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?

Really the problem is in labelling issues as 'feminist' in the first place....

This is wholly missing the point, feminist issues are called such because they are issues that affect women.

Biological women.

We are being told that it is transphobic to speak of issues that affect biological women because it does not include issues that affect transwomen.

We are being told that we are no longer women, now we are 'ciswomen' which encompasses the 'privilege' of being a women even when we are discussing girls abused and tortured simply for being girls.

We are told we cannot enjoy the security of womens spaces and womens discussion because it isolates transwomen who have a 'right' to those spaces.

we are told that anyone who says 'I am a woman' is one, whether they have the biological reality or not.

That is the issue.

Buffy, I'm sure it's possible to make a female embryo male (or at least phenotypically male) but giving a fully grown female a Y chromosome wouldn't do anything. The only important thing on the Y chromosome is the SRY gene - it turns on the genes that make a foetus male rather than default (female). Giving a woman the SRY gene or even a whole Y chromosome wouldn't make her any more male and taking away a man's Y chromosome wouldn't make him any more female even if it was possible to do it, which it doubt.

I also want to say how much I agree with Ican's comments:

So why do these men who do not feel that they fit in with, or want to accept that social construction, have their own movement that creates a more diverse and accepting image of what a 'man' is?

I was grasping toward something of this ilk in the last thread, but Ican has said this so much more clearly and coherently than anything I could formulate.

I really don't understand why this group feel the need to colonise the idea of 'woman' instead of fighting to increase the possibilities for men to perform gender in much more diverse ways. And it really does feel like an act of imperialism towards/against women.

But not all feminist issue affect all women and many feminist issues affect men also. eg. Childcare isn't a women's issue...it is a parents issue.

My DH (XY male) should have say in state childcare provision because he is a SAHP not necessarily by choice....I am not.

Anyone who has not yet used their womb can empathise with anyone who has regardless of whether they expect rightly or wrongly that they will in the future be able to use theirs.

I totally agree that men who do not think of themselves as masculine should be fighting to tear down the strictness of 'masculinity' rather than trying to fit into 'femininity' instead...

Although I do sympathise as it is far far less rigidly imposed that women behave in a 'feminine' fashion than that men behave in a 'masculine' fashion.

Ice that is only true if you look at those things in isolation, which you can't.

Childcare is a feminist issue because it is a traditionally female role which even in todays society is underpaid and not respected for the very important job that is is.

Regardless of the gender of the person performing the childcare, its lack of respect and support on a social level is a feminist issue.

Ice it is only far less rigidly imposed because of the feminist movement and the benefits that it has had for women. Men need their own movement, not to steal ours.

" I'm sure it's possible to make a female embryo male (or at least phenotypically male) "

How?

but surely continuing to label child care as a womens / feminist issue is compounding the problem?

Okay it currently affects more women than men but given we are aiming to change that it seems a retrograde step to label it as a womens issue.

Calam Thank you, it was partly your musings on the previous thread that solidified my opinion enough to be able to vocalise it clearly both in my own mind and written down.

This is what I love about debates, the combined experiences we have coming together to create something cohesive and clear :)

Its not about it affecting more women than men, it is about the entire social construct of patriarchy creating an environment whereby the traditionally female jobs are low paid and considered 'unskilled' like childcare, social care and so on, while the traditional male jobs like management are exponentially better paid regardless of the difference in work load.

It will be fantastic when we can say 'this is no longer a feminist issue this is a social issue' but we are a long way away from that, because the patriarchal umbrella still covers us all.

Also, it's not so much as they're trying to 'fit in to femininity' they seem to be trying to take control of 'femininity' and redefine it to suit their own purposes. That's why it feels like an act of epistemic violence and imperialism (because that's largely what it is, only they want a concept rather than a bit of land that already 'belongs' to someone else).

I think most areas of debate lose out when they restrict the number of people they imply should be bothered.

One could say that miscarriage care is a feminist issue..but shouldn't it be a right thinking person of any gender identity issue that people who have suffered the loss of a baby are looked after?

