Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

Beachcomber · 20/01/2013 19:48

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.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 10:26

People have been threatening to get GenderTrender closed down for ages (they have also been trolling and spamming the site and threatening the author. One person has threatened a lawsuit against her just so that they can find out her identity and then out her to the sort of people who wanted to brick Suzanne Moore's face in - feminine behaviour if ever I saw it - not), the copyright photo thing is just a pretext.

BTW it would seem that the writer of the blog has been the victim of a trojan attack on her computer and she has lost vast amounts of data from her hard drive. Nice, huh?

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 10:58

Gallus Mag seems to have been given back access to her blog - so it would seem either wordpress changed their minds about censoring her or the denial of access was hacking. I don't know which.

OP posts:
dreamingbohemian · 23/01/2013 10:58

Hi, just coming back to this today Smile

LRD, you asked last night whether I would expect a group for Muslim victims of rape to be open to non-Muslims. I don't think this is a good analogy to the inclusion of trans women. A better analogy would be if a Muslim group decided to exclude Muslim converts, on the grounds that they were not 'real Muslims' (having not grown up Muslim). I think this would also be unfortunate, but not being Muslim I don't feel I have a right to comment on it. With respect to women, however, being a woman I do think I have that right.

Beachcomber, you asked why we should expect trans women to be included in safe spaces when women don't want them there. I think it's a massive assumption to think that women would not want them there. I would not have a problem personally and I can't imagine I'm the only one. So I think the better option is not to assume anything, and to at the very least have dual sessions or alternative options for those who are not fussed.

You admit that the gendertrender site is offensive to trans people, but say that efforts to shut it down are censorship. I can see this argument in the US context, under the 1st Amendent, but there's a totally different regime in the UK/Europe with hate speech laws. We've seen footballers charged in court after uttering racial slurs on the pitch. In Germany you can be arrested for denying the Holocaust. I don't think people consider such things to be censorship, do they? My point being, interpretations of censorship are not universal either. So to excoriate a community for trying to shut down a website, when such efforts are 'normal' within their national context, doesn't make sense to me.

GothAnneGeddes · 23/01/2013 10:59

If the photo is just a pretext, why have the other "trans-critical" blogs not been taken down?

Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 11:26

dreamingbohemian I think your comment gets to the crux of the censorship thing in this context - I would like to comment but am busy just now. I will answer you questions later on.

GothAnne, the blog hasn't been taken down, the author was denied access.

OP posts:
Narked · 23/01/2013 11:58

I don't understand why it's considered acceptable to post pictures of people and hold them up to ridicule.

Xenia · 23/01/2013 12:07

dreaming, lots of people do thin that is censorship. Holocaust denial laws are wrong. Free speech is important even if the views are those we do not like. We have draft CPS guidelines in the UK which thankfully are much better than we have. They in effect say if you get upset over something be stoic and put up with it, don't go whining to the police over petty insults on line and that is exactly the approach we need to encourage.

Obviously if people libel others that is a different matter.

kim147 · 23/01/2013 12:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dreamingbohemian · 23/01/2013 12:33

kim that is awful. Your poor friend.

I've been resisting having a look at that site but I think maybe I should.

GothAnneGeddes · 23/01/2013 12:44

Kim - that is horrible. How is your friend doing now?

I cannot and do not believe that putting people's identities online in such a way serves any positive purpose.

Which brings me to a wider point. What is it that Gendertrender et al hope to achieve? Why do they need to ferment hatred towards trans people, particularly trans women to do it?

Dreaming - Have something nice to look at afterwards. Gendertrender is a dark, nasty place.

dreamingbohemian · 23/01/2013 12:44

I look forward to your thoughts Beach.

Just to expand a bit -- I think in the US, because we do have such broad speech protection, a lot of people interpret censorship as 'official' censorship (i.e. the government banning things). Anything else is not really censorship. Yes, you have the right to say what you want, but you do not have the right to insist that others distribute what you say. Websites and media companies also enjoy freedom of speech and they do not have to publish anything they disapprove of.

