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.

Does "object to" necessarily equal trying to silence?

We've already concluded that the censorship of gendertrender didn't actually happen.

They have complained about the video to Youtube and demanded that it be taken down. They also accuse her of using hate speech about white people in other videos.

In my book that comes under trying to silence.

GenderTrender is open again because the author said she was going to take things further and get legal representation and have the trojan attack and hacking investigated - she was suddenly then allowed to access her block again.

So are trans people not allowed to complain anymore?

Do they have to meekly take whatever is said about them as punishment for their sinful behaviour and daring to change gender?

As for gendertrender, is there any evidence aside from what she has said? Have Wordpress made any comment?

Kim - you might find this a good read:
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/29/the-angry-tranny-tone-arguments-and-trans-women/

GothAnne, why not listen to what this women has to say and then comment. She very succinctly makes a distinction btw biological and gender identity and she clearly states why women born female and Transwomen face different forms of oppression and where there is commonality.

Hate Speech I listened to a couple of her other talks, I'm white, I found nothing offensive. I suspect the trans lobby think it's easier to make a case about race discrimination than gender, obviously they don't care what means they use to silence her.

"object to" does mean silence if you contact the site provider and ask to have the speech removed or the blog or channel closed. It does not mean silence if you provide a rebuttal.

Mini - I generally do not have the patience for youtube vids and anyone who links to Fact Check Me, won't be my cup of tea anyway.

Also "trans lobby"? Is it a secret cabal dedicated to harassing feminists? Just because people disagree with something, doesn't mean there's a censoring monolith on the prowl. That's a dehumanising way to refer to people.

Finally, I think the terms "silencing" and "censorship" are being used interchangeably with protest against and object to.

It is near enough impossible to be silenced and censored off the internet. Two seconds of googling whatever unpleasant opinion you can think of will prove that.

Instead, I think the likes of gendertrender et al like to say they're at risk of censorship to make what they say sound more important and to add weight to their most frequently used trope of trans women being a threat to other women.

When people on either 'side' speak up very strongly about these issues, I think their purpose is to allow other people to think and debate about these things, even though they know they make themselves targets by doing so. And we're doing that, aren't we? We're all on here representing a wide range of perspectives and hearing each other. I'm not sure there is much to be gained by getting worked up about really nasty behaviour on the Internet that none of us have participated in. The nastiness on the Internet goes far beyond feminism and transgender issues and is a widespread problem.

Am catching up on the day's posts - I'm still addicted to this thread. There are loads of interesting new comments, and I'm quite taken with DB's idea (however fanciful!) of meeting up with people in RL for coffee.

Picking up one of the many strands of conversation: when it comes to feminism, I don't really buy the opposition of 'doing theory' versus 'not doing theory'. If you have a particular approach to an issue, and you are thinking it through and articulating it and defending it, well then, IMO, you're doing theory. It's wrong to think that constructivism is a "theoretical" approach to feminism while radical feminism isn't. Radical feminism is a theory too. Take BC's post of 12.46.53, where she (clearly and helpfully) lays out some of her basic assumptions about gender. Personally I have learned quite a lot about radical feminism from reading this thread. I have read a couple of books by radical feminists in the past, but it is new for me to hear women who self-identify as rad fem chatting about it on a web forum.

Perhaps some of the hostility to 'theory', or scepticism about it, comes from the notion that 'gender theorists' aren't out on the ground doing hands-on stuff to fight patriarchy. That's a misconception. People become politicized in lots of different ways. 'Constructivist feminists' (it's a kind of clunky term, but I'll use it) are committed to any or all of the causes that other feminists are committed to: closing the salary gap, getting women into top executive positions, stopping domestic violence, helping women refugees, getting men to do their fair share in the domestic sphere, and so on and on and on. To me, the belief that gender is a construct makes me feel empowered to try to modify that construct for the better.

So I think that despite the strong differences of opinion, we have a lot of common ground really. I'm not saying that different theories all translate into the same practice (feminism has evolved quite differently in the three countries I'm most familiar with - the UK, the US and France - and you can see a correlation between the different kinds of rights that women have achieved in each of those countries, and the way feminism has been conceptualised in each place). But a lot of different feminist theorists can often unite behind one practice. Perhaps transgender issues are particularly divisive for feminists because this is precisely one of the rare areas where different theories lead to clashes in RL feminist practice. Constructivist feminists are more likely to see trans people as allies committed to a common cause (that is certainly how I see them myself). Whereas rad fem approaches, or approaches that privilege biology, are certainly POTENTIALLY more transphobic... though hopefully they don't have to be.

