MNHQ transphobia guidelines part 2

[QueenStromba]

First thread here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2120841-MNHQ-are-going-to-decide-what-constitutes-transphobia-on-MN-What-advice-guidelines-would-you-give-them?

Sitestuff thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2117350-MNHQ-now-email-posters-with-how-to-get-around-the-talk-guidelines?

The thread that was about is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2107862-Following-on-from-the-TERF-thread?

mathanxiety

You get to say that. I don't. Because otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

In my niche I kept my head down for years. Bouncing between seething in silence and basically ignoring my "tribe" completely, living my life as though they didn't actually exist becuase I needed another source of stress like a hole in the head.

If I wasn't going to stick my head above the parapet for fear of a slap or eleventy hundred, I can hardly complain when a transperson won't stick their head above it when nastiness up to and including wishing death onto you is part of the package on top of the slapping.

It is a shitty place to be when your (allegedly) own side is claiming to speak for you and going hell for leather with its anti-PR stratagy making everything 20 times worse, laying a pretty solid foundation for any progress won being snatched away under the "give an inch..." rule.

And yes, it would help the debate enourmously if the transvoice wasn't so limited to the louder shouters who appear to be furiously digging their own tribe's grave, all while under the impression they were forcing their cause forwards.

But I don't get to complain about the absence of their voice, becuase when I was being squished into silence (in a far less onerous context) being brave and speaking up looked rather like jumping in front of a tank. Great in theory, for the gesture and all that jazz. But ultimatly deeply attractive in terms of the squashing part.

There is a tipping point though. Where whatever you (gen you) do, including saying nothing, being flattened is a possibility if your own self appointed reps appear determined to anti-PR the entire group into oblivion. So you might as well give it a shot and say something. It is hard to take the temp in a context like that. But in the context being discussed here I do think the tipping point is near, or at least not all that far off.

IMO if MN applies normal talk guidelines, with a few specific words inc. TERF rendered deleteworthy, that in itself is a noteworthy mode for giving a platform for a much wider range of transpeople's voices than is currently permitted. The conversation may ultimatly not end up taking place here, but it sets a rather different precident to the more familar "enforced Newspeak and thought control" other places have gone for in their desperation not to have any form of "phobe" plonked on them.

I would have been so screwed in terms of coming around to saying something as opposed to seething in silence if I had risked being banned or deleted back into "non existance" not just in niche online zones, but also on mainstream sites.

I should add I'm not suspicious of transsexual people who have a serious medical condition they are seeking to alleviate. I also don't see a particular issue with societies having four, five, six genders. We have more gender roles than just two in many ways. None of that denies the existence of biological sex. I am suspicious of an ideology that seeks to remove the existence of a word that means biologically female - that is newspeak, within the definitions given in the novel. It is not just a rhetorical device to say so.

and sorry to tippy tap and other posters that I am talking across on a slightly different topic. I am reading your posts too.

Beachcomber, Tunip and others, could any of you tell me this?

What proportion of trans people are women, and what proportion of trans women are sexually/romantically attracted to women?

Say 0.3% of people are trans, and 0.1% are trans women attracted to women.

That would mean that there is one straight trans woman to every five hundred straight men and one lesbian trans woman to every fifty lesbians. That would have a much bigger impact on lesbian identity, surely?

Or am I completely wrong on those numbers?

almondcakes, you asked this waaayy upthread and I've been meaning to get back to you about it. I don't know what the actual numbers are but I think you are right that the impact on lesbians is much bigger than it is on men and probably any other group. Which is yet another reason why this is a feminist issue.

Feminism is what I would call a lesbian movement. That doesn't mean that all or a majority of feminists are lesbians, but that lesbian energy, work, analysis, writing, thinking, and existence informs feminism to a great degree and on many levels. (Which is probably a thread in itself)

So I am appalled at third wavers throwing lesbians under the bus in their rush to embrace genderism, be it queer theory, or transgenderism. This is one of the reasons I kept badgering TiggyD to comment on what is happening to the Dyke Marches.

Dyke Marches were set up to give visibility and validation to lesbians who were being smothered by the male gay rights/pride movements. They were events where only the women marched and the men would stand on the sidelines in support and cheer them on. Lesbians need all the visibility they can get, they are one of the most marginalized groups in the west. They are women, they reject men sexually, they are gender non compliant and they are living proof that men can be rejected. Lesbian culture is very detached from men and male centric discourse and that shows in lesbian feminist analysis. There is a lot less cognitive dissonance/Not My Nigelism going on in lesbian feminism. In brief, lesbians challenge patriarchy and disobey patriarchy (hence their marginalization and why most of us can name a string of gay male friends/celebrities but struggle to do the same for lesbian women).

