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.

WTF - why do you think I think raped women have fewer rights? Do you believe that trans women don't experience rape?

Yes, that's what I think freya.

I know that there are real difficulties with rape, because men who've been raped can struggle hugely to access services and support.

Occasionally some bright spark will suggest having joint meetings of men and women. Some women are fine with this, but others are not. It's horrible, because there is hurt and pain on both sides. Just as I would imagine there is if you're told you can't go to a meeting because someone else's trauma means they're not comfortable with it.

But while this is painful, I don't see why it is automatically assumed that the hurt felt by someone trans is more important than that of the women who needed the meeting?

widow - no, I didn't say that, did I?

But you assume transwomen who've been raped have more rights than 'cis' women, don't you?

The first group get what they want and the second get their sessions stopped or banned.

Obviously trans women do. There are survivor of rape groups for trans women, for all women and for born women (or whatever term you prefer).

Sorry my last post was to WW. I shall specify in future as I am causing confusion.

dreaming "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)."

So, that being your view, do you agree that women who do not share it should be permitted to discuss this issue it in public without being silenced? Do you believe that women who do not share that view should be forced to accept your friend in all women's spaces?

So where is all this censorship? It is not that hard to set up groups for those who want to be in them only or open groups.

I like talking to all klinds of people as I can convert them to my views whereas talking to people with the same views is duller. However I can see that people often do find it helpful only to talk to those who share certain things with them.

What is the issue? Anyone can set up websites and decide who has access surely?

Yes, actually, it is hard, xenia.

Events have been banned and speakers non-platformed.

Is it so hard to understand not wanting penises in women only spaces?

Xenia I think the point is that transactivists nearly did get RadFem2012 shut down - they threatened a suit against the venue based on anti-discrimination legislation and the venue pulled out. It had to be held somewhere else right at the last minute, and was all very cloak and dagger.

I am slooow at thinking AND typing so please forgive me for being at a tangent here.

I'm unclear what some people who subscribe to gender identity theory think is so great about 'womanhood'.

So dreamingbohemian said up thread that her womanhood is something she wants to celebrate and that it doesn't reside in her genitalia. So presumably by 'womanhood' she means her lifelong experience of feminine socialization and feeling (I personally don't know what it feels like to have a feminine feeling though). (please correct me if I'm wrong)

But if woman = feminine socialization (which ime includes being expected to submit to misogyny, rape, abuse, being marginalised) and feeling, then I don't want to be a woman. I want to be a human being.

Is it the case that when people celebrate 'womanhood' in this sense they are talking about the less-yucky, fetishised (in a non-sexual sense) bits of feminine behaviours and socialization? Because I actually think they are inseparable from the yucky bits. Feminine bonding and finding pleasure in feminine behaviours (which I sometimes do, yes) are a poor price to pay for a world where it's pretty normal to die in childbirth. I don't particularly want to celebrate my womanhood in that sense.

If I did want to celebrate my womanhood in any sense I think it would have to be in the sense of my body's potential power to bring forth and sustain life. But I expect that is frowned upon.

(Aside: I would have gone to RadFem2012 if I had been in the UK then - I wanted to hear Gail Dines speak.)

vesuvia Tue 22-Jan-13 16:07:38

"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."

Yes! This. Thank you Vesuvia for putting it into words. (And hi)

I still think people are radically misunderstanding what cis means.

LRDFeministDragon said:
"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."

I don't feel like that myself AT ALL. As far as I can tell, I feel much like you do about being a woman. I don't feel any kind of marvellous continuity between my body and the way that society perceives me and the way I perceive my own gender. Au contraire! It is messy and confusing and frustrating much of the time. Identifying as cis does NOT mean that you consider your gender identity to be unproblematic.

It simply means that you don't have to angst over whether to tick the "M" box or the "F" box when you're filling out a form. You don't have to worry over which set of toilets to go to or which locker room to get changed in. You don't want to change the box that your parents ticked on your birth certificate to identify your sex just after you were born. That's all it means.

It's not a "belief system". Honest.

Until I encountered this thread I never would have realised how much prejudice against trans people exists in the UK, even in the (for the most part) quite educated and enlightened community that is MN. I am really impressed that Kim has hung around to keep talking.

marfisa - I don't tick the M of F boxes if I can help it - increasingly, it's optional.

