Recommend me a book!

[RibenaBerry]

Right, reading these boards recently has given me a bit of a kick up the arse on my feminist principles. I've done a bit of 'light' reading in the area (think The Beauty Myth as a teenager) but think I need something a bit more serious without being so weighty I never pick it up. I'd rather have something published in, say, the last 15 years than any of the 'classics'.

Any ideas?

Just to add what I said about homosexuals being misogynyst, I want to qualify that with saying that some cis-women, bizzarely, are misogynystic too. Psychologically it is something to do with identifying with the oppressor (being in the cool-gang as Prolesworth calls it) and it probably stems from self-loathing.
Got no friggin clue where cis-male and homosexual male misogyny comes from, though.

yes, RibenaBerry. THis title is a cunning ploy to subvert the patriarchy by stealth.

great post sakura

"Men don't seem too bothered as a group by this,do they?"

With good reason Pogleswood: they rule the world.

Lovnig your work Sakura but I somehow don't think you're going to get the philosophical debate that is needed here.

It's really noticeable that direct questions have either been ignored or defined as meaningless.

Yes,I know they do Sakura, - but do we really have to act as an oppressed minority,threatened by what is a very small group of people? Can't women do better and be tougher than that?

I agree that trans women cannot know what it is like to be a cis woman,and vice versa - but given that the world currently splits into men and women,I do not think that the XY/XX divide is necessarily the right place to draw that line for everyone.The argument that "A" cannot understand "B" applies in many other situation and I don't think it means that B has no right to an opinion.I also think that the whole of women's history consists of us being defined as the sex that bears children,and look where that has left us.

Of course B has the right to an opinion Pogles. But B has no right to impose that opinion on everyone else and shut them up and censor them if they disagree.

Wow! I came to this thread after using the search thingy looking for feminism book recommendations. I thought it was high time to expand my horizons on feminism. I was looking for a good book to start me off. I wasn?t expecting to find a schism ding-dong. Are things always this lively?

It?s been fascinating to read and a real eye opener for a newbie feminist like me. The whole sex and gender issue is so complicated, that?s for sure. I don?t have much to add that hasn?t already been said by posters who are obviously much further on in their feminism than I am.

But I offer my general observations on the debate itself. Most contributors seem to be either separatist or inclusionist. I don't think anybody here has done bad things to trans women, unless you regard questioning unquestioning inclusion as a bad thing. Inclusion is almost always a good thing. Almost, that?s the thing. Accusations of transphobia can be justified when it?s taken place but it can also be abused as a gag on expression for other viewpoints. Lack of consultation about inclusion is a sore point for the separatists. Separatists have asked many questions as have posters who just didn?t have trans women on their feminism radar until this thread. Many of those questions are going unanswered by the inclusionists. The separatists seem to accept trans women in many ways but they have a line in the sand they see as being crossed. I?m not in much doubt about where the separatists stand because they have gone into detail. But the inclusionist line seems to be exclusion is bad, full stop.

I look forward to reading more of the debate. Perhaps it will still be continuing by the time I have read some of the books I came here to find.

"The ability of trans-women to pass a law so easily without running it by cis-women first, tells me they are privileged in a way cis-women are not."

But they didn't. Gender reassignment surgery has been available for half a century. Trans activists and their allies have been fighting for legal recognition for at least that long. It wasn't until 2005 that a law came into being that gave trans people legal recognition under their preferred gender designation. What on earth do you think happened, a bunch of trans women walked into parliament, did a secret Mason's handshake with the legislators and ta-dah! And what did you want, a public referendum? The issue has been vexed for a very long time, with debates raging not just in feminist circles but in academic and legal circles. That law wasn't passed "easily". Why do you think it was?

HerBeatitude, I'm really offended that you're characterising this discussion as an avoidance of direct questions and Sakura not getting an intellectual debate. I'm putting a fair amount of energy into this converstion, I think that what I'm saying is pretty intelligent and fairly educated. If you disagree with the substance, that's fine, but dismissing it as non-intellectual avoidance is insulting.

Yes,HerBeatitude,I'd agree with that.I don't think anyone has a right to impose their opinion on everyone else and shut them up and censor them if they disagree.
Is that what is happening re:feminism and trans women? (genuine question - I'm one of the people who hadn't thought a lot about this issue before coming to this thread and I'm aware there is a lot I don't know.)

