GAG demands Vancouver Women’s Library ban books

Well I might not, but those of us with men's bodies know a little bit about "big, hairy and smelly" too. 

Oh, and floppy.

But again, I am not trying to take her and her ideas apart; just holding some things she has said up as an example of how wide the misunderstanding and assumptions are on both sides about this issue. In particular the fact she sees it as a threat.

That's stretching the idea of gender essentialism further than I would. 

The male vs female brain bit is salient, though. The current state of the science is that there are, statistically, some differences between male and female brains. However, there are two caveats. The first is that there's an incredible amount of variation in individuals, creating a great deal of overlap, and certainly no black and white "this is a man brain" or "this is a woman brain" rules to differentiate. More like statistical tendencies that may or may not play out individually.

The second is that we don't know why Those statistical differences exist. Could be a level of biological sexual dimorphism. But given what we're observing about neuroplasticity, it could be social conditioning that shapes brain function. So we are back to the old nature vs nurture argument. 

Ultimately, I am not ready to acquiesce to the biological argument wholly until there's more concrete evidence to base it on. 

smith- the threat is re-enforcing stereotypes we want gone for both genders.

with all the porn mags depiciting vaginas as flowers for all da mens out there you should be able to get where she is coming from with depicting how vagina reality is. not negative and not shameful.

magoo from what i get from essentialism now i  get it. it's more in dwelling hard wiring with outward  expression not a redefinition of body parts.

redefining body parts  in the manner you've exampled is just delusion imv.

Sure, but to bring this merry-go-round full circle, essentialism is a problem within the conflicts between trans activists and feminists who feel that subverting enforced gender stereotypes is integral to emancipation. 

Part of the argument for gender dysphoria relies on the idea that one has a male or female brain regardless of what other sexual characteristics one may have. And that in turn relies heavily on gender essentialism.

bearing in mind that neither trans activism and feminism are monolithic and that there are a wide array of opinions and positions on this, it is a particular sticking point and something of a stalemate. I'm not especially hopeful that there will be much movement on that any time soon. 

yeah, I'm getting out of patience with the whole thing. 

[quote=6079_Smith_W]...I do find it weird that she'd use such a negative image as her idea of what makes born women different than trans women.(edit)

​i've been thinking more on this comment. i think you are really focusing on negative imagery from your point of view not from a lived experience with a vagina.  it's growth and development -which rarely is a blessed event- forge us into who we become as women.

why would you expect us or Greer to deliniate something trivial but positive as to what makes us different? and to extend this why would anyone expect a women delinate anything at anytime?

we do not have to defend who we are and why we are.

Look, I am not trying to put down Greer. She is an important thinker and activist. And she is entitled to her opinion about transgenderism. But some of her assumptions around it aren't exactly on the ball.

​i think you need to give an example here on what you think her assumptions aren't on the ball about?

I  can't say I agree with Greer on everything, but the point I'm taking from her phraseology is that being female is not all about being pretty and sexy. Some of it's downright messy and let's face it, the reproductive part of womanhood is a good place to start.

She may be assuming trans people are holding to a stereotype, but let's take a look at, say, Caitlin Jenner. How much of the waxing philosophical on her transformation had anything to do with the messy parts of female bodies and female lives?

I get that for a lot of transwomen, the adoption of aspects of stereotypical femininity is a way of reinforcing the persona and to be accepted as female. I can totally understand it on a personal level. However, the highly made up, coiffed and waxed and in high heels manifestation of woman, trans or cis, is more performative than anything else. (Think about drag queens - and no, I'm not equating them to trans women at all! - who are men who perform femininity while remaining clearly men.)

It's a stereotype that has always relied on women being embarrassed about being smelly or hairy or not good enough because our lipstick and hair is untidy. There are a lot of feminists who have spent their lives fighting it and who have a concern that adopting that kind of presentation takes us a step back. I think that's some of what Greer was getting at, ineffectively, whether you agree with her stance on it or not.

