New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

[oilfilledlamp]

Please forgive the intrusion but I've been out tonight and only recently got back. I wanted to respond to MadWomanintheattic earlier when she posted

"If I were an mtf trans (pre op or post op) the last place I'd want to fetch up is in a women's refuge, because of the potential for making other people feel ill at ease. But nothing is clear cut, really.

How often does this happen, really? Has there been any research into prevalence and motivation?

It was an interesting debate, Hully, up to that point, and thank you for starting it.

If Scratchy isn't a man I'll eat my... something not very edible, probably. (All out of hats.)

Oh, wait, you started the other one. Very confused now. Haven't had enough tea this morning.

I wanted falling to come back and answer if mtf trans would be welcome at feminist conferences if they behaved with respect for all concerned...
Falling? Are you there?

Most feminist conferences are for people of all genders, so being trans would be a non-issue.

Oh, I get that. The difficulty seemed to be that it was the dictatorial presence of the mtf trans that were causing feminists to become more protective of a born woman only space. Transactivists demanding no discussion of women's reproductive health etc, because it was exclusionary and discriminative towards trans.

I just wanted to clarify that it was the actual behaviour that was causing the difficulty, not the mtf presence per se.

And I'm sure it is. It's impossible to be welcoming or even ambivalent when you are being told (at high volume and in a disruptive manner) that you can't discuss x,y or z, when that is a fundamental part of the conference...

Presumably there are conferences where transwomen go and there is no issue, conferences where transwomen go and there are issues because of disputes over the content and topics of the conference being not particularly relevant to transwomen and conferences which transwomen feel they are not welcome at all in any way..

I think the two issues that tend to come up more are:

1. Conferences that are women only and don't actually specify whether or not transwomen can go. I don't think there are conferences in the UK that would actually say that transwomen couldn't go, so not mentioning whether the conference is open to transwomen or not gives the impression that they aren't welcome.

1. Conferences that are open to people regardless of gender, but then have sessions that are women only. These are usually because they are going to be personal workgroups that are about a specific topic (abortion say) where women are going to talk in groups about their own experiences. Again, transwomen may feel excluded by both the topic and also by having neither been explicitly excluded or invited.

1. Women only events that transmen attend and are welcomed into. This has offended transwomen because some of them don't want transmen in a woman's only space.

Sorry, that was three issues, not two! Hopefully it makes sense.

Not ignoring thread busy with child care will reply later

It makes perfect sense, sea, but I don't know whether that's how it goes as I'm well out of the loop.

The inference I think was not to do with feelings, it was that discussion was being trampled all over and halted as a result of direct action. which is obv not on from anyone, but had been particularly suggested as a problem with transactivists (but I think could be the same with any oppressed group)

RL, falling? Wassat?

I'm out of the loop as well TBH. I was recently invited to a woman's only event, not a conference(but it was a bit new agey and not my cup of tea) and they didn't specify if transwomen were welcome or not, presumably because the whole thing hadn't really occurred to them. They were certainly very unfamiliar with all the terminology when questioned. The questions they were asked were very much along the lines of if transwomen hadn't specifically been mentioned, then they felt that was a sign they were unwelcome.

Mm. The last conference I went to in the uk was more academic

And thinking about it, going back a bit further, I've been to a couple of conferences on masculinity as well... Obviously a much wider audience, with a lot of male speakers, but pretty much covering all gender bases. There were no specific workshops on infertility or male sexual health or whatever, but gendered behaviour and violence was definitely on the agenda.

But no threat, perhaps?

Perceived threat, I should have said.

I would think it would depend on the conference. I've tended to be involved in organising events that are mixed rather than women only - I've generally worked with men too. But I think there is a very important role for women only space and respect the desire of some feminists to work that way. Also I've not personally experienced violence so I think it is not for me to tell women who have who they should feel comfortable sharing their experiences with.

