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?

Eh?

I am honestly finding the idea that you have to look like a woman to attend a radfem event equally hilarious and alarming. Or that if you look like a woman, you'll be allowed in without getting a DNA test done, but those radomes who dare to turn up looking in any way masculine will have to prove they are xy.

Poacher turned gamekeeper, anyone?

Trans didn't invent 'passing' btw. It was used waaaaaay before in race terminology.

High yaller?

Why would a woman have to prove she's XY. That doesn't make any sense.

Seriously are people happy at the thought of XY people gatecrashing a conference that is for biological women?

Nyac, I dunno what you think I am saying, but I thought I was actually making a point in oppositoon to this idea that it matters hugely that transsexuals be welcomed into radfem spaces.

If that offends you, I am I suppose a little sad, but mostly incredibly confused.

Maybe if you stopped assuming every post I make is about you, you'd not be so easily offended by me posting in agreement?

Well, if she looks masculine (like an mtf trans) you'd have to gatekeeper, wouldn't you?

No idea if you are being deliberately dense, but that was the point of the poster who used the term. Who is going to decide if a masculine looking human being is really trans and should be ejected forcefully, and who is just refusing to conform to a feminine stereotype? You?

madwoman - I was wondering about the race analogy.

Because AFAIK, 'passing' is not something most people would say they wanted to do. It might have been expedient or useful at various times, but that is a compromise to a system that is hugely racist. I would like to know if maybe for some transsexuals, 'passing' is also a gesture of accommodation to the patriarchy that insists men behave one way and women another. I would like to see what happens if men and women are free to behave how they choose, without anyone saying they need to 'pass' as the other gender before they can behave in certain ways.

This idea that people are going to be policing the doors is preposterous.

The organisers have said who the event is for and will hope that those are the people who come.

If anyone comes who is not on the "invite" list then I suspect that will be no problem unless they make it a problem by eg disrupting events.

People really think there are going to be people on the door doing knicker checks and blood tests? How odd.

The whole concept is just so bizarre isn't it LRD.

Gender roles are shit and oppressive and I want rid of them.

I don't want them shored up by anyone no matter what their reasons.

Quite. And passing is really a historical term in race... Because there was a time when it was deffo beneficial to pass as white. In trans it's beneficial to pass because you might not get beaten up (and an attempt to pass will legitimise your legal status). Passing should not be necessary in any utopia. Who gives a toss whether you wear nail polish and have a high voice, really?

The other thing worth noting is that this conference is rad fem only. It's not for pseudo rads or liberals, or anti-feminists or MRAs, it's for radical feminists who are going to be talking about radical feminist politics. That's the most important thing. The people who are protesting it aren't radical feminists, the people they are supporting to attend aren't radical feminists, they don't subscribe to radical feminist politics so why do they care? It's a political move to shut down women's organising.

I guess madwoman made a typo there and meant xx.

What are "pseudorads"?

Nah, of course not, SQ. it would be ridiculous.

It's just sad that yet again a minority of trans activists have forced a radek conference to come up with an exclusion policy.

If people could turn up and stick nicely to the agenda, there wouldn't be an issue. Oh, wait.

Anyway, this will go on all day. Get radfem and bigot into a thread and it's all an inevitability. Standoff 101.

Lol, yes. I did. Realised afterwards. I think everyone ignored it anyway...

Radical feminists don't organise with males. That's basic radical feminism. It's a women's movement. It's not about sticking to an agenda, it's about being able to meet collectively as a group that shares the same oppression. Sending males into disrupt that is a political strategy.

Haven't read all the thread so apologies if I'm repeating things that have already been said.

I think part of the reason why people don't understand why radical feminists wish to meet together in women only (ie FAAB) spaces, is because they think that radical feminism is about fighting inequality.

But that isn't really what radical feminism is about - it is about fighting against male supremacy, female oppression and male violence. It is about fighting against the gender binary hierarchy and systematic and institutionalised oppression that women suffer because they have wombs.

