Am I a self-defined woman?

[iisme]

A woman's group I am a member of is now stating that it is for 'self-defined women'. I appreciate that this is about inclusivity and I don't have a problem with trans-women joining the group. But I feel uncomfortable about the idea of being a self-defined woman. Firstly, I don't feel like I define myself as a woman. I am a woman and I'm fine with being a women (though pissed off with all the crap that comes with it) but it doesn't define who I am. I also don't feel, even if I am defined as a woman, that I am self-defined. I recognise my female biology and this is part of what makes me feel like a woman, and I experience life as a woman in a male-dominated world, and this is the other part of what makes me feel like a woman. But most of what I feel it is to be a woman is defined for me by society - something that is put on me because I am female bodied, and not something that I am choosing or defining myself.

Another woman's group I was looking at is for 'self-identified women'. This feels less problematic for me but I'm still not sure about it. I do identify as a woman in the ways I described above, but I again, I feel like most of the issues around being a woman are about external identification - because I am identified as a woman by others. My own internal identification - the core of who I feel who I am - is non-gendered.

Anyway, I'm trying to work through my thoughts and think about whether these phrases really are an issue and whether this is something I should address in the group. I'd be really glad to hear other opinions on this.

It wouldn't bother me.

What's the difference between a self defined woman and a self identified woman?

I've no idea what the difference between a 'self-defined woman' and a 'self-identified woman' is. I think its that people are just trying to come up with terms are obviously inclusive and coming to different conclusions about how to do this. But my worry is that these terms can in fact be exclusionary to some women. Or maybe that they rephrase feminist issues as being internal rather than external.

Maybe someone should just start a BWV Group, only those Born With a Vagina are eligible.

Or membership could be based on Chromosomes.

When does inclusive become stifling?

Totally agree with you iisme. I don't like it because being a woman doesn't feel to me like a choice, it's just what I am. I'm not sure I'd even have chosen it due to all the crap that comes with it, as you say.

Though I'm a bit of a wimp at making a fuss, so in your position I wouldn't say anything. Good luck if you do!

I don't like it because being a woman doesn't feel to me like a choice, it's just what I am

I'm sure a lot of transwomen have also said that.

There is a fundamental difference growing up as a woman with women's physiology under patriarchy.
Now trans people also experience discrimination but in a completely separate way.
I don't think women's only spaces are wrong at all. They give us a safe haven. If women within that safe haven feel uncomfortable having a physiological male there for whatever reasons I think their feelings need to be respected.
Why is these issues only discussed when talking about trans women? What about trans men?

I am not meaning to be goady, but have a genuine question which i do not understand. Why should feminists be inclusive to people who have benefited from male dominance?

Why should feminists be inclusive to people who have benefited from male dominance

Well I don't think every single man has benefited from male dominance.

I come from a very deprived area. Drug abuse, alcoholism, poverty are very common there. The average life expectancy for a man is 65.
If you told the average man there he benefited from male dominance, ge would laugh in your face (at best).

Yes and deprived women also suffer, in some cases more so, than deprived men. That is not maleness which is oppressing him, it is poverty. Which also oppresses women.

I'm sure they have WhenSheWas. My point is, that's the reason I'd be uncomfortable with being a "self-identified woman".

If anything, it's society that told me I am. Inside I'm just me. I have no objections to being defined as a women, as I'm a adult with a female body, but it's not me that's done the defining.

Anyway, surely it's much more liberating to move away from gender categories, rather than swapping between which is just reinforcing the limits placed on each group.

bertie absolutely, the poverty affects both men and women. I was just saying not all men benefit from male dominance.

Well that is all fine for self defined women

But that may not be fine for women who do not see self defined women are experiencing what they have being born female

And we as female born should have that choice to accept them into women only spaces as it is for us to feel comfortable and safe

Postino, I agree that it would be liberating to move away from gender categories, but whilst women remain a marginalised group, it is important that we have space to talk about and try to deal with that. So then we have to decide somehow who is and isn't classified as part of the marginalised, and who is or isn't eligible to enter spaces for the marginalised group only. But using the term 'self-defined women' seems to me problematic for two reasons: 1) it could exclude people who are part of the marginalised group (i.e., women who don't believe they are 'self-defined' as such); 2) it undermines one of the most important tenants of feminism (to my mind), which is that this is something that is being done to us, rather than something inherently part of who we are.

When, I don't agree that such men don't benefit from male dominance. They are at the bottom of the heap in so many ways and are extremely oppressed but they are still, on average, more dominant and have more opportunities and life choices than women in the same social class / situation than them.

iisme, I agree with you precisely (I may not have expressed myself very clearly). I would do away with gender, as I believe gender stereotypes underlie nearly all the manifestations of women's oppression.

