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?

Nooka it remains a fact that the issue (women's or otherwise) didn't come up until women started entering the paid workforce in large numbers while at the same time the government continued to increase its monitoring of children's welfare and continued to make explicit its expectations about the preparation of children for school.

Back in the days of women working long hours in the mills nobody cared what became of children while their mothers worked. Now that parents are held accountable to a far greater degree than they were in the past for the welfare of their children, and with educational outcome making a huge difference for children, the pressure on mothers has risen dramatically.

....

Would so many transwomen be so keen on 'being women' or even 'living as a woman' (whatever that is) if women's rights and status hadn't improved dramatically in recent times?

Do many transwomen adopt the wearing of burqas or other clothing that is (according to some interpretations of Islam) the mark of a devout woman?

Or is the concept of 'woman' strictly a secular western one (and a pre feminism one at that)?

Come to think of it, the burqa might be the ideal solution to the conundrum of feeling like a woman but lacking the physical reality that goes along with that.

I suppose the crux of it for me is this:

If being female has nothing to do with the biology that marks females out from birth (or even before that thanks to modern techniques),

How can we fight to stop the oppression of females around the world?

I don't see how it can be done.

On tumblr etc the idea is that because not everyone is exactly the same, common experiences are just coincidences, not a way of identifying social structures/systems. It's wrong to make generalisations because that is stereotyping, which is bigoted. We are all individuals with our own individually created essential self, which is what identity now means. It is bigoted to say that identity is involuntary characteristics that, if not at the top of the hierarchy, are used to oppress you in predictable ways despite your individual attributes and which the only tool you have to fight back against is to collectivise and struggle to upturn the hierarchy. You may only speak about yourself and must never understand even your own life in a context. You have no context.

So the only response to being, say, pissed off that you are working class and can't make enough money to pay your rent even working 50 hours, is for you individually to upskill or work more hours, not for you to organise with your workmates and try and get better wages for everyone. You mustn't generalise. Some of your workmates can pay their rent. It's bigoted to say working class people are poor. You can only say "I am poor" and "I am working class" but never connect the two.

I will say though that it's really not just transactivists who follow this reasoning. If you have fibromyalgia, it's now fine to identify as quadriplegic, tell quadriplegic people they are bigoted for not agreeing, and that really you are more impaired because no one believes you. This really happens.

There is also a large problem in disability activism where people who really have much less severe impairment unconsciously take over the spaces and groups set up by people dealing with serious disability, because they have more energy (and can physically speak and get around etc), and then inexorably the focus shifts from campaigning to not be killed to campaigning for more sensitive representation on telly. It's sort of unfightable. I don't think it's malicious. And it's not that fibromyalgia isn't awful or that better representation isn't a good idea, but it's not the same as being starved to death in hospital (as nearly happened to my DH and does happen regularly to others) because nobody thinks your life has value. Not words but actions.

I just - I mean. I just don't find it useful, is the thing. It doesn't help me, in my life. I can't see how it translates to any productive action apart from making some individual people feel better. But feelings are such a luxury, aren't they? I don't know. I guess I'm wrong.

Tanacot that was a really interesting post and your examples were very enlightening to me, thank you

You're not wrong, BTW

math apparently transsexualism is relatively common in Iran as it is more acceptable than homosexuality. This from wiki:

UNHCR's 2001 report says that sex reassignment surgery is performed frequently and openly in Iran, and that homosexual and cross-dressing people, although unrelated to transsexualism, would be safe as long as they keep a low profile. However, the Safra Project's 2004 report considers UNHCR's report over-optimistic. The Safra Project's report suggests that UNHCR underestimated legal pressure over transsexual and LGBT matters.

The report further states that currently, it is not possible for presumed transsexual individuals to choose not to undergo surgery - if they are approved for sex reassignment, they are expected to undergo treatment immediately. Those who wish to remain "non-operative" (as well as those who cross-dress and/or identify as genderqueer) are considered their biological gender, and as such they are likely to face harassment as being homosexuals and subject to the same laws barring homosexual acts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

I will say though that it's really not just transactivists who follow this reasoning. If you have fibromyalgia, it's now fine to identify as quadriplegic, tell quadriplegic people they are bigoted for not agreeing, and that really you are more impaired because no one believes you. This really happens.

Excellent post Tanacot

Is it really the case that people are identifying as quadriplegic? Wow.

I don't understand how anyone can identify as these things "working class", "poor", "disabled" if the things have no meaning in themselves. I think this is similar to Buffy's much more detailed posts about post-structuralism and truth.

This is the crux of it isn't it.

We are being told we can no longer 'identify' as female because being female is no longer a defined thing.

So we can no longer identify with each other, work towards a better reality for ourselves.

Scary

So if being female is not a defined thing.

How can someone know if they want to be one?

I don't see how it can be done either. I can see the appeal of choice and choosing one's identity, but in patriarchy, which is the current global regime that we all live under, I think it is a pipe dream for most people, especially women/the poor/people of colour/etc.

I think we need the revolution first and we need it to happen everywhere, for everyone, globally. I don't think self-identity will bring about the revolution.

And yes, we should interrogate what truth is and challenge monolithic society (which is what feminism does), but surely the very meaning of monolithic is that these things are massive and very slow, and resistant, to change.

