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?

I may well be showing my ignorance - but, assuming MtF transsexuals turned up, and participated as women, would most people notice?

I assume perhaps not (especially given this valid point that feminists aren't very likely to look at a masculine-seeming women and judge her).

So, is this actually (again) not about whether or not MtF transsexuals could participate, but whether or not they should be participating and treated as a separate group? It's like the labels 'cis' and 'trans': I would find it a whole lot easier to believe MtF transsexuals wanted to be women if trans activists did not insist we need a label to make this group of 'women' different from that other group of 'women'.

Maybe I am too cynical, but if MfF transsexuals did go to RadFem2012, would it be ok to treat them just like other women there, and to expect them to discuss only the issues other women there had had?

It's just it often seems that what's being demanded isn't 'can MtF transsexuals come to this event and be treated just like the other participants?' it's 'can MtF transsexuals come to this event, have their own space, put some extra issues on the agenda, and be recognized as a special group-within-a-group'. To do that, you have to knock everyone else out of place.

So women cannot be allowed to have just one female-only feminist event, because that's bigoted.

"They are a very marginalised group, faced with a very high risk of violence"
Will trans attending to a female-only feminist event suddenly fix this? I don't understand? There is also high stats of gay men attempting suicide. Should they also be allowed into women's spaces? Must all oppressed groups always allow all other oppressed groups on any event? No, it's just women, isn't it.

Good points, LRD.

I'm pretty sure anyone is welcome at gay pride events. I'm not gay but I fully support gay rights, I'm not trans gendered but I think they have the right to be treated equally, if they identify as a particular gender then I think that this should be respected, and if a trans woman wants to take part in an event for women then this should be allowed. I'd also like to point out that my partner is not a woman, but he is a feminist, it seems foolish to exclude people who support feminism from any feminist action, as there is strenth in numbers surely? We're not going to fix the world without the majority on board, otherwise it just leads to an us and them mentality and nobody wins.

allthe - I think the reason for sometimes having women-only events is not because people don't believe your partner is a feminist, or don't believe he can support women's rights - it's because it is possible to do those things, and attend all sorts of events that welcome everyone, and also accept that women-only events are ok.

Otherwise, it comes across a bit like saying, 'well, if this fight of yours is really so important, you need men to win it!'

Nobody is waving a white flag and begging men to come and save the day. It is only reasonable to assume that a movement that is supposed to be changing the world isn't going to get very far if it excludes a huge chunk of the population.
This decision to exclude trans is denying people who identify as women to take part in an event for a group that they feel they belong to. Supporting the exclusion of trans people is bigoted and it is downright cruel. Feminism is supposed to be about fighting for equality, not replacing one marginalised group with another.

personally, I think women only events are as neccessary as men only events, or whites only events i.e. not at all

Yes I read it earlier. I don't really get the whole "ban the trans" attitude but then I'm not a radfem so I wouldn't.
I really really don't get the whole "you have to be a lesbian to be a real radfem" either - but still, it limits the numbers.

Ah, yes, WW. Women, men, and white people - three groups who've all historically been treated exactly the same.

Seriously?

What an idiotic parallel to draw.

allthe - um, that's why I pointed out it's possible to do both, yes? What's wrong with that?

"personally, I think women only events are as neccessary as men only events, or whites only events i.e. not at al"

Because women are not an oppressed group, amirite?
Lots of people disagree with this obviously. They're often called feminists. And they should be allowed to have their own meeting if they want to.

It is well known that growing up with any difference is terribly hard and that trans people are subject to huge amounts of hostility and violence. That is a terrible thing and I support trans groups and people in trying to improve things for themselves.

That said

I became a feminist because of my experience of growing up as a girl in the UK. Through school and very much experiences in my teenage years. I believe that there are issues growing up as a boy as well although obviously as I grew up as a girl I have not experienced them firsthand.

Someone who has grown up as a boy has not had the same experience as someone who has grown up as a girl. They just haven't. If I say to a group of women about some things that happened to me and my friends when we were young they nod and understand - they have been there. There is a shared background.

I would not think to say that I understood what it is to be born and raised male, or black, or very poor, or very rich, or very tall, or anything that I am not. It doesn't bother me that I do not know how it feels, I empathise as best I can and give sympathy but I haven't lived it.

I don't know if that makes sense.

Also the comments about people being "sex checked" at the door are ridiculous - I would think that the organisers having said who the conference is for would hope that only people who it is for attend.

I don't see the point in black people only events either. Happy now?

Well said, SQ.

Yak Non disabled people would not be excluded from a disablility rights group, nor would any jewish meeting ban anyone of a different religous orientation. If people visit these meetings just to stir up trouble they would most likely be ejected, but generally people who don't typically 'belong' there would be welcomed if their intentions were good. Which is the mature, sensible and moral approach to take.

Really, allethe? You seem extremely sure.

It's odd, you see, because actually when I've been along to courses at university for disabled students, they did exclude non-disabled students.

Interesting points LRD about how it would be virtually impossible to screen all entrants to the event to ensure they were entitled to attend. Interestingly enough, apart from some kind of medical test, the only way to assess would be reliance on (gasp) gender-based characteristics (the same ones most feminists and yes, most trans feminists reject!)

Widow, where you and I part company is that I do believe there are benefits in activities, meetings, etc. that are designated for specific groups that experience social, economic and political disadvantage in society. Men as a group don't. Women as a group do.

However, a group for disabled men (who experience disadvantage) would be legitimate in the way that a group for non-disabled men (who are more privileged because they are not disabled) would not be.

