Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah, I know this is stupid and ciscentric and probably homophobic on top of it all, but the intersection between gender-based sexuality and trans* really blows my mental gears.

 

It's completely intellectual, because it doesn't matter to me; if A finds B attractive and vice versa, and A and B both consent, then it's bizarre to me that anyone should care about what they get up to together. If two people want to bind themselves together in a semi-permanent manner, great! And if your body doesn't match what you think it should be, you should have the full support of society to make it comfortable for you.

 

So... it doesn't matter, but it makes my head hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

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 think I got my point across as well as I hoped. x3

 

My point is that without that separation...you're probably never going to understand. You just can't. I can't. For us, its just there. It's not something we've ever had to confront.

 

To be honest, though, I think you're thinking too hard about what makes someone female. I think you need to confront the ideas you did have and ask why there needs to be some kind of test to past that makes you a woman. Do you feel like a woman? Do you identify as a woman? Then you're a woman! Why is it that you need to meet some kind of standard? Why would there be some set of things you needed to like to be a woman?

 

The asterisk after trans* is to include all trans-identities.

 

I'm just gonna drop these here.

 

http://womenofthepatriarchy.wordpress.com/...ge-list-part-1/ (warning for some language)

 

And

 

http://snowflakeespecial.tumblr.com/post/5...alsely-situates

 

Just because someone is oppressed or disadvantaged for something doesn't mean people without the disadvantage are privileged. Thin privilege, for example, is also not a thing, because even though fat people experience tons of body shaming and remarks, so do thin people - and it's all encompassed under patriarchal beauty ideals. The remarks they receive are different, and fat people receive more flack for their bodies, but thin is not a privilege.

 

Those...completely missed the point of cis privilege. Ebony ink said it rather well: "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." So ciswomen can experience anxiety going to the restroom, too, sure. It's really not for the same reasons that transpeople feel anxiety going to the bathroom. It's not something ciswomen even have to think about - the fact that they could be judged, attacked, or kicked out of the bathroom for 'not' belonging there.

 

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.

 

But it's not only ciswomen who are personally affected by the abortion debate. It is not derailing to make sure all female-bodied are recognized in the abortion debate. It is derailing to insist that non-ciswomen female-bodied don't belong in the debate. =\

 

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?)

 

1) Yes, intersectional feminist

2) Involved in anti-racist and anti-colorism/shadeism, anti-cissexist and anti-transmisogynistic, anti-heterosexist and anti-monosexist, anti-binarist, anti-ableist, and anti-sizeist/weightist activism

3) I face oppression against ciswomen and oppression against the GSM community (as I'm panromantic, sometimes aromantic, asexual). I wouldn't say I have a main type of activism, though in most I am an ally not an affected, so I understand sexism and anti-asexual ideals best.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I've never been in that situation so I can't say for sure. I wouldn't be mad at her because I understand why she'd never say anything, and we'd continue to be friends and do whatever we used to do, but I don't know that I'd discuss the deep details of my sex life with her anymore.

 

That's not transphobia. That's me choosing who and what kind of people I want to discuss the most personal parts of my life with. What the censorkip.gif should I do, announce every personal thing to all of my friends ever in the name of being inclusionary?!

 

But nope I'm just a transphobe with cis privilege. I'm getting sick of, and sick at, the complete disregard for women's autonomy and right to discuss what they want with WHO they want.

 

How can you advocate so strongly that gender shouldn't matter what-so-ever (and should in fact be abolished) when you would stop treating this hypothetical friend in the same way you would have before they "outed" themself to you?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the main problem, AngelKitty, is that you're implying that transwomen aren't REAL women. It doesn't matter that you're not saying it directly, or even if you don't MEAN to say it. The fact remains that you are very definitely implying it. If you can't see why that's hurtful, then there's not much point to this argument. And no amount of "that's not what I'm saying" or "that's not what I mean" is going to change the fact that you ARE implying it. (I absolutely don't think you do mean it, so I'm letting you know that that's how you're coming across.)

 

So you've given a couple examples of cases where you think ciswomen should have the right to exclude transwomen-to deal with experiences unique to them, and to deal with rape trauma. In the case of rape trauma, if they literally can't stand to be in the presence of a fully-clothed male-bodied person, no matter how feminine she is, then I agree that the victim needs a very, very specialized recovery environment. I think these cases are very rare though, and she will eventually need to be re-acclimated to living in a world with male-bodied people (after all, they're only about 50% of the population). She can't live in this sheltered world for the rest of her life. That doesn't mean she should immediately be thrown into circumstances where she's uncomfortable; I'm not saying that at all. Just that she gets her time to recover, but that can't last forever. What it really boils down to is that I think these very rare cases are traumatic enough that they deserve special treatment, but also rare enough that we shouldn't form a general treatment plan around them.

