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)

I meant women. I meant "sexual relationships with women"

"I meant women. I meant "sexual relationships with women"

Thanks for clearing that one up. I am not a lesbian, political or otherwise, so I am only speaking from what I have heard political lesbians say. I'm sure there is a whole other world of contention I am not embroiled in on that front.

But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? You're not a lesbian so wouldn't seek to become embroiled in that - but you're quite happy to proclaim that transgender issues are psychological and all about "vague" feelings.

NolaFfing Wed 03-Oct-12 15:50:18
But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? made me smile.

You'll shortly get an explanation about how it's different, and there's no such thing as cis-plaining.

Well, quite simply then Food Unit, you and I disagree on the issue of whether trans people face institutionalised oppression and whether cis people experience cis-privileged.

It's just the same as when I disagree with white folks who deny the existence of institutionalised racism and their own white privilege, or straight people who deny the existence of institutionalised heterosexism and their own heterosexist privilege.

I also disagree that one's "sexuality" can be defined so rigidly as you suggest. It's not necessarily an immutable factor and is very much about the individual's identity. For example, Andrea Dworkin identified herself as a Lesbian and John Stoltenberg as Gay, but they were life partners and were married. Someone I knew through feminist activism many years ago identified as Lesbian then, but 10 years later identified as straight and is now married to a man and has a child with him. Susie Orbach describes herself as "post heterosexual" having previously been in committed relationships with men, but now in a committed relationship with a woman. My former boss has always identified as Lesbian, but had sexual relationships with men and women. She has never seen herself, however as straight or bisexual because she would not choose a committed relationship with a man. One can be Lesbian or gay but be celibate. Sexuality is about far more than who you sleep with. Some people feel or know that they are Lesbian, Gay, straight, bisexual or asexual from childhood. For others, their identity changes during their lifetime.

I also don't believe I'm moving from the concept of structural/institutional oppression related to racism. There may be people of colour who experience differing forms or levels of institutionalised racism based on how they are perceived by others and how they identify themselves, and linked to other forms of privilege or oppression that may intersect with racism. This doesn't mean it's automatically better or worse for some people of colour than others. It does mean I do not believe I am entitled to define whether their experience "qualifies" as oppression or not.

"But can't you see the hypocrisy in that? You're not a lesbian so wouldn't seek to become embroiled in that"

No it isn't hypocritical

"you're quite happy to proclaim that transgender issues are psychological and all about "vague" feelings."

Transgender issues, require that I must re-define myself as a woman, by a psychological 'sense' or 'feeling' that I am a woman, rather than by my assignment at birth, in order to accommodate people who were assigned male at birth as women.

Lesbians, political or otherwise are not encroaching upon me in the same way. The two are very different scenarios in relation to me.

How? Please explain how a woman becoming a man (because after all that's the premise of this thread) affects how I am defined as a woman?

"Well, quite simply then Food Unit, you and I disagree on the issue of whether trans people face institutionalised oppression and whether cis people experience cis-privileged."

Absolutely. I do not believe acute gender dysphoria trumps all other psychological disorders, and requires a new binary description of the world to which we all must adhere.

"It's just the same as when I disagree with white folks who deny the existence of institutionalised racism and their own white privilege, or straight people who deny the existence of institutionalised heterosexism and their own heterosexist privilege."

Really? I find its more the case that this trans/cis binary is used to conceptually erase male privilege.

"I also disagree that one's "sexuality" can be defined so rigidly as you suggest. It's not necessarily an immutable factor and is very much about the individual's identity. For example, Andrea Dworkin identified herself as a Lesbian and John Stoltenberg as Gay, but they were life partners and were married. Someone I knew through feminist activism many years ago identified as Lesbian then, but 10 years later identified as straight and is now married to a man and has a child with him. Susie Orbach describes herself as "post heterosexual" having previously been in committed relationships with men, but now in a committed relationship with a woman. My former boss has always identified as Lesbian, but had sexual relationships with men and women. She has never seen herself, however as straight or bisexual because she would not choose a committed relationship with a man. One can be Lesbian or gay but be celibate. Sexuality is about far more than who you sleep with. Some people feel or know that they are Lesbian, Gay, straight, bisexual or asexual from childhood. For others, their identity changes during their lifetime."

I agree, sexuality is changeable. But if your 'sexual identity' is totally at odds with your sexual behaviour then something a bit dysfunctional is going on.

"I also don't believe I'm moving from the concept of structural/institutional oppression related to racism. There may be people of colour who experience differing forms or levels of institutionalised racism based on how they are perceived by others and how they identify themselves, and linked to other forms of privilege or oppression that may intersect with racism. This doesn't mean it's automatically better or worse for some people of colour than others. It does mean I do not believe I am entitled to define whether their experience "qualifies" as oppression or not."

See, this is where it all gets a bit weird...

I completely agree that in the cases of structural oppression such as racism it is not for anyone to give a laundry list of 'qualifiers' for the status of oppressions..

But at the same time, if I believe myself to be a horse, want to live in a stable and eat hay, - it would not qualify as 'structural oppression' if someone said - no, you aren't a horse, you are human. It would be the truth, it would be fact. If I said 'its not for you to tell the barriers to my being trans-horse aren't oppressive' - it would be fair enough for them to say - 'you have a psychological disorder, its not structural oppression at the crux of this matter'. This would be very different from someone denying the structural oppression faced by people of colour.

Well, actually, if I'm to be part of the solution and not still be part of the perpetuation of racial oppression, means that I as a white person must re-define who I am as well. I might not think of myself as white, or even think much about my ethnicity at all. I'm just a person. I don't actually have to think about what being white "means." It's something that just is, and I think that's the case for most white people.

