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.

from wikipedia
Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook defined cisgender as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity"

in which case any woman who refuses to be a stepford wife is not cis- so the concept is meaningless

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.

This might go some way to explaining how I feel about this:

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

'Cis' is a term loaded with a view of gender I do not subscribe to. Why should I take it as a descriptor for myself to oblige someone else? Was there a memo I missed about it being OK to impose labels on groups who object to them?

Marfisa, NT has a specific meaning, as does ASD, ADHD and so on. The people those terms apply to agree they are in some way defined by that word. A lot of people who others assume are cis don't think the meaning of is does define their own experience of their gender identity.

I think if the different gender identities were fully explained to everyone and taught properly, the vast majority of people would have one of the trans* identities and almost nobody would be cis.

LRD I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I wonder if maybe we're all talking about different things here. What are the spaces you want to be woman-only? What spaces are you happy for everyone to join? We are talking about space and conversations in the abstract and I wonder if being more specific would show that we're not really disagreeing.

To take Freya's example -- I mean, how likely is it that you're going to have a bunch of trans women rocking up to a seminar on childbirth interventions? Is this a realistic problem?

Can we not rely on people to self-sort themselves into appropriate spaces? Do we have to explicitly exclude people when maybe they're not even interested?

Assuming that 'gender' is the social significance and resulting individual identity given to biological sex, the concept of individal gender identity is meaningless. Biological sex can be seen as a fact - but has no necessary social/political significance. Which is why the debate has been between 'sex' and 'gender'.

I think it is more constructive to differentiate 'individual' identity and 'social' identity. For example, If I saw a (biological) man wearing women's clothes in a women's toilet, I would consider there was a possibility he was there for reasons likely to harm women or children. (NB - possibility). This is the crucial issue - men (male body + identity as men) in our society are known to behave in that way.

There is a power imbalance between men and women - gender is the social system creating that inequality.

I've only skimmed through this thread, so hope I'm not repeating/ignoring what's beensaid before

DB, in a feminist conference that are open to everyone, there may be workshops that are for female born only, about specific issues, and others attempt to close that down (usually trans activists who are not themselves trans) for being transphobia.

dreaming - to be specific: I wanted to go to the conference at Conway Hall. There was a meeting in Manchester where one session was to be for rape survivors. Because some of the people who wanted to attend were in such a vulnerable state, they didn't feel able to attend if there were going to be men, or people with penises, there. My feeling is, if someone is horribly vulnerable and hurt - they may be a little bit irrational. Obviously, you could talk about rape in front of someone with a penis and logically, you'd know they're not going to hurt you in a room full of people. But if you've been hurt, IMO you get to have that extra stress removed, just for a bit.

That's the sort of thing I worry about. I would be perfectly ok with it if someone told me that one session at a conference was for rape survivors only and they'd rather I didn't come in. I'd be perfectly ok with it if one session was for FtoM or MtoF transsexuals and they didn't want me to come in.

I do worry when things are cancelled or no-platformed, just because a powerful group disagrees.

I hear about death threats to people like Cathy Brennan and Julia Long, and about how it's virtually impossible to hear Shiela Jeffries speak.

I don't even know if I agree with everything these women say (well, I've met Julia Long and I think she's amazing, so I would probably agree with her!). But why are they being totally silenced?

I think this goes to the heart of it all:

'I think to call cis-privilege is out of order - but then again, people are willing to call out male prvilege without actually knowing a person. I know people on here have said I had male privilege without knowing a thing about me.'

The difference, IMO, is that no-one can tell me what female 'cis' privilege would be. Many, many people can demonstrate in the most concrete terms that men have privilege, and have had throughout history.

When one side have a core belief that they are women to the point of screwing them up so much one third attempt suicide, and the other side have a core belief that the others are fundamentally not women, finding a way for everybody to get on and be friendly isn't going to be possible.

As I've said before about lots of topics (usually cycling ones), every group seems to have it's share of extremists that in no way represent the views of the other 99%.

I don't know if this works as a parallel - but I grew up near Leicester, where there's a lot of tension between people of Somali extraction and people who're from Asian via South Africa. Without knowing people, I couldn't always say which people in which groups had 'racial privilege'. It's clear both groups can be and have been targets of racism by white people. But you can't immediately point to someone and say 'this person has race privilege because they're Somali'.

