Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

Oh man, I'm the guy in the corner laughing along with the joke but not actually getting it until a week later. What's WBW? I'm assuming you guys aren't protesting a cable TV station.

 

Edit: Nevermind, apparently it's something called "women-born-women", which looks pretty pissy from title alone.

Edited by Zovesta

Share this post


Link to post
Oh man, I'm the guy in the corner laughing along with the joke but not actually getting it until a week later. What's WBW? I'm assuming you guys aren't protesting a cable TV station.

Sorry, Zov. It refers to 'Women-Born-Women' (or Womyn-Born-Womyn) to define women who were born and raised with a female sex and gender presentation as opposed to women who were born with a male sex (with all the attending attempts to force them into a male gender presentation) who have since transitioned.

 

It's usually used in order to exclude transwomen from certain spaces. The most noteable (or perhaps most high profile) examples are the Michigan Womyns Festival, the RadFem conference, and the Vancouver Rape Relief and Womens Shelter. None of the above allow entry to transwomen.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh man, imagine if children weren't forced into a specific gender presentation.

 

 

 

Do you feel that spaces that are for transwomen only should exist? No transmen, no WBW? Since they've had experiences that are different from transmen and WBW and all that.

 

 

 

All it shows is that our brains know what our bodies are supposed to be and when they aren't, it leads to problems. I doubt his issue was "they're putting me in dresses and giving me dolls and I don't like them that must mean I'm a boy." His brain knew what his body was supposed to look like. That has nothing to do with gender (roles).

 

 

 

Interesting. I've heard it used as a more PC term for "biological sex" (like it is on DC) but that's the only other usage of the word I really saw until I started reading about trans issues.

Spaces for "WBW" only or spaces for transwomen only is still the separate but equal issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I think even the reasoning why "WBW" (I might be imagining air-quotes, as I really can't use this term without sarcasm) are trying to exclude trans-women is ridiculous. From what I've gathered, they think that, since trans-women were raised as men, then they haven't faced the same life-long oppression that cis-women have, and are therefore not as important a part of feminism as cis-women. Not only do I think this totally misses the point of feminism (it should be about letting anyone be who they want to be, regardless of gender, not just about getting more power for women (not saying more power for women isn't an important part, but it's only a part)), but I think it's just generally wrong. I've heard that quite a few trans-people know that their gender and sex don't match from a very young age. Even if a sexist family tries to raise a little trans-girl as the boy they think she is (teaching her to play sports, be assertive, be rough and wild), she will still hear the message that girls are supposed to be submissive, good at cleaning, cooking, and nurturing, etc. If she KNOWS that she's a girl, she'll still think those stereotypes are applied to her, even though that's not what she's directly being taught. How someone is treated because of how they're seen isn't the only way society can shape them; just hearing what society expects from people can be more than enough. And if she chooses to present as female, then she will mostly be treated the same as any other woman, since most people probably wouldn't even know she was born male.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. I've heard it used as a more PC term for "biological sex" (like it is on DC) but that's the only other usage of the word I really saw until I started reading about trans issues.

Interesting, AngelKitty, if you don't mind revealing what country do you live/were raised in? I'm wondering if the cultural definitions of gender and sex are influenced by geographical location. Because I was always the same as hydrargyrum, in UK - or at least where I live etc. - gender is what's in your head, and sex is DNA/biological manifestation. So I always assumed that that the doctors when they ask for your 'sex' they want to know what your genitals are (for medical reasons!) while in surveys etc it's 'gender' because they want to know who you are.

 

(I'm just not going to comment on WBW because it makes me sad.gifmad.gif )

Share this post


Link to post

Oh man, imagine if children weren't forced into a specific gender presentation.

Then some of us would still tell you that our gender did not match our biological sex. Duh.

 

Do you feel that spaces that are for transwomen only should exist? No transmen, no WBW? Since they've had experiences that are different from transmen and WBW and all that.

 

Uh, no. Actually I don't. Funnily enough my experience has been that transwomen do not see transmen as the 'threat' that for some reason WBW proponants see transwomen as. Perhaps because transfolk tend to know that other transfolk will just accept them for who they are, rather than judging them by their plumbing.

 

Because removing the idea of judging people by their plumbing isn't at all the main aim of feminism.

 

Also interesting to note is that feminism has been campaigning for years to remove any male-only spaces from society. So women born with vaginas are the only ones entitled to their own space then I guess. Not a hypocritical view at all then.

 

All it shows is that our brains know what our bodies are supposed to be and when they aren't, it leads to problems. I doubt his issue was "they're putting me in dresses and giving me dolls and I don't like them that must mean I'm a boy." His brain knew what his body was supposed to look like. That has nothing to do with gender (roles).

 

You are right. It isn't gender roles. It's the brain knowing what it's body should be. And that innate knowledge in the brain is a person's innate gender. Gender role =/= gender.

 

Interesting. I've heard it used as a more PC term for "biological sex" (like it is on DC) but that's the only other usage of the word I really saw until I started reading about trans issues.

 

And the fact that you don't seem to want to bend your thinking at all to accomodate the trans issues you are coming across does indicate that you are not exactly trans friendly.

 

I am a proponant of all women being totally equal to all men - and to each other. I am a proponant of the first question you ask a person not being 'what sort of plumbing have you got?', because as far as I am concerned that should not matter. I am a proponant of the idea that no person is somehow 'less' than another because of how they were born, that a person can be who they choose to be and should be totally accepted as such.

 

How about you?

 

Perhaps it might be worth reading this and checking *your* privilage.

 

@ hydra

 

For many of us our earliest memories are of not being right in our own bodies. While it is gratifying that so many people try to understand how it feels the only people I've ever spoken to who have really 'got it' are other transfolk. I've actually struggled to a certain extent to break myself of *male* stereotypes, because my Dad is quite old-fashioned in some ways (although this is also the man who happily taught me to fish and change the oil in the car long before any of us had any idea what trans even was). I can now happily admit that I like to wear corsets - and that I am a man who likes to do so.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

So given it some thought, the problem with WBW spaces is that it's discriminates against a group of people who are not the majority or the norm.

 

As in, LGBTQI safe places exist (and from personal experience I prefer a LGBTQ+ club to a normal one etc). And those places can be seen as being discriminative against straight cis women (or WBW who are straight and heteronormative). But straight cis women are the norm. So an LGBTQ+ safe place is for a minority that is discriminated against in other 'normal' and 'common' places.

 

Ei. This is why there is LGBTQ+ Pride and not Straight Pride - because everyday is straight pride day.

 

So WBW does create a 'safe place' for a group of people who while still discriminated against are also often within the societies 'norm'. Them excluding women who don't fit the 'norm' is repulsive and anti-feminist (and very much transphobic).

