Kimberly Nixon
Sun, 2006-01-15 16:27
#1
Kimberly Nixon
Sun, 2006-01-15 16:27
#2
A thread that was already started on this has deteriorated into a negative discussion.Fern Hill suggested that the discussion be moved out of the feminist forum. A good suggestion.
For those that haven't followed that decision the human rights tribunal ordered Vancouver Rape Relief to pay $7,500, the highest award ever in B.C. for injury to feelings to Kimberly Nixon, a post operative male-to-female transsexual. When the VRR society asked her to leave they were seen as being breach of the Human Rights Code. That decision was later reversed.
[url=http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=1&item=1192]http://www.egale.c... is supporting Kimberly.
Her legal counsel is Barbara Findlay who is an outspoken feminist and an advocate for GLBT equality.
Here are some excerpts from her interview:
[url=http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=7836]http://www.straight.com/cont...
quote:
"YES, BUT THEY'RE NOT A RELIGION--more of a cult," snaps barbara findlay, Kimberly Nixon's lawyer. Findlay is well-known as a champion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, and she often works on high-profile cases. After years of being interviewed by reporters, she has a habit of peppering her conversation with provocative quotes.Findlay is protective of Nixon, and it's not hard to understand why: after a lifetime of alternately hiding and fighting, her client has an air of vulnerability. Nixon, 47, is sensitive about her appearance because so much of this legal case revolves around whether or not she could be mistaken for a man. But with her shoulder-length blond hair, she looks much like any other fit, middle-aged woman....
But the dominant fact in her biography is that she has what doctors call gender identity disorder and that has led to a life punctuated by lawsuits. ...But the financial and emotional costs of this case have been heavy. As a human-rights complainant, Nixon was entitled to funding through legal aid, but findlay estimates she has donated between $70,000 and $100,000 in legal fees and even covered disbursement costs, such as filing court documents and buying transcripts of proceedings.
"This case has been a lot to endure: to be attacked around my identity," Nixon says. "But if I had walked away, I couldn't continue to live. It's hard for a transgendered person who seeks support and help....I am so afraid that Rape Relief will turn away a transgendered person from accessing services and that may cost a life.".....
But for all the problems that going under the knife solved, it also caused a few. Nixon told the Human Rights Tribunal that she can't get hired as a pilot, and she has been fired from a series of jobs once her employers learned of her sex change, often through news stories.
After going through all of that, Nixon found the RR rejection devastating. "I felt less than human and I didn't want to be here anymore. I felt I wasn't part of society; I wasn't wanted. I thought about the Lions Gate Bridge. But I've spent my whole life surviving, so I filed the human-rights complaint instead."
Although Nixon now volunteers for WAVAW (Women Against Violence Against Women), she still feels that admission to Rape Relief is important. She just wants the organization she praises for doing good work to live up to its ideals. "I expect of them what they expect of others: I want them to educate themselves around the issue of oppression and transgender. They educate society around issues of violence, homophobia, and racism, and expect society to learn. But in this case they just throw the rules of operation right out the window."
The article then goes on to talk about the precedent setting case in more detail.
quote:
Findlay points out that RR perpetuates stereotypes, something that was revealed at the tribunal, where there was evidence of a woman being asked to stop wearing a baseball cap backward because of its masculine connotations.
quote:
But it is also a clash of political beliefs: queer theory versus radical-feminist philosophy. The gender benders hold that the terms men and women are passй, sex is a state of mind, and gender is nothing more than a social construct to be played with.
quote:
To understand their view of why a transsexual cannot be considered the peer of a lifelong woman, it's useful to replace man and woman with oppressor and oppressed, as Sheila Jeffreys explains in her 1997 article "Transgender Activism: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective" (which can be found on the RR Web site (www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/). Jeffreys, a political-science professor at the University of Melbourne, writes: "Feminist commitment to women-only space is based on a definition of 'woman' as a political category created through oppression. 'Woman' is the result of the experience of living as a woman under male supremacy."To their way of thinking, although an "oppressor" might have cosmetic surgery, she can never really comprehend the world of the oppressed because she grew up experiencing male privilege.
quote:
FINDLAY DISMISSES this feminist philosophy as "transphobia" by another name. "What they are saying is that 'we think you are so subhuman we don't care if you die.' That is what this is about. That is what Rape Relief is saying.
I think the end says it most poignantly
quote:
But it would be impossible not to be sympathetic to both parties. Both have legitimate grievances. Regardless of what anyone thinks about their respective political views, there's no denying that Jay, Nixon, and all the women involved have the courage of their convictions, which is always admirable.Of course, they both meant sympathetic in the sense of siding with one group or another--and that too would be impossible. No one could envy the judges who are obliged to decide whose rights should triumph, because taking sides in this battle would be a little too much like taking sides in Greek tragedy.
Very true.
Sun, 2006-01-15 16:44
#3
What I have found very disturbing in that thread is the fact that non-trans people ("progressives", no less) think that it's their place to define for trans folks what is or is not transphobia.
It reminds me of Michael Coren & other right-wingers who frequently seem to think they have the right to tell queer people what homophobia is and isn't. Or of white people who claim that racism doesn't exist, or at least not in the ways that people of colour say it does.