And who are the main target of the worst end of transactivism and demands for validation? Lesbians.

And one of the ways this has manifested is transwomen, who used to be heterosexual men, insisting that Dyke Marches are for them. At first they wanted to march. Then they wanted to lead the march. Then they wanted to be instrumental in organizing the march and be key speakers at marches. Things got so bad at the last London Dyke March that it ended up with one of the transgender organizers saying 'of course born women lesbians were welcome'. At a Dyke March. Like it needed to be said (and actually it does because lots of lesbians don't want to march anymore on the march that was set up in order to give them women specific visibility).

I don't expect all trans people to stand up and speak out against the prevailing stance of trans activism. However if they are not going to speak up I would like them not to deny that there are "mainstream" voices saying what women are complaining about. I would like them to listen to women's concerns and not to minimise those concerns or deny that certain things are being said or done. Just like men with the whole NAM thing.

mathanxiety do you mean the silence is deafening in a general context or on mumsnet?

For the former, I did five minutes googling yesterday and found at least one trans* person who was speaking out online about the issues. That blog links to more, even including former ftms detransitioning, who see gender dysphoria as an expression of internalised misogyny.

Their voices are quiet and being drowned out I agree. In terms of numbers, they may be a minority, but they do exist.
For the latter, maybe very few MNers are trans*?

If there are any trans activists still reading, I would like to know what is their preferred name for that group of people who have a vagina, uterous etc.

Beach, I know a lot more lesbians than gay men. I possibly have more lesbian friends than straight friends, and I am straight. I don't know how that has come about - work/family/interests/Internet? It isn't directly through feminism.

"But ultimatly deeply attractive in terms of the squashing part."

should read

But ultimatly deeply un attractive in terms of the squashing part.

Sorry, that was not really relevant. I agree with your points about lesbian visibility and the energy from lesbians that has gone into feminism.

Fuck left bit off my post.

I would go with the latter, because I think it's important to note that these threads have been going on the whole weekend, and so far, we haven't even had an invasion. Compare the times Male Parents (textspeak for) Their Rights gets mentioned (see my careful bypass of their google alarm?) gets mentioned.

Mumsnet is under the radar for everyone.

Just putting my head in to say I am not a FWR regular but have really appreciated this conversation (have read all the threads avidly) and I'm so glad to have come across it. I mainly experienced feminism through SJW livejournal/tumblr/blogs and had come to the conclusion that I must not be a feminist as I don't recognise this idea of intrinsic gender identity or agree that what matters about gender is what I personally feel.

I think that the reality of being a woman is that it doesn't matter what you feel about it; it just happens to you anyway. 'But I'm not like those other girls' didn't get me very far, anyhow. But I've not really known how to say that without being labelled a bigot and without upsetting people I really don't want to upset. It's been really helpful to read all these deeply considered and informed positions; it's definitely helped me sort my own opinions out. I think probably the answer is that I will have to be labelled a bigot - I'm not sure there's a 'nice' way through this debate.

Anyway just to say thanks to everyone.

I am totally listening to you Buffy.....but but but

Have you ever seen feminists (usually radical ones) use the misspelling; jendah?

They do it to differentiate between gender which means (in radical feminism) 'the subjugation of women and the domination of men'

from

'special snowflake inner self-identity that I have decided to call gender'

A lot of the bother we get into discussing all this is that in radical feminism, gender is being used pretty well interchangeably with patriarchy. In other words, gender is a system, not an individual identity.

So saying 'my gender is....' doesn't compute in radical feminism because it sounds to a radical feminist as though you are saying 'my patriarchy is....'

It works better for a radfem if you say 'the sex role I live the best in within the repressive system of gender is...'

Which is why we go at post modernism/structuralism and queer theory. You can't identify your way out of oppression. And it is why people like CrotchMaven and I perceive post-modernism as dangerous. Because whilst everyone is happily self defining on rainbow colored binary rejecting spectrums (of jendah!), class analysis is lost and collectivity, which is the only power the masses have, is lost to individualism. It is all very liberal and feels liberating to the individual (it totally reminds me of the so called sexual revolution of the 60s), but the facts are that women are still looking after the babies, making the tea (one for you allhailqueenmab!), being paid less and being victims of male violence, harassment, and exploitation.