Share this post


Link to post

 

Reading back I think (correct me if I'm wrong) people are using it to refer to the relationship between how their brain thinks their body should be and how their body actually is, but that's not what I'm talking about. Like, at all. And I've never heard it used that way before outside of discussions about trans people and their identities.

 

That's the standard definition of gender. And since transfolk are some that would understand that best, I would hope you would listen when they tell you that's what gender is.

 

Please, please, please stop insisting that gender = society's definition of gender roles (which is really society's definition of roles based on physical sex)

 

 

You just literally said what I've been trying to say for the past few pages using slightly different terminology! Lol.

 

No, actually, I didn't in the slightest. "Lol."

 

 

The problem is that a LOT of people don't get this. They find opposite sex's assigned gender (in other words, their societally-defined gender role) more suitable for them, and then say they identify as that sex and call themselves "transgender." I've seen it in the sex/gender identity thread right here on this forum. They don't experience any dysphoria about their body parts, but because they despise the gender role society thinks they should follow or like the other one better, they call themselves trans even though they really aren't.

 

Who are you to tell a transperson what you think their identity really is? It's their body and their mind. The label they pick is going to be the one best for them. Why would you want to steal that from them and tell them they're wrong? =\

 

 

People wouldn't have to deal with this if society didn't push these roles on them based on their body parts.

 

If you would listen, you would get that gender has nothing to do with societal expectations or stereotypes.

 

 

(which, if anyone has any questions about radical feminism, I'm happy to answer or link you to good sources. We're not the screaming evil harpies people like to make us out to be. Usually).

 

I have absolutely no interest in radfeminism or TERF-based feminism. The only thing I want to do with non-intersectional feminism is educate it and fight it until it, too, is intersectional. But feminism like radfem is why many transfolk refuse to be associated with feminism. Non-intersectional feminism is why WOC are turning to womanism. And I can't blame them. We should be in the fight together. Fighting oppression by oppressing others is not the right way to go.

 

 

Zovesta, completely agree with you. Gender is a complex thing but our discussion is not more important that anyone's feeling and especially anyone's identity.

 

Yes, thank you guys.

 

 

It's usually used in order to exclude transwomen from certain spaces.

 

Yeah, it's an entirely disgusting concept. =\ And the term "WBW" - ugh. Transwomen are women, too. I will never understand the fit a lot of white ciswomen feminists throw over the term "cis". I've gotten in quite a few debates over it in the past few days, and they just don't get it. The fact that they can find the term cis offensive just blows my mind.

 

 

Oh man, imagine if children weren't forced into a specific gender presentation.

 

Gender would still exist. And gender roles are really a different conversation than gender identity is.

 

 

His brain knew what his body was supposed to look like.

 

Exactly? He knew what his body should look like and the pronoun he wanted to be called.

 

 

That has nothing to do with gender (roles).

 

Right, it has to do with gender. Body, pronouns, your name.

 

 

Interesting. I've heard it used as a more PC term for "biological sex" (like it is on DC) but that's the only other usage of the word I really saw until I started reading about trans issues.

 

I've never heard it as the "PC" term. Yeah, sure, before I educated myself more on feminist issues I thought gender and sex were interchangeable, but once I educated myself, I started using it correctly.

 

 

Interesting, AngelKitty, if you don't mind revealing what country do you live/were raised in? I'm wondering if the cultural definitions of gender and sex are influenced by geographical location. Because I was always the same as hydrargyrum, in UK - or at least where I live etc. - gender is what's in your head, and sex is DNA/biological manifestation. So I always assumed that that the doctors when they ask for your 'sex' they want to know what your genitals are (for medical reasons!) while in surveys etc it's 'gender' because they want to know who you are.

 

Just going to pitch in and say I'm USA born and raised and I don't agree with trans-exclusionary practices.

 

 

While it is gratifying that so many people try to understand how it feels the only people I've ever spoken to who have really 'got it' are other transfolk.

 

And on that note I just want to say that Tiki, if I ever speak over your experiences, please post or PM me to let me know. <3

Share this post


Link to post
I am a proponent of all women being totally equal to all men - and to each other. I am a proponent of the first question you ask a person not being 'what sort of plumbing have you got?', because as far as I am concerned that should not matter.

I admit I personally like to know who I am talking to in regards to such matters, since some very primary part of my brain just gets very confused if it cannot determine who the person speaking to me is - once I know it will calm down, and it makes no difference whether it is cis or trans or some kind of fluid from then on... Not a thing I am intentionally doing, but so it is ... for some reason I do not have a problem with the concept of there being a guy who just happens to have a female body (or vice versa), or that there might be people who are agendered or reside somewhere in between the two genders, but if I cannot place an individual anywhere at all it is a bit problematic.

 

- That said, I strongly do not think gender/sex should affect how people will be perceived and treated, and I won't treat a guy any differently than I would any woman, unless I happen to be dating that guy.

Share this post


Link to post

Just going to pitch in and say I'm USA born and raised and I don't agree with trans-exclusionary practices.

 

And on that note I just want to say that Tiki, if I ever speak over your experiences, please post or PM me to let me know. <3

Oh don't worry I wasn't going to say 'country' is transphobic! Was just wondering if there was an actually language barrier as in 'do you fancy a fag?' has very different meanings between UK and US, and 'I'm wearing a thong' has very different meanings between UK and Australia.

 

And I'll add disclaimer my tumblr/blog etc usually has: please - anyone - do call me out on anything that makes my posts un-safe or uncomfortable.

 

I admit I personally like to know who I am talking to in regards to such matters, since some very primary part of my brain just gets very confused if it cannot determine who the person speaking to me is

 

Shienvien, I think we're conditioned to think that way quite often. The way I personally found around that is to think 'this person presents as male/female/androgynous/something else', and stick to they/them pronouns until I know them better.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh don't worry I wasn't going to say 'country' is transphobic! Was just wondering if there was an actually language barrier as in 'do you fancy a fag?' has very different meanings between UK and US, and 'I'm wearing a thong' has very different meanings between UK and Australia.

Sorry, that's not where I was going (my country is cissexist and transmisogynistic - I have no illusions about that). I was really going for in some cases, where you live can't be allowed an excuse for ignorance. We've gotta rise above what society tries to inundate us with when it's harmful, especially when we have people with personal experience in the subject taking their time to educate us. ^^

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post
I was really going for in some cases, where you live can't be allowed an excuse for ignorance. We've gotta rise above what society tries to inundate us with when it's harmful, especially when we have people with personal experience in the subject taking their time to educate us. ^^

I really wanted to just leave that quote on it's own because WORD! You're so so right. Plus any country/education/parents can all influence in a ridiculous amounts of ways, and we shouldn't let ourselves be limited just by that!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really sorry if I came across as thinking that I know more about the issue than people who are actually affected by it. I was only trying to show another possibility of how I think some people might be, I absolutely did not mean to imply that "this is what all trans people go through". I suppose it would've helped if I used more "maybe"s, "sometime"s, and "it's possible"s xd.png. As others have said, let me know if I'm being offensive or ignorant.