I appreciate that this is an exceptionally challenging issue, but I was still surprised by some of what I was reading.
Anyway, here is a somewhat-related
[url=http://camptrans.squarespace.com/trans-inclusion-and-michfest/]resource[... about trans exclusion from the michigan womyn's music festival.
Sun, 2006-01-15 17:42
#4
Tony, thanks for that link, I don't know much about the Womyn's Music Festival, but I find what they have to say is quite in line with my thoughts on women-only space.
Andy I think that this part from the Georgia Straight story is worth pointing out:
quote:
"I made a serious attempt to explain who we [Rape Relief] speak for. It went badly right away," Cormier recalls. "She was angry and perceived it as a personal attack. That night she made threats: 'I have been in the media. They have covered my story and you can expect to see your name there.' Her response was typically male: coming from a position of privilege."Still, Cormier says she has a lot of sympathy for Nixon: "I understand Kimberly's point of view: she has been thrust by the medical establishment into an ultramarginalized group."
In Cormier's analysis, Nixon is a man who is as much victim of the patriarchy as any woman. "They discriminate against men who do not fit into the box that is labelled 'men'. Rejected by their own gender, what choice do they have?"
Findlay has a response to that line of thought. "In a world where there are only two choices, M or F, Kimberly has an F--and we say, F you!" findlay says, then laughs at her own pun.
Wow. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2006-01-16 13:41
#5
I believe the term 'homophobia' was adopted to make a mockery of anti-homosexual sentiment. On the one hand it can be an accurate term - literally meaning 'fear'. On the other hand it is used as an epithet to ridicule anti-gays, and, on a more positive side, to hopefully cause them to examine their fear or hatred. It has rarely been a semantically accurate term. 'Phobia' does not necessarily mean hatred. If there was an easy, roll-off-the-tongue suffix that indicated 'ignorance', that would be the most accurate, probably. Because most homophobia is homo-ignorance.
To use the term 'transphobia' as an epithet meaning 'hatred' [as was done in the feminist forum] might be less effective. I don't think it's fair to say that feminists and gays and lesbians who question trans male or female inclusion in certain arenas, therefore 'hate' trans people. The real issue here is ignorance, if anything. And it's not a willful ignorance. It's a genuine, 'I need more time to understand this' kind of ignorance. And I think because many of us belong to the same communities, trans people can and do give that time, and keep the dialogue open. I would hope, anyway.
[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: jas ]
Mon, 2006-01-16 14:07
#6
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I believe the term 'homophobia' was adopted to make a mockery of anti-homosexual sentiment. On the one hand it can be an accurate term - literally meaning 'fear'. On the other hand it is used as an epithet to ridicule anti-gays, and, on a more positive side, to hopefully cause them to examine their fear or hatred. It has rarely been a semantically accurate term. 'Phobia' does not necessarily mean hatred. If there was an easy, roll-off-the-tongue suffix that indicated 'ignorance', that would be the most accurate, probably. Because most homophobia is homo-ignorance.[/b]
Well, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_supremacism]Wikipedia states:[/url]
quote:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word homophobia in the meaning "fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality" was first used in print in Time Magazine in 1969. It was coined by clinical psychologist [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg]George Weinberg[/url], who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality]homophile[/url] group in 1965 [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#endnote_weinberg][2][/url] and popularized by his book [i]Society and the Healthy Homosexual[/i] in 1971. It combines the Greek terms phobos, meaning "panic fear", and homos, which means "the same". The "homo" in homophobia comes from the word homosexual, not to be confused with the Latin homo, meaning man (as in homo sapiens).A possible precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wainwright_Churchill&action=ed... Wainwright Churchill[/url] in [i]Homosexual Behavior Among Males[/i] in 1967.
Any time.
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2006-01-16 18:04
#7
quote:
The real issue here is ignorance, if anything. And it's not a willful ignorance. It's a genuine, 'I need more time to understand this' kind of ignorance. And I think because many of us belong to the same communities, trans people can and do give that time, and keep the dialogue open. I would hope, anyway.
Hmm.
But gay and lesbian persons would presumably have preferred it if the 'straight community' (quotes used advisably) hadn't taken *quite* so much time to think about it before coming to an understanding. Is it any surprise that trans/genderqueer persons might expect and prefer that the MTM, FTF and generally genderstraight move a little bit faster towards getting it resolved that someone who identifies as a woman *is* a woman?
To me it falls down to the level of the race question: If someone self-identifies as a POC, they're a POC. If someone self-identifies as gay, they're gay. For some reason, I'm discovering that even in progressive circles there's a reluctance to extend that same acceptance of self-identification to gender self-identification.
Mon, 2006-01-16 19:28
#8
I would like to respond to something vmichel wrote in the other thread, now closed.
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
But putting aside the politics, and speaking from a caring perspective: is that a kind way to treat a rape victim? To say "you can take your prejudices elsewhere, we can't help you?"
