Following on from the TERF thread...

[CailinDana]

Trying to get my head straight on this. Surely the whole malarkey around transwomen wanting to be recognised as women even though they have penises will eventually actually help to break down the idea of gender?

What I mean is, if a person with a penis can be labelled a woman simply because they want to be labelled in that way, surely gender becomes meaningless as it tells you nothing meaningful about a person except perhaps the clothes they like to wear?

This is a half-formed thought, feel free to develop/challenge.

We may be talking at cross purposes.

I think race has been constructed by racists and slavery, and has been a disaster, but ethnicity has a basis in people's lived experiences which are ultimately rooted in material reality. We would lose most of the world's knowledge of environments, medicine and so on if there was no such thing as ethnicity. It wouldn't be possible for people to survive in different places without developing unique cultures, so they are here with good reason. In fact, the construction of race is connected to material reality - grabs of land and people, but it isn't a useful category of people for any positive reason other than as a reaction to ending the consequences of that and helping people understand what has happened.

With biological sex, I am arguing against the idea (I think!) that there was biology, on which people built negative social constructions exist and which have negative social consequences for the group now socially called women.

I am arguing that a material reality exists, which we comprehend through a social construction called biology (and other social constructions) and that construction itself is prone to issues of social power. Materially real females are then harmed through social constructions and material events which are maintained through power which is both constructed and real, and the consequences of that are materially real and socially constructed.

FGM, for example - done to the genitals (really female, named and understood through constructs), demanded by a whole society with a proposed reason (social construction), done through power (social, who is named as controlling resources they may withold) and by literal power (holding someone down and harming them, with a social consequence (status of females) and a materially real one (illness, infection, impairment, death).

There isn't a point at which you can separate the two concepts, other than to say that some aspects of material reality will always exist, while some aspects of material reality and all social constructions can be changed.

What I am trying to argue, perhaps unsuccessfully, is that the sex / reproduction biology is not the fact of oppression. Oppression isn't an inevitable result of sex and sexual differences. The oppression is build upon and around those differences, and the oppression is socially constructed. The oppression and its long and inglorious history is the source of our problems today, not the sex. The sex just is.

And consequently, I suggest that the problem with trans activism and feminism isn't due to sex it is due to the oppressive edifice that has been constructed around sex. I am proposing that if there were no sex-based oppression, then there would be no problem.

ITA with this. The problem for feminists is how to challenge and dismantle that oppressive edifice. I can't see how we can get anywhere if we can't name what is at the root of it.

And I'd love to see your interpretive dance, but alas there is no embedded video on this forum

I also agree that biological sex does not inevitably lead to oppression, but in any possible society, biological sex differences would have to be acknowledged for there to be no oppression, in the same way that childhood, height, old age, physical impairments and so on would have to be, because physical diversity requires a society that meets diverse needs.

It is like the Daphna Joel video I linked to. We used to think left handed ness was a symptom of mental problems and in capabilities. We used to tie left handed children's left arm down to force them to write with their right hand. We still say 'two left feet' as an insult.

But nobody really believes that left handed people have different brains and capabilities anymore. They still need left handed scissors and other appropriate tools though. Because differences in handedness still have consequences that can't be ignored. That is like biological sex. Tieing somebody's arm down and claiming they are mentally feeble because of their left handedness is like gender.

I agree with that bit too Buffy.

Biological sex does not oppress women. It just is. Men oppress women.

Women are oppressed because of our biological sex via the socially constructed hierarchy of gender. Gender had to be invented because there is no material reality to one sex having more worth or status than the other. In a non patriarchal society, the differences between the two sexes would be acknowledged when relevant (maternity services for women, prostate exams for men) but there would be no value judgement on those differences, they would be neutral. They would just be. Gender would not exist and neither would sex as a class/caste.

The thought of that makes me want to break into dance

FloraFox said up thread that "if you are involved in feminism in any way, trans issues will find you." Well it's just recently found me and I feel like I've fallen into down the rabbit hole into an unfamiliar place where nothing makes sense.

Where's a good place to start reading about this?

I just don't know enough about the trans activist movement to understand how we've got to this point. I see arguments on Twitter (eg recently between Laurier Penny, Glosswitch, Caroline Criado Perez and others) and feel totally alienated by the conversations.