 

Also, who on earth could be offended by cis? Maybe it's just my chemistry background showing (thinking of cis and trans for double bonds xd.png), but they seem so clinical to me that it's hard to see how people could be offended.

Edited by hydrargyrum

Share this post


Link to post

 

Not really. When people, especially oppressed people (WBW, transwomen, PoCs, etc) make spaces for themselves they aren't obligated to allow other groups in. I wouldn't demand that a black women's group, or a transwomen's group, or a lesbian group, accept me into their ranks. That would be invasive and inappropriate and could make the people in those groups uncomfortable.

 

I think you've missed my point, or rather you've reaffirmed it? It would be inappropriate for a straight woman to demand membership to a lesbian group (your example) but it's not inappropriate for a lesbian to demand entrance to a feminist group.

 

WBW idea specifically creates a space that's not only 'no men allowed' but also anti-trans. Saying that transwomen don't experience the say thing as WBW might be true - if all WBW experienced exactly the same experiences but they don't! No one really experience the same level and type of sexism, and anyone can act in male-socialized ways!

 

And I can't speak for the trans community, but as someone who is LGBTQ+ I have reason to fear everyone. Not just men.

 

In terms of the rape threats - I think it's fair to say that examples don't define the whole group.

 

 

Not only that, but in places where women may be nude (MichFest comes to mind), it's understandable that they wouldn't want someone who is biologically male seeing them like that

 

This I disagree with? Why does it matter than someone is biologically male? If they're going to discriminate on the bases that people who mind see them as nude might find them attractive then they should be homophobic and biphobic instead :/

 

I'm not sure how 'cis' implies you're comfortable with gender roles/gender? 'cis' simply means your gender identity and DNA/biological sex match up? Personally I prefer 'cis' and 'trans' because they're on equal footing (and I'm reading Chemistry at uni) and to me WBW sounds a bit like it's saying that women who are born women are better/more womenly than transwomen.

 

Why I agree it's necessary to make people feel comfortably and safe I think it's necessary for it to be done is a different way? Simply because the thought process of

"A woman may not be comfortable discussing rape, sexual assault and harassment, childhood abuse, etc. in front of someone who is biologically male" which by it's self it not too problematic as such, leads to policy for various support groups especially for rape victims. Which leads to trans and genderqueer victims being barred from support.

 

I'm sorry if my comments made you feel like you have to defend your use of gender. I was mostly curious if it was a cultural barrier type thing or an individual preference definition.

 

Other members probably know more on certain issues - especially when it comes to gender and definitions so I've just talked about the stuff I know enough to discuss properly. If I made some errors/said something problematic, people please call me out on it.

 

Edits for spelling and grammar

Edited by ebony ink

Share this post


Link to post

*taps chin thoughtfully*

 

I know very little about this cis/trans matter, but considering the previous discussion between gender not matching with physical sex, transsexuality seems a tad like body integrity identity disorder or its more well known opposite phantom limb, in which the body is born or set up one way but the brain is adamant that the body is wrong and this dissonance results in dysphoria of some sort.

 

Would that be a closer analogy to being trans?

Share this post


Link to post

Also, who on earth could be offended by cis? Maybe it's just my chemistry background showing (thinking of cis and trans for double bonds xd.png), but they seem so clinical to me that it's hard to see how people could be offended.

TW cissexism and transmisogyny:

 

Here's a quote I came across that introduced me to this, and I'm putting it in white because I really don't even want to have to look at the quote any more:

 

If “cis" is a word meant to denote someone who does not suffer from GID/bodily dysphoria, then I fail to understand why the appropriate word to actually use wouldn’t be “neurotypical," unless there is a compelling argument for why we need a word for people who don’t have one specific mental disorder and not a word for people who don’t have bipolar disorder, or synesthesia, or any of the hundreds of other mental disorders and neurological conditions that exist in humans.

 

If “cis" is a word that means “a person who is comfortable with their societally constructed gender role" it is first an almost useless term in that it applies to a miniscule percentage of the population who actually is comfortable with the ENTIRETY of their societal gender role and does not break away or feel discomfort with it in anyway, and secondly a term that should NEVER be applied to someone without their consent or self identification.

 

I'm responding to this first so the rest of my post can be read correctly. I have no problem accepting transwomen as women and treating them as such pronouns-wise, which is why I, personally, and others I've spoken to use the term WBW - to differentiate female women from transwomen. Acknowledging differences isn't automatically bigotry.

 

The word for someone whose gender matches their sex is cisgendered. WBW implies that there is something inherently not women about transwomen and that ciswomen are therefore somehow above transwoman, which isn't exactly a connotation that makes it seem as if you're accepting of transwomen or transpeople in general.

 

And, of course, there's the issue of men-born-men who will cross-dress to get into women's spaces for less-than-savory purposes.

 

Cismen invading feminist spaces is a lot different than transfolk seeking a safe place within feminist spaces.

 

but all it takes is a few bad apples to make people wary of any group.

 

Such as radfems giving feminists a bad name, huh. =\

 

This statement just goes so much against what feminism is about - not placing stereotypes on people in order to oppress them. So some transwomen have threatened exclusionary spaces? What about all all those who haven't? =\

 

That's natural, so why are women expected to ignore their wariness and allow people who make them uncomfortable into their spaces?

 

Because these are women turning away others who live under oppression who also need a safe space because of their own prejudices. Maybe if they'd open up their mind and learn and listen to transpeople, they wouldn't find them so threatening "biologically male" or not.

 

Many transwomen, who have had male socialization (unlike WBW), sometimes act in male-socialized ways. Not only that, but in places where women may be nude (MichFest comes to mind), it's understandable that they wouldn't want someone who is biologically male seeing them like that, especially if they are victims of sexual assault, harassment, etc. and ESPECIALLY if they haven't had bottom surgery.

 

They may be biologically male, but they're still women.

 

Not really. When people, especially oppressed people (WBW, transwomen, PoCs, etc) make spaces for themselves they aren't obligated to allow other groups in. I wouldn't demand that a black women's group, or a transwomen's group, or a lesbian group, accept me into their ranks. That would be invasive and inappropriate and could make the people in those groups uncomfortable.

 

But why is a woman's space denying women access to it? You wouldn't demand access to a black woman's group, transfolk group, or GSM group if you didn't belong to them. But transwomen belong in a woman's group. I will never see why we need a white ciswoman only group. We're not the only women who face oppression.

 

but we still have issues that are unique to us that transwomen don't experience.

 

And if we would let them into these safe spaces, we could learn from their experiences that they have that our different from ours. They don't want safe spaces to make us uncomfortable; they want safe spaces for the same reasons we do. Our only reason for excluding them is the fact that we don't want to face our own privileges or prejudices.

 

I'm not incorrect in my usage.

