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?

All the good names I can guarantee you that all sorts of religious groups hold meeting to which members of other faiths would not only be unwelcome, but not invited. In fact even between different sects within the same religion.

If I tried to attend a meeting of our local exclusive brethren I would be given pretty short shrift I guarantee.

There are all sorts of different groups for people of all sorts of different types where people who are not of that type are not invited and unwelcome. Most of them don't have people who are not invited trying to come along though, so the issue doesn't come up.

I think the disability comparison is a good one.

I can see why it would be fair enough for people disabled from birth, or people with acquired disabilities, sometimes to want to meet separately, though? Why would it be wrong to say, 'this meeting is for people who've been disabled from birth'?

A mate of mine is badly disabled after meningitis and blood poisoning. She has different issues from someone who has been disabled from birth. I don't see why acknowledging that is a bad thing, or in some way exclusive?

I think terminology of 'exclusion' is really unpleasant in this context, actually. Surely we can all accept there are some bad breaks that come with being transsexual or born female, with being born disabled or with acquired disability?

It just feels as if we're constantly being pushed into playing competitive misery.

Kritiq I'm not approaching it from a hierarchy of privilege perspective at all. From that POV I imagine that growing up trans is for many much worse than growing up female. However the things that are bad that might happen are not generally the same. Boys and girls are not treated the same, they have different experiences on the whole. Boys being forced into confined gender roles is of course a big problem but sorting that out is not a primary objective generally for feminists (but the primary objective of loosening gender roles for girls and hopefully getting rid of them altogether some time in 2542 will fortunately have a positive effect for boys as well in that they will no longer need to conform).

Btw, I would really like to hear about what it is like identifying as both transsexual and feminist. That would be interesting. Maybe I would understand better. I just don't see why we can't have lots of different meetings and events?

Surely joining all meetings together is just giving the patriarchy an excuse to lump us all together as a minority to be ignored?

I have been disabled from birth and spent a lot of time in children's hospitals. I do feel a shared experience when I meet someone else who has spent a lot of time in children's hospitals. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? Coping with disability through school and missing school and meeting lots of other children with disabilities is something I like to talk about with people who have also experienced it, when I get the chance.

It's not something that affects my daily life BTW too much so no need for sympathy and interestingly I would not feel comfortable attending a group for people who eg use wheelchairs (unless I already knew them or had been invited) as I have not had that experience long-term.

Actually, this reminds me of an awful comment I did hear about disability. I knew someone on anti-depressants because she was really struggling to get to terms with the way she'd become unable to do things as a result of unexpected disability. And she told me people would get really stroppy when she admitted that, and would want her to accept how lucky she was she'd had so many good, un-disabled years.

I can see that this might feel similar if you grew up male but feeling you had a female gender identity, and suddenly people were telling you you'd had all this privilege as a man that you should appreciate.

I can see how that would hurt horribly in both cases.

But what I can't see is why the answer should be to insist there are no differences between two manifestly different groups.

I can agree that people would not be invited, but not that they would be made unwelcome. Most religious groups believe it is their duty to convert others, so excluding people from services would not make sense.
I would think that as feminists, we should also be focusing our attentions on encouringing more people to join the cause, not to exclude people who already want to be part of it.

Not sure religion is the best parallel, but I am going to take a break now because statements like 'most religious groups believe' make smoke come out of my ears.

If you know what you are talking about, say it.

If you do not, generalizing and hoping no-one will notice is annoying.

IMHO.

For LRD

radtransfem.wordpress.com/category/articles/

Competitive misery is a good phrase I think! Well, I mean it's not good but what I mean as a description of the opposite of finding common ground and working together rather than focussing so much on differences and what is "us" and what is "them."

I think in some ways, the disability analogy is relevant, but not quite the same either. I agree that the experience of growing up disabled and becoming disabled later in life will be different, will involve different challenges for those involved, but there will be many, many similarities in their experience of discrimination within a society that is not inclusive of nor values disabled people as it does non-disabled people.

I do realise that amongst disabled people, there are divisions and differences, varied political views (small and large p) so it's far from an homogeneous group. Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any or at least not many people who were disabled from birth who refuse to accept that those who became disabled later in life aren't "genuinely disabled."

I agree that gender is a "social construct," just as I believe race is. Women (whether trans or non trans), didn't create the concept of gender but to some degree, at least in some situations, still observe some aspects of gender if only as a means of survival in an institutionally sexist society. Also, because the concept of gender and gender privilege is so entrenched in society, I think it may be virtually impossible to completely distinguish between what we are and what we do because of our sex and what we are and what we do because of our gender (whether we choose to engage with that concept or not - other people will do so when regarding us!)

Right, must get out and enjoy that sunshine! I know this is a tricky, tricky issue that touches on so many raw nerves and painful experiences for all involved. Maybe it's naive of me, but I still just wish we could focus on what we share over how we differ, talk to each other and learn from each other, and be stronger and have a better chance of making some difference by working together.

Oh, and I've found it really useful reading the comments here. Always learning, always absorbing things that inform my thoughts and feelings, so thanks!

(Where's the sunscreen? :))

As far as I was aware that statement was correct. I will look into it before I say so again, however if religous groups routinely exclude others then I would think that was just as unjust as excluding trans people from radfem.

I still think that it is hugely unfair to exclude transgendered people and limiting to the cause to exclude feminist men, and sidelining the discussion by attacking my confusion over religous groups acceptance of others rather than addressing the original issue doesn't win the argument.

