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?

May i just second the request upthread for some reading recommendations on wtf you are talking about (I am not a linguist, maybe its that whole male brain thing again ) You make it sound absolutely fascinating.

One last thing whilst the idea is clear in my head because I will forget it otherwise.

On the academia thing. IMO the purpose of the feminist book writing that goes on, is different to purpose of the book writing of what I call academia (even if some of that feminist book writing takes place within academic institutions). Academic books are often designed to be studied, to be explorations which can be studied and further explored with other academic books. And that is a worthy and interesting and perfectly valid thing.

IMO (many) feminist books are designed differently. They are designed to say the unsayable and say it in the clearest way possible so that not too much exploration/study/work/time is required on the part of the reader. It is laid out for us, simply. Because the main aim of feminist books is to fuel a revolution.

I'm sorry.

I didn't mean you, I meant the sort of people (not always transactivists, quite often others) who argue with feminists very often assume we're all simpletons who just think about material reality.

I'm not on the ball yet, so just ignore.

I also like MNHQ's response :)

Buffy, you are most certainly not making a fool of yourself. You and Georgette are doing the opposite of what me (and others on here) have complained about. You are attempting to make ideas comprehensible so that people can understand them and so engage with what you are talking about.

I am very grateful, and while I am also angry (I have realised this while aggressively making tea and silently composing rants at an imaginary person), I am definitely not feeling angry towards you!

Georgette, from what you've said I can see postmodernism as a neutral tool. I also think that the extent to which people's ability (or capitalism's success) at decoupling material reality from particular social constructs depends on where they live and what they do. I also think many people employ filtered down pop post modernism (without even knowing it is post modernism) to reinforce inequality.

I've spent a bit of this morning googling books and my amazon wish list is now ridiculously long, thanks to the suggested authors a few pages back.

In my real life, my lived experience, I think the whole let’s-call-a-spade-a-spade attitude is as oppressive as but-what-do-we-mean-by-a-spade-and-does-it-have-to-be-a-spade-if-we-use-it-as-as-a-shovel? I am out of my depth here but I am uncomfortable with what feels like a false dichotomy being set up as follows, as it seems to me, (sorry about this being so crude and I am sure misrepresenting things):

Beach – let’s use salt of the earth language, it is what it is, let’s just be really clear about the actual violation of women by patriarchy and then we can get the hell on with doing something about it
Buffy – salt of the earth (positivist) language pretends that things are cut and dried that are not, and is in fact in danger of cutting and drying them to its own well-worn pattern, which is the status quo, which follows the engrained path of existing power structures

I feel like both positions are claiming unique powers in the “battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language” (thanks Wittgenstein); whereas in fact both can bewitch and both fight the good fight.

In real life people who are “calling a spade a spade” often have their own oppressive reasons for pretending there is no difference between a spade and a shovel, and are using this bluff approach to bulldoze through and humiliate anyone who wants to suggest that there is a difference.

Ok, coming back to the thread’s original purpose and what constitutes transphobia, it’s evident to me that there was clear intent behind the legislation to afford protection to transsexuals and but it was not designed or intended to be a blanket acceptance that anyone could simply be legally of the gender they wished.

The legislative changes weren’t driven by transactivists but have been hijacked by them. They were driven by an incompatability with European directives on Human Rights which was highlighted in a test case where the Court ruled that a marriage between two people of the same sex under UK law was illegal.

The consultation papers and reports prior to the Gender Recognition Act coming into force clearly demonstrate that the legislation was intended to ensure that transsexuals had, enshrined in law, the right to live their lives free from discrimination in all areas of life. The Act is specific in requiring a Gender Recognition Certificate to be issued before a change of gender is considered valid. Unless such a Certificate is granted, there is no legal concept of a biological man or woman becoming the opposite gender. Furthermore, the Act deliberately is not retrospective – it is clear that sex/gender prior to the issue of a GRC remains that person’s prior sex/gender.

There was considerable debate about the issue of sex and gender and it was evident that the UK Government came to the conclusion that sex and gender are very different things but that it was impossible to legislate in respect of sex. The UK Government recognised that it was not practical or sensible to insist that an individual should always require to undergo GSR prior to or after the issue of a GCR so recognised that a person was not changing their sex but simply their gender. This was a concession due to the fact that not all transsexuals would be medically able to undergo GRS and who would therefore be treated unfairly otherwise.

The way around it was to restrict the definition to gender but allow for this to be considered as sex for the purposes of pension rights, medical treatment, sexual discrimination etc. They recognised that this would no doubt give rise to cases where the Courts were asked to define sex and gender but accepted that it was the most practical solution to a fluid concept.