 

But since I hate these semantics arguments, I'll start saying "gender roles" or "gender stereotypes" instead so we can move on. Because that's what I've been talking about all the while. And I think we can all agree that those are not okay. Okay?

 

Because definitions can never be wrong, right? I mean, friend zone as a derogatory term is still considered "controversial" according to wiki when it is a derogatory term that reduces women to a sexual object who can't have their own feelings.

 

Except that people with personal experience in this are telling you that you are incorrect in your usage, and that your usage actually is harmful.

 

If you're talking about gender roles, why have you dragged transpeople into it?

 

They get upset because it implies that one is comfortable with their gender. While their brains may match their bodies, remember that they're defining gender as "gender roles," and many of them are NOT comfortable with their gender roles. The term was also assigned to them by the trans community - they didn't choose it for themselves.

 

I'm unsure how many people have to type it for this to get through, but: gender =/= gender roles. Cisgender applies to people whose gender matches their sex. It has nothing to do with gender roles. It has nothing to do with whether you like your body or your mom or your job or your life. It has nothing to do with whether you're comfortable with your body or your mom or your life. It means that your gender matches your sex. Again, gender does not equal gender role.

 

So the term came to use because we realized there were transpeople, agender people, genderqueer people, etc.? That makes it offensive how?

 

There should absolutely be inclusive spaces, I agree. But there should ALSO be spaces for those who are uncomfortable with the idea of discussing sensitive subjects with people who are biologically male or who identify as men.

 

But there is a space for cis people - the world.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that, but again, they're defining gender differently than the people here are.

 

Their definition is cissexist, though. It completely erases and mis-defines (I don't like that word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) transfolk.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to continue this if you're going to continue using WBW, which is an extremely offensive term associated with oppressive and extremely offensive activities and ideas. As a person who has been primarily cis who whole life, I'm even uncomfortable with WBW. Safe spaces are meant to protect the oppressed from the oppressors, not to further oppress other oppressed parties.

 

We actually live under a kyriarchy. Just because we face one type of oppression doesn't mean we can't ignore others. As you said, whites aren't oppressed, so we shouldn't push to be invited into black woman spaces. Yet, even as white women we face oppression. Like transpeople face oppression for not being cisgendered. Ciswomen have cis privilege. They don't have male privilege, but they need to face their cis privilege. They can't do that by invalidating the identities of transpeople or excluding transpeople from safe spaces. It's fair if a rape survivor needs a very specific safe space, but there is a recovery process for survivors, and I would hope that if they're ready to talk about their experiences with a larger group in a safe space, then they're on that road to recovery, and perhaps ready to start learning ways to deal with those triggers. I would also hope that safe space is doing their best to make survivors safe. But know that transpeople can also be survivors of rape (and likely face higher rates of rape, though it's hard to tell since transfolk feel even less safe reporting than other rape victims might), and are also going to want a safe space to talk about that stuff, as well as see if they can help other victims along the path to recovery.

 

You are stereotyping them when you take a minority of transwomen who have given rape threats and exclude all transfolk based on that.

 

Any LGBT space that would invalidate trans-identities is not an LGBT space. They're an LGB space only (HRC for example), and that's not okay, either. =\

You have people right here telling you what gender is. I just don't understand why people with personal experience in really understanding gender and the specific set of oppressions and prejudices that can be displayed because of their gender don't seem to be reflecting with you.

 

~

 

Putting this here so this conversation doesn't splay out to a dozen different threads:

 

Also for future reference...

 

I literally JUST learned the term "cis" two weeks ago and have ONLY ever seen it used in offensive ways ("f-ing cis scum"), so forgive me if I'm reluctant to use it in my everyday vocabulary.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone else got the point I was trying to make.

 

I got what you were saying, but I feel like you've missed my point, which is that there aren't just two binary genders, and those of us with cis privilege do need to confront that and be aware and try to be inclusionary to those other genders. It's fine if you didn't know the term before, but there's nothing wrong with admitting you didn't know a term and then educating yourself on it or whatnot. Cis simply means someone whose mental gender matches their physical sex. Sure, it gets thrown as an "insult" sometimes in non-cis spaces, but it's like when ciswomen lash out as cismales because they're feeling unsafe. It's unfortunate that was your introduction to the term, but please don't let that turn you away from it.

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

Dear. God.

 

Angel. Please, please, please re-read you posts. If you are sincere about actually having no problem with trans folk then you need to be aware that what you have just posted is incredible, incredibly, insensitive, non-understanding and Transphobic.

 

All your arguments in support of the WBW concept are all the 'classic' arguments again Transfolk.

 

Please read the following (because I don't intend to write too much of an essay here:

Trans Trope 1: Really a man/woman

Trans Trope 2: Patriarchal Privilage

Trans Trope 3: Reifying Gender

Trans Trope 4: "My Theories are more important than your experience."

Trans Trope 5: The "Man in a dress"/stealthy deceiver double bind.

Trans Trope 6: Transition is Mutilation

Trans Trope 7: Socialisation as a child.

 

Please pay special attention to that last one, as it seems to be one of your favourite arguments for continuing to define transfolk as 'other'.

 

Additionally on 'socialisation' - an awful lot of it is implied. It's not a direct "You should do this because [X]." it's the constant bombardment of stories and images. And you see the thing about those sotries and images is that you need to identify with the person in them first. Chances ar the 'female' socialisation you so prize included an awful lot of seeing images of women in the media, and identifying with that person on some level. Well I have a news flash for you - so did the transwoman.

In the same way I always saw those images and identified with the man in them. I have never, once, seen anything with a woman in it and processed that that was who I was expected to be. I got *told* 'girls don't do that' a lot, but it wasn't something I ever internalised. Not the way women - including transwomen! - do.

 

A note on your comment on women and rape - were you aware that instances of assualt are more frequent against the trans community? Especially agaist trans WOC, or tarnsfolk that have ended up in jail. Of course part of the larger problem is that rape of transfolk all too often ends up with the death of transfolk. With our trans status being given as some sort of 'justification' for it.

 

Additional note about triggering - you say the sight of male genitalia might be triggering. Which, I suppose, is true. I'd just like to know when *anyone* is going to be flashing their genitalia around at a rape shelter? Or why said shelters don't also ban male children from staying with their mothers, or male relatives (not the abuser) from visiting? Is the transwoman that has been raped in any less need of help? Or is it some phantom idea of erections, and that 'all trans are sexual predators'? Because if you'd bothered to learn anything about the issue you'd have realised that being on estrogen for a while will render the vast majority impotant.

 

And, yeah, go re-read the cis privilage link I posted. Because it's starting to show rather badly.

 

Anyone's definitions can always be wrong and can always change. Anyone's.

Except yours, obviously. Because the distress your ideas and your language cause to the very real trans person talking to you aren't half as important as your precious theories, right?

