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.

dreaming in a world where biological sex does not determine how you are treated and the roles you are assigned people like your friend would be more and more common. I and some others are not saying that per (gender neutral pronoun derived from "women on the edge of time) should not live like this but that FAAB people have a particular set of experiences that define us as a group and that trans people cannot share this

I feel that the current trend towards hormones and surgery makes the life of dreaming's friend harder not easier. I also feel that the more women/men adopt these different roles but remain open about their biology, the closer we will get to the ideal world I crave, I also feel that such individualistic strategies are not enough

Dreamingbohemian does it clear things up at all if I say that for me;

female = sex

woman = sex + socialization

I was careful to say that I think asserting that a male bodied person (with male chromosomes) who takes no hormones and has had no surgery is female (ie they have changed their sex ), is not credible.

For me there is a difference between female and woman. A political difference.

I'm glad your friend is happy and my political views don't take issue with people like your friend living their lives in the manner of their choosing. Would you consider your friend to be of the female sex?

I don't think it is about that. It is more about how everyone can accommodated, which means considering different needs in different contexts.

Sorry, was responding to DB.

I also would swap a world in which only those with XX chromozones were considered women for one in which anybody could be considered one right away, we just don't live in such a world, it is not feminism that is keeping trans people out of women only spaces but the patriarchy

And I don't think what your friend is doing is pomo bullshit. At all.

I think post-modernists and patriarchs using your friend's life to argue that a person can change sex through the means of gender identity is bullshit.

But let's say my friend does pass as a woman (and she does frequently). She will still be subject to sexist discrimination as a woman, even though she was not born as one. No one will care if she has a uterus or not, if they think she is a woman they will treat her like one, including negatively.

The biological component to sexism is not the only element. The idea of 'woman' encompasses so much more.

It's true, my friend does not have to personally worry about abortion or birth control, but there are still countless other areas where she will be subject to sexism because of her female identity. I think we should be focusing on those shared areas of concern, not excluding people because our issues are not 100% the same.

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.

LRD I noticed that too but I assumed it was some sort of typo

Although perhaps what was meant is that the aim is for most women to be considered 'trans' in the sense that they reject the gender identity traditionally imposed on women. Which is an interesting idea but one I disagree with due to my rejection of gender as a patriarchal social construct.

Beachcomber Sorry, that doesn't clear things up for me. You include 'sex' as part of the definition of both 'female' and 'woman', so presumably you are saying that someone who is biologically male cannot be considered a woman. And that is the essence of what I disagree with.

Apologies if I'm not interpreting that correctly. Do you agree that my friend is a woman?

dreaming, if I divorced my DH and married a woman, I would presumably get whatever discrimination my mates who're lesbians get. It wouldn't mean I would feel ok saying 'now let me come along to your weekly group where you discuss what it was like growing up gay'. Because I don't have those experienes. I've heard a mate of mine talking about what it was like for her being 18 and having people call her 'dyke' to her face, and people telling her her relationship isn't real.

I think this is quite a good comparison. I'm bisexual - I am not a lesbian. I wouldn't make out that I know what it's like to be one. Sometimes it's interesting to talk to other women who're attracted to women and we have some of the same experiences, sure. But my lived experience is different, as well as similar.

If someone born male feels they're female inside and starts to live as a woman, their experiences will be a mix of similar to those of other women, and different.

I don't understand why it's not considered ok to say this.

I've never met a straight feminist who thought that she ought to be entitled to lesbian-only meetings, or a white feminist who moaned about the existence of Southall Black Sisters (and I hope to god such people don't exist). I don't see what is wrong with saying that.

As a second point - I reckon I and lots of others would have much more to talk about with transwomen if we weren't being labelled as 'cis'. Once I get past that, we end up talking about what it's like to have these different-but-similar experiences of not feeling our gender identity fits with our bodies, fits with how society sees us. Those could be productive conversations, but they are shut down by this label that says 'you 'cis' women don't get a voice here'.

No, I don't agree that your friend is a woman. However if we met I would respect her chosen identity by use of pronouns, etc.

I was just trying to explain that I think the idea that one can change sex not credible.

A human male can live as a woman. Of course they can. And as you say they will no doubt be on the receiving end of sexism and misogyny.

I do think there is a difference between FAAB women who have experienced misogyny all their lives and been socialized to internalise it and normalise it and men whose formative years were lived as male. Which is why I don't think your friend is a woman (for me woman means having lived and been socialized as a girl, a female teenager, etc. Our socialization starts from the minute we are born). I also don't think your friend is female.

I respect her right to live as a woman though and wish her peace and happiness.

I still can't see why being "labelled" as cis is a problem. Cis means that you don't consider yourself a transgendered person. It's as simple as that.

