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?

Well there you go. How about that for a right good old patriarchal knees up?

Women want to get together and talk about women's issues. And they are being told they can't and they are hate speakers for wanting to do so.

Makes me tired. For about a minute and then it makes me fucking angry.

Kim asked us earlier if we think transpeople exist - looks like we have the proof, shame it is by the means of threats of violence and the harassment of a woman who dares to be a prominent feminist.

IMO the people on this thread who think radical feminists have it wrong about transsexuals, would do better to spend some time explaining to patriarchs and trans activists (the ones who threaten women I mean) to cut it the fuck out.

It was never about you, kim, despite your valiant attempts to make it so.

Quite, Rulers.

KIm, I have said more than once on this thread that I empathise with transpeople with regards to patriarchal discrimination - other posters have said the same thing.

This thread, however is about a radical feminist conference and the fact that radical feminists wish to gather together and talk about their politics and experiences as biological women.

I don't think you have been treated differently on this thread to anyone else. You have been heard, responded to, agreed with , disagreed with - such is the nature on MN. If anything, I think you have been shown a certain sort of deference.

You have asked a lot of questions - we don't necessarily have the answers. Just like we don't necessarily have the answers to our own questions.

Oh come off it Kim.

That list of "positive" female traits was a piss-take surely.

What Rulers said.

kim, when you say no-one has tried to understand ... to be frank, I think you mean 'no-one has agreed with me, you asked questions instead, how dare you?'.

Every time I or someone else tried to get a sense of what your terminology meant, where you were coming from and so on, we were told we'd got it all wrong, being trans is something quite different. But what it was, you would not say ... then you insisted it was all about how much you hated masculinity and started telling us foetuses without male genitalia were automatically female ... and then that stereotypically women were empathetic and lacking in ambition.

In all honesty, it was like watching someone trying to see how many people they could offend.

Your final comments just take the biscuit. Trans issues are 'irrelevant' at a feminist conference ... of course, how dare women think the definition of 'women' matters to them?! And you say:

'If I say anything, I get picked up on it and accused of male stereotyping off females. But it's perfectly OK for feminists to stereotype men.'

Far and away the nastiest comment about men I've seen on this thread was yours. You came right out and said you 'hated' masculinity and everything to do with it. Yet ... now you seem oddly defensive of this sex/gender? Is it only trans people who get to stereotype and use gendered hate-speech?

From what's happened it seems so.

I am gutted about Jeffries. I don't agree with all I've read of hers but I really, really wanted to hear more about what she says about beauty and female bodies.

Kim has been a good example of why trans should not be in rad fem spaces, because Kim insisted on keeping the conversation on Kim, rather than a discussion about biological women being allowed to organise without male interference.

You are conducting your own parallel conversation kim

No one on this thread has shown any hate for you or TG

Why do we need to 'walk in your shoes', or talk to TG people? Transgender issues are irrelevant here.

Actually, I just said that I don't think you have been treated differently Kim, now I think about it, I think you have been treated differently. I think a lot of people have given you an extraordinary amount of space on this thread.

But the fighting against stereotypes is kind of the whole point.

The idea that "girls are like this" and "boys are like that" is wrong and damaging.

There is a very fundamental difference on a very basic level with this stuff.

Nyac Tue 29-May-12 21:46:47
Kim has been a good example of why trans should not be in rad fem spaces, because Kim insisted on keeping the conversation on Kim, rather than a discussion about biological women being allowed to organise without male interference.

Disagree. Rad Fems make it about transgender issues when they 'ban' transgender people rather than banning people who are disruptive and trying to cause problems. The attitude causes a clash. Which is brought about by the worst elements and extremes of both groups.

Nyac, if Kim is an example, then so are also an example of part of the problem.

*so are you also an example of part of the problem.

This isn't a Radfem space so I'd have thought Kim can post where she wants to.

'Transgender issues are irrelevant here.'

Who decides that?

I think they're relevant.

kim, I will give you the benefit of the doubt one more time and asume you maybe really do not know how you're coming across.

After what you've said, I know almost nothing about transsexuals other than that they hate men, and they are misogynistic towards women. Actually I'm sure most of them are not like that... but if that was you 'encouraging an understanding', that's what it would be.

Lots of us on this thread started with the premise that MtoF transsexuals wanted to be, or felt they were, women. We thought the law said that. You told us that was wrong (fair enough ... though I don't think you ever answered me about the law). Other than that ... you said being trans was about being unhappy, even suicidal. That's awful and everyone I think feels sympathetic ? but also, confused, because you seemed to be saying that this was characteristic of trans people and not of women, whereas of course, women often feel like this too. When I finally asked about the female hormones you mentioned and if they were injections, you seemed angry I'd even asked and asked 'what else would they be?'. I'm left with less idea of what being 'trans' might be than I started with, and much less sympathy since you seem to reckon if we don't know something, it's not worth giving us a straight answer.

"After what you've said, I know almost nothing about transsexuals other than that they hate men, and they are misogynistic towards women. Actually I'm sure most of them are not like that... but if that was you 'encouraging an understanding', that's what it would be. "

I think that's willfully misrepresenting of what Kim has said.

Really, widow? I misrepresented the 'I hate masculinity' bit and the insistent stereotyping of women as 'typically' having a 'lack of ambition'? And the belittling of how women feel about their bodies, despite a number of people commenting that this can quite easily lead women to suicide?