Well, not really, but then again, that's not the only option. Would we say it's okay not to hire a Black woman as a counsellor because some racist white women might not be able to get over their prejudices at a time of trauma and might run in the other direction if confronted by a person of colour in the counselling chair? Or would we try to make procedures for the victim that would make it really easy for them to switch counsellors (without even having to give a reason at all if necessary)?
And regarding the argument that a MTF person can't empathize about accidental pregnancy - what about a person who is infertile? Should we only allow women who are fertile and who might be able to have an accidental pregnancy become a counsellor?
And what about class? Shall we have only impoverished women as counsellors because only someone who has experienced poverty will be able to truly empathize with an impoverished victim facing the loss of her minimum wage job if she stands up to her employer who raped her, or who is facing an unwanted pregnancy from rape on minimum wage or welfare - or by the sole breadwinner of her home who may be supporting her financially?
Also: Tony Too, I wish you wouldn't put scare quotes around "progressives" when talking about people who were discussing the issue in the other thread. It would be nice not to drag the acrimony here. This is a relatively new issue for a lot of people, and as with every progressive issue, a lot of us have a lot of chewing over and debating to do before we get it figured out. I think questioning people's progressive cred is just a way to turn this discussion into a flame war.
Mon, 2006-01-16 19:33
#9
In the time it took me to compose my response to the other thread, Michelle had aleady posted - twice! - and closed it down for length. Sheesh - I need to speed things up a little.
In the next to last post in the other thread, vmichel said:
quote:
Should she really be required to work through her prejudices before she is able to receive assistance for the assault?
I suppose from a "non-political" position, the answer would be "no, she shouldn't" and there are maintstream victims' services agencies that wouldn't demand that she do so.
But rape crisis centres are political - they are feminist, grassroots organizations that use an anti-oppression model of service delivery. There is no way for them to "put aside the politics." And I don't believe that it is "a caring perspective" to allow women to continue their oppressive attitudes unchallenged.
quote:
... if a woman is seeking rape crisis counselling I want her to have a safe space where she is comfortable talking about her experiences.
I don't think it's a feminist position to create a safe space for one woman at the expense of another. If the space isn't safe for all, then it isn't safe for any.
Mon, 2006-01-16 20:03
#10
Those are really informative responses andrean and Michelle, thank you for giving me something to think about!
quote:
Originally posted by andrean:
[b]And I don't believe that it is "a caring perspective" to allow women to continue their oppressive attitudes unchallenged.
[/b]
I have a hard time seeing a woman's reluctance to open up to a transperson about her sexual assault as oppression. In just about any other field I would agree with you, and say that a woman's refusal to do business with a transperson is oppressive. But I think counselling is different, especially front-line crisis response. It may not be within the client's capabilities to open up to a transperson. She simply may not be able to enter into a healthy, therapeutic relationship with a mtf counsellor. It's not like she is buying a sandwich or something, and could just suck it up for the length of the transaction. The nature of the relationship is such that the client's opinion of the transperson may make the relationship impossible.
quote:
[b]
I don't think it's a feminist position to create a safe space for one woman at the expense of another. If the space isn't safe for all, then it isn't safe for any.[/b]
I definitely hear you on that. In my ideal world all women would be totally open minded about this. But rape crisis centers deal with the here-and-now, and unfortunately many women are prejudiced and narrow-minded and their safe space is exclusionary. So it becomes a question of degree. If you are talking about a women's center on campus, or a resource center, then it's a lot more important to make the safe space inclusive than to cater to bigots. But in a therapeutic relationship, in the very specific instance of rape crisis counselling, I think catering to the client's comfort should be front and center. For me it is a question of mental health: it would be irresponsible to prioritize the fostering of an inclusive environment over providing therapeutic care to individuals in immediate need.
quote:
originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
Would we say it's okay not to hire a Black woman as a counsellor because some racist white women might not be able to get over their prejudices at a time of trauma and might run in the other direction if confronted by a person of colour in the counselling chair? Or would we try to make procedures for the victim that would make it really easy for them to switch counsellors (without even having to give a reason at all if necessary)?[/b]
I hear you on that. I guess it becomes a question of degree. I am taking it at face value that a significant number of women would be significantly averse to having a mtf rape crisis counsellor, to the extent that a therapeutic relationship would be impossible. That might not be the case.
For what it's worth, if a bigoted woman wanted a white rape crisis counsellor, I would want her to have one. Again, I feel like adressing her immediate mental health needs should be prioritized over addressing her bigotry.
I just hate the idea that it is the responsibility of the client to request a new counselor. I think that the center organizers have a responsibility to make sure that most clients will be responsive to most counsellors. I thought pollyperverse had great info on that. If there is someone that a significant number of women will respond negatively to (and again I am taking the doctor's testimony at face value that this is the case for Nixon), I think it is the job of the center to screen that person out rather than put a significant number of clients in the position of having to request a new counselor.
Mon, 2006-01-16 20:32
#11
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
[b]For what it's worth, if a bigoted woman wanted a white rape crisis counsellor, I would want her to have one. Again, I feel like adressing her immediate mental health needs should be prioritized over addressing her bigotry.I just hate the idea that it is the responsibility of the client to request a new counselor. [/b]
But wouldn't it be the responsibility of the bigoted white client to request a new counsellor if she is confronted with a person of colour as a counsellor? Would we use this as a reason not to hire women of colour, because some white woman with prejudices might have to request a new counsellor?
