unpacking the transgenderism baggage: #1 separate spaces
July 27, 2008
It must be stressful to have someone as inquisitive as myself not automatically understand all the finer points of transgenderism, and to mention any inconsistancy outloud. I’m sure some feel as if their entire humanity is at risk of being rejected, but that is not the case, unless their entire identity is wrapped up in their genitalia. While I have the utmost sympathy for those feelings and respect the individuals themselves, I’m still not sure why seeking greater understanding is considered so outrageous. If transgenderism made sense, I wouldn’t keep picking at it.
I know they say their entire identity is not contained within their sexual organs, but it does appear to be the case that the transgendered themselves are placing a great deal of emphasis on their own genitalia. I’m just trying to understand why body parts are such a big deal to them. But let’s be clear: they are not upset when people seek understanding, they are only upset when people do not automatically accept everything they say as true.
Anyway, one observation about transgenderism is below, and here’s the beginning of this particular series with the other six observations.
1) NO oppressed group has ever demanded anything other than full human rights. But transfolk are not seeking full humanity, for they already have that entitlement as men; instead, they want the right to be treated as a special class of human. They demand the right to be subdivided into a smaller catagory based on gender, as opposed to wanting inclusion into the largest catagory based on full humanity as all other oppressed groups have wanted.
So those complaining, “how dare you exclude transfolk; that is just like excluding People of Color from places because whites were uncomfortable!” are sadly inaccurate, for they are not comparing apples to apples.
It would only be accurate if we said “People of Color prefer to be subdivided from the largest catagory of humanity into a smaller catagory based on skin pigment, and since they themselves approve of subdivision from some particular group for their own private reasons based on skin pigment then they can’t really complain when some OTHER People of Color want to be subdivided from them for their own private reasons also based on skin pigment.
It makes no difference if either group claims to be more oppressed, because the one being excluded has already indicated subdivision from a group is acceptable and fair. So whining about being locked out of the medium clubhouse when they already demanded exclusion from the biggest clubhouse renders these folks inconsistent. Demanding both inclusion and exclusion privileges for themselves while insisting that all other groups only have one option renders them hypocrites.
It also makes no difference if the medium-excluding group believes the smallest-excluded group are real People of Color or not, for the same reason above. The medium group is just helping the smallest group be consistent and play by the same rules that they inflict onto others.
Suppose lurkers require a translation: Transfolk want to be subdivided from full humanity based on gender. Okay, fine, go for it. Just don’t complain when other genders do it to you, else you’re an ignorant, privileged hypocrite.
[edit] Also, comments #4 and #13 in the comment section explain this in a different way, so it might be easier to understand.
miss Andrea's 
July 27, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Suppose lurkers require a translation: Transfolk want to be subdivided from full humanity based on gender. Okay, fine, go for it. Just don’t complain when other genders do it to you, else you’re an ignorant, privileged hypocrite.
I’m not even a lurker, and I required the translation. I think it’s the hours of knitting I’ve been doing today. My brain is on autopilot.
So, if I understand you, the hypocrisy comes from transgendered folk saying that they are a third gender or something like that, but when they are exluded from from MIch Fest for not being women, they complain that they are indeed women. Do I have that correct?
July 28, 2008 at 5:05 am
(I need further explaining, like Bonobobabe)
I am not a troll or a lurker, but are you sure that transfold already have full humanity status? I thought the only people who had unquestionable full human status were white, manly, ablebodied, wealthy, heterosexual males.
July 28, 2008 at 8:59 am
Ah M Andrea, having already been down this head desking path, I feel I must warn you this way madness lies. Anyhoos.
Yes the good ol cisgender privilege argument is based on a misunderstanding of privilege and the way it operates.
Privilege – in a political sense – means an unfair advantage conferred by society as a whole for an irrelevant reason. To have privilege a group must somehow benefit from that advantage.
So called ‘cis women’ are not privileged in respect to transwomen because they are already part of the disadvantaged group that transwomen wish to be included in. They are not the ones discriminating against transwomen – patriarchy discriminates against transwomen AND women born women. ‘Cis’ women do not benefit in any way from society discriminating against transwomen. Whereas white people for instance benefit hugely from racism.
The group that DOES have ‘cisgender privilege’ over transwomen is ‘cis’ men. Not women born women who are just as oppressed by patriarchy. And don’t even get male privilege for the first bit of their lives, unlike transwomen.
The reason to have WBW spaces is quite simply that it is the only way of excluding biological males. Because the only logical way to define ‘transwoman’ is anyone who identifies as a woman. So that includes biological males. And anyone can say they identify as a woman – are we supposed to read their mind somehow?
I have yet to see anyone come up with a good answer to that point, and I’m betting it’s going to be completey ignored again this time.
July 28, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Thank you Bonobobabe, that was extremely helpful! I started to write this long reply to you last night and then decided to sleep on it.
Polly you are fabulous but I obviously screwed up here because this particular argument isn’t impacted by cis anything. When I saw Bonobobabe’s comment I was wondering *how much* I need to rewrite it in order to make it more clear. That’s my fault for trying to be too concise. If I made you get that far away from the point, then the *whole thing* needs to be rewritten. So if folks would say what they did get out of this it would be very helpful — because at the risk of sounding like a petty snob I think this particular argument is a very powerful tool.
Basically, this argument sets limits on who gets to define who, and has some very serious repercussions as a result. As you know, the transgendered would like to force everyone else to treat them as real women in every sense of that phrase and Lucky has written about that before. If we have to accept their definition of themselves, it would mean that a post-opt transperson is allowed in women-only space such as rape crisis shelters.
Requiring other people to accept a man’s claim that “he is a woman” based on his word alone would automatically permit any man who claims to be transgenderd to access women’s bathrooms and other women-only spaces. Transfolk apparently don’t care about that at all, the only thing they care about is getting what they want regardless of who else gets hurt.
I believe this argument is very powerful and puts an end to all of that. It’s unbreakable, which should make a lot of people happy — if I can explain it correctly, that is. And that is my failure of course. Nobody can even argue with it unless they understand it, and you know I love to argue! lol Let’s see if I can do better:
.
.
.
“So, if I understand you, the hypocrisy comes from transgendered folk saying that they are a third gender or something like that, but when they are exluded from from MIch Fest for not being women, they complain that they are indeed women. Do I have that correct?”
Mostly yes. It’s hypocrisy and something else in addition. Every other oppressed group in existence has been marginalized as something less than fully human and so what all those oppressed groups wanted was full restoration of their humanity. But the transgended do not want full humanity. This is the crux of the argument, it cannot be left out.
You can phrase it however you want, but if that part is left out, then the discussion appears as if the transgendered are merely wanting “equal” rights, and people are cruel for denying them “equal” rights. With the inclusion of that part it becomes obvious that they are not wanting equal rights, they are wanting “special” rights. And of course no one is entitled to special rights.
They have decided that the thing that they want is be perceived as a gender. It doesn’t matter which gender they have decided to choose, the important thing to remember is that they are deliberately choosing a catagory of gender.
That’s fine, they can be whatever gender they want, let them, we don’t care. But when they demand to seen as some catagory of gender and to define themselves as some catagory of gender, then other genders have the right to define ourselves in terms of gender also. And it just so happens that our definition of gender is limited to born women.
NONE of their demands can be said to be based on fairness or a quest for equality as soon as it becomes clear that they are demanding “special” rights. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. IT IS FINISHED!!
.
All of this has been said before, in various ways by different radfems. We really are all on the same path and thinking in the same direction. My piddly contribution was merely putting the parts of this tool together. Now it’s up to someone else to do something with it.
July 28, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Oh I know what you’re saying M Andrea (I think) – I was just free associating. Cos the usual reason we’re told we’re not allowed to have Women born women spaces is because of ‘cis’ gender privilege. But if you then say ‘well what about your male privilege’ it’s all “It’s not our fault we have male privilege” So (alleged) cis gender privilege is relevant, but male privilege isn’t.
July 28, 2008 at 2:05 pm
And what I think you’re saying is this. Am I right?
‘Trans’ people say that their gender identity is paramount, and everyone else must treat them in accordance with that gender identity and that biological sex is completely irrelevant. But when they are excluded from a group because they are not a particular biological sex they complain.
This is because of the double meaning of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ – biological sex and gender. Most of the world thinks ‘man’ and ‘woman’ means biological sex. But trans people think it means gender – fair enough.
So for instance people complained when commenters on the Thomas Beattie story said Thomas Beattie was not a real man. But what they meant was that Beattie was not a biological male. But the only reason we’d heard of Thomas Beattie was that he was a “pregnant man”. And the only reason that is a news story is because people think ‘man’ = biological male =cannot get pregnant.
The purpose of WBW spaces is to exclude biological males, not people of ‘male’ gender. So there is no valid reason for a biological male to complain if they are excluded from a WBW space, because it is a space for biological females only, not people of female gender.
They themselves have decided that gender, not biological sex is their primary way of identifying, yet they wished to be admitted to groups based not on gender but on biological sex.
July 28, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Wow…just…wow…’women only area’s? are you saying that a transgirl who gets raped should go to a male rape victim help center?
It seems to me that you feel very threatened by Transsexuals, as you are pointing out some rather extreme and unrealistic examples. For example, most transfolk aren’t going to draw attention to themselves, sure there are a few but in what group isn’t there?
Secondly, why wouldn’t a transgirl want to be treated like a ‘real’ girl? This isn’t some plot to sneak into the girl’s bathroom and peak on people, after all, if she’s had the surgery, what is there to peak on? She can just look in a mirror. And besides, the majority of transfolk are ‘straight’ meaning that a transgirl will be attracted to boys.
And transsexuals are painfully aware of the difference between gender and biological sex. When your biological sex doesn’t match your gender, you become stressed and upset, after all there is something NOT right, and every aspect of your life suffers.
It sounds to me like you’re, essentially, saying to transsexuals, ‘go away, no one cares’, which is very cruel and selfish.
July 29, 2008 at 4:26 am
No we’re not saying that at all Dianna, please listen. What we’re saying is that people who are biologically female have a right to demand safe spaces free of people who are biologically male. Rape crisis centres were founded by VOLUNTEERS and are still run mainly by VOLUNTEERS to give a safe space for women who have been raped. If transwomen are so concerned about having rape crisis centres, why don’t they start one? Why is it the responsibility of born women to take care of transwomen?
Now there are lots of people who are biologically male, but say they have a female gender. Whatever. That doesn’t alter the fact they have a penis. And the only way to keep spaces free of biological males is to make them only for those who are assigned female at birth. Because otherwise we have to let in anyone who identifies as a woman. Which includes people with penises.
Now what you appear to be saying is that the rights of people with penises override the rights of people who don’t have penises. Which sounds exactly like what most MRAs say to me.
July 29, 2008 at 4:46 am
And if you think I’m exaggerating Dianna take a look at this from the leading UK trans advocacy organisation.
“Common sense says the only workable definition of a woman is a person who so defines herself.”
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/272
Now I have been in many supposed ‘women only spaces’ that allowed in biological males – and it is now the law in England that you can be defined as a ‘woman’ even if you have a penis. As long as you have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria.” That’s not an ‘exreme example’ it’s a fact.
It’s the penises, stupid.
July 29, 2008 at 6:47 am
Wow…just…wow…’women only area’s? are you saying that a transgirl who gets raped should go to a male rape victim help center?
Well, no. They can go to a trans rape victim help center. But I’m curious. Why do you imagine this is women’s problem? What’s up with trans’ sense of entitlement to women’s time and scant resources and sense of entitlement to be taken care of by women? They’re not aren’t entitled to a damn thing from women. Where do you get off demanding the servitude of women to the male-born? Spare me the manipulative little guilt trips.