Which brings us back to transphobia. The legal protection is afforded only to those who obtain a GRC. Someone with a GRC is not recognised as being female or male their entire lives but female then GRC then male or male then GRC then female. The term transphobia has become much more than the legal position but clearly there is a distinction between transphobia which meets the legal definition of harassment and transphobia which simply comprises a statement which is discourteous.

To shut down the voices of women who express genuine concerns about biological men claiming to be women but who have not and do not intend to get a GRC is censorship. Yes, women should voice their concerns sympathetically and courteously but is it wrong to refer to them as transphobic.

Finally, the House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights made it clear that ‘different treatment does not amount to improper discrimination if there is a rational and objective justification for it’. I would offer that this is what feminists mean when they talk about protecting the needs of women in the context of discussing trans issues.

Apologies for the essay and I do appreciate the thread has moved on somewhat but just wanted to provide some contextual background to support my views that transphobia cannot be considered to encompass women discussing issues which affect them.

See, I disagree with that, allhail, and that's what I was trying to say (badly).

I can't speak for beach, but IMO the two positions aren't 'let's use salt of the earth language' and 'be careful, because language pretends things are cut and dried'.

I think there is a group out there insisting on 'salt of the earth language' and 'saying it like it is,' but that group is not feminists. It's the types who have no interest in analysing the gendering of language. The sort of people who snigger if you point out that 'mankind' reflects the oppression of women through history. Or the sort of people (because it's not just language, is it, it's all communication we attach meaning to) who say they just don't care if the bride wears white and a veil because 'it's tradition'.

I think a lot of feminists think pretty deeply about how language is used and what it might mean. This thread proves that.

I think the problem is, a lot of feminist terminology has been hammered out with great care. Take 'misogyny'. We've had loads of debates about that, and (broadly) feminists agree it's a reality! We tend to use it to mean something rather more specific than just 'hating women,' though, or a lot of us do - a lot of us use it to refer to structural oppression (differentiating it from sexism and making the useful point that, in the world we live in, misandry and misogyny are not two equal and opposing forces for harm).

I think that's typical of feminist language. It is really carefully defined a lot of the time. Someone who then wants to discuss exactly how power structures work isn't really doing something so different from the thought process feminists went through to come up with the concept of 'misogyny' used the way it's used in feminist circles, I think?

I think MNHQ have done a pretty good job of making a decision under difficult circumstances. I think future disputes will probably hinge on where trans rights and other rights (eg gay rights) pull in different directions from one another, as they have so far.

Buffy posted something on the previous thread which struck a chord with me. Her post about the two rooms, one loud, the other quiet. In her post there were two people who were in the loud room but felt uncomfortable there and went into the quiet room, where one of them demanded a seat.

Here's my point. The set of genitals I was born with put me in the loud room. I am, however, in the corner keeping myself to myself feeling a little out of place. I, like the two others who felt out of place, would ask to join the quiet room. Unlike the other person though, if there was no place for me to sit I would stand and continue to be quiet unless I really wanted to make a point or was replying to a question.

If, based on the set of genitals I was born with the people in the quiet room didn't want me there I'd be a little put out but would concur with their wishes and return to my corner of the loud room with my book and reading glasses, as opposed to shouting and making a fuss insisting it was my right and they were all bigots. :o

I definitely don't think it is a choice between using salt of the earth language or highly complex language, for the reasons others have said.

I also don't think that taking into account material reality in itself resolves anything. A lot of MRA arguments are based on some kind of pop evo psych, and when people on here have argued against it they are told they are denying the reality of evolution and are no better than creationists. And like a lot of pop post modernism, the pop evo psych is complex and incomprehensible and used to confuse people into agreeing. At the same time, by actually talking about material reality (even if in the most ludicrous way I have ever seen) MRAs do actually reveal what they really want from women's bodies, and it useful to know what is at stake.

I think we have to talk about social constructs (like gender) and material reality (like sex) together in a way that is comprehensible to everyone but leaves room for disagreement and developing new ideas and solutions.

Buffy, there are loads of examples of language conflicting with lived material reality. I am asthmatic and have been seriously ill, hospitalised and it could kill me if I come into contact with some triggers and don't receive medical attention. My mum's friend identifies as being sensitive and having allergies and must keep away from triggers because a spiritual healer looked at her aura. The muddying of waters of what people mean by an allergy makes the general public less likely to take a declaration of allergies seriously.