Villa, I would recommend the GenderTrender blog. Gallus Mag has been tracking the impact of trans politics on feminism and women's rights for quite some time and she is a fearless advocate for women and girls.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/

Gia Milinovich has also covered this issue from a more neutral (but still feminist) perspective.

www.giagia.co.uk/2013/10/22/controversy/

www.giagia.co.uk/2014/02/13/i-heart-you/

Villa, I don't know how to give resources that are not unbiased on this! This is by someone who tried to 'find common ground' although it did not end well, but might give a summary of the issue.

www.giagia.co.uk/2013/10/22/controversy/

Flora, I agree that MN is a pretty exceptional place as we are able to have these discussions at all. There have been much fewer cries of 'transphobia' recently too - I wonder why.

If you take places like The F-Word it is just ridiculous the way no one can say anything trans/gender critical or anything that prioritizes women. I remember reading this discussion for example calling for women to boycott the London Reclaim the Night march because the organizers don't expressly invite "self-identifying" women (they don't exclude transwomen, they just don't extend a special snowflake invitation). Also notice in the comments that a couple of posters mention the fact that your comments will only make it through if they are not trans critical.

There is also this discussion where a poster called Old Music posts an entirely reasonable explanation of radical feminist thought (Old Music Posted 25 September 2011 at 00:44) and then a mod comes on and tells them that comment slipped through but more comments in that vain will not be published.

I have copied and pasted the mods comment because the grovelling self flagellation speaks volumes.

You are correct - it was a mistake to publish @Old Music's comment.

I am a cis woman and I was moderating the thread. I did not recognize, because of my cis privilege, that the comment was cis centric, reinforcing cis privilege and transphobic.

I apologize to everyone on the site, and this thread in particular, for my mistake and for undermining TFW's efforts to create a safer space for trans women on the site.

Thank you for calling me out.

The F Word calls itself "the UK's leading website dedicated to all aspects of contemporary feminism" but you can only post there if you adhere to their position on transphobia and cissexism .

So yeah, thanks MN that we are allowed to discuss these issues.

Beachcomber, I also really appreciate the fact that Mumsnet allows women to discuss these issues openly. Trans politics affects all women, so women should be allowed to debate it.

What do feminists like that mod actually want? What does "contemporary feminism" mean?

MNFWR feels quite subversive in the face of all of that, and I never thought I'd say that.

But you know, normal women look at stuff like the F word and conclude feminism's not for them, because they can see straight off that that sort of thing is a crock of shit.

Actually, thinking about it, are there any large-ish feminists sites that don't pander? IPTP, whilst often laser sharp in it's commentary (and a place where I'd gravitate to because of that), it also a site that eliminates any trans criticism at mod-level.

I am surprised that FWR has so far been off the radar, in the main.

Probably because it's part of Mumsnet, Crotch.

I know, AskBasil. THAT is what I have a massive problem with. It's baloney to say that trans women are doing no harm and it's only a minority of trans activists.

FFS, if only gay marriage was allowed in the early 2000s. And 3rd wavers hadn't had so much sway.

Thanks DonkeySkin and AlmondCakes. I'll look at those. I need to get my head around this. I kind of know what I think. I just need to learn a bit more about this whole debate before I feel confident articulating my thoughts/opinions.

stellamorabito.net/2014/06/19/watch-this-clip-on-the-asch-conformity-experiment-to-see-groupthink-in-action/

Here's another good reason why people should speak up. I agree with askbasil that this bullshit is putting women off feminism. This clip shows an experiment indicating that group pressure makes people more likely to disbelieve their own ideas. Sometimes they think they must be wrong and sometimes they know they are right but want to fit in and avoid the displeasure of the group. I saw this on twitter and it made me think of this discussion and the libfem approach to gender.

That's a great link, WhentheRed. Orwellian is how I describe (current) transgenderism.

On that blog there is a link to this really interesting piece of writing on the socialization of masculine women to perceive themselves as trans. Socialized “Trans”

As a sort of aside to Buffy, this essay describes my feelings on post-modernism. Especially this bit;

offourbacks.net/index.php/featured-articles-1/85-let-them-eat-text-the-real-politics-of-postmodernism

What I find most interesting about postmodernism is not what postmodernists say about it, but how it functions in the real world (and I'm assuming there is one) in terms of social change. The effects of the intimidating and obfuscating writing style, of inhibiting generalizations and so the formation of commonalities between people, of ruling out binary thinking and so eviscerating impassioned convictions, and of overemphasizing individual rather than collective action is to create a multilayered system of disconnection, silencing, and disempowerment.

