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.

Kim, there are quite a lot of theories about why people want to transition though. Although as you say we don't know things for sure and there will be different reasons for different people.

I use the word theory here because they are speculative attempts to understand drawing on limited understanding and information.

It is pretty well impossible to discuss those theories or attempt to expand on them or do research in them because many of them are shouted down as 'transphobic'. This is because they question the dogmatic idea of gender identity and the assertion that gender identity = sex. They are also ideas that are considered offensive because they examine a person's context, history and individual lived experience rather than just accepting the abstract concept of gender dysphoria as as being in a bubble unaffected by socialization and experience.

i can see that if everybody woke up one morning and refused to accept the gender binary then it, together with patriarchy would not exist. The problem is that this will never happen en masse. The paradox is like orwell's one "Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.?

I can well imagine that you do Kim. Saying stuff like Sheila Jeffreys should not be persona non grata probably doesn't go down well in some places!

trans people still want to find a way to live in society with as little hassle as possible

Yes, my experience is that this is what most trans people want. I know that trans people have enough on their plate a lot of the time just dealing with getting on with their own lives but it is a shame we don't hear more voices of a less dogmatic (and adversarial) nature. On stuff like Conway Hall for example.

Sheila Jeffreys and Julie Bindel both love playing the 'poor little victim' card, despite the fact that both are well-paid, widely published writers, unlike many of the people they demonize and tell lies about. (Sex workers, other feminists who are not convinced that heterosexuality, former fellow travellers who they've had a row with, as well as transpeople) Along with the likes of Julie Burchill and Suzanne Moore, they make a big noise about free speech when it's them saying things that are insulting or threatening or simply untrue, about other people, and then they stamp and tantrum and whine when other people exercise the right of reply.

please suzanne moore made one perhaps ill judged remark, jeffreys and bindel don't demonize sex workers or transexuals.

I don't think they do 'play the poor little victim' card. Although considering that they have both been victims of numerous death threats, stalking, picketing, no platforming and hate speech I wouldn't blame them if they did feel victimised. (And I'm using 'hate speech' in the legal sense - "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.")

I think they say that it is fucking outrageous that political discussion is being shut down and then they carry on taking hits for the team.

They would both be a whole lot more successful (in patriarchal terms) if they STFU about lesbianism and controversial issues like transgenderism already.

(Not that Bindel has ever actually said much about transgenderism - her story is pretty similar to Suzanne Moore's)

Do we know why people are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or Asexual?

No.

People used to think that being anything other then heterosexual was some kind of illness or deficiency, but now it is generally considered that people are born with an inherent sexual orientation.

Why can it not be the same for people who are trans?

In virtually all trans stories (and yes, it should matter what trans people say about their lives) there is nearly always the feeling from an early age that something was wrong and not feeling right in their bodies.

So generally, trans people do feel they were born that way, in a similar manner to being born with a sexual orientation.

For people who are not trans and have minimal contact with trans people to be perpetuating various theories of transness, all of which seek to cast trans people in a negative light, seems wrong and regressive to me.

Goth, I've always taken it for granted that what trans people say - about having been born with the 'wrong' body - is true, just as I have about sexual orientation. I also assume this is something I cannot identify with - except by guesswork and extrapolation from feelings of my own, which may be lesser expressions of a common 'spectrum' human experience, or may not be at all related.

The fact that I accept this is something that is real, but with which I can't identify, doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. One may be interested for a number of reasons - in my case a fascination with the interplays of human behaviours and identity, plus ordinary compassion and feminist/political interest - and there's no reason to presuppose that interest will be invasive or antipathetic.

There is also no reason to assume those who can't identify will have nothing of value to offer. Most humans have some issues with conflict between their socio-political environment and their identity. Among those who are not healthy, white, educated men (in our developed societies) some of these issues are likely to be big enough to have warranted examination and adjustment. It is normal for people to wish to share their "oppressed" experiences in a spirit of helpfulness.

Many of us, in examining our society/identity related issues, will have noted how our backgrounds - family; economic environment; education; received media messages; bullying and other attacks; friendship groups; political climate ... all sorts of things ... affected the development of our issues as well as our response to them. It's slightly bonkers to assert an identity issue can grow up independently of all surrounding influences. Therefore we are likely to enquire how things were for other people growing up, in hopes of finding common ground and perhaps common solutions.

In shutting off such enquiries, trans people can and do alienate all other sectors of the society in which they live. They seem to be acting like the teenager who cries "Nobody understands!" before slamming the door. We expect teenagers to be this self-centred and immature. It doesn't come across too well in adults expecting to be treated respectfully.

FF: thanks for your response. You certainly didn't come across as dismissive or arrogant.

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?

That is absolutely my experience. I see, if not exact parallels, similarities with this debate, which I think is part of why I find it so fascinating. And nowadays, when people demand to know whether I consider myself black or white, I say 'both'. It is fascinating to see how very strange, disturbing, and even threatening, many ostensibly reasonable people find that response to be.

