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?

47. Being able to claim I am a woman and female despite my penis, and have people not only believe me but support me against biological women who disagree.

"What is the message that is being sent out about feminism by this ban?"

That feminism is a women's movement, that women are oppressed by men as a class, and that the definition of women is adult human female?

"How is it going to be enforced?"

Why does it need to be enforced. Surely you aren't saying that these males are going to ignore a woman's no and transgress women's boundaries.

"Can you identify a transwoman and a woman?"

Mostly. Most trans don't pass.

"Or would you expect a transwoman to respect the ban and stay away?"

Of course. It's not a ban either, it's a lack of invitation. The conference is for people with female biology.

I don't think there is a need to discuss them. At any meeting of an identity group, you rely on people's honesty and if somebody is dishonest and attends anyway, it isn't the end of the world.

There will certainly have been straight women who have gone into lesbian events. There isn't any way of checking. There isn't some kind of perfect solution.

I'm referring to the male-invented institution of trans Kim. Which is another example of male privilege in action - males co-opting and colonising women's reality and female being.

PMSL at this For me, this is an issue of intersectionality of oppression. That's a concept that I think is often misunderstood and one which imho, radical feminist thinkers are unwilling or unable to engage with fully.

KRITIQ, are you being serious?

Intersectionality is just a big word for a really simple concept.

Being a woman in a patriarchy sucks, being black in a white supremacy sucks, being homosexual in a heterosexualy dominated society sucks, etc.

We all know that rich white adult males are at the top of the pile and poor female children of colour at the bottom, with the rest of us all somewhere in between.

People talk about intersectionality like it is a really profound concept - it isn't, it is obvious to anyone who understands what privilege is and how it operates with systematic oppression.

within systematic oppression

Or would you expect a transwoman to respect the ban and stay away

YES!

Your new proposed list, would help explain what better?
It seems it would help deny that there is any kkind of oppression of women or discrimination against them?

I have seen in discussions here and elsewhere the insistence by radical feminists that patriarchal oppression is the root of all other forms of oppression and/or that misogynistic oppression effectively trumps all other forms of oppression. However you slice it, that suggests a belief that misogyny is inherently "worse" than racism, homophobia, class oppression, etc.

Have you KRITIQ?

I have never heard radical feminists claim that misogyny is worse than racism.

I have heard them argue (indeed I have explored it myself) that patriarchy is the 'mother of all oppressions/systems of dominance' - and therefore that white supremacy is a manifestation of patriarchy. (Which strikes me as pretty logical.)

That doesn't go to say that the oppression of people of colour is in some way not as bad as the oppression of women. At all.

Have I got this right? This is about a conference FOR radical feminists. Some people who do not identify with radical feminist politics have the hump that the red carpet isn't being rolled out for them?

I think I'll gate crash the next NUT conference and chant "what about the accontantz" .

NYAC re no.47 and narked

I agree with the sentiments completely

I have only recently realised that I could be described as a feminist, and the more I read the more i identify with radical feminism

I have been struggling with my feelings about MTF transgender, but I feel viscerally that they are not women in the same way I am-life experiences-stuff already listed and covered here

It has only since I came here that I realised that MTF can access women only services like womens refuges etc. I cant quite articulate exactly my feelings about it- bit frightened/certainly oppression.....

narked.....it really does smack of entitlement...is that because the male privelege follows them??? (going to read thread all the way through now...is probably covered and how the discussion ended up here?)

ItsNotUnusual, you've got it right...

Bejeezus, the bit about MTFs being able to access refuges concerns me. It really does. When I entered my first, my second, third, fourth refuge; each time, I was grateful for the woman and child only space that was available to myself and other DV survivors. We were free from men, to escape the terrible things men had done to us. Men had hit us, punched us, kicked us. They'd made us question our self worth. Some drove us to the brink to suicide, some raped us, others tried to kill us. So, being in spaces in which we knew we'd be warned if there was any reason for a man being in our presence was a reassurance to us. It gave us the space and time to heal. I entered the first refuge convinced that everyone hated me. It was the support of women who helped me rebuild myself; the survivors in the fourth refuge went on to become some of my closest friends - we helped rebuild each other, cheered each other's achievements, helped each other move, looked out for each other. All crazy little things we take for granted. I don't think that with the presence of a man, we could have done that. I think 50% of us would have left, 30% of us would have been hiding, and the other 20% would have been actively speaking out and saying it wasn't right. I wouldn't expect a man to have to deal with a woman in a space designed for him to heal.