 

And on that note I just want to say that Tiki, if I ever speak over your experiences, please post or PM me to let me know. <3

*hugs* Not quite what I meant, hun, but thanks. More that the only people who have ever really understood the horror at seeing your body change during puberty are the people who have been through it. I imagine it's the same for rape survivours. It's nice to know the support is there, but sometimes the only people that really understand are the ones who have been there. <3

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

Guys, I'm noticing an increase of snark going on. Please, I don't want to have to close this again. I'm well aware that this is an incredibly sensitive issue for people here, but I don't want us getting out of hand.

 

As my personal note, I wanted to mention that I also don't view my cisgender any more valid than a transgender person. I have no issue with transfolk whatsoever.

 

Perhaps this does stem from the fact that I'm cis, but I truly just cannot wrap my head around this "gender" debate. Like I'm honestly not understanding what anyone's been saying, other than Angel. From this debate, and my own personal thinking, I don't even know what makes ME female. I'm physically female, yes, and I'm feminine according to gender roles, but... I don't know what else about me that makes me a woman. Honestly, I don't know. When I think of what it might be like in a male body, I'm not disturbed by it. I'm trying really hard to figure out what gender is, what entity it is that creates a dissonance between the mind and body. Maybe I can't understand it because I don't have anything about myself that would make it stand out to me, such as a transperson, and I guess that's frustrating because I really dislike not understanding concepts. ;n; Being caught up between feminism and trans rights, I don't really know what a "woman" or a "man" could be defined as. And perhaps that's just troubling to me, because I like having an idea of the world around me, you know? If it was just fluid and changeable in definition to everyone, that just seems so....confusing.

I'm sorry if I tread on any toes in this thread, I'm just honestly trying to understand. And apparently, failing miserably. T~T

Share this post


Link to post

Hazeh - If you're having a hard time imagining, I'd really check out Tiki's links. Yeah, it's hard to imagine, but it's best to listen to those with personal experience. If you're a feminist, think about it like this: do you ever try to educate cismen on their male privilege and they just don't get it and think it doesn't exist because they don't experience it? This probably isn't something you're going to understand since you don't personally experience that separation of sex and gender, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have trans* friends in RL, and after knowing it's hard not to at least see their side. I still can't personally identify with them, but I will admit that beginning to see myself as agender at times (it was actually really scary when I went through my first year or so period of being disassociated with any gender) has helped my understanding a bit, though that still isn't the same experience, and I still can't personally relate. I'll never be able to empathize with what transpeople go through - but I don't have to be able to empathize or even perfectly understand to respect their identity and acknowledge their oppression. Perhaps you should visit the askatranswoman tumblr (not linking due to some possibly non-PG content). It could help. The dearcispeople tumblr is also really illuminating, but if you can't handle anger at the cis community for ignorance of their privilege, then I wouldn't check it out.

 

As for people repeating that they 'accept transfolk' - it'd really be better to show rather than tell. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Try to educate yourself so that you can get it as well as you can. Listen when they speak. Try to understand where they're coming from and why they may ask for what they're asking for (such as entrance to feminist spaces). Ask questions if you have to rather than arguing. If you accept transfolk, you won't need to say it - it will show. It just...it comes off a tad like when people say "I have x oppressed friend, so I can't be -ist", yannow? =X

 

*hugs* Not quite what I meant, hun, but thanks. More that the only people who have ever really understood the horror at seeing your body change during puberty are the people who have been through it. I imagine it's the same for rape survivours. It's nice to know the support is there, but sometimes the only people that really understand are the ones who have been there. <3

 

Ahhh, yeah, okay, I gotchya! <3

 

Would it make you feel better if I also used the term men-born-men (MBM)? Because it's a word I've been toying with in my head and that I like a way to specify males who identify as men.

 

Not in the slightest. Cisgender male or cismen is the correct term.

 

There is no "cis" privilege for WBW. Any privileges supposedly gained by acting as a woman under the patriarchy are false, since acting as a woman is to be submissive, quiet, and pretty to look at for MBM. WBW do not gain anything from the oppression of trans people, no special rights, no immunities to male violence, nothing.

 

Except there is. Here are two lists of privileges we have by being cis.

http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/1...der-privileges/

Facing oppression as a woman doesn't erase our cis privilege. Cis privilege doesn't mean you don't face other oppressions. But just like other privileges, we are just so used to it that it can be hard to see. But, like other privileges, that doesn't erase the privilege. You've brought up several cis privileges just in this conversation - the WBW/MBM terms, the trans-exclusionary practices, and radical feminism all stem from cis privilege.

 

You might as well say that black people are privileged over Arabic people because they're not automatically suspected of terrorism or something.

 

Except that race is race but gender is sex. It's two different isms. Although it would be silly not to admit that different races can face racism in different forms.

 

You say we can't ignore one oppression to try to fight another, and yet by saying we shouldn't be allowed to have female-only spaces you are ignoring the oppression that people who are born female face for being born female, which is different in many ways from the oppression transwomen face.

 

I'm saying that there should be exclusive safe spaces alongside the inclusive safe spaces. Both are important. You are saying WBW shouldn't have ANY spaces to themselves away from male-bodied or man-identified people, despite their different experiences and potential discomfort around said male-bodied or man-identified individuals due to past trauma from MBM.

 

I'm saying that if you feel unsafe around transpeople, you should probably evaluate your cis privilege again.

 

So let's just force some male-bodied people on them, and it'll all work out? The fact that post-traumatic stress can continue for years or even a lifetime, that doesn't matter? The fact that WBW, who are oppressed by MBM, sometimes want to get away from male bodies and male socialization, that's oppressive?

 

What if they're NOT ready to deal with those triggers? What if they want to share experiences with others, but are uncomfortable with the idea of sharing them with transwomen? Group therapy is a very powerful thing, and yet by saying WBW should have no female-only spaces, you are denying a comfortable group therapy environment to people with those triggers.

 

Do you really think those experiences and feelings of fear would just go away with some education and understanding? Would you expect any other oppressed group to be that way? Would you tell a Latin American immigration support group that they must accept Korean immigrants, even though they want it to be for Latin Americans only? I mean, they both experienced racism and aren't white, so of course they belong together, right?

 

No, of course not. So why do so many people think it's alright to do that to women? Why are the thoughts and feelings of WBW on issues regarding themselves always disregarded?

 

My heart is pounding in my ears right now with anger at this apparent disregard for the feelings of female victims of violence and harassment. I can't anymore.

 

I am saying that transwomen are women too and, as Tiki pointed out, transpeople face higher rates of rape. I am just saying that if a rape survivor is to the point where they can walk around an area like that, they are recovering. I hope that they have others there with them who they have safe words with or such and can get them to a private place or walk them through it. I'm not trying to invalidate their experiences as a survivor, but being a survivor doesn't mean they can't also have prejudices that they need to overcome.