PS - Hi, Meg!

smith you say "really just in her mind"

are you sure you want to say this?

by inference you are telling all women who understand and have experienced the stereotypes imosed upon us 'it's just in our minds'

you admit she's a thinker.

why would you question her extrapolation of lived experience?

have you thought your experience might be a minority one in the scheme of things?

and this thread stands as testimony to the the seige women are under currently  because of transactivists who are telling us who we are and how we shoud be.

Okay, so I think you are misunderstanding me, Smith.

I do not for one minute equate transwomen with drag queens. They are totally different.

Drag queens are not women, they are men. What they do is perform femininity while remaining men. They put on a persona and take her off when they leave the stage, for the most part. They don't think they're women.

Drag may have been a safe space for transwomen at one time, but that's not, nor has it ever been, the reality of most men who do drag.

Transwomen identify as female, a whole other kettle of fish.

What I'm talking about are the Caitlin Jenners of the world who gush about getting to wear pretty underwear and spike heels. That kind of public face added to the small subset of transwomen who argue that talking about biologically female functions like menstruation and pregnancy is exclusionary is what Greer is pushing back at. CJ gets held up as a hero, but I can't help thinking of transwomen who can't afford the massive amount of cosmetic surgery she's done on top of her reassignment surgeries. It's inescapable that the aesthetic that she promotes is problematic in both trans women and non-trans women. IOW, they're luxury choices that are not necessarily feminist choices.

I think that's part of what rankles as well - that choosing the super high heels and sexy dresses are choices, but the demand that they be accepted as FEMINIST choices is something that irritates, no matter where it comes from. Yes, it can be empowering to the individual, but you're not really moving any feminist agenda forward and I'm not giving you a cookie for feeling positive about it.

Perhaps. I'll admit to being a lipstick devotee - in fact, I was nearly driven out of the first feminist gathering I ever attended, back in the mid-1980s, for showing up with my bouffed up hair and red lipstick. (I've dropped the bouffed hair, but I still lurve red lipstick!) So I'm not necessarily advocating against such displays, if you like them. Just that when I pick up my red lipstick on the way out the door, I'm not making a bold, feminist statement.

So my (very tangential point) is a bit larger than the trans issue, but somewhat connected. Empowering choices aren't always feminist, and they don't need to be.

This is not to say I don't understand that it's the price of safety and acceptance for transwomen - I do. Sometimes it's a coping mechanism for women who aren't trans as well. I know there's a huge difference in how stereotypically feminine women vs more androgynous women are treated. It's a spectrum. And I also accept that the public discourse and the everyday life are two different things. Not every transwoman is a trans activist but they do, of course, drive the discourse.

Who's been around babble long enough to remember The Great Thong Wars?  :)

Quote:

It really is only the straight white guys who don't have to constantly watch themselves in that department, or even think about it.

Unless we run around in a "NO FEAR" tank top and use Axe body spray.

I'm not saying this in any kind of sympathy with those guys, but that's going to be noticed and commented upon and its deeper meanings analyzed.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who's been around babble long enough to remember The Great Thong Wars?  :)

oh, yes...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I just mean that we all have a brain, and we don't know that much about the brain, so while I personally don't believe in the idea of a "lady brain" or a "female brain", I can't prove there could be no such thing, either.  It's actually a debate that predated "trans-rights" by decades.

But some trans-women believe that their penis is "a woman's penis" or a "female penis", or in some cases an "enlarged clitoris".  It just seems to me that by the time your DONG and BALLS are somehow "female", that's a bit different from suggesting your brain (or your pancreas, or your stomach, or any other thing we all have) is female, and it sort of suggests that maybe essentialism has gone a bit far.

Next up:  I'm a MAN, so this is MANstruation!

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that a penis, or menstruation, have to have the final say on defining anyone's place in society.  But it's a bit funny to suggest that a penis is really a clitoris because that somehow "squares the circle" and then to expect everyone to nod piously and say "Yes, you're a woman, so that MUST be a clitoris.  There's no other explanation for what it is".

Magoo, I'm not sure if you're acting out of innocent lack of awareness or you're just doing passive-aggressive trolling, but can I ask you to at least consider not posting in this thread for awhile and just reading what people are saying?            

