Violence Against Women

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Just been reading this blog post which talks about women who Transition as violence against women. I agree with her.

[Warning from MNHQ - this contains graphic images]

dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/transition-violence-against-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheDirtFromDirt+(The+dirt+from+Dirt)

EBAL - 'We should all be able to act as the individuals we are and be treated as individuals'

Well, yes, I agree with you there. Can you extend the courtesy to transsexuals though?

nola, it's a bit off to pretend your subjective opinions are somehow more informed than food's just because you don't like what she has to say.

It does come across as if you're trying to make out you have more right to be heard than her, TBH.

Your argument is just as much (or as little) based on 'personal feelings' as hers is.

"I can see how your opinions fit in to your view of the world and that's fine but has this viewpoint ever actually helped any trans people?"

Why is 'helping transpeople' being prescribed as my cause? I'm a feminist not a transactivist.

"No apology for all of those baseless accusations you chucked in my direction then?"

Such as?

"I'm particularly fucked off with being accused of "silencing". I am very well aware of what you mean by that and I resent it thoroughly."

My intention is not to f*ck you off, but to stop the silencing nature of sweeping statements that draw unflattering and unfitting parallels,

"The argument that you are making is based on your own personal feelings, I am able to open my mind a little bit wider than basing the world around my own experiences."

No my argument is based on facts, empiricism, but also knowledge gained from others, also other methods of deduction. There is no vague 'feelings' at the base of my opinion. In fact my 'feelings' tell me to let transactivists have their way and re-define what it is to be a woman, since I am moved by the emotive nature of their pleas, but facts are more trustworthy. And that's what I choose to hold to. It is my opinion that the truth has value in its own right.

I think I disagree with EBAL (although you haven't posted enough of your reasons for your stance) and FoodUnit (who has posted eloquently of hers, thank you) because I think instinctively that there is a lot more to being a woman than being able to reproduce. I agree with you FU that the debate centres around the definition of womanhood. I just think the divide between the sexes is not as strong or immutable as your position holds. I think as I posted upthread, that there are grey areas.

Surely being a woman is a lot more than reproductive capability? Even if a lot of characteristics of an average woman are caused by her reproductive abilities, as a man's nature is strongly affected by his hormones due to his own reproductive capabilities? Testosterone causing aggression and so on. If a woman had much much higher levels of testosterone than the majority of other women, regardless of patriarchy she would always act more like a man. This would make her identify more with men, no?

I can't understand the need to erase gender actually, I am a feminist but I can't accept this idea that the only difference between men and women is willies and vaginas - it's so much more than that, surely?

""No apology for all of those baseless accusations you chucked in my direction then?"

Such as?"

"So you've accused me of insulting, silencing, mischaracterising and being dismissive because I have read the entire thread and can see parallels in the way the OP has "discussed" the topic and the way that religious groups talk about homosexuality and you haven't even seen the whole thread?"

There you go. And I am literally laughing at your assertion that your opinion is the only one of any value.

Dear Lord.

Pls stop throwing buns

"There you go. And I am literally laughing at your assertion that your opinion is the only one of any value."

Okaaay.. So you laugh at the idea that the truth has value in its own right?

So laugh at science, laugh at justice, laugh at reality itself... A bit weird that you'd ever try to enter a debate on anything at all if you think the truth doesn't have value.

FoodUnit It is mischaracterising to compare right-wing extremists and religious fundementalists with people that just want to get a few facts straight

compare with;
"Listen FoodUnit, you're always banging on about feminism; let me help you out here. The facts are..."

Second is mansplaining.
First is?

Why is 'helping transpeople' being prescribed as my cause? I'm a feminist not a transactivist.

Which comes back to what has been said already that these people have real problems and shouldn't be used as political footballs because they don't fit with your view of the world. If you are not interested in helping them then that is just what you are doing. If the treatment that they are getting is wrong then the backlash will come from trans people.
My main reason for taking part in this thread is that I seen someone saying things about trans people as if they are facts. When asked to back up these "facts" they can't. That isn't right and is unhelful to these people with real problems. Whatever the root cause of that problem is.

Your truth is not necessarily The Truth FYI. I note that you've chosen to ignore the rest of my post which is asking you to retract your many insults thrown in my direction.

It boils down to telling me to STFU by accusing me of "silencing". Irony.

This confuses me:

The idea that trans erodes the concept of what a woman is.

Surely there are so, so few that it makes zero difference? Like, you could literally ignore them if it makes you feel uncomfortable? This is like people campaigning against gay marriage because it undermines marriage between a man and a woman - the natural order of things, if you like. The natural order will always allow some deviancy, it needn't be a threat to the status quo unless you let it be.