Women, as a group, are not oppressed because we have vaginas and breasts (although those body parts are used to oppress us), we are oppressed because we are the group that carry and give birth to children.

And this is where trans and radical feminists are poles apart. Trans people are discriminated against because they are trans. Women are discriminated against because we have wombs, ovaries, etc.

Therefore the discrimination that trans people have to deal with (which I agree is far from negligible) is NOTHING like the historical, systematic, institutionalised oppression that women experience and which, indeed, forms significant parts of our group identity and socialization.

It is perfectly legitimate for radical feminists (or indeed any other group of women) to want to gather together and share common experiences and find strength, comfort and support in numbers.

There is no need for them to include every group that is marginalised or the victim of patriarchal inequality.

Radical feminists do not wish to deny transpeople their get togethers and mutual support - we just ask to be allowed the same.

I totally agree, SQ. This to me is why we need loads of events - keep radfem 2012 as it is. It was crass to suggest vetting people. But keep a space for women born women. Have that space alongside spaces for men, women, homosexual, heterosexual, parents, not parents, ethnic minorities, all sorts of combinations of the above ... we need to stop feeling that 'feminism' should be responsible for organizing all the non-patriarchial action that's tangentially related to gender. If instead, everyone gets in on it from their perspective, we will bring the patriarchy down and we won't compromise our different beliefs.

mad - I agree. I think 'passing' is part of this tendency of the patriarchy to paint everyone into one small, convenient box.

Beautifully put Beachcomber :)

Great post beachcomber

I think those Radfem people are being discriminatory if they ban transexuals from their group. Unless they are there to disrupt proceedings. I can't see how they can justify the ban in any logical and fair way. Radical feminism is about fighting inequality?? Then why are transexuals not given the same rights as women if they have legally become women. I must say it doesn't seem very equal to me.

Mary beachcomber's post above includes this

"I think part of the reason why people don't understand why radical feminists wish to meet together in women only (ie FAAB) spaces, is because they think that radical feminism is about fighting inequality.

But that isn't really what radical feminism is about - it is about fighting against male supremacy, female oppression and male violence. It is about fighting against the gender binary hierarchy and systematic and institutionalised oppression that women suffer because they have wombs. "

Which may go some of the way to answering your question - the whole post is illuminating and is a few posts up ^ that way.

Thank you DowagersHump.

Another thing - it isn't transphobic to point out that women and transpeople belong to different marginalised groups, have different biology and different reasons for why they are marginalised. It is just actual reality.

I'm always at a bit of a loss as to why this bothers people so much.

Transpeople are victims of the gender binary hierarchy, but in an entirely different way to how FAAB women (who have wombs and belong to the social group which bears children) are.

Certain aspects of trans activism reinforce the gender binary - radical feminism is entirely opposed to the gender binary. Our experiences, oppression and goals are diametrically opposed.

I cannot for the life of me think why a trans person would want to attend a FAAB only radical feminist event. Sometimes I think it is mainly about 'passing' and legitimizing a concept which has no basis in either biology, history or lived reality. I sympathise that there are people who feel the urge to do this, but I'm afraid their urge does not take precedence over my reality and women's long history of oppression that is founded on our ability to bear children.

I don't see radical feminists insisting that they be allowed to co-opt trans people's discrimination in order to further the fight for themselves. I do however see trans activists doing this to radical feminists whilst claiming that it is transphobic for FAAB women to focus on abortion issues, pregnancy risk, the role of childrearing, etc.

All of which just makes me go .

I have read Beachcombers post. And I read some of the comments on the Guardian website. And really all women don't have breasts, ovaries, wombs or even vaginas. So I think all this categorising isn't right either. I still can't see why transexuals aren't allowed to be part of this group if they want to be. And if they are living as women and are legally now registered as female why should they be excluded. Don't know how I got myself into this topic!!

People who are assigned female at birth have a different experience than those assigned male at birth though, most markedly in places like saudi or afghanistan. But still in the UK the experience is different, and it is not wrong for women to want to talk about those experiences with others who are in the same boat, as it were.