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)

" DS has awoken so my own reproductive ability now hinders me. Will pop back later" ..

Ahhh yes - I have let things slide - must get on myself

"Isn't it freedom of choice to undergo such surgery? Be it cosmetic or the need for major reconstructive surgery? Would you deny women the right to cosmetic surgery?"

There is a difference between critique and denial of rights.

A quick question - have there actually been cases of trans sex offenders trying to attend support groups for victims,or is it merely an example of the kind of situation that you think would be inappropriate for a transperson with specific criminal tendencies to be present at? If it's hypothetical, isn't it a bit off to say that some trans may be sex offenders so we should bar all of them from women-only spaces altogether? Seems a bit sweeping.

People have asked for evidence to back up things that have been stated as fact in this thread about trans people and they haven't done so. Also I have asked for evidence where radical feminist analysis analysis has actually helped these people and been told it isn't a feminists job to help them. So what is the actual difference between this and Christian fundamentalists offended by the very existence of gay people?
If the gender confusion is really caused by the patriarchy then I would like to see that incorporated into their therapy. It might actually help them but reading this thread I see no evidence that is the case. Just some people trying to shoe horn trans people into their personal view of the world.

I don't have that much time but check this link.

Hi Food Unit. No, I don't think I'm missing the power dynamic that underpins "splaining."

It's true, neither of us as visibly white people can speak about living under the structural oppressions experienced by Black women. We both benefit from white privilege, whether or not we want to believe that that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there.

But, neither can either of us claim to speak on behalf of trans women or transmen about the structural experiences they face for being trans. We both benefit from cis privilege (the privilege of identifying as and being identified by others as the same sex we were assigned at birth,) whether or not we want to believe that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there.

"We both benefit from cis privilege (the privilege of identifying as and being identified by others as the same sex we we /re assigned at birth,) whether or not we want to believe that's the case, and whether or not we actively seek to benefit from that privilege. It's still there."

This is where our opinions widely diverge. I don't feel comfortable with my gender. I am not 'cis'. I think it is weird to think that a MTF suddenly has no male privilege over a woman. There is no 'structural oppression' of trans people (above and beyond all gender restrictions or the fear of deviants) , because being trans is a 'feeling' not a societal structure.

And since being trans is a 'strong feeling', combined with efforts to live as the opposite sex, up to and including hormones and surgery to make this more realistic, it is a psychological problem seeking physical solutions, not a form of structural oppression.

I thought - with a science background about a hundred years ago - that is something wasn't cis, it was trans.

"There is no 'structural oppression' of trans people"
cf. with "Women aren't really oppressed in this day and age"

FoodUnit you're saying you're not cis-privileged.
I can say I'm not male-privileged.

Just because I don't recognise my privilege, doesn't make it disappear. Does yours?

"I thought - with a science background about a hundred years ago - that is something wasn't cis, it was trans. FoodUnit you're saying you're not cis-privileged. I can say I'm not male-privileged. Just because I don't recognise my privilege, doesn't make it disappear. Does yours?"

I am getting fed up with this nursery level reasoning of 'A seems a bit like B, therefore A is B'.

I won't waste my time on it.

I think you're fed up with the fact that even here, with some strong minded people about you don't have a claque nodding agreement.

I won't waste my time on it.

As my auntie used to say if someone had a snit on and left, "Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out".

Given that trans people face prejudice and get discriminated against for being trans (that is, identifying as the opposite sex and going through a transition process), then surely people who aren't trans and therefore don't face that particular prejudice/discrimination are benefitting from privilege, in the same way as straight people gain from straight privilege because they don't face the prejudice/discrimination gay people do?

I know that rad fems don't like the term 'cis' but otherwise don't see why this is such a controversial argument?

""Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out"

I'm not going anywhere - just not engaging with your simplistic argument.

I would say 'those not suffering from psychological problems' have privilege over those not suffering phsychological problems, but I don't think 'gender dysphoria' requires its own binary to define the world and that the world should accept being defined by it, just because that particular pshychological problem can be somewhat eased by physical solutions.

Sorry tapping on smartphone should read "those not suffering from psychological problems' have privilege over those suffering phsychological problems"

Mine, or MooncupGoddess, or KRITIQ, or kim147 or NolaFfing or inde and so on?

