Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Women are being censored because they wish to discuss the politics of gender. I say NO. Who wants to join me?

1000 replies

Beachcomber · 20/01/2013 19:48

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.

OP posts:
FloraFox · 24/01/2013 16:18

Xenia that would be fair but with the current legal definition, trans women would be counted as women, even pre-op transwomen if they have been living as women. There is a transactivist lobby who want to further change the definition so that one can simply declare one's gender and then have that declaration legally recognised.

TiggyD · 24/01/2013 16:27

A/b and c Garlic. Discovering their sexuality from a different angle and wanting to pull fast.
e] There is also the 'lack of taste'/not knowing what looks good issue too.
f] Some come at it from a fetish angle and according to some definitions don't even count as trans.
g] Exhibitionism. Some are desperate to be looked at.

TiggyD · 24/01/2013 16:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 16:28

change the definition so that one can simply declare one's gender and then have that declaration legally recognised

This fascinates me. If I were younger and still clawing up the career ladder, I would so declare myself a man!

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 16:33

Yep to your [f], TD. I think [g] is the same as [a,b,c].

The lack of taste / getting it wrong thing really throws me. When you've spent years studying "being a woman", how on earth can you still balls it up as badly as some do? I know, too, there are fantastic courses to help people transition convincingly - I've been to some; long story - you couldn't possibly get the walking/sitting/dressing thing wrong after one of those!

... just one of those trans things that remains a perfect mystery to me Confused

feministefatale · 24/01/2013 16:34

Hi I know there are many much metter on this thread who have expalined their thoughts in a uch better way, but after finally reading the thread (as well as I can, so I may missed someone saying exactly this) I just want to say my little piece.

But I am a white woman. I 100 percent have benefited from white privilege I am sure.

Black people have long been sidelined purely because of their colour.
Their colour is a bioligal fact but as far as I know no one's colour determines their thinking or who they are.

However with in the arts and society there have been many things that have been consdered "black"

If as a white person I decide I like "Black music" and whatever else society has decided "black" is. And then I start taking pills to change my pigmentation and have surgeries to alter my white features to appear as a black person I would be treated by other white people as a black person.

I still think it would be white privilege at its finest to tell black people who have chosen to create groups to deal with their place in society as black people that they have to allow me to enter. I haven't dealt with being a child told that I may have fewer opportunities in my life based on my colour, I haven't dealt with the fact that I would be statistically more likely to be born in to poverty because of my colour.

Biologically black doesn't mean much but what does matter is their experience.

My vagina doesn't change who I am but it does permanently change how I will be treated. And i think just because someone "feels" that they want to participate in society's idea of femininity, that does not make them a woman.

MiniTheMinx · 24/01/2013 16:36

I'm trying to play catch up but just wanted to pick up on Beaches's question

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

I believe men sought to control women's fertility because of private property relations. Competition between men in the pursuit of wealth and power over other men.

feministefatale · 24/01/2013 16:42

oh also to demand that when i am not allowed in to black only events they be referred to as "cis-black only".

TiggyD · 24/01/2013 16:44

The lack of taste/ability Garlic is mostly aimed at transvestite type trans, which is who I thought Kim was talking about. (Might have been wrong about that though). Particularly the occasionally dressing ones have problems with this.

Writehand · 24/01/2013 16:46

This is a fascinating discussion. Please excuse the long post: what I have read has led me furiously to think, and there are concepts familiar to others here that are new to me, so I'm bursting with thoughts.

I so much identify with Beachcomber's phrase radicalised by motherhood. I was entirely focussed on my profession until I gained a little DSD. We had her 2.5 days a week, and what I learnt from her and about my DH changed me more completely than I would ever have believed possible. Luckily, though we'd agreed we wouldn't have kids, my DH was totally laid back about my about-face.

I'd never experienced serious disadvantage as female until I became a mother. The mild denigration and sexual harassment I'd had before was nothing compared to this. In my workplace mothers had the lowest of all positions, regardless of job title. A mother = unreliable, not committed to her work, unpromotable, a liability. I was bullied and sidelined, by my male boss but also by other women. It ended with a 3 day discrimination case funded by my union.

Pregnancy and childbirth were pivotal experiences. There's so much I could say about its effects on my sense of self. Before I had a baby my body was whole and solid, like an apple. Afterwards I felt more like a crumpet or a stew. Everything leaked: blood, milk, tears. Due to my specific obstetric issues, my vagina was unaffected but my belly was seriously damaged, the muscles cut and sewn up badly, and a vertebrae mashed. My body was damaged and left open, or that's how it felt. The process was irrevocable, universal.

But my biggest feeling about the whole experience, and of motherhood generally, has been awe. Awe at the everyday miracle of reproduction, and the massive undercurrents of biology and instinct that move silently within my body and my brain. Like Garlicblocks, I was a young adult during the late 70s, early 80s, when it was fashionable to transcend gender, experiment with both/all constructs, and so on. Having babies blew that out of the water for me.