I'll probably get shouted down for "hating men", now, or being transphobic. Neither is the case. But what I do hate is this constant moving of the goalposts, the constant redefining of what it is to be a woman. My womanhood is sacred to me; society's desire for me to be what it calls feminine isn't. You can be as feminine as you like, and still be a man. You can be as masculine as you like and still be a woman. But we insist on labelling traits masculine and feminine, and it's harming people; it's harming women, who feel they have to be the meek, subservient housewives; it's harming women who feel they need their oppressors to protect them; it's harming women who turn to the beauty bible and instead of seeing the beauty in their own bodies, turn them into modelling clay; lose a few pounds by the end of the week, get a nose job, wear these heels which will be impossible to walk in; you're wearing the wrong jeans, you're wearing the wrong hair, and that shirt belongs on a man (and this is just in Western Civilisation... I haven't started on FGM, foot binding, DV... I haven't started on men's hate crimes against us); and if you try to escape the chains of the patriarchy, they look at you like you're crazy. We're driven to fit into the patriarchal moulds, whereas no-one cares whether a man shaves or not; no-one cares whether he's just washed his face or done the full cleanse/tone/moisturise ritual. No one cares if he's wafer thin, or larger than life. And no one cares if he's the quiet one in the corner, or the one who's dominating the conversation. Men don't get told what to wear, how to shape their hair this week; not the way we do. They get told who to objectify, who to desire, they get told sex sells, and women are the ultimate reward. And now, not only do you get the chance to "win" us, you get the chance to become us; all this oppression, you claim, is now yours.

All you're doing, when you say you're becoming a woman because you're not masculine enough is strengthening the patriarchal noose around our necks. "Here's our gender binary, and you will conform". Just so you can fit in to the patriarchy somewhere.

stars and you have to wonder HOW many wimen that need refuge will be put off

Too many. Far too many. Had it got to the point where I needed to escape the ex, but I knew I'd have to live with another man to do so, I'd have ended up losing my son to social services; because I wouldn't have been able to live with a man, whilst trying to recover from the abuse inflicted on me by a man. And that doesn't mean I hate men; it means I'm being honest about what I needed to recover. I'd have either ended up on the streets, or staying with the ex; neither of which would have ensured I could have kept DS. I would have ended up dead sooner or later.

To the MTFs that need to escape abuse, please do, but please, not the refuge route. I'm begging you. For every survivor, and for every potential survivor, I'm begging you. There's other routes you can take. There's the B & Bs, there's shelters, there's restraining orders; none of which are ideal, I know. Hell, even try and find a way for the Trans community to set up its own refuge network. But refuges need to be single sex so we can recover from the hurt men have inflicted upon us. It's not about gender. It's about the sex that was used to oppress us in the first place

To be honest, Kim, I don't know. And I hate that society's set up this way. It's not the individuals, in large numbers, who should change. It's society. Because, you know, in my feminist utopia, your sex wouldn't define who you are. But we're not in that utopia. We're stuck in a patriarchal dystopia, which is choking all of us. Not just women, may I add.

My four year old DS came home from nursery, just before Christmas, with a book he'd chosen as his prize for musical chairs. Nursery manager handed it over, and apologised for the fact it was a bright pink Disney Cinderella book. She was apologising for the fact my son was coming out of nursery with something she deemed "feminine".

My mother is my favourite example of an enforcer of the patriarchy. A conversation between her and my (at the time) two year old DS went as follows:
DS Nanny's pretty.
DM Oh, thank you DS
DS Mummy's pretty
DM Yes, Mummy's pretty
DS Am I pretty?
DM No, you're handsome
Needless to say, my DS, who had never heard the word "handsome" (he'd picked up "pretty" from nursery; he's since changed to "brootiful" and is of the firm belief ANYONE can be "brootiful") took it to mean the opposite of pretty and burst into tears. I've had regular comments from my DM, telling me that I should really keep DS's hair shorter and thinned out, because people might mistake him for a girl. She's regularly told me that DS needs a father figure, because where else is he going to learn "boyish" things...

So, what would I tell my son if he said he didn't feel masculine enough to be a man? I'd tell him "that's because you were raised the right way. You're still a man though." Because your sex, that stays with you. Your gender exists as long as the patriarchy allows it to.

Screw the patriarchy, and rebel. Tell them to shove their gender codes where the sun doesn't shine, because it has no place in my feminism. Fuck the gender codes. A woman is a woman, a man is a man, and both can act in which ever manner makes them happy.

Stars your post at 03:17 is brilliant. It's not often I wish MN had a like button but I really do in this case.

Kim, believe me, it's bull. Two loving parents, regardless of sex, brilliant. One loving parent, just as good, especially if the alternative is an abusive parent

DS has only ever had me. So far, he's turned out better than he would have with his father about. He had a male figure in his life for about six weeks towards the end of last year. Unfortunately, he left so abruptly that it completely disrupted DS. DS learns what he wants to learn, wears what he wants to wear, plays with what he wants to play with. I've never once heard him utter the words "that's for girls", or "that's for boys". In fact, the last time he heard that, he put the elderly man in ownership of the comment correct. His exact words were "That's not for girls, it's for DS."

Proud feminist moment...

And thank you, Comrade. :)

It's because the patriarchy has told you what you feel inside isn't compatible with having a penis. It becomes that ingrained in your subconscious.

You're not a "what", you're a "who", and who you are doesn't match who society tries to tell you that you should be. The subconscious can be an extremely powerful thing.

See, we're raised by our parents; our personality was shaped by a mixture of nature and nurture. But our desires are more complex. You've just been told that the things you desire can only be desired by a woman. But it's not the case.

If that makes sense?