Women are being censored because they wish to discuss the politics of gender. I say NO. Who wants to join me?

[Beachcomber]

Ok, I'm guessing that many here have heard about Julie Burchill's explosive article defending her friend Suzanne Moore against trans activists.

I'm also guessing that there are a lot of women who don't know that trans activists have been becoming increasingly influential in many areas that affect Women's Rights since the 1980s and 90s. These areas include feminist websites and blogs (such as the F word), feminist meetings and conferences, women's music festivals, in feminist literature and in academia teaching gender studies (a subject that used to be taught as women's studies) and in post-modernist and queer theory circles.

Transactivists call any resistance to their increasing influence and presence in these areas of female interest "transphobic". Discussion of gender identity as an oppressive social construct and as a threat to feminism and women's rights is also considered transphobic. Consequently, discussion of women as being a political class of people oppressed due to our sex and our reproductive capacity is becoming harder and harder for feminists to have without being accused of transphobia and bigotry. This is very very concerning.

Numerous women have been threatened or silenced by these people (for example they have been no platformed and/or picketed at feminist events or attacked and threatened after writing articles or essays discussing gender identity).

Let me be very clear that this discussion is about transactivists and people who threaten others into silence. It is not about transpeople in general (some of whom have stated that they are afraid to get involved in the controversy).

In my opinion, no matter which side of the gender identity debate one stands on, surely we can all agree that debate should be allowed to take place. One side cannot be allowed to shout down, threaten and silence the other.

The recent events are not just about differing opinions on gender identity though (or I wouldn't be bothering to post this), they are about women's right to talk about and identify sex based oppression and male supremacy, and therefore to fight against sex based oppression and male supremacy. And that is why this is an important if not vital issue for women's rights.

I think women's rights politics are reaching a pivotal moment - a moment in which we must stand up for our right to discuss our status as second class citizens as a result of the biological fact that we are female. If we can't discuss it, we don't have much hope of fighting it.

bugbrennan.com/2013/01/19/for-every-one-of-us-you-silence-100-more-will-rise-to-take-her-place/

To summarise the link - a well known and influential feminist blogger has been censored for discussing the issues outlined above. She is not the first woman to be silenced by these people. I think it is about time we stood up to them.

Thanks for reading.

You do keep telling people what they're allowed to get annoyed about, Kim.

While it may only affect a small number, the power that small number have had - to change the law, in order to reflect a feeling rather than physical fact (And is that transphobic? A person with a woman's body who is legally defined as a man, or vice versa, that is being based upon feelings and perceptions, rather than biological fact, is it not?) in a startling short space of time - I'm living in a country where it was still impossible to rape your wife under the law 20 years ago.

This very small number of people have managed to redefine what gender means.

I genuinely think that at least part of it is fear on the part of (mainly male) law-makers - as a society we are so invested in gender roles that when someone subverts them, as M2F trans people do in an obvious way, they have to be seen as "other." And to many men, they are the default, so "other" = "woman." A woman is a defective man, in their eyes.

So small as the number may be, the law has changed to support them. That makes it seem to me, (and not in a tin-hat-wearing-conspiricy way, but just in the way that living in patriarchy means it's easier to get patriarchal stuff passed) that reinforcing these strict gender roles is something that supports society as it stands.

I have said before, I do not "fit" any definition of female I've seen from a trans POV. I don't live as a man, I just live as me, which I know is easier as a woman who is unfeminine than a man who is unmasculine. If it could go both ways - if it was acceptable to be a feminine man - would that mean fewer people opting for surgery?
.
I just don't think it's a done deal. I haven't seen any good, solid evidence based science that says this is a disorder, that can only be mended with surgery. It feels like some of the earlier barbaric treatments for difference, such as those meted out to homosexuals, or "hysterical" females, or social deviants. Only Trans people are expected to be grateful for it.

More research needed. Especially into why the massive (3x as many) M2F : F2M ratio difference. I read somewhere something about the ratio of white/ grey matter in male/ female brains, anyone ever heard anything about that?

this thread gets a lots of traffic because it gets at the crucial debates
a) is gender real or socially constructed?
b) is the best strategy to try and fit in with what society ordains or to change society?