 

Really, I'm not sure why you keep trying to compare this to racial groups, though. (Racial groups do often try to include and be supportive of each other, too, except when other groups are acting prejudiced against them.) It's a flawed analogy though because a Korean isn't Brazilian and a Brazilian isn't Korean (unless they're a mixed POC of those races), but a transwoman is still a woman.

 

I followed the reply to the other thread and found you chastising someone in the abortion thread for a comment about men getting pregnant with something about how "some men can get pregnant." This is why we need WBW-only spaces, because WBW aren't free to voice their opinions on matters that primarily concern them without people policing them. It's true that transmen can get pregnant, but it's not at all appropriate to interrupt a discussion on women's rights and to counteract a justifiably angry comment with "but what about THESE men?". I really do hope that you see how that's offensive.

 

No, actually, I don't understand how it's offensive to remind someone that non-binary genders do exist. I do see how it's offensive to invalidate the experiences of a transman, though. Yes, it's a good point that cismen are the ones policing the choices of female-bodied, but it's not okay to erase transpeople when talking about women's rights. Women's rights involve transpeople, too. It's also really not that hard to change "men" to "cismen" or etc. It takes an extra two seconds to type to include more people in our fight for rights.

 

EDIT: I used women* first instead of female-bodied, but I am uncomfortable with that term, so I changed it.

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post
Hazeh - If you're having a hard time imagining, I'd really check out Tiki's links. Yeah, it's hard to imagine, but it's best to listen to those with personal experience. If you're a feminist, think about it like this: do you ever try to educate cismen on their male privilege and they just don't get it and think it doesn't exist because they don't experience it? This probably isn't something you're going to understand since you don't personally experience that separation of sex and gender, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have trans* friends in RL, and after knowing it's hard not to at least see their side. I still can't personally identify with them, but I will admit that beginning to see myself as agender at times (it was actually really scary when I went through my first year or so period of being disassociated with any gender) has helped my understanding a bit, though that still isn't the same experience, and I still can't personally relate. I'll never be able to empathize with what transpeople go through - but I don't have to be able to empathize or even perfectly understand to respect their identity and acknowledge their oppression. Perhaps you should visit the askatranswoman tumblr (not linking due to some possibly non-PG content). It could help. The dearcispeople tumblr is also really illuminating, but if you can't handle anger at the cis community for ignorance of their privilege, then I wouldn't check it out.

 

As for people repeating that they 'accept transfolk' - it'd really be better to show rather than tell. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Try to educate yourself so that you can get it as well as you can. Listen when they speak. Try to understand where they're coming from and why they may ask for what they're asking for (such as entrance to feminist spaces). Ask questions if you have to rather than arguing. If you accept transfolk, you won't need to say it - it will show. It just...it comes off a tad like when people say "I have x oppressed friend, so I can't be -ist", yannow? =X

 

Oh, I never meant to say I don't think people experience it. I know they experience that fully, and I know I will not share in that experience.

I think what I'm asking is not coming across the way I mean it to. I'm not "ist" towards anything, that I'm aware of, because I don't have a prejudice against anyone. I don't believe I do, anyway, just as I don't have expectations of any particular group or individual. I as well have trans* (what's the * mean, anyhow?) friends, as well as have met drag queens who are cis and all sorts of inbetweens. I don't mean to use those as an excuse, but I don't think I'm particularly ill educated on the subject of transfolk. I apologize if it came about that way.

 

My question has less to do with people/groups/communities in particular, and more of conceptually. Like I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what each gender actually is, if it's not a gender role reflecting what is expected by society (which I reject). I'm not saying I don't believe they aren't the same, but that it makes more sense in my head when I try to think about it. Trying to think about gender in some other form kind of feels like trying to hold a wet fish. I've always been told that gender and sex are different (sex is the physical body, gender is the mental perception), which I agree with, and that trans people are those who have opposite sexes to their gender until they transition. So then we have two forces trying to liberate what a woman (men too, but using women as an example here) is or can be. I.e., a woman can be masculine, like "boy" things, etc, and have a penis. Which leads to conflict in my head, because then I can't identify what it means to be a woman, especially when I look at my own self and suddenly can't figure out what exactly makes me female.

That's all I'm trying to figure out here, I don't believe I have issues with the trans community.

Share this post


Link to post

And a biological male being a woman is not going to make her status as a biological male less threatening. Why should a woman who is, for example, in a female-only rape counseling center have to listen to a biologically male woman when another biological male is 99.99% likely the reason she's there in the first place? She's there to deal with rape. Not every space has to be about listening and learning about different types of people, sometimes people just need support or a place to vent freely to others who will understand their experience without worrying that someone is going to be offended by your venting.
Not all rapists are males, fyi. Female rapists are notably rarer, but they happen nevertheless. And all abusers definitely aren't males. You're coming across as very misandristic, you know, extremely so. Men aren't always the culprits. There are women and men who are more uncomfortable around women, simply because they were abused by women. Just being the "oppressed sex" - which is a lot less prevalent in some places than others - doesn't mean that a similar amount of them as can be found amongst the representatives of the other sex wouldn't be abusive. Abusive women are a thing, and you cannot dismiss it and speak as though men were the only bad ones and always doing things, and never the other way around. Being abusive can never be excused, not even with oppressed groups.

 

- I myself generally feel more comfortable being the only woman in an otherwise all-male group than being one in a large female-only group. (And I've never been targeted with abuse.)

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

Time and place. Policing a woman's anger at oppressive legislation to remind her that non-binary people exist and to fix her language accordingly is inappropriate and derailing. I'm a woman who takes the abortion issue VERY seriously and that sort of derailing literally infuriates me. Please don't do it.

So first off: I'm completely pro-choice, and I take abortion debates very seriously. Which is why I'm including this here. Also I seem to be using 'you' a lot in this following explanation - I'm going for plural - after the first sentence - rather than specifically you AngelKitty (although I am responding to your quote).

 

I'm just going to disagree with you when it comes to abortion and it being ciswomen (or WBW) space. Because no. Abortion is a human issue. Saying 'person who's carrying' instead of 'pregnant woman' is not a big thing. It is not inappropriate to point it out, nor is it derailing. It makes your argument stronger, because you're including a wider community, you're considering the whole implication of the law/legislation and most of all you're showing a wider understanding of the issue.

 

I'm not articulating this well, but this is really important (although you may disagree completely) abortion discussions, and feminist discussions need to be universal. Both of those discussions have a huge impact on the whole of humanity. Saying abortion-discussions are ciswomen only is ridiculous. It implies that, that your opinion is only valid if the issue effects you directly, so women who are infertile -out, women who no longer can conceive, over 50? -out. An abortion law doesn't just impact the rights of people who are carrying. It lowers the standard of living for everyone.