I'd want a bigoted woman to have a white counsellor too if that's what she wanted, just as I would want any sexual assault victim who was uncomfortable with a MTF counsellor to have a non trans woman. But would I then not hire women of colour as counsellors because there might be white women who are uncomfortable with women of colour?
I also appreciate the respectful discussion we're having. Thanks for that.
[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2006-01-16 20:58
#12
I can see both sides of this issue. I don't think there is one neat clean answer.
I think it's perfectly legitimate for someone to not feel they can identity with a counsellor for whatever reason and I would not want to see someone made feel like shit because they wanted a counsellor who had been born a woman.
I agree with VMichael that the whole focus of an organization is to meet the needs of the woman coming in who was raped. Promoting tolerance of disadvantaged groups is not the focus.
The whole analogy of a white bigot and a black counsellor has what I think is a big flaw. Most people in today's day and age have had a chance to learn about other cultures and address their prejudice. Most people (including me!) have no real knowledge of transexuals and have never been given a chance to learn. I bet most women would not feel ok with a MTF therapist. I just think it would be hard to have that thrust on you as a learning requirement immediately following a rape. I also think it would be hard to find a way of saying that.
We have to find a way of meeting everyone's needs and I think it's do-able. Kimberly Nixon
[i]can[/i] offer something valuable for rape victims but maybe not all clients will be ready for that. We gotta accept that without thinking they are bigots.
This is so much bigger though that Kimberly Nixon and her right to be a therapist. We have to ask ourselves how so many became uncomfortable with transexuals in the first place and how we can stop that.
Mon, 2006-01-16 21:18
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]But wouldn't it be the responsibility of the bigoted white client to request a new counsellor if she is confronted with a person of colour as a counsellor? Would we use this as a reason not to hire women of colour, because some white woman with prejudices might have to request a new counsellor?
[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ][/b]
If we were in an environment where a large number of women were so bigoted that they would be [i]completely unable[/i] to have a positive relationship with a person of color as a counsellor, then yes: I would want a lot of white counsellors. That would only apply to this specific field of front-line crisis response counselling. That would not apply to any other position in the organization.
That said, you would have a very hard time convincing me that such an enviroment existed. While I believe that a lot of white women might be uncomfortable with a person of color as a counsellor, I find it hard to believe that a significant number would be so uncomfortable as to be [i]completely unable[/i] to get [i]any[/i] therapeutic benefit from the relationship. In most cases I can imagine, the benefits of having a racially diverse counselling staff would far outweigh the discomfort the clients might suffer.
The part of Nixon's argument that I agree with is tthat her presence on staff might be beneficial precisely because she is trans and thus adds gender-history diversity.
I find it depressingly easy to believe that a significant number of women would be so significantly upset by a trans counsellor that they would be completely unable to get anything of value from the relationship. So for me, it's a question of drawing the line. I would draw the line when a significant number of women were significantly negatively affected by the characteristic in question, and I think that would be true for men and for people who had lived some of their lives as men.
There is also an element of betrayal. Just thinking on the women I know, most would be uncomfortable with a trans counsellor. But what would be devastating for many would be learning that the woman they had shared themselves with had actually lived most of her life in a man's body. That's why I don't think you can win in this situation. If she acknowledges being trans upfront, she alienates women who are uncomfortable with that. If she declines to talk about it and allows the client to assume she was born as a woman, than there is a tremendous betrayal of trust. Again, in almost every other field I would say it is none of the client's business what someone's birth gender is. But in this particular field, I think it is important because many women would simply be unable to be open and trusting with a man or with someone who had lived life as a man in the past. It's shitty, but there you have it.
Mon, 2006-01-16 21:32
#14
aroused, I can't quite agree with this:
quote:
To me it falls down to the level of the race question: If someone self-identifies as a POC, they're a POC. If someone self-identifies as gay, they're gay. For some reason, I'm discovering that even in progressive circles there's a reluctance to extend that same acceptance of self-identification to gender self-identification.
One of my grandfathers is from the Caribbean, and I have kinky hair. I also have blue-green eyes and white skin - not "Aryan" white skin, but not a colour that would make me subject to discrimination as a non-white. I don't think it would be ethical with respect to people (including members of my own extended family) who have been subjected to such discrimination to claim I'm a person of colour.
There is no benefit I can see as of writing to declare that one is gay or lesbian - but for certain jobs there is a benefit - due to affirmative action programmes, which I support - to declare that one is of colour.
Transgendered people are subject to horrible oppression and violence. But no, I don't think it is exactly the same as the oppression of those who are born women.
Mon, 2006-01-16 21:45
#15
People should understand that Nixon was not going to become part of "the staff", but a volunteer admitted to the Rape Relief Collective.
It's clear that the BC Court of Appeal was not at all convinced by lower level decisions which found that Nixon was analogous to an employee or someone being offered "a service". However, as that issue was not specifically appealed, it was not dealt with.