What is also interesting is the timing of the advent of postmodernist theory. As Somer Brodribb and Barbara Christian point out in Radically Speaking, postmodernism came into vogue in academia just when the voices of women and people of color began to assert a significant presence there. It seems that when groups other than those in power attempt to say things, suddenly truth dissolves into meaninglessness. This is a little too coincidental for my taste.

The coincidence becomes even more striking when it becomes apparent that this is not the first time this has happened. Right after the first wave of feminism, in the 1920s, when women had made some advances, had gotten the vote, and began to gain some access to academia, another nihilistic kind of theorizing became the rage in academia--relativism and existentialism. Again, just when women were trying to gain access, and to articulate our points of view, suddenly nothing was meaningful anymore, everything was relative, and meaninglessness was lauded as high theory.

That Asch Conformity Experiment clip is astounding - well worth watching.

The critique of genderism is being expressed so very articulately and reasonably by fairly mainstream people now - GiaGia, Glosswitch and Sarah Ditum, for example. I'd like to think it will be harder to write them off as bigots than it is when people with more radical reputations say the same things.

One interesting bit in the Asch experiment was where when they gave the subject a 'partner', ie someone else gave the right answer, it made it easier for him to do it even though the majority of the group was still insisting the wrong line matched....

I read those links that Beachcomber posted and this totally threw me:

If you email LFN, you will be told that of course trans women are welcome to attend.

And yet this makes no difference to the event being trashed as "trans exclusive" and a whole article written about how transphobic it is and a whole string of comments agreeing how awful the organisers are for not making trans women welcome.

I fucking give up.

'This probably sounds as though I am labouring an insignificant point. However, labour I will. What I was trying to argue wasn't that there are no biological facts (though I would maintain that there is always doubt, as would most scientists, I can probably link to papers if needed) BUT that the biology is less significant than the ways in which historically the biology has been used to cement the hierarchies in society.'

'And further, I'd suggest that it is the hierarchy and its effects that is the root of the problem, not the biology. If biology hadn't been used as an excuse to oppress women for millennia, if biology wasn't used as an excuse for rigid gender categories with significant penalties...'

I've cut your post down Buffy, but hopefully I haven't distorted your meaning. I don't believe biology is less significant than the hierarchy created from it. I am probably going to argue against a position you're not holding, but lots of people influenced by postmodernism do seem to hold.

If you and I are having a conversation about whether or not the Isle of Wight exists, and I convince everybody that it does not, I have manufactured a fact that gives me a position of power and authority over you. I can now claim you are a liar, or insane, or a fantasist, and have social status over you. In fact the very reason I may have been successful in my argument is that I had more social status to begin with, and I am merely consolidating my power base. The issue is one of facts being constructed by power, a process that indisputably exists. But the problem with this is that nobody really cares if the Isle of Wight exists; it makes no difference to our lives (apologies to anybody who actually lives on the Isle of Wight).

We don't have the ability to socially construct things simply to get into power struggles with other people. We have the ability to socially construct because humans can only adapt to our environments and survive through culture. The ability to socially construct was in place before our species evolved. The primary purpose of being able to socially construct is to comprehend the material world so we do not die. And comprehending the material world through making accurate observations of it and being able to use those observations to accurately predict what will happen isn't a tool of Western Science; it is a tool used by every culture in the world.

So if I say that photosynthesis is not real, and lead everyone else to believe that or force them to act as if it is a lie, they're all going to die if I really believe it too, because we won't be able to grow food. If I of course was just misleading them, and know it is true really, then I now control food and they are all dependent on me and I control them. None of this necessarily follows if I was using my power to make everyone believe photosynthesis is real.

So the biology is as significant as the power/hierarchy/social construction. It isn't just a matter of who gets to define facts, it also matters if the fact is actually a fact when it has an impact on people's lives. Control of knowledge isn't just about who says what is a fact, it is also about whether or not the fact has a basis in material reality and if knowing it can help you survive and thrive.

Knowing what small pox is, having the cure for it, but handing out small pox infested blankets to Native Americans who don't know, it isn't just a matter of whether or not a powerful person believes small pox kills, it is also whether or not what is believed it is true.

