Any appetite for further discussion on 'trans-feminism'?

[CrewElla]

I made the mistake this morning of reading the comments on an article on the Guardian website re Kellie Maloney being 'outed' in the tabloids which led to me googling trans-feminism and coming across this article from the New Yorker: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

I haven't considered myself radical in the past and, at times, even (naively) said I had no need of feminism. Reading the New Yorker article I felt they so missed the point and tried to marginalise a view (woman have a need for spaces free from penises, whether the penis belongs to a man or a transwoman) that I don't think is that radical.

Am I being naive? Does anyone have the time/interest to read the article and share their views on it?

x-posts

I think it is important now, but maybe one day the bond of physical trust between women will be outdated. that will be in many ways a good day IF it means it has been extended to all humankind, NOT if it means we no longer trust anyone.

Let's all have a think about effective ways of extending trust. How do you go about building trust with groups of new people? hmmmm

"Is the author talking about things like Feminist meetings, or about things like rape centres? No idea."

this is what is so insidious about the TERF label. it doesn't say what the rad fem is excluding the trans from and draws no distinctions between vastly differing things like private parties, sexual relationships, employment situations, discussion groups, large paid for events, etc. I think we all regularly exclude some people from some situations, if only by having locks on our houses. Exclusion is a very loaded word for a very normal thing to do, in some contexts

Ah, I think I see, gin.

I think the issue is, there are two kinds of prejudice people can have here.

One is bigotry - that covers, say, men who think a female doctor is an incompetent who'll kill them, or homophobic women who imagine a lesbian midwife is getting her jolliehs, or someone transphobic who just doesn't like trans people refusing a trans nurse.

It might be that the fear these people feel at the idea of being vulnerable to people they fear and distrust is perfectly real. But it's also reprehensible, and IMO there is an element of choice in it, even if it's conditioned. You can decide not to be a bigot.

The second kind of prejudice is, I guess, involuntary. A raped woman who's terrified of the idea someone with a penis is putting a speculum inside her did not choose to feel that fear, and if she's very traumatized, she probably can't control even physical reactions like shaking.

That's a much more appalling thing, which I guess is why we do end up focusing on the very unlikely cases, like a raped woman having to go for a smear to a trans nurse.

But I think that, when we discuss that situation, people confuse the second situation with the first - or even assume that the second situation is somehow not really serious (as I think that woman quoted in the article does TBH).

(Sorry, I am probably blithering on about the blindingly obvious. I am shattered and should shut up.)

I think it is important now, but maybe one day the bond of physical trust between women will be outdated. that will be in many ways a good day IF it means it has been extended to all humankind, NOT if it means we no longer trust anyone.

Yes, I think this, and I really look forward to that happening.

I don't think that is quite it, LRD. I don't think a woman has to be a victim of abuse to feel quite differently about being examined intimately by a man or a woman. and it might be wrong to refuse to be examined by a man, it might be wronger to refuse to be examined by a transwoman, but the patient should know.

I think the point is that you don't have to think - consciously, or unwillingly as a reaction to trauma - of the HCP as potentially violent for it to be an issue. It need not contain the slightest aspect of accusation

No, I don't think a woman has to be a victim of abuse for that either - I was just carrying on a chain of thought.

I forget who said it (or even if it's Proper Feminist Writing or someone on here) - but women in patriarchy are constantly in a state of what I guess you could call minor trauma, aren't we? That's the point. And as you say, it's not at all about accusing all men, or all trans people, or whatever.

that is wrong to lie to a muslim about whether there is bacon fat in the stew or not. If I happen to think that eating bacon is actually morally fine, that doesn't give me the right to serve it to an unknowing Muslim or Jew.

This is a perfect example! But I'm astonished you didn't get it, Kim

Looking at it far more rigorously, the trans nurse could technically be a rapist, given that rape is penetration without informed consent. Perhaps those of us who care about such things should get used to asking for a nurse with XX chromosomes (though that would rule out a few bio women, too) rather than just a female nurse. I bloody hope this never gets tested in court, but it'd be a very informative case.

On the more human scale, I'm sure you can imagine that a number of ordinary men, for various reasons of their own, insist on their colorectal examinations being conducted by men. A man who used to be a woman wouldn't be acceptable to them. And that is their right.

It's not a good example, though - I doubt pigs are up in arms about not being included in anyone's diet!

As to XX, no, I don't give a fuck. It's about socialization/penetration, IMO. Else I think it is just gender essentialism for the sake of it?

No, the pigs are not the subject of this analogy. the point is that the person who made the stew would feel slighted if it isn't eaten, and has decided to gloss over what the ingredients are on that basis

you might say "but it is bigotted and wasteful not to eat this very good nutritious stew" but that is your opinion, so you eat it that doesn't mean that everyone should have to eat it without knowing what is in it

Got you. I give up.

I'm sorry to mess up the thread.

why do you think you have messed up the thread?
genuine confusion here!

this is a tough subject. I struggle with a lot of it.