What the Court of Appeal did find was that, as a non-profit organization, Rape Relief has the right under the Code to "prefer" certain people, in this case, certain women but not others. Essentially, it seems to boil down to a freedom of association argument. Most human rights codes allow organizations to restrict their membership; the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of all-male associations, for example.
The issue of rape counselling is an important one, but it should be noted that the Nixon case, as currently framed, really isn't about that anymore. IF the Supreme Court of Canada grants leave (not at all a given) perhaps the case will once again address these broader points. Again, not at all a given.
Tue, 2006-01-17 05:33
#16
lagatta: Apologies, I wasn't trying to suggest that the oppression felt was 'exactly' the same, just analogous.
And the direct point I was trying to make (which I probably didn't state very clearly), had more to do with us as progressives accepting people's self-identifications as valid when they speak to certain issues, so a self-identified POC's word is given more weight in a discussion of systemic racism, given their direct personal experience of it, etc.
On the old thread, and not trying to drag that animosity over here, the statements of a person with direct experience of trans life were dismissed out of hand, and with a certain amount of heat. I find that very troublesome for the reasons I've stated.
Tue, 2006-01-17 10:12
#17
vmichel, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
quote:
If there is someone that a significant number of women will respond negatively to...I think it is the job of the center to screen that person out rather than put a significant number of clients in the position of having to request a new counselor.
I quite disagree with this position. I don't think it is the role of rape crisis centres to make the majority of women feel comfortable - their role is to make the minority of women feel as comfortable as the majority. Rape crisis centres are feminist institutions that support feminist values - as employers (of staff and of volunteers) it is their responsibility to ensure that women who are marginalized in society have a space in which they feel safe, in which their experience is as accepted as the mainstream's.
A woman who feels that she cannot enter into a therepeutic relationship with a transperson or a woman in a wheelchair or a woman with an accent is free to seek counselling elsewhere. If an RCC is not the appropriate place for her, there are lots of victims' services agencies (which, in Ontario at least, receive far more funding and resources than RCCs). It's not a choice between dealing with your prejudice or not receiving assitance: the choice is between dealing with your prejudice and receiving service from a feminist organization or not dealing with it and receiving service from a mainstream organization.
An agency can never presume to know what will make women feel uncomfortable or attempt to hire based on discomfiting the fewest women because they can never know just what will be a trigger for a survivor. You could hire the blandest, most apparently inoffensive counsellor and find that she freaks out a client because she has grey hair like the client's abuser.
quote:
There is also an element of betrayal...what would be devastating for many would be learning that the woman they had shared themselves with had actually lived most of her life in a man's body...If she acknowledges being trans upfront, she alienates women who are uncomfortable with that. If she declines to talk about it and allows the client to assume she was born as a woman, than there is a tremendous betrayal of trust.
From my experience with counselling, I'm not sure why the counsellor's gender identity would ever come under discussion with the client. Therapy is about the client's experiences, not the counsellor's, and a good counsellor would redirect any questions about herself back to the client. There should be no need for a counsellor to identify herself as trans, as a lesbian, as a Catholic, as whatever. If the client were to ask directly, "Are you a lesbian (a transwoman, a Catholic, a survivor, etc)?", the counsellor could reply, "I don't mind answering that question but I'd like to talk first about why that is important to you" or she could simply say, "I'm not comfortable answering personal questions." Counsellors don't have to be completely anonymous - some are willing to share some personal details with clients if they feel it's appropriate - but it is also perfectly acceptable counselling practice to insist that the therapy be about the client and not about themselves.
Tue, 2006-01-17 12:28
#18
quote:
Originally posted by andrean:
[b]From my experience with counselling, I'm not sure why the counsellor's gender identity would ever come under discussion with the client.[/b]
I think it matters in the narrowly-defined enviroment of rape crisis counselling. I mean, we exclude men from rape crisis counselling, yes? And that is because gender identity does matter?
Women who are sexually assaulted face a raft of gender-specific consequences and complications. Starting from the circumstances that led to the assault and continuing through the decision to seek help and working through changes to one's sense of security and sense of self, gender is implicated in every breath. That extends to the counselling environment. I am not saying that gender should matter in all counselling. I am saying that in the highly specific instance of providing support to victims of sexual assault, gender matters a great deal. Every aspect of recovery has gender implications, and this distinguishes rape crisis counselling from most other fields of therapy.
It's not a question of comfort. It is a question of being able to get anything useful out of the relationship. Being unable to work with a man or a trans counsellor can't be equated to a client being uncomfortable with a counsellor's accent. Sexual assault and its aftermath has nothing to do with accent. It has everything to do with gender. That is why the gender of the counsellor matters.
Tue, 2006-01-17 13:32
#19
quote:
Sexual assault and its aftermath has nothing to do with accent.
