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?

^Because to me those people are saying that being a woman = being 'feminine'.

Women phobia would be misogyny, Kim.

I'm not that surprised because, as I said earlier, I don't think you can view people as a homogenous group. I think the psychiatric profession have been key in pushing the idea that trans people should be neatly fitted into boxes marked man or woman. It's not exactly a new thing for them to have fixed and wildly off-track attitudes to women, gender and sexuality.

It was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

I don't think it's fair to say "the psychiatric profession have been key in pushing the idea that trans people should be neatly fitted into boxes marked man or woman". It's something that almost all of us have the instinct to do, and if the shrinks haven't led the way in doing anything else, maybe they're just showing that they're normal (how reassuring).

If it's a question of binary gender, the radical feminists and the transexual activists are continuing the status quo--they just disagree about how a woman becomes a woman.

Gender disphoria is what leads to transgrenderism, right?

So, gender dysphoria... could you explain it in beginners speak, please? Is it the belief that your mind is aligned with the "opposite gender" to the body in which you live?

That's my point Kim. I wonder if in 40 years people will be looking back in shock at the way it was treated as a 'disorder.' The problem with psychiatry is that they simply create a label for pre-existing human behaviour/feelings and attach a definition to it along with a treatment protocol. They put people into boxes and see them as conditions rather than individuals. Maybe it's not an illness/disorder. Maybe it's just the way some people are. And maybe some people need access to surgery must faster. And maybe some people will never want surgery.

Teitetua said If it's a question of binary gender, the radical feminists and the transexual activists are continuing the status quo -they just disagree about how a woman becomes a woman.

This isn't the case. Radical feminists seek to abolish gender, understood as a hierarchy that operates to uphold male power and keep women subordinated, not an identity, not something innate or biological. RF is not about upholding the status quo at all; it's a revolutionary politics.

I'm not sure that transactivists have one particular political framework in the way that radical feminism is a coherent body of political ideas and analysis. I mean, as far as I can tell there is disagreement among trans people on the politics of transgenderism. No criticism allowed from anyone else though, it would seem.

^ What Proles said.

Narked I have thought this for a while. Just like they tried to pathologise homosexuality I think the same is true for this issue.

There will always be two sexes and some intersex people. Long after trans politics have flown out the window.

Why would we ignore biology when we're defining men and women. Biology is what the categories are based on.

man = adult human male
woman = adult human female

In an ideal world where there was no patriarchy or dominance then diversity would be celebrated, not erased or obscured.

Prolesworth said^
Teitetua said 'If it's a question of binary gender, the radical feminists and the transexual activists are continuing the status quo -they just disagree about how a woman becomes a woman.'

This isn't the case. Radical feminists seek to abolish gender, understood as a hierarchy that operates to uphold male power and keep women subordinated, not an identity, not something innate or biological.^

If that's your definition of gender, then I won't argue. But I was saying "gender" as it's commonly used, as in "male or female gender", not anything by Judith Butler. In that usage, it is indeed an identity, innate or biological. And I imagine the radfems would say it's an identity that one must grow up with, that can't be fully taken on by an adult, and they want to exclude transexuals for that reason. Call it what you want, but the point is, the transexual activists and the radical feminists have differing ideas of how a person becomes a woman, and that's what this long-running conflict is all about.

What happened to my italics? You'll just have to look at the ^ marks.

It saddens and angers me, to even begin having a conversation about 'how a person becomes a woman'

Biology is how we should be categorised. But our experiences are based on our sex, and gender expectations as a result of sex. But our experiences don't define us.