I can see that maybe a few privileged people can change things for themselves as individuals using this method, but that doesn't mean a global and historic system has changed. And if these few privileged people claim that their exceptional situation is some kind of truth for everyone else (if they would just get with the programme already) they aren't helping the bigger picture and they are potentially damaging things for those less privileged than themselves because that truth is individualistic and kind of suggests that others who do not achieve it, have only have themselves to blame. And that disappears the truth of others which is that choice is currently an illusion for the vast majority of us and that global systems of oppression are structural and need to be fought on class levels.

(I am not saying that you personally do any of these things Corey.)

It reminds me of myself when I was a young feminist and I thought that being a feminist was quite easy. I thought it was easy because I was young, healthy, educated, white, childless, inexperienced and had the combined blinkers of inexperience and youthful optimism that allowed me to be pretty selfish and relatively free.

Radical feminists have an expression that you may be familiar with which is "radicalized by motherhood" . What this means is that becoming a parent (mother as a woman) is a like a wake up call to the realities of female existence in male dominated society. And it is something that is entirely rooted in biology. You can self identity all you like but you are the one who is going to be carrying and birthing a baby and that will change your life in ways it will not change a biological male's life. Indeed it changes the lives of childless girls and women too the world over. And it had already affected your life from the very day that your (biologically female) mother gave birth to you, you just weren't analyzing it because it was presented to you as the natural order and you were socialized within that.

Self-identity and its cousin 'agency' strike me as very male centric concepts.

I'm shocked that anyone with fibromyalgia would identify as quadriplegic, do you mean that literally or as an example because they identify as disabled?

I suggest that, as in the case of the bearded be-penised lesbian, someone (them, not you!) is probably trolling!!

That said though, they are both disabled, and potentially the person with fibro is so severely affected that they are "without the use" of limbs (ie could just about stretch to vaguely meet the definition), and comparing who is worse off quickly turns into disability olympics. Maybe not so much in quadroplegia vs fibromyalgia of course, but certainly all the problems inbetween (i fall somewhere inbetween - i dont have fibro, in case you thought i was being defensive)

for your dh and you. Disability is shit.

(I forsee the pc biology lessons being taught as xx and xy btw)

Exactly Anya. If the concept means nothing, then why would you want to be one? How can you be a nothing?

It's really dismissive of women's lived experiences too because it seems to me that if we accept that a) women are discriminated against but also b) that we can be whoever we choose to be; then it's a bit thick and stupid to choose to be someone whose discriminated against. I mean, if you had a complete choice of identity, why wouldn't you pick to be on the side of power?

Oh, and the other thing I really object to is the individualism. I think it's a Thatcher legacy and it stinks. I find it really sticks in my craw that it's been commandeered by the left as something good.

Tanacot is "identifying as quadraplegic" something to do with the concept of being transabled, or is something different ?

Just to clarify, I did mean it literally and it isn't a one off occurrence (on Apparelyzed).

I know it's not allowed in disability circles to ever say that there are worse kinds of disability and I tried hard in my comment to avoid that. But, is it okay to say that they are different problems? Like, if you have a spinal cord injury it has specific and measurable effects on your body, like rapid demineralisation of the skeletal system, for example, that don't happen if you have fibromyalgia. It's a different problem. There are some challenges that are shared, but some really are different. It's not about denying people with fibro.

Tanacot

Can I ask, if you know the sex of the people who are not quadraplegic who want to be identified that way?

Just wondering if there is a trend there. I have my reasons for asking that question!

As in are they mainly men or mainly women, not tell me their names and all their details

I guess you might not know if it's all online.

Yy OddFodd

It is all just smoke and mirrors and post-structuralism's fault for being so bloody obscure and male centric.

And no, the transabled are a whole other different kettle of fish.

I can't think of a kind or useful comment on that movement.

Yy i know, it is hard to word isnt it! I'm not denying there are worse kinds of disability, just saying that in most cases it isnt cut and dry who is worse off. :)

Sorry, not meaning to take over but I didn't answer the last question. Which, no idea tbh on sex. I don't recall a pattern.

80% of spinal cord injury survivors are male so the forums are always pretty man-heavy already.

Bloody hell. Trying to usurp the actual, embodied experiences of quadriplegic people because disability is a feeling or identity or whatever is just incredible.

I say that as someone with a disability that does cause me problems every single day, but really, really isn't comparable to quadriplegia. And my disability is not in any way about identity; it's about the physical capacities of my body and the mismatch between them and what it takes to exist easily and comfortably in the world.

I think the problem is very selective use of postwhateverism. Because the thing about saying that there is no absolute reality (and actually that level of idealism is very philosophically dubious) is that attending to how people and groups use language and other resources to achieve particular ends, and how that affects the world in general, becomes the key thing. It doesn't mean that anything goes because there are consequences for everything (and those consequences are often most profound for those made weakest by social processes). Some people and groups will be more able to (re)construct what we take as reality and exercise power than others and the beneficiaries of that need to try to develop some awareness of that and think a bit beyond themselves. All this individualistic 'choice' bullshit likes to conveniently gloss over that.

And that's not even to get in to how ideas of 'choice' and 'freedom' function as mechanisms of social control insofar as they shift responsibility to individuals and translate all sorts of bigger issues into individual failings to exercise 'choice' and 'freedom' responsibly.

Also, if you're really wanting to go all post-whatever, you'd surely have to concede that the concept of 'identity' itself is entirely incompatible with your whole justification for your right to assert whatever identity you like, regardless how it might affect anyone else.