Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

[MooncupGoddess]

As many of you will remember, the Radfem 2012 conference in London was explicitly open only to born women and consequently attracted lots of condemnation and anger from people who saw this as transphobic. It was kicked out of its original venue at Conway Hall and went underground (very successfully in the end).

This year Radfem 2013 has not explicitly banned transwomen... but instead it's come under attack from Men's Rights Activists, who have staged a demo at the planned venue, the London Irish Centre, while making lots of unpleasant and ridiculous claims about how radical feminists want to murder small boys and the like. As a result the venue is threatening to cancel the booking.

www.mralondon.org/

bugbrennan.com/2013/04/20/statement-from-rad-fem-2013/

I have mixed feelings about the whole trans issue but have no hesitation in declaring the MRAs utter misogynist knobbers and am disappointed the London Irish Centre has seemingly caved into them.

"The only thing I see Cathy Brennan and other RadFems say (not all RadFems) is that a transwomen is not actually a female.
On a medical level, is that not correct?"

Well that's simply not true. I linked to her Twitter above, she's full of hate.

And transgender women are women, to deny that is bigoted. This is like listening to how gay people were treated 30 years ago, hopefully it won't take as long for things to change.

It depends how you define woman. That is the point.

If you define 'woman' as 'someone of the female gender', you're talking about a concept radical feminists reject as being socially constructed (that is, gender). If you define woman as 'someone of the female sex', you're talking about something biological. Transwoman were not born female in sex, and their chromosomal makeup is not XX, and they do not have vaginas and ovaries. How much that matters is usually up to transwomen to think about for themselves and there is obviously a lot of variation in how people feel and what they want to do.

But to say that you believe gender is a social construct is not bigotry; it is a point of view.

They pre-fix woman with trans, maybe because we can't both take up the same space, why? because we are not the same. But why should I pre-fix woman with cis to appease their sense of fair play. It smacks of "I can't be just a woman, so neither can you. Thing is I never chose to be a woman, I just am, a stroke of luck or misfortune, take your pick.......but I am not asking other people to change their identity to make space for me.

Other than the fact that I refuse to be redefined by a system that has already defined me, whether I approve or not, I have no issue with trans.

stick - but this is the issue.

Legally, you can be recognised as male if you identified as female at birth, or female if you were identified as male at birth.

A very small number of people are born with intersex conditions, for what it's worth - I'll note that because people always do in these debates, though transsexuals are not people who were born intersex, or not typically (it's very, very rare).

The legal situation, then, doesn't relate to whether you have XX chromosomes or what genitalia you have. It is possible also to have surgery that could give someone who was born with a penis something that looks more like a vagina, or vice versa.

Obviously, chromosomes are hidden, so some people would say, look, it doesn't matter what the genetic coding is, what matters is how you feel inside. Some people have a strong internal sense of their 'gender identity' and reckon they know inside whether they're male or female. Others don't have this. Others again - including lots of radical feminists - think even this internal sense of 'gender identity' might be the result of social conditioning.

Most of the time, obviously, it is perfectly possible to be respectful of whatever other people think, because 90% of the time there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to insist 'well I shall use gender identity to categorise everyone as male or female', or 'well I shall use chromosomes'.

Occasionally, it starts to matter to some people. For me personally, I don't like to be labelled a 'ciswoman' because that qualifies 'woman' in a way I find othering and offensive. And I think it matters to be able to discuss issues to do with having a female reproductive system with other people who've grown up with a female reproductive system (and to me, that includes women who've since had hysterectomies, say, because I think their formative experience is the same). But now we're getting into the personal side of things.

Is there any actual reason why anybody should be excluded from attending?

Seriously?

Is Radfem about equality or pushing a particular group to the fore?

I know maybe redefine the RadFem conference.

Rather than "it's about how we attain equality"......instead......"its an escape from the fact that we don't"

Yes, there are actual reasons, and they are compatible with equality.

In mixed-sex groups, women typically do not get so much time to speak or be heard. There are loads of studies to show that even when people - men and women - think they're being really careful to give women equal time and attention, they don't. They give more time and attention to men. This isn't always conscious, it's just how deep our conditioning is.

That's one reason.

Another reason is, as I understand it, that we will be able to discuss some ideas that lots of women wouldn't feel able to talk about if they were with men. So, it's about making a safe space for a vulnerable group, just as you would for any group you have a bit of human decency and compassion for.

This will help achieve equality, because it will help women to take themselves seriously and to think seriously about their wants and needs. I'm sure some women have no need of a woman-only space to do that, and they are very fortunate. But others aren't so lucky.

Mini, what is wrong with the way it is defined already?