I disagree, and hopefully Lagatta can help since she has more experience with the analogy Im going to mention. People who have faced traumatic experiences like rape, torture etc. Can have 'triggers' that can be anything a accent, colour, look, motion, grey hair, whatever that can make them upset, freak out, or just plain be uncomfortable and wish a new counselor, doctor, lawyer, cop etc on that basis. Or what does someone raped/sexually assaulted by another woman do? (Im thinking lesbian rape, rare though it is)
Tue, 2006-01-17 14:08
#20
I do take your point, vmichel, and I'm not disagreeing just to be disagreeable. Like you, I acknowledge that sexual assault counselling is different from other forms of therapy. Rape crisis centres choose not to have male counsellors and I support that position because their mandate is to have women helping women. But in a feminist organization "women" means all women, not just women who are feminine or who "look like" women or who are white or who were born female.
quote:
Being unable to work with a man or a trans counsellor can't be equated to a client being uncomfortable with a counsellor's accent. Sexual assault and its aftermath has nothing to do with accent. It has everything to do with gender. That is why the gender of the counsellor matters.
First, I would argue that the gender of a transwoman is female. I know a transwoman whose passport and birth certificate both say that she is a woman. Is a feminist organization going to say that she is not? I reject the notion that transwomen are *really* men: even if they have grown up in male bodies, as transpeople they can hardly have experienced the privilege of maleness in the way that male-identified men have. That's like saying that because a butch dyke presents as male, she must therefore have access to the privileges of maleness.
Second, given the interconectedness of oppressions, I'd say that accents can very well be equated with gender. If a rapist speaks with an accent, and a counsellor at an RCC speaks to client in the same accent, the client might very well feel triggered by that and want to request a different counsellor.
I feel like I haven't been making myself very clear - I don't think that a survivor should be forced into a therapeutic relationship with a counsellor with whom she doesn't feel like she can make a trusting connection. But I do think that in a feminist agency, the reasons why that survivor can't make a trusting connection with that counsellor need to be open for analysis. Some people just don't connect and that is valid, but if the reason they don't connect is because one is a person of colour and the other is prejudiced against people of colour, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed as long as that client has a relationship with the feminist agency. As feminists, we don't get to pick and choose which oppressions we oppose.
Tue, 2006-01-17 14:16
#21
Andrean I think that an agency helping people has the responsibility to support a client's request for another therapist without analyzing the reasons too much. This person has been through enough crap that they need support not someone telling them they are a bigot.
Our whole society needs to start helping people deal with this prejudice. It needs to happen in grade one with that respect being taught. We have done that and we have a world of ignorant people on this issue. I think someone who has recently been raped needs to focus on their recovery before anything else.
Tue, 2006-01-17 15:36
#22
quote:
Originally posted by andrean:
[b].But I do think that in a feminist agency, the reasons why that survivor can't make a trusting connection with that counsellor need to be open for analysis. Some people just don't connect and that is valid, but if the reason they don't connect is because one is a person of colour and the other is prejudiced against people of colour, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed as long as that client has a relationship with the feminist agency. As feminists, we don't get to pick and choose which oppressions we oppose.[/b]
I wholeheartedly agree with that paragraph! I think we disagree on when that analysis needs to happen, which is a pretty small point in the grand scheme of things [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I think that analysis needs to go on hold until after the client has received the services she is urgently in need of, and that might mean refusing mtf counsellors if a mtf counsellor would be a barrier to care.
I consider a mtf to be a woman, and I think it's plain wrong to consider her a man. But many women are prejudiced against transsexuals, and the nature of their prejudice is thinking that the transexual is not really a woman. This is really only important when that woman is seeking services from another woman, and her prejudice against the provider would be an insurmountable barrier to care.
But I definitely hear what you are saying and I think this is one of those things that people who agree on a lot may disagree on. There's no right answer I suppose, just a question of what gets prioritized. And I am very sympathetic to the position that inclusiveness towards all women ought to be prioritized.
Sat, 2006-11-18 15:02
#23
I know this is an old thread but I still like to discuss this because I found alot of the opinons on here offensive.
"Most people (including me!) have no real knowledge of transexuals and have never been given a chance to learn. "
so whose fault is that? The MTF person?
"Transgendered people are subject to horrible oppression and violence. But no, I don't think it is exactly the same as the oppression of those who are born women. "
No woman have experienced the same exact oppression as any other woman, so what's your point?
"I mean, we exclude men from rape crisis counselling, yes? And that is because gender identity does matter? "
So what is your point? Nixon is not a man. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Sat, 2006-11-18 15:03
#24
.
[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Sat, 2006-11-18 15:56
#25
Maysie
What a trip down memory lane, babblerwannabe. Thanks for reviving this thread.
You will find that many of the posters above no longer post on babble, but maybe some will return to respond to your post, or others who share their views will respond as well.
But you get no argument from me regarding trans inclusion in women's spaces, and how problematic it is to exclude transwomen.
As for VRR, they recently sent out an anti-trans inclusion flyer to women's agencies across Canada and the Trans Inclusion Project at the 519 Church Community Centre asked a number of women's organizations, including the one I work for, to write letters in support of trans inclusion.
[url=http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/#womenonly]Vancouver Rape Relief: "protecting women only spaces"[/url]
[url=http://www.the519.org/programs/trans/trans_inclusion_project/index.shtml... Trans Inclusion Project[/url]
Sat, 2006-11-18 16:05
#26
Thank you for the links. I love to read more about this.