I've been engaging with lots of arguments omc, but not yours.

Food Unit you said, "This is where our opinions widely diverge. I don't feel comfortable with my gender. I am not 'cis'. I think it is weird to think that a MTF suddenly has no male privilege over a woman. There is no 'structural oppression' of trans people (above and beyond all gender restrictions or the fear of deviants) , because being trans is a 'feeling' not a societal structure. "

Well, yes, this is something I can't agree with.

I know many white people who don't see themselves as "white," often don't like being referred to as white (e.g. "I'm colourblind me," or "my skin is cream/beige/tan, not white.") and don't accept that they have any social, economic or political privilege because they are white.

That doesn't mean that white privilege doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it. Rejecting the term or the concept doesn't change that, no matter how much they want to believe it does, no matter how many times they insist it isn't valid.

Same applies here with regard to cis privilege.

Being trans is a "feeling" in the same way that being Lesbian, gay or bisexual is a "feeling." It's a human being's identity. How they see themselves, how they are seen by others, how they experience life. Similarly, a person of colour isn't just about the proportion of you DNA that's not caucasian or your appearance. It's also about how one sees themselves, how others engage with them, how they experience life.

We live in a society that is institutionally racist, institutionally heterosexist and institutionally cis-sexist. That means there is structural oppression of and discrimination against people of colour, Lesbian, gay and bisexual people and trans people. Just believing that's not the case doesn't make this disappear.

In fact, denying the existence of such oppression is actually a way of actively perpetuating that discrimination and oppression.

"I know many white people who don't see themselves as "white," often don't like being referred to as white (e.g. "I'm colourblind me," or "my skin is cream/beige/tan, not white.") and don't accept that they have any social, economic or political privilege because they are white."

Yup, I'm with you there.

"That doesn't mean that white privilege doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it. Rejecting the term or the concept doesn't change that, no matter how much they want to believe it does, no matter how many times they insist it isn't valid."

Yup, I'm with you there too

"Same applies here with regard to cis privilege."

No it doesn't

"Being trans is a "feeling" in the same way that being Lesbian, gay or bisexual is a "feeling.""

Now here you are piling in the assumptions. Some lesbians are political, for example.

"It's a human being's identity."

No, being gay or lesbian or bi is a human being's (or other species's) sexuality. It only becomes their 'identity' in a culture that is so geared against it, that it becomes their defining characteristic.

"Similarly, a person of colour isn't just about the proportion of you DNA that's not caucasian or your appearance. It's also about how one sees themselves, how others engage with them, how they experience life."

Now you have moved way off from structural oppression. A person of colour experiences barriers, conditioning, etc that are shaped to hold a person of colour back, to the benefit of white people. Its not vague 'how I see myself' story-telling.

I thought KRITIQ and I were possibly arguing the same point, but San Fairy Ann.

K
"Same applies here with regard to cis privilege."
FU
No it doesn't

Ah, that would be one of your facts, then. Not an opinion

"Political lesbians (if they are purely in it for the politics) aren't lesbians. they are straight women who sleep with women because they believe sleeping with men is letting the cause down. Unless they actually fancy women, in which case it comes back to feelings."

They believe any woman can be a lesbian and it is not all about sex.

Anyway if you think women cannot 'define themselves as lesbians' for political reasons, because they are not real lesbians, then the whole identity argument is even weaker.

So women can define themselves as lesbians - even if they don't have sexual relationships with men?

Isn't that just re-defining what they actually are (straight women) because of the way they feel?

It's a bit of a side issue, but one can decide to have sexual relationships/partner with specific groups of people by choice. For example, a Jewish person may want to only have relationships with other Jewish people in keeping with their faith and culture. Someone with strong left of centre political views may not wish to have a relationship with someone who does not share those views. A vegetarian may only wish to partner with other vegetarians because of their personal or environmental beliefs. If a woman only wishes to have relationships with other women because that fits with her political beliefs, in my view, that's similarly okay.

I wonder if lesbians get all bent out of shape about "political" lesbians.

"So women can define themselves as lesbians - even if they don't have sexual relationships with men? Isn't that just re-defining what they actually are (straight women) because of the way they feel?"

Sorry, I'm not being deliberately obtuse - I don't know what you mean - is there a typo somewhere - do you mean 'even if they do have sexual relationships with men'?