 

The other point you make is about conventions-that ciswomen should have a space where they can be surrounded by only other female-bodied people to share their experiences. I think it depends on the degree. I believe everyone should have the right to form their own small groups of friends and associates of whatever kind of people they want to surround themselves with. People should be free to form their own group, even if others consider the group bigoted. However, when it comes to larger, organized groups the rules are different. You compare a ciswomen convention to being similar to a black women convention, but I don't think that's really true. I think it's more like a white women convention. If WOC face oppression that is different from those faced by white women, then shouldn't the reverse be true as well? Do you think that because white women face oppression that is different from WOC, that they should be allowed to hold a white women only convention? I think that minorities have more of a right to come together than majorities do. When minorities unite, they're reaffirming the power they do have, and showing that they're not alone. When majorities unite (especially if they specifically exclude minorities) it's another way to oppress them. A way to say "you're still not welcome here." Which in my opinion, isn't alright.

Edited by hydrargyrum

Share this post


Link to post

I think with large groups it depends on how much of the space/time is exclusive. If a convention were to have separate panels dedicated to certain exclusive things, but many of them to end up including as many as possible within the spectrum, that would most likely be fine.

 

For clarity's sake, let's say it's a pagan festival of some sort, and there are workshops (panels/events/insert name here) dedicated to things like this:

 

The Female Form/The Male Form/Duality of Form/The Vessel for the Soul (for all female-bodied/all male-bodied/intersex/everyone - the celebration of the body, regardless of gender)

The Female Principle/The Male Principle/Balanced Principles/Principles in Harmony (for all women/all men/agender and genderfluid/everyone - the celebration of the gender/concept, regardless of body)

 

If the organizers were to schedule an exclusive event, others that would cover the rest need to be scheduled (and an all-inclusive version, if possible) so that in the end, everyone can participate in an exclusive event if they wish (or just the all-inclusive one, if desired).

Edited by Kith

Share this post


Link to post

Hi guys! Guess what?

 

Transwomen are women too! =D And transmen are men, too!

 

Haha, ok, just wanted to make sure everybody got that.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think I got my point across as well as I hoped. x3

 

My point is that without that separation...you're probably never going to understand. You just can't. I can't. For us, its just there. It's not something we've ever had to confront.

 

To be honest, though, I think you're thinking too hard about what makes someone female. I think you need to confront the ideas you did have and ask why there needs to be some kind of test to past that makes you a woman. Do you feel like a woman? Do you identify as a woman? Then you're a woman! Why is it that you need to meet some kind of standard? Why would there be some set of things you needed to like to be a woman?

 

The asterisk after trans* is to include all trans-identities.

 

Ah. I had a feeling that was what prevented me from figuring it all out. u_u

 

And yes, I do tend to overthink things |D That's why I posted here to try and clarify the jumbled mess in my head. I was hoping since DC had some individuals who are personally affected by it, that someone might be able to explain it to me in a way that I could understand. But I realize that since my sex and gender aren't separate entities in my own head, that I could not possibly identify them separately in a way that makes sense to me.

 

Sigh.

 

Oh, and I don't think there needs to be a standard. I'm not searching for a definition in order to be able to adhere to it, I was just searching for the definition because it's been confusing me between all of the PC debates going on currently. And I'm sure that's why there's still so much opposition to feminism and trans rights, is because other cispeople like me just can't comprehend the differences.

 

I think it's more of my innate need to know things just for the sake of knowing them, other than me knowing it because I need to utilize the information for myself.

 

 

 

Tiki, I don't know if I contributed to your anxiety, but if I haven't, would you mind answering a question for me? You can respond to me via PM if it's too personal for you, or not at all if you wish not too.

I was just wondering, what does being male mean to you? Other than being able to have a physically male body, what would you describe makes you male rather than female? (I promise I'm not trying to undermine your experiences, I completely acknowledge that you're a dude, I'm just miserably curious)

Share this post


Link to post

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?)

1.) Yes, but no particular type (although I admittedly am one of those who has been starting to feel inclined to identify as simply equal-rights activist due to some more radical misandrist examples).

2.) Yes. I am an all-out equal-rights activist, basically carrying the ideal of everyone being judged by individual abilities, not broad category. Also anti-censorship and anti excessive (government) regulation, anti-flacking (flacking as in the activity wherein a person is being unjustly or prematurely accused of something, typically publicly, occasionally with systematic setups and paid witnesses atop of just the flacker(s) themselves spreading the information), anti-exclusion, anti forced-religion/traditions.

3.) Sexism (both misogyny and misandry), racism, forcing religion, censorship, invasion of privacy, lack of right to self-defense, flacking, excessive regulation, societal phobias.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

Oh boy, I've been stalking this thread a while, and I need clarification.

