Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view.

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Infosaturated
Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view.

That is the description of this section:

Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view.

The debate over what it means to be female and the right to woman's spaces is absolutely key to feminism.  This is not some minor side issue. It appears as though many feminists, maybe even a majority, defend the existence of wbw spaces.

The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival and The Vancouver Pharmacy for Women both consider themselves to be feminist and a large number of feminists agree.  They represent a major feminist position which upholds the rights of wbw to have exclusive space to gather. They are not "non-progressive" groups.

Maysie you stated:

"Agreement is clearly not possible. And I don't even mean agreement on the issues, terminology, etc, but we can't even agree that oppression is going on, that oppression of trans people exists."

I don't think a single person in that thread or any other has claimed that trans people don't face oppression.  I certainly do and have acknowleged that they do face oppression and that it is severe enough to threaten their health to the point of loss of life. Living as women they face the same patriarchal oppression as wbw do and on top of that they have the added burden of facing oppression as trans people.  It addition they have to go through a usually long and arduous process to qualify for surgery (if they choose physical transition) and even once they do gathering the necessary funds can be a barrier to actually recieving the multiple surgeries. The surgery itself is serious and they face ongoing medical issues throughout life.  The likelihood of facing rejection from at least some friends and family is high and they could also face job loss.  And that is just the abstract of the Coles Notes version of the issues that they face. 

None of that answers the questions:

How is it okay to silence women's voices defending the right of wbw spaces?

Is discussing a particular feminist issue only okay if all feminists agree or if no other oppressed group objects?

Is coming to an agreement a requirement for threads to stay open?

spatrioter

Can we use the term "cisgendered women" instead of "women born women"?

Unionist

And here I thought babble was a hbh space.

 

martin dufresne

It has struck me that, in the original thread, the most bitter attacks against women and women's rights to woman's spaces - both in the thread and in unrequited personal messages - have come from men, men who don't even self-identify as trans (at least, they haven't here). Which brings me to wonder whether trans folks and their condition are being blatantly instrumentalized here.

I would ask that this thread be limited to women.

Unionist

There are no women's spaces on babble. Never have been. Anyone can speak, so long as it is from an ally's point of view. If anyone wants to change this, then they should consider the implications for the fate of this board.

 

Sineed

Unionist wrote:

And here I thought babble was a hbh space.

 

??

Sineed

Human born as human?

Unionist

Yes, Sineed. And if babble is to become compartmentalized by colour, sex, religion, or whatever, then let it be damned.

 

Sineed

Exact determinations of what constitute race, gender, religion, or whatever only become important if segregation is deemed necessary.

oldgoat

Thankyou for pointing that out Martin.  Traditionally, it is an opening poster who is framing the discussion who would make that request, and I think here, at least a woman. Should it be a woman only thread, that of course would include M to F trangendered people.

Further, I would ask people to consider Spats suggestion.

Unionist, took me a while to figure out what you meant, but no, and I have no idea where you got such a notion.

Should it be a woman only thread I reserve the right to moderate if need be.

 

 

martin dufresne

I am aware of the fact that some people - generally men - make it a matter of principle that women not be allowed woman's space, damn Court decisions and constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Well let's discuss that instead of acting as if this dscussion was about trans women.

spatrioter

Considering this is the feminism forum, I don't think we're debating the existence of women's spaces.  The inclusion of trans people (both trans women and trans men) is the topic of contention among feminists.

Boze

martin dufresne wrote:

I would ask that this thread be limited to women.

Since when do men get to ask that??

All I'm going to point out is that 1) the notion that "women get to decide who is a woman" is an obviously circular argument, 2) groups like VWHC and the MWMF are a definite minority, and 3) "women born women" is considered offensive and is also absurd on its face, as most women are born girls.  There is a pattern here.  People object to the term "cis" because it is normalizing.  The only people objecting to it are all on one side of the debate.  It puts trans women and cis women on equal footing as women.  It renders cisgender privilege visible, and exposes cisgendered only space for what it is, women with privilege excluding an oppressed minority group.  There is no other way to refer to people who are not trans, when discussing trans issues, that is not "othering."

I usually don't agree with closing threads, but I agreed with Maysie's decision to close the other one.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Martin - I thought you believed this thread should be restricted to women's voices. And it seems that Old Goat has agreed with you - so WTF are you doing here???

That said, I'm outta here...

...(though still possibly lurking)

Le T Le T's picture

Dominant feminism in North America has refused membership to Black women, poor women, Queer women, Indigenous women, immigrant women and trans women. In each of these cases the specific oppression of these women has been challenged as "not part of being a woman" or "not an issue for feminism". In each of these cases the oppression of these groups benefited more powerful groups within the feminist movement.

You receive non-trans privilege at the expense of trans people. If you can't deal with this and want to be a bigot that's your business, just don't co-opt feminism to justify this bigotry.

The discussions around trans women on this board have been embarrasing. The idea that transphobic people are being "silenced" on babble is laughable. Babble is a transphobic place that does not welcome trans people.

Unionist

Oldgoat, if you do this, I'm done here. This is utter bullshit. This is not progressive politics. It is crap.

Boze

Deep breaths Unionist, it hasn't happened yet, and this board has had women-only threads before.

500_Apples

It seems like it would be trivial for real trolls to lie about their demographic profile, so segregation is a moot point from inception.

Unionist

Boze wrote:

Deep breaths Unionist, it hasn't happened yet, and this board has had women-only threads before.

Lovely, from now on it can have Jew only and brown only and over 75 only and brunette only threads. That'll build a new society all right. We'll all feel "safe", won't we, when we just cohabit with "our own", the ones we were "born" as? What crap. Every single babbler should say "bullshit" to this.

 

 

Kaspar Hauser

This is what I wrote on the "Who determines a person's gender" forum and I believe it applies just as well here:

 

"We don't allow homophobia on babble, and we would ask homophobic posters to either leave the board or to stay out of certain discussions. If previous discussion threads were shut down because they were fouled by hatred, then we usually don't allow new ones on the same subject to be opened up immediately thereafter. Trans people deserve the same courtesy. This board should not be a place where trans women, for example, are accused of not being real women, or where they are accused of trying to undermine 'real' women's gender identities, or where their gender identity is reduced to an erotic fixation on an internalized cross-gender image of themselves, or where the staggering oppression they are exposed to is minimized or disregarded." 

Unionist

Agreed, Michael, 100%. We must pay attention to what people stand for, not what they "are".

 

oldgoat

First, unionist, we've been having women only threads ocassionally in the feminism forum since before you were posting here.  I'm not going to get into the merits of that right now.

 

There are only two women as far as I know posting here anyway, and it's gone off topic.  This is clearly not something the board is ready to discuss right now no matter how the opening post is framed, so I'm closing this.  Me'n the other mods will talk about it when we can, but I'm not going to just watch a series of threads go down the crapper one after another.  Lets give this topic a break until we can figure out how to frame it, because it should be discussed.

 

I'm going out for a few hours.  Hope there's a board here when I get back.

Topic locked