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.

Am still reading - and would like to thank everyone for their input - but am currently having trouble with this, from Beachcomber I think:-

for all females whether they have/can have children or not, society places them in the category "can be impregnated" just as it places all males in the category "can impregnate"

I can't have children. This is now externally apparent, due to age, but was also true when I appeared fertile. Some of the posts I'm reading seem to indicate I am not, therefore, a 'woman' in some eyes. This is clearly rubbish.

Yet, as a woman who can't have children, I'm in a comparable position to a 'passing' transwoman. I have been pregnant and have all the mess of periods, menopause, etc, so my experience is different and more 'female' than hers. But people seem to be saying both the transwoman and I are less female than the woman who is a mother?

Is that so? And if it is, does it matter??

Just catching up on your posts from today, Beach. Think I should shut up & keep reading

Like what you said about your gerbil having babies due to its socially constructed gender!

GB, All women are going to have stages of their life where they are infertile. Having times of fertility and infertility and not being easily placed into either group by others is the usual female experience, but your physical characteristics still mean you get viewed as being in the 'impregnated' group.

It seems to me the contradiction lies in diagnosis vs response -- your diagnosis of the problem of male oppression depends heavily on constructivist thinking, but your suggested response to it (a female identity based in biology) is basically anti-constructivist. So from the POV of theory construction, I find this problematic.

I don't mean to be rude dreamingbohemian (particularly if you are ill!) but I think you are trying to squeeze feminism into overly complicated academic (male centric) 'rules'.

My position is a radical feminist one - it is one that is based on radical ideas of female liberation and the desire to end male supremacy. It is about civil rights and human rights.

There isn't really a diagnosis and a response as such. There is observation, analysis and dissent.

It goes like this;

Observation - women are oppressed.

Analysis - Why are women oppressed? So that men can control our reproductive capacity. How are women oppressed? Through sexualised violence, socialization (the binary gender hierarchy) and denial of access to power structures (through the construct of gender).

Dissent - eliminate gender, obtain reproduction rights, fight for civil and human rights, dismantle current power structures.

WidowWadman Are you saying that women who are infertile are less women than those who are fertile?

No

WidowWadman wrote - "Infertile women and trans women who are living as women, not disclosing their trans status, of child bearing age face exactly the same discrimination as any other childless woman in that age group will, as they don't have it tattooed on the forehead that they're infertile. Yes, they can't get pregnant and in that way have fewer things to deal with, but at the same time, they can't get pregnant, which is a huge thing to deal with in itself, so I can't see how this should be used as a divider between who's a woman or not."

Yes, a trans woman cannot become pregnant, but for many transwomen that does not mean they are not a biological parent.

Many trans people were fertile. Many transpeople are biological parents.

OK, thanks Freya :)

Your post here really made sense for me:-

It isn't biological essentialism to say that female bodies exist. Biological essentialism is when people say that because the female body exists society always have to develop social constructions around it in the same way. Clearly societies don't.

What feminists are arguing is that for ethical reasons some social responses to the body are more appropriate than others - those that respond to the female body in ways that avoid pain, suffering, impairment and death where possible. To make those responses we have to acknowledge that people with female bodies exist as a group. That does not require everyone to acknowledge their individual bodies as part of the way they self-identify.

On revisiting the "trans in rape discussion" scenario, I think the gender/penis aspect is a red herring. The traumatised woman may have been raped in, say, a room with yellow wallpaper. The wallpaper may be a trigger for her, making her feel unsafe either in the presence of penis-owners or yellow wallpaper. Were the setting intended to be therapeutic, she needs protection from both triggers.

It is not, therefore, a gender/sex issue as much as a personal, psychological & emotional one.

I'm also realising that lengthy discussions over "What is a woman | what is a female" question the very heart of feminism. This makes the query an absolute gift to opponents of feminism, no?

GB your last statement, exactly!

Are you saying that women who are infertile are less women than those who are fertile?

In the eyes of feminism, no, of course not.