So if large numbers of people start denying that 99% of people are either biologically male or female, and that to say otherwise is not only a lie but immoral, and that female body parts are not to be mentioned or only mentioned in isolation from the rest of the body, and that people who have an entirely female body -54.5% of the world, must stop talking about their bodies collectively, our ability to talk about material reality and therefore influence it has gone. So recent advances, the very cheap and effective bag technique that midwives can use to deliver babies during difficult births in places with limited medical care, that is saving lives. How do future things like that get invented, supported, funded, midwives in developing countries get educated about it, if we can't talk about the female body as a feminist issue because the female body no longer exists?

And this is being said on every issue. A feminist was told, 'go away TERF' because in a conversation that had nothing to do with trans at all, but about genital mutilation, she referred to female genital mutilation. How do we talk about sex, rape, menstruation, menopause, breastfeeding, maternity, diet, ill Heath, infertility or contraception without talking about the female body as a whole?

when people compare it to being trans race, it isn't really the same. As offensive, rude and harmful as trans race is, its consequences for health and survival of black people are much more indirect.

What denying the material reality of the female body is, and denying the right to discuss it, is like me claiming to be trans hunter gatherer. Because I have a tent in my garden and own a bow, hunter gathering is now an identity. Actual hunter gatherers and the charities that work for their rights are oppressing ME by claiming that destroying the ecosystems they gather from, and industry poisoning their water supply are hunter gatherer issues. Because I am a hunter gatherer, and I get water from a tap and gather food at Tesco, and the whole notion that hunter gatherers get food to survive by gathering plants is a socially constructed binary enforcing nonsense, and what even is a water source? It is a completely nebulous concept now that we can control it through medical drips, reservoirs and local water boards.

Not only should hunter gatherers stop talking about gathering to me or campaigning for rights about it, they should stop sharing knowledge about how to do it with each other by meeting and discussing how to do it, because that is just an example of their privilege. They are making hunter gathering about hunting and gathering, because they have the privilege of passing by fitting the social expectation of what hunter gatherers do.

And furthermore, if they want to end oppression and stop noble savage myths and other negative stereotypes, why don't they just stop taking on an identity based in biological reality? The best way to break down the binary would be to accept that there is no real biological difference between their lives and the lives of the Industrialists poisoning the water source. They don't need to discuss or understand the water source; they just need to accept that because I wasn't allowed to wear a tshirt with a picture of a wolf howling at the moon on it as a small child but have broken down this boundary as an adult, I can now lead all of us hunter gatherers to a more equal future, because as a trans hunter gatherer, my oppression is the greatest.

I think a better analogy is on disability, because there are real people who think that they ought to be disabled, to the point they sometimes remove healthy limbs, etc.

I have mobility difficulties (not too bad, now, but I was housebound for a while with them). Those difficulties suck. If a perfectly healthy person starts using crutches, then claims not only that they are disabled, but they are more oppressed than all the other disabled people out there, and that their needs should be put before everyone else's, you can imagine how thrilled the disability rights movements would be.

at because as a trans hunter gatherer, my oppression is the greatest.

I like the hunter gatherer analogy.

This is an example of exactly what you are talking about. Not Everyone Who Has an Abortion Is a Woman - How to Frame the Abortion Rights Issue

We want to make sure that NYAAF isn't just working toward every woman's right to access affordable abortion care, but every person's right, regardless of their gender. We realized that embracing gender inclusivity is about more than not assuming the gender pronouns that our callers use or replacing 'woman' with 'people' everywhere on our website. Becoming gender inclusive is an important part of our values as an organization.

Abortion being framed as a 'people's rights' issue and no longer a 'women's rights' issue.

Buffy, IMO this sort of thinking (which I call Orwellian and which fits right in with Flora's links both to the article about 1984 and the Asch Conformity Experiment, which I just watched going like this ) has its foundation in post-modernism.

SmallPress, yes, but I was trying to make the point that control of biological facts matters because what is actually being contested by the wider society is access to knowledge of and control over a biological resource. Hunter gatherer land is like a woman's body, it is a resource the person who has it needs to understand and control to survive, but other people want for themselves.

Your trans disability example would explain the advantages given to trans disabled people. I can't see how trans disability benefits wider society particularly. Not allowing women to discuss or campaign about their own bodies hugely benefits men, who want to control women's reproductive capacities themselves.