Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Miranda Yardley's contribution to the Woman's Place meeting on Tuesday

233 replies

LifelongVaginaOwner · 02/03/2018 12:36

I've always tended toward using 'transwomen' and preferred pronouns - if only out of courtesy. Miranda's points though have really made me reconsider. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

mirandayardley.com/en/contribution-discussion-womens-place-uk-meeting-27-february-2018/

OP posts:
ellaoldie · 05/03/2018 08:47

There were a lot of women who didn't get to speak at the Woman's Place meeting. I think that's something that should be kept in mind. At feminist meetings women should come first as a rule. I remember attending a Feminism in London conference. Women were told a session on activism was full but there were men in the audience for that session ....left a bad taste

ellaoldie · 05/03/2018 08:51

I take Langcleg's point though that the meeting was about building a wide coalition

ArcheryAnnie · 05/03/2018 08:52

I really like Miranda. I am very interested in the journey Miranda is on and the honesty Miranda brings about it.

This. I think Miranda is a really interesting role model - not for women, but for men. I think a lot of men could learn a lot from Miranda's journey so far, which would in the end make life a lot better for all of us.

TruScum · 05/03/2018 08:59

I am sorry, and I do completely understand all of the points of this thread.

I was wary of appearing to come on here and ‘mansplaining’ transsexuals to anyone. I know it can be difficult to read intentions over the internet but I’m here purely as a supporter of this movement.

Actually, if I’m being brutally honest with myself, when I got outraged over this I thought if more transsexuals openly supported what is currently mainly feminists trying to drive out this dangerous dogma then it would help stop all the ‘it’s transphobic to even question this’ shutting down of women.

So basically if we were involved it would help the campaign more, but now I can totally see why this is felt as another attempted encroachment. I’m truly sorry if I’ve come across like that.

LangCleg · 05/03/2018 09:04

We're all trying to navigate, TruScum, so thanks for the apology but don't worry about it from me, at least. You remind me of a friend of mine, so I smile when I see your posts!

There will always be a range of feminist thought on this - from passionate female-only types right the way through to anyone who agrees is welcome types. And lots of people will be unsure and ambivalent.

We're all right and we're all wrong too, I suppose!

SecretTerf · 05/03/2018 09:05

Datun

You said to Truscum:

I'm sorry, I missed your answer to me. I wasn't ignoring you!

This looks to me like an example of what we're talking about. It's apologising to a man for not immediately picking up on his post, complete with little self-deprecating exclamation mark at the end.

These threads often move fast. Do you always apologise to women if you temporarily miss their posts? Do you feel obliged to answer them? Do you put in little exclamation marks to take the heat out?

I'm not attacking you and I hope you don't read this post that way. Our female conditioning is so ingrained and for good safety and other reasons we defer to men in ways that we don't to women. But I think this is a good example of how having a man, of any sort, in the discussion automatically changes the nature of that discussion.

AngryAttackKittens · 05/03/2018 09:08

I've never got a splainy vibe from you, TruScum. I think the issue that people are worried in terms of meetings etc is women being socialized to give men more space to speak and that potentially meaning that say Miranda gets time to speak and a woman who wanted to doesn't. That's definitely something to be conscious of all around, but doesn't mean that transsexuals shouldn't be able to speak at all.

There are some spaces that should be female only but given that the meeting concerned was focused on building coalitions and educating the public I think letting Miranda speak was entirely appropriate.

AngryAttackKittens · 05/03/2018 09:11

Or, what SecretTerf said above. That's what we need to watch out for. For a lot of women they don't even realize that they're doing it because it's so deeply socialized.

Truscum · 05/03/2018 09:14

I think the issue that people are worried in terms of meetings etc is women being socialized to give men more space to speak and that potentially meaning that say Miranda gets time to speak and a woman who wanted to doesn't

That is definitely something that needs guarding against (and perhaps I’m just paranoid but I was always slightly concerned a man could infiltrate those meetings and sow discord’)

I think Datun replied to me because I’d directly answered one of her posts, Datin doesn’t strike me as the type to defer to my sex Grin (though I do take your point about female socialisation and ‘being nice’ by default for that reason)

ArcheryAnnie · 05/03/2018 09:18

I totally get why we should be having this discussion, and I totally get why women-only spaces and events and conversations are important (I've spent a big chunk of my life in women-only campaigns, much of which was spent explaining to men, again and again, why they weren't to be included), and I totally get why we all need to be on guard about our own female socialisation, and how that tends to make us people-pleasers (and especially male-pleasers), but micromanaging other women's conversations and how they navigate their relationships with potential male allies is absolutely a step too far for me.

