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.

True, but you must admit she's done a fab job - on and off screen :)

As you say - and SGB did earlier this evening - finding people who want to have sex with you is an individual journey for everyone. It's not an "issue" or a barrier to exercising one's rights, because no-one has the right to sex. It's a matter of mutual agreement between the individuals concerned, each and every time. If not mutually agreed, each and every time, it's not consensual. And if it's not consensual it is rape. This is why the sentiments of the bloggers I read made me so angry.

I only really like the episodes where Spock displays a smidgeon of emotion

the lesbians seem to be saying pretty much in unison "it's not that. It's that we don't like cock! We're lesbians!"

This made me laff out loud. Because it's so bleedin' obvious! Though it seems not to be ...

That's great! I'm too old for Hollyoaks. Glad it made that part of your life a bit easier :)

My Brazilian friends mostly sleep with men and identify as homosexual. Some are bi. Some are in relationships with one another. I don't recall meeting anyone who said she was lesbian - which only means I didn't have this conversation - I have no idea what proportion of travestis might be.

There are a lot of men who are attracted to pre-op / post -op transsexuals. But I'm not sure that is the kind of person I want. I want someone attracted in me as a person.

Well, like everybody else you're pretty much restricted to partners whose sexual preferences do include people of your physical composition. Sometimes love can conquer all, but narrowing the field to straight men who will find they're okay about your physical difference would probably be impractical.

I do know what you mean about "that kind of person". I have certainly met plenty of men-who-like-trans-women, whom I would describe as sleazy. But then again, as a fit younger woman I met an awful lot of straight men I'd call sleazy! Just because the pool's smaller, it doesn't mean the fish are different. I've known enough trans people in long-term relationships to know there are good fish swimming around there, too.

Mini

I've said on this and many other threads what my opinion on trans issues is, and am bored of repeating myself. I'm happy to accept that trans women are women, I don't think I've got any right to ask any man or woman what they genitals look like and whether they were born with them or not, nor do I think anyone else has that right. I find bugbrennan and gendertrender hateful and nasty, and can understand any provider's choice not to want to host them, in fact I think it's probably a good sign of CSR to not host them, even though I don't think that there should be a ban enshrined in law.

And I don't think it's sniping to point out that voicing an opinion over a whole group of people, and putting forward political views about that group of people, but singling out selected members of that group, "wishing them well", because you know them/they're good eggs whatever is quite a bit offensive.

Maybe you should take the fact that you wish that person well/don't mean them/you know they're good eggs as a basis to challenge your view, rather than just making exemptions for some.

Having read that blog post, I think that (again) the answer is not for radfems/cislesbians to be forced to allow transpeople into their social spaces (ie if someone wants to put on a party/club night for ciswomen only, they should be allowed to, same as anyone wanting to hire a club for a birthday party or other private function should be allowed to do so) but for all these activists to channel their energy into hosting and promoting mixed nights for LGBT/everyone to attend. I do think that perhaps some of the transactivists' complaints - that they are allowed to participate in the hard-work bit of social/sexual activism but not allowed into the party - might have merit. I can see how some transpeople might be justifiably hurt at being treated as though they are potential sexual abusers when their manners are as good as anyone else's - eg barred from a social event because of who they are rather than because of their own behaviour.

WidowWadman - do you want to quit with the snidey personal attacks? If you think me saying to Kim that I wish her all the best is offensive, report me and get my posts deleted.

I wish Kim well because I really feel for anyone who has GRS and/or who struggles with patriarchal gender crap.

My political views are about patriarchy. They aren't about 'a group of people'. Nuance, WidowWadman, nuance. I don't make 'exemptions for some' - because you see that is not what this is about. All the trans people in the world could be models of lovely jubbly huggy gorgeous sparkly wonderfulness who all agreed 110% with everything I say and do, and I would still hold the political views that I do.

My thinking that;

a) Kim is a good egg (individual interaction with a person)

isn't about to make me agree that;

b) male bodied people are female and that lesbians like cock really. (political analysis of patriarchal misogyny)

Because a) is a personal statement and b) is a political one

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying 'feminists hates teh menz' - just it is 'feminists (well Beach at least) hates teh tranz'.

If you disagree with my political analysis on this thread why don't you argue your case? Sorry if that is far too boring for you but might I suggest that it would be a more interesting contribution to the thread than calling me offensive and transphobic with (not very) veiled personal attacks.

SGB there are few women's events and spaces that are not open to transwomen.