"What on earth do you think happened, a bunch of trans women walked into parliament, did a secret Mason's handshake with the legislators and ta-dah! "

haha, no ok, obviously not that! And I realise that it wasn't passed just like that, but it was fairly easy for a tiny group of people to get this law past. On the other hand it is extremely difficult for cis-women (half of the population) to get laws passed in their favour. David Scameron is trying to pass a new law, in 2010, that discriminates specifically against rape victims (who are usually women). Cis-women will have to fight tooth and nail for this discriminatory law not to pass. And we have been doing this for such a long time that you'D expect patriarchy would have got it by now
And tortoise, yes, you are the main person I am having a dialogue with here, I am aware of that. This is great, because it means both sides of the feminist fence can put their views accross. And actually, we find that it's not that big of a deal, perhaps not the same as if one of us was anti-abortion Now THAT would be a ding-dong.
But tortoise, at the beginning of this thread, the main argument against my points were: "Sakura, what about line 3 in your paragraph, how can you prove that...".

"I also think that the whole of women's history consists of us being defined as the sex that bears children,and look where that has left us."

Yes, but there is a growing trend among feminists to idolize the patriarchal model, to separate themselves from the women of colour, of the third world, or of low social economic status, and ignore cis-women's particular contribution to humanity, much the way that patriarchy does. Is this the right way to go? Perhaps I've misunderstood. Can you explain how a gender-neutral society can be better for cis-women all over the world?

hi vesuvia

Sorry you're offended Tortoise but I haven't seen chibi's q. being answered.

Not that I think that's your job btw - yes you're doing a good job here of putting a reasonable case forward without trying to shut anyone up and throwing around accusations of transphobia. I also don't think Sakura's XY stuff is being fully answered from my POV either though, this continuum stuff is a load of bollocks IMO but perhaps that's just because I'm not concentrating.

I also object to being called a cis woman FWIW. I don't identify as a cis woman, I am a woman.

I've lost track of where we are here - are we arguing about the existence of trans people? Or whether they should be in the eyes of the law the sex they transitioned to?
Or whether trans women should have views on feminism? Or all of those?

HerBeatitude,which bit of Sakura's XY stuff isn't being answered?
(and I've just realised that my post of 14:54:48 reads a bit oddly following tortoises - it was a response to your post of 13:0036...)

Sakura,no! (I can't explain how a gender-neutral society can be better for cis-women all over the world)
I'm not sure I am arguing for a gender neutral society - is anyone here? But I'm not sure why it would be worse if there was not such a strict gender binary.

I think it is right that women (in general) are recognised for their biological role in bearing children,or rather for the fact that the propagation of the species has a disproportionate impact on them. I think the risk there is that you cross the line to the idea that you are a "better" or "more real" woman if you have had children though.Or that you move back to the idea that because women bear children,and that is so important,they shouldn't mind being restricted in other areas.
And if "cis-women's particular contribution to humanity"is in childbearing (is that what you mean?),then where does that leave women who do not reproduce?

Hi vesuvia! Yes,it is often quite lively here....

I'll say again (but slightly rephrased), this is not about women who bear children. It is about the way that women, as a consequence of being female, have had to fight for rights to control their own fertility. That is not just the choice to have children and breastfeed , but the right not to have them and have access to contraception, abortion and the right to refuse to be impregnated by a man. These are still incredibly important rights than many women worldwide do not have.

There are a lot more issues in women's lives than simply facing the discrimination they experience as females, but those issues are not particularly about being a woman - they are about being a human being.

I would speculate that a definition of feminism that many people might agree on is that feminism is about creating a world in which women are seen as human beings with the capabilities and desire to participate in a wide variety of activities that are worthwhile and fulfilling to human beings, but their specifically female reproductive choices are also respected and valued.

I do not see how the issue of trans women adds anything to that. Saying that they put forward another concept on the relationship between sex and gender is not necessarily a positive thing. Males have traditionally put forward many concepts about sex and gender - that doesn't make them of benefit to females.

I am not denying that trans women are disadvantaged by our society. Many people are disadvantaged by our society and frequently social justice campaigns come into conflict with each other. For many feminists, the rights of trans women come into conflict with the rights of females. There is no reason why feminists should be the ones to submit or compromise.

I also reject the phrase cis-woman. Why can't trans women use the term female instead? I believe that it is because they want to undermine the importance of that biological reality because to do so would benefit them.

I am not denying that trans women are disadvantaged by our society. Many people are disadvantaged by our society and frequently social justice campaigns come into conflict with each other. For many feminists, the rights of trans women come into conflict with the rights of females. There is no reason why feminists should be the ones to submit or compromise.

i totally agree, i feel like a movement which has already been marginalised is not having its focus split or attention divided by trans women who are trying to change the agenda to deal with their needs

i can understand why they would do so but i don't see why i need to accommodate or support it

they get a raw deal in the patriarchy, but their fight is not necessarily mine

it seems to me to be typical that women have to tend to everyone else's needs before trying to fulfill their own - 'ok yes patriarchy is bad for women, but what about trans women, what about...' etc etc

i also am not keen on cis women as a term, it implies i am a-ok with cultural definitions of woman as expressed through the lens of 'femininity' - i don't wear makeup, nor am i particularly 'feminine' yet i am in no doubt that i am a woman

the whole concept of cis womanhood thus is v lacking for me, as though i am defined as a negative - someone who wasn't born with a different biological sex to the gender they operate in

sorry second para should read 'is NOW having...@ rather than 'is NOT having...'

