The genital mutilation of women and girls, and people who are perceived as women and girls, is a terrible injustice. That’s why I am 100% behind the work of Hibo Wardere and all other activists, who oppose it across the world.
The right to safe and dignified abortion is also a cause close to my heart. That’s why I am so thankful for the efforts of @haenel_kh who has worked relentlessly for years for this fundamental right.
And I stand in solidarity with trans people, who are so often not considered in our society, not represented in language, and who experience so much discrimination every day.
All these and many other matters are simultaneously close to my heart. They are neither mutually exclusive nor do they compete with each other.
Sometimes the advocate of one of these causes close to my heart does not support another cause also close to my heart. Sometimes @?//haenel_kh does not speak of people with uteruses in her efforts for pregnancy rights. [really not quite sure about that sentence.] I think that’s a shame.
However, that doesn’t mean that I don’t value her efforts and appreciate it. It is the same with other causes.
Yesterday I tried to have an exchange with a white author about why I find it a shame that Hibo Wardere the women’s right activist does not include trans women in her definition of women.
That is something completely different from speaking to Hibo Wardere herself. As a white woman who was not a victim of genital mutilation herself, naturally I am not entitled to criticise a WoC who was herself a victim of genital mutilation.
It is obviously clear to me that trans women and girls can’t be victims of genital mutilation of the vulva and clitoris.
But whoever says, “I centre women and girls in my work, not men who identify as women” uses trans-hostile language and hurts.
The sentence “I centre women and girls and people who can be perceived as women, who can be victims of genital mutilation” would, however, be an example of inclusive language.
Some people argue that when it is about such serious, painful and weighty feminist issues as genital mutilation or abortion, the sensitivities of a few trans people don’t matter.
“Trans people don’t need to be the focus everywhere”, I often hear. But the point is, it’s not about putting trans people at the centre. The sole point is not discriminating against them.
An important and great effort for a particular issue does not bar discriminatory, hurtful behaviour.
If a person campaigned for children’s rights with verve but used racist language -- would it be nasty and inappropriate to make that a subject of discussion
Or if someone campaigned for disability rights but had sexist prejudices – shouldn’t we address that
That is the basis for why I sometimes try to cautiously enter into discussion, if I am in a position to simultaneously see great efforts for a good cause and appreciate discrimination.
At the same time, it is also very important to me not to divert discussion away from the core issues that unite us. So I quickly draw back from any discussion that threatens to degenerate into a verbal slugfest.
Italics are my notes.
white author refers to Milli Hill