On the other hand, I believe biological sex is unchangeable, and I totally agree there should and must be spaces for women (as a sex) because of our position as a marginalised group.

Sorry, Postino - yes, I agree that doing away with gender - i.e., the linking of certain aptitudes/preferences/choices with sex - would be great and surely a key goal of feminism. Sadly it seems increasingly impossible to me that this will happen.

iknowiam my city does have this it's the ultraradfem group.

itsbetter what about transmen Has been bugging me too? Are those saying they do not accept transwomen in women only spaces saying they accept trans*men in those spaces? can Buck Angel come to your feminist group but Candis Cayne can't?

Yes me too.

I feel a bit bad now that I was so blunt "biological sex is unchangeable". I know there are people who may not like that, and it's not that it's the situation I necessarily want (I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable with who they are) it's just reality, based on my understanding of biology.

Sacred - for me, the question is about safety and appropriateness. So I, personally, don't have a problem with transwomen access this group, and wouldn't have a problem with transmen accessing it either - as long as there is no shutting down of discussion about female biology. In other situations - such as prison, rape crisis centres, refuges, etc., I would have a problem with pre-op transwomen accessing them because women in such places need to be protected from male-bodied people. I'm not sure about transmen in such places - I think that would be preferable to transwomen as they are not male-bodied; however, I think they may be very intimidating to women in such places, who have often been abused by men. It's a tricky question.

I think it's interesting that at the moment there's a bit of a move away from definitions. People are realising they don't have to "come out as gay" for example, they can just see who they like without having to fit into a definition – especially now it's less of an issue legally and societally. I think you can see gender as similarly fluid / a sliding scale. The strictly divided male/female gender thing has never worked for some people, and I can see the point that in a way it helps the patriarchy to function.

I'm a woman in terms of what I feel I am, the biology I was born with and the life I live, but I also reserve the right to feel not 100% in line with what someone else might decide is "female", and to not define myself by it. I know someone who has recently said that they (formerly she) don't really feel like either and don't want to identify as simply female. I have a lot of time for that.

The transgender issue is another can of worms because there's a huge argument about whether a transgender woman should be allowed into "female" categories and spaces. I can see both sides in different situations tbh. But I think if I went to a feminist group and a transgender woman was there I would welcome her.

Sorry, to clarify - my problem in this particular situation is the way in which the term 'women' is being redefined in a way I think may be harmful to women and to feminism, rather than having a problem with transwomen accessing the group. If the group said it was for women and transwomen, I would be happy with that. Or women and transpeople - I'd also be fine with that. But in other situations I would have a problem with transwomen accessing female-only space.

I don't agree that such men don't benefit from male dominance. They are at the bottom of the heap in so many ways and are extremely oppressed but they are still, on average, more dominant and have more opportunities and life choices than women in the same social class / situation than them

I personally felt it went the other way growing up.
On average the girls seemed better able to get an education and improve their life that way. The boys seemed to struggle more with their education and had less opportunities because of that.

That's just my experience though.

I agree with EnthusiasmDisturbed. Under the new ideas around gender, I don't self identify or self define as a woman. I identify as a person. That is who I feel I am. I happen to have a female body. So I can't go to that group.

On a separate note, as far as I'm aware, some feminist groups, NUS women for example, include people who have woman as any part of their identity. So non binary people can join as they may be gender fluid and feel like a woman some of the time.

So I'm assuming the point of the title is to limit the group to only those who identify exclusively as women, and is exclusionary of non binary people. I think that kind of thing is going to be considered old fashioned and prejudiced soon as including non binary people is becoming fashionable now.

So if the wording didn't imply an internal definition, would that feel okay? E.g. if a group was for those
"identified as women" would that work as it implies both external and internally imposed identification, or do you still feel it would be redefining women?

I'd rather join a group for people who are defined/identified as women whether they like it or not.

I didn't choose to be a woman and I don't define or identify as a woman. I just am a biological woman and thus subject to a range of societal expectations and limitations, whether I like it or not.

I cannot self define or identify myself away from lower pay, lack of promotion, poor maternity provision and a host of other crappy issues that I thought feminism was meant to help me with. Self identification/definitation is a non problem for me as a middle aged mother of female children - it wouln't even make the top 100.

I don't know what a group of people 'identified as women' would do. What is their common ground?

It isn't my just my feeling that 'women' has been redefined. Factually it refers to a different group of people than it did in the past.