Nola and Food - with respect, you are not discussing but bunhurling, can you desist?

That is me silencing you both

"I am a feminist but I can't accept this idea that the only difference between men and women is willies and vaginas - it's so much more than that, surely?"

I think there is serious danger of stereotyping if you take that as a starting point. What about all the people who strongly diverge from all the other 'differences' that could be put forth to define their reproductive sex? Are they all transsexuals? Isn't it the reality of the situation that we have two reproductive sexes but human beings have a whole host of innate characteristics that fall in line with or diverge from their conditioned gender role? It is more than just a spectrum of male to female 'characteristics'...

No, sorry HoopdePoop. I will not be accused of dismissing, mischaraterising, silencing and insulting merely because I have read the thread and can see parallels between the way the church talks about homosexuality and the way that the OP has talked about transgender issues.

No, sorry, I won't.

Can I refer back to my post at Tue 02-Oct-12 11:58:39 please?

I believe (and please correct me if I got this wrong,) Food Unit, you are suggesting that when a person who has been assigned as female at birth chooses to have medical or surgical treatment to alter their body to become a man (or to become what they view as "not a woman," at least) that this is should be seen as a form of Violence Against Women.

Even where the person has made the choice to undertake treatment, fully informed of available information on the risks, they should still be prevented from undertaking the treatment.

I am aware that this is exactly the same argument proposed by many "pro life" campaigners. They understand that women have to give consent to have an abortion, but they also see abortion as an act of violence against both the woman and the fetus/unborn child. They also suggest (as some have here) that patients aren't fully informed of the risks of abortion so can't make a valid, informed choice.

I'm struggling to see what the difference is here. In both cases, campaigners insist that individuals should not have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies and wish to impose their own moral values on other people.

I like the old pro choice slogan, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." I'd suggest the same should apply thus, "If you don't want gender reassignment surgery, don't have it."

Also, per my comment last night about "splaining." Food Unit, you may be a woman, but you aren't a transman or a trans woman. In the same way I could never claim to speak from the experience of being a Black woman or a disabled woman, I can't speak from the experience of being either a transman or a trans woman.

Let's say there is a woman over there who identifies as a woman of colour. I might look at her, see that her skin tone is not very dark, decide her features aren't "typical" of a woman of colour. I might believe she's not actually a woman of colour. That, however, gives me no right to insist that she's white, let alone that I can speak for her and her experience. Same thing goes for a person who's not a trans woman or transman insisting they are entitled to speak for them, just because they don't accept their self-chosen identity.

KRITIQ

Wow, another top post.

"these people have real problems and shouldn't be used as political footballs because they don't fit with your view of the world."

I know transsexuals have real problems, and I certainly don't use them as political footballs.

I don't think being a woman is nothing more than declaring that you are one. And I would argue women are the ones being used as political footballs (particularly radfem ones), along with homosexuals and intersex people, by transactivists.

"The idea that trans erodes the concept of what a woman is. Surely there are so, so few that it makes zero difference?"

If transactivists weren't actually eroding the legal definition of what a woman is, I agree it wouldn't make a difference.

But since it is resulting in some pretty dangerous things when a bloke - male sex offenders in fact -can legally 'define' as a woman in order to get close to their targets, amongst others, this tiny group of transactivists are actually making a disproportionately large and damaging difference.

"But they do feel wrong And this is such a strong feeling. Transitioning makes them feel right. It's really that simple."

But I think that it is worth considering why women are led to feel wrong in their bodies per se, and whether it is possible that they could be led to the conclusion that they are in the wrong sexedbody and go for this very invasive and dangerous surgery to 'correct' it. In other words, whether there are aspects of FTM surgery that could be rooted in the same misogyny as labiaplasty, breast reshaping and other cosmetic surgery.

KRITIQ in this: "Also, per my comment last night about "splaining." Food Unit, you may be a woman, but you aren't a transman or a trans woman. In the same way I could never claim to speak from the experience of being a Black woman or a disabled woman, I can't speak from the experience of being either a transman or a trans woman."

You are missing an important element of 'splaining and that is the actual power dynamic that underpins it. I agree that I cannot speak about living under the structural oppressions experienced by a black woman.

Aside from that, in your comment, you were responding to something I said that wasn't pretending to speak from the perspective of someone with gender dysphoria - so it was even less relevant to suggest I was 'splaining in any way.

Thanks for your considered responses FoodUnit . DS has awoken so my own reproductive ability now hinders me. Will pop back later