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.

The quote below was written by Kate Bornstein, a trans activist who is very popular with a lot of young people. Kate wrote 'Hello, Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks & Other Outlaws' which has helped a lot of people.

'Consensual gender is respecting each others? definition
Of gender, and respecting the wishes of some to be alone,
And respecting the intentions of others to be inclusive in
Their own time.
Consensual gender is non-violent in that it doesn?t force
Its way in on anyone.
Consensual gender opens its arms and welcomes all
People as gender outcasts - whoever is willing to admit it.'

It seems to me to be the transgender community (or some representatives thereof) who want to "have it both ways." On the one hand there is an insistence that their lack of the physical attributes and chromosomes of women does not mean they are not women. Yet they also seem to insist that the surgical and hormonal intervention that gives them some of these physical attributes is transformative of their gender in a way which should be recognised by law and social arrangements in public spaces. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying their position?

I like that very much, freya. I still don't like 'gender' as a concept, but I think that otherwise, that is a really good set of things to say - do you not?

I agree with it. I think we have to treat each other with compassion as different kinds of minority groups. I also think we have a lot in common, but we're not going to see that if we keep only listening to the kind of trans activists who promote the gender binary. There are other trans people out there to talk to and engage with.

Oh, good.

I thought it was really good.

Yy to what Dreamingbohemian said. I'm sensing that some here are looking for evidence to shore up prejudices, rather then looking at the actual issues.

I also don't understand how trans people, particularly trans women, can be criticised for upholding/conforming to gender stereotypes and therefore working against feminists who want to remove the gender binary and then in the next breath be criticised for being forceful in a "masculinised" way.

I think the trans issue highlights the massive diversity of opinions within feminism as to what we think about gender and what we want to do with it. I am more then happy to have that argument, but I don't think the status of trans people should be brought into it.

I think this is an interesting read: blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/02/09/spinster-aunt-gets-translucent/

Ah thanks LRD and Freya, I am really enjoying discussing this with you too Let me try to articulate further although I am exhausted so apologies if this doesn't help.

The essence of constructivism of believing in the concept of social constructs, which by the way not everyone does is that many of the things we think of as innate are actually the result of socialised attitudes and accumulated human experience.

Yes there is a biological difference between males and females, but that difference is only significant and meaningful because humans have decided that it is so. It is not inherently important.

We all seem to agree that gender is a social construct, it is not something innate but something that has been constructed over time.

To me, it is the very fact that gender is constructed that makes the trans community no problem at all, because it just signifies that the construct is still in flux, still capable of redefinition, it is evolving with the times. There is no set male and female identity, we can make it what we will. And this whole debate is basically an argument over that process of evolution.

So when people say that no, men and women should be differentiated on the basis of their genitalia on the basis of biological fact that strikes me as inherently anti-constructivist. It is still arguing that the sexes should be differentiated from each other, but on the basis of one biological criteria. It's as if constructivism never happened. It's saying that a binary identity should continue based on the only aspect of human development that has not changed in thousands of years.

Generally, if you believe in identity based on innate biological criteria, you don't accept the construction of identity -- because if all that matters is innate biology, then identity has no reason to ever change. And yet, you clearly do believe that it's possible to construct identity, because you keep referring to 'gender is a social construct'.

So I personally find this incoherent. Would welcome any corrections but headed to bed so may not respond again tonight

KarlosKKrinkelbeim I think it's even more down the rabbit hole than that. From what I've read, in addition to what you say, some of the transgender community are saying their lack of physical attributes and chromosomes of women does not mean they are not women but their brain is female therefore they should be recognised by law and social arrangements in public places even if they don't have any surgical or hormonal intervention.

Goth I totally agree. We keep saying that this issue gets a lot of discussion because it highlights all these other underlying areas of disagreement, but is that really fair to trans people? Why should their status be tossed around as a rhetorical device when we're really arguing about other things?

Maybe we could start a new thread about some of these issues.

dreaming - I'm sorry, but I don't see what constructivism has to do with this? I do accept this may well all be going over my head.

It's just, I think the reason biology is important is the patriarchy. You're saying that people like me place too much emphasis on biology. The patriarchy is saying people like me don't place enough emphasis on it. The result - and this is enshrined in law - is that there is no space at all for people like me.

What am I meant to do?

I don't like that we live in a society where the most important binary distinction is between people with penises and people with vaginas. I really don't. I would love to live in a world where these things were as unimportant as the fact I have brown eyes. But I don't.

Women are discriminated against because we are part of a class defined by the patriarchy. We don't get to define ourselves. We're the ones with vaginas, the ones who can be got pregnant, the ones who abort, etc. etc. I do not know a single woman who wants to be defined by the fact she has a vagina. It is utterly shit that anyone anywhere is defining me by the fact I have a vagina. If people would back the fuck off and stop assuming they get to define me or my reproductive rights, I would be thrilled.

But until that happens, I need to be able to argue back against that definition. When people tell me I'm not allowed to do that, it means I'm effectively arguing without being allowed to acknowledge that misogyny exists. How is that helpful?

dreamingbohemian you have brought up the incoherent thing before - although TBH I'm not really sure of what it is that you find specifically incoherent.