I'm currently struggling with my own female socialisation and desire to please. I know some of you on this thread! I really like you all! I want us all to be happy feminists united under one banner! But I need to realise that despite all that it's OK for me to say, here: no, I don't agree with you on this one. Self reflection, yes, I'm totally up for that. But ideological purity and micromanaging each other, that's really not how I want to work on this, and I'm not going to.

SecretTerf · 05/03/2018 09:22

Truscum

I think Datun replied to me because I’d directly answered one of her posts, Datin doesn’t strike me as the type to defer to my sex grin (though I do take your point about female socialisation and ‘being nice’ by default for that reason)

I'm sorry to keep pushing at this one, but it's not about individual strength of character but about female socialisation and power relations in conversation. This is structural, not personal

SecretTerf · 05/03/2018 09:24

And I notice that I begin a response to a man by apologising for making my point!

I don't think it's about micromanaging conversations, but about pointing out some of the power dynamics underlying them, dynamics none of us can escape, as I just proved yet again!

AngryAttackKittens · 05/03/2018 09:28

This is structural, not personal

Yep. It's not a personal criticism, it's just the water that we're all swimming in.

BigDeskBob · 05/03/2018 09:33

This is the op that started this thread: "I've always tended toward using 'transwomen' and preferred pronouns - if only out of courtesy. Miranda's points though have really made me reconsider."

This has been said on countless threads by countless women for years. But it took a man to get them to reconsider?

Does that prove that even when we speak to ourselves we don't even listen? Do we need to acknowledge that we need male trans voices for this to stop?

It's depressing as hell, not only because it shows how small our voices are, but what we will end up with is what male trans want, and that's not necessarily what we need.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 05/03/2018 09:45

Our voices are small but many

And if we have been trained into deference then we can train ourselves out of it.

We need to keep having this conversation.

TheUterati · 05/03/2018 10:39

So.

If Miranda, or someone like him, who is equally respected and admired by you all, comes out at the end of his journey and says:

There is no such thing as trans. I am just a man. Not a trans anything. Using the word 'trans' capitulates to TRA.

What would you say then?

If he goes on to say:

My presence in your fight against this is inappropriate. I need to take the fight against this elsewhere.

What would you say then?

Would you consider his words seriously and agree with him? Because it seems that it takes a man like this to get some of you to change your thinking. It seems that it is necessary for some of you for a man like this to give permission before you can change your thinking.

Or will you denounce this as: policing women's language, being divisive (possibly deliberately so), being Not Helpful, being transphobic, being exclusionary, demonstrating a lack of understanding and appreciation for the nice ones, ideological purity, not making room for 'everyone' in this fight?

Which will it be?

I'd put some money on him being taken seriously.

SexMatters · 05/03/2018 10:53

Sorry to crash your thread, but I have been away, then snowed in, and have a lot of catching up to do. Would it be possible for some of you to give this thread a visit?www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3185398-Biological-SEX-MATTERS-How-many-mumsnetters-say-aye-to-this-campaign

Flowers
LangCleg · 05/03/2018 11:14

TheUterati - why wouldn't I take it seriously? That would basically be conceptualising my view of dysphoric trans - in a patriarchal society, the primary oppressed group is women, obviously, but there is a very small subset of males who cannot cope and become, for want of a better way to describe it, refugees from the ascribed socialised gender role. They exist. Society has not managed to break up patriarchy, so must therefore accommodate these males in some way. Clearly, I think patriarchy should be forced to acknowledge and accept these males as gender variant males. So Miranda saying that would be a good thing, in my opinion. Because if we got to that point then the question of body modification would have no social implications - it would just be a decision between doctor and patient about the most effective way for that individual to combat dysphoria.

LangCleg · 05/03/2018 11:15

(Also - it would bring into greater clarity the AGP fetishists.)

TheUterati · 05/03/2018 11:20

Lang - my point was that when I say there is no such things as trans, etc etc.... I am told (by some) that I am policing women's language, being divisive (possibly deliberately so), being Not Helpful, being transphobic, being exclusionary, demonstrating a lack of understanding and appreciation for the nice ones, ideological purity, not making room for 'everyone' in this fight.

