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.

I really understand your concerns and anger, Flora. Some of the examples you gave just look like head-banging common sense to me! Your sister's league problem is a difficult one - if they were to impose a height/weight restriction, then big women would also be excluded.

People who have a penis should not be imprisoned with people who don't. I thought this point had been cleared up in law? You're the expert. Same with hospitals & suchlike, I feel.

Not sure I agree with the shower thing. Again, for my generation, mixed showers were pretty normal. You should be able to expect people with & without penises to shower and change without sexually assaulting one another. Hospitals, prisons and rape counselling, etc, are different because of the implicit vulnerability of some users.

Totally agree that trans women cannot redress promotion problems, as the problem is largely hinged on female reproduction.

Kim, that's very true about alarming statistics :(

You don't have to answer this, but how do prospective employers know your status?

But this is the issue, isn't it?

It's the problem Germaine Greer had. Yes: there's a huge problem with people not employing transsexuals. But shouldn't it perhaps be ok to employ from several marginalized groups?

It's like panel shows - there's typically three places for white men, and one for 'the minority'. It's stupid to have all of us fighting over that one spot, but IMO it's not ok to say women should be perfectly fine with the idea that they go to the back of the queue and let other marginalized groups go first.

Kim, I think it requires time, money, effort and thought on the part of society. There should be more facilities for people who require privacy for any reason. Secondary schools are going this way with loos. There are new schools with single toilets between each classrooms, and loos which are communal with totally enclosed cubicles but hand washing for all genders. The walking thing is perhaps an issue of youth hostels providing better facilities but also about groups dealing with things and not expecting the trans individual to have to come to them and be the responsible one. So I'm not uncomfortable sharing with anyone of any gender identity - I've shared rooms with 'cis' straight men, so it's really up to me to come forward with solutions in those situations rather leave it to more vulnerable women, whether they are trans or not.

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

I completely agree. I wince when people refer to a MTF person as 'he' (as on a couple of the blogs quoted upthread). It just seems gratuitous and hostile. This principle applies equally to FAAB women not wanting to be called ciswomen. If this thread does nothing else, it demonstrates that cis is, rightly or wrongly, a loaded term to many and there is a wide range of varied viewpoints on it.

And as usual, what Freya says on this makes sense to me.

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.

I agree with you dreamingbohemian but I would still say that female oppression is because we are female and that it is sexual oppression.

Thank you, Kim.

Wrt your hospital stay - you should have a single room. I am quite shocked that this is even an issue :(

Many born women have 'masculine' voices, you know!

Likewise, facial hair and other 'tells'. Humans simply aren't that binary. I'm dreadfully hairy! (I'm also tall & sturdy - in Brazil I have been taken for a travesti.)

Tangentially, the most vocal travesti sector tends to go for humungous hormone treatment. A peculiar effect of this is that they "smell" too female. It's not an actual scent; it must be a subliminal pheromone thing. Weirdly, women can always tell because of this. Men, otoh, simply over-react to the pheromones and then get themselves into ridiculous situations for which they deserve as little sympathy as they get.
(Told you it was tangential!)

garlic I'm not angry, it's just my argumentative manner. Sorry if that came on too strong. (Part of why I'm not cis.)

kim I'm not sure of all the answers. Most of those examples (prison, showers etc) come down to a straightforward penis/no-penis approach, I suppose. I wouldn't be naked in public (showers, sauna whatever) for all the tea in China whether there were men there or not and I wouldn't fancy sharing a bedroom with someone either. I agree with the single non-sex toilets as well.

On my sister's team, and in derby generally, there are a lot of bigger women players so the transwoman currently playing doesn't stand out and is not the biggest player on the team. Sometimes the women's teams play the local men's team and the men are generally a-holes and very aggressive when playing the women.

Some people are a-holes whether they are FAAB or MAAB and unfortunately a lot of the time the rules have to be made to deal with those people, not the perfectly nice people just trying to get on with their lives.

Use of pronouns is more of a manners issue than a political issue IMO.

YY, Freya, I don't know what happened to the rash of unisex loos like the ones in "Ally McBeal"? Seemed eminently sensible to me - and, ime, discouraged blokes from weeing all over the floor.

When did we get so prissy? Remember when French restaurants always had the cubicles in a room beyond the urinals, so you had to walk past the weeing men?

garlic sorry I didn't answer the question about the prisons. I think in the UK it's a penis thing but I'm not sure (not my field). I know there have been cases in other countries where it's happened, including a California man serving 40 years for rape who was transferred to a women's prison (although I think he castrated himself first).

If we are talking baout priorities we can do it by a numbers game. 50% of people are women in the UK so that's 3 million. About 6000 people are trans. So if we say have 15% women on boards or senior partners at Ernst & Young etc then if we were also trying to increase number of trans people the fair way is proportionately, not disproportionately. I won't do the maths.

The Trans lobby argues among itself constantly, TBH i do not see the connection with lesbian and Gay groups those a matters of sexuality not of Gender. However the accussations of transphobia this is inevitable. In the same way a woman pointing out that there are male genitalia insults as well as female and that it seems pretty even will be accused of misoginy, any one who points out that 99% of transgendered people arent technically (and never will be) the sex they claim to be will get you attacked as un-pc....if the trans lobby see it you will be tarred as worse than hitler. The issue is that anger is a good way to avoid discussion, it happens with any group that perceives itself as a minority.... So its always going to be a mess.....however if we attmpt to rpotect everyones feelings we will censor everything from existence e ntirely.

bigspork men kill transsexual men and women and asterisks and footnotes won't help them. Men who've never heard of Julie Burchill or Cathy Brennan or read GenderTrender.

I'll do the maths
50% of board directors should be women.
0.001% should be trans.
I support quotas.
The above quotas, and the other 50% male, should also be broken out by 'race'.

I do not believe this will ever done voluntarily. And it is important.

Really interesting thread. Sorry, nothing to add, but marking place so that I can come backand read the links.

I think transgendered people are 0.3% of the population at a low estimate. There are probably a lot more that don't get counted under whatever definition is being used.

Ah! OK :) I'd prefer it to be a full 1% so quotas could reasonably be applied!

Stonewall dropped the T from LBGT a couple of years ago. They said it was because it's a gender thing as opposed to sexuality. They also said there were plenty of organisations who do trans things anyway.

Generalising wildly, Kim, when a (bio) woman sexualises her image that much, it's often because:
a] She's just discovering her sexuality
b] She's just re-discovering it, having lost weight, got fit, etc
c] She has a self-worth problem, quite possibly connected with sexual abuse
d] She's on the pull and/or on the game.

Strikes me the same reasons would apply?