So for an offensive website to be shut down by Wordpress is not censorship. The bloggers can go to other media to share their speech. They can shout what they like from the rooftops. Especially today, there are many many options for getting your position out there.

Xenia I agree with you intellectually but it is indeed very hard to live in a society where people can be so fucking racist and you can't do anything about it. It's not about just sucking it up, it's about how do you begin to really get rid of racism when it's everywhere in the public discourse. The good thing about hate speech laws is that it sets a very strong norm against racism. That can seem very appealing when you're from a country where a black person can't escape racist threats even when he becomes president.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 23/01/2013 12:47

dreaming - 'A better analogy would be if a Muslim group decided to exclude Muslim converts, on the grounds that they were not 'real Muslims' (having not grown up Muslim).'

But it wouldn't be. Someone who converts to Islam shares a belief system with someone who was brought up Islam. The point here is that there is a problem, that however much we would all like to agree, we obviously don't all agree about what 'gender identity' is.

Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 12:52

OK Kim, we are obviously talking about a different photo - I thought the photo that has been brought up on the thread was the one of Janet Mock. I mentioned it early on in the thread and asked if that was the photo you were referring to.

Are you saying that GT took a photo from a blog of a random trans person and posted the photo maliciously? To what end? Confused

If so I am shocked and surprised and vehemently disagree with such behaviour.

You have mentioned how you have been treated at school and it sounds horrible for you. I'm sorry.

OP posts:
MiniTheMinx · 23/01/2013 12:57

For once I agree with xenia free speech must be protected.

As for holocaust denial, well (as someone who's father is Jewish) I feel that there is quite enough totally incontrovertible evidence as to make the small number of deniers look like loons.

I found what LRD said about pro-life people and leaflets interesting too. I have no objection to pro-life lobbyist handing out leaflets. Why we should want to hide the facts of abortion from ourselves, I don't know, make us feel less uneasy with our choices?????perhaps. The clinics themselves are never going to tell women how it is. I do however think lobbyist standing outside of clinics, "harassing" women needs to be stopped because it is intimidating. Where there is an obv threat to someone it needs to dealt with under existing laws.

Kim, that is dreadful for your friend. I have tried to read some of the bloggs, I can't, I can't get past the vitriol and hatred. Do I think The GenderTrender site should be taken down? no. It's more than likely that such tactics will not work, they will not gather support. So let it stand. Where individuals are made example of Xenia is it possible that would amount to libel?

EldritchCleavage · 23/01/2013 12:58

I think our right is more accurately defined as freedom of expression. It doesn't extend to incitement to hatred or violence against specified groups, so quite apart from wanting the right to decide what views or statements they are prepared to publish on moral or commercial or other grounds, individuals or groups or companies will usually refuse to publish statements like that to avoid legal liability.

I'm generally surprised at how many people in the UK either think we have the same laws as the USA in this area or blithely assume we should. Our laws and culture don't regard freedom of speech as the pre-eminent right, and that's a situation I prefer, especially there seem to be a lot of websites, possibly including Gendertrender (haven't looked, don't want to) that seem happy to function as a kind of public stocks egging people on to acts of exclusion and hounding, as kim's friend experienced.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 23/01/2013 13:08

mini - I don't want to 'hide the facts of abortion from ourselves'.

And I didn't actually object to 'pro-life people'. I objected to men doing it.

I am well aware it is legal for men to campaign against abortion. As a feminist, I don't think men 'should be entitled' to do it. I think abortion is about a woman's rights over her own body, so I don't think men should get to try to control those rights.

I'm making this point not because I am some kind of crazy lady who expects to snap her fingers and get the law changed, but to illustrate that there is a big gap between what's a legal right and what I think people 'should be entitled' to do.

I don't think everything that is currently not illegal, is the right thing to do.

kim - well, that is a pile of shit that happened to your friend (and you). I'm sorry. That is disgusting.

I don't think it is ok if the picture was in the public domain, either. I'm just not clear why it was necessary to have a picture there are all? But then I really dislike the way loads of articles have an anonymous, 'public' picture of a woman slapped onto them. It creeps me out. So I am assuming it feels similar.

dreamingbohemian · 23/01/2013 13:23

Ok I'm back. That website is vile. I don't see how anyone who reads it regularly can be at all surprised by what happened to kim's friend.