 

Yes, people who are carrying/might get pregnant in the future, should have the most weight to their argument - this effect them personally! - but it doesn't automatically invalidate anyone else opinion. I am going to listen to a cisman on an abortion issue - just listen - because they might say something worthwhile. They might not - they might be a mens-right activist, who is strongly Christians and uses his faith to justify his pro-life views. But as long as they word their argument respectfully, mindful of the fact that their opinion isn't the most important I am going to listen.

 

In a discussion/debate that deal with feminism, sexism or abortion all voice and opinions - as long as they're worded respectfully and mindfully etc. - have the right to be hear. Because those issues effect everyone, to a different degree - but still everyone. If someone's partner chooses abortion it does effect them, not as much the person carrying but it does still effect them.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a time and a place where certain people sticking their opinions in isn't appropriate (an online example would be someone posting in comments on a personal blog). But it should be welcome is a discussion/debate. More so, it is necessary in a discussion debate.

 

About cis-privilage. It does exist - yes cis-women experience less privilege than cis-men, but that doesn't change than this exists. I've skimmed through the links you sent (I really can't bring myself to read them fully, to me they're horrific and for anyone else huge TW:transphobia). Yes transphobia is in part (or even completely) caused by patriachry. That doesn't invalidate the fact that discrimination toward transfolk and genderqeer exist that ciswomen don't experience.

 

One of the main arguments against cis-privilage point by point is that a ciswoman can experience those things as well. Yes, but the example they gave were isolated. While almost all transpeople might experience X and only a very specific subset of ciswomen might experience X.

 

Intersectionality is important! Acknowledging your privilege is important. The same way a white feminist in US is more privileged than PoC feminist in US, and a straight feminist is more privileged than a LGBTQ+ feminist etc.

Share this post


Link to post

If anything I said came across as transphobic, then I apologize, as I was not trying to insult trans people. I am angry because I feel like female women's experiences and desires are being trampled when people tell them they can't have spaces to themselves, or that they shouldn't talk certain ways about issues that pertain to them, etc. It's policing and oppressive.

 

Most of what you are saying comes across as transphobic. It still does - even most of the rest of the post I'm now quoting. Some of the ideas you are espousing are inherantly transphobic, and until you move away from that you are going to continue to come acorss that way.

 

Incidently you probably don't realise quite how upsetting and, yes, traumatic this discussion is for me. You may be feeling angry - but please understand that I have been feeling like my identity is being beaten down, my rights crushed, and any idea that should ever be accepted fully chucked straight out the window. This discussion has been *haunting* me for most of the day. By all means get angry about the continued disparity between teh sexes - but please don't 'other' and humiliate us along the way.

 

Incidently had you noticed that many of the people disagreeing with you are ciswomen? As far as I am aware the only male in this discussion is me (and I'm not living full time, either. I'm female bodied and am still percieved as a woman in my work life). You are not being beaten down by an opressive patriarchy here, you have strong and opinionated *women* (not myself - I classify myself as a man) strongly disagreeing with you. That is *not* trampling womens rights.

 

I checked out all the links and don't really see much I disagree with, and most of what I disagree with is terminology-semantics stuff. I know that trans people face more in terms of rape and violence than someone who lives as their assigned sex does. Trans people certainly don't have privilege for being trans, though a transman who passes as male would experience male privilege unless outed. I don't feel like trans people make mockeries of women. I don't feel like SRS is self-harm - it's obviously healing to people with dysphoria.

 

I don't even think trans people worship gender roles. But I feel like some people who claim to be trans despite experiencing no dysphoria because they prefer the opposite gender role are problematic and help to uphold those stereotypes. I'm talking about the people who say "I'm really a woman because I like pink" or "I'm a man because I'm more logical-minded than women are" and other such things but do not actually experience dysphoria. Out of curiosity do you regard such people as being trans, or as appropriating trans identities?

 

I do not presume to judge the validity of someone elses experiences. If a person feels they identify as trans then I personally welcome them. One does not suddenly 'become' trans once one goes onto HRT, and there are trans people who are comfortable enough living and presenting their chosen gender identity that they never feel the need to take that step (there are also trans folk who cannot *afford* to do so - which is another issue). Not all trans people have the same levels of body-dysphoria (mine is very heightened, as it happens). I would never deny someone their trans-status because I had prejudged them on some level of 'more trans than you are'.

 

I think that's sad. If someone is trans then they shouldn't have to jump through hoops and conform to a stereotype to receive treatment they need. I would like to see these gender roles abolished. Gone. Done with, so nobody ever has to deal with them ever again and we can all be who we want to be without judgment.

 

Sadly you are still supporting that judgement. Especially when you note that transwomen who pass well would be more welcome than ones that don't. And that *is* cis privilage showing. As you say - trans people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to be acecpted... and yet you expect them to jump through those same hoops yourself before you will fully accept them as women.

 

I think, if people looked past the differences in terminology, methodology, and labels like "radfem" and "libfem" or whatever they'd see that the feminist and trans movements really want the same basic thing in the end. The abolishment of oppressive stereotypical gender roles. Everyone to be able to live as they want to. No judgment or oppression based on sex, sexuality, gender identity, etc. Everyone accepted for who they are. An end to male violence. 

 

And yet, again, you are supporting a policy that actively judges people based on their percieved sex. How is that not going against everything you've just tried to say?

 

Yes, I know. But not all of that socialization is visual. People treat boys differently than they do girls. Boys are more likely to be praised for their intellect and accomplishments, they're more likely to be listened to and taken seriously in a conversation. Girls are praised for how good they make themselves look, and are less likely to be taken seriously in a conversation or told to keep quiet about things that are bothering her. This might be changing, but if it is, it's changing painfully slowly.

 

Even you are using 'more likely' rather than 'are'. You *know* there are people out there who weren't raised like that. And you *know* that the number of those people is increasing. It's also important to note that the attitudes of the people you are growing up with have a *huge* impact. I have no idea how you can assume that a middle class white woman with liberal parents has had the same socialisation during her upbringing as a poor black woman from a Conservative Christian background. You can't know how a person has been raised without *asking* them. You cartainly can't know by simply asking about their genitals - or worse making a snap decision based on how well they pass!

 

I just recently read something interesting from a transwoman about the reality of male socialization (who also states how that socialization can be reversed over time as one begins to assimilate). Here's her blog.

 

I have read that. I am sure people that were pro-slavery were also able to trot out slaves that were happy with their lives, and I know there are plenty of women out there who support the patriarchy. Still doesn't make it right.

 

I never thought about socialization as being reversible

 

I presume you've always assumed 'once a man, always a man'. Which is such a deep level of transphobia most people don't even realise that's what it is.

 

It will not reverse in all individuals, and even if it is reversed, it still affects their experiences and perspective on things. If things were like I mentioned above, the ideal world with no male violence or privilege and no gender-stereotypical socialization, there'd be no need for those exclusive spaces. But, for now, there is.

