I guess the reason I started wondering about this is connected to a subject in Ireland which I dont think is much discussed outside of Ireland.
There are many women still alive in Ireland who had a symphiosotomy performed on them during childbirth I think the last one was in 1983, although I may be mistaken (I notice the term is so obscure that spellcheck doesnt recognise it, so I should explain the process). Its a pretty grotesque procedure - deliberately breaking of a womans pelvis to facilitate childbirth. The pelvis is left on a kind of hinge so that future childbirth is easier. It was often performed without the womans knowledge or consent, all they knew was that they lived in constant pain, and I guess many of them thought that was one of the physical consequences of motherhood. It was done because of the assumption that the purpose of women was childbirth, and someone else was the authority to judge that. To my mind, this is just the kind of issue that people like radfems, who believe that patriarchy has a view that women, due to biology, are for something specific and rigorously polices behaviour and social structures to keep women in their place, ought to be discussing. But how to discuss it without talking about the assumptions that underpin it, which so many transpeople find difficult and alienating? This surgery was performed by men on women because of the assumption that the purpose of women is to have children and that women dont have the right to control their own bodies. It doesnt make sense if we leave the bare biological role of women out of the discussion - if you try to, you are left with the fact that a medical assault was carried out on some people. Who or why is obscured, when who and why is the political point here.
This is all a very boring and longwinded way of explaining why I think that this whole debate has exploded recently while women have some legislative justice, the question of what women are actually for appears to not yet have been answered, yet the suspicion that women are for something rather than just existing on our own terms doesnt seem (to me) to have receded. I think thats why theres so much talk about porn, about rape, about catcalling is the purpose of women to be desired? Is that what were for? Are we here to be not-men and give men something to define themselves against? Are we here to bear children? Is it enough if women just exist without any performance, role, expectations, and impositions?
I think the liberal feminists have ducked out of these questions completely, frankly, and so it falls to the radfems. And we can all see from online debate that you cannot ask these questions with men around, because the time and energy to explain (at length) about talking about wider society vs specific individuals, not all men, if youre not part of the problem etc. Many of the men who profess an interest in this topic are mainly interested in forcing the conversation to be about them, so clearly excluding men is a rational response. But what about transwomen? Other than seeking acceptance (which is perfectly legitimate), I havent read any perspective on these topics, which is a shame.
Transwomen raise very interesting, and sometimes painful, subjects which should be discussed. Personally, Im happy for everyone to live with their identity on their own terms, and make any modifications to their body they deem necessary or desirable. And actually, I dont agree that there are public spaces which should not be accessible to transwomen. However, I do think that if you really care about living as a woman, there is a communal effort involved, and that goes double if youre trying to enter a space where the key questions about what it means to be a woman living in the world are being discussed.