I just realized that the decision from the BC Court of Appeal could mean that the court does not really believe transsexual women are women and I found that disturbing.
I did not read the whole case and I know how the court can talk about how groups can include and exclude people however they like, but I have doubts that the court would say the same thing if the rape relief center exclude women of color also.
[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
Sat, 2006-11-18 16:23
#27
Maysie
To be clear, I believe in women-only spaces, such as workshops, support groups, etc. There are absolutely times when having those spaces are appropriate.
However, when womens centres are being asked to be inclusive of transwomen (and transmen) this is something that should be taken seriously as part of a re-visioning of womens centres in today's world, 2006, and not in 1976 when many of these organizations began.
Your reference, and the reference above, to women of colour is a perfect example. Women of colour have relationships to men of colour in our families; our allies, lovers, friends; who politically and emotionally support the work we do. The struggle against patriarchy has been (and still is) a struggle, for the large part, against white patriarchy. I'm of course not saying there is no sexism in various communities of colour, of course there is, but struggling against white patriarchy is a struggle that white women and woc have in common.
With transwomen, somehow the assumption is that someone born male de facto has male privilege, which, after taking Trans 101 (yes, that's what the 519 program calls it!) I know to be untrue. Transwomen never experienced male privilege, having been defined as "freaks" by their peers growing up and many being beat up constantly. As adults, they struggle for space in women's communities, only to be told that they don't belong because of "male privilege".
As a feminist, working and living in feminist community, I ask and challenge sister feminists who feel this way: if we don't support such struggle, who will? Yes, the mainstream LGBTQ community may support trans issues, but some transwomen are also looking for community as women, and there ain't a hell of a lot of spaces for women in the mainstream LGBTQ world.
[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Sat, 2006-11-18 16:28
#28
quote:
Transwomen never experienced male privilege
That is an important point and it is true. Even if some have experienced male privileges, we don’t enjoy it and we don’t take pleasure from it and any sort of privileges that we experienced is totally cancelled out by all the burdens of living as a transsexual and a woman.
Sun, 2006-11-19 00:44
#29
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
However, when womens centres are being asked to be inclusive of transwomen (and transmen) this is something that should be taken seriously as part of a re-visioning of womens centres in today's world, 2006, and not in 1976 when many of these organizations began.
[/b]
I agree, bcg, and because it's still 2006 right now, maybe some folks could realize that it takes time for people to understand and for attitudes to change? Litigating one's way into women-only defined space - at a time when this hadn't really been properly addressed by women's groups yet - isn't really the friendliest solution, is it? What kind of "dialogue" does this create? Exactly the kind you see in these threads.
quote:
So what is your point? Nixon is not a man.
Well, not everyone agrees with this point. Hence, the problem. To simply assert this over and over to people who don't believe you, isn't going to change any attitudes, imo.
Sun, 2006-11-19 05:43
#30
Maysie
Hey jas. Yeah, there are a few ways to look at how to bring about changes in attitudes. One is slowly, over time, with education, awareness and other community-based work. I support that. Hell, I [i]DO[/i] that kind of work. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] So no argument from me on that point.
Other ways include forcing change. That's how a lot of social change happens. I agree that litigation against a small, non-profit organization with limited funding is not going to necessarily change people's minds, but desegregation wasn't about changing people's minds, was it? Nor was Stonewall, various civil rights riots in the past, the riots after the Rodney King verdict, and I'm sure there are more examples.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm in no position to critique someone else's decision to choose one method over another. Nor are all methods equally effective in achieving their widely variant goals. That's fine by me. Societal change rarely happens in nice, neat and clean ways.
And look, here we are discussing it, right? But Kimberly had to dedicate her life and her marginal position to move the debate forward. Even though she ultimately lost, much has been gained. And Kimberly gets the credit for that, in ensuring that this debate continues, until all women's centres and organizations are trans-inclusive.
Wed, 2006-11-22 01:13
#31
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b][url=http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/#womenonly]Vancouver Rape Relief: "protecting women only spaces"[/url][/b]
And they call themselves left wing and progressive? They are protecting bigotry, I just cannot believe these so called feminists can be so mean to other women..jesus. They have absolutely no respect for transsexual women; hell, they are not even "women"
Wed, 2006-11-22 04:19
#32
Maysie
Hold on there, babblerwannabe. VRR are feminists, and they are leftist and progressive, no doubt about that. They're simply a group of feminists whose leadership doesn't value trans issues, and are in fact anti-trans/transphobic.
So what do we do? Write them off? Say to hell with them? No. There are many feminists who are racist and don't see it or recognize it, or classist, the list goes on. It's far better to engage them in seeing the links between how they practice feminism and patterns of oppression and dominance that, as feminists, they are presumably against. We're a small enough community, feminists, and all this splitting, in this political climate, is not goign to help anyone. And the brutal sad truth is rape crisis centres provide a meaningful and life-saving service to women who have been sexually assaulted.
I have a [b]huge[/b] problem with the throwing around of the terms "bigot" and "bigotry" in this kind of context.
My challenge remains to feminists who don't want to let go of the small amounts of power that some feminists have gained over the past 40 years. If not us, who will break down the doors to trans inclusion in women's spaces?