 

But all people are *individuals* with individual experiences. Two ciswomen can have had life experiences that were poles apart, and it's perfectly possible for them to have more in common with the transwoman than they actually do with each other.

 

And I totally agree that there should be safe spaces for women. I just think that needs to be *all* women, not simply the ones you think look right.

 

Pfft, I don't prize those sorts of socialization at all. You seem to think I like it. I don't, I want it done away with. But as things are now, it happens, and that's a fact, and it means that female children are going to have different experiences and be treated differently from male ones, which leads to differing adult perspectives.

 

So does race, class, and religion. Socialisation is about more than perceived gender as a child. I do not think the cause of equality is helped by attempting to reduce all problems to a simple male/female dichotomy. (Not to mention I find it extremely arrogant to assume that every person born in a female body must have had the same experience you did growing up).

 

The male genitalia thing was more in regards to things like MichFest, where women can and do go nude. Rape survivors attend that too, and may be triggered by the sight of male parts and could feel like they're unable to go nude and be comfortable in the presence of someone who is biologically male, whereas they could in front of other female women.

 

And, again, you're assuming that a transwoman would actually want to have her genitals on display. I personally know a transwoman who was at the point of trying to remove hers with a butchers knife. Why would any of us want to display body-parts that are, for us, deeply shame-inducing. And if we're not naked... surely we're back to judging transwomen by how they look, and only accepting them if they pass well?

 

Incidently using 'female women' (God even typing that was difficult) is, if anything, *more* horridly transphobic than the previous term you were using. The term you are looking for - if you really do not want to provide offence - is ciswomen.

 

As far as rape shelters go, if a transwoman doesn't fully pass, that can cause significant distress in someone who is terrified of anyone they perceive as male. Even if they wouldn't normally have trouble with a transwoman elsewhere, even if they understand that a transwoman is a woman, the idea of discussing their experience in front of someone who is biologically male may not be pleasant and shouldn't be forced on anyone.

 

And someone who had been raped by a black man could argue that the sight of black skin is horribly triggering, and that she should have a right to be in a white-only shelter. That would, quite rightly, be shot down as an idea. Because no woman, no person should be judged for something they were born with. And yet here you are, saying that if she doesn't pass well that's the end of it - she's not as much of a woman as you are. As if she's some kind of second-class woman. Do we really want to have a policy of DADT for transwomen that pass well, while completely excluding ones that don't? Or would you rather interrogate *every* woman on the door to make sure she's not trans before you let her in (which wouldn't be at all traumatic and shaming, even for the cis women)? Or how about we just accept all women as women?

 

There are things that have happened to me that I would discuss with other female women, but that I'd be uncomfortable discussing with a man (trans or otherwise) or a transwoman. This isn't because I hate any of those people, or fear them, or think of them as lesser, but because it makes me uncomfortable to bring up my issues with males around other males.

 

And here we come to the crux of the problem. To you, a transwoman is still a male. You haven't accepted her, however much you may like to think you have. Referring to transwomen as male is transphobic. It is denying everything about who they are.

 

I assume, of course, that you don't ask to see every woman naked before you talk to her, or grill her on her medical history first. Which means you are reinforcing the idea that a transwoman has to pass well to be truly accepted. And then only for as long as she remains 'stealth'.

 

One assumes you would also feel deceived if one of your female friends was 'outed' to you as trans, when she had been in deep stealth and you had no idea? Would you suddenly decide that she was not the person you thought you knew? Would you suddenly start rejecting her for being 'male'? Would you feel like all the discussions you had already had with her were somehow tainted?

 

This is transphobia. Many people who truly think they are tolerant suffer from it. Do some soul-searching. Think how you would react if you learned that a woman you had know for years was a transwoman in deep stealth. If you feel your relationship with her would in any way be changed, then you are not as tolerant as you think you are.

 

And as far as I was aware there were some that didn't allow male children and male relatives. Male children are one thing, since they require their mother to care for them if their father is abusive and they are not adult males. Adult male relatives visiting, I don't know if I like the idea of that, because of the issue of male adults being around traumatized women.

 

Or male police officers, then. That said this side-tracks the issue slightly (because I think you missed the point I was trying to make by a mile - which was why let male-identifying people in to visit, when you wouldn't allow a female-indetifying person in to stay) because transwomen are not male.

 

Uhm no? Point out where I said trans people shouldn't have access to any shelters ever. I've said repeatedly that I support shelters for transwomen/transmen/both, female-only shelters and inclusive shelters and discussion spaces. I even support men-only shelters. EVERYONE should have access to a space where they feel COMFORTABLE and SAFE.

 

Please stop tying to make me seem evil and read my posts.

 

I am not trying to make you seem evil. I am trying to make you realise that you are showing deep, subconscious transphobia. It's rather like you struggling to get a man to realise he has male-privilag, and is being misogynist. I need you to realise that you have cis-privilage and are being transphobic.

 

'Othering' Trans people does not help them gain equality.

 

I actually feel the same way. I'm not all that feminine, but if I woke up in a male body tomorrow my reaction would probably be more along the lines of "hey neat, I wonder how this works!" then panic over being in the wrong body.

 

I realize there are some people who feel that their body is an essential part of who they are (I get that, I mean, you live in it) and when that body doesn't match what the brain thinks it's supposed to be, it causes dysphoria. I just...don't. The shape of my body doesn't make me. I'm a woman because I was born in a female body and I'm okay with that, but it's not an essential part of who I am, if that makes sense.

 

This is cis privilage. And it's why trans people have such a hard time gaining acceptance. Because cis people simply cannot comprehend what this means to us. The wya to combat it is to accept what we are telling you about our experiences, not attempt to invalidate them because you haven't had those experiences.

 

Edit: My quotes aren't working. Why aren't my quotes working? This now looks like a horrible wall of text!

One of the end quotes was missing the slash. o3o

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

So I've been doing some mind-numbing boring, file sorting today and I've been thinking. We've been talking about different types of feminism etc and it's inherent problems etc. So I was wondering this (to anyone who wants to answer):

 

1) Do you identify as a feminist? If so any specific type of feminism?

2) Are you involved in other types of activism?

3) What the main oppression you face/what's your main type of activism (What are the others?)

 

 

For me: I identify as an intersectional feminist (or perhaps more accurately an intersectional anti-racist with strong feminist leanings). I'm mostly involved in anti-racism, LGBTQ+ rights and feminism (I support a huge number of other -isms, but they don't affect as much personally, so I tend let the people who know better do the talking). The main oppression I face is racism, followed my misogyny/LGBTQ+phobia (at about equal levels). I'm involved in various activities at my university, but mainly I am a welfare officer for fellow students and am open to discussions/debates on my activisms*. Being open and happy to talk often allowed people to see beyond prejudice and stereotypes which is <3

 

(* Best compliment I've got so far was: "You're the only non scary feminist I know." Followed by a question xd.png )

Edited by ebony ink

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.