Can someone please define transgender for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Can someone please define transgender for me?

A person whose sex and gender do not match up (whose "brain sex" doesn't match the one's body's assets, if you wish), but who hasn't gone through any corrective surgery to make the body match the brain.

 

Basically:

Transgender: a trans person who hasn't had corrective surgery (still lives with the biological body).

Transsexual: a trans person who has had corrective surgery (has had body altered to match the correct sex).

Share this post


Link to post

I think all references to gender should now just be replaced with neutral expressions. He, she, him, s/he, etc => it. His, her, hir, etc => it's. Male, female, trans, etc => ape.

 

No more worrying about gender identity when we're all classed as apes.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

No quotes this time, as I'm not actually directly replying to anything.

 

I realise that trying to follow the discussion that has been happening may not exactly have been easy. There have probably been terms and opinions tossed about that are unfamiliar to many people. So I figured I would clarify what has been being discussed, my stance on it, and why I hold that position.

 

'WBW' is an abbreviation for 'Women-Born-Women'. It is used to refer to women that were assigned the female sex at birth (Cis-women), as opposed to women who were not (Transwomen, although could also inculde intersex individuals incorrectly assigned at birth).

 

The term is most commonly used when discussing wether or not such women should have spaces into which women who were not assigned the female sex at birth should not be allowed. This is the discussion we have been having. As you may have noticed, it is quite emotionally charged.

 

My stance is both that a) the 'WBW' term in and of itself is exclusionary in it's nature and that B) Transwomen should not be excluded from any woman-only spaces.

 

I have this stance for several reasons.

 

1. The use of the term 'Women Born Women' and/or 'female women' is 'othering' to the transwoman, and the trans population in general. It is thus transphobic.

- By forcing a distinction between cis-women and transwomen, using such terms, it implies that the transwoman is somehow less of a woman than her cis counterpart. The reverse 'Men Born Men' term would also imply that a transman is somehow less of a man than his cis counterpart.

- Such a term precludes complete acceptance of the trans individual and their gender. Given how any trans person will have struggled most of their pre-transition life with being told they cannot be the person they are, to continue to tell them they cannot be that person is mentally very damaging.

 

2. In order to exclude transwomen from any woman-only space requires one of two things - either invasive questioning of every woman on the 'doorstep', or snap judgements made based on a womans looks. This is problematic on several levels.

- The asking of invasive questions about a person's medical history (and/or worse, asking for them to 'prove' their gender by showing parts of their body) is demeaning to anyone.

- It is not always visually apparent that a person is trans. In such cases invasive questioning *would* be required to determine their trans status. (Note - even a simple "Are you trans?" is extremely rude, no matter wether the person it is addressed to is cis- or -trans-. Especially when such a question is ilnked to denial of entry/service.)

- Apart from other issues basing the decision on looks, rather than questioning, is effectively a form of DATD. If we can't tell, we won't ask. This attempts to create two 'classes' of transwoman, those that are 'in' and those that are 'out'.

 

3. The assumption or assertion that no transwoman may be admitted, regardless of ability to pass or stage of transition. This is inherantly transphobic.

- As previously stated this 'others' the transwoman, and denies her full acceptance as being a woman.

- As previously stated this could only be enforced by invasive questioning, which would be extremely rude to all involved.

 

4. The assumption or assertion that transwomen who 'pass' well may be admitted, but that transwomen who do not pass well would not. This is inherantly sexist.

- Judging a transwoman on wether or not she 'passes' is essentially sexist because it judges a woman purely on how she looks - worse, on wether she looks 'female' enough or not.

- As far as I was aware one of the base ideals of feminism is that no woman should be judged based soley on her looks, and wether or not another person thinks she is suitably 'womanly'.

 

4. The assumption or assertion that only transwomen who have had 'lower surgery' (vaginoplasty and/or castration) would be admitted, but that transwomen who haven't would not. This is inherantly classist.

- Access to surgery often depends entirely on how much money one has - and surgery of this type is very expensive. Restricting access only to those who have had surgery effectively restricts access to only those transwomen who are relatively 'well off'. Even those transwomen with insurance cover will often find their insurance won't cover such surgery, as it tends to be defined as 'cosmetic'. In some countries this may not be the case (for instance in the UK it will be provided on the NHS) but there are often long waiting times and a lot of paperwork.

- 'Top Surgery' (breast implants for transwomen, or removal for transman) is rarely covered even by Nationalised health care as it is deemed soley cosmetic. Thus any judgement made on the appearance of a person's chest is, again, classist as only those with enough funds will ahve been able to access it. (Not to mention judging a woman by the size of her breasts is really as sexist as it gets).

- Again, this requires either invasive questioning or a physical examination to determine. Either action would be both traumatic and demeaning to the woman involved (wether trans or cis).