I think this issue is not as important as domestic violence, female genitial mutilation of course but because we are all agreed there is less to talk about unless we are planning a particular campaign- see the toy threads.

also i don't think anybody is saying that trans people shouldn't exist

So the law is a tool of the patriarchy, but science isn't? Or is science only feminist friendly when it's used against those you deem as an enemy?

There's also no current scientific basis for homosexuality either, so are you sure that science is what you want as the ultimate arbiter here?

As for the "no one said that trans people shouldn't exist?"

Anti trans people make it very clear that someone pre surgery is someone playing dress up for nefarious purposes but they want to ban sex reassignment surgery.

Then there's the general claim that trans people are either deluded or seek to harm women by trying to become one.

So what exactly are trans people meant to do?

Kim has more right then anyone here to talk about this, she is trans. Would you like a man to come and tell you all what to say about sexism? Thought not.
A lot of these arguments used by the anti-trans people were earlier used by homophobes and racists. It is a hideous irony to see them so eagerly embraced by those claiming to aid women.

I think one of the problems with these discussions is that they are viewed as being about women who are not trans as a group and trans people as a group disagreeing. It seems to be more about people who want to promote a gender binary against people who do not. Many trans people do not want a gender binary either, see it as damaging, don't want the gender man or woman and don't feel they fit into it. Obviously their views are not the ones people listen to because they don't reinforce the structures of wider society, and because they're attacked by trans activists with a conservative view on gender.

I think constructive things to do (because although these debates are needed they can be depressing) are to keep campaigning for certain issues that are getting thrown under a bus by the current agenda (safe childbirth for example) and learn about parallel ways to feminism that non-binary promoting trans people have been dismantling gender. As a parent, I think they may have practical examples that could help people as individuals growing up deal with the oppression of gender. And individual understanding can give people the strength to fight for collective rights.

Trans people should not be allowed to exist and should be shunned because the term "cis" is such a huge abusive act. Really?

That's absolutely not what I think, Goth. And I want to make clear that I have never had any negative experience caused by trans people, or even by the arguments apparently pursued by trans activists that give rise to such strong feelings on here. I agree with drwitch-the threads are lively because this is an issue that allows people to debate the fundamentals of a lot of key issues. As a bit of a novice so far as the social/political/feminist theory is concerned, I find these threads illuminating (if a bit depressing when they get so hostile).

I'm with you too Beachcomber. Thank you for this thread. I am in my forties and been on the receiving end of silencing tactics my whole life. I know only too well what a bigot is. If I speak from my own experience and reality as a woman and as a feminist on the subject of gender I will be labelled as a bigot. The only alternative is to not speak on the issue. I am angry and upset that finally the patriarchy has found a way to shut us up.

Wow, GothAnne, that's a lot of straw women for one post!

I'm about done with this thread too. I'm getting frustrated with the incoherent arguments.

You say you're not opposed to trans people, just the way they shut down debate. But then you dismiss transgenderism as pomo bullshit, you insist that biology is the defining characteristic of being a woman, and you link to people who apparently want to ban reassignment treatments. Do you really not see the problem there?

You say you are not transphobic, you only want to be able to discuss things with likeminded people. Of course it's okay to want to discuss things with likeminded people, but you are deciding in advance who is likeminded on the basis of their sexual or biological identity. How is it not bigotry to make assumptions about someone based on their identity and exclude them because of that?

And then when people do challenge the merits of your argument, you trot out old Sheila Jeffreys. I don't bleeding care what Sheila Jeffreys has to say about anything. You can say the same thing in fifty different ways, it's the substance of the argument I'm challenging.

I don't know any of you and I really don't want to make assumptions, but I suspect that this revulsion toward trans people and I'm sorry, that's a strong word, but it really does come across as revulsion is not actually the end result of rational theorising, but rather stems from some unexamined insecurity within the radfem movement and is then dressed up in fancy jargon to make it sound palatable.

