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.

Okay, I've read that link LRD.

First off, I don't understand why the supposed 'blood boiling anger' of genderists is linked to a page on which no blood boiling anger is seen. Unless I'm missing it, I'm very tired. But that kind of propagandist BS puts me right off.

Second, it looks like this was the session that was objected to:

I will survive! Feminist survival strategies for life after sexual abuse

What is a feminist analysis of sexual violence? This workshop will explore this and be a safe space for female survivors of sexual abuse to share our stories (if you choose) and survival strategies.

^^ It seems to me that this session would be of great benefit to all women, born or trans. Why not have two sessions? Would that really be so difficult? I can really see why trans women would be hurt by this, it's openly exclusive despite the fact that trans women also experience sexual abuse.

I might feel differently if the session were purely for women to share their experiences, but this is clearly meant to be more than that. Why should trans women not benefit from the analysis and survival strategies offered?

@mini Not all men are sexist, true. Al men are privileged. Every single one. Some are more provileged than others, granted. But all of them are privileged to some degree, by virtue of being men. Or, since we are defining people by what they are not - they are privileged by being not women.

LRD: Unlike you, I do actually read things

Ouch.

I had skimmed the thread, I just hadn't read every post. In an ideal world, yes, I would have read every post before posting anything myself, and thus avoided wasting people's time. But I still haven't read anything on this thread that has convinced me that the term 'cis' is propping up male privilege. I understand the term as Kim has defined it, not as Beachcomber has defined it. I don't think people on the thread are ever going to come to a consensus about the definition.

someone who hasn't bothered to read the thread until now, but feels quite secure preaching to me that I must be ignorant.

I'm sorry it seemed like I was preaching to you. I don't think you're ignorant. I am genuinely surprised and puzzled that someone of your obvious intelligence could hold the views that you hold about transgender people and privilege, but there it is. You say that you "disagree" with the Guardian article, but much of it is actually fact rather than argument or opinion.

Flora I'm not going to tell other women what to do, obviously. But I do not agree with women who organise events that deliberately exclude trans women. Even if you want to create safe spaces, you can still have additional sessions or arrangements so as not to totally exclude people. There is a middle ground if you want to be inclusive, and I just don't understand why people wouldn't want to be.

Also, sorry I keep getting distracted by DC/work emails/phone calls/blah blah blah and responding to posts after the conversation has already moved on.

dreaming thanks for clarifying. I don't mind if people don't agree with groups excluding transwomen so long as they don't try to stop those groups organising or try silence them by threats, picketing, legal action etc. This is actually happening.

dreaming - no, I'm not keen on 'blood boiling anger' either.

I think two sessions would be good. Why not two sessions? I've got to say, my initial reaction isn't 'would transwomen benefit - if yes, great', it's 'would everyone here be comfortable, safe, and able to speak'. That's the priority, to me.

I don't want to use 'irrational' again because it was the wrong word ... but I think if someone feels unable to speak about rape because who who else is in the room, FFS, let them sit in a room on their own or with one or two others. They're not deliberately trying to hurt people by being traumatized.

marfisa - fair enough, sorry I got so cross. It did feel a bit as if you thought I was really slow, and I think a lot of this has been discussed in the posts you'd perhaps skimmed past.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with facts - but I think you're defining things as 'fact' differently from me!

dreaming, with my example of the muslim women's rape survivor group - honestly, would you be telling the organizer there that she also had to take responsibility for sorting out groups for everyone else's faith too?

I just don't get this attitude.

I would hope and expect that many groups could be for everyone - male, female, straight, gay, whatever. I would expect that plenty of people would be fine with that. But if someone feels it's useful to set up a group for working-class black lesbians, my feeling is, go to town on it. And I'm none of those things, so if I want a group, I'll set one up for other people.

I guess with the women only space thing it comes down to two things;

1. You see the value for, and right of, women as an oppressed class, to meet without the presence of members of the oppressing class.

2. You don't consider MTF trans people to be female and or women.

If you disagree with these two things then no doubt you see FAAB women wishing to do things without the presence of men and or MTF trans people as being an unreasonable expectation.

I'm curious as to why people think that MTF trans people (and men) are entitled to a place in women's space when the women would prefer them not to be there. It seems an aggressive and unkind thing to want to do.

See, I don't think you need to decide, categorically, that MtoF transpeople aren't women, in order to see why it might sometimes be fair enough to run groups without them. To me, it's simply about saying that that vulnerable women's needs are important, are not always compatible with the needs of other groups, and should be respected even (especially?) when they're not compatible with the needs of other groups.

I'm aware we're discussing transwomen here, but I'm curious - people who don't feel that it's ever right for women's events to be subdivided into smaller groups - do you also think it's not really ok for there to be women's events at all? Would you, for example, feel that men should always be welcomed on marches like RTN?

Part of this is generational. Younger women often don't have the same perception of what a woman is that many older women have. The meaning of woman has changed for many people, whether older women like it or not. As a consequence, it makes more sense to say that women have or are assumed to have female reproductive organs face forms of oppression that the wider category of woman does not, and should be allowed their own spaces when they require them, as many other types of women do.

