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?

Actually kim you have made 2 comments on this thread that make me believe that you do not "get it." The first was when you asked me if it would be ok to have a smear from a transwoman if the transwoman looked like Paris Lees. I am struggling to understand what you meant by this. Is a smear nicer if the person performing it is very pretty and sexy and wears a lot of makeup? Of course not - why on earth would it be? A smear is an invasive and triggering medical procedure, not an erotic encounter. Whether or not I trust someone is not based on how girly they LOOK, it is based on shared experience and vantage point. It is also based on not being lied to, which brings me to the second comment you made. You mentioned that you think a GP surgery would be obliged to be more open with female patients about a trans nurse's status if the nurse was obviously trans. I feel exactly the opposite. If there is any chance that female patients might believe that a trans nurse was born female then the surgery has a stronger obligation to inform them of the nurse's status, IMO, so that the patient can make an informed choice. Withholding that information reduces the woman to a subject that is acted upon as opposed to an agent with rights to make decisions about what happens to her body. That is what I currently feel and believe.

I typed 3 different responses, refreshed and saw Gin has summed it up better than I ever could.

I just want to point out Kim's use of the word threat. It's not about being a threat, I don't assume everyone is a penis is a threat.

The whole 'how can you tell if someone is trans' is bullshit. How can you tell if someone has been the victim of a sexual assault? Should we wear little badges so trans can tell who is worthy of respect in regard to female only spaces and who isn't?

"I hope society can find a way to accommodate us and we can all find compromises."

I do too. And I hope that those of us who were born women don't have to make them all. Still, I suppose we are used to it.

""I hope society can find a way to accommodate us"

Yes, me too. I hope society can find a way to accommodate trans people as well as everyone else.

But what do you mean by accommodate? I think society has a duty to accommodate trans people in the sense of welcoming them and facilitating them to do all normal things without inconvenience or negative social repercussions: things like play sports, work, have friendships and social acquaintances in the community, volunteer, access healthcare, use public transport safely, take part in political life, wear what they like, etc.

However can I just point out that

• it has only recently become a mainstream point of view in the UK (and is still not the case in many parts of the world) that women can do these things; and taking part in these activities as a woman can still be regarded very negatively and draw unwelcome attention that is designed to dissuade us from doing these things (eg playing football; taking part in any sport if you do not have a "perfect" body; receiving sexually humiliating and threatening verbal abuse if you take part in politics; shocking stuff around female healthcare like obstetrics; dressing a certain way invites abuse; etc).

so - yes, while I believe that trans people should have all that, because I believe we should all have that, frankly, good luck with it. Let's all work towards it for all of us. You're asking for stuff that a lot of us ain't got yet - so, ask away, but we're all asking.

• While I believe that society should accommodate all that, I don't think that society accommodating a trans woman to, for instance, be a volunteer, need necessarily demand of women that they facilitate her doing that as a woman. For instance, raising money for a rape crisis shelter might be more appropriate than staffing it. Changing for swimming in a separate stand-alone changing room that does not have "WOMEN ONLY" on it does not seem to satisfy some transactivists requirements. But I think that the requirement of "being able to change for swimming" has been met. Here we get into not being practically accommodated, but something else. What is it?

And who has to do the accommodating in that case? Society? Or a subset of society? Which? Women? again? Seriously? really, is it our turn to put ourselves out again? I thought we had just done that. For the past however millennium. Ok well when is it someone else's turn?

Just want to say how much I'm liking the posts on this thread. I think the discussion's moving along nicely - over a year or so, I mean - and want to thank posters for so clearly expressing stuff I've been nervous about saying, because it's sometimes hard to find the right way to say it :)

I hope born women don't have to make all the compromises. Still, I suppose we are used to it. - Wry smile at this.

I have been having regular smear tests for about 20 years, and it has always been a male gynaecologist who does it. It has never bothered me. However, I understand that many women will have had different life experiences (traumas) and agree 100% that women must have the choice to have these intimate procedures performed on them only by women.

I've been trying to formulate a response but Gin's posts kind of sum it up for me.
The Paris Lees article repulsed me.

Kim said what upset trans women the most is the idea that they are unable to empathise with women, but displayed a total lack of empathy and focused on the aesthetics of trans women as being the problem.
I don't care what you look like. I have a right to know that all the people in a space dedicated to women (changing room, rape crisis centre, spa, hostel) are women.
I can't get past this.