I don't think it should be taken down though. Let everyone see how intellectually bankrupt such people are.

MiniTheMinx · 23/01/2013 14:03

I agree, It's vile but it should stand for everyone to read.

Here is GenderTrender's response to being locked out of word press

radfemcentral.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-power-of-female-rage/

It's certainly worth a read. I especially recommend reading it because she really can't help calling Janet Mock, him, her as many times as she can manage...."he is a very powerful man" ???? she goes onto say "IF YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THIS ? and I know many of you DO, I encourage you to RAISE A HOLY FUCKING SHITSTORM about the silencing of feminists who critique GENDER and PLASTIC SURGERY and MUTILATION and RAPE and FREEDOM FROM THE PEEN and ETC ETC ETC"

The whole thing is littered with hyperbole, swearing and hysterical nonsense and to top it all she posts a picture of the queen making rude hand signs.

I say let it all stand because then people can judge for themselves.

DrunkenDaisy · 23/01/2013 14:25

Ok, I was raped (by multiple men) in horrific circumstances when I was younger. To this day, I can't even speak to my own mother about it; so I really wouldn't be ok with anyone with a penis in a discussion forum.

Does this make me transphobic? If so, why?

Xenia · 23/01/2013 14:53

I virtually always come down in favour of freedom of speech.
On the abortion issue where I think the line is passed is where the anti abortionists stand at clinics and approach women. By all means let them post their material on line but that is going too far if they get close to those approaching a clinic. Thankfully it's too cold in the UK and we are too lazy for most people ever to bother to do that much anyway although there have been a few incidents.

In the UK we don't have quite the same face issues as the USA or history.

I want to live in a UK where you can say the holocaust did not exist, women are a sub species or men for that matter and for people to be free to lobby so that women lose the vote. I want us to be a land of those kind of freedoms.

I don't really understand the issue on the thread though as I did not read the background and think feminism really begins at home and in the office rather than meetings to discuss it. I avoid all meetings and committees like the plague as they can be the worst time wasters there are. Within reason groups should be able to decide their own members on and off line. I don't think it's very hard on line to form groups which just consist of some people. You can have passwords and limit access if you want to.

StewieGriffinsMom · 23/01/2013 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 15:56

Ok, I haven't really gathered my thoughts on this so this post is really thinking out loud.

I have been a feminist for about 20 years and for a long time I wasn't terribly aware of the transgender controversy - it wasn't something that I perceived as being terribly important and it seemed a fuss about not very much. I didn't have an issue with transexuality other than thinking that the medical side seemed pretty brutal, and disagreeing with the reinforcement of sexist gender stereotypes when they occurred. Like a lot of feminists I had a 'live and let live' attitude to the practice of living as the opposing gender, even though I didn't really agree with the concept (for political reasons), I empathised with people affected by the issue (for human reasons).

Then, as I said above, there seemed to be a shift in trans politics as they took on a post-modern approach. I disagreed with the post-modern analysis - again for political reasons. I continued to empathise with the humans involved in the reality of feeling very unhappy with their body as related to their feelings about gender.

Then there was another shift - this time a legal one. People affected by transgenderism have had a long hard struggle against discrimination and that struggle is far from over. They do, of course, need their human and civil rights enshrined in law and respected in society as does any group of people who are badly treated when patriarchal paradigms of domination and submission are allowed too free a run.

Historically, discrimination and equality laws have always been designed to establish and protect rights , and to protect minorities from dominant groups exercising unearned privilege.

However with certain gender laws there is a conflict of ideologies and consequently, what is considered a right and what is considered an unearned privilege, is controversial. There is also an incompatibility between sex segregation legislation which has been put in place to protect women and girls, as an oppressed class, from male violence and male privilege, and the validation of the ideology of transwomen as being truly female.