Been thinking more about it. Cis-women are already "the other". MOthers are most definitely "the other" because patriarchy simply cannot comprehend what a mother is (which is why breastfeeding in public is frowned on, women in labour are treated as pieces of meat in hospital, bad treatment by the media etc).
How does creating a gender neutral society, a society which is already inimical to mothers and female people in general, help females? The way I see it, the male will still be regarded as the norm and trans-women are encouraging that belief by saying that anyone that digresses from the masculine norm must be associated with the female gender i.e cis-women.
NOw where does that leave cis-women. A woman, for example, who bears children no longer has a gender of her own, which is what trans-women appear to want when they say that there is a continuum of gender and therefore they believe nobody should be associated with a particular gender. Fine. For them.
But where does that leave cis-women who have a specific biological role? As far as I can see it will reduce the importance of that role even further. I don'T want to fight for a world where women who can, or who want to, give birth will be regarded as completely separate to all other people. Where will that lead? How many steps will it take for someone to place the seeds in the mind of the womb-less people that wombed people are little more than beasts?
Pogleswood, I think society can get a lot worse. The pay gap is increasing again: women are being pushed into the low-end work and men rule in politics all over the world. This is despite lots of women not having children or having only one. So it's not actually having children that is keeping women down. IN Japan women are not having children for the reasons you gave and yet their status is still pretty low.
What is keeping women down is the idea that whatever females do is insignificant. Why is it that trans-women are so outspoken and have such a big platform. Where are all the trans-men? Why are they so quiet? DO you think that because they're born as XX people, like cis-women, and therefore may have wombs, that they are, again, regarded as being not quite as important?

These questions really need to be answered before trans-women can ask feminists to take on their fight for them.
Greer was unable to have children, I think because of a botched abortion. But she defines feminism as: "Any feminism that is not mothers feminism is no feminism at all" and I'm inclined to agree. MOther's feminism encompasses all people because all people are the sons and daughters of a mother. If we help mothers we help humanity as far as I can see.

just back to explain Greer as she is often misquoted (by people who don't understand her, usually). What she was saying about mothers is that if you are a feminist, you can't just go about your merry way trying to better your life (or your society) leaving mothers by the wayside. THat goes for any male feminists, trans-gender feminists or cis-women feminists. Tackling the feminization of poverty around the world and at home, for example, will do a lot for women.
I'm also starting to think that a gender continuum is a pretty shit concept for women who can't bear children. Females are not like males and their entire approach to reproduction is different. It seems to me that trans-women are not interested in reproduction. I also wonder what it means for a woman whose had a double mastectomy, for example. IN Japan, where females are pretty much defined as a specific group, a double mastectomy is not seen as a big deal compared to in Britain. I get the feeling that Japanese women don't feel it detracts from their womanhood: they just are women and that's that. Having breasts doesn't really alter their perception of themeslves as being a woman. Which is pretty cool, I thought.

just back to explain Greer as she is often misquoted (by people who don't understand her, usually). What she was saying about mothers is that if you are a feminist, you can't just go about your merry way trying to better your life (or your society) leaving mothers by the wayside. THat goes for any male feminists, trans-gender feminists or cis-women feminists. Tackling the feminization of poverty around the world and at home, for example, will do a lot for women.
I'm also starting to think that a gender continuum is a pretty shit concept for women who can't bear children. Females are not like males and their entire approach to reproduction is different. It seems to me that trans-women are not interested in reproduction. I also wonder what it means for a woman who's had a double mastectomy, for example. IN Japan, where females are pretty much defined as a specific group, a double mastectomy is not seen as a big deal compared to in Britain. I get the feeling that Japanese women don't feel it detracts from their womanhood: they just are women and that's that. Having breasts doesn't really alter their perception of themeslves as being women. Which is pretty cool, I thought.
But then, in Asia, the "female" is seen as being "the other" than in the West. Lots of straight japanese men dye their hair and wear make-up and many try to emphasize their femininity (they are still attractive to women- think Adam Lambert from American idol- Japanese people don't realise he's gay. They just think he's a really effeminite guy who loves make-up. Girls here love him) There is a third sex for trans-women and there are lots of women who don't fit the stereotypical cis-women norm: some are very muscular and take up male martial arts ,for example. It's a very interesting place

oops, same post with a bit added on

in Asia the female is NOT seen as being "the other" in the same way as in the west (you could say that Asia is perhaps more feminized- but this is a debatable topic)

a third "gender" for trans women
GOD! sorry for my inability to form a sentence!

after reading milly's and chibi's post, is it okay for me to say "female/women" from now on in reference to cis-women? I seriously don't want to get deleted again.