A positive example in the Toronto feminist community is perhaps because there's a bit of a trans community here, and also because feminists in visible places, such as Good for Her, Toronto Women's Bookstore, U of T Women's Centre (now renamed "The Centre" I believe") have been consciously active in promoting trans inclusion.
If this is what your agenda was from the beginning, babblerwannabe, reviving this thread so you could bash feminists, then we part ways here.
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 04:39
#33
quote:
My challenge remains to feminists who don't want to let go of the small amounts of power that some feminists have gained over the past 40 years. If not us, who will break down the doors to trans inclusion in women's spaces?
BCG, you are right. I'm not sure how much support trans people get from the LGBT community but after mulling this over (weird because I was thinking of this topic yesterday) I think we need to embrace transwomen. They have made a a risky and hard decision to transition and I think someone, we, really, need to back them as much as possible. I have to admit I struggled with this because of some preconceived ideas, which I will not bring up here, but I managed to rationally rethink my position. I say we support - fully, 100 percent transwomen. As such, I consider myself an allie. Regardless of how gender or identity is determined, the main point is, for all intents and purposes all us women need to stick together. I have heard and read some heartbreaking stories and I can no longer sit on the fence about this. We all need to syupport each other.
Yes, I am a broken record [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2006-11-22 04:51
#34
Maysie
Thanks Stargazer. I've had my own struggles on this issue, probably similar to yours.
And I just re-read my post above and I think that parts of it sound a bit condescending, as if I meant that "we" feminists have to be so gracious or some such thing with helpless transpeople. And I want to clarify that transpeople, particularly transwomen, have been fighting their own fights, and kicking down doors and struggling, and making change without a lot of support so far, from either feminists or the LGBTQ community. What I'm trying to say is if we are all activists / feminists then we move ahead, together, being active supportive allies with each other across difference.
Fuck, I'm such an optimist in the morning aren't I? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Wed, 2006-11-22 06:50
#35
hahaha. Well yes you are but it is very refreshing. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2006-11-22 14:57
#36
quote:
So what do we do? Write them off? Say to hell with them? No. There are many feminists who are racist and don't see it or recognize it, or classist, the list goes on. It's far better to engage them in seeing the links between how they practice feminism and patterns of oppression and dominance that, as feminists, they are presumably against. We're a small enough community, feminists, and all this splitting, in this political climate, is not goign to help anyone. And the brutal sad truth is rape crisis centres provide a meaningful and life-saving service to women who have been sexually assaulted.I have a huge problem with the throwing around of the terms "bigot" and "bigotry" in this kind of context.
[b]So what do we do? Write them off? Say to hell with them? No[/b]
I wouldn't think that would be particuarly helpful.
[b]
I have a huge problem with the throwing around of the terms "bigot" and "bigotry" in this kind of context. [/b]
I don't. If a female can be called a bigot for not supporting same sex marriage, I can't call a woman who think transsexuals are not real women as "bigot". I don't know why the double standard.
Wed, 2006-11-22 20:31
#37
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]I don't. If a female can be called a bigot for not supporting same sex marriage, I can't call a woman who think transsexuals are not real women as "bigot". I don't know why the double standard.[/b]
What does the bigot's sex have to do with anything?
Wed, 2006-11-22 21:06
#38
I am referring to the women who believe in bio- women-only space.
Sun, 2006-11-26 00:40
#39
Maysie
To clarify I mean the use of the word "bigot" to describe someone who doesn't support SSM is also problematic.
Shall I call everyone who liked the atrocious racist film "Borat" a bigot now?
Sun, 2006-11-26 01:49
#40
It depends on why they like the film. I enjoyed the film.
Anyways, this is an unhelpful discussion and I think it’s better to just forget about it since there are bigger battles to be fought, don’t you think?
Mon, 2007-04-09 22:21
#41
I totally understand both sides... but the question plagues me:
If they couldn't have a trans volunteer because some women might not be comfortable with it, why can't they keep a transwoman on staff for transwomen coming to the shelter to take advantage of its services? I e-mailed the shelter to ask if they turn away transwomen who are victims of abuse and assault, but they have yet to respond.
Tue, 2007-04-10 03:47
#42
Good question. Although I would go as far as to say that even just allowing her to see transwomen is discriminatory.
I think Rape Relief needs to wake up and join the latter part of the 20th century (and then perhaps tiptoe their way into the 21st!) and grab a fucking clue on their way.
I sure as hell wouldn't feel "safe" at a rape crisis centre that discriminates against transwomen.
Tue, 2007-04-10 03:59
#43
P.S. As this IS a feminist issue, I am moving it to the feminism forum. I know this thread was started ages ago, but I feel strongly that feminist issues should be discussed in the feminism forum, and that there is no need to put feminist issues outside the forum in order to get around the feminism forum guidelines for the thread. Not that this was Andy's intention, since I think we were struggling at the time to figure out how the feminist space on babble should work. But as far as I'm concerned, all of babble is a "feminist forum", and feminist issues should be primarily discussed by feminists, from a feminist point of view here.