When your biological sex doesn’t match your gender, you become stressed and upset, after all there is something NOT right, and every aspect of your life suffers.
There’s a lot of things not right. Like bombs being dropped on people’s head. Jobs, money, starvation, homelessness, and lack of medical care. Women being battered every 9 seconds, raped every minute and murdered every 15 minutes by a man that supposedly loved her. The enslavement of women and forced marriages of 8 year old girls, forced pregnancy, FGM, honor killings, sutee, women being deprived of birth control and autonomy and forced to do 2/3’s of the world’s unpaid labor. You’ll have to forgive me for being so cruel and selfish for not putting the pressing matter of whether spoiled little bratty white boys can be women and wear frocks and have access to woman-only space, and the stress they suffer from having too much time on their hands to think up such foolish nonsense and stupid shit in the first place, as my number one priority.
July 29, 2008 at 8:18 am
Also Dianna
Just isn’t true. Every single transwoman (not girl) I’ve ever met was attracted to women.
July 29, 2008 at 8:24 am
polly styrene: I don’t quite get it. I though you were before arguing that “fab” spaces were justified because the girlhood which trans women would not have had.
Now it’s just a penis thing ?
And if it’s just a penis thing, how does “female at birth” space prevent a phalloplasted ftm to enter ? Is it ok because that’s not a true real penis, so it won’t shock anyone?
July 29, 2008 at 8:49 am
No, you are fine and you have an excellent point about the cis privilege, but I suspect this argument is less clear than intended and so it might need to be babied a little bit at first, or repeated. I sent an obnoxious invitation to mz. smartypants and we’ll see if she can take a whack at it.
Actually Polly, you are sincerely frickin awesome, and that compliment is about something else entirely. Oh now I get the connection you intended, which is also related to Mary Tracy’s question.
“are you sure that transfold already have full humanity status? I thought the only people who had unquestionable full human status were white, manly, ablebodied, wealthy, heterosexual males.”
Oh dear. I can’t get through the second sentence without my suckage making an appearance.
Here’s what I wrote in the orginal post:
“1) NO oppressed group has ever demanded anything other than full human rights. But transfolk are not seeking full humanity, for they already have that entitlement; instead, they want the right to be treated as a special class of human.”
*cough* pretend I wrote “for they already have that entitlement as men”.
Anyway, Polly I think you are very close to understanding what I’m trying to get at. Except you need to just flip it around and substitute gender. Transfolk are using “perception of gender” as a way to categorize themselves. So, temporarily forget gender and focus on the idea of categorizing things.
If you get to categorize things, then so do I.
Ha, the simplest way to say this is “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. If transfolk get to define themselves, then real women get to define ourselves. And it just so happens that my definition of a real woman is someone who was born a woman and raised that way from birth. It does not matter if my definition is unacceptable to them, for they do not have the right to define others. I am not defining them, I am defining ME — but it just so happens that my definition of myself ends up excluding them as a byproduct.
But it’s actually more consequential than that. Because I think this is an argument that a lawyer could use, although of course I could be wrong. And the reason a lawyer could use this is because of the way one group has voluntarily, deliberately, chosen to renounce a larger category in favor of a lessor category — and I understand this last point is still confusing to some folks.
So let’s go back to categorizing things. Most oppressed groups want in the largest category of something. They don’t like being shoved into a little box with only a few toys to play with; oppressed groups normally want the biggest box and all the toys just like the default human gets. And of course we live in a sexist, racist, ableist, capitalist society and that means our default human is a white heterosexual able-bodied rich dood.
Are our transfriends clamoring to get into the box marked rich white het able dood? NOPE, our transfriends are diving into the box marked “girl”. Girl is not the default human, and is therefore a smaller box. oops.
Now let’s run back to “what’s good for the gander fa la la” again. When you get to categorize yourself into a narrower box in relation to the biggest box, then I also get to categorize myself into a narrower in relation to you.
I hope that was more clear. Anyway, I feel sorry for them.
July 29, 2008 at 10:04 am
Elly Rouge, no offense, but I don’t see the inconsistency. People can have more than one reason for not agreeing with something, you know.
But there is a difference between having multiple reasons, and having multiple justifications. The key is being able to distinquish the difference. Polly tends to use actual reasons for her beliefs, if you notice.
Justifications tend not to stand closer examination, but reasons always do.
July 29, 2008 at 10:25 am
Actually Elly, if you look at the posts on my blog, (particularly the opposite of sex and my space or yours) you’ll see that I’ve always had the same 2 arguments in relation to women only spaces. The arguments on here were about why I thought there was a fundamental difference – in a political sense – between transwomen and born women, which is a somewhat different argument. But the overriding reason why FAB spaces are justified is that it is the ONLY way of excluding biological males. Because if you are going to allow a post transition transwoman into a women only space, why would you not allow the same transwoman in pre transition? She is the same person after all.
This is the point people tend to miss in this argument. They think it’s all about allowing post transition transwomen who have had full SRS into women only spaces. It’s not. It’s about allowing in any biological male who says they identify as a woman. Christine Burns of PFC makes that crystal clear….
And yes it is possible to have more than one reason for something.
July 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Yeah M Andrea sex/gender whatever. I’m just trying to get round the Humpty Dumpty trick, which goes like this.
“This is a woman only space.”
“I’m a woman I want to come in”
“No you’re not”
“How dare you say I’m not a woman, that’s sooooooooooo cruel”
As I say – woman is a word – if you want to use it to describe yourself be my guest. I want a space free from biological males, and the only practical way to achieve that is to exclude those who were not assigned female at birth . And um – why would someone who defines themselves as male to the extent of having phalloplasty want to be in such a space anyway?
What I want to know is why, why, why are (some) transwomen so desperate to enter women only spaces. I’m not talking about the women’s loos, quite frankly I don’t care one way or the other, because I spend loads of time hanging around bars where the ladies loos are always full of drag queens. I mean rape crisis centres – safe spaces for women.
Why would someone born biologically male be so determined to enter such a space if they knew it made it unsafe for the women using it? Why do they think their rights override the rights of born women? Because you know what NO transman I have ever met IRL would insist on entering such a space. And no RL transwomen I’ve ever met would either actually.
And actually Dianna – the bottom line is – if you ‘pass’ as a born woman you’re probably going to get in anyway. But again nobody is actually addressing the point I’m making.
If we let transwomen in how do we keep biological males out?
Answers on a postcard……
July 29, 2008 at 10:57 am
The other argument you get thrown around M Andrea is:
You are stopping me defining myself. You get to define yourself, but you’re saying I can’t.
Which is a pile of pants. Anyone can define themselves as a anything they want to. I am not saying anyone shouldn’t define themselves as a woman. Other people might be saying that, but I’m not.
I am saying I want a space free of biological males. And again:
How do I achieve that without excluding transwomen? It can’t be done.
(ok I’ll stop serial posting now).
July 29, 2008 at 11:25 am
Cruel and selfish,
Cruel and selfish.
Now where have I heard that before?
Can it be the song the Patriarchy sings to condition the female of the species to serve the male, endlessly and exclusively.
July 29, 2008 at 2:31 pm
«If we let transwomen in how do we keep biological males out?»
I have difficulties answering this because I never know what exactly male/female means in english.
But if you mean the same thing that “cis men”, I could give the same answer that you do to “how do you deal with trans men” : no one that I know IRL would want it.
Yeah, doesn’t help.
More seriously, I find it much more easier to distinguish a trans women from a cis men than a trans women from a cis women. (Well of course, you could argue that a cis men could dress as a woman, take hormones, get surgery just to enter a women’s space, but on another hand I don’t even see how you can distinguish him from a cis woman without complicated medical examination)
Since I personally think that the most important factor is not the penis but the oppression lived, if there is a doubt on the sincerity of a person, I would ask to relate some example of oppression as a woman. I think most trans women would not have much of a difficulty with this.
And I think there is some overestimation of the effort people would make to “infiltrate” a xxx-only space. I remember some cisgender people in a trans-only space, and it didn’t take much than 2 minutes to spot them. (E.g., someone who says “you trans people” or “you women” is probably not a trans person or a woman)
The only problem would be for trans women who has never got out of the closet, but in this case I would think they have not lived women opression yet.
Now I guess my answer won’t be your answer, but well. Anyway I’m a bit tired of this debate which seems very foreign to me. I understand that excluding trans women is a top priority for your feminism but as a french my feminism’s top priority is excluding muslim women, so I’d rather work on the “how to distinguish a genuine bandana for an islamic hijab” question.
July 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Well that’s the thing Elly. You see I have been in women only spaces that biological males (the type that don’t take any hormones or have any surgery) have infiltrated. And I have been on events that biological males (the type that don’t take any hormones or have any surgery) have deliberately disrupted. Because they don’t want women to be able to have any space to themselves.
The point is that if you let in so called ‘genuine’ transwomen, you HAVE to let them in as well, how do you distinguish? The priority of my feminism is NOT excluding transwomen – it IS protecting women only spaces.
And whether or not you think the penis is important is irrelevant I’m afraid. Because if you asked women who’d been raped whether they’d feel safe and comfortable discussing that with a biological male, ie someone with a penis, no matter how they’re dressed or how they identify, I can tell you what the vast, vast majority would say.
No.
And it’s them that’s the priority here. Them – not people with penises.
July 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Can I just say that mAndrea and polly rock? You guys are awesome.
Actually, up til recently, I didn’t give two shits about transpeople. Suddenly, it’s everywhere. There must be a blog or forum that I don’t read where this shit got started.
July 29, 2008 at 11:07 pm
It’s actually been doing the rounds since the 70’s BBB, and the Vancouver Rape Relief case was 12 years ago.
Actually I wouldn’t give two hoots about the issue personally, if it wasn’t for the fact that women’s safe space is under threat.
July 29, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Oh and on a personal level, I’ve got some experience with some arsehole men who think that just because they occasionally wear make up and a frock (please note we’re talking people with penises AND facial hair here) that I’m not allowed to be in a place without them because that’s creating a “hierarchy of gender”.
So everyone who thinks I’m exaggerating. I’m not.
July 30, 2008 at 11:43 am
I sent an obnoxious invitation to mz. smartypants and we’ll see if she can take a whack at it.
Mz. Smartypants, heh? LOL. Ok. I’ll take a whack at it. But forgive me. I’m also evol and likely to go on a tangent.
Let’s start off with language. As I’ve said elsewhere:
“The whole purpose of language is to communicate. Not to make up words and definitions no one recognizes. In order to communicate, people must be on the same page, so when I say “tree,” they don’t start thinking of a goat.”
But now the question becomes, who gets to make up the words and the definitions? Well, only those with power are entitled to do that. And under patriarchy, that means only the male-born get to do that. Almost as soon as the patriarchy crawled out from under its rock, it seized language from women. Women can pretend all they want that they have some say-so in the matter. But they don’t. It is a power and privilege only the male-born get to have.
So what does this all mean? Well, it means that women cannot define “woman” under patriarchy. Only the male-born get to do that. And being the male-born have control of the language and the words, and definitions, that means they will decide what a woman is and what is woman-only space. And of course, it will serve their needs, wants, and desires, not women’s. And because the male-born also control the system and the institutions, it can also make all the rules and the laws and enforce them. We see this sense of entitlement very evident in trans. They of course know that women don’t get to control the language or the rules. They do.
Sure, women can attempt to whittle and narrow themsevles down to a tiwg so they can exclude their oppressor — the male-born. But it will be in vain. Because the male-born will continue to co-opt, colonize and control. Because that’s what an oppressor does.