I think you're misunderstanding that not everyone feels the same way you do! You're free not to mind what it means, but please try to understand that some of us do mind, and don't want to be told we're not women any more, we're 'cis' women.

Do you believe there's such a thing as 'gender identity' that can be different from the sex ticked on that box when you were born?

Btw, I also think vesuvia has it spot on.

If people were serious about the rights of transpeople to be women, they would not be using this terminology of 'trans' and 'cis'. Making up new terms to other people doesn't come from trying to be inclusive.

Of course gender identity doesn't fit into a box. There is no way my gender identity fits into a box on a form.

Nonetheless, I think of myself as a woman. Do you not think of yourself as a woman?

If not, that's fine, but if that is the case, how can you argue that you should be allowed in women-only spaces such as the radical feminist ones you have been advocating?

'Gender' is nothing to do with me being a woman.

I think people are quite capable of understanding what cis means. And I think most who reject it are doing so because they don't wish to be labelled by someone else. You may be happy to use it, but you can't foist it on to others. I dislike it because I feel that women have been labelled and othered for centuries. Giving us a new prefix is another example of that.

It's also a way to divide and rule. So, we have cis women and trans women, instead of just women.

But you believe there is such a thing as 'gender identity'.

And I'm not sure I do.

This is why I think it's a belief system.

I think that if we lived in a fair society, we wouldn't care in the slightest who had what genitals. It would be as irrelevant and unimportant as whether I have lobed ears or whether I can curl my tongue - something that is genetic, but that people only notice as a vague curiosity.

But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where violence against women is a huge, huge issue, where women are discriminated against and their bodies are the site of violence and abuse, and their rights over their bodies are contested.

That's why it matters to be able to speak about these things. Not because I want the fact I'm a woman to matter politically, but because it does.

I want us to get away from this stupid idea that there is such a thing as 'gender identity'. All I can see it doing is hurting people and making them feel they have to fit into boxes.

"If people were serious about the rights of transpeople to be women, they would not be using this terminology of 'trans' and 'cis'. Making up new terms to other people doesn't come from trying to be inclusive."

The gay community has "made up" a lot of "new" terms precisely in order to foster inclusivity. But maybe you wouldn't like the term "straight" either?

Marfisa, there is a huge ideology about internal gender identity behind the word cis. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If we really cared about the identities of trans people, we'd be educating all children about the wide range of trans gender identities, not making out that the difference was simply a matter of degree in exactly how uncomfortable society makes you feel about gender.

Marfisa, why don't you read the thread? I would certainly object to the term straight if everyone who wasn't gay was called straight, which is what you're proposing with trans and cis.

OK, no, I don't believe in gender identity. Not as anything tangible and constant and immutable that you can pin down and define.

You still haven't said whether you consider yourself a woman - do you not consider yourself a woman then?

I am happy to say that I'm a woman, but only as long as I don't have to define what being a woman is. Because I consider that impossible, undesirable, and utterly different from person to person.

marfisa - I'm happy to use the term 'straight', because I think there is such a thing as straight women having privilege over lesbians. I do not think the same is true of 'cis' women and 'trans' women.

I am a woman. It has nothing to do with 'considering' myself one, though, IMO.

If someone else considers themself a woman because they believe that's their innate gender identity, that's a belief system I cannot share. I can respect other people's belief systems and I hope I do. But I don't think they should have the right to impose the labels of that belief system on me.

Saying it's 'impossible and undesirable' to define what a woman is - well, how do you define the group of people who have historically been discriminated against because of how their bodies are? Because they're the group people recognize as the ones who can be fucked, who can have babies, who can have abortions.

Whatever you call that group of people, the discrimination against them is real. I think saying you can't (or won't) define that group is the first step to making that discrimination less tangible and easily named. It's a step towards making it easier to discriminate against women.

It is really difficult to have this debate when people are talking as if it's a foregone conclusion that it's valid to construct a hierarchy of oppression, and in that hierarchy, women (if they're there are all), are highly privileged.

I do not believe women are highly privileged. I do not believe transpeople are highly privileged, either.

I think it would be easier to have this discussion if people would consider forms of oppression that are unique to women and happen solely to us, rather than constantly make us analogous to some other group like white people, Christians or whoever. I don't think analogies help at all unless people have really thought about the situation of the group in question.