How do we scourge out racism and classism in feminism?

[Treesybreezy]

I need to apologize upfront - I am disabled and also looking after a baby so I'm not going to be able to check back on this thread as frequently as I'd like. I will be back tho.

I've just read this by sister outrider sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/dispatches-from-the-margins-on-women-race-and-class/amp/?__twitter_impression=true . I know there have been other threads where black women (or other ethnicities) have said, racism is a massive problem and there's been a large, reflexive defensive reaction from white women here.

I'm too tired to articulate this properly now in support of what sister outrider has said, but I've definitely seen both racism and classism in action.

How do we set this right?

Argh I thanked the wrong person! Thank you pencils

flashnazia -
To be honest, I don't expect feminists to start fighting racism/xenophobia full-scale as we've got enough on our plate but I don't expect feminists to downplay it or support it either.

Individual feminists are people like everyone else. Feminism as a movement can and should be held to higher standards than individuals within the collective IMO. I think it’s an important distinction to make.

It is particularly important with the rise of social media where a person can say one thing in the wrong way, like or follow the wrong person and be totally written off forever.

BeyondSceptical - I should clarify that I do not mean don’t bring up anything about your experiences ever. I mean specifically to stop centring identity and lived experience as the only thing that counts/qualifies and to stop prefacing arguments with that statement all the time, especially when it is entirely irrelevant information that adds nothing.

Or things like ‘TERF blocker’ lists etc

The black men and anti-racist activists have equal responsibility with feminist activists to pro toe black women.

Of course they do, as per their mandate to address the oppression of all people of colour. At least I assume that's their mandate.

Funny that they are rarely called on this responsibility and indeed there is entrenched sexism and misogyny in anti racist activist groups.

Are they rarely called out on it? It's no surprise that it's there but are they rarely called out on it? I'm afraid I have no insight.

Who talks about that?

I would hope they do, just as we talk about classism and racism within Feminism. But you know, we clean our own house first, no?

I read that the greater proportion of Daily Mail readers are women? I think that even Daily Mail reading women have the right to know what is going on and to speak about it.

Gender critical feminism seems to have been very influenced by radical feminism, but I don't think all transgender critical perspectives are feminist. Some people are transgender critical but not gender critical iyswim.

But you know, we clean our own house first, no?

It would be good if all those on teh intwerwebs and in university classrooms did this instead of standing up,frothing and ejaculating with rage anytime anyone mentioned women's oppression ...

Gender critical feminism seems to have been very influenced by radical feminism, but I don't think all transgender critical perspectives are feminist. Some people are transgender critical but not gender critical iyswim.

I've never met a feminist who isn't "gender critical" in the sense that they seek to break down the rigid socially-imposed gender constructs with disproportionately disadvantage women.

I've met loads of trans-inclusive feminists though, and a number who would call themselves trans-inclusive radical feminists. And of course trans supportive non-feminists.

I think there's "gender critical" and "gender IDENTITY critical", the latter not necessarily denoting a feminist position where the former usually does.

The idea that there is a "correct" from of language, and a self-appointed group of "woke" people get to go around correcting everyone else for not speaking the way they believe to be "correct" is exactly the problem here.

If we use LangCleg's example, the two phrases mean the same thing essentially but it's been established that 'man in a dress' has been used as a way to invalidate transwomen and i have also seen it used as a slur, and so is offensive to many people. So telling people who use a phrase which is harmful to a minority not to use it isn't classist in this case is it? It's not about speaking in a way we believe to be 'correct' but in this example, speaking in a way that isn't harmful to others.

What would be the alternative? Saying nothing when someone of the working class calls a trans woman a 'man in a dress' even though we know it has been used as an insult many times because they don't know better? Staying silent is worse surely?

That's weird. I have met a lot of self identified feminists who aren't even slightly gender critical - they follow a sort of 'choice' or 'equality' feminism (I would say it wasn't feminist at all but that's how they identify it). You could summarise this position as "I'm a feminist and I choose to do xyz, therefore xyz is a feminist choice, and as it is a feminist choice then I am a feminist for making it". So, going to see male strippers is feminist, wearing makeup is feminist, etc.

And I have never met a 'trans inclusive radical feminist'. I've come across a couple of self identified 'TIRFs' who have no understanding or knowledge of what radical feminism actually is, and no respect for or relationship with actual radical feminists. They seem to spend most of their time slamming radical feminism and feminists tbh, it's pretty obvious they aren't genuine, their whole point is to manufacture confusion.