By the way, Freya, your comments about the Greer case are really enlightening. Your anecdote about physicists is hair-raising. So I see Greer's perspective a little better now. Still, I'm not sure you can hire someone solely on the basis of their life history, and how hard they have worked to achieve what they have achieved. (Academia would be a very different place if so!) You are supposed to make academic hires based on quality of research and skill at teaching. And I don't know anything about the relevant factors in this case. But I do see your point, as I said.

I admit I'm intrigued to know what your own background is because I am a busybody like that and because you seem to have read and thought a great deal about trans identities.

Oops, that last sentence was an unsuccessful attempt to format a strikethrough!

Love Kritiq's gerbils.

BigSpork, I totally agree. But there's no point arguing on this thread that cis is a neutral term rather than a pejorative one. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Marfisa, just wanted to pick up on a couple of things there. Fwiw I agree with you about theory being everywhere, but then I love theory.

Radfems don't privilege biology. Their political analysis of patriarchy is that patriarchy privileges biology and so respond accordingly.

Re the Greer situation, do you really think that academic posts are awarded on that basis? All merit? That would suggest that women are a bit fick and not worth employing, and that they are certainly too fick to be high up. There's plenty of research to show why women don't get the career progression, rooted in structural oppression due to their biology. In common with the whole analysis of who benefits from marriage, male professors are likely to be married and with a family, female professors are likely to be divorced. The whole culture is set up in a way that discriminates against women. So to have one post reserved for a women who has fought against this all her life to get to this point is hardly unreasonable. Most of the posts are reserved for men whose faces fit, who have the right connections as they could get to all the right conferences because their wife was looking after their children, and who could write all their journal articles while their wife looked after their children, and who can show a reliable career trajectory as they didn't take time off to have children, after all.

Hi again marfisa, thanks for that comment. I'm glad this thread is being one on which people are not necessarily agreeing, but at least we are trying to listen and consider each other's point of view. Thanks to everyone for participating. Thank you for the solidarity of those who posted 'I'm in' type posts and thanks for the differing opinions too.

Right. Now I'm going to disagree with people!

Marfisa, this will probably seem like splitting hairs, but it is important to radical feminists. We don't consider radical feminism to be 'theory' - we consider it to be 'analysis' and a 'practice'. Radical feminism is a grass roots political movement for the liberation of women from male supremacy. A woman who cannot read can be a radical feminist - there are no theories to understand or books you need to have read. Radical feminism is a protest movement against the lived experience of women as a class. Analysis helps us achieve things like changing laws or raising consciousness but there is very little theory in radical feminism. (As opposed to post-modernism/post-structuralism which are philosophies/academic theories/intellectual movements.)

FreyaSnow, I agree that there is a great deal of nastiness of the internet. I start to really care though when that nastiness translates into actions such as threats, stalking, picketing, closing down events, sneaking into events, having articles/videos, etc. withdrawn, the spreading of ideas of people as bigots because of political disagreement, the rallying of others to bully, intimidate, exert group influence, etc.

It is becoming very difficult for women in the UK to assemble to discuss radical feminism and male violence. It is extremely difficult to hear Sheila Jeffreys or Julie Bindel speak - and not just on transgender issues, on any issues. Professor Jeffreys has done brilliant work for women with regards to analysis of sexuality, beauty, lesbianism, the concept of liberty - she is an amazing scholar and has produced cutting edge analysis. It is wrong that women in the UK cannot go to hear her speak.

Same for Bindel, she has done important work in the field of prostitution, domestic violence, rape, sexuality, etc. I know lots of women don't agree with her but we should be able to at least hear her.

I don't think it is a coincidence that both of these women are lesbians BTW. Is that what we really want? Lesbians being told to STFU about women's issues, about lesbian issues? Both of these women have been no platformed. Bindel was no platformed by the National Union of Students for crying out loud.

