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.

One thing I have always struggled against - and I think I have this in common with pretty well all people who identify as feminist - is the notion that a woman is reducible to a series of body parts. So I wouldn;t accept the notion that because a woman is incapable of bearing children, she is "less of a woman". I wouldn't accept that a woman who has had a double mastectomy is "less of a woman". I wouldn't accept that a woman who has what society considers "excessive" body hair is "less of a woman". i don;t think any of us would accept those propositions.
So how, then, can it be demanded of me that I should accept someone who has had some - not all - of the physical characteristics of womanhood given to them by surgical or hormonal intervention is a woman in the same way I am? Accepting that would involve me buying in to the deeply sexist assumption that women are reducible to a set of (arbitrarily chosen, by men) physical characteristics. How can i do that? If being a woman is a matter of how one feels oneself to be - which I might accept - why the insistence on bringing the body into outward conformity? i cannot see the logic here.

Thanks all. I'm ok now.

I agree with the above. I just don't get it. If you have a penis, how can you be a woman? Sorry, I'm tired and not as clever as all of you.

Something I find hard to comprehend is the idea some people seem to have that they should be allowed everywhere and anywhere they want to go. There are places where some individuals are not welcome, and this is not necessarily an infringement of the individual's rights. You can't kick up a fuss at being refused admission to a restaurant or bar which is hosting a private function to which you are not invited. Your rights are not being infringed in such a case, because you can go to a different restaurant/bar where your desire for food/drink/company can be met.

You can't demand right of entry to a religious organisation's worship meeting just because you fancy watching and listening (they may welcome you, they may not, but it's up to them.)

You can't attend the annual general meeting of a company you don't work for and have no connection with, just because you fancy doing so.

No one is under any obligation to throw the doors open to everyone, as long as the people excluded are not being excluded from something they need and are unable to access elsewhere.

A conference for ciswomen only shouldn't be a big deal, because transpeople and their supporters can organise a conference of their own and meet the same needs (mutual support, discussion, entertainment).

Though I do dislike the way in which some radfems use such scaremongering tactics as inisting that if any transwomen are admitted to ciswomen's spaces, they will be predators and their mere presence will harm the ciswomen. That's bigotry.

Daisy; I am glad you have overcome that terrible event. I notice that nobody has answered your question; Goth, Kim, Dreaming, could you respond to Daisy?

I am saddened to hear of your rape, Daisy, and relieved to hear you've found ways of living past it.

Of course I would respect your preference not to be around penis-owning people at various times. I wouldn't, however, say your rights should trump those of others at the same meeting - regardless of their gender. Were the meeting a therapeutic session, specifically intended to address the suffering of women who've been raped by men, then you would have that right. If the purpose of the meeting were in any way more general or public, I'm afraid your personal fears should not influence its composition.

A lot of transgendered people suffer hideous rapes and assaults. In as much as these attacks are carried out by men, I think they are issues shared by women.

... scaremongering tactics as inisting that if any transwomen are admitted to ciswomen's spaces, they will be predators and their mere presence will harm the ciswomen. That's bigotry.

Agreed.

the idea some people seem to have that they should be allowed everywhere and anywhere they want to go ... Is, indeed, entitled and overbearing. Intrusive. Bullying, even.

They should be properly heard if they request access, though.

I'm so sorry that happened, daisy. It's awful.

I'm with Beachcomber all the way here. The cotton ceiling business is just outrageous. And so stereotypically male, too! Saying "there's something wrong with you if you don't fancy me/give me the sex I want..."

I guess I'm transphobic. And my identity isn't up for relabelling either. I am a woman, not a cis anything. To quote: "My anatomy and physiology and my life experiences are what make me a woman. Not my hair, clothes, shoes and an inner belief."

Found some very interesting stuff on blogs about the perceived difference between gay and heterosexual MTF transexuals which I don't think I'd dare discuss until I understand it better for fear of causing unintentional offence.

For years I used to write erotica, and got involved with the online community of erotic authors. We have reviews, awards, all sorts. Not everyone may be aware of the genre, but there's a lot of transexual erotica. All the stuff I've seen focused on masochism and highly stylised ideas about women's conduct and clothing, particularly underwear. Girdles & roll-ons, that sort of thing.

As for GRS, I am not sure gender can be "reassigned", except perhaps in the very rare cases of strictly biological ambiguity. Biology is astoundingly complex. Sure, cosmetic procedures can change the look of body parts, but not necessarily how they function, though you do get men who BF.

I think what I find particularly annoying about the attitudes of some transactivists is this claim that even if they still have a penis they can basically decide for themselves that they're women. My reply to that would be "Which woman?" Being a woman is what I am, not an end in itself.

But why should they? I wouldn't expect to be heard if I wanted to attend a BME group, I'd expect to be told to bog off.

I should declare an interest here, I was sexually assaulted by a boyfriend who later stalked me to uni. In the way of many women I found it hard to totally disengage as I felt his distress was my responsibility. When I did finally disengage he told me he would be transitioning and that had I stayed with him he would have been able to suppress these feelings. He then colonised my friendship group, who all insisted I should be 'cool' about everything. I don't feel anger or blame to the boy he was or the Transwomen of now, but if I wanted to discuss the assault, and in the past this has formed an important part of my healing, I would not want a man or a Transwoman present.

Eugh, edible! If I may be excused a 'relationships' type of reply rather than a 'feminist' one - how unutterably creepy. As if he wanted to consume/become your body, life, social group and gender ... a sort of extra-weird SWF scenario!
Cripes.