Women’s oppression differs from other oppressions and is unique in the fact that the oppressor does not distance himself or separate himself from those he oppresses, nor does he allows them to occupy separate space. Women find themselves in the unique position of having her oppressor totally dependent on her for his very survival and existence. So he cannot completely eliminate women or wipe them out. What other oppressed group has this bargaining chip? None.
The other night, I watched a show on a serial killer. The boys labeled him a genius. Hmmm… why, I wondered? Why did the boys consider this evil, sadistic, so-and-so and predator of women, a genius? So I paid attention. The serial killer kidnappped women and held them captive in his basement where he sadistically tortured and raped them. He had a harem of captive sex slaves. But he was outnumbered by his captives. Fearing they would bond together and overthrow him, he pit woman against woman and made them fight each other and beat each other up until they hated each other. That way he could insure they would not not bond, unify, or organize to overthrow him.
Hmmm… this sounded hauntingly familiar. And I began to put some pieces of the puzzle together. Fearing that women will bond, unify and organize to overthrow them and their patriarchy, the male-born throws all sorts of wrenches in women’s spokes to prevent that from happening. Let’s look at some of the methods he uses. He separates women from each other (be it through marriage or some other social protocol or means), He often doesn’t allow woman-only spaces, not even in women’s own homes and beds. In some parts of the world, he doesn’t even allow women in public without a male chaperone. He pits woman against woman and has them fight each other until they hate each other and won’t bond. And now he won’t even allow women to define themselves and identify as women. Which all leads to one thing. It prevents women from bonding, unifying and organizing to overthrow him and insures continued male domination and female subjugation. Pretty slick, huh?
July 30, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Can I note that no one has answered my question yet?
How is is possible to have a space that includes transwomen but excludes biological males?
I’ve just been told that it’s ok, only the NICE transwomen will want to come in. Which isn’t an answer. When I put this to some other woman once, she resorted (no shit) to saying that only those legally regarded as women could come in. But that – potentially – includes biological males under English Law.
July 30, 2008 at 12:30 pm
How is is possible to have a space that includes transwomen but excludes biological males?
You can’t. Because mtf trans are biologically male. So you will have to either include all males, or none. Otherwise any asshole, pervert or predator of women can say he is a woman and help himself to woman-only space. It’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel for him.
Trans don’t care what dangers this poses to women. They could care less about women. All that matters is me, me, me. I am the sun and you are all the planets that revolve around me. Which is typical of the conditioning and sense of entitlement the male-born are raised with, where their wants, desires and needs are considered more important and to have more value than those born female.
Unfortunately, SRS doesn’t come with a brain transplant. So trans will still have the histories, conditioning, cultural values and sense of entitlement that the male-born in any society are raised with.
July 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm
This has been an excellent comment thread … a keeper 😛
Lucky, that serial killer must have been patriarchy’s poster boy, no wonder they thought him genius.
July 31, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I know this is OT, but polly, where is your blog? I went to look today and it says it was deleted? I needz me my daily dose of polly styrene!
July 31, 2008 at 10:58 pm
She deleted it? Good thing I cleverly put the new linkie in my sidebar. Ha! we shall follow her anywhere. Urm, that is down… Polly where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu?
August 1, 2008 at 3:20 am
My blog was unfortunately becoming a pain in the neck literally, due to too much time spent on the internetz – I’ve had neck pain for some time now, and I use a computer at work, so I need to cease and desist at home. So I had to kill, it sorry folks, but just for you, here’s some oscar wilde.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword
Off to get me some drugs, rock’n’roll and (hopefully) sex anyway. Cyber addiction – just say no!
August 3, 2008 at 4:25 am
But just for you bonobobabe
http://www.newcowblog.wordpress.com
Yeah I kept it – but the pics have disappeared because they link to the old blog.
August 6, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Yay, polly’s back! I’m sorry about your neck pain, but maybe you could confine blogging to your work hours. I’m sure your employer wouldn’t mind. 😉
August 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Yes I already do far too much pissing about on the internet in work hours though, that’s the problem…….
Polly is back, but in a POMO way – ie not really. I have stuff to do in the ‘real world’.
August 13, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Your whole concept of biological female can’t hold up seeing the fact that TS are intersexed – the brain developed female. So they are biological mixed and not biological male. But I see why you don’t get it, when your whole believe system is based in gender as a thing of hirarchy and how ones raised. It would destroy your whole universe to accept that fact.
August 13, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Transgendered folks are not intersexed. Please see the link in the sidebar which goes to the official intersexed website. They want nothing to do with the transgendered and are really tired of having their bodies appropiated for your benefit.
August 14, 2008 at 2:13 am
It may just destroy Sarah’s whole universe to realise that gender is a made-up concept, and is totally separate from biological sex.
But I’ll play along:
Yes Sarah, we girly girlz all love pink from the moment of birth, adore lippy and heels, hence we just knew we were girlz. Totally within our girly brainz, and nothing to do with enormous societal pressures to make everyone conform to societal expectations of ‘gender preferences’.
As mAndrea put it on the other thread, FAB feminists are generally running like mad to escape these gender roles, whilst transactivists girly-run to embrace it.
This would be your cue to flounce off in a huff, whilst muttering “transphobic!”
But before you go, I love the Freudian typo:
“your whole believe system is based in gender as a thing of hirarchy“
It’s more of a hisarchy I think you’ll find. 😛
August 14, 2008 at 2:31 am
Sarah: when some credible evidence ever emerges that transsexuals are intersexed, then I may just sit up and take notice. I am often amused at how many people call things ‘fact’ when actually there appears to be no factual basis? But, until then, adopting ‘intersex’ to apply to transsexuals (and I am one, although I expect to be called ‘transphobic’ very shortly…) is if anything, very offensive to those whom are actually biologically intersexed.
August 14, 2008 at 3:31 am
Steph how very dare you have an opinion on yourself. Whatever next?
Sarah the only evidence for ‘brain sex’ is a study (post mortem) on the brains of six transsexuals. Differences were observed in the size of an area of the hypothalamus which was more like the same area in women.
HOWEVER – there is no evidence this region of the brain governs gender identity, the sample size was extremely small. AND there is no evidence that for instance, hormone treatment didn’t cause the difference.
The only way to PROVE the brain sex theory would be if we had a very accurate method of measuring brains soon after birth, and then observing a sufficiently large sample size as they developed. No way of doing this currently exists.
Learn some science eh?
August 14, 2008 at 3:43 am
You’ve said exactly what I thought about following up with, Polly!
All of the research so far, is only using brains of transsexuals that have been on a reasonable period of hormone replacement. I think its not wholly unreasonable to suggest that may be having a sufficient implication for those changes to the hypothalamus and other areas of the brain, when observed in MRI/cat scans.
Until the time that a sufficient sample of those have been examined, either at birth or in early childhood, and definately before any hormones have been administered, the ‘brain sex/intersex of brain’ theory is only that.
August 14, 2008 at 7:08 am
Being transgender doesn’t qualify you for being intersexed. Some intersex do identify as transgendered.
Most intersex get diagnosed at birth due to ambiguous genitalia (appearance only), but for some it is not until puberty, infertility, or even after death (internal/external biology or chromosomally).
The after death diagnosis is sorta interesting to the fact that a some doctors consider that the brain has to be exposed to an unusual mix of hormones prenatally to be an intersex condition. Which according to some transgender theory of causes, it lists prenatal hormones on the brain as factor… which is why I think we see so many trans people claiming to be intersexed, when in reality that has not be substantiated by science yet. The one small study they did have can be discredited by see #38 above.
August 14, 2008 at 10:40 am
The percentage of intersexed indivuals claiming to be transgendered is so small even the intersexed folks can’t find any reputable numbers. It’s literally one or two people, according to their own website.
There are only two reasons the transgendered try to appropiate the bodies of intersex for themselves and they are both incredibly tacky reasons. One is because many transfolks are trying to find a physical cause for their disorder, in order to attain validation. That’s fine, but appropiating other people’s bodies is tacky as hell. And the other is that many transgendered folks themselves don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Considering they continually make all kinds of claims about themselves which aren’t true is a very good reason not to automatically believe anything most of them say without proof. All the transfolks aren’t like this, but it seems to be a pattern.
hey, please don’t pile on this person, like most newbies she’s in moderation and any replies won’t appear right away. Really sorry, Kaylie, you’re perhaps not like this but I’m tired of the constant conflation of a sob story with an argument by the transfolks.
I’d like an open discussion without modding tran comments, but the twenty page sob stories do not an argument make. Hmmm, maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt first? I really don’t feel comfortable being a control-freak.
August 14, 2008 at 11:47 am
Oh, sorry… I maybe worded it wrong, I meant to agree with you about it. I just wanted to point out the brain sex issues is where I see alot of trans folk getting confused on.
I came across your blog a few days ago and I find it really great and interesting!
August 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Some days when I read the comment threads in the blogosphere I feel I am channeling Inego Montoya. These words really do not mean what you think they mean, no no no they do not, Sarah!
Please invest in a dictionary and study the following words.
Biology
Female
Develop
Fact
Belief
Universe
Heirarchy
You might also derive some benefit from the study of the difference between fact and opinion.
August 14, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Well it would, wouldn’t it.
“Which according to some transgender theory of causes, it lists prenatal hormones on the brain as factor.”
August 14, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sorry I am perhaps imprecise in my snarkiness. Change the word ‘factor’ to ‘fault’ and you get at what the ‘theory’ is.
August 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Kaylie, intersex is nothing to do with being transgendered in the huge majority of cases. Most intersex people would be very angry/upset with you if you confused them with being transgendered. See this for instance.
http://www.aissg.org/21_OVERVIEW.HTM
One of the very few exceptions to this is 5 alpha reductase deficiency, the condition described in the novel ‘Middlesex’ by Jeffrey Eugenides. Individuals with this condition may wish to ‘transition’ upon reaching puberty/adulthood. However (due to genetic factors) the condition is often found in societies where traditional gender roles are entrenched, and notably the levels of ‘transition’ to ‘male’ are greater in these societies than in others where gender roles are less important.
http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1980.htm
August 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Oh those damn prenatal hormones Sis. Well I have 4 older brothers and my finger length ratios indicate that I was subject to raised testosterone levels in utero as a result of this. Seriously – I was testing finger lengths in the pub the other night (it’s a party trick after a few pints) and mine were more ‘male’ then the 2 males present (in fact I had to tell my friend her husband’s gay, but she coped ok….)
And yet I am not transsexual. Explain that.
August 14, 2008 at 1:27 pm
NB – rhetorical question……
August 14, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Been reading for awhile, but I finally had to reply to this post.
“Yes Sarah, we girly girlz all love pink from the moment of birth, adore lippy and heels, hence we just knew we were girlz. Totally within our girly brainz, and nothing to do with enormous societal pressures to make everyone conform to societal expectations of ‘gender preferences’.”
Stormy, Sarah wasn’t defining women by their femininity, but instead challenging Andrea’s definition of transpeople. Seems fair. After all, if y’all don’t like transwomen defining cis-womanhood, then you should understand why transwomen might have their own opinions on their experiences and identities. However, your comment brings up a third issue unrelated issue. Instead of insulting and new (and polite) reader, why don’t you write a polite response that isn’t condescending and actually acknowledges the other person’s post?
A few other points. First, the demonization of femininity (which is what you’re doing) is just another form of sexism. Our society hates things that are unfairly associated with women (shoes, pink, etc), precisely because it hates women. Unnecessarily hating on “girly girlz” is just another way of hating women and perpetuating the patriarchy that denigrates anything and anyone designated female. Two, there are lots of transwomen whose definition of womanhood does not rest on superficial femininity and lots of cis-women whose opinions of womanhood does consist of being “girly.” You’re attacking a straw-woman instead of engaging the opinions of actual women.
