A question worth considering.

[Creepster]

“Is excluding trans widows from feminism a price worth paying for having our opinions validated by “transexuals?”

This question has come up several times over the past few weeks.
Where do the wives go for community and support when the transitioned husbands occupy the feminist community?

It's because it uses copyright material from C4. You'll need to view it using a VPN set to outside the UK.

Bumping this thread as I detect an increasing divide between the Posie Parker side of the debate (it's OK to ally with the right on common causes, but not with transexuals), and the Woman's Place side of the debate (it's expedient to ally with some transexuals, but we're mainly trade unionists so wouldn't ally with the right).

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.

Anyone who's confused about why this is an issue or who's on the fence should watch the TV interview with Hayton where Hayton's wife was also briefly interviewed, and then ask themselves how able they think she'd feel to participate in this or any other GC space where Hayton is being actively platformed and encouraged to be part of the process of deciding what the alternative to TRA driven policies should be.

(They should also look at the schools policy Hayton was involved in creating, but that's a related but somewhat separate issue and I want to subject of creating space for the transwidows to have the focus in this thread.)

It's interesting, because the not rallying with transsexuals seems to be an acknowledgement that there are certain individuals who are being very self serving and undermining the core issue of women's boundaries and right to say no.

Whereas the 'not allying with the right' viewpoint seems to be saying 'This is a left issue, not really a women's issue, and right wing always=pure evil and must be shunned'

I'm firmly in the first camp, because it still puts women at the heart of their own battle for rights. I do not hold with the second position because it makes women's rights subservient to the political aims of the left, and I say that as someone who is left of centre generally.

I just don't how you can expect to achieve women's liberation if you are always going to place them second to your politics in the priority list. That's just maintaining the status quo.

I am too. In general I'm firmly on the left, but at the same time this is 100% a women's issue and trying to turn it into a tribalistic leftist one will not serve us well at all and will exclude women who're not on the left and who have just as much of a legitimate interest in making sure that their rights aren't swept away as those of us on the left do.

I agree BeMore it is ridiculous to expect to fight for women’s rights but to vote against them on principle if proposed by a Tory.

I'm with Posie. I stand with all women and will not prioritise men. I won't make alliances with men. I think they're hopelessly naive if they think they can change left politics from the inside. Is there any evidence that strategy is achieving anything? Because I haven't seen any

Lots of women are right wing. Lots of women are left wing. Lots of women are neither. What we have in common, the only thing all women have in common, is our shared biology and the vulnerabilities that go with it.

I am no one's 'ally'. I am a woman who sees women's rights and needs being stripped away to appease a handful of narcissistic men. That effects all women and I am going to stand with my sisters to prevent it regardless of whether they happen to agree with me on a range of unrelated issues or not.

Male transsexuals are not women. I may feel sorry for them but their issues are not mine in the way all women's issues are.

The thing is, having transexual allies does no good even within it's own aims. Look at what happened in Brighton. The TRA's don't care that WPUK has transexual allies. Only total capitulation will suffice.

Its a strategy that not only doesn't work, but has real casualties who women who have a contribution to make to the debate (transwidows and other female relatives).

Apologies for typos, in a rush!

I'm inclined to agree that this isn't an issue of left vs right. But I'm not au fait with the details of WPUK's aims - had thought they were operating on a pro-women (and anti-no-platforming) basis, which seems very much to be of relevance to all women regardless of political stripe.

I'd be happier if transsexual 'allies' were setting up their own meetings and organisations to tackle what's being done in their names, rather than piggy-backing on what women have created, to be honest.

It might be expedient to include a few males, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Depends entirely on one's goals. And since the left seems to be in the habit of never quite getting round to putting women's rights first, I can't imagine including them is likely to help long-term.

As for Posie, she could be the scariest sort of right wing fundamentalist and I'd still support her "stop brainwashing and mutilating kids and putting sex offenders in women's prisons" line.

I have little else to add but looking forward to hearing what others have to say because my knowledge is woeful here.

Yes. Why aren't the transexuals going out and talking to groups of men?

Plus wasn't the original WPUK thing something about 'a woman's place is on the platform'? Giving a platform to TS does rather suggest they count as "women" in this scenario. (Where's my cat's bum face emoticon?)

To me it always comes down to: "Are you prepared for your movement to actively cause harm to some women, in order to advance what you perceive to be the greater good of women overall?". If your answer is "yes", then I don't believe that is feminism.

Am I being too much of a purist just because I happen to be part of the constituency of women who are being harmed? I hope not.

Because once you've made the compromise, you can't then unmake it after your short term aim has been achieved.

It's out there, having consequences.

I'm trying so hard not to get derailed by a rant about the inadequacies of mainstream "feminism" right now, Tinsel - suffice to say I agree with you about what is and isn't feminism!