Similarly, an event for people of colour would be relevant because despite the diversity of ethnicities, cultural, faith, linguistic, etc. backgrounds, they will all in some way have been on the sharp end of racial discrimination or oppression in the UK in some form. An event for white people only would not be the same.

I also agree that within say a women-only event, it's legitimate to have specific meetings, groups, etc. for women who experience intersectional oppression due to misogyny and one or more other factors related to their identity. For example this could be Lesbians, older women, women of colour, disabled women, working class women, and trans women.

But, imho, it doesn't work other way around to have an event that is for women (because of their shared identity and experience of oppression as a group) that excludes a sub-group of women who experience intersectional discrimination. I accept that indirectly, there are events that are "women-only" that effectively exclude disabled women (e.g. held in inaccessible venues), women of some faith traditions (e.g. held on a Saturday,) or low income women (e.g. high fees, travel costs, etc.), but having an event that so explicitly excludes a group of women who experience intersectional oppression is what has been so jarring.

The nut of the issue seems to be that some feminists flatly refuse to countenance that trans women are women. No evidence, whether scientific, social, political or personal will shake them from this belief and it appears that no anecdote or thin theoretical risk is too outrageous to use in defence of that belief.

I had a great aunt who grew up with racial segregation in the American South and was horrified by the civil rights movement in the 1960's. She went her grave a few years later with the unshakable belief that African Americans were a kind of sub species and not fully human as white Americans were. I'm remembering my overhearing of her conversations with my polite-but-not-persuaded mum when I see tweets and blogs and discussions insisting that trans women can never, ever, under any circumstances be "genuine" women.

How do you know that allthegoodnews?

I am sure that there are groups exclusively for Jewish people and for disabled people.

The oppression of women around the world is to do with their sex at birth though.
People who are female at birth (or assigned female if they are intersex) do have a shared experience which is relevant to whichever country they grow up in. Most of the issues are surrounding sex - sexualisation of teenaged girls, whether by encouraging them to cover up or uncover, street harrassment, sexual coercion, issues relating to pregnancy, childbirth and so on.

If there is no shared experience between girls that is different to the experience between boys, and no relevance of things to do with pregnancy and childbirth, then is all of the oppression around the world imaginary? I don't get it.

If you were not jewish, but you were interested in the jewish faith, you would be able to attend a meeting. Same for a church or other place of worship. And as for disabled groups, if they are about activism and improving rights for disabled people then you would be allowed to attend even if you were not disabled. (LRD what kind of course was it? If it was a support group/course of some kind then that is different to a disability rights group)
The only places I can see any benefit in being woman only, (and I would still allow trans women) would be rape survivor meetings, or domestic violence support groups. Radfem is not a support group, it is about activism. The exclusion of men and trans gendered people is not necessary and it only makes it more difficult to achieve equality.

kri - I accept that (to the best of my understanding) MtF transsexuals define gender as a meaningful category, and a state of being that is internal not external. On that basis, I understand why they say they have female gender identity. But I don't understand why this should mean I have to have 'cis' gender identity, or indeed any gender identity at all.

Maybe it'd be simpler to suggest Radfem2012 invite people who don't believe in gender identity and have XX chromosomes? We could call this group 'women'.

'If you were not jewish, but you were interested in the jewish faith, you would be able to attend a meeting. Same for a church or other place of worship.'

No, this is incorrect.

There are lots of groups that will exclude people. Generally perfectly politely, but it's done. DH's church won't let me attend the bit of the service where they believe the bread and wine become body and blood, because I don't believe in the same as them and am not a member.

Get your facts straight.

In my experience, religious groups welcome people who do not belong to the faith to attend their services and groups. There may be certain parts of the service you would be unable to take part in, such as the bread and wine in a catholic church, but I can't see why you would want to actively take part in something you didn't believe in, whereas I can see how passively observing the service could satisfy your interest without going against your beliefs.

Sardine and Yak, I've heard the argument that trans women won't have the same shared experience as women who were identified and regarded as female since birth.

However, I don't think it's fair to assume that trans women had the same experience (or privileges!) as other men who were identified and regarded as male since birth. Most trans men and women describe feeling they were wrongly "labelled" very early on in childhood, being forced to conform to an identity they couldn't relate to, experiencing bullying and abuse. Trans girls (like many gay boys) often experience abuse predicated on misogyny - on the idea that being female or in any way "not male" is inherently inferior.

But, even if we accept that some trans women will have experienced some degree of male privilege before transitioning, we have also to accept that within the group "women" and amongst feminists, there are some who will have experienced more privilege than others. White women won't have had to deal with the racism that is inherent in the experience of women of colour. Straight women won't have encountered heterosexism. Middle class and/or educated women will benefit from the confidence, connections and economic advantage that poorer women don't enjoy.

The childhood experience of growing up as a white girl or a black girl, as a disabled girl or a non disabled girl, as a middle class girl and a working class girl could have just as many similarities and as many differences as growing up as a girl identified as female from birth and a trans girl.

When I think of it, perhaps a closer parallel might be a person who has been disabled from birth and someone who becomes disabled later in life through illness or accident. Yes, the latter may have enjoyed privileges from not being disabled earlier in life - able to go to mainstream school and maybe university, able to move around freely, communicate and socialise without undue restrictions, not being marginalised or judged based on a disability. Perhaps the earlier privileges led them to be in a more economically or socially advantaged position when they became disabled, but that doesn't mean they necessarily continue to retain these.

But, surely that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to exclude people from an event for disabled people unless they were disabled from birth. Yes, you it would be legitimate to have a group say for people who were living with the same condition, but I don't think it would go down well to have an event only for wheelchair users who have never walked without aids or blind people who have never had vision.