Yes, it was, and I realise it was a singular experience but my motive in sharing it was to proffer a reason why women only spaces like the one at the Manchester conference are helpful.

Though I do dislike the way in which some radfems use such scaremongering tactics as inisting that if any transwomen are admitted to ciswomen's spaces, they will be predators and their mere presence will harm the ciswomen. That's bigotry.

SGB, I doubt there are many people who hold this view.

However, I do think a much more commonly held view is that a transwoman who sneaks into a space that they have been asked to respect as a FAAB space is disrespecting boundaries, exhibiting male privilege, privileging a desire for validation above the rights of others and unable to respect a woman's 'no'.

All of which is behaviour that women assemble together to get away from, and all of which is behaviour that would make a space feel violated for women who want, just once in a while, to not have to be on their guard - in other words, women who are looking for a tiny bit of freedom.

ediblewoman, I have heard women speak of experiences similar to yours - have you heard of Christine Benvenuto? She wrote a memoir about her experience of her husband transitioning. She described 'territorial' sort of behaviours where he would invade her space (putting grooming items in her space) for example and competing with her in femininity and telling her she wasn't womanly and feminine enough.

Apparently a lot of their network felt that she should be 'cool' about the whole thing and support her husband. (Not too sure who was supposed to be looking out for her )

She has also been a victim of translobbying censorship as it happens.

Sorry to hear of your experience.

Beach, yes I have heard of her, and hav

edible, that is horrible.

I think that there are some people - in all walks of life - who are just horrible people. It's like the point I've often heard made about trolls who make up really emotional, tragic stories but also turn out to be people who've genuinely experienced tragedy: being someone who is genuinely hurt, doesn't mean you may not also be a totally nasty person.

I wonder if that's the same here: your ex was just a plain nasty person. He may also genuinely have wanted to transition for some of the same reasons other people do, but that didn't prevent him from being a nasty, nasty person.

I don't know.

What is awful is that instead of your mates (and society in general) realizing he was just a nasty person, they're only seeing him as someone from a group who're hurting, so they're blind to the fact he can be nasty.

I think this is a really huge issue with attitudes to women in general. We're always being expected to see other people who're nasty to us as being in some way wounded, and therefore not responsible.

Oops, and have read some of her writing. I think her experience sounds really traumatic. I am lucky that I can position my experience and my xbf's behaviour, as in part related to immaturity, which helps.

I care about Freedom of Speech, and don't think that it should be made illegal to post such blogs and hold such speeches (as long as it happens in the private sphere - I think people should be protected from discrimination and hate speech in the work place).

I don't think hateful blogs like bugbrennan or gendertrender should be banned by law. But I can understand any host to decide not to want to be associated with the content and would support any provider's decision not to want to host such content.

emskaboo I've been away all day, no need to call me out

Daisy, I think you have every right to share your experience in a safe place. I agree with garlic though that there is a difference between a therapeutic environment and a public meeting intended to discuss a broader range of issues related to sexual violence. I say this as a rape victim myself.

But I don't think you are transphobic, not at all.

Also, I don't think it's transphobic if you tell someone to fuck off because they're threatening or being nasty to you. It's not transphobic to highlight the nastiness of a trans activist or anything like that.

But what I see is trans people being attacked as a collective group based on A) the actions of a few extremists and B) an awful lot of assumptions based in stereotypes and anecdotal evidence. It seems to me that if it were any other group, that would be considered phobic. The excuses for why it's not with regard to trans people seem to be A) they started it, and B) a whole lot of incoherent theorising about biological determinism that ends with the presumption that they deserve it.

I think that is totally valid - that there is a difference between a therapeutic environment and a public meeting.

I do think there is a case for having some public meetings that replicate the same 'safe space' dynamics as therapeutic environments, because it's good to be able to talk about general theories and so on, as well as to focus on people's individual circumstances, and I would be sad to see people lose a voice in that second debate just because, like daisy, they can't contribute unless they feel safe.

I think - and I'm only guessing, but I've been trying to read up on this - that many transwomen would not object to this?

I don't think the theorizing is incoherent, btw. I can see we differ there, but I honestly don't think it is. God knows, I often have no idea what I'm talking about, but I can see there are intelligent women on both sides of this debate and I really don't believe that either side is 'incoherent'. Of course some individuals will be. But I think the reason this is so difficult is that both 'sides' have big, serious arguments to make.

I think combining biological determinism and social constructs in the same theory makes it inherently incoherent. I am honestly reading everything and trying to understand a way for it to make sense but I don't see it. To insist on biological traits as markers for identity is essentially anti-constructivist, yet everyone keeps repeating 'gender is a social construct'. You can't have it both ways.

But I've banged on about this enough so will stop now, sorry.

I don't think that is what people are doing, though. I accept this may be because I do not understand these theories as well as you. But I think perhaps what people are doing, is hammering out a theory that doesn't quite fit with these labels? So it may not be inconsistent?

I don't think people are 'insisting' on biological traits (well, I'm not, anyway) - it's just that I know I live in a world where the binary differences between 'men' and 'women' are understood in terms of genitalia, and I wish that weren't so.

DB, I don't understand your last post. I'd be interested to read more if you could expand on it, but obviously only if you feel you want to.

And btw, I think I need to say - I respect you, and especially kim, hugely. And I really wish we could all agree. I'm not doing this for kicks, and neither are you - it is a serious disagreement and I want to be honest about it, rather than pretending I agree with something when I don't.