Most of the women on this thread ARE cis and so am I. You can dislike the word, but refusing to acknowledge the fact that you possess a certain type of privilege doesn't change the fact that you possess it. It's like being white and not wanting to call yourself white, or having an Oxbridge degree and not wanting to call yourself an Oxbridge graduate.

What about intersex people, whose stories have been told at least since the 16th century? People whose genitalia don't fall obviously into the penis/vagina opposition?

Is there a pull-down-your-pants test that people have to take in order to call themselves radical feminists? Because if so, I guess I'm not interested in being one. I'm a feminist because I don't like it when gender is used to justify instances of exclusion.

I think queer theory is absolutely right on because it acknowledges that binary oppositions like straight/gay, male/female, penis/vagina don't tell the whole story about gender and identity.

DB, surely the point is that there are types of oppression that only happen to trans people, and as such there are occasions where some of them may want their own spaces. People who have female reproductive organs, regardless of what gender they might be, experience types of oppression that are only done to them. So some of them want their own spaces sometimes.

And sometimes many different kinds of people will want to meet together. And some people will want acknowledgement of their sex in some situations and their gender or lack of it in others. Some people might not want to tell others their gender and some may not want to tell others their sex. Some may stay as one gender, some may move between many genders over their life or a week.

It is just a lot more complicated if we are to accommodate everyone than making out that there are two genders and biological sex no longer matters. Because lots of people don't fit into the binary and a person still dies every 90 seconds in childbirth. There's no threat more visceral to me than that one.

I don't thin cis is as simple as all that though marfisa. It is a very patriarchy propping term.

LRD those are very good points, and I agree that shared experiences are important if the whole point of something is to share experiences. But when it comes to a political movement, are we really comfortable saying that it can only be joined by people with shared experiences? What if those experiences overlap, say, 70%? What if my partner is the one with the shared experience and I'm supportive of them?

I guess it's a deeper question though, what is the basis of feminism? Who gets to be a feminist and join in? I prefer a more inclusive approach, even if that causes some bumps. Possibly I'm being too idealistic though.

Marfisa, many people have explained why they don't like cis. If you explain what you don't understand about their statements they might be able to clarify. The points you are raising were addressed.

Freya, I do see what you mean about groups wanting their own spaces. I just don't see trans people as threatening/compromising feminist spaces (at least not any feminist spaces that I can imagine).

And yes, biological sex does matter. It just doesn't tell the whole story.

BC, how has cis functioned as a patriarchy-propping term? How? I know loads of feminist women who have no problem identifying as cis, and they would be very surprised to know that they are somehow propping up the patriarchy.

I think you (LDR) have used the word 'cis' more than anybody I know or talk to or post on the bits of the internet I read. I only know one trans person who I remember using it a few times on a trans forum.

marfisa - no, that is how you define cis.

No one has yet been able to describe what 'privilege' 'cis' women might have. To some people (tiggy, for example), the question of what women get to call themselves is clearly far too tedious to talk about. Indeed, tiggy, you're quite happy to make cracks at me for using the word - why is that, exactly? Where do you get off telling me what to talk about?

My issue with 'cis' is that no, I don't feel any 'gender identity' that fits with my body or with how society sees me. So it is actually very insulting to have people assuming these things are all 'on the same side' for me, or that it's some great privilege .... which I don't have.

If someone else wants to call themselves 'cis', that is fine. I know some women do feel a strong sense of gender identity. I can imagine it must be really nice to feel that your body and your sense of yourself and the way society sees you, all fit together and feel good. I imagine that's wonderful. But it is rude to assume someone else feels like that.

Another analogy (though an imperfect one) is the term neurotypical (used in contrast to the term non-neurotypical, which might identify people on the autism spectrum, for example). It's a term designed to avoid the opposition of "normal" / "not-normal", because in that opposition the "not-normal" term is implicitly pejorative.

Beachcomber if you don't consider my friend a woman, there is no way we will ever find common ground. I am really trying to understand your point of view but I think ultimately you are taking an extremely closed-minded position that no amount of theorising can justify (and I am really trying to follow the theory, but it seems to me there are some critical contradictions within it).

yy to marfisa's posts btw

dreaming - but I didn't say that! I didn't say that a political movement can only be joined by people with the same experiences.

All I have said is that I want a space for women to talk, and I want to be able to debate without being labelled 'cis' and without someone telling me that just to open my mouth, is transphobic.

Marfisa, then presumably you wouldn't use those spaces. If women have particular issues regarding things that have happened to their bodies (childbirth interventions and similar), they may want to take about that with people with the same kind of body. It doesn't mean everyone else has to be excluded from everything feminist or everything involving people with female reproductive organs.

marfisa, I don't get it. You can understand that 'normal/non-normal' is perjorative, but you don't see why other labels might be?

Surely it is perjorative to label someone with a belief system they don't belive?