I don't know where I stand btw

You've pretty much nailed it for me with your post about 2 types of prejudice, LRD (although I agree with vezzie's point about abuse not being a necessary prerequisite, but I see you've talked about that already!)

I thought I was being irritatingly obtuse, and it's slightly antisocial to post on a complex thread when I'm too tired to make sense.

I think the bacon fat in the stew is a good analogy - or how about Burton sneaking into Mecca and entering the Kaaba?
It's just boundary violation, I think: deliberately ignoring someone else's potential upset on the basis that you think it's fine and harmless.

re paris lees - i would imagine this sort of attitude, more than their appearance, would be an issue www.vice.com/en_uk/read/enjoying-catcalls-paris-lees-column

My problem is quite simply that society tells me men are a threat to me. And after a lifetime of being told to watch out for myself , to take precautions, to not be alone outside at night, to not lead men on, to watch how I dress, to write down taxi reg numbers, to not go home with a strange man, to not sleep on the ground floor of a hotel, to watch how I talk, to not trust men, that now I have to take all these precautions but I'm not allowed to know what a man is ?

I have to avoid the so called enemy without being able to identify the enemy. Fuck that.

If society wants women to be aware of the dangers they apparently face then please allow them to identify those dangers. And on the other hand, if society wants me to be blind to sex and gender, stop using sex and gender as a way to punish women and hold them accountable. Stop using male sex and gender as a threat whilst simultaneously telling me that women are now being precious and the threat doesn't exist.

There was also this recent article by Paris Lees where Paris calls radical feminists 'over-educated' and compares Gia Milinovich to the school know-it-all who is fucking the science-master, while Paris is the cool girl the boys like and who smokes behind the bike-sheds.

www.vice.com/read/paris-lees-terf-war-twitter-radical-feminists-088

It's very telling that Paris attempts to shame women for being too clever and into science, whereas being fuckable is the ultimate achievement. Men bully women for being too clever all the time and it's telling that this is Paris's go-to insult.

This reification of gender roles is so damaging. Being a woman is not about looking like a porn star and acting like a Stepford Wife, so Paris can go to hell. Gender is a social construct and a social system, it is not something we have, or are born with or is contained within the body. I can't think of any other rights movement that is motivated by changing biology rather than changing society.

I read the first bit of the Paris article. It is a perfect example of why growing up female and being socialised as female isn't the same as transitioning. If Paris had been sexually harassed from 10, as I was, sexually assaulted (minorly, thank goodness) at 12, whistled at, groped, feared rape and sexual assault, had friends tell me about their shitty experiences, all before 18 years of age, the catcalling and sexual harassment wouldn't seem so fabulous. If Paris had been told what to wear to avoid rape, those being the same clothes you get catcalled in, generally, been told not to be a cock-tease because of fear of attack... and on and on.

My consciousness was formed by growing up female in a patriarchy. I'm sure growing up feeling you have the wrong body isn't a walk in the park but it isn't the SAME.

Also, finally, if is quacks and waddles it's a duck. People online threatening to kill feminists, rape feminists, silence feminists... quacks like male privilege to me.

Julia Serano coined the term cissexual assumption, I wonder how she would react to using the term transexual assumption to describe MTP's second paragraph.

Just as my experience of being born and socialised a woman is not the same thing a transwoman might experience, she doesn't experience or fully understand my experience either.

Thing is Kim every time there's a thread like this you ask people about how they would feel if the trans* person didn't look trans, which says to me that you don't get it.

It's not about how someone looks, it's about wanting someone socialised from birth as male/female when you are feeling vulnerable.

"I suppose the surgery should say that the doctor is gay"
No, this is not the same thing at all. A woman's differing response to men from her response to women has nothing to do with some mistaken belief that all men sexually desire her. Being desired, or not, by a man, is no indicator of good or bad treatment as some men will punish women for being attractive, some for being unattractive (in their opinion).

However, more to the point, it isn't about potential bad behaviour. It isn't an accusation of any given man to prefer a woman in a certain circumstance. What we mean by woman here is debated and some are saying that identifying as woman is not enough.

If it is ever ok to have a preference (I think it is) I think it is ok to have an agreed terminology in which to make that preference understood. So if you can say "woman please" you can say "not transwoman please". I think? Not sure

I have MH issues which are, to a certain extent, tied up with motherhood. If I were to seek psychotherapy for these, then I might decide to narrow the search down to women, perhaps imagining a likelihood that many of them would be mothers too. Is this wrong? I can imagine someone saying (quite defensively, perhaps, particularly if they are in fact a practitioner themselves) that a good therapist should be able to practise without having had the particular experiences that the patient has had. Maybe. but it's my therapist. To what degree is it ethical for me to be allowed to discriminate when I choose one?

I recently saw "transfeminism" described as the latest facet of Men's Rights Activism. I nodded in total agreement.