“Trans don’t care what dangers this poses to women. They could care less about women.”
Transwomen are endangered every day precisely because they transgress the gender hierarchy by presenting as female. Their femaleness, the same thing that society uses to denigrate and endanger cis-women, makes them a target for rape and violence like all women. Considering that the source of their oppression is the same as all women, why should they be segregated from female-only spaces? Transwomen are not raped and killed everyday because they are men with male privilege, but women vulnerable within a patriarchal society. Why denigrate them further by denying them a place with other women?
August 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm
mAndrea, have a little faith! Pile-ons only occur when some idiot comes in ranting about brain-sex and loving the colour pink (ok, last bit implied, but you get the drift).
Kaylie: The after death diagnosis is sorta interesting to the fact that a some doctors consider that the brain has to be exposed to an unusual mix of hormones prenatally to be an intersex condition. Which according to some transgender theory of causes, it lists prenatal hormones on the brain as factor… which is why I think we see so many trans people claiming to be intersexed, when in reality that has not be substantiated by science yet.
This is going to touch on a little of what Sis was alluding to, ‘the inutero factor’. Sis (I am guessing) is pointing out yet another Patriarchy-approved method of woman-blame. Correct me if I am wrong Sis.
I think much of the intersex (which is really an umbrella for a number of ‘variations’) is probably more to do with ‘mechanical’ failure at cell division, or an unfortunate genetic mix. These reasons are then, not solely the mother’s fault (‘hostile uteri full of the wrong hormones! mwah!’). Accepting ‘mechanical’ failure for intersex, does not leave a lot of scope for trans co-opting the intersex situation for the trans cause/arguments. But they will still push it anyway, especially with the nice little bonus of getting some sneaky woman-blaming in there, that just makes it doubly attractive.
Nice catch on the legitimacy-sounding angle Kaylie, yes the transactivist arguments ride the coat-tails of intersex, a recognised condition, to add authority to their arguments.
August 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm
A very quick response to one point:
However, your comment brings up a third issue unrelated issue. Instead of insulting and new (and polite) reader, why don’t you write a polite response that isn’t condescending and actually acknowledges the other person’s post?
Because we have heard the same bloody thing over and over again, combined with the snarky know-it-all tone. Actually it was the tone that put me over the top.
Oh yeah, you will see just above, that is not a standard response to first time commenters, only a standard response when someone spouts off about (female) brainz. I am now going to call it The Zombie Defence. Expect the same response every time TZD is invoked. Especially if aforesaid commenter is using the snarky tone. I cannot help myself. It’s become Pavlovian.
August 14, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Damn I wish that WP would fix the smilie bug. Winky is not meant to be there.
August 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Intersex is a chromosomal abnormality. The transgendered have normal healthy chromosomes. Intersex folks live their lives as the gender they most resemble and specifically do NOT advocate any type of surgery. They also want nothing to do with the transfolks because they are tired of being used as a poster child for a cause they do not believe in. The transgendered have zero right to appropiate the bodies of the intersexed folks, and the intersexed folks would really appreciate their wishes being respected.
They have said this repeatedly, and yet everybody and their grandma disrespects their wishes in a very unfeminist sort of way.
August 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm
You’re in my head Stormy. Mea Culpa. Mea constant fucking culpa.
August 14, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Irene: “Two, there are lots of transwomen whose definition of womanhood does not rest on superficial femininity and lots of cis-women whose opinions of womanhood does consist of being “girly.” You’re attacking a straw-woman instead of engaging the opinions of actual women.”
You are mistaken, Irene. A quick check of the Trans activist definition of trans and cis will give you to understand that the definition of cis is entirely predicated upon adherence to rigidly defined gender rolls with pink or blue icing, while trans means everyone who does not conform to rigidly defined gender roles.
It is the definitions that are made of straw, with a generous dose of authoritarian asshattery thrown in.
You are right that there are many Transpersons who do not agree with the Trans activist definitions of who and what we all are. They are declared by Trans activists to be Transphobic, right along with anyone else who refuses to submit to their dictates.
August 14, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Irene M
Gay men are attacked because they transgress what male born people should be as well.
Should they be allowed into women only spaces?
There is surely more than one safe space in the world? Why not have a separate space for transwomen? What right do transwomen (which encompasses biological males who identify as women) have to take away the safe space of other women?
It’s a complete non sequitur – the oppression of trans women does not stem from the same source as FAB’s. FAB’s are attacked because they are female. Trans women (if they pass as FAB) are indeed attacked for the same reason. But if they don’t then they are attacked because they are seen as gay men, whether they are or not.
The simple truth is that a transwoman who ‘passes’ as a born woman would get into a woman only space anyway. No one chromosome checks you at the door.
August 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hi, all
I’m a latecomer to the thread, having been redirected from another blog, so please forgive me if I barge in.
In reading the discussion, I’m reminded of another discussion I heard once, conducted by some conservative, right-wing religious bigots. The discussion centered on gay men, and the main argument against homosexuality was that if only men could have sex with men, and women could have sex with women, no one would have children and humanity would go extinct. Clearly, the fault in the reasoning is that in order for this to happen all the men have to want to have sex only with men, and women have to want to have sex only with women. And as we know, most people are straight, so humanity is safe!
It seems like what most responders are leaving out is that to be a man in our times who wants to be a woman is significantly worse than to be a woman, seeing as how the rape and murder rates for transgendered people are significantly higher. Most men are not willing to take on the stigma of “becoming a woman.” Furthermore, if men find out that a transgendered woman is transgendered, they are much more likely to exclude her from their network than a biological woman. In fact, any benefits of owning or having owned a penis disappear when a transgendered person comes out.
Thus, the argument that trans women make male spaces unsafe is moot, because no man who does not want to be a woman would ever try to be a woman. This is legally defensible: for a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war, one has to prove that pacifism has been a large part of that person’s life up until the draft. In order for a person to qualify for the custody of a child, one can’t merely say that one is the rightful parent, one has to prove that one is the main caretaker of the child. So, anyone who wants to be legally found a woman has to live for a while as a woman. After a year or so, her national ID would be updated with the new gender. This would be non-threatening to women-only spaces since a man who is willing to endure the kind of shit transgender women have to put up with is probably pretty serious about being a woman. They certainly pay the price of their womanhood, much more often than most women do, and “earn” the right to be women.
Second, I’m horrified by this discussion about excluding people from rape crisis centers. They’re not women’s centers, they’re rape crisis centers. And men can be raped, too. If you want a crisis center for women, call it a women’s crisis center. But do realize that you are being sexist jackasses when you turn someone away from help when they have been raped. Note that a specific transgendered rape crisis center would not work, since rape crisis centers are underfunded as it is. Turning away transgendered people from a rape crisis center would be equivalent to the south under segregation turning people away from a segregated hospital: separate but equal doesn’t work when one group is significantly richer, more powerful, and more numerous than another.
Finally, look at yourselves, accusing TG women of segmenting the population, but unable to bear the thought of a biological man crashing your women-only rape crisis center after a horrible, life-destroying personal catastrophe.
Cheers,
D
August 14, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Thank you for all of the replies. I’m not ignoring anyone, but am a little busy for the moment. However, I do have one quick question. What does “FAB” mean? I’m familiar with “woman born woman,” but I haven’t heard FAB before and Google is not helping. So, what does FAB stand for? Thank you so much.
August 14, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Female at birth.
It isn’t possible to be born a woman since woman simply means adult human female. We are not born adult, but we are born female humans.
So now we have MAB and FAB to add to the alphabet soup of life, the universe, and everything.
August 15, 2008 at 2:25 am
Actually thebewilderness, it is Female Assigned at Birth – which is inclusive of intersex who are assigned and raised as females.
Intersex who are raised as females are usually subject to similar treatment and programming as to expected female behaviour (and supposed limitations).
August 15, 2008 at 3:00 am
And in actual fact ‘Intersex’ people who are assigned female will have exterior genitals that are more or less identical to any non intersex FAB. And it’s your exterior genitals that will make you subject to sexism, childhood sexual abuse, rape etc etc. Not your chromosomes. Most ‘intersex’ FAB’s have chromosomal differences. Such at women with Turner’s Syndrome who only have one x chromosome instead of two.
August 15, 2008 at 7:32 am
“ACT Law Reform
People with intersex conditions had a major victory in the ACT recently when the definition of Transgender was changed to remove people with intersex conditions, and, for what we believe is a world first, include a definition of intersex in legislation. The ACT (ALP) Government, with the support from the Democrats and Greens, passed the following definition of intersex in the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT):
?An intersex person is a person who, because of a genetic condition, was born with reproductive organs or sex chromosomes that are not exclusively male or female.?
This is particularly significant for the intersex community because of the insistence by a small number within the transgender community that falsely claim transsexualism is an intersex condition. Regardless of any possible biological basis of transsexualism (i.e. Gender Identity Disorder), people with transsexualism are not born with any variation of their reproductive organs and/or sex chromosomes, and have many different issues. One male to female transsexual person even described themselves as having Vaginal Agenesis (i.e. congenital imperfect or non-development of a vagina) when in fact; they were born physically male, fathered children etc. These people have a gross lack of respect and understanding of our experiences and issues. As the Democrats MLA (Ms Roslyn Dundas) explained in her media release on the 10th of March:
?Intersex and transgender people are different, their needs are different, and the discrimination they face is different. Both of these communities often face discrimination and it is important our laws reflect their different needs.
An intersex person is one who is born with reproductive organs that are neither exclusively male or female, where as transgender identifies as a member for a different sex to the one they were born as.?
Gender Identity Issues
Unlike transsexualism and/or transgender where 100% of people have gender identity issues, only a small portion of people with intersex conditions (probably about 5-10%) have an issue with their gender. The vast majority of these cases are due to the assignment of an inappropriate sex of rearing in a child with an intersex condition, and these individuals can have their birth certificates fully corrected in all states in Australia.”
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aissg/transgender_and_intersex.htm
“The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) Support Group Australia Inc. (A0041398U) is a peer support, information and advocacy group for people affected by AIS and/or related intersex conditions, and their families.”
Intersex do not have a problem with their perceived gender, the only time the intersex have a problem with their preceived gender is when doctors freak over their ambiguous genitalia at birth and start chopping.
August 15, 2008 at 7:51 am
From Polly in #3 comment:
“The reason to have WBW spaces is quite simply that it is the only way of excluding biological males. Because the only logical way to define ‘transwoman’ is anyone who identifies as a woman. So that includes biological males. And anyone can say they identify as a woman – are we supposed to read their mind somehow?
I have yet to see anyone come up with a good answer to that point, and I’m betting it’s going to be completey ignored again this time.”
Yes, it was.
August 15, 2008 at 8:14 am
If I may be so bold to steal the structure and amend it, to address one of my primary concerns:
Because IF the only logical way to define ‘WOMAN’ INCLUDES anyone who identifies as a woman, then there is no way to exclude biological males who wish to disrupt female-only spaces.
Now if the transactivists want to be a little more concrete in their definition of ‘woman’, and exclude the riff-raff who merely dress up as ‘woman’ on a Saturday night for a laugh… then we will talk.
August 15, 2008 at 9:41 am
It is mine as well stormy, and another thing in addition. But we can’t introduce that until we’ve continued down the merry road of logic past all this camouflage.
eta: I understand that they want to include any man who says he “feels like a woman” in the definition of transgender on the grounds that he may not be able to afford the medical treatments, but that doesn’t really work because then any abusive husband can stalk his victim into the DV shelters or other woman-only space. An american woman is murder by her ex every day or two, forget the stats. And if you look at the Justice Dept records, there is a large percentage of murdered women whose reason for their murder was not reported, so it’s likely that the official statistic is massively too low.