Of the few there are, the reason for exclusion is a political one. It is because women wish to assemble with no men there and this includes MAAB people who identify as women. If you take the case of Radical Feminist conferences, well, they, like other political groups, like to get together with like-minded people without having the agenda set by people who do not share the same politics and identity/class. The exclusion of MTF trans people is not because they are trans - it is because they are men. Just as if a MOC was turned away, it wouldn't be because he is black but because he is a man.

Trans people may think they are doing a lot to challenge gender, but radical feminists think that trans politics reinforce both gender and patriarchy - so politically the views are poles apart and it is perfectly reasonable to point this out and suggest that it isn't always appropriate to meet together.

Increasingly in the LGBT movement, lesbian focus and workshops (of which there was already not a lot) have been getting pushed out in favour of trans issues or issues that include male bodied people who identify as women in the same class as FAAB lesbians. Radical feminism wishes to resist a similar change of focus to radical politics and activism. There are very few radical feminist events around the world - and they are not there simply to validate the patriarchal gender identities of MAABs.

Don't get me started on saying a penis isn't a penis if you call it something else.I called my husband's penis Captain but it didn't get a salary from the navy.

thank fuck I wasn't drinking anything or I would have destroyed my computer

^^ best line on the thread!

Beachcomber: I'm not all that well up on feminist/activist events (these days). My point remains the same: radfems should be entitled to organise events however they wish; transpeople and trans-friendly feminists (and anyone else with an interest) should respond by organising alternative events, not by trying to get the radfem events banned or shut down. To do that is as graceless as barging your way into a stranger's wedding reception on the grounds that you always spend your weekends in the venue they have hired, and that they should allow you in just because you want to be there.

On the other hand, radfems could stop saying horrible, bigoted things about transpeople and insisting that all transwomen are potential rapists.

feministing.com/2012/06/28/enough-with-i-date-women-and-trans-men

This transwoman is arguing that transmen should stop fucking lesbians until lesbians start fucking transwomen.

"I do put a little more responsibility on trans men for letting this frame push their trans sisters out."

Flora - That is absolutely not what that article says at all.

Goodness, there are some really dubious tactics being put forward here to support arguments.

There have been many, many feminist critiques of the medical establishment and the way society deems certain bodies (particularly those with disabilities) as not private and up for public discussion - yet when it comes to trans people, the fact they seek medical treatment (and frequently have unpleasant experiences doing so) - is given as justification for everyone to weigh their oar in.

Then there's the way mental illness is being used here, with talk of trans people needing to have a understanding of "objective reality" - so here the same "irrational and mentally ill" tropes that men use against women are being used against trans people.

Then there's the constant reference to "The Cotton Ceiling". A tiny conference, hugely controversial (and frankly unpopular) in the trans community, yet it's used as a dogwhistle as if to say "See this is what these trans people secretly want" - This is the same sort of nastiness the Daily Mail uses to smear minority groups.

Critique if you must, but why use the tools of the oppressors to do so.

Although I suspect this need to be "trans-critical" comes more from the enjoyment of having a mutual enemy - a Two Minutes Hate, then because of any actual threat posed by trans people.

On the other hand, radfems could stop saying horrible, bigoted things about transpeople and insisting that all transwomen are potential rapists.

Oh please SGB.

Maybe you should check out a bit more what is being done to feminist and or lesbian activism, right to assemble and discussion.

(note to self, I want to comment on the hideousness that is the concept of the 'cotton ceiling' but keep forgetting.)

GothAnneGeddes - what does the article say then?

Your post seems to be more of the same "you hate transpeople" and "that's a trope", no substantive discussion.

Are you saying it is not justified for us to discuss trans issues? Is that what you mean by "weigh their oar in"? Are we not allowed to discuss it?

As for the discussion of mental illness, beachcomber got it spot on when she said doctors and society have an ethical obligation to consider what is going on before they start prescribing hormone treatments or surgically altering genitals. I think we will one day look back on this with the same horror we now have for frontal lobotomies, electric shock treatment, eugenics and Magdalene laundries. The radfem approach is more accepting of people's individuality even though it is not libertarian - be yourself and don't feel confined to some culturally defined notion of gender or role imposed by patriarchial, misogynistic, homophobic society. Butch lesbians must wonder what would have happened to them if they were growing up today - would they be told they are the wrong sex just for being themselves? Would they be encouraged and allowed to take hormones and have surgery to be happy?

Our children will think we are monsters for allowing this. If anything, challenging this dogma is the opposite of hate.

I'm not referring to a treatment of a particular person but the overall medical approach, particularly as it relates to children.

If anything, challenging this dogma is the opposite of hate.

Yes this FloraFox.