I think it might be the same with this idea of 'cis' privilege amongst women, and transpeople. I don't know, though, since I've still not seen examples of female 'cis' privilege that make sense to me (and yes, I know, of course I may simply be blind to it).

As long as they don't get them out, how would you know whether a trans woman with a penis was attending such a workshop? You wouldn't check the genitals of every attendee, would you?

What if a woman, who is not trans, but who has a masculine looking body and/or face, or hormonal issues leading to beard growth wanted to attend such a workshop. Would she have to undergo the humiliation of having to prove that she doesn't have and never had a penis, or would she be asked not to attend as to not make other attendees uncomfortable?

I can't see exclusion of trans women working unless every woman who wanted to attend would have to provide such proof, as it's not possible to be sure otherwise.

I'm really just asking about the practicalities of such an exclusion.

WW - as I said in my post, I don't think women in a rape-survivor workshop would be literally threatened by anyone's genitals, but I think those women, who're vulnerable, do get to set the terms a bit.

Did you not read that? Because it makes nonsense of your idea that anyone is checking genitals, doesn't it?

Btw, god forbid you assume we'd trust people to be who they said, right?

Do you actually think transpeople are naturally dishonest and liars, or did you just make up a situation in which they were because you thought it would look clever?

TiggyD one side have a 25% lifetime risk of being sexually attacked. Usually by people with the same original biological anatomy as those now claiming the same gender identity as the victims.

This is inevitably a problem.

We have to base entry on trust. In the same way if we set up a group solely for people who have had a miscarriage, we don't ask for a doctor's note. We assume people are truthful; it isn't the plot of Fight Club where people randomly turn up to survivor groups for entertainment purposes.

You say they get to set the terms. I'm asking you how these terms would deal with women who have masculine looks. You've evaded the questions. If you accept that women can self-identify as women without being questioned,the restriction to 'FAAB' women doesn't make sense.

If you don't accept the self identification it doesn't make it difficult for only transwomen, but also every other women which may have masculine traits.

I'm not asking about the reasons, but about the execution.

Freya - If you accept that people don't turn up for entertainment purposes, why do you feel the need to stipulate the restriction?

Patriarchy is the enemy of feminists. Patriarchy is not a genuine friend of trans people.

Patriarchy is the main problem for both groups. It is patriarchy that has changed the definition of woman. It is patriarchy that rations treatment for trans people. It is patriarchy that controls the social attitudes that oppress people.

Patriarchy presents itself as being enlightened on trans issues, but it's only a thin veneer of tolerance, throwing trans people what patriarchy regards as patriarchal "crumbs" to keep them quiet e.g. inclusion of trans people in the group called women. However, benefits to individual trans people come more by accident than patriarchal design.

How many birth certificates do you have? Almost everyone has one. The UK government discriminates against trans people because, following surgery, a new birth certificate is issued but the original birth certificate is not destroyed. The government finds it absolutely essential to know, for ever, which of its citizens is trans. The government likes labelling people. It actively "others" trans people while enshrining "othering" of trans people as transphobia in its so-called equality legislation. This is an example of patriarchy saying "do as I say, not as I do".

The government need to be challenged on its oppression of women, its new definition of woman, and its half-hearted tolerance of trans people. Patriarchy must be forced to resolve these issues so that trans people, feminists and everyone else can live together in harmony.

The right of feminists to criticise patriarchal institutions, supporters and practices must be protected and encouraged.

LRD I don't think they're liars. But I don't think a woman should be allowed to live as a woman without having to disclose whether she's trans or not. If she identifies as a woman that should be good enough.

Gaah, fail. I think she should be allowed to live as a woman without having to disclose whether she's trans or not.

widow - no, I didn't evade the question. I simply suggested that normal people would trust each other.

It's hardly rocket science, is it?

I mean, honestly ... why in god's name would anyone be checking to see someone who say they're a woman, is a woman?

widow - right, so you think that women who've been raped have fewer rights?

Why is that, exactly?

Why couldn't it be 'good enough' for them to say, yes, I've suffered something and now I want a place where I feel safe to talk about it?

WW, because it makes it clear to the group who are included that the focus is on them and their experiences. There may be valid reasons why somebody wants to learn about something. I might want to learn more about experiences of rape, but as I've never been raped, by setting up a closed group fro rape survivors (or some sub group of them), I have effectively been politely told without conflict or misunderstanding on the day that I am not invited, and the people who do attend can be sure of a safe space operating solely for survivors.