It's the 21st century. We have unimaginable capabilities to fight the oppressor, we have new technologies and tactics and allies and ideas, it is such an exciting time. But all of those things depend on openness, transparency, sharing, connecting, abandoning labels and divisions and creating new identities. So can you imagine how depressing it is to read about radfem rejection of the trans community? How 20th century it all sounds?

I'm sorry to be harsh but really, I despair.

Well, what CrunchFrog and drwitch said so well really.

Sure people who transition, or wish to, are small in number (although apparently increasing) and yet, in accordance with the (highly controversial) politics of transgenderism, laws and attitudes have been shifted in subtle but fundamental ways which affect everybody, and which affect women in different ways to men.

I think it is entirely to be expected that people will have something to say about that, especially when, as mentioned above, we are touching on matters of great controversy such as oppressive socio-political constructs and the individual's relationship to them.

We are now in the situation where the controversy has been highlighted due to a shutting down of debate in an extraordinarily aggressive and effective manner. Trying to say 'nothing to see here folks' isn't going to work and actually just looks like more attempts to shut down debate.

I'm sorry Kim if threads like these are unpleasant for you. I did think about your being a member of MN before I started the thread and decided that that wasn't a reason for me to not start this discussion. You started a thread about Julie Burchill and transgender issues the other day. I see no reason why other members of MN cannot start threads on similar subjects. You are not alone in finding certain subjects on MN unpleasant/frustrating/close to home.

GothAnne, nobody has said this; Trans people should not be allowed to exist and should be shunned because the term "cis" is such a huge abusive act. And I don't think it is conducive to sensible discussion to pretend that they have. Thank your for your feedback on my 'debating tactics' - only thing is, I'm not 'debating' and I don't have any 'tactics'. I'm just chewing the feminist fat on a subject that I care about, and one that I think people who wish to, should be able to discuss.

If you have criticisms of Sheila Jeffreys' analysis I would be interested to hear them. Perhaps you have an opinion on this for example which fits in with what CrunchyFrog said;

In the case of transgenderism the social engineering should be abundantly clear. The practice straightens out those who are a problem for the politically constructed gender structure that founds male domination. Those who do not conform to gender rules, and homosexuals, are surgically reconstructed to fit in. A whole industry and politics has developed to carve ?gender? onto the bodies of adults and children. Maintenance of the gender system is vital to the survival of male domination. Any challenge to the idea of gender threatens the main justification for the subordination of women.

radicalhub.com/2011/05/31/guest-post-sheila-jeffreys/

Ok, some cross postings here.

Yunno what this makes me think of?

When women discuss women's rights issues and patriarchy and they get called manhaters.

dreamingbohemian I didn't dismiss transgenderism as pomo bullshit. I said that the notion that "a person could be male bodied and not take synthetic hormones but simply identify with another gender and that was enough for them to be considered of another sex" struck me as pomo bullshit.

If you disagree, I'm all ears as to why.

More Sheila Jefferys!!

That's your response?

This isn't debate, it's the pushing of hierarchical dogma wrapped up as feminism.

And yy to what dreamingbohemian said.

And I think FreyaSnow nailed it with this;

I think one of the problems with these discussions is that they are viewed as being about women who are not trans as a group and trans people as a group disagreeing. It seems to be more about people who want to promote a gender binary against people who do not. Many trans people do not want a gender binary either, see it as damaging, don't want the gender man or woman and don't feel they fit into it. Obviously their views are not the ones people listen to because they don't reinforce the structures of wider society, and because they're attacked by trans activists with a conservative view on gender.

WildEyedAndHairy and with you on the silencing tactics. I hear you on the patriarchy having found a pretty good one here.

Beach - I find you're being very disingenuous.

You describe JB's article as "explosive", which completely minimises the hatred and demeaning language it contains and in fact incites towards trans people.

Even worse hatred and vile speech on the blogs you link to is painted as "anger".

You are trying to rally people to a cause without showing them the true face and beliefs of those within it, because I know and I suspect you do too, that if they saw the hateful language used, they would want no part of it.

Actually I have to agree with Goth on describing Burchill's article as 'explosive' (though I don't think it incited anything). That's a misdescription, to me. It was repellent.