The feminist discussion around all this involves discussion of biology as a factual reality but not as determinant (which involves human interpretation). It is patriarchy that brings the determinism/essentialist constraints to women's biological reality - not feminism. Feminism focuses on the injustices of socialization - this is the very opposite of biological determinism.

This thing called reality is independent of human interpretations such as determinism, essentialism or socialization - humans are mammals, humans are dimorphic. For humans to reproduce, a female and a male are necessary. These are biological facts, biological realities. To talk in biological realities is not biological determinism. At all. To say "human females carry and birth babies" is not biological determinism. To say "human females carry and birth babies and are oppressed by binary hierarchical patriarchal society through the means of the social construction of gender" is not biological determinism - it is political analysis.

It is patriarchy that brings biological determinism to the table, not feminism. Feminism observes, analyses, names and challenges the social consequences of patriarchal biological determinism on human females.

It is also patriarchy which brings gender as a social construction to the table. Again, feminism observes, analyses, names and challenges.

It is patriarchy that is incoherent and contradictory. Not biology, and not feminist analysis of the biological realities of human females interfaced with patriarchal socialization and determinism of females as a means of control of our biology. Feminist analysis describes the above interfacing as "oppressive".

'Yes there is a biological difference between males and females, but that difference is only significant and meaningful because humans have decided that it is so. It is not inherently important.'

I don't understand what this means. Nothing is inherently important, significant and material.

Men and women should be differentiated between in political terms because the material reality of the latter is worse (leading quite frequently to disability and death) because of the way their materially different bodies are collectively treated). This is a material reality that I would think most people would consider it unethical not to address.

Nobody is obliged to identify on the basis of the way they are oppressed, although some may choose to. In fact it may be very damaging for people to do so. I am not expecting people who live in geographical areas which are vulnerable to famine to identify as such, but that doesn't mean they cease to exist, or shouldn't be entitled to a name or a collective identity. Nobody is obliged to identify as biologically female, but biological females do exist as an oppressed group in material reality and as such should have a name and be worthy of research, aid work, government policy etc, regardless of whether or not any of them use 'biological female' or anything about their bodies as a way of socially identifying.

I haven't read the whole thread ( I am working on it) my feeling is that in my heart I want to accept trans people, because I don't want to oppress or hurt anyone.

But my head says the point of feminism is to stop the suffering of women by men and the patriarchy. Do trans people suffer by the hand of man, yes. But not because they are women. But because they are trans, so to me it feels like a totally different movement. The way animals or children or any other maligned group suffer and those are all seen as separate movements. We're told it is our privilege we can turn a blind eye to the, but I feel like it is their privilege of being born men that means they feel they can tell us what to do.

Sorry, should have been:

'Nothing is inherently important, significant and meaningful.'

I suppose I might find common cause with them over being forceful. Women have as much right to being forceful, being assertive, and wanting power money and being ambitious as men. Those values are not male. They are mine and those of many women even those of us born without a penis.

FF, I think you can change gender legally in the UK without full surgery if you meet the requirements.

Is it a big issue? It is not something like 6000 - 10,000 people only in a UK population of 60m or whatever it is?

beach - to be fair, I suspect it isn't helping that you and I obviously disagree on this, despite having similar views.

I'm not at all sure I'm right, so don't think I'm saying this to stress the disagreement. I don't actually think it should matter that we disagree because we agree on a lot and we agree it needs talking about. But I suspect it isn't making this thread easier to understand.

'I don't understand what this means. Nothing is inherently important, significant and material.'

Spot on.

And - something like a vagina is material. It is no more or less material because of the understanding we have of it. So I think 'material' is the wrong word in this context, maybe?

Yes, LRD, I meant to type meaningful not material. I did correct in a second post, but we may have xposted.

I'm so sorry. We did cross post.

'Yes there is a biological difference between males and females, but that difference is only significant and meaningful because humans have decided that it is so. It is not inherently important.'

But it does seem to be rather important doesn't it? - it is obviously important enough for an entire social structure of humanity to have been constructed around that very difference in order for males to control females.

And the tool for that control - gender.

That's the thing, isn't it, beach?

We might all like it if humans hadn't decided gender/sex was important -but humans did.

It smacks of blaming feminists for feminism, to say that it shouldn't matter.

GothAnne - note use of 'masculine' and not 'male'.

Masculine = gender = social construction. (socialization) (political)

Male = sex = biological reality. (independent of human influence or interpretation) (apolitical)

Xenia I'm not sure if you're comment was to me or feministefatale. I believe you are right about changing legal status gender in the UK without full surgery.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim, I find transition analysis and politics incoherent (at least since the influence of post-modernism was introduced).

I get particularly when we get into talk about 'female penis' or any insistence that a pre-op MTF who has no intention of having GRS is a lesbian.

(Although I absolutely don't blame people for not wanting to put themselves through GRS.)

Gender does matter, does result in some differences and many people not just because of social conditioning are attracted only to one gender.