Although, in the eyes of patriarchal society, actually yes, a bit. Traditionally women who could not have children were described as 'barren' and considered of less value than women who could produce an heir. Infertile women get the double whammy - oppressed because they are in the category who should have babies and then considered of limited value when they do not. (This is true for all sorts of women, not just women with fertility issues, it is similar for women who choose not to have children.)

Which is hugely misogynistic.

YY, Beach. The stereotyping and judgements are more important than the exact description of 'female/woman'. Because they are misogynistic, and are used against women of all fertilities (is that a word?) Irresponsible to have children, selfish not to, freakish to be infertile, freakish to have multiple births, freakish to give birth at a young or old age, etc ... Freakish not to be a man, it seems!!!

Just have to comment about the gerbils :) I adore all rodents.

One of my adult male guinea pigs breast fed (or appeared to) the 3 week old male guinea pig when he was introduced after the death of the adult's previous companion. He interacted with the young one in exactly the same way as mother guinea pigs do with their piglets - even displaying the same "it's time for you to bugger off now" behaviours when he was older. Both males and females will rumblestrut and mount companions of the same sex, whether neutered or intact. What we see may not always be what we think it is. (Hope you have homes for the gerbil pups btw.)

The last three sentences of your Thu 24-Jan-13 12:46:53 post sum up exactly what my issue is.

We both agree that women are oppressed in society. You then say the reason men oppress women is to control their reproductive capacity.

If so, then surely there would be no oppression of women who do not have the capacity to reproduce now or in future - the likes of garlicblock, Mary Beard or me because of age, those who've been sterilised or trans women, for example. Why would they bother wasting their time on us?

If men collectively oppress women as a group because of their reproductive function (and not because of the socialised significance attached to this, as DB and I believe), it suggests the impetus to control and oppress women is something innate in the make up of men.

Just eliminating gender and dismantling the current (patriarchal) power structures wouldn't change any "instinctive" compulsion in men to control/oppress/harm women. Even if men become effectively "outlaws" in post-patriarchal society, it doesn't eliminate the risk they pose to women surely.

It was the gerbils that brought me back.

But LRD, constructivism isn't a theory that I brought up. Whenever you talk about social constructs, you are using constructivism. So I think its relevance is obvious.

I also think it's fair game to challenge your use of theory because it's being used as the basis for excluding or discriminating against a group of people. It's not an abstraction, it has real-life results that are hurtful to some people.

It seems to me that if we challenge your approach to trans people on moral or ethical grounds, you revert to theory. If we challenge your use of theory, then suddenly it's not about the theory, or I'm using male-centric theory, or being overly complicated or trying to apply irrelevant ideas or using doublethink.

I don't think you have to use theory, it's not important in everyday life. But if you are going to use theory, especially as the basis for excluding people, then I think you have to respect the theory. And all I'm saying is that the way constructivist concepts are being used on this thread is not really typical of the way they are generally used. As an academic, that's something I'm used to challenging. But I should probably stop going on about it because I realise it's not really that relevant to most people and I don't want to drag down the thread.

I do really appreciate the replies though as it's been interesting to read about where you are all coming from.

Some infertile women may be interested in carrying the life inside of them, but most are just desperate for a child. BY any means necessary and being a "sperm donor" would have been more than I could have dreamed of when I was dealing with infertility. SO I don't think an infertile woman is dealing with the same thing as a transsexual woman either.

dreaming - I did say, I know people take on board bits of theories because they're floating around. I think that's all people are doing. It's you who then link them to the theory and say we're doing it all wrong. And I'm trying to say, sure, it may well be that what we're saying doesn't fit perfectly with that theory ... but does it need to?

Surely if no-one ever tried to hammer out new ideas using old theories/concepts, we would never move on?

Just eliminating gender and dismantling the current (patriarchal) power structures wouldn't change any "instinctive" compulsion in men to control/oppress/harm women.