I do think that some feminists who have wanted to avoid taking sides have come down on the radfem side because of the attitudes of SOME trans activists.

For some it is less about excluding specific transwomen who want to be active in women only feminist spaces it is about rejecting the demand that feminists accept the radical trans definition of woman. When you hear or read someone say that a person with a penis, who uses that penis to have penetrative sex with their partner should be considered a woman simply because that is who they say they are then that does make women who are used to dealing with incredibly manipulative violent men a bit wary. Not that they don't necessarily trust that particular person but because they can see that accepting that definition would mean any man who wanted access to vulnerable women could get it simply by saying they were a woman. That is 'cis' men using the trans definition of woman in order to abuse women.

I know that to change gender identity under the law requires far more than this and is a long drawn out process but I also know that there are plenty of transactivists who insist that a person is a woman if they say they are a woman.

On a personal level I am happy in most situations to treat people as though they were the sex they identify as being. But I'm not sure if I am honest with myself how much of that is about the desire to be accepting and well mannered and how much is about me actually believing them. When I read blog posts from transwomen who identify as lesbians complaining that other lesbians don't want to have sex with them because they have a penis my first thought is not 'those mean transphobic lesbians' it is 'they are lesbians - they have sex with women'. Having said that I know transwomen who I have always considered women'.

I think good manners and sensitivity can help avoid or find solutions to many of the problems between transwomen and radical feminists but at the end of the day there is a fundamental conflict about who gets to define what a woman is. If I am forced to chose I have to say that I don't buy the idea that a person is a woman if they say they are.

i think that's really fair.

it is 'who gets to define what a man or a woman is', though. and at the mo, it's the law.

it's obviously very emotive (and i find the stereotypical hoop jumping of the RLE extraordinary. a nonsense. i'm not a woman because i wear a skirt. but then i'm not particularly hung up on the fact that i am a woman. and would prefer to be seen as an individual, rather than be categorised by gender. tis part of the reason i find the whole argument baffling.)

do you think the absence of ftm from the (noisier) debate is contributing to the rad fem v mtf polarisation? so much attention is concerned with the mtf aspect (and i get that it's to do with (perceived) vulnerability for women) that the fact that the law works equally in the other direction gets ignored.

is that just to do with the vulnerability aspect? because (born) men don't feel threatened by ftm? (haven't seen stats for attacks against trans segregated by mtf/ ftm, i don't think... that said, i could be completely wrong and it could just be a contextual mn thing, and there is an additional (male/ ftm) backlash going on somewhere else... )

does it matter what a woman is?
(genuine question)
i have no issue with vaw being a concern, or issues surroundijng childbirth, or reproductive health, but is it really a necessity to get right down to the nitty gritty of what constitutes 'woman'? is is for inclusion purposes? (noting infertility etc) or is it for exclusion purposes?

It matters if you want to have women only spaces to for example discuss male violence against women. Of course there are times when you have to have discussions in mixed spaces (if you want to change the law for example you will have to convince male MPs) but I don't think it is unreasonable for a woman who has been raped for example to feel more comfortable discussing her experiences in an all female group.

Recently I was at a policy based discussion on violence against women which was not set up as women only but happened to be. At one point a woman (who was there with a professional hat on) started to speak from her personal experience. Other women also there as 'professionals' rather than 'survivors/service users' followed suit. It was a powerful and moving discussion that raised issues that might not have been raised. Several people said afterwards that it was the all women space that made them feel able to speak from experience.

Also there are situations where most women feel happier in single sex spaces - changing rooms, hospital wards etc. and others where men and women are segregated for safety like prison. It matters.