 

5. The assertion or assumption that transwomen are 'still male'. This is transphobic.

- Doing so denies that a transwoman can ever actually be a woman (or, for that matter, that a transman can ever 'really' be a man). It perpetuates the 'othering' of transpeople.

- Doing so also makes the assumption that gender and biology are inextricably linked. It effectively sends the message that a transperson will forever have to remain in a state that causes them a large amount of distress, and that nothing they can do will ever gain them acceptence as the person they are.

 

I may edit this later (dinner is ready, so I need to stop typing) but that's the basic list.

 

@ Hazeh - will put a reply in the trans/gender thread for you once I've eaten. <3

Share this post


Link to post

Alright, I (shamefully, cause I thought I knew a lot) apparently know very little on this issue.

 

I am a bit confused, transphobic seems to be an incorrect use of the word phobia, (I have studied a bit into symetics (which I cannot spell right dry.gif), though not too much) as trans is an abbreviation for transgender ect, and phobia means fear.

Can someone explain how that works, I am not trying to offend anyone. Well, at least not yet, I usually end up offending everyone somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Alright, I (shamefully, cause I thought I knew a lot) apparently know very little on this issue.

 

I am a bit confused, transphobic seems to be an incorrect use of the word phobia, (I have studied a bit into symetics (which I cannot spell right dry.gif), though not too much) as trans is an abbreviation for transgender ect, and phobia means fear.

Can someone explain how that works, I am not trying to offend anyone. Well, at least not yet, I usually end up offending everyone somehow.

It's from the same useage of the word as 'homophobic' and 'xenophobic', which are also not classified as clinical phobias but as form of discrimination.

 

I'd toyed with the idea of using 'transist' while I wa at work today, but it dind't scan right for some reason. It's probably not used in the same way homoist wouldn't be used.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so it isn't actually (I still can't spell it) symmetically correct.

Share this post


Link to post

I will do the same, so you can see both viewpoints (I am not up for debating, I'm still sick from the misogynistic mess of the past few days, but I want you to understand why I feel the way I do).

 

-Transwoman-only, transman-only, and WBW-only exclusive spaces are ALL important because each group has their own unique experiences

Thanks, I like to hae my issues represented equally.

 

I do notice that you left out cismen/men-born-men/whatever you wanna call 'em, why should they not have exclusive spaces too?

 

EDIT: I suppose I should say we.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, like I said, I like my issues represented fairly.

Thanks everyone for trying to help me understand.

Share this post


Link to post

AngelKitty: a lot of the points you like to bring out come across as - to me, a ciswoman who I consider myself to be a feminist - as being extremely aggressive and misandrist. Your standpoints will not help feminist ideals along, but rather just fuel further sex-based rage and separatism.

You cannot believe how many reasonable people - both men and women - out there are who do not actively support feminism only because the vocal radically misandrist branches have honestly made them believe that radical misandry is what feminism itself is. And reading your posts, premature and unjustified offense and fear-promoting is what I overwhelmingly perceive, and it makes me want to step out in defense of my ideal of equal rights and opportunities for everyone.

 

Some men are abusive, yes - that is unfortunately true -, but so are plenty of women. Neither side is perfect, since we're all human. It, however, doesn't help when you point fingers at one side and start blaming them for everything and claiming that men and women are different (inherently or due to society "teaching them to be so since they were children") - and men are bad and all-powerful, women good and suffering. Doing so you will only reinforce those exact concepts you wish to abolish.

 

This, mind you, is not meant to be an attack, but rather just a reminder to perhaps take a few steps back and see that being destructively radical is only going to harm what you aim to represent and further, and nothing else.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm somewhat netural. I disagree with that feminist frequency girl because I think that if a woman is portrayed badly in a movie or a book that is just a character and that it's not portraying ALL women like she thinks so. A book or a movie is the creator's creation and they may have as many women and men as they want.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm somewhat netural. I disagree with that feminist frequency girl because I think that if a woman is portrayed badly in a movie or a book that is just a character and that it's not portraying ALL women like she thinks so. A book or a movie is the creator's creation and they may have as many women and men as they want.

It's about the frequency of it, though. Everything in moderation... There isn't a lot balancing it out.

Share this post


Link to post

@Shienvien: I do not support "feminism", as the word is sexist already. Equal-Rights is what we want, not something artificially factured in to do something for women only. And that's the crap you typically get, like laws that say

 

"If they have equal education, you MUST take the woman."

 

that's not equal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
@Shienvien: I do not support "feminism", as the word is sexist already. Equal-Rights is what we want, not something artificially factured in to do something for women only. And that's the crap you typically get, like laws that say

 

"If they have equal education, you MUST take the woman."

 

that's not equal rights.

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.