Additionally, gender laws have changed the definition of what it is to be female in a manner that is extremely useful to maintaining the status quo and upholding patriarchal society, as it effectively erases the group formerly known as women as a political class and makes it discriminatory for them to exercise the right to gather as an oppressed minority and to express themselves about their sex based oppression.

As Vesuvia said so well upthread, in reality only lip-service is being paid to the rights and protection of trans people. It suits patriarchal institutions to redefine what it is to be a woman but little is being done to address the issues of homophobia and misogyny which are wrapped up in how trans people are viewed and treated in wider society.

Also, as I have already referred to on this thread, little is done as part of the (government endorsed) transitioning process to responsibly educate the person transitioning about the history, culture, socialization, politics, biology and lived experience of the group they are transitioning to. Little is done to address issues of underlying male privilege and male socialization and how they will affect the transwoman herself and how she is perceived by others. And that is unfair on the transwoman and insulting to FAAB women.

Anyway, back to censorship and the current context which is one of anger on both sides. I think it is fine to be angry and I think it is important to be able to express dissent and criticize ideology and ideological actions and aims. I don't think it is ok to do so using offensive terms or intimidation tactics. I can, however understand (that doesn't mean agree with) why some women have reached the point in which they express themselves using nasty language. These women have been harassed and threatened over a period of years and they have been threatened with sexualised violence from people demanding to be recognised as female. Honestly how are women expected to react to people claiming they are women who threaten to rape them or who call them all manner of misognyist names if they don't STFU about ideological differences? People don't always manage to rise above such violence and never react back. I don't think it is ok to use language that is derogatory to trans people but there is only so much a person (even a woman who is socialized to submit to intimidation) can take. I see nothing being done to halt the campaign of intimidation, on the contrary, I see it being reflected back and legitimized by power structures, liberals and progressives.

I think the whole situation is ghastly and I absolutely don't agree with generalized nasty statements being made about trans people. I equally do not agree with the ante being upped and upped by certain people (some trans, many not) who want to close down women's discussions about their right to a distinct political identity and their right to name their oppression (female oppression as a result of male supremacy). And I do not agree with death threats, threats of sexualised violence and intimidation tactics - all of which strike me as distinctly masculine behaviours. Being offensive about trans people is not nice and it isn't acceptable to generalize - a lot of the rudeness is however, (I think) bravado on the part of some women who are trying very hard not to be intimidated into submission by the group aggression and threats they are targets for.

I blame the patriarchy for the current situation.

Apologies for long post - obviously I am not very concise when thinking out loud!

I'm afraid I'm going to make it longer by linking to this which expresses things better than I do;

I suspect, the experiences of many others, support the finding that transphobia is less often discussed in terms of discrimination and violence and more often in terms of invalidation of the trans identity.

And by ?invalidation of the trans identity,? what I really mean is refusing to allow men to appropriate your experiences, identifying your sex as the basis of your oppression, setting up sexual boundaries that exclude males, fighting for the right to assemble as females. Saying that girlhood matters, that women have the right not to be attracted to males, that vaginas are more than just holes to stick things in, that breasts are more than just lumps of flesh or silicone, is the kind of rhetoric that genderists call transphobia and seek to erase. With enough threats, with enough intimidation, with enough male-driven, male-powered campaigns, trans activists are bullying feminists into silence, shutting down feminist discourse, and invading women?s spaces. Transphobia is not about identifying violence or discrimination: It?s about targeting and taking down those women who dare to acknowledge that their femalehood matters.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 16:13

And in light of what I just said, Kim, I have a favour to ask you. I would really like to read the webpage that treated your friend so badly. I absolutely don't agree with gratuitous nastiness of that nature and I would like to take issue with it. These things are important. I understand if for your friend's sake you don't want to post a link though. Thanks.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 23/01/2013 16:20

Daisy Sad.

I'm so sorry that happened to you. I wouldn't want to discuss my sexual assault (young teenager, penetration, public transport) with male bodied people either. I particularly wouldn't want to discuss how it made me understand in a light bulb kind of way that I was a member of the sex class. And that was 'just' sexual assault.

OP posts:
Narked · 23/01/2013 16:25

I'm sorry Daisy.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.