GothAnne, again, thanks for your feedback on me.

I'd rather talk about the actual issues though than have things get personal - I think that is when discussions about sensitive and controversial issue go wrong.

I'm trying to articulate why I disagree, because my disagreement is very visceral.

I'm thinking of a very dear friend of mine. When I met him, he was a gay man in a long-term relationship with another gay man. Today he is living as a woman and has a girlfriend. He is not taking hormones and has no plans for surgery (now) but he has otherwise completely altered his appearance to look like a woman, he's taken a woman's name and asked us all to use it, he basically is trying to live as much like a woman as possible without physically altering his body.

I honestly don't think any of this is odd or disturbing or 'sad' or problematic in any way. To me, she is now a woman, that's how I think of her, and I don't see why this should be a problem for anyone. So the idea that you would say to her: you are not a woman, and you have no place in our discussion of women's issues because you weren't born with a vagina -- well, it seems pretty hateful to me. You may think what she's doing is pomo bullshit but it's not, it's just her life, and she is actually the happiest she has ever been.

I don't think womanhood resides in my genitalia. It is so much more than that. And it's a glorious, wonderful thing to be a woman, why not celebrate when people choose to identify with it?

You see it as someone claiming something they are not entitled to. I don't think it's for us to decide who is entitled or not. Again, 21st century: it is not the old world of membership lists and box-ticking criteria and fellow traveler tests, it is a new world where you can join movements with a click of the button and 'the more the merrier'. Those are the movements that are flourishing.

I guess I would put it like this: whatever the perceived risks to the feminist movement of embracing the trans community, they are outweighed by the benefits. You would have new allies, new paths of activity, you would be seen as inclusive and evolving with the times. It would be such a positive step, and positivity is a great asset in any activist movement.

"It seems to be more about people who want to promote a gender binary against people who do not."

This just doesn't make sense. You keep claiming to be against a binary and at the same time promote segregation along the lines of the binary you profess to be against.

Beach - I have no knowledge of you personally. to make it clear, it is your tactics here I find disingenuous.

On the 'explosive' thing - it was a word I chose because things have exploded since the publishing of that article.

We had a long thread the other day about the article and the language it contained on which I expressed to posters (including GothAnne) that I thought Burchill had been out of order. I didn't really see the point of this thread as to being rehashing all what had been said on the other one about the Burchill article as there is a wider discussion to be had too. Of course people will talk about what they want to on threads however and if people want to re-examine Burchill's attitude and language then why not.

Ok, I got a bit lost. Apparently my posts are 'whataboutery', whatever that means. And I'm probably all wrong because I'm not keeping to the correct topics like a good little feminist.

But here's what I struggle with: if you say womanhood doesn't reside in the genitals for you - great. If you say being a woman is a wonderful thing so it's lovely when someone identifies as female - that's great too.

But where I struggle is - that's not acknowledging that the world we live in is not a perfect, happy world where everyone acknowledges women are more than their genitals and everyone sees womanhood as something to celebrate.

We live in a world where women are discriminated against, and abused, and largely it is targeted at our female bodies.

Therefore, we need to be able to discuss those bodies, and this identity of being a 'woman'.

It's not about saying 'you're not entitled to do this, how dare you?', it's about saying 'can I please have a space too?'.

Up the thread, kim said in confusion that the 'aim' was for transwomen to become women and 'cis' women to become other. I can't quite get past that post. I don't know if it was a joke, or if you honestly don't see why that's not ok, but I am really stunned we can still be discussing this after a post like that.

I have no issue at all with someone's personal decision to do whatever they like to their body. And I can call someone 'she' or 'he' or 'mooncup rose' if that's what they'd like, but I really do want to be able to keep calling myself a woman, please.

Beachcomber you say you found Burchill's language out of order (and I agree with that), but at the same time you start a thread protesting against the 'silencing' of the 'gendertrender' blog which has been using as bad, if not worse language?

DB, this is all about real people and their lived experiences. We all know that.

Freya funny, because it seems to me to be denying people their lived experiences (i.e., telling people who consider themselves to be women that they aren't and never will be)