You have ignored my suggestion that feminists should be trying to get more people to support feminism, not excluding people who are already on board. Is this incorrect?

allthegoodnews the exclusive brethren who I spoke of earlier are, as their name suggests, exclusive.

I am sure they are not the only sect in the world that you have to be born into, and cannot join (and it's bloody difficult to leave).

Thanks catita!

allgod - I've already answered that point? What else do you want me to say?

Personally, I think it's other people who 'should' be supporting feminism, not feminists being blamed when they don't.

Do you think men feel 'excluded' from women's loos, too?

I am also not sure that the comparisons with religion are helpful though and so don't want to get hung up on them.

I don't think you did answer it. When I posted saying that, you told me I didn't know what I was talking about and that I was annoying you.

I would like to point out that at no point did I suggest feminists are to blame for other people not supporting the cause, just that we should be working towards everyone being feminists, and that very publically pushing people away is not going to achieve this.

I didn't actually bring up the religious argument, so I'm not sure why my responses are being quashed because of it. It's strange to bring something up, then try and push someone out of the debate for responding to it.

"Reducing people to their chromosomal make-up to me is the opposite of what feminism is about."

Actually ignoring the biological reality of women is what feminism isn't about. We are oppressed through our biology, so it makes no sense to include those with male biology in our organising.

XY people oppress XX people on this planet, they can only be supporters in our liberation movement, they have no right to demand access to our political spaces. It's male privilege and patriarchal that tells them that they can.

None of these people who are being excluded are on board with radical feminism so there's no reason for them to be at this conference anyway. If they were they wouldn't be claiming to be women, because radical feminism takes the starting point that women means an adult human female, not a man who feels like he's a woman.

Well sure, allthegoodnames, but you did state categorically that there are not meetings for disabled people or jewish people to whom others are excluded and that is untrue.

You can't expect people to ignore it. Your argument was "these groups don't do it" but they do so that's a non argument.

I have said though that I had previously thought that to be true and accepted that it might not be. However I am still being attacked for it.

allthe - I'm sorry, you're right, I was rude and harsh.

I do find the religious argument annoying, but you are right you didn't bring it up.

I answered your question to the best of my ability. You haven't yet replied to anything I've said ... did you disagree, or just not like it?

I think it's good to have lots of different meetings and events and spaces to discuss issues. Sometimes, I think it is ok to exclude some sections of the interested population. To suggest it's a good idea to ban MtoF transsexuals from a conference by checking people at the door is plain stupid. But that doesn't mean it's always wrong to exclude some people. It is most clear cut, IMO, with men who support feminism. Sometimes, I think it's ok to say, yes, it is great you support feminist women - but, we'd like this to be a women-only space. In the end, we won't need women-only spaces any more.

It is more complex when you are negotiating between different kinds of marginalized groups. I am not a lesbian, should I feel bad if lesbian feminists sometimes want to talk without me present? IMO, no. I'm not black - does that mean I don't get to be impressed by and in debt to Southall Black Sisters for what they do? Again, I don't see how. So why is it bad to say, sometimes, we will need to have groups that are only for this set of people, or only for that set of people?

It is incredibly patronizing to assume one person can always identify with another, just because they're both minorities or marginalized groups. I think we've moved past that thinking with race issues and I hope we will with the question of gender identity (whether like me you don't recognize it as innate, or whether you think society has assigned you the wrong one).

I think it's ok to have groups specifically designated to certain sections of society, I don't see any need to exclude people from them if they are interested though. Why can't someone attend a disability rights group meeting if they support disability rights? It doesn't make sense to me to limit your support network.
I understand that radfems don't believe in gender and therfore see trans females as men, but I don't see the need to publically ban them from attending the conference if they wouldn't want to attend anyway. Surely it's just encouraging negative press that is going to take away from the positives and discourage people from joining the cause?

As someone with a disability from birth I would like to take up a couple of points that I think might be relevant.

First off, up thread people using the analogy of lifetime v's acquired impairments is I think very apt. In particular how it must be horrible for people to remind those who suffer some sort of disabling event. It is if you will a double form of diabolism, having their identity undermined and self esteem attacked by people not seeing them for who they are at that moment not who they used to be. Is it any wonder that disability is still one of the most feared terms along with mentally ill, and possibly transgender.

The other point is that I think it was Krit, who if I may be forgiven for saying so I have come to respect for what she writes on here, said that she doubts people with impairments from birth think any less of those who acquire them later. Unfortunately it is true to say that a divide is caused as both experiences and the personal as well as public perception of that individual comes in to play. The easiest example would be those service personnel who come back from Afghanistan treated as heroes, denied nothing, seen as ?worthy?, yet when it comes to both children and adults born with disabilities they are seen as unproductive and a drain on resources. I hope that example makes sense.

My last point is something that myself and other activists are currently engaged in, and in some respects it is a response not just in the disabled communities efforts to form some kind of strong united voice, but also by reflecting on how Feminists have not achieved the single unity needed to challenge the hegemony of male power. I think we all agree that events like radfem are good and worthy and valuable things, but essentially it will be the converted talking to the converted, it will be different angles of the same answer put forward by people with the same question and ideology.

In order to make the change that we the minorities in this society seek we have to not talk to ourselves but talk to others who we need as allies and supporters. I would suggest that learning from trans people what their take on feminism is would be both challenging and stimulating, but at least it would produce new ways of thinking and new people to count as allies.

There should be a like button on MN. I LIKE what you said Leith