Transgender women are women, they are not men. I'll repeat, it is bigoted to continue to refer to them as anything other than women. To allow transphobic speakers into a conference that should welcome ALL women is just wrong. It's like saying they can be discriminated against because they're the wrong type of woman.

Someone self identifies as a woman costs me nothing to accept them as a woman.

And I can pretty much guarantee that if you feel oppressed the transgender woman can tell you a few things about oppression. It appears this is the last bastion in societal bigotry, trans people are going through what gay people went through 30-40 years ago when people were discussing where they fitted in society.

Google the suicide and murder rates of trans people, shocking statistics.

I am female assigned at birth which under our present social reality means I have been defined as a"woman" I am expected to "perform" femininity and behave and look as a woman. (I do this everyday)

Men can just roll up and say, well I don't want to be a man, therefore he won't act like one, look like one or identify as one. He can then "perform" femininity and call himself a woman.

Seems to me that both he and I are probably perpetuating genderisation by doing what we do.

Maybe we shouldn't have to be gendered at all? Maybe people could just be "who they are" rather than being "what they are" when what they are is a social construct anyway.

Having already been defined (I didn't ask to be) I have no wish to be further constrained by redefinition. ie if men wear floral and long locks, is that the new face of womanhood, I sincerely hope not.

Hatred is a horrible thing. I doubt though, that those murdering trans people are doing it based on rad fem ideology, same with societal oppression contributing to elevated suicide rates. No one here is spouting hatred.

Are we not allowed to discuss biological, social and other perspectives of gender and sex?

You're not bothering to read anyone's posts, are you, fluffy? You're just pretending we've said things you like to pretend rad fems might say, because it's easier to do that.

I am not about to get into oppression olympics with you or anyone else, let alone 'the transgender woman' (what a patronizing phrase - do you also talk about 'the black man' in that universalizing way, or do you save your faux concern for people you believe it suits your dislike of radical feminism to pretend to support?).

I have always agreed with RadFems on the difference between Sex (biologically determined) and gender (socially constructed) To this end I am female first. I don't think it is possible yet to change your biological sex but it is possible to construct a new social identity, ie transition from man-woman or woman-man. At the moment it seems that no one is allowed to question whether gender ID promotes inequalities because trans-people feel under attack.

I am inclined to think people can be what/who they wish but not to impose a definition and even worse a redefinition on others. For too long we have been expected to exhibit gendered behaviours, personality traits and to achieve a gender specific look. Women are expected to be less aggressive, less outspoken, to act coy, to speak quietly etc. Men are expected to look, speak and behave in gender specific ways. When people don't ascribe to this narrow definition of what it is to be man/woman it's no wonder they are conflicted within themselves or/or seek transition. Its almost as though some very sensitive people have too options, conform or transition.

It wont help equality one jot.

a. it creates a partition, the Radfems are essentially creating a ghetto for themselves. People actually listen to people who are worthy of listening to, regardless of their person.

By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones. Their views are likely to be dismissed due to the method of their formation, not necessarily for any other reason.

b. It wont help them take themselves seriously, because they are doing all of this thinking and talking in an artificial environment. If the group aren't comfortable discussing the ideas with others are the ideas worthy of discussion? Or do they think these ideas will never cross the 'Radfem'/Rest of world interface? In which case are they worhty of discussion?

By not having other parties involved, even in watered down and tethered form, their ideas will not be correctly formed and thus may attract derision. If the groups are 'vulnerable' how will them ever gain the confidence to shed this vulnerability? You don't just run 100m to get fit. The very fact discussions take place to teh exclusion of all other points of view means the discussion is essentially pointless.

c. Closed groups such as these are devisive by their very nature. If they are not open to the whole community they invite suspicion.

For example, a quick check of my google shows a radfem speech troting out nonsense about the burning of witches being evidence of men hating women...

The author appears to think 9,000,000 women were burned at the stake...

No mention that that figure would have left Europe with no women nor wood for fuel. There was no mention of the large amount of men that were killed for witchcraft.

Nor even the fact that the burning of witches had very little to do with their sex, but more their religion... hence the number of men also killed.

And if such conventions spark terms such as 'menhate' one should question their validity. I could question the term 'radical feminist' also, especially when connected with such terms as 'menhate'.

A force with no resistance is not a good thing, just as a force with too much resistance

If the audience of such conventions are truely vulnerable, how do we ensure they are not abused by those they perceive as their leaders?

Interesting you defend the equality compatibility angle almost immediately.

have two* not too

notflulffy women being silenced and told what to believe and care about and to always speak naicely and care for everyone except themselves is like the treatment of women for, oh, ever. Let's hope the situation for women changes in less time than 30 years.

It wont help equality one jot.