The NUS no platform policy was put in place to protect lesbian, gay and ethnic minority people from fascists and racists (specifically the BNP at the time). Now it is being used by transactivists (many of whom say they are women) to get lesbians to STFU on lesbian issues and women's rights.

Brilliant. Well fucking done patriarchy.

Also marfisa, I'm going to ask you to expand on this;

Whereas rad fem approaches, or approaches that privilege biology, are certainly POTENTIALLY more transphobic... though hopefully they don't have to be.

I know you were careful to say potentially but that it is a pretty big statement to make without actually arguing what you mean. Are you saying that biology is transphobic?

A lot of radical feminists would say that it isn't a matter of privileging biology in radical feminism. It is a matter of resisting sex based patriarchal oppression - sex is a biological reality that is totally independent of feminism (or indeed politics). But it is patriarchy that has brought sex into the equation, not radical feminism. Radical feminism is only a reaction to patriarchal society.

But Beach, look at the definition of theory:

"a system of ideas intended to explain something"

"a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based"

That's all it is. A theory is not just some egghead construction in an ivory tower. You can have a Grand Unified Theory of Wardrobe Organisation if you like.

You have articulated very clearly on this thread that radical feminists believe this, or radical feminism means that. More specifically, approaches to trans people have been justified and rationalised on the basis of a set of principles. I think by any objective observation, there is theory being used, whether you like to call it that or not.

And to be clear, I'm not saying you have to call it theory if you don't want to. But it certainly looks like theory to an outside observer.

And again, great post marfisa

I live in France at the mo and it's fascinating, the differences (though I'm not as well versed as you I'm sure!)

On this thread there does seem to be a general agreement with the analysis of gender as a social construction. And yet there is very little critique of the power dynamics of gender, as assigned according to sex, as a socially constructed hierarchy. Because for me, this is the crux of the transgender theory controversy within the context of a patriarchy.

This link is the best (short) critique I have seen yet. I'm interested in your views. I'm going to quote some bits but please read the whole thing when you have a moment, the part on gender compliance is key.

liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-feminist-critique-of-cisgender/

Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years.

The pattern of gender, constituted through gender?s repeated performance on the stage of life, demonstrates that males and masculinity are institutionally dominant over females and femininity. Gender is not just a fun dress up game that individuals merely identify with in isolation from all contextual and historical meaning, but the most powerful tool of structural oppression ever created by humans.

Female-bodied people and male-bodied people are not similarly situated persons in regard to gender based oppression. Gender is not simply a neutral binary. More importantly, it is a hierarchy.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic masculinity and femininity intact,isn?t going to rectify this imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized ?gender identities? that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, ?cis? now functions as a significant barrier to feminism?s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing.

I think it's ideology and practice, not theory. Because there is an explicit component of believing it's correct, which isn't (I think) necessary to a theory.

I think this is where some of the issues with 'cis' come from. Lots of people are surprised anyone would find it offensive, because they think they are simply using terminology based in a theory of how gender works. But all of this is in fact ideology, at least to some of us, or we wouldn't be getting het up.

Theory simply purports to explain something, and the principles you use to deal with it are straight logic. So someone who is wrong, is simply illogical.

I think the views on this thread, on both sides, are ideological. We can't simply sit here logically advancing views, because we're not using the same logical system anyway. We don't agree on the basics or the simplest terms.

I think that quotation makes sense, beach.

Hmm. I don't know - I think I wouldn't speculate why transsexuals exist because it seems likely to offend people. I don't think I wouldn't do it because 'no one knows'. There are loads of things we don't know (we don't know why the patriarchy exists) and yet we have really interesting and useful discussions of it.

I would like to know whether it's the same set of things that 'make' radical feminists, that also 'makes' transsexuals feel uncomfortable with the gender they were born. I would like to know why we disagree when some bits of what people say seem so similar. I would really like to know whether it's the same root cause that makes everyone feel uncomfortable with their bodies (but there's a spectrum so some people feel it more), or whether it's qualitatively different.

Having a possible explanation rather than a cast-iron proof of why things are so doesn't seem to me to be any problem with being radical feminist or anything else. It's nothing to do with 'honesty'.

I'm aware of the definitions dreaming.

Which is why I said it was a radical feminist point of view. I don't mind if people disagree with it. (It is a difference we make between political movements and intellectual movements.)