I think most people use gender as a synonym for sex, and they don't believe that people can change sex, though they might feel sorry for someone who has surgery to try and therefore treat them sympathetically. I don't think most people accept that it is possible to change 'gender' without having 'the surgery'. It is this confusion over gender/sex which trans activists exploit.

I think I'm getting a bit sidetracked from this thread now though.

So telling people who use a phrase which is harmful to a minority not to use it isn't classist in this case is it?

But you cant't tell people not to use as phrase (unless you're there mother). You can explain why a phrase might be upsetting to others and hope that that convinces them not to use the phrase. But they may counter with reasons why the think phrase is necessary despite the upset. In this case who gets to decide who is 'correct'?

Being offended isn’t in itself a harm.

TacoLover you've completely missed my point. My point is: why isn't a transwoman is a male performing femininity an offensive phrase when man in a dress is? Because they both, as you put it, are used as a way to invalidate transwomen as the women they wish to be.

Of course it is classist. A middle class way of invalidating transwomen as women is acceptable but a working class way of doing the same thing is not. Either both are acceptable (if you don't think transwomen are women) or both are offensive (if you do think transwomen are women).

I really don't know how much more clear I can be about the point I am making before I begin to think you are refusing to see it.

Nobody gets to decide, I agree. Debate is fine. And by tell I means discuss or ask, I should've thought about that before I wrote it. But the reason I made this point was because it has kind of been implied in this thread that we shouldn't say anything at all because it's not their fault.

I don’t think either of those phrases invalidate transwomen either. ‘Transwomen are women’ is vastly more invalidating in effect because it removes the ‘trans’ part of the descriptor.

The trans part of the descriptor is actually quite important for the health and welfare of the transwoman.

Personally I think both are offensive. I would take an issue with both. But who would actually hear both these phrases and only take an issue with the second? I can't imagine this happening.

Person 1: a transwoman is a male performing femininity.

Person 2: a transwoman is a man in a dress.

Person 3 I'm assuming is middle class. If they are surely they know that both phrases have the same meaning? Obviously many people are classist but if people know that they mean the same thing, it doesn't make sense that they would 'call out' one but not another, unless they were already prejudiced towards person 2 for the sole reason that they are working class.

Offred being offended isn't the same as harm obviously. But if you know it is going to hurt somebody's feelings that is causing harm, no?

"Are these ppl daily fail readers who don't like anything different hence have jumped on the latest bandwagon? (Someone even said we need to attract more daily fail readers!)"

It was me who said about attracting daily mail readers. Do I need to trawl back and find my thread from something like seven years ago laughing at baby DS being sick over a copy of the DM to prove I am not a reader? (i was at the house of someone who reads it - and votes labour FWIW - btw, in case someone runs with "ah but how did you have a copy?")

I said it because feminism is for all women, and the potential change in legislation around self ID needs to be brought to the attention of all women. Even those who read the DM.
I also acknowledged that in doing that there was a potential clash between different groups of women, and said I do not know how to square that. As I still don't, but I'm here discussing it with a hope to.

Hurt feelings should not be conflated with harm in this context IMO.

Obviously the words could be used interchangeably in many ways but in the current climate re ‘literal violence’ I think it is important to be clear that what may happen is ‘hurt feelings’, which is mean, not ‘harm’.

People have various rights to protect them from harm. There are no rights to be protected from hurt feelings or being offended.

This is important.

The trans part of the descriptor is actually quite important for the health and welfare of the transwoman.

This is true. But there is a sense of some kind of pretending or disingenuity in these phrases. The word 'performing' kind of suggests to me that the person saying this thinks that the transwoman is just acting or something. I might be reading too much into it. But personally I find the phrases offensive. Why not just say 'biologically male' if you wanted to point out their sex? Both of these phrases are unnecessary imo.

Offred yes that makes sense, I guess in this case it would be hurt feelings. Which could be easily avoided by not using any of these phrases but each to their own.

Well, there is a grey area re the risk of hurtful or offensive things to translate, through the dynamics of power, into harms such as ‘phobia or discrimination.

This is why reasonableness assessments need to be employed re someone being offended or having their feelings hurt.

Many people would say either of those phrases as a response to a transwoman expecting them to disingenuously pretend they are female.

No-one is particularly bothered regarding women being offended or having hurt feelings re ‘Transwomen are women’ and nobody is really considering the potential this has to harm both transwomen and women either.