Besides that, they’re not like most real woman because they don’t experience life as a woman who is struggling away from feminine gender roles. Transwomen are the opposite, struggling to be confined into a feminine gender role. It’s incredibly stupid that in a place like Mitchfest where the sole purpose is to be in a place where women are free from the confined feminine role, the transgendered claim Mitchfest is the one place they need to be because they are feminine. They really should be fighting to get into the Barbie Doll convention. I should make a post about that.
To continue on, it’s unbelievably abusive for the transfolk to insist that we shouldn’t worry about opening up more places for DV abusers to stalk their victims. it is ABUSIVE. MANIPULATION. MISOGYNIST HATRED OF WOMEN. It’s like the rape apologists who insist that a woman taking precautions to protect herself from rape is “hatred of men” and then turn around and insist that it’s somehow her fault when a man rapes a woman.
August 15, 2008 at 10:45 am
Dima, your entire thing is non-logical but I’m not going to waste my time addressing each one here. This entire series is taking each one of your points and knocking it to the ground if you notice.
Trans are wanting special rights, not equal rights — this major discreptancy knocks the formulae completely out of whack, and so comparisons to the fight for gay rights, POC’s rights, women’s rights are not valid.
One technique of the abusive folks is what I have just renamed the “litterbug” approach: throw out some much garbage that by the time someone has cleaned up all the junk the slob has moved on and thrown out even more. Try addressing one point and arguing that.
August 15, 2008 at 11:50 am
As the US has about four times the population of the UK, and the UK is two (actually 2.3?!) women per week murdered by current or former partners, the US is likely to be at least one per day murdered. The stats for rape and DV hover around a similar percentage in most of the western countries. In wartorn or post-war countries, femicide and rape shoots up off the scale. That should give the liberal feminists, who insist ‘not all men are bad’ and idea of what men are like when lawlessness breaks out. Not pretty.
I like the “litterbug approach” term – ever so true. I usually just choose to ignore the entire thing. Or just pick one point. The litterbug approach is usually executed with convoluted turns of phrase as well.
August 15, 2008 at 11:52 am
…so comparisons to the fight for gay rights
Which is a bit of a laugh bringing this up, because one of the many criticisms radical feminists have about the transgender concept is that it is in essence, very homophobic.
August 15, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Thanks Stormy, I stand very gently corrected.
I think Dima’s argument boils down to “not my nigel”, he would never do such a thing, with a large serving of “I’m so shocked” that there really are women who put their own interests ahead of the menz.
It’s just so unfair.
August 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm
This one then:
“It seems like what most responders are leaving out is that to be a man in our times who wants to be a woman is significantly worse than to be a woman, seeing as how the rape and murder rates for transgendered people are significantly higher.
Thus, the argument that trans women make male spaces unsafe is moot, because no man who does not want to be a woman would ever try to be a woman. “
This is a justification. Wanting to swim upstream means that someone wants to swim upstream. It does not mean that the man is a salmon.
August 15, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Proof please? As in actual statistics from a reliable source?
Well first of all typo, I presume you meant female, but secondly, we are told that we must accept as a transwoman anyone who “identifies” as a woman. This argument might have slightly more validity if it was only referring to indiviuals who have had full SRS (though even some of them are sex offenders), but I’m told that I should accept someone into a woman only space if they only THINK they are a woman. And how do I know they’re not just a man who’s saying they identify as a woman to disrupt the space?
Ok I’m just repeating myself here. But NOBODY ever addresses this one do they?
Because they don’t have an answer……….
August 15, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Well they can go to the other rape crisis centre, which we have where I live, and get help there. That’s the state funded one.
Why do I – a volunteer at a voluntary rape crisis centre – have a responsibility to help a male, when I am volunteering to help women and their safety is paramount? Why not set up your own rape crisis centre, instead of expecting women giving their own time unpaid to serve you?
And no one ‘crashes’ a rape crisis centre. The one where I volunteer has a secret location. For safety reasons. Yes that’s threats by men.
August 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Polly, the murder rates for transgendered people are really hard to come by, since killing a transgendered person because they are transgendered is not considered a hate crime in most states. One good source I’ve found is http://www.ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf, where it is asserted that M-F transgendered people made up 13% of victims in crimes against members of the LGBT community, somewhat appalling considering that the best estimates point to about 1/10000 people being transgender (at least enough to consider surgery. This amounts to about 1 in 69 TG men being the victim of a hate crime. But my point is not to compare which group is most victimized, but to point out that this number is quite comparable to the violence suffered by women, which according to NOW is something on the realm of 1/58 women. I apologise for my previous inaccurate statements. The point is, Transgendered women suffer about as much from hate crime as FABs.
August 15, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Polly, the argument that if TG women were allowed in Women-only spaces would open up the danger of men sneaking in is exactly what I was trying to address in my first comment. As I’ve already explained, I believe this to be bad logic, since 1. it takes a lot of work for a biological male to act female, 2. accepting female identity leads to giving up male privilege (since men now reject you, and you are significantly more likely to be a victim of violence) and 3. the type of person who would try to sneak into a woman-only space to disrupt it is not the kind of person who would accept to be identified as a woman to all his friends for an extended period. Thus, to prevent men in dresses from crashing woman-only spaces, we would only have to ask for proof of a female lifestyle. Proofs of lifestyle already exist in our culture, so legislation that would allow a person who identifies with a particular gender to change their driving license to that gender after proof of living as that gender for a year would effectively eliminate any men who look for cheap thrills.
My argument for this one boils down to this: the kind of sexist man who would want to infiltrate a woman-only space to disrupt it is not the kind of man who would consent to be called a girl by all his friends for a year to do it. There’s too much stigma.
August 15, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Polly, your last argument again makes me think of segregation in the south. Frankly, transgender women can’t set up their own rape crisis center because they don’t have the resources or numbers to do it. One in two human beings is born a woman, and one in ten thousand is born transgendered.
On the off chance I’m missing something here, could you please explain why keeping a rape crisis center female-only enhances the safety of the women therein? And furthermore, how keeping a victim who is more comfortable around women away from such a place would hurt any of the other women there contained?
August 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Dima:
“Polly, your last argument again makes me think of segregation in the south.”
Charming Dima, just charming.
It may come as a bit of a shock to your delicate sensibilities but we segregate paedophiles from children as best we can to prevent continued abuse by the male born. We segregate murderers and other criminals from the population they prey on in an effort to reduce the predation. We segregate abused women from the predatory population of men who abuse them in an effort to keep the victims safe while they attempt to recover from the predatory practices of the male born.
Your demand that women put their interests aside and serve the interests of the male born is an outrage.
Go play oppression olympics with someone who does not know that one in three women have been abused by the male born.
August 16, 2008 at 3:35 am
Dima I have already told you that where I live there are (publicly funded) rape crisis facilities for everyone, male, female or intersex, trans, gay, lesbian, heterosexual they don’t discriminate.
Which bit of that do you not understand?
If there are not similar facilities where you live I suggest you lobby for them to be set up. Because it doesn’t happen by accident. WOMEN put their own time and energy into doing this stuff and setting up the rape crisis centre where I work.. And we don’t have any obligation at all to do it for anyone but who we choose to. As M Andrea says, transwomen can not claim the right to special treatment one minute and then disclaim it the next.
Your sense of entitlement is unbelievable.
And as for women only spaces. The LEADING british transactivist organisation says this…..
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/272
So if someone – anyone – says they define themselves as a woman how do I prove they don’t?
ANYONE can say they define themselves as a woman – ANYONE. Can you read minds?
Answer that.
August 16, 2008 at 10:08 am
Polly: but I’m told that I should accept someone into a woman only space if they only THINK they are a woman. And how do I know they’re not just a man who’s saying they identify as a woman to disrupt the space?
Ok I’m just repeating myself here. But NOBODY ever addresses this one do they?
Because they don’t have an answer……….
Exactly. This point is NEVER addressed. Reiterating my own personal concern about keeping out the male disrupters (riff raff) in female-only spaces. But no, the trans lobby wanna be all inclusive, and anyone that calls themselves ‘woman’ is allowed in. Fuck that.
Dima: My argument for this one boils down to this: the kind of sexist man who would want to infiltrate a woman-only space to disrupt it is not the kind of man who would consent to be called a girl by all his friends for a year to do it. There’s too much stigma.
Absolute bullshit. You haven’t known many male domestic abusers have you? Their campaigns can last against their target for YEARS and YEARS. If their vengeful streak is strong enough, they can and will do anything to track down their victim. In fact, most cases of DV end in years of harassment after the separation, that is basically standard.
Read the Bruce Daniels police interview. He repeatedly raped then beat his ex-wife Rachel to death. She had been separated from him for over five years. After that, their son committed suicide. A year or two after, the new partner died, leaving only the daughter.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stoptheviolence/DanielsInterview.html
So a year? You have to be FUCKING JOKING.
A year for the average DV victim is easy time. Most don’t get off that easy. The average harassment time is two to five years. Some are even longer, for life even.
So sure, believe your damn fairy stories of ‘a year of (hardship) as a woman’ will make it okey dokey.
Oh, and your point about women being half the population so we should share women-only rape crisis centres for one and all? Nope. Women did this with fuck-all resources, and these centres fight for survival on a daily basis today. Most areas of the UK aren’t even covered by a crisis centre (by the female volunteer sector). And their are always the government-open-to-all centres available.
August 16, 2008 at 10:55 am
Where does the year come from? Ok I’m a bit drunk and not really paying attention…..
August 16, 2008 at 11:03 am
Dima reckoned that a year of a manz dressing as a woman and suffering the humiliation of being a woman, would be a True Test of his sincerity. I called moo cow. Actually it was ‘bullshit’. But you get the picture.
August 16, 2008 at 11:04 am
Also Dima you are missing the point (I’ve read it now). There is NO SUCH THING as a ‘female lifestyle’. Hell if entrance to a woman only space demanded a ‘female lifestyle’ they wouldn’t let me in. They are spaces for people with particular genitals, not partiular lifestyles….
I would head-desk here but I’m still full of red wine. Thank Dawg for alchohol I say…..
August 16, 2008 at 11:17 am
‘female lifestyle’ = slapping on a dress and some lippy.
I don’t qualify either.
August 16, 2008 at 11:19 am
oooh, oooh, oooh:
And apparently buying Heat magazine?
How the fuck should I know, I don’t do the woman thing.
August 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm
repeating my comment from the other thread:
Do the transwomen want their abusive boyfriends to follow them into the Domestic Violence centers when her boyfriend claims to “feel like a woman”?
There has to be a bright line for admittance into the shelters for the protection of all, otherwise too many problems will occurr. The line has to be, at the very least, no penis.
And personally, I know far too many transwomen who are aggressive as hell. They do not behave like women (I could write pages on that) and if biologically born males don’t behave like women then why should I treat them as if they are?
August 16, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Watch and learn Stormy (oooh I do hope certain people are reading, they’ll spontaneously combust with a bit of luck).
August 18, 2008 at 2:27 am
Sorry for have so long for an answer. I was working in the technical job I love and had to do some work on my Ferrari and my Porsche. So much for TS woman allways living up to societies feminity expactations. I never wear pink and i prefer sneakers very much over high heels.
Now to the scientific part. Well – a good collection of the work allready done might be found by Zoë Brain
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/bigender-and-brain.html
And while the one mentioned study (the oldest one from 10 years ago) was backed up later and showed that hormonal levels do not alter the brain (by verifification with nontransexuells with female hormon levels and not treated transsexuals) those later formation is simply proven impossible.