My body amazes me. My periods arrived between 11 and 12am every fourth Saturday. I loved that -- that my body was as methodical as the moon. Even conception was powered by my subconscious. My younger brother and his wife had their first baby on 13th February, I gave birth to mine on 13th November. OK, we were trying for a baby, but talk about sibling rivalry! I visited the hospital, admired their baby, went straight home and started ours.

What I'm trying to say is that, at least in my life, being female has been very precious to me, perhaps partly because as a young woman I rejected the assumptions completely. But, as it turns out, most of what matters most to me is to do with being female. I can't agree with LRDtheFeministDragon's idea that the distinction between people with penises and people with vaginas doesn't matter. It does. Having a vagina has been pivotal to my life. It's also central to my sexuality, which is very genital focussed.

It's very clear to me that in previous generations, before contraception and modern medicine, before washing machines and freezers, having small children disabled most women from any participation in life outside the home. That's where the oppression comes in, in my view. Because women have so frequently been dependent because of repeated childbirth men have taken advantage of their relative autonomy to control and dominate us.

The patriarchy, when benevolent, sees the position as being that mothers usually need a provider, and, as the saying goes "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Whoever brings home the bread is boss. When hostile, it sees us as bloody useless sheep, objects who breed, useful for that and for sex, but not much use at anything else.

I think sex matters, male and female, but that's not the same as "womanhood". I am no more typical of that role than any other person. I've had serious problems because I don't live up to local ideas of feminine. That's a story all by itself. My DH and swapped roles, which wasn't an issue while he was alive, because between us we got it all done. After he died, all of a sudden games kits were forgotten, dental appointments missed. I might have an impressive CV but I was a failure as a housewife. My bereavement counsellor suggested it might help to think of myself as a man whose wife had died, and to offer this idea to others. It helped a bit, and fitted very well, but I was still the focus of intense disapproval for not living up to the neat, floral stereotype of Surrey housewifery. I was very surprised by this.

"Femininity" - womanhood - is whatever your particular culture defines as how women should be, and being female is your body, and parts of your brain (most of which seems to be subconscious). Gender is a construct, but the idea that sex is also a construct seems preposterous. It makes no more sense than saying being a mammal is a construct.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 16:58

Mini, this is my imagining of the situation. I spent a large part of last year looking for the origins of patriarchy, so thought about it a lot using expert opinions as springboards. The birth of agriculture makes by far & away the most sense to me.

So ... Whilst your early farmers are dividing roles into home & away, with women necessarily doing 'home', men may not have bothered too much about whether all the babies were genetically theirs. More babies mean more farmers/traders/fighters, so more material security.
But they also mean more mouths to feed - each child is an investment.
Let's imagine you, a red-headed man, have a blonde wife. Lots of your kids have fair colouring, but a few are brown-skinned with black hair. The man down the road looks like that, as do most of his children. You both figure out that some of your wife's children are genetically his.
He claims the right to have them work his farm - after you've raised them through the baby years! Outrage!
You only need this to happen a few times for a convention to be drawn up. This convention will probably say all children must remain in the family that bore them (indeed, this has been and is still our tradition.)
But you'll still get neighbours demanding rights to 'their' children, even if they did not raise them.
So the easiest way to avoid local warfare over children is to ensure that each farmstead's wife bears children only to her husband. Clearly, this panders to the 'selfish' gene as well.
Once you've decided wives may only have children to one man, you've got to make sure the wives don't shag the neighbours.
Cheapest way to do this is to shame them - chuck them off the land if they fail to comply; shunning means starvation and death. Job done.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 16:59

fatale, your skin colour analogy is the one that rings most true to me.

Catching up on other posts now! :)

MiniTheMinx · 24/01/2013 17:18

Shame them through religion, throw them out into destitution or name them as witches etc, Actually the church knew exactly how to get errant tribes on board with religion and patriarchy. In the 18th century church missionaries concluded that the way to get these egalitarian tribes people to stop being polyamorous was to create property relations, competition & social hierarchy between men.

Gerda Lerner The Creation of patriarchy seeks to uncover the birth of patriarchy www.amazon.com/Creation-Patriarchy-Women-History/dp/0195051858 Gerda Lerner Gerda Lerner pioneered the field of women's history, She died this month www.news.wisc.edu/21393

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 17:21

What a fantastic post, Writehand. Am envious of your regular periods!!

It's very clear to me that in previous generations, before contraception and modern medicine, before washing machines and freezers, having small children disabled most women from any participation in life outside the home. That's where the oppression comes in, in my view. Because women have so frequently been dependent because of repeated childbirth men have taken advantage of their relative autonomy to control and dominate us.