I agree with this, Kritiq - regrettably. I've never been convinced that control of fertility is the root of the oppression. Although it's demonstrably a very big part of it, the control could be a tool rather than a cause. It's all so far back in time, anyhow, we can only surmise really.

The animal kingdoms offer fewer clues than determinists (if that's what I mean) would like to think. Earlier posts prompted a pet memory for me, too - when their mother was killed two days after birthing the kittens, our male dog took over their care :) He didn't BF them, but instinctively licked them, slept curled around them, guided and protected them, and brought them to us by the scruff of the neck for feeding

See, I don't even think nurturing / parenting is a gendered instinct. And am now very keen to avoid debating 'what is a woman' since I just realised how anti-feminist it is!

This is a brilliant thread. Thanks to everyone, again.

It just feels as if what you're saying boils down to, 'you're not allowed to see gender as a social construct if you also see that the patriarchy sees biology (male vs female) as the defining binary'. I can believe this may be inconsistent in terms of theory, but I don't follow why any of us should be expected to fall in with the patriarchy's theory on the issue?

I do think people are getting hurt and excluded by this. It's just - how do we decide which set of people to prioritize? That is never going to be an easy question to answer. The needs of two groups are sometimes mutually exclusive. I'm sorry that this is so, but I can see why it is. And what helps me to see that is bits of theories people use to explain how they see themselves. I'm only interested in those theories as they reflect all these conflicting viewpoints - I don't see why I should care about trying to make the viewpoints of people I disagree with fit into a theoretical framework.

GB, the question might be a gift to those who oppose feminism, but it can also make feminism stronger. I genuinely believe that there is value to huge numbers of women in a lot of the discussion around gender identity. It may very well be that we need to abolish gender, but as it has been around for so long, that won't happen overnight. The way people are combining different gender identities seems to be psychologically beneficial to young women and is spreading. If we aren't ready to abolish gender, a range of genders has to be more liberating than a binary.

I think there are limits though LRD. Social constructs are sort of the building blocks of the theory, to use them in a way that goes against the very spirit of the theory seems problematic to me.

I also agree with Kritiq, I don't think men oppress women to control their reproductive capacity (although that's probably how it all started!) I think men oppress women for the same reason anyone oppresses anyone else, because they want to preserve their own power and status. Reproduction is one of the vectors of oppression but not its sole aim, I think.

I appreciate that disagreeing about this probably leads to all the other disagreements we have actually...

My personal inclination is towards fluid gender, Freya. This was helped by being a young adult during the late 70s, early 80s, when it was fashionable to transcend gender, experiment with both/all constructs, and so on. I think my attachment to the travestis of Brazil also comes from this inclination. I'm just very comfortable that they choose to be neither 'man' nor 'woman', and are something else again.

But I understand how social expectations of gender are the tools of patriarchal oppression. So it's got to be important to recognise these expectations, in order to deal with them. It is possible to recognise them without validating them, though, isn't it?

I suspect this may be one of the areas where my feminism seems old-fashioned and wimpy to some. I'd like to attack patriarchal expectations from the position that they are invalid.

Reproduction is one of the vectors of oppression but not its sole aim

Oooh, thanks! Perfect phrase!

Fair enough. I am really rubbish at theory, so I think this is just going over my head.

I don't see why anything I'm saying is against the building blocks of the theory, but I suspect if I don't see it, it's not worth your time trying to take me through it.

I do think if we got rid of the patriarchy we'd get rid of the drive to oppress. Not on the individual level, but on the collective level. I'm not sure why women ended up being oppressed, and I think reproductive control/oppression is probably one of those chicken-or-egg scenarios. But I do think it's not innate in humans to want to oppress an entire group of people because of their sex.

garlic I don't think that's old-fashioned at all -- or maybe it's so old-school, it's become trendy again!

I agree, I love the idea of a third gender. It's such a 'fuck you' to the patriarchy.

db - YY!

LRD this is one of those times I wish we could meet up for coffee, because it would be a fun discussion I reckon

Also I'm much less annoying in person (ha)