Going back 50 years, my aunt from Louisiana bitterly resented the end of racial segregation. She didn't want to share restaurants, hotels, public transport or public toilets with Black people. She genuinely didn't believe they were people the same as she was. She certainly didn't believe African American women were the same as white American women or that they were entitled to any of the same rights or status.

I'm kind of seeking this idea of, "I don't want trans women to be regarded as women like me," as similar to Aunt Rose not wanting Black women to be regarded as women like her.

"Please explain how a woman becoming a man (because after all that's the premise of this thread) affects how I am defined as a woman?"

Because if the definition of a woman is 'to have a strong feeling, and to identify as a woman', then if you couldn't find this feeling within yourself, you might actually be a man- even if all the physical evidence tells you otherwise.

The logic is this:

If 'woman' is no longer defined as:

A woman is an adult person who was assigned female at birth,

to

A woman is an adult person who 'feels like a woman' and identifies as a woman

Then there is no physical, or evidence-based definition of woman. Just a 'feeling' and declaration of identity.

So if you don't have that feeling, then you could equally, by this new definition, be a man.

"Well, actually, if I'm to be part of the solution and not still be part of the perpetuation of racial oppression, means that I as a white person must re-define who I am as well. I might not think of myself as white, or even think much about my ethnicity at all. I'm just a person. I don't actually have to think about what being white "means." It's something that just is, and I think that's the case for most white people."

I completely agree, but a person denying the white/black binary that has been a historical justification for something as blatant as slavery, would be on very shaky ground with all the evidence to the contrary.

"I'm kind of seeking this idea of, "I don't want trans women to be regarded as women like me," as similar to Aunt Rose not wanting Black women to be regarded as women like her."

I know you are, but there is a lot more to being a woman than identifying as a woman. And yes Aunt Rose and many other white people have difficulty accepting people of colour as human, but Aunt Rose and all those others are wrong, people of colour are human beings and in no way inferior to white ones. Time is telling this suppressed truth about people of colour.

So this is where it differs. I am not denying the humanity of transpeople, I am denying that a man can become a woman or vice versa.

That still doesn't affect me because I am fortunate enough to have been born a woman, assigned as female, and to not feel "wrong" within myself.

What exactly are you pushing for? A ban on gender reassignment?

Kim, I can't possibly know what your life has been like. But good luck with your op, I truly hope that it will make you happier. I'm sure it will. Some posters forget in their desperation to uphold theory, that they are discussing real people and real situations.

Kritiq, I think I love you, you have said everything I wanted to, but better.

EleanorHandbasket "The new definition would be more like 'a woman is an adult person who was assigned female at birth OR an adult person who has been through gender reassignment and now identifies as female'."

No it wouldn't, you are missing out transmen and transsexuals who don't want hormones or surgery

It would be:

A woman is an adult person who was either assigned female at birth and does not identify as male or identifies as female irrespective of birth assignment.

When put like this, the birth assignment bit is actually irrelevant.

Food "There is a lot more to being a woman than identifying as a woman"

Like what? You define woman as someone born with female anatomy, which seems simplistic to me. Do you think part of being a woman is living a life of oppression, and it's unfair for a man who has hitherto experienced male privilege to adopt womanhood with any understanding?

Sorry to dip in and out btw.

Kim thank you for a great post.

Nola "What exactly are you pushing for? A ban on gender reassignment?"

I'm not actually pushing anything really. Perhaps defending is a better word. Defending women's rights from being 'erased by definition'.

Eleanor I believe there is "a living as a woman" test - so it has to be a consistent long term choice.

I just want to say that I am finding the discussion really interesting, really thought provoking. Although there is considerable disagreement, and I would imagine some of the comments extremely painful for trans women or transmen reading to hear (and I don't want to diminish that because I know that as a cis-person, nothing being said here is challenging my identity, my right to exist, my right to be regarded as a human being,) it is helping me to think and further affirm what I believe about this issue. For that, I am very grateful.

Just a few more wee things from your recent post Food Unit, if I might . . .

I find its more the case that this trans/cis binary is used to conceptually erase male privilege.

I don't have the book to hand just now, but there is definitely a passage in bell hooks' Ain?t I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism where she says that women of colour raise the issues of race and class oppression that they are often met with claims that this is likewise used to minimise (or erase if you will) the concept of male privilege.

I agree, sexuality is changeable. But if your 'sexual identity' is totally at odds with your sexual behaviour then something a bit dysfunctional is going on.

I can't accept that this means "something a bit dysfunctional is going on." I simply don't accept that sexual identity is all down to who one has sex with. It's interesting that you feel you can label people whose sexual behaviour doesn't neatly line up with their identity as "dysfunctional." Having an identity that lines up with one's behaviour, and society's expectations, is actually a form of privilege. Also, I don't think I'd regard Andrea Dworkin, John Stoltenberg, Susie Orbach or any of the other folks mentioned above as "a bit dysfunctional."

The horse comparison, if I may say so, is rather crass and silly. We are talking about human beings here, not animals. I also find the willingness of lay people to label other people as having a "psychological disorder" because they do not like their identity or what it represents very troubling on many levels. As others have said, this claim was levelled at gay men and Lesbians until relatively recently (and is still the case in some parts of the world.) Also, using a claim that someone is mentally ill to dismiss the validity of their views is hurtful both to those targeted, but also for people who experience mental illness, generally.

I'm not actually pushing anything really. Perhaps defending is a better word. Defending women's rights from being 'erased by definition'.

and screw any other marginalised people who get in the way?

read Kim's post again.