Yes, absolutely. It is strange that the concept still holds so much sway nowadays, in industrially-developed societies, as you have experienced so painfully. The fact that it does is all the evidence I need of patriarchal oppression.

I wanted to reply to your related experiences with some of mine, but it's probably not necessary. My final pregnancy started as my partner's affair got serious (unknown to me - but perhaps not to my unconscious mind) and ended when we split. It gets even weirder than that, timing-wise; I guess I'm just trying to ratify what you say about the encompassing physicality of 'being a woman'.

Gender is a construct, but the idea that sex is also a construct seems preposterous. It makes no more sense than saying being a mammal is a construct.

Of course I agree with this. But I am backing away from the specific difference between gender and sex, as I see how divisive it is. Sometimes people should be allowed to use words in the ways that have most meaning for them.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 17:22

18th century church missionaries concluded that the way to get these egalitarian tribes people to stop being polyamorous was to create property relations, competition & social hierarchy

Interesting! But did it work??

EldritchCleavage · 24/01/2013 17:27

Biologically black doesn't mean much

Well, I'd say it sometimes mean quite a lot. For a start the physical differences go deeper than you describe, FF. And the diseases suffered can be very different, as are the risk factors for a number of things. No cystic fibrosis, but sickle cell anaemia. Much less arthritis, much more diabetes. And so on. Even my healthy white cell count is entirely different from yours, due to my race (benign ethnic neutropenia).

But I think your analogy works pretty well, on two levels. One on the level you meant it, and inadvertently on a deeper level, because your description of black people (I am assuming you meant black Africans, sorry if not) demonstrated a superficial understanding of what 'black' is, simply through not having lived that physical or social experience.

I hope that doesn't sound critical or unkind, I take your analogy entirely in the (sympathetic) way it was meant, so I trust you won't mind me making these points.

EldritchCleavage · 24/01/2013 17:30

Birth of patriarchy: one theory I read was that it was born when people made the link between sex and pregnancy. Children stopped being a miracle made entirely by women (who were therefore powerful beings, in control of the future, and so the gods worshipped were female) and started being something put into a woman by a man.

No idea if there is any truth in it but it struck a chord in me.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 17:38

I just don't think people are that daft, Eldritch. Sure there may have been a free-fucking utopia (as utopian as a culture which embraces sex with children can be, that is,) but it wouldn't have lasted long. The incentive to have children would have overriden paternal 'rights', imo, since fertility is quite shaky in nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies. It wasn't farming that made humans fecund.

As one who posted something similar to ff's 'race' analogy, though not as well expressed, I am aware that my knowledge of being black is flawed by the simple fact that I'm not. It works, as you say, on various levels.

garlicblocks · 24/01/2013 17:39

sorry, It was farming that made humans fecund.

feministefatale · 24/01/2013 18:41

EldritchCleavage

I'm a American from an ethnically diverse family. So I guess in the little bubble in my head when I say "black" I mean black Americans. I was attempting to be superficial in a way because to a degree that's how I feel M2F women see FAAB (the first time I have ever used that word!) almost as caricatures. A bit like the old time minstrel shows portrayed black people. Reducing them to way they are supposed to dress, walk, talk, think... I am aware of the difference with regard to some diseases yes too, but I guess I saw that as not as necessary to my analogy Grin sorry if it came off as dismissive or ignorant.

Despite most of the people who I am biologically related to self identifying as black or as biracial.. you are right in that I haven't experienced it so yes, I am giving a superficial idea of what society has decided is black (even though I can see that it is all superficial) rather than what I could have personally experienced. Like my Dad or my husband could not understand my experience as a woman. I have no problem being called out on it though and glad you saw it in the spirit in which it was meant!

feministefatale · 24/01/2013 18:43

Can I just say, that I do really enjoy the FWR section and that even when it seems "heated" all I have to do is pop on to some of the other boards that get linked here to think how well everyone at least tries to treat each other.. even when they are calling them out on something.

kim147 · 24/01/2013 19:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SolidGoldBrass · 24/01/2013 19:59

WRT race, though, isn't it true that some people who are of mixed ethnic origin (eg one white parent and one BME parent) can find themselves in a position that's a bit similar to some transpeople - treated as neither one thing nor the other and subject to discrimination on both sides of the divide?

I think that, until fairly recently, a person who was of mixed ethnic origin was regarded as 'non-white' ie the division was (unfairly and wrongly) a binary one?

feministefatale · 24/01/2013 20:24

kim and miracles do happen Wink

Yes, SGB, or maybe more so intersex?

Beachcomber · 24/01/2013 21:29

MiniTheMinx I thought you would want to know that the woman whose excellent video you linked to yesterday is being targeted by trans activists too. She has posted this video called saying that trans activists have objected to her "Transwomen are not female" video (the one you linked to here).

She doesn't know if they are just trying to get that one video down or if they are trying to get her channel shut down entirely.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.