I haven't got the experiences that young feminists have, and I have to trust them to some extent that the way they're taking their feminism is relevant and important to the challenges they're facing. They do seem to think gender identity is important for everyone, as well as rape and issues around expressing female sexuality. They're not, in the UK, facing the same fights for reproductive health, equality in education, sexual orientation or working rights that the previous generation went through. I suspect they'll soon be replaced with a new kind of feminism of my daughter's generation - current teens, because she's part of the first generation of women to go through an entire life where sexualisation of young people was the norm.

Beach and LRD - for all your "curiosity" you seem to be overlooking the obvious.

I note Beach, that you cannot even bring yourself to use the term "trans women", instead choosing to use "MTF people".

Anti-trans radfems don't view trans women as women and don't think anyone else should either and actively campaign against them - they call this being "trans-critical", trans people and their allies call this eliminationist.

Part of this campaign is to exclude trans women from any feminist gatherings, with the mantra of trans women not being women used to justify this.

Are you honestly baffled as to why trans women would object to being told they aren't women? Do you seriously not understand why they find that offensive?

Also, if the trans community just meekly accept such slurs, would it not be them who are being silenced, or is silencing ok when the Rad Fem Authorities do it?

Why would you exclude MTF trans people other than if you considered them not to be women though?

This is an interesting and thought provoking perspective from a transwoman.

What's more, it's likely that the women we've known so far have been too sympathetic and made far too many allowances. No one has told us the way it is - not the doctors, not the psychiatrists, not the surgeons. "You want to be a woman? Fine! Take the tablets, wear a dress, and learn to use make-up". Nobody, but nobody, mentions women's politics, women's culture or letting go of male power. (How would they? With few exceptions the gender practitioners are almost exclusively male) So nobody prepares us. And when the 'rejection' comes it feels personal, hurtful and very, very scary.

Ooooh! You found 1 trans woman who agrees with you!

Case closed!

All the other trans women who don't agree with you must be wrong and bad then.

Goodness the arguments you're putting forward, MRA's can find women who agree with them, does that make them right?

I note Beach, that you cannot even bring yourself to use the term "trans women", instead choosing to use "MTF people".

Um, I just did in my X post with yours. So do you want to lay off with the hostile posting style a bit? I'm all for disagreement and discussion but I don't really dig hyperbole and hostility.

Another X post.

I shall try to politely explain to you why I posted the link I did and quoted the section I did.

Not because I have found 1 transwoman who agrees with me

But because I thought what she wrote was perceptive and gave really thought provoking perspective on how lacking the transgender/sex reassignment process can be in terms of mentoring and the fact that Nobody, but nobody, mentions women's politics, women's culture or letting go of male power.

goth, you're putting words in my mouth here, and it's a bit annoying.

Of course I understand why transwomen would object to being told they're not women (and when I say 'understand', I will point out that I am sure I cannot fully 'understand' since it would be patronizing to pretend I have the same experience).

You are trying to make out that I am simply transphobic, because that makes your argument easier. But you I think you need to argue with what I'm actually saying, not what you think someone who disagrees with you would say.

My understanding of all of this is quite limited, I know. From speaking with kim (who I understand is just one person and keen not to be taken as 'spokeswoman' - understandably), I get the impression that this is a complicated issue. You seem to have a much more simplistic view of it, and I'm not sure why I should assume you know better.

Btw, in reply to beach - IMO you'd exclude transwomen if it seemed clear that a vulnerable group of women would benefit, and that transwomen could have their own space. Just as you'd exclude straight women from a lesbian-only group or white women from a group for women of colour, if that seemed important to the people in the group.

freya - out of curiosity, how young do you mean when you say 'younger women'?

LRD - I'm not really breaking a sweat arguing with any of you, so I hardly need to make things easier for myself.

You seem on this thread want things both ways, you're supporting the anti-trans/trans-critical rhetoric yet not wanting to be called transphobic. It doesn't work.

And you know what GothAnne. It has actually really pissed me off that you dismissed what that person had to say as 'the 1 transwoman who agrees with Beach' rather than having something constructive to say about what she wrote.

Thanks for answering LRD - I don't entirely agree with you but I think I'm off to bed now.

Goth objecting, fine. Threatening, picketing events, legal action - ie silencing, not acceptable.

I'm sorry, but it is obvious why you're not breaking a sweat. You're not actually arguing 'with' me, you're arguing with what you think a transphobic person would say.

And it's not what I'm saying.

If you had any arguments to my points, I think you would make them. So, I conclude you don't have them, but you want to. That is fair enough and I have also been in situations where I don't really have an argument but know I feel strongly about something. It's just - it's not actually moving the debate on to keep posting disconnected rants about things no-one is saying.

I suppose I see a different attitude in groups where women in their early twenties dominate. I am mostly thinking about what people are saying online, because I don't know a lot of women who are feminists in their early twenties offline. Areas of the web that skew young, like Tumblr, have a different focus to other places. In addition to lots of posts about it, I see women putting their gender identity on their personal info - cis, agender, gender fluid, transgender, third gender and so on.

beach - we don't have to agree; it's interesting to talk. I appreciate your posts.