The finger length is an index of male hormon levels in one time of the development. It has not to be at the time, when the gender identity part develops.
Don’t tell my about science when you ignore the facts.
August 18, 2008 at 2:44 am
Sorry for have so long for an answer. I was working in the technical job I love and had to do some work on my Ferrari and my Porsche. So much for TS woman allways living up to societies feminity expactations. I never wear pink and i prefer sneakers very much over high heels.
To all the FABs in the ‘room’:
Hands up all of those that have a Ferrari or Porsche or both?
Previous male privilege obviously has no effect whatsoever, no no no.
August 18, 2008 at 2:52 am
I did know that either way would be taking against me. And I know a lot of cisgendered women who love cars and I know some who own Porsche or Ferraris.
August 18, 2008 at 2:58 am
Sarah – Zoe Brain’s site just cites the research I’ve already talked about. Which has the problems I’ve already talked about. That unless you can measure brains AT BIRTH you can’t prove that any difference is a CAUSE rather than an EFFECT of transsexuality. Taking hormones and removal of the testes has an effect on your whole body, so it could easily affect your brain as well? And human brains are plastic. They change througout life. Show me brain scans done ON BABIES and you’ll have proved your point. And not before.
And re the finger length thing – well it has also been used as an indicator of homosexuality. And you know what, the other night in the pub I found out that my friend’s husband was gay – from his finger lengths. She’s dealing with it very well…..
Nah sorry I wrote about finger lengths and brain sex here…..
http://newcowblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/because-im-worth-it-part-397/
And here….
http://newcowblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/trading-places/
It’s you who’s ignoring the facts I’m afraid Sarah. There was recently a BBC one programme on the actor John Barrowman where he tried desperately to discover some genetic cause for him being gay. And failed. Because it turns out he had the finger lengths of a heterosexual man.
Oh noes…..
August 18, 2008 at 3:03 am
Oh and the other brains examined of those subject to female hormones (I know the experiment you are talking about Sarah, it is the same experiment) had only been subject to female hormones for a short while. It still proves nothing. Even if it is not the female hormones that cause the differences in the size of the hypothalamus, it could be other factors, that also cause feelings of transsexuality. Trauma of any kind affects brain structure, as does upbringing.
And finally there is no indication that the hypothalamus controls gender identity.
Sarah if gender identity was caused by the brain – why are the EXACT same factors being used to explain both homosexuality and transsexuality. It doesn’t make sense. How could the same biological cause have two different effects?
August 18, 2008 at 3:04 am
Gosh! I missed a lot of this…!
WTF is a ‘female lifestyle’? Almost as bad the Gender Identity Clinic’s obsession with ‘male gender role’ and ‘female gender role’.
Stormy: I know this was directed at FABs, but you said it! 🙂
There’s always been a huge privilege inside the trans-space, between both transwomen (those that had enough money and privilege to fund everything they ever wanted privately – er, Charles/Sam Kane, anyone?), and those that have to try and fight the NHS for everything (I fall into the latter). Transmen fare even worse, usually having little funds for private surgery costs, and then the double-whammy of the NHS being sexist towards them – many PCT’s (UK Primary Care Trusts), will often fund the whole range of surgeries for M2F, but not F2M.
August 18, 2008 at 3:09 am
Sarah: there’s nothing on that link you referred to, which really proves anything – its a collection of different studies, all of which have variables that may be questioned.
Oh, and the finger length research doesn’t really prove anything, other than perhaps hormone level affect ring/index finger ratios… whoopy do!
Oh, and I am a (transsexual) woman myself…. so call me transphobic 😉
August 18, 2008 at 3:25 am
I wan’t call you transphobic. I call you ignorant. I explained myself why the finger length thing is not an evidence but a good hint pointing in the direction.
For that homosexuallity cause, there is a lot of evidence to that, too
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-07-05T02%3A08%3A00%2B10%3A00&max-results=20
And that largely suggests that a lot of LGBT behavieor is related to that.
The funny thing is that this is something that noone wants to hear or realize, based in differend fears. Some TS Woman have an angst to not fullfill those bodily causes and would be refused their right to become or be women. Homosexuals get rid of the psychological stigma without a physical cause and now don’t want to know much about it, and when it comes to the TG umbrella world even TS Women who take those studies serieous try take to take the possibilty down, that “in between” has its causes also in that. And there is the religieous right and the radfems who cant at any cost accept a physical cause. And then there are “professionals” like Zucker, Baily, Money that all favour the psychological cause without any evidence and often even faking things. But they hit a nerve with all those others who then can call us mentally ill and subhumens.
August 18, 2008 at 3:53 am
Oh, and the finger length research doesn’t really prove anything, other than perhaps hormone level affect ring/index finger ratios… whoopy do!
They may as well invoke the footlength/forearm length as well. 90-95% of peeps have a footlength that matches the length between elbow and wrist. We await some ‘study’ that will ‘prove’ the deviation from the ‘norm’ means ‘something’. Of course the ‘something’ can mean anything they want to skew it to, other than “it’s different from most of the population”. whoopyty do!
Trying to find a cause rooted in the physical is just trying to prove heteronormality (or homophobia by default).
August 18, 2008 at 4:23 am
I did know that either way would be taking against me. And I know a lot of cisgendered women who love cars and I know some who own Porsche or Ferraris.
Tah dah! Way to miss the bleedin’ point.
I shall bet that the car club or where ever you hang out does indeed have a few ‘cis-women’ in it. I would doubt that ownership by ‘cis-women’ would be greater than 5%, and is probably around 1-2%.
There is a little thing that feminists have been fighting against called The Glass Ceiling. The basic premise is that FABs have talents in maths, science, computers, and should not be held back because of their born(/assigned) sex. Whilst some FABs do make it up the ladder, generally they do not make it as high or as quickly in this supposedly post-feminism age as their male counterparts.
You proudly boast of ownership of two rather expensive vehicles, and my criticism was NOT because “this is not what FABs do!”. It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with your life before becoming someone assigned to the sex class of ‘woman’. The previous male privilege that allowed you to obtain such expensive toys. Me, I cannot even afford to buy and run even a cheap car, even though I am university educated, from the middle classes, and have worked in ‘technical’ fields. I perhaps could have broken through that glass ceiling if I was willing to suck some dude’s cock, but I had this silly little idea if that the males progressing in the company didn’t have to do it, neither should I.
The life before transitioning is an important difference compared to those of us with FAB status. Something you obviously don’t ‘get’. So how can you share that ‘common experience’ in FAB-only spaces? By the same token, your struggle prior to transitioning is also not a shared experience with FABs. We don’t stop you having trans-only spaces, but you won’t allow us the same courtesy.
What’s more, your comment was trying to prove how you broke the ‘stereotype of female person’, however, it did expose how gendered you see certain professions. I know quite a number of female programmers and computer people, some at a reasonable level. Although I suspect they would be at an even greater level if they were men.
August 18, 2008 at 5:02 am
And this is the bit where I get to shout – wait for it. HOMOPHOBIA!!!!! ONE ELEVENTY
There is no psychological stigma to being homosexual Sarah. And as Peter Tatchell said – if you have to explain the cause of something that means you think there’s something wrong with it. Is anyone looking for the ’cause’ of heterosexuality? No? Why not?
Sarah the flying Spaghetti Monster – as that Richard Dawkins is fond of pointing out – COULD exist. We have no proof that it doesn’t. The fact that something could be true doesn’t mean it IS true.
A scientific proof requires the following
a) Proof that there is a CORRELATION between event A and event B – and also
b) Proof that event A CAUSES event B
The first bit is easy. The second bit isn’t.
I think you’d better leave the “science bit” to us people with the higher testosterone levels – as evinced by my finger lengths.
August 18, 2008 at 5:14 am
What like liking Kylie? (nb gay menz) Or having your hair cut in a mullet? (dykes). Or liking Pink? (the singer – dykes again).
Nah sorry Sarah, most LGBT behaviour is related to fashion. In other words it’s learned behaviour…….
August 18, 2008 at 5:17 am
And as a radical feminist with a bod for sin, and a brain for science, I will believe in physical causes of things WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED.
And not before.
August 18, 2008 at 5:23 am
Oh, Polly.. I shouldn’t laugh, because there’s serious issues underlying it all, but sometimes….! 😉 I remember someone on a trans forum a while back absolutely convinced that it was taking estrogen that made her walk in heels better.
I simply do not trust the motives for anyone researching why people are homosexual or transsexual.
August 18, 2008 at 6:12 am
Well I take oestrogen Steph, for me crumbling bones(well they aren’t crumbling but they would without the oestrogen). Lets do an experiment!
Anyone got a pair of six 6 stilettos?
And you have to either a) laugh, or b) go insane I reckon……
August 18, 2008 at 6:36 am
Polly, could you please do me a favour. Define man, woman, male and female please. It would also be helpful if you could give reasoning and evidence, but I know it’s a big ask just to answer the basic questions.
That really is the heart of the discussion, isn’t it? You may not agree, and if so, could you please explain your views and correct my misunderstanding
I prefer “on the balance of probabilities” rather than “conclusively proved”. That would mean, in my opinion, a hypothesis with lots of evidence, and no competing hypothesis with any evidence of the same quality. The trouble is, “quality” might be all too subjective, difficult to measure objectively, right? I’d be interested in your opinions, it might explain our differences, and lead to better mutual comprehension, even if no better agreement.
August 18, 2008 at 7:55 am
>What’s more, your comment was trying to prove how you broke the ’stereotype of female person’, however, it did expose how gendered you see certain professions. I know quite a number of female programmers and computer people, some at a reasonable level. Although I suspect they would be at an even greater level if they were men
Thats complete nonsense, because I spoke of cultural expectations. Discussing here comes with the problem, that everyone here is very prejudiced and only reads what is fitting to those prejudices. I had a lot of female coworkers in my professional career and that where often the best. And I consider myself female brained and don’t think that makes me any less of a developer than them or my male coworkers.
The Porsche and the Ferrari add up to a value of about 50k USD. A used beamer might be more expensive. The privilidge is not the male one, its the one working in switzerland, where IT-salaries are the highetst – and interessting to studies done women tend to earn more in that business.
The fact about the cars is, that I love this cars, love to maintain them and love to drive them. One 25 years old and my everyday car and the other 31 years old and, since it only gets up in value is even a good investment.
Whos sexist now?
August 18, 2008 at 8:01 am
By the way, the same kind of intented misunterstanding goes to my comment about homosexuality. I said its not anymore seen as a mental illness. Homophobia I know well – its what keeps men from us, with the mindset, once a male body allways a male body they often reject us after using us, fearing beiing with us would make them homosexual. Sometimes the fears lead to hate that leads to killing us.
August 18, 2008 at 8:25 am
Yah – but Sarah. If you think there’s a psychological stigma to being lesbian or gay – that’s homophobia. And if you need to legitimate something by finding a ‘physical’ cause, that means you think it is illegitimate otherwise.
Most of this research is actually aimed at eventually aborting foetuses with these ‘undesirable’ traits.
August 18, 2008 at 8:52 am
That’s what worries me Polly… do you think that finding a biological/genetic/hormonal cause for homosexuality or transsexuality will actually help such people? I rather suspect it will hinder instead – it will further medicalise and pathologise those as being ‘abnormal’.
August 18, 2008 at 9:36 am
Well the daily mail (as I say in the two articles on my blog I linked to) ran the headline “Abortion hope after gay gene finding”. And James Watson (the racist DNA man) also advocated selective abortion of ‘gay’ foetuses.
Which would have been a mistake because the gay gene wasn’t real.
I have big issues with the idea of eugenic abortion and have genuine worries about the practice. On the one hand, I support a woman’s right to abortion, on the other hand do we want it to be used to just rid the human race of undesirables?
