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?

So a FtM trans person who identifies as a radical feminist because of their birth gender/sex could attend?

"assigned at birth" - who's doing the assigning? And whatever happened to "one is not born a woman, but becomes one?"

WW you haven't heard of the thing when babies are born of "it's a girl!!!" or "it's a boy!!!" and that for babies who are intersex in the olden days they were assigned a sex to live with possibly with surgery although things are moving on now.

When a baby is born the vast majority of the time "it's a girl!" or "it's a boy!" and things go from there.

I find it hard to believe you don't know that TBH.

When I was born they said "it's a girl!!!" and when my dad rang my grand-dad, my grand-dad said "oh well, better luck next time".

See also blackadder with Elizabeth 1 being born "it's a boy!" " but it hasn't got a winkle" cue mass confusion until sir thomas moore (a very perceptive man) points out that a boy without a winkle is a girl "and everyone was really disappointed". I love that series of blackadder

yakbutter presumably being sexually harrassed by random men, not earning as much as others doing the same job and being expected to know about diets. Or something

I think that list I C&Ped upthread might be it. It involves something called "tucking" and having nice eyebrows.

Eyebrows and hair removal eh.

Does that mean Julia Roberts in the 80s wasn't passing as female

What I don't get is why the (perfectly legitimate) notion that ; "transpeople are people who have the right to live peaceful and happy lives and not be marginalised for their condition" - must be transformed into "women don't exist as a distinct biological group" which then, (following logical thought processes) translates into "female oppression as founded on the biological identity of women as being able to carry children doesn't really exist because that biological reality doesn't exist in the mind of MTF trans".

Yikes!

Game over for feminism and the goal of ending female oppression if we go down that route.

Which is why radical feminists are so resistant to transactivism - it effaces women as a biological group and therefore by logical consequence our biologically based oppression (whether intentionally or not - doesn't matter, logically, it does so).

Double yikes...

Since when was wearing "women's clothes" equalling living as female?

The only sex segregated clothing I can think of are y-fronts, boxers and bras.

kim - have things moved on?! I did not know that. I am really glad if it is the case as just a couple of years ago it was such a huge issue.

Is this a general change, do you know, and has it been reflected in the law?

But what does living as a gender mean, Kim? You are asking lots of questions but I can't tell if you think 'gender' is a real category with meaning, or not? You seem to be suggesting it is not really a category that means anything - or not something with a fixed definition - is that right? Or do you mean it has a real definition (ie., there is such a thing as living as female, as opposed to living how society expects women to live), but that's hard to achieve?

It's all very superficial isn't it kim.

Clothes, names, hair removal (tucking and nice eyebrows).

Do you think the suicidal feeligns might be because they aren't looking at the real root of their problems, but are rather imagining that if only they could live as the opposite sex things would be OK?

I'm sorry but surgery and hormone injections don't make you a woman. My genes make me a woman. You can change gender but you can't change sex.

It makes people see you as a woman (possibly) and therefore treat you as such, and then we're back to passing again.

Sorry Kim but I don't understand your logic.

Women are oppressed because we are the biological group which bears children.

Men are not dominant because they are biologically superior - they are dominant because social constructions have been developed to dominate women in order to control our fertility.

The male supremacy exists as an institutionalised reality that exerts power over women in all social areas (private relations, politics, economics, etc). The existence of FTM trans does nothing to change or question this global reality.

Men, as the dominant group are not challenged in their dominance by FTM trans. At all.

The notion that women, as a biological group, do not exist, is a challenge because it effaces our right to claim and fight against our biologically based oppression.

Totally different.

I would have thunk that the suicide rate might also be to do with the extreme marginalisation and being bullied they have to deal with.

Quite possibly so WidowWadman - and for that, I blame the patriarchy.

I would imagine so, WW. And people used to think 'effeminate' (=gay) men were driven to suicide because they didn't receive the appropriate medical treatment. And that women's sexual urges should be controlled by FGM.

The fact that a group of people are desperately unhappy, does not prove that surgery and/or medical 'cures' are automatically right, or a perfect solution.

Trans is all about exeternalities - how someone presents, how they act, what they wear

Whereas being a woman, being female is a state of being.