And finally for many feminists organising without men is part of their feminism. As I said it isn't an approach I share most of the time- but I think it is an important strand of feminism and I defend it. For many women who have been patronised, ignored or talked down to by men in other progressive movements there is a huge relief to find a space to discuss the issues you care about without men. Sometimes you need to do that in order to organise strategies to deal with the men in the mixed groups.

i suppose i feel that it matters whilst violence is an issue. and whilst the talking down, and patronising etc is an issue. and i understand that it's utopian to believe that we can get to a place where it isn't. but sad that so much energy is exerted on preserving the binary instead of smashing it to oblivion... (cue random violence, and an acknowledgement that, er, that's the intention )

sad that there is the current necessity for gendered spaces perhaps? (or the feeling that women aren't free to speak about their very personal experiences in front of men, that this doesn't help men/ wider society understand the problem and seek to end it themselves?) and wanting more action to get rid of the need for it, than to put up the barricades and preserve it a little more.

i don't have any issue with anyone seeking whatever sort of therapist they want, or with experience groups per se, and i can see that open spaces would potentially negate the sort of ad hoc sharing that can occur, but wonder if the enclosed nature makes it more of a 'woman's issue' than a societal issue? and particularly where mtf are involved (who may have experienced violence etc in equal or greater measure because of their identified gender, and feel they want to discuss it. it is different, but similar enough for someone to feel excluded, i think.)

i can see the strategic element. and there should be room for everyone to engage in whatever they like, really, which is where motivation comes into play. and behaviour.

completely circular, really... (and i support safe spaces in rl, but have absolutely no desire for the creation of a 'third sex' as suggested upthread, with concomitant additional public facilities, so that trans in any form aren't in contact with either 'born' men or women. there will be no end to gender oppression if that happens)

sorry, thought wrote a response which must have got lost. Can't remember everything I wrote but:

I am not a seperatist, and over the past 20 years I have worked with men on many feminist campaigns. Rather I have worked with mainly women and some men! But I recognise the need for female only space and I am glad of the work of seperatist feminists even if my own approach has been different.

I don't want to exclude people for the sake of it. I have seen transwomen who have been really upset by some of the language used about them on line and in discussions, and by being excluded from groups they wanted to support. I don't want to hurt anyone. But nor do I want women who have been abused to feel that they cannot feel safe.

I'm backtracking on the third sex thing. I was being informed by my experiences in Brazil, but travestis aren't segregated from women or men. They just go as they please. It would be interesting to hear some viewpoints from Brazilian feminist women, and feminist travestis, too, but I'm really trying not to launch a personal research project on it ... Are there any such reading? Please would you post?

I've got quite a lot of trans stuff on slves somewhere from a few years back, but not sure if anything relevant ( and my shelves are groaning under the weight of accumulated interesting diversions tbh )

.... Hmm, found a susan Stryker text where katrina roen discusses fa'afafine in Samoan culture, which sounds similar? A fa'afafine she interviews says 'English terms... They're awful. [they] actually tell you how that society views that person. My culture just views it 'like a woman'. And it's like a special woman. It's a knowledgeable woman but recognised [ as] anatomically male.'

But roen says fa'afafine doesn't imply 'dissatisfaction with sexed embodiment', it's constructed 'across sexuality and gender'. Does that sound similar to how travestis are incorporated into society in brazil? The interviewee says that moving to the US was really difficult, because of the 'palagi system of dividing and labelling sexualities and genders', which caused discrimination. Fa'afafine don't routinely have GRS, but some younger fa'afafine who move to the west decide to, to fit in with the trans scene and for acceptance in a different society.

... And goes on to talk about westernisation and the effect etc.

I hadn't actually read that article before, but have used other bits of the book. Interesting though.

I don't know enough about Samoan culture to be able to contextualise swimming pool changing and attitudes to rape support though! No idea how that all works... But maybe the rape support isn't as much of an issue if the fa'afafine are valued members of society and not 'othered' in a negative way?

The effects of westernisation aspect is intriguing though. I guess the negatives are balanced by the positives.

But have found a reference that looks interesting - emi kayama ' whose feminism is it anyway? - the unspoken racism of the the trans inclusion debate'
I don't think the idea is unspoken on mn lol. Might have a look later.

Right, dinner.