People invest very strongly in binaries, I think. They have a comforting certainty to many people. And none is more heavily invested in than the gender binary with the male gender dominant. I suspect lots of us, even (rad) feminists, haven't necessarily got to the bottom of how deeply and in what ways we are invested in it.

I agree with LRD that the different 'sides' here are ideological, too.

I think the parallel to sexuality is problematic. If drawing parallels were the same thing as demonstrating that two things are identical, it'd be fine. But it's not the same thing.

We don't know whether gender identity is like sexuality. We don't, for that matter, know if everyone's sexuality rests on the same causes. This is important to me - some people clearly have deeply rooted 'innate' sexuality and couldn't choose, and some people are bisexual and can, to some extent, 'choose'.

In day to day life, sure, you go with what people tell you and if someone says they were born this way, that's what they feel. They know best. But if you're trying to analyze, you go further.

Researchers found that boys with lots of older siblings were more likely to be gay. That wasn't them saying 'we've found a reason for homosexuality!' or 'wow, it must be nurture/it must be nature' (in fact both of those arguments can be made). It was just them finding a correlation that may take us one step closer to understanding this stuff.

.

Marking my place because I am teaching and marking all day long and I don't have a moment spare, although I would SO MUCH RATHER be responding to this thread.

Back tonight!

I'm not saying there should be no discussion of it, just an acceptance that to trans people, that is how it feels and not due to some ulterior motive, as the likes of gendertrender imply.

I think that some of the trans-critical perspective comes from the idea that trans people could or should choose not to be trans, and the echoes with how people did (and some still do) consider sexuality seem too obvious to be ignored.

So the big question to the people on this thread is, do you think trans people can choose to not be trans?

Oh, sure. I think that's basic, to acknowledge that people feel how they feel.

I think my feeling hasn't changed for a while - people who decide to undergo surgery that is painful and scary and expensive, have their reasons. I might not understand them, but they're obviously there.

Where I think this is difficult, is that there are also plenty of people who would undergo painful, scary, expensive surgery for reasons which, while they're totally genuine, are also really worrying from a feminist perspective.

So, for example, it's not like I don't sympathize with a woman who decides she feels awful with small breasts and needs a surgery. But, as a feminist, I also really worry about why people feel that way.

Does that make sense?

I'm not saying the two things are equivalent, btw. I wouldn't have any way to know.

I honestly don't know if trans people can choose not to be trans. I suspect there are is a range of answers to that question. I certainly feel they should not be pressured into such a choice because transitioning is too unsettling and complicated for everybody else.

is a range! Sorry.

Oh, that's true eldritch. I was thinking of people who definitely want to transition, not people who get pushed into it. I think that is a bit different, maybe?

I think goth is talking about people who're saying they need to transition - she's asking if they secretly feel they have a choice. I would say, I doubt it, or at least, a pretty unpalatable choice, because people don't generally choose surgery for the hell of it.

So the big question to the people on this thread is, do you think trans people can choose to not be trans?

Hell, no, for the same reason I assume gay people can't choose to be straight. It's a life-complicating thing and most people want fewer complications, not more! Fortunately, being gay is less 'complicated' than it was in my younger days (so you may have to make allowance for my years in this paragraph.)

If your question means "do I think trans people can choose not to transition" - Yes. And this is an area I'd love to be able to discuss more. I'm very uncomfortable with people electing for surgical and hormonal alteration. While there are cases in which alterations can significantly ease a person's life, I feel the majority of such body refits are motivated by social and/or psychological pressures that could & should be better addressed with an attitude change (therapy, for example.)

There have been "wrong gender" people throughout history. The issue is till perceived and addressed differently in different cultures. In our British past, it seems folks tended to live as the other gender if they could pass and weren't too fiercely coerced by others to conform. I'm sure thousands still do, quietly undetected. Some other cultures have religious or folklore traditions that facilitate living in a differently-gendered way. Some cultures featured eunuchs, whose elective surgery gave them a 'third place' in society and there are stories of born women also choosing to live as eunuchs. It's all interesting stuff. But, no, I don't think anyone's body needs radical alteration for social purposes! The problem is the society, not the body.

Kim, I took an androgen suppressant for two years. It was an experimental treatment for my PCOS, Didn't work, but it did alter my experience of life. All jolly interesting - men were nicer to me and women seemed more eager to be friendly. I can only suppose this was due to extremely subtle changes because they were real, although I couldn't notice any difference in myself. I have to admit I liked it!

I wasn't allowed to continue taking potentially dangerous medication for lifestyle reasons - and wouldn't want to, tbh - but was sorry to give them up. I did, however, try to learn from it and addressed a few prickly areas - which might have been making men less eager to carry my bags & women to be my friend - in subsequent therapy.

Not sure why I'm telling you this story, except perhaps to flesh out my reasons for having a view on the efficacy of physical intervention vis-a-vis psychological.

there are also plenty of people who would undergo painful, scary, expensive surgery for reasons which, while they're totally genuine, are also really worrying from a feminist perspective.

I agree completely, LRD.

Isn't this what Suzanne Moore was actually referring to in her controversial remark?