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.

WRT older women - because patriarchy uses pecking order as a means of control. Older women are used to groom and socialize younger women. Younger women are supposed to feel grateful for their position as walking incubators/sex objects because at least they aren't old and no longer worthy of male attention.

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.

Where did the socializing influence come from? What was the motivator behind the socialization of men to attach significance to women's reproductive function?

(Gerbils all have homes, thanks. It was planned pregnancy.)

We should do that sometime.

I am less slow in real life. But still utterly shite at theory.

There's a truism that Arts students who hate theory do English Lit, and English Lit students who hate theory do Medieval Studies. That's me!

I don't get the rage at being called "cis". All it means is that you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth. And as 1 in 100-150 are born intersex and are forced to be assigned as one by draconian laws and many more people, most unknowingly, have conditions which render the XY/XX dichotomy even more complicated, the assigned at birth isn't a perfect system before we even get to discussing the long issues with society and trans* individuals and this needs to be recognised and the system of oppression behind it dismantled. It affects quite a lot of people when the numbers are uncovered (though the amount of people it affects shouldn't really have anything to do with whether or not oppressing another human is acceptable).

People need to step out of the gender binary and see that gender identity, gender expression, biological sex, and sexual orientation are part of the complication of being human that needs to be recognised and treated respectfully. Part of being respectful is using the name and pronouns a person wants, and choosing not to do so is being a part of the oppressive system.

We can be "just human" or get rid of gender labels when trans individuals aren't regularly denied services and die as a result of it. When trans people aren't regularly assaulted and killed and the "panic defence" isn't held up as a proper legal excuse for it. When society isn't directly set up to invalidate their reality then we can be "just human". When in 2012, trans* people were still having to fight for the right not to be have to be sterilized before receiving any treatment (Sweden) and the world did nothing to condemn these eugenics laws, some of us are obviously more human, have more right to a gender, than others.

Seriously, being inclusive and decent isn't that hard. Discuss things as affecting those assigned female at birth. Have a footnote after the first mention of women to discuss how it also affects all who were assigned female at birth, including trans* men and others across the gender spectrum (cause seriously, menstruation, birth, socialization, patriarchal expectations and oppression affects across the spectrum, and if we're going to discuss work and pay then we need to talk about how it isn't just biological sex that affects that, race affects it even more). We need to base our inclusion on all women, not just women who can pass or who we find acceptable.

Feminism already has an awful reputation of excluding those outside of an acceptable sphere (if I had a quid for every white feminist who wanted to tell me how the society they think I'm from from how I look is oppressing me, I'd have quite a tidy savings account), which is why it's divided among so many branches - women are making safe spaces away from white feminist safe spaces. Personally, I find those spaces just as oppressive and furthering the oppressive systems as much as regular white man space.

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

I sort of agree with you dreamingbohemian. I think controlling reproduction is an important factor. I also think using reproduction as a means of control is also part of patriarchy. Like you say - it is a means for men to gain power, status and privilege. Win win for the men.

We are still in the realms of female = sex though. We are still in a place where females have a collective identity as an oppressed group who have a common characteristic.

LRD Ha, I never heard that If I had, I'd be your co-medievalist right now!

If you like our reproductive capacity gives us value, but it also makes us vulnerable.

And men have got all the bases covered on that one.

Several transmen have become pregnant and given birth. I read that one transman has done this three times.

I know this has been done.

But, big, all I had to read of your post was the first line: 'I don't get the rage at being called "cis". All it means is that you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth.'

I DON'T IDENTIFY WITH THE 'GENDER' I WAS ASSIGNED AT BIRTH. I AM THEREFORE NOT CIS.

Happy?

Jeez. Nearly 700 posts and we're still at this point.

Whew.

BigSpork I very much agree with all that

Beach I agree, but if oppression is not based solely on reproduction (i.e. biology) then that means there are non-biological aspects to oppression as well (i.e., other vectors). That's why I think the identity should be expanded beyond reproduction/biology.

Db - shurrup! You're clearly one of those people who 'get' theory.

I have found this thread really interesting, though, in terms of how differently we all think about it (as well as that we think different things).

(I hope it was obvious my second post to you DB was a jokey 'shurrup' not a shouty one ... realizing it's not obvious when I double-post. )

If we get to the point where everyone goes through a lengthy course on gender identity so that they are able to make an informed choice on whether or not they do genuinely feel their gender identity matches their assigned gender, then I think it would make sense for people who are cis to describe themselves as such (although I suspect most people are not cis). Until that happens, it is not right to label people as cis on the basis that they are not really aware of the options.

Many people who describe themselves as just human do so because they are agender or nongendered by identity, but are unfamiliar with contemporary terminology. It is a matter of listening to what people are attempting to convey about their gender identity, regardless of the language they have available in their cultural situation to express it with.

Where did the socializing influence come from? What was the motivator behind the socialization of men to attach significance to women's reproductive function?