Should women who have never experienced such a loss be expected to rally around just because they are women? Should men who have had partners miscarry be excluded because they are men?

It makes no sense to me to try and divide the whole complexity of human issues into 'feminist' and 'not feminist'. It seems a useless and divisive label to me.

Hullo everyone,

Just in case you missed it, we created a thread in Site Stuff clarifying our position regarding transphobia and the talk guidelines.

We understand many of you would like these threads moved out of Chat so they don't disappear, so we'll do that now.

Do you think there is a limit on how many people can be feminists? Ice

what do you mean by 'the number of people they imply should be bothered'

Mmm. I get what you're saying, ice, but I don't think I agree.

I think (for me anyway) saying 'this is a feminist issue' or 'this is a woman's issue' is useful not so much because it limits the number of people who care, but because it points out that not everyone can or should have an equal voice it in.

Like with abortion debates. Abortion is a women's issue. In some contexts, you get men who disagree absolutely with that statement, because they feel it's about the murder of tiny humans and that men should get at least as much right as women to pontificate about whether it should be legal or not.

I don't think this means men can't have complex feelings about abortion, but there is (to me) a crucial difference between men and women here, which is immensely bigger than the smaller difference between a woman who's had an abortion and one who hasn't.

"One could say that miscarriage care is a feminist issue..but shouldn't it be a right thinking person of any gender identity issue that people who have suffered the loss of a baby are looked after?"

It is a feminist issue because it is about the welfare of women (who have miscarried).

Nothing is stopping men from supporting this cause and being involved in the debates, of course.

When men start getting pregnant and miscarrying, then it can be a "person of any gender issue".

When men start getting pregnant and miscarrying, then it can be a "person of any gender issue".

I agree with LRD there are levels to people vested interest in topics, a woman who has lost a baby at 23 weeks and been treated terribly will have more of a vested interest in miscarriage care, her partner who experienced her treatment also does, a woman who has not encountered ill-treatment in miscarriage care will perhaps have less of a vested interest but may still have one because she feels strongly about it and so on.

Of course men can't get pregnant. Only females can get pregnant. Men are male by definition.

By using genetic engineering techniques to add the SRY gene to the X chromosome. Basically artificially inducing XX male syndrome.

I know, I agree with you, it is ludicrous to say otherwise.

This is reality, where all that "All who feel female are female tralala" Newspeak breaks down.

It isn't a useless label because it allows us to do something incredibly useful; to take lots of individual women's issues, that they personally have to deal with, and identify that the problem doesn't lie with the individual women themselves, but with wider society. And that then allows us to identify the power structures and mechanisms which are in place that make things difficult or unfair for women, because they are women.

It's what feminists mean when they say 'the personal is political' and it is hugely liberating and helps women to organize and agitate collectively and find strength in numbers. It also allows us to share experiences and find support in that.

Queen - That's interesting, thanks. "Symptoms usually include small testes and subjects are invariably sterile. Individuals with this condition sometimes have feminine characteristics..." doesn't sound like this technique of turning a male fetus into a female one is terribly successful, though.

Disclaimer: fuzzy brain; struggling with words today.

It's more than 'vested interest,' I think. It's less consciously motivated than that.

What I mean is, if you imagine your DD starting from birth, you have no idea whether she's infertile, whether she'll be prone to miscarriage, whether she'll be a lesbian, whether she'll be raped, whether she'll end up pregnant at wanting not to be ... etc.

But you and the society around you will raise her in the understanding that she has a womb and that these things are included in the range of possibilities for her.

If you have a DS, you have no idea if he's infertile, or gay, or will be raped, but you know he will never miscarry, he'll never have an abortion, and he'll never be pregnant. So you know, and society knows, that his experiences will be different - he might have a wife who miscarries or a girlfriend who has an abortion, but you know and you expect he won't experience it himself.

That whole context is what makes some things 'women's issues'. Not the 'vested interest' we develop when our lives take a particular turn. I think 'vested interest' issues are more like, oh, the fact that I care about funding for theatre because I like plays, or something.