From tge NYT article
“if you’re identifying with women, shouldn’t you be empathizing with women?”

janet mock refers to women and girls as 'fish'

that misogynist fish thing is about the (imagined) odour of a vulva
a biological vulva, not a front fuck hole

I've been thinking about the Paris Lees article about street harassment.
"I love car toots. I love random men smiling “Hello beautiful!” like my mere presence just made their day. I like being called "princess" and ignoring them as I giggle inside. I like being eye-fucked on the escalator and wondering if I’ve just made him spring a boner."

It strikes me that while Paris claims that her views represent her as a woman, they clearly represent her desire for men to view her as a woman to validate her belief she is one.
As a woman I have no such desire and it pisses me off I should be expected to enjoy harassment.

"a biological vulva, not a front fuck hole" - That was a bit rude. The comment you referred to was even more offensive, but it's no reason to belittle the difficulties trans women have gone through to acquire a vagina.

Paris Lees is an absolute twit.

Juliascurr- that was offensive.

"that misogynist fish" - Would this be the fish that needs a bicycle?

what really upsets me is the idea that people think trans women don't understand or have empathy

Well, I'm sure many do, but sometimes empathy isn't enough. I had a miscarriage confirmed last Saturday by an internal probe ultrasound. I was glad to have a woman sonographer, not because there was anything to see physically, but because I was still bleeding - the wand was streaked with blood when it was removed. I'm sure a transwoman might have felt some sympathy and would have been perfectly kind, but the fact that the sonographer bleeds too made me more relaxed.

Sorry to hear that Apocalypse

Thanks.

"the fact you could not tell she used to be male"

What on earth has this to do with anything? This is a serious question, by the way, Kim. I honestly don't understand what your point is when you talk about women not being able to tell by the appearance of transwomen that they are trans. I really don't get it. Please unpack this a bit for me. It seems to me that you think this alleviates a concern of some sort. I can't see what concern it does alleviate though.

It's very, very difficult. Women have fought long and bitterly for women only spaces. For refugefrom domestic violence. For places where they feel safe. For the right to exist in society as an equal individual.

And for those of us who have been part of that fight it feels very much as if what is happening now is that we now have to a) reidentify ourselves in relation to men- we are no longer women, we are cis women, as opposed to trans women. Lees says basically "So you don't like cis. So find a name for yourselves" We already have one. Women. And b) we are having to compromise, to give up our hard won freedoms to anyone who says "I may have the physical body of a man but I self identify as a woman, so you must accommodate me" Well, yes I will. Of course I will. Up to the point where accommodating you rides roughshod over somebody else's hard won freedoms.

"Do people basically think transwomen should be banned from any female space? Shared dorms, spas, changing rooms etc. What about breast clinics? Banned there too? "

Well, to start with two disclaimers: right now I don't know exactly what I think; and anyway, I am not "people" - I speak only for myself. However:

No, this position is the opposite of what I think. This black and white, all or nothing thinking, is what leads to the confusing, all over the place splurge of a the cry of "TERF". the E in TERF stands for "excluding" - but excluding from what?

To use a really crude example, I exclude all but a tiny number of people from my bedroom but I take a different approach with the people I do business with. When I say "bedroom" this is not a coy euphemism for people I have sex with, what I mean is that DP and my dcs are allowed to go in there at any time of day or night no matter what state of undress I am in, but no one else is really supposed to go in there at all. (I stress that to get away form this idea that it's all about expecting sexual violation)

at work - anyone who comes to me with a reasonable proposal gets a meeting.

I don't think I am talking about banning at all. I think we are talking about honesty. If someone blagged their way into a meeting with me and couldn't deliver what they promised, that would be annoying. But not because I am violated by the fact that they are not actually an illustrator or whatever - just I gave them my time and they didn't give me the truth. I know sexual assault is a huge issue in many women's lives but the language always being about violation and vulnerability is misleading because it allows transactivists to frame the debate in terms of "victim trumps" - "I am more likely to suffer violence than you" - and also because it allows them to be all outraged and offended that this makes it appear that we are obliquely accusing everyone of potential assault.

I have rambled off the point of the "so aren't we allowed ANYWHERE?" question but fuck it, there are just so many things wrong with that question

"My comment about Paris was not about how female she looks but the fact you could not tell she used to be male."

How can you tell a woman that needs a safe space for her own mental well being Kim?

What really strikes me about this thread is that is was started by a woman not looking for a fight. someone who has plenty to do, with two toddlers (in fact so much to do that she is forced to hold this conversation in the middle of the night - the only time outside her working hours) - but is doing so because she recognises a shift to mainstream views which has fundamental ramifications to her. This is the opposite of whiny pointless shit-stirring. This is a serious concern of something that is happening, under the radar, that changes everything.
Sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person, OP