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?

At the moment, it seems that you saying trans people have views on gender identity which are identical to those of radical feminists, in that they think anyone should be entitled to behave any way, no matter what their gender/sex. And you're saying that the identity as a 'woman' is not definitive for MtoF transsexuals.

But you seem very sure that transsexuals are treated badly by the nasty radical feminists.

I don't get it. Where is the difference in agenda, as you see it? What do transsexuals believe or identify with, that distinguishes them? If there isn't anything, why is this an issue?

The very basis of feminist analysis is identifying women as a group, and how and why that specific biological group is oppressed for our biology.

If we can no longer identify as a biological group (despite being clearly identified by patriarchy) then we lose everything.

Widow, they're just saying the conference is for women only. They're excluding men too. But that doesn't bother you.

Well if trans isn't about men claiming they are women (and a tiny number in the opposite direction) then there needs to be a big educational initiative. Because the government has passed a Gender Recognition Act which allows men to be recognised legally as women, and RadFem12 is getting a hugely hard time online and in corners of the media because they want a women only conference, and that apparently is "transphobic".

I agree, beach.

kim, this is why I'm confused. You seem to be both insisting that there is such a group as 'transsexuals', but yet that this group have exactly mimicked the concerns and ideology of women. If that were really so, why on earth would they not be 'women'? And if they are not just 'women', why is it so wrong for women to say, sometimes we want to have women-only events?

kim, I accept I have loooong periods of extreme stupidity and I'm sure this is one of them! I got the impression you were saying there was some kind of antagonism between rad fems and trans people. No? Yes? Sorry, still not sure.

I am adjusting slowly to what you're saying as it is so different from my prior ideas about trans people. My one major confusion now is, what are trans people if they are essentially in agreement with rad fems over gender/identifying terminology?

Is there some strong reason why a MtoF transsexual, for example, would not call himself a 'radical feminist' (perhaps with strong concerns about his body that were in need of surgery)?

I don't imagine that you are alone, Kim, in feeling that way.

It is a shame that there are a number of people who dominate transactivism in a way that is misogynistic and narcissistic.

The fact that radical feminists take issue with these specific people and their politics, is neither transphobic nor translates into the idea that we think all trans people are misogynistic and narcissistic (although many people wish to present that as being the case in order to discredit radical feminism). Something that I imagine pisses a lot of transpeople off, as their genuine suffering is being manipulated and used as an anti rad fem platform that has little to do with genuine trans within patriarchy issues.

Just my opinion.

Well I'm a bit pissed and watching eurovision but I wanted to say kim I have enjoyed your posts so erm that's it really

narked - I don't think a woman-only thing is a good thing for that matter. There is not one topic feminism addresses which should not be relevant to people of all sexes.

This thread is about trans people being excluded, and that's why I've been talking about trans. I didn't see the point in whataboutthemenzing it.

The whole we don't want you in our club house thing doesn't strike me as terribly helpful for any progress.

As it is - I believe that the transphobes are in a minority, but that minority is pretty vocal and alienating.

Crossposted with you there kim.

I think the idea that ideologies are not constrained by gender is a natural conclusion of this idea you and I seem to share, that men and women can behave in the same ways if society does not constrain them. So yes, of course, men and women can share the same ideologies. Why not?

Kim, if you're not aware, most male trans are claiming to be women. This is not a secret. They don't stick to trans, they claim womanhood.

Wow have seen the subsequent x-posts and man I look dim.

Btw I am enjoying your posts too kim - being slow about understading them I admit, but enjoying them!

You know Nyac - that is the bit I don't get.

Why can't there just be "transpeople" as a valid and authentic group.

Why the demand to co-opt another group's identity?

Kim, for me, my realising i was a feminist was to do with the experience of being a female teen, basically.

I had experiences because I am female, I was born female, I went to girls schools, I have certain looks that atttract attention etc.

I walked through a park on the way to the hosp with DD2 the other day. There were boys from the local school playing football. They had jumpers for goalposts. It's just a different experience growing up. It really is. For so, so many reasons.

I like the idea of talking with other people who have grown up female. It's a thing. It is so sad as it sets the sexes up to be separate, this whole thing.

Rubbish., is my vote. and jedward

Yes, I can't imagine any arguments against that Beach.

I have to say I think Kim's posts on here have been confusing and obfuscatory. There's the friend called she, who apparently isn't a woman, there's the claim that trans just want to live as trans and don't claim womanhood, when the whole of trans activism has been about that. Rad fems are getting attacks and death threats at the moment because we are holding women only conferences. At the very least we're being called "transphobic". There's a big disconnect here.

I think I agree with that beach, but I'd come at it from the opposite perspective ... if for some people it is so important to 'transition' to the opposite gender, why do they want to retain this identity as 'trans' and not simply integrate? It's like we are not quite good enough, you know?

I think you are right that in an ideal, post-patriarchy world, it would be fine to do whatever you chose or still felt the neeed to do to your body, and you would not have to get out there and say 'I am a man' or 'I am a woman'. And, even if you said it, no-one would assume things about you because of it - it might be like saying 'I'm a Leo' in today's society.

I don't get the need to say 'I'm a woman ... but not a woman like you, I have to be different from you, of course! And you must wear a special badge of my design with 'cis' on it, so everyone knows how different we are.

But there should be more options than the current binary.

A man who doesn't feel like a man isn't automatically a woman.

We need to change protocols to accomodate other options.

go jedward

kim, sorry, I've still no idea - what is a trans person? Lots of people are unhappy with their bodies. All rad feminists, and lots of other people, are unhappy with gender stereotypes. What makes a transsexual different from these, that you still want to use it as a category?

I mean, am I a trans woman (man?) because I don't shave my legs? Or is it deeper than that ... am I a trans woman because I never identified with this idea that men should be breadwinners?

I don't get what this category is, of 'transsexuals', under your definition - I appreciate you are obviously wanting to be careful about not misrepresenting things, but I am still in the dark!