Yet, if Miranda said exactly the same things that I am saying, would those women here who say I am policing, being unhelpful, etc etc suddenly sit up and take notice?

I think they would. I think that they would accept my words if they were uttered by Miranda.

mirandayardley · 05/03/2018 11:32

I thought I’d try and clarify some points made on this thread.

Whether I spoke or not, I was caught between a rock and a hard place; to have remained quiet would have signalled tacit agreement to something I disagreed with, and of course my speaking up meant imposition.

I think one can define ‘transwoman’ in a way that is consistent and reflects reality, and that’s certainly something that seemed to offer compromise some time ago, but of course it wasn’t ever enough. Anyway, I don’t think trans identified males can claim ‘woman’ in any form, as this makes the word ‘woman’ meaningless.

I do not speak ‘as a feminist’ or ‘as a feminist ally’. I’m an ally only to those who accept me as such, and as I’m often reminding people on Twitter, I speak for myself. I certainly do not speak ‘for’ women, nor do I need the validation of women to take my political positions: this is based on classic liberalism and socialist/Marxist analysis. I always acknowledge women’s words when I use them in any context, for example I always underscore the contribution Harriet Taylor made to JS Mill’s works ‘on liberty’ and ‘the Subjection of women’. Taylor is arguably this country’s greatest unknown philosopher.

Regarding pronouns and labels, to be clear, I have never considered TIMs female, as my earliest writings show. The corollary is TIMs being men, I have never shied away from this. I discretely stopped actively using that description I think in 2015, that said I’ve ised it politically a couple of times since and I’ve never demanded anyone call me ‘she’ or ‘her’.

I wrote a blog post last year disavowing ‘woman’ in any form being used for males, as my position had evolved over time and I felt it necessary to clarify.

My audience is not women, I am trying to reposition the trans movement. I write and say what I do to counter the lies and misinformation used by transgender activists which are being used to instrumentalise children in the trans battle and make the concept of a child’s personality determining their ‘brain sex’ culturally acceptable. This is a fight I think we all need to focus upon, as ghastly organisations like GIRES, Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids are getting the moral and financial support to push their homophobic, misogynistic message thus normalise this in schools etc., without there being debate or tolerance of counter-arguments. This is the real battleground now, and whatever else these men are doing pales into insignificance compared to what they are doing with children.

I think the transgender movement now has gone beyond any viable compromise. Much of the noise is newly-hatched recent ‘transitioners’ who exit the closed Facebook groups and other fora to bring forth their wrath and Male entitlement. These men are some of the most abusive men I’ve encountered in my life, and are cheered on by such malignant woman-haters as Roz Kaveney and Sarah Brown.

The transactivists are playing a long game, and they’ve had control of the centre for so much time they’ve been able to redefine it. This really is an all-out political war.

mirandayardley · 05/03/2018 11:37

TheUterati

Would you consider his words seriously and agree with him? Because it seems that it takes a man like this to get some of you to change your thinking. It seems that it is necessary for some of you for a man like this to give permission before you can change your thinking.

I agree this is a problem.

loveyouradvice · 05/03/2018 11:40

I think the really important thing is that we will NOT win unless we build broad alliances... and it feels crucial to give transpeople support when they speak out against the mainstream transspeak of today... I strongly believe we need to find more of them so that people begin to understand that transdogma is NOT coming from the whole transcommunity, and then start to question the dogma itself, rather than just accepting it .... SO I ACTIVELY WELCOME ANY TRANSPERSON WHO IS PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR DISCUSSIONS and applaud them for working alongside us to create real change on this which affects BOTH groups - trans and women (and men if they but knew it - but that is a whole bigger campaign!)

vaginafetishist · 05/03/2018 11:44

I think the Uterati is right. I felt it in myself, that feeling of permission, when Miranda said these are men.
I felt myself the awkwardness of worrying about how Debbie and Kristina felt when Julia spoke up. This IS female socialisation.
At the Speakers Corner talks Julia spoke about naming these men as men and it was powerful and it is liberating.

AngryAttackKittens · 05/03/2018 11:55

The Uterati is right, and it's frustrating to watch the same dynamic play out over and over again on multiple threads. That being said, the more people who say "these are men" the more other people feel like they can say it, and there's been a definite shift in the number of women comfortable doing so over time.

For those of us who say that it's not about enforcing ideological purity, it's just an obvious statement of fact. Water is wet, fire is hot, and trans women are men (and trans men are women). Being gender non-conforming doesn't change your sex.