Sawry, I’m inciting a major thread drift here. I’ll put this on cow.
August 18, 2008 at 9:50 am
I had a lot of female coworkers in my professional career and that where often the best.
I don’t dispute that, and that would be the main point of women’s liberation back in the 60s, that women can do – and are sometimes better than – males doing techie jobs. The female co-workers, whilst they were the best – were they the highest paid? Were they the bosses? Because these are the things I DON’T see very often. Whilst the females may be the best, they are often held down to do the actual work whilst the dudes swan off into ‘important meetings’ every five minutes (playing bossman).
You nicely avoided directly answering whether your main career progress was as a man or a woman.
If you don’t think that women in either the computer or many other industries are held back (with a tiny percentage of exceptions), then I don’t really see that we have much ‘common ground as feminists’. And at my age, this being held back goes back to when I was a girl. It is the FAB experience of my generation and earlier. That is not a commonality we share.
I own zero cars. Not because I wouldn’t mind having one, but because I cannot afford one.
August 18, 2008 at 10:02 am
And I consider myself female brained and don’t think that makes me any less of a developer than them or my male coworkers.
But when you say ‘female brained’, Sarah, what does that actually really mean? Without resorting to gender stereotypes and gender myths?
August 18, 2008 at 10:39 am
It means your brain likes pink Steph. Or you’ve been reading Zoe Brain’s site and buying into the ‘brains are sexually dimorphic’ myth.
Zoe Brain has stopped commenting on cow now. I think it’s like when I argued for about half an hour with some Christians by citing various bible passages and they eventually backed away looking frightened and said “we’re clearly not going to convince you” and fled.
August 18, 2008 at 10:41 am
Funny how nobody ever considers themselves “female kidneyed” or “female livered” isn’t it. Only brains are sexed.
August 18, 2008 at 11:18 am
Did you ever notice differences on your organs to that of men? Your right, the liver is not sexed much (in fact it is influenced by hormons so testoren based systems tend to kill of alcohol faster). But much of the rest is,
Female brained is liking pink? Have you learned nothing from your own movement? To be female brained means a lot of things, but not being socially feminin to the max.
For the argument, that Zoës comments are absolute nonsense? That the named and linked studies show know reducable connection between brain and feeled gender takes a lot of ignorance. The four studies directly comparing the brains all showed a 100% hit rate. Others go to the courses of why that is. While on the same time never a cause on psychologie could be proofed and that was tried over som 50 years now, even with very harsh treatment on those claiming to be TS.
And I heard here in this discussion, that at least one of you would accept TS if they are known to be IS – its very likely so is it with the rest of the world.
I started my career in IT as male on female hormons. I always faught aigainst any sexism (no wonder, i did know i will transition). I even laughed about the prejudiced men beaucse we got the better people when they didn’t won’t them. I had many excess in espacially doing much networking and gave a lot of help and therefor got awarded by a non predjudiced public. Where the developers I speak about awarded with higher careerpositions? No. While a lot of Project Managers I know are female, noone, incuding me who really loves to code and create likes to be reduced to counting numbers and organize charts. But guess what – good developers in all honest often earn more then those with higher positions. And as I told you there are studies, that women earn more in the german speaking countries than men doing the same work – in IT that is. Always closing your ears for what might go against your prejudice I think and always bending the truth arround to label my anti femist, anti women or anything.
A bad joke could even mean I transitioned to get better salaries and fitting my car better (the Porsche 944 is often called a “Tranny” or a housewifes Porsche). But some of you make the impression, they would really argue this way.
August 18, 2008 at 11:51 am
Sorry by the way. No one deserves such bad english.
August 18, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sorry I missed this earlier, but it’s a beauty…….From Dima at comment 74
Dima according to the UNITED NATIONS, ONE IN THREE women worldwide suffers violence because of her sex. Not one in 58.
And every other figure I’ve seen agrees
August 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Polly, I think Dima and many other transactivists have a gross misunderstanding about the level of violence towards women.
I was re-reading Dima, who was talking about the (sudden/new) violence that trans face when they start to transition (into woman). They seem to misinterpret this as ‘being more oppressed’, when in actual fact it is more like “welcome to OUR world buddy, we’ve had a lifetime of it, settle in”.
There would be a valid reason why feminists, particularly radical feminists, keep going on and on about the male violence thing. It’s really common.
In the UK, 10% of females (over age 16 I think it is) suffer domestic violence EACH YEAR. So it’s not hard to get to the 1 in 4 will suffer DV within her lifetime figure.
August 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm
While I agree that male violance is a problem, I know that its a problem under lot of male boys too. When I think about it, in my circly of friends (male, female and tanssexed as you don’t really see that as one of the other genders) childhood is similar spread and near to 50%
August 18, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Female brained is liking pink? Have you learned nothing from your own movement? To be female brained means a lot of things, but not being socially feminin to the max.
Polly was being sarcastic I believe over liking pink 😉
But you still haven’t actually said what ‘female brained’ really means? I propose to you, that’s it a mysterious concept that transactivists have created around what are really gender conformity, roles, stereotypes, but which is not actually even tangible or definable? Certainly not ‘brain sexed’.
August 18, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Well transactivists AND the Daily Mail to be fair Steph. No the ‘female brain’ thing is fairly well embedded in the consciousness of certain sections of the community and they’re not ALL transactivists to be fair. When I was going round my office making fun of the idea of ‘female brains’ and most were joining in a woman piped up ‘but men and women do have different brains’.
This is the same woman who thinks of course that it is important to get your baby into gender specific clothes as soon after birth as possible. Cos obviously babies can sooooo tell what gender clothes they’re wearing.
I fear for her child. He’s just BOUND to be gay………..
August 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm
And yes I can buy – just about – the idea that for some reason your brain might ‘expect’ certain body parts. That it’s wired to expect. And that occasionally it might expect the wrong ones. That is within the realms of possibility. It’s not proved in any way, but it is possible. It is like phantom limb syndrome. Your body thinks the limb is still there, because the brain wiring for it is still there.
What is not possible is that your brain has a sense of ‘gender’. That it has an instinctive preference for pink, or pretty frocks. That it just KNOWS somehow that it belongs to a ‘man’ (gender man) or ‘woman’ (gender woman).
August 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm
And Sarah as I’ve said a dozen times, there’s a difference between showing something MIGHT be true and showing it is true. Four studies isn’t a big enough sample size to prove anything.
You need to prove
1) Correlation and
2) Causation – the studies show correlation, but they don’t show causation.
And to do this you need a different and much, much bigger experiment.
August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Excellent point, Stormy. I was thinking part of the problem is that many of the transsexuals really believe they “are” women, and so they believe that whatever they feel or experience is what real women feel and experience.
When they are told that real women don’t feel or experience XYZ, they take it as a personal insult. Instead of recognizing that the point was to hightlight the different feelings and experiences, they leap past logic and assume the speaker was saying the transwoman isn’t a real woman.
August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm
You see, pretty scans of the hypothalamus and other parts of the brain, whether or not those of transwomens look similar to biological womens, does it actually prove conclusively that the brain is sexed – and in such a binary female/male manner? I don’t think it does.
Of course, there’s huge investment from transactivists in suggesting that this really is the case, not, it seems, because of issues such reducing discrimination in the workplace, or for rightly demanding better medical care, oh, no, but more likely because they can then shout ‘transphobia’ at radical feminists or any other group that does not let them into their spaces because they are not biologically female.
Which, as a (trans) woman myself: it seems that the emphasis that transactivists put on what are the really important issues facing transwomen is, well quite, frankly, all wrong. There are not, in reality, many womens spaces that I have been unwelcome, and I therefore I totally respect those spaces that are ‘womyn-born-womyn’ or FAB, however you wish to term it. Transactivists make a great deal of noise about how important it is to have ‘safe spaces for transpeople’ (which I do not have any complaint about), however, it is somewhat hypocritical is it not, to then attack Feminists and women groups for having their own?
August 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Well transactivists AND the Daily Mail to be fair Steph. No the ‘female brain’ thing is fairly well embedded in the consciousness of certain sections of the community and they’re not ALL transactivists to be fair. When I was going round my office making fun of the idea of ‘female brains’ and most were joining in a woman piped up ‘but men and women do have different brains’.
Unfortunately, ‘pop-psychology’ and tripe such as the ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ books haven’t helped that either. There is $$$ to be made.
August 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You start to get the concept. But theres a bit more to it, too
>What is not possible is that your brain has a sense of ‘gender’. That it has an instinctive
No. Theres no color pink that is imprinted in my brain as you like to suggest. There may be something imprinted that likes to express female like the actual sociaty defines it – like in so many females. It didn’t hit me. It hit others which you like to ridicule about.
You are very right that there is a phyical sense of what the body should feel like, and even in the beginning most TS fel the relieve that there something matches that preieously doesn’t. And even then, when really no bodilly changes can expected you learn that people react diffently to you. From whistles to insults screamed at you like “shitty bitch” (for overtaking them on the right side, while they where breaking me out on the left.
When I was first time on hormones, I discribed to a friend, it is like coming home. And that limbthing has some point, even if it is ridiculas to reduce a TS Woman to losing her penis, which seems for you to be all about it. The Penis thing is far more importent to trans men, who cannot gain real good results but on the other Hand gain perfect passing (and as you so often like to point out, on the way male privelege) while MT2 like me can hope of functional limbs, replacing dysdunctional ones, FTM often feel some sense of the missing limb syndrome while on the other hand MTF feel like they have a sort of cancerous growing down there.
But thats not the point. The point is that a F2M Man misses the strength of his muscles, miscles the hardenss of his skin and misses the hair on his outer body parts. The feeling of strengt. And he misses the copetitivness his not really cappable of. Theres the will, but then not.
On the other hand theres the M2F Woman. Going though puperty her body develops in the complete wrong way, While at first body hair free and soft and happy about that, she then develops body and facial hear, gets pimples, and then voice break and undoable change in Bonestucture appears. Its widley known that there are those who known everytime, and those who know only after those terrible changes begin.
Lay asside what you call male privilidge. Would you ever like your body this to happen?
And then there comes another side. All my female friends moved away to other scools when I was a child. Could I make new female friends? No. For them I was boy. Always a thread. And the other boys where a thread (literaly) to me, cause I didn?t no the rules, the have inherited with their mail gendered brain.
Some of thes rules are always have fun of competition
Always ridicule a friend, he will do back and you both have a laugh
Use a team as long as it is necessary
That are some of the rule I learned to survice in the male world the hard way, not knowing them.
I would call myself a freak if not the following happened:
Since I live as a woman and am halfway passable all my communication instincts with when to smile, when to make a compliment etc. just fit.
And I never seen so many women AND men (they never smile at each other) since then.
There was a fit in my instincts, and that same thing hit my again, when I tried heterosexual Sex as a female too. My intincts where right, but when I was expected to do that in and out game on a woman after a joyfull period of foreplay I fell all lost and acted by knowledge – not instinct. Which lead, by the way to sexuality we both did not really enjoy.
August 18, 2008 at 2:13 pm
MMm, pop psychology always used to get me very upset when I was a small feminista. I believed that crap. I used to think that if even the BBC was saying it, that NYT was saying it, that it must be true, and that I was completely inferior to men (this was in sixth grade). Now I have learned to rise above :).
August 18, 2008 at 2:14 pm
mAndrea, I am not sure if you were referring to my last comment? As I don’t quite fully grasp what you are saying in relation to that.