The most convincing argument I've read centres on the agricultural revolution - Neolithic? (not looking it up now.) This is really another thread, so I'll keep it short & not bother with sources. The discovery of farming facilitated a steady, carbohydrate-rich diet which made women have bigger babies, more frequently. All well, good and normal. Since farming also required geographical settlement and crop-nurturing, it seemed rational for women to stick close to the (now fixed) home and do that stuff because they were generally pregnant or breast-feeding. Since trade had now become a necessary part of survival - single-crop farmsteads require trade with different specialists - men would do most of the travelling due to above practicalities. Hence you get housebound women with men who wander off and deal with all the money stuff. Being more mobile & controlling trade negotiations gives men a kind of power that they like. So they move to retain it.

Agree with your long post there, Spork.

I agree, but if oppression is not based solely on reproduction (i.e. biology) then that means there are non-biological aspects to oppression as well

Such as?

Gender is a system that creates social and economic inequality - the nuclear family is the most obvious example - husband goes to work and earns money, wife looks after children and husband so they can all go out to work as required, wife gets no money for her work.
Hence sexuality defined by men, prostitution, domestic violence etc. Gender in this (rough) analysis isn't a personal choice, it's a system that keeps society going along the same old tracks.
Feminism (and maybe socialism) seeks to change that system. Transactivism doesn't. It just wants individual change within the same system.

The irony of laying down the law about how other people should express themselves (all that 'put a footnote' lecturing), while casually failing to realize your own terminology is fucking rude, isn't passing me by.

Did you actually not read any of the thread, bigspork, before you decided to tell everyone how they should be doing things?

Feminism doesn't have any more of an awful reputation for racism than any other movement that includes white people. A lot of people promoting intersectionality and social justice based upon it seem to forget that wherever white people are, there is racism. Having a go at feminism isn't going to stop racism in the social justice movement, trans activism, gay rights or left wing politics in general.

Yes, I agree with you JuliaScurr.

garlic yes, advent of farming was significant, I think

I love that pregnant people are merely a footnote in social inclusion. I'd quite like that as a tshirt. A lovely Venn diagram of lots of different oppressed groups and then underneath in tiny lettering: footnote- pregnant people also exist.

Oh, I didn't get that Spork was attempting to dictate How To Do Feminism Or Being A Woman Perhaps I'd better stick with the origins of patriarchy

I will not call myself cis, for fuck's sake. There is simply no need. I'm not bigoted against others and won't apply terms that imply bigotry to myself. If you really need to know, I'm a biological female with light skin and a European background.

Freya.

Xenia said up thread why does this matter as there is such a small number of transexual people. I've been thinking about this. To be honest, it doesn't matter that much to me. I have encountered some MTF people IRL but no FTM (to my knowledge). Those encounters have been either professional or purely social - not in safe spaces or bathrooms, changing rooms etc. However it does matter very much for:

• women who go to rape crisis centres or women's shelters and see a counsellor or other victim who either still is or used to be a man with a penis saying he identifies as a woman
• women in prisons who are housed with male criminals (sometimes rapists or wife-murderers) who say they identify as women
• my 5'2" 7st sister who plays roller derby and her league is wrestling with how to deal with pre-op, non-hormone treated men who want to play contact sports on women's teams
• women and girls in communal showers with men who identify as "lesbian" women with a penis
• young lesbians who are being told they should be having sex with pre-op "lesbian" transsexuals with penises or "ladysticks" and if they don't they are being "cis-sexist" or "trans-mysoginist" (classic male pity-sex pleading which most heterosexual women have experienced)
• radfems and lesbians who want to form online and IRL groups with female-only groups but are legally blocked from excluding those they consider men or accused of transphobia or cis-sexism for excluding men who had or have a penis

Lots of feminists (like me) have a live and let live approach and, want respect and dignity for all. But respect and dignity can be achieved without erasing women as a group and women's spaces.

The comments Freya made about the Germaine Greer case are very interesting. I didn't know the context and it's very important. In my field (law), women at senior levels is a big issue. The junior intake has been around 50% for about 20 years but the number of senior women is minuscule. This is not the result of old school sexism of "women can't do the job". In my view it has more to do with the socialisation of girlhood (don't get me started on girls schools) and women's role as mothers or potential mothers. Having more transexual partners in law firms would not represent progress for women.

I'm not a radfem and I'd want everyone on board who wants to change things, the more the better. The talk of "excluding" trans women is unnecessarily pejorative.

No worries LRD

Beach, what I mean is that A) women are oppressed regardless of whether they are capable of reproducing or not, and B) reproductive rights is not the only means of oppression.

If you were to make a huge long list of all the ways in which women are oppressed and suffer under the patriarchy, reproductive capacity would figure in many but not all of them.

I don't like the idea of putting people next to that list and saying, well, you don't fit every single box, so you can't share our identity. I think if there's significant overlap then that's enough. There are plenty of biologically born women who would not tick every box either.