I had to google purist because the way you used it suggests negative connotations. But the one traditional rule of feminism you're sticking to is "it's for women, all women, not for men." And I can't see any good reason for modernising that rule to exclude a subgroup of women in order to include a subgroup of men.

I do think we tend to be a bit more devoted to the female-only nature of the whole enterprise when we've been hit particularly hard with the shitty end of the patriarchal stick though. It's easy to miss potential consequences when you don't have the first-hand experience to draw from.

Yes I suppose I shouldn't be down on being a purist!

I wonder if anybody is prepared to make the argument that "yes, excluding trans widows from feminist spaces is worth it, for the validation that transsexuals can give to our anti self ID position", or if the people making this argument are all doing so inadvertently due to not thinking this side of it through?

Honestly? I think it's probably mostly just not thinking it through. Look how many women here hadn't considered who's being excluded by the inclusion of TS until you raised it. Has anyone brought this up specifically with WPUK, do you know?

Never understood the notion that we need TS on board to give validity to our position re: women's rights. We're entitled to our own analyses and conclusions as women; we don't need a stamp of approval from males and we don't need it from TS. Whether they agree with self-ID or not is immaterial to how it impacts on women's rights.

I think it is possible to support trans widows and to critique behaviors of transsexual males that led to said widowhood, while separately approving of sane and reasonable statements from transsexual males.

The focus needs to remain on the impacts on women. Women are helped by transsexual males accepting material reality. It is not anti woman to say so.

We should not of course fawn over said transsexual male individuals. A simple “thanks for being reasonable” is sufficient.

To add - I think the idea of “inclusion” is overblown both here and especially among the LGBTQWERTY / other woke communities. That is, “I agree with this statement” means only that - it does not mean “I include you”. Nor does “I disagree with your viewpoint” in any way imply “I exclude you” as TRA would have you believe.

Let’s not fall for their tricks.

Agreed.

I think the next stage of the argument usually goes "But what about the gay transexuals? It's OK to let them into feminist spaces isn't it? They're not as bad: they don't make trans widows"

Well no. Some of them have been married in the past and have ex partners and daughters. And even if they haven't, they presumably have sisters, and Mums, and Grandmas, and female friends, who might like to talk to other feminists about the impact of them transitioning, but are being prevented from doing so.

That's about the point of the argument where I start frothing in seven different directions at once and can't choose just one to focus on.

If I'm in a feminist space it's generally understood that I can have a good rant about sex stereotypes. I have no idea how one's supposed to feel comfortable doing this when in the presence of people who rely on those stereotypes for their sense of identity. Especially when they're the sort of person I've been socialised to take great pains not to upset. Their sexuality doesn't come into it; I'll be silencing myself regardless.

Plus it's back to that idea that it's only those who actively abuse women&wives who aren't welcome. Which sort of misses the whole point of women's liberation ie that it's for females only.

Well no. Some of them have been married in the past and have ex partners and daughters.

This. Supposing a woman saw her trans father being lauded as ‘stunning and brave’ by a group that’s meant to be feminist. Would she feel welcome & able to be honest about her feelings?

Any group that includes transgender identified males has by virtue of doing so excluded some women. To what purpose? So they can mansplain what women already know and have said a thousand million times?

“What’s involved in doing something about all of this? The men’s movement seems to stay stuck on two points. The first is that men don’t really feel very good about themselves. How could you? The second is that men come to me or to other feminists and say: “What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this.”

And I say: don’t tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There’s no point in telling me. I’m only a woman. There’s nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.”
― Andrea Dworkin

I don't think men, however they identify or whatever surgical interventions they've had, should be involved in feminist organising. Making the sandwiches, supporting from the sidelines, or helping to finance, should be their limits. They only fuck it up by getting their dicks out or causing divisions between women.

I'm not a supporter of the trutrans position. I think you can only successfully destigmatise male trans identities if they are understood as male identities.

I don't really understand the left vs right business because, to me, there's nothing of the left in genderism, however moderate or extreme. It's an ideology of the libertarian right that (ironically) merely self identifies as of the left. I'm an unreconstructed materialist leftist and genderism has absolutely nothing to do with me or materialist leftism.

I'd happily ally with the right on specific campaigns, such as court cases or proposed legislation. And happily continue to oppose the right on almost everything else.

I'm equally happy to support WPUK in its efforts even though I disagree with its tactical support for trutrans and think it's overly timid at times.

In short: if it's good for women and child protection, I'm for it. Regardless of the origin.

Oh, and I don't pick sides on the basis of friendships or factioneering feuding between personalities. If you're working for women and/or child protection, I'm with you, regardless of any fights you've had with other women. I won't be adjudicating at all. End of.

It's an ideology of the libertarian right that (ironically) merely self identifies as of the left.

I wish more people saw gender ideology as right wing. Then all the woke lot who think they’re being right on by supporting it might see it for what it is - misogynist & homophobic.