Radfem2012 banning trans people

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Has anyone seen this? I don't really understand this bigotry against trans gendered people.
If we're trying to make the world a better and equal place through feminism, surely excluding people who also want to do this because of their genitals or the gender they assign themselves is going to make this impossible and is a bit hypocritical?

Sorry XX chromosomes!

The definition of woman is not 'not a man', much though patriarchal society would like to present it as such.

I agree with LRD on that.

I refuse to be othered in this way. I refuse to be identified uniquely by my place in a hierarchy that has been constructed by my oppressors in order to oppress me.

I have an identity, a real physical one that belongs to me and my social group - it is the reason for my oppression and it is therefore the primary tool I have to fight that oppression.

Fantastic post beachcomber.

I'd say the denial of women's biological reality is misogynist.

Oh what a surprise to join this thread and find it has been derailed by a PWAP (person with a penis).

My only experience of trans in real life is on the numerous occasions when I have been at women only events which they have hijacked. They want to come into these women only spaces but then act like men in them- shouting louder, dominating the discussion, robbing women of their airtime, silencing others, being argumentative, refusing to compromise, steering the discourse round to their own agenda, not listening to others. These have not been pleasant experiences and are the very reason why they as a group are being excluded from radfem2012.

Selfishly, I know, but sometimes I want to be in a communal space where there are no penises or bodies which once had penises. When discussing topics like rape I want to KNOW there are no rapists or rape weapons in the room just as I don't want someone with a gun or knife to come into a plane with me. Not all men are rapists, yes, but I have the right to fear the rape weapon they possess just as I fear the person who carries a gun or knife.

Flame me.

"I do not accept this because otherwise I lose my biological identity and therefore the ability to claim that I, and all women globally, are oppressed due to our biological identity. Like I said, game over for feminism. "

Game would be only over for feminism which subscribes to this very narrow theory, not feminism in general. It's sad that the only response to something which challenges your own world view is to immediately reject it, instead of taking it as a reason to review your own views.

There's more than only the XY and XX combo, when it comes to humans. Sticking to just those two is ignoring a lot of peoples realities.

WidowWadman Exactly!

Why does it matter how many people there are or what the percentage is of people with chromosomal disorders. Do you want to deny people's realities, just because they're in a minority?

www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Link about frequency of intersex conditions. Though I agree with WW, why does it matter how few or how many people are intersexed? The fact that the world cannot be divided into two sections of XX and XY chromasones is still pertinent as it undermines a big portion of radfem ideology.

What's MRA's please? As in MRA's and derailers on page 11. This is a really interesting discussion.

Thanks very much. Thought everybody had the same pages!

WidowWadman the idea that women exist as a distinct biological group is not a 'narrow theory' - it is a biological reality.

It is a patriarchal reality - there are few things patriarchy and feminists agree on, but one of those is that women exist as a distinct biological group. Hence the desire to oppress us. This is feminism 101.

You say; It's sad that the only response to something which challenges your own world view is to immediately reject it, instead of taking it as a reason to review your own views.

Please don't talk to me like you know me, or make patronising assumptions about me. I have actually thought and read quite a lot about this issue. There has been no immediate rejection.

I don't reject the notion that a man can become a biological woman because it doesn't fit in with my 'world view'. I reject that notion because it is flawed and is an existential post modern thought construction - it has no physical concrete reality.

One has to engage in serious mental gymnastics/double think/cognitive dissonance in order to argue otherwise. (Or one is happy to erase the biological identity of women as a group.)

If women no longer exist, in theory, as a sex group, our sex based oppression is, in theory, magicked away.

The concrete physical reality of that oppression will still be there though - just as the concrete reality of our biological sex will still be there.

And none of the above denies the reality or existence of intersex people (who always seem to be co-opted, whether they like or not, into trans arguments).

Intersex people have a concrete physical identity. The existence of intersex people does not magic away male supremacy and the sex based oppression of women as a group (if only!).

I'm still interested to hear on what basis people think women are oppressed, if it is not the fact that we belong to the group which bears children.

Why does patriarchy exist? Why are women and children, historically in some places, and currently in others, considered chattel (of men)?

This is not a radical or narrow view. It is the bricks and mortar of feminism and it is based in reality.

just want to applaud Beachcomber's posts on this thread.

Nobody's denying the oppression. What I'm denying is that trans women steal non trans women's identity.

Those trans women who choose to live entirely as a woman, and are, for all intents and purposes not differentiable from those women who have been born with female reproductive organs don't threaten my identity and I don't see why they would. They live as women, and thus face the same problems. It doesn't matter to me much that they have not always lived as women.

Those trans people who rather identify as trans and not claim to be the other gender don't threaten my identity either. Why would they?

WidowWadman your above post reads to me as cognitive dissonance.

It contains two contradictory thoughts;

1. that women exist as a biological group (and are oppressed as a consequence).

2. that 'living as a woman' is the definition of a physical woman.

Thought 1 is concrete physical reality.

Thought 2 is an unprovable existential thought construction.

TunipTheVegemal and HotheadPaisan.

I don't think it is transgender people who are 'stealing' women's identities. One issue is the people who have decided that everybody must be classified based on an internal gender identity whether they like it or not.

Another issue is people who claim that having the kind of body which discriminatory practices around childbirth, breastfeeding, IVF, pregnancy, abortion and certain forms of contraception targets is actually a privilege.

I don't think it is generally trans people who are arguing for either of those things. The people who argue for those things generally define themselves as 'cisgendered.'