So I am now wondering whether MNHQ have followed this discussion and what, if any, changes they will make in regards to discussion of transgender people and infact discussion of woman's issues.

Blistory, thanks for explaining the GRA.

Buffy, I completely agree. Humans cannot understand material reality without socially constructing it. Social construction is essential to everyone's survival.

Social constructions that aren't materially real are still massively important and exist. Money is massively important but it is also one of the main processes of mystification. Many people cannot imagine that it is just a social construct (or at least no more than some bits of metal and paper) and has very little actual relationship to measuring the exchange of time, energy, land, or essential resources like food. That is why it can be used to claim that country took X amount of food, minerals and energy from country Y, but only gave half an X in return and this is somehow not exploitation because the X and the half X had the same dollar value. Whatever a dollar value 'means' and however materially real its consequences, its value is not materially real. A tonne of food is materially real. a woman's energy to harvest that tonne of food is materially real. And the same happens at the household level between men and women and what we say is really or not really 'work' and people die because of it.

The difference might be characterised in one way as:

• poststructuralism argues that our language shapes how (people with) power act in real ways in the material world. Language itself contains and structures various forms of (real, social, economic, political and ethical) power and is not just a decoration on top of the material "object world" of people and things, but is irretrievably woven into our lived experience and how it is understood and controlled, by ourselves and others. A corollary is that "plain speaking" may encode and embody just as oppressive a set of underlying political codes (binaries) as any other kind of language. No form of language is free of the structures of encoded social power. Much of poststructuralist thought, however, has some form of utopian idealism attached to the idea of the transformational powers of language to effect change on the material power structures of the world, if we could only find the right vocabulary to make it work (hence its affiliation with feminism and other forms of political movements such as civil rights movements).

• postmodernism is a slightly later subcategory of postructuralism which makes claims that in our current historical moment the power structures of late capitalism have been able to mix up our sense of material, power-reality with the stories that powerful people and structures tell about our reality that it is no longer possible for the most part to disentangle them. So, for example, in his famous essay on the (first) gulf war did not happen, Baudrillard is not actually saying that he thinks that the first gulf war did not happen, but that the power-stories of late capitalism have allowed those people and things who have power to shape our experience of the material world as they wish. But the flipside of this confusion between linguistic and material reality is that no story ("grand narrative") retains absolute power any more - our previous powerful "grand narratives" of religion, patriarchy, science and so on are all just seen as competing stories rather than being solidly rooted in material "truths". In one way this is a conspiracy theorist's dream and a utopia for capitalist power. In another, it is potentially transformative, since some of those "old" narratives were as oppressive as any that replace them.

I'm still reading but stopped to bang my little drum here

"A fair critique of feminist class analysis is that it forgets about race, age and disability."

I don't think people who are a bit 'sensitive' are trying to take resources. But I do think stuff like this public stuff happens:

1. Asthma - just a matter of positive thinking.
2. Coeliac disease - fussy eater.
3. Asthmatic - wants to be seen as frail, Victorian romantic heroine passing away from consumption. Bit feminine and vulnerable. Social identity not health issue. Trying to get out of sports.
4. Allergy to particular type of animal. Probably a personality trait not a health issue. Not a caring person, cold, not maternal, doesn't like natural things, bit uptight, has issues with person who owns animal in question, control freak.

I think perhaps one of the reasons I'm personally struggling with postmodernism is that it seems to me to be very easy to use it and find you're reinforcing your own socialisation as a woman. buffy doesn't do this, I notice, but I think it's easy to do.

Basically, women are constantly told 'hmm, maybe your point of view is just one point of view, but mine is Truth Itself'. Personally, when I argue against that, I find myself reaching for statistics and real-life anecdotes and points like my point upthread about lesbians being deported back to countries where they might be killed. This is not because I think there's an unproblematic relationship between material reality and language - it's because as a woman, this is a form of argument I know I am more likely to win, because I already start out on the back foot with any argument rooted in anything that takes perceptions of truth on a linguistic level.

Actually, this annoys me quite a bit. I did used to argue with MRA/'not a feminist' types by trying to tackle what we all believed and why we believed it, but I just got nowhere. It's too easy for them to cite 'common sense' or 'common usage' and for me to descend into furious spluttering. In fact, the only alternative I've found to citing facts/stats is to draw on my educational privilege and be monumentally patronizing. This makes me very familiar with the ways entitled blokes respond to the kinds of comments they themselves make without thinking, but other than that, I'm not sure it achieves a great deal.