My point was more that pre-TW (for want of a better term) have idealised vision of what womanhood is about. It comes as a bit of a rude awakening once they get there to find womanhood is being on the receiving end of rape, male violence, sexism, workplace discrimination etc etc (all the stuff feminists have been ‘nagging’ about). They mistakenly attribute this to their ‘special case’ of being trans, when in reality – if they pass well enough – they just get a standard woman’s lot. Hence this is why many transactivists are doing their best to win the Oppression Olympics.
From the FAB point of view, as we have had the lifelong experience in this hostile-to-female environment, we tend to get a bit uppity to the newcomers who think they know it all after five minutes of being ‘woman’.
August 18, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I concur with m’learned friend. Maybe we should hold the oppression olympics when the regular ones have finished? Then I get to shout HOMOPHOBIA again…….
August 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm
My point was more that pre-TW (for want of a better term) have idealised vision of what womanhood is about. It comes as a bit of a rude awakening once they get there to find womanhood is being on the receiving end of rape, male violence, sexism, workplace discrimination etc etc (all the stuff feminists have been ‘nagging’ about). They mistakenly attribute this to their ’special case’ of being trans, when in reality – if they pass well enough – they just get a standard woman’s lot. Hence this is why many transactivists are doing their best to win the Oppression Olympics.
Very true stormy. I have met a large number of M2F transitioners, whom seem to have done so more because of their ‘rose-tinted’ view of what being a woman was about? In some cases, about being ‘treated as a lady and dressing glam’. In many cases, they were simply unprepared for dealing with how society treats them as both women, and as transwomen.
I’ve also met some transpeople that have been rather resentful that another has been victim to violence, discrimination, etc. on the grounds as being perceived as a woman solely, and not as a transwoman – it that makes sense? (I’ve tried to re-word that a few times).. what I mean is, they are deeply sorry to hear that another transwoman has suffered, but sometimes also have an element of refusal to accept, that it could be because of that person being a woman, rather than as trans? Transactivists always regard an incident as automatically being ‘transphobic’, but certainly in some cases (if that person has passing privilege), then it actually comes down to mysogyny/woman-hating?
August 18, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Steph, it seems there is a lot of misplaced attribution to ‘transphobia’ going on, when in reality it is the very unglamorous world of ‘misogyny’. Sometimes homophobia, depending on circumstance.
It could also be that TWs are unprepared for such treatment, as the FABs have been getting an unhealthy dose of it since the time we were wrapped in pink blankets (hey, you’ve gotta get that sexism in early, girl babies are too stoopid to realise they are inferior and ‘other’).
August 18, 2008 at 2:49 pm
We have both the thread of being women and the thread of being abused be your kind. Later may seem harmless but gives the predators even more right to do us harm. If even “our own kind” except us, alt that is left is an it. and this it is something, that can easily destroyed. Sorry. I could even see why you have a fear of leaving preops into woman only spaces (while an errection would easily destinquisch a men form an honest person there) But riddiculing us to the point where we are an it – only causes to that male violnece happily accepted by the puplic. Aren’t all trannies predators? Espaciallyon poor heterosexual men, whom we told before bit erasing the victim have nothing to fear? Sorry, I been through that. My last and only male lover left after the sex, banned me from his online account and notthinking about MSN he finally told me I’ve deceived, him, made him druk and then user him. The truth ist, and I assured others know, that I told him everything before he still was hot and invited him to my birhtday party where there where other transexuals an discussing the topic there was no chance he could ever escape I’m pre op trans. But that I poor heterosexual was deceivid while I was drunk by a pre op trans. That didn’t lead to violence, I think all that precautions helped. But anyway its the same argument that the morder of Zapata uses. DONT tell me again I don’t know Homophob behavior, and I know many other women and men who received that for being homosexual, who I call friends. And don’t you ever tell me childhood abuse is limited to born(means adivesed sex) and raised in one female gender.
Don’t ever tell me that theres a glass ceyling, too. Not because there isn’t, I know that one. I know a few things more that might interest you i’ve you?d have an open ear, but that would favor one gender and so you don’t want to here that, the same way no one wondered why female developers are better paid. But both would mean there are differences in the sexes that cannot be ignored.
Which is a further point in distroying a world view, based on so much good intensions and as a may say have brought the western world a good stept further. Especially in the not so sexuall opressed Europe, as I see.
August 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Oh… by the way. Its statistically signiffant, tht most transmen tranistion during their early years… as mroe and more mt2 do. But both have the disatvantage at that time to not earn very much as both are at the start of their career or at collece. Its a completly non argument to say trans men are less blessed than trans women in that way, cause male privilage or not both start at the same low levels. And the trans men then get all that male pivililige that women don’t (anymore?)
A complete diffenrent view; I was raised in a very feminist household, so I never had an advantage of beeing raised male. I was always told I would have to to do my share of household in a (potentially) upcumming upbringing family That gave my femin side some extra bit to chew. How can I wish to be a female when there is no difference between the genders. Well I learnded to swallow that bit. But you won’t even have to take a bite.
Its a bit of the bitterness about radical feminism, I’m about
I thought it was about equal chance, you make it to elitism. No one here questioned, why are the female delevelopers better paid? And I don’t know if you aware of, that when in northern Europe there was esanblished a womens quote in CEO Positions the values of the compaies raised, which had female leaders.
But you cant sum that up to success, wont you? Men and women are equal. there can’t be an advantage of the female kind, too?
I know, that a woman can get every bit of success if there is no hinderness of male privilege. Lot of M2F prooved that. But you only insist theres ever no difference and therefore no such thing as a birth conditioned Gender Identity.
How much du I have to pay you? I provied all the way to manhood for you, and even pay for a good plasty. You will gain all the male priviledge you all like for for yourself
One Exception. If you stop the Hormons, there willbe no money at all
One final Exlusivement- your over 18 and your not TS. And by the way, the hormones have to be importet from Mexico or if youre in Europe from Spain, cause no normal doctor would lead you to hormonal replacement therapie. this isn’t taken light at heart by the medical community.
Oh well. and please nlog about any welcome or unwelcome result.
I think I cant loose my money, if not a F2M tricks me.
And why I am shure of that? You know your gender not whats between your hips, but between your ears.
August 18, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Sarah, unfortunately I was unable to follow much of your last two comments.
Content-wise, they were all over the place.
August 19, 2008 at 12:47 am
“Its a bit of the bitterness about radical feminism, I’m about
I thought it was about equal chance, you make it to elitism.”
You know Sarah, a lot of men like to think that feminism is about being equal.
It’s not.
It’s about getting the patriarchy’s boot off our neck.
I’ve been kicking this bloody can down the road for over forty years.
Thousands of women before me have been kicking it for hundreds of years.
No one has a clue what we could do or be if the stinking boot came off our neck.
Right now, in the US, women earn 70% of the dollar that men earn. We haven’t even come close to bloody equal. So don’t even give me any shit about elitism.
August 19, 2008 at 1:11 am
thebewilderness, the figure is roughly the same in the UK as well (perhaps all of 72% whoopty doo!). Looking at female MPs in the UK, it is about 17%, considering females are about 51% of the population, we should have 51% representation.
Many of us from ‘old school’ feminism have not forgotten about the fundamentals. Something I find annoying with the 3rd wave who seem to stand on the sexual empowerfulness platform (isn’t gunna work btw, fucking your way to respect, master’s house/tools etc). Transactivists also ignore the fundamentals, big time. The transactivist brand of feminism seems to be all about trans, fuck all to do with FABs and the core issues. And a lot of usage of the word ‘transphobia’ when we do not comply with transactivist wishes.
Yes thebewilderness, it is about our liberation. And our autonomy. Autonomy does not include being told what it means to be a FAB by non-FABs.
August 19, 2008 at 4:04 am
No your gender is NOWHERE Sarah. It doesn’t exist. It is orbiting the earth with the celestial flying teapot.
Elitism? Elitism? WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you call the way women are TREATED elite Sarah, you’re seriously unsane.
And you’re mistaking me for someone who cares whether you think I’m bitter or not.
August 19, 2008 at 5:10 am
A complete diffenrent view; I was raised in a very feminist household, so I never had an advantage of beeing raised male. I was always told I would have to to do my share of household in a (potentially) upcumming upbringing family That gave my femin side some extra bit to chew. How can I wish to be a female when there is no difference between the genders. Well I learnded to swallow that bit. But you won’t even have to take a bite.
Sarah: to raise this point. I was bought up by a 60/70s vocal Feminist mother, and whilst I may have been bought up reasonably gender neutral, the fact is, is that I was still raised male – because that’s what sex I was – and thus, my experiences and upbringing, regardless of gender roles/stereotypes/conformities, are still shaped, unavoidably by whether you are FAB or MAB.. You don’t get an opt-out in most cases!
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say re. sharing in household duties – are you saying that because you see this as a ‘feminine role’? Or that because you shared in them, that gives you some claim/experiences of womanhood?
*confused*
I also don’t think you understand how male privilege works? I’m sorry, but transmen do not start at the same low levels as transwomen. Not all transwomen start from the same low levels either. But, don’t get me into a good old Leftist class warfare rant 😉
August 19, 2008 at 5:22 am
Have you actually got any figures, Sarah, to prove that “statistically”, “transmen transition during their early years”. I’ve yet to find any accurate statistics about anything to do with transitioning – how many transsexuals there are, definitive age-breakdowns, etc… Is this just another piece of ‘fact’ eminating from the trans-space/activists, or some sort of independent piece of research with a sufficiently large data sample?
August 20, 2008 at 4:50 am
I don’t comment everywhere, partly because I have a life. And a 7 year old son, And am doing a PhD. After fighting the good fight (did I mention I hate fighting of any kind?) against the Dominionists, the Chauvinists, the just plain bigoted and the marginally sane, discussing the finer points of Radical Feminism sometimes slips off the end of the list.
My apologies Polly, and if you could give me a URL, I’ll add it to my TTD list.
I’m used to blunt dismissal of my views by men. So yours comes as no surprise. It would be nice though for you to give arguments, medical papers, you know, actual evidence showing exactly where I’m wrong.
You’re one of the more intelligent, well-read and rational people amongst the punditocracy. I’ve found many of your posts, especially ones expressing contrary views to my own, very thought-provoking. It’s because you’re worth listening to that I ask those questions. Of course, I have no right to demand that you answer them, there’s been too much demanding and arrogance, too much denial of narratives shown on both sides. So please could you help, and give me your views on the definitions of male and female?
August 20, 2008 at 8:17 am
My argument Zoe is that of Richard Dawkins and every other good sciencist. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that there is such a thing as brain sex. Now just because something COULD be true, that doesn’t mean it IS true. I’ll believe there’s such a thing as brain sex when you show me proper scientific proof. And not before.
That requires proof of
a) Correlation and
b) Causation
The fact that there is a correlation proves nothing, unless you have causation. It’s like saying people in lower income brackets are more likely to have heart disease. That doesn’t prove that the being poor directly causes the heart disease. It’s a correlation. But there could be a host of other factors causing it. Scientific proof needs to be a lot more rigorous than we can observe two things happening together sometimes.
August 20, 2008 at 8:22 am
Yeah most transmen I know Steph didn’t transition until over 30. In fact, for most transmen, the process, or the narrative seems to be very different and much more ambiguous. This is possibly because it’s something that’s not presented in mainstream culture in the same way as being a transwoman is (not that I’m saying mainstream culture’s presentation is accurate there!). And IMHO there ARE less transmen than transwomen around, although we’re always told that’s not the case.
October 12, 2009 at 6:39 am
[…] privilege implied by the “cis/trans” dichotomy are hetero men. . . Polly Styrene (in a comment over at mAndrea’s) puts it thusly: Yes the good ol cisgender privilege argument is based on a misunderstanding of […]
May 16, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Very good article. Can’t wait to read a lot more about this subject.