I respect your opinion, but you are stating opinion as fact here, and I disagree with your opinion.

a. it creates a partition, the Radfems are essentially creating a ghetto for themselves. People actually listen to people who are worthy of listening to, regardless of their person.

This is not true. As I have said, there is quite a lot of research to show that people do not just listen to people worthy of being listened to, they are conditioned to listen more to men, and to give men more space to speak.

Ask yourself honestly: if people 'actualy listen to people who are worthy of listening to', does that mean there were no eloquent voices for the entire history of slavery in North America, right up until it ended? No. Does it mean there were no eloquent voices speaking out against the murder of jews, gypsies, and disabled people during the Holocaust? No.

Think about what you are saying for a minute here.

By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones.

Which problems are 'perceived'? You are dismissing an agenda without engaging with it - why?

Their views are likely to be dismissed due to the method of their formation, not necessarily for any other reason.

More fool the people dismissing their views. This conference is for the people attending. Maybe those people care about the views being expressed, huh?

b. It wont help them take themselves seriously, because they are doing all of this thinking and talking in an artificial environment. If the group aren't comfortable discussing the ideas with others are the ideas worthy of discussion? Or do they think these ideas will never cross the 'Radfem'/Rest of world interface? In which case are they worhty of discussion?

Incorrect. I participate in a couple of (very small, very un-activisty, very safe) woman-only groups and I gain hugely from it on a personal level. The opportunity to be in a woman-only group and talk helps me hugely to take myself and other women seriously. Therefore, all on my own, I disprove your statement.

By not having other parties involved, even in watered down and tethered form, their ideas will not be correctly formed and thus may attract derision.

Incorrect. You provide no evidence.

If the groups are 'vulnerable' how will them ever gain the confidence to shed this vulnerability? You don't just run 100m to get fit. The very fact discussions take place to teh exclusion of all other points of view means the discussion is essentially pointless.

They will gain the confidence through these groups. See above.

c. Closed groups such as these are devisive by their very nature. If they are not open to the whole community they invite suspicion.

Incorrect. Why do you belive so?

For example, a quick check of my google shows a radfem speech troting out nonsense about the burning of witches being evidence of men hating women...

And it's so convincing you provided a link. I see.

You cannot expect anyone to take that seriously, can you?

*The author appears to think 9,000,000 women were burned at the stake...

No mention that that figure would have left Europe with no women nor wood for fuel. There was no mention of the large amount of men that were killed for witchcraft.*

Maybe you should check out this discussion on FWR, right here. You will find several people, all feminists, arguing both sides of this one. Once again, your argument fails because you assume all rad fems are the same.

Nor even the fact that the burning of witches had very little to do with their sex, but more their religion... hence the number of men also killed.

This is incorrect.

And if such conventions spark terms such as 'menhate' one should question their validity. I could question the term 'radical feminist' also, especially when connected with such terms as 'menhate'.

I've not seen anyone use the term 'menhate' except you. Your argument is therefore groundless.

A force with no resistance is not a good thing, just as a force with too much resistance

... is what? Is this a joke without a punchline?

If the audience of such conventions are truely vulnerable, how do we ensure they are not abused by those they perceive as their leaders?

'We' don't. And the leaders ensure it by, erm, not being oppressive. It's very simple.

Interesting you defend the equality compatibility angle almost immediately.

I'm so pleased you think so.

Now ... any points that

1. Make sense
2. Are relevant
3. Don't make me wonder if you're simply incapable of engaging with an argument.

"By secreting themselves away they actually compound their perceived problems in to real ones. "

Er "secreting themselves" away in that safe house, the Camden Centre?

And last year, secreting themselves away in that unknown underground venue, Conway Hall?

Isn't rad fems "secreting themselves away" what trans-activists and MRA's want?

Mini,

A man can change in to a woman, but a woman can also change into a man if they so wish.

There is nothing that says you can't act as you wish to act. If you want to act (for want of a better term) 'manly' there is nothing stopping you.

basil - I think there's a confusion between nuns and radical feminists, perhaps? It often happens.

For a 'secret' meeting it's amazing how many people know about it, innit.

It's because of the wimple thing.

I can see why the confusion arises.

Truefacts.

And on that note, I'm off to starch my long black robes and get in a quick few Hail Maries before DH gets home.

(I'm actually going to write about the Pater Noster, but close, I feel.)

When under attack people exhibit a bunker mentality.

There are two options, open up the conference, men need to hear the truth however uncomfortable. Trans women could also be made welcome and perhaps even invited to field speakers on gender as well. Or don't. In which case expect more MRA and Trans activity because their perception of RadFem is based on a few (not representative) rabid blogs.

Only dialogue with the opposition has the capacity to create change.