What you're doing with your posts here doesn't sound as if you are working from a standpoint of respect to the communities involved in this.  

​And those who are don't have to justify themselves and what they say to those of us who aren't comparably oppressed.

Thanks, Ken, I think your intentions are good, but I think we can handle Magoo in this thread. His examples are absurd, but I also think that is part of this conversation - where is the line? To what extent do we say "okay, cool" and where do we say "sorry, I just can't get behind that one"?

I agree. And I haven't said that "women" are to blame. The trans community is also not to blame for what a small group of people did to that library.

But there are some people taking this further than the obvious difference of opinion, to the level of discrimination, lies and attack. Unlike the men who resort to that (and there are plenty) those who do it from a feminist and trans perspective are coming from a place of resisting oppression, so it is complicated.

I am asking how fair that is, and what it accomplishes. After all, I am sure those library trashers justify their action by saying they are under threat and defending their community too. I don't buy that even if they can point to things they claim make it okay.

BTW, The Current has a piece this morning on women's groups who believe C-16 undermines women's rights. I will be listening to it.

You can check it out on their website: 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-22-2017-1.4124248...

Some of it I thought was good. There were parts of both interviews that made me cringe, both in the questions and the answers. Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong. 

And so far as the proposed law is concerned, I agree it is really simple. It only adds four words to existing legislation. Yet again, they go down the path of pretending it is really complicated because there is a difference in definition. And what something means in philosophical terms is not necessarily the same as what it means in legal terms.

I know this isn't the official "trans stuff" thread, but this just popped up, and it's kind of interesting.

Quote:

The 1972 hit ‘Walk on the Wild Side’ was called ‘transphobic’ by the University of Guelph student association, which apologized for playing the song on campus.

[quote=6079_Smith_W]You can check it out on their website: 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-22-2017-1.4124248...

thanks i will listen tomorrow if i get the chance.

Some of it I thought was good. There were parts of both interviews that made me cringe, both in the questions and the answers. Again, I wish discussions like this would focus on trying to get to the best solutions that will address concerns, not trying to pin people down on who is right and who is wrong. 

what do you perceive as the 'best solutions'?

And so far as the proposed law is concerned, I agree it is really simple. It only adds four words to existing legislation. Yet again, they go down the path of pretending it is really complicated because there is a difference in definition. And what something means in philosophical terms is not necessarily the same as what it means in legal terms.

i wasn't talking re proposed law being simple with 4 words added. it should be scrapped. even simpler.

I mean focusing on the legal protections, and applying them in a way that causes the least harm. The definitions cannot be resolved, and will remain a point of disagreement, so it is kind of irrelevant.

Also, leaving trying to force others to agree to definitions they clearly are not going to, and not silencing or ostracizing them because they do not agree.

I mean, given that Vancouver Rape Relief fought a battle on this issue I can see why they have concerns. I don't think definitions are really the question, but rather how the law is applied when there is a conflict. And given that there are plenty of examples where rights are applied in an intersectional way, it remains to be seen whether those concerns are valid. But I don't see that attacking the fundamental principle of transgender rights protection is a good course to take.

Yes. That is one of the intersectional problems we are talking about, and I already said how I feel about that specific instance. Organizations have be able to make that kind of judgment call (particularly when if concerns potential workers), and I don't see that recognizing transgender rights protection is a threat to that. In the first place some sex-specific hiring is not a breach (in spassalons and clothing stores). And given the very good argument that some women seeking services may feel threatened there is every reason to believe that the right to that decision will continue to be upheld (as it already has been).

I did not say Vancouver Rape Relief was the only organization concerned; I know there are others, and Jordan Peterson also spoke against C-16.  But there are plenty of similar organizations which do not share that concern.

And the changes made by C-16 - adding "gender expression" and "gender identity" - are about as fundamental as it gets. Like I said, there may be philosophical differences of opinion about what those terms mean, but in a sense of rights it is pretty simple. And opposing it does constitute an unnecessary attack.