means to be a man. So I think this can be unpacked.

Does your opinion of this differ from or coincide with your view on the inclusion of men like you here?

Here as in Mumsnet, or here as in discourse around transgender matters?

I find it problematic that women can be awoken to the truth by you, but not by another woman.

It is problematic but it's a fact. And I don't give a shit who wakes women up. We need them awake as quickly as possible. And loads of them.

So from me it's a fucking big thank you Miranda for speaking out.

This. One of the consequences of trans activism is that so many women, desperate to do the same thing, seem to require permission from TIMs before they act in any direction. So having a TIM who is explicitly saying "you can tell us all to fuck off, it's OK, we're men" is priceless. It may be depressing that it's an absolutely necessary thing to happen for some women to be able to unlock their ability to be "disobedient" to the patriarchy, and to begin to do what's right for them and for other women, but it's the present reality.