I do understand that Buffy, but I think it ignores that power is ultimately about controlling other people's resources - bodies, land, energy, to make life easier. I am highly supicious of people using a word that is widely accepted to refer to the female human body to refer to something else, when the female human body is one of the most sought after and exploited resources in the whole world, and I live in one.

ITA with you almondcakes.

Power is about resources, women's bodies are a resource, gender is the system for controlling that resource.

Marx talks about control of the means of production. Radical feminists do the same but they call it control of the means of reproduction i.e WOMEN

As others have said the whole newspeak thing really shuts up discussions. Suddenly words like woman, male, female, gender, trans means something different and people who get it "wrong" are called bigots or the new slur terf. It makes people (women!) feel stupid because they don't even know wtf is going on and what they've done wrong. So they shut up. It's very worrying that it has taken over feminist sites and that it makes women think that the movement for their rights are not for them...!

'I think that the reality of being a woman is that it doesn't matter what you feel about it; it just happens to you anyway'

This is perfectly put Tanacot, thank you.

Beachcomber, I am not entirely sure of all the differences between Marxist and Radical feminists, and would probably consider myself an environmental feminist anyway. But I read this a while ago which I think of as the Marxist feminist understanding and I found easy to understand:

libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

I think that the reality of being a woman is that it doesn't matter what you feel about it; it just happens to you anyway

Perfect, totally sums up the irony of 'but you don't understand me and how I have been raised etc etc'

Tanacot, Tumblr is my Internet 'home' and I just don't bother to discuss most feminist issues there, because there just is no point. The only feminist stuff I do there is reblog global women's issues from the UN, anti slavery charities and so on. I have to keep coming back here to hear other feminists.

And Tanacot's line sums up why gender identity as the heart of womanhood just doesn't work for women.
It doesn't ring true with our experience as women in our own culture; it most certainly doesn't work where girls are murdered at or before birth, mutilated or sold.

Gender identity as central is such a privileged, privileged way to define womanhood

I think that the reality of being a woman is that it doesn't matter what you feel about it; it just happens to you anyway

Well said Tanacot.

Which is why all this Newspeak/but language changes!/inner gender identity stuff is all just noise.

I love these threads!

At the risk of derailing, I would want to make a distinction between postmodernism and poststructuralism (and I would see postmodernism as a specific sub-category within poststructuralist thought rather than the other way around - though it's possible to make either one a subcategory of the other). I would want to claim that poststructuralist thought is itself feminist (building in the insights of second-wave feminism and Marxism), and certainly Derrida claimed intrinsically to be so (cf. phallogocentrism). Post structuralism of the deconstructive variety I have always taken to be already feminist in the sense that it contains a feminist critique of earlier Marxism already and builds on that (whether in the form of deconstruction or as a Foucauldian Hegelianism, eg Butler). Postmodernism - well, I tend to think of that as a later (post-1977) more masculine form of thought that is an explicit critique of late capitalist late modernity and a rejection of the real political bases of action - and thus as a sort of reactionary, apathetic or nihilist mode of later poststructuralist thought. So where that might undermine feminism, poststructuralism as a larger form of thought was/is very much bound up with feminism.

Why isn't dworkin as famous as Derrida? Why does Derrida auto correct to Derrida when dworkin becomes dork in? Because male ideas are published by male editors, reviewed by male peers. Because male work is important. and female work is fringe.

Or and as well: only analytic philosophers really feel threatened by Derrida (because most people don't understand him so don't feel any threat); whereas they do understand what Dworkin means, and they do feel threatened?

What worries me about it is that it is 'true' in the current set of circumstances (and I really do think that), but everything I've learned about what humans regard as verifiably true about social reality tells me that it is only a truth from a certain perspective

Buffy, I think I can imagine how post-structuralism is useful to you in academia. I'm not saying it is completely useless

But it is about as useful as a chocolate teapot (and just as dangerous) in the feminist struggle for the liberation of women. Mostly because it is always claiming that all truths are worthy of consideration and because although it claims to value all perspectives, it actually doesn't at all.

Also you have said a couple of times that post-structuralism/modernism is misinterpreted and that that is where the problem lies. To which I say it only has itself to blame for being so academic and woolly (as in not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest).