Women born women? RadFem2012 actively excluding trans women from attending

[Catherina]

There's nothing radical about transphobia

by Laura Woodhouse // 17 May 2012, 22:40

Tags: conference, exclusion, feminism, gender, not in my name, radfem2012, radical feminism, transphobia


Like many of you who have been discussing the issue on Twitter and Facebook today, I was angered to learn that a new UK conference for radical feminists, RadFem2012, is not only playing host to a well-known transphobe, but is actively excluding trans women from attending.

The conference is open only to "women born women living as women". Now, I personally support and fully appreciate the value of women-only space, but that space has to be open to all self-defining women. Excluding trans women from an event that aims to build an "anti-oppressive movement for the liberation of all women from patriarchal oppression" is bitterly ironic.

Trans women suffer horrifying levels of violence, abuse and discrimination, fuelled not only by the fact that they are women, but by the refusal of the vast majority of the cis population to acknowledge and respect their identities. The organisers of RadFem2012 have actively chosen to align themselves with this majority, and in so doing are complicit in trans women's oppression. Radical? Feminism? I think not.

Then there's Sheila Jeffreys, who thinks that "transgenderism" is:

...a practice in which persons who do not adhere to the correctly gendered practices that have been placed upon the biological sex are considered to have something called Gender Identity Disorder and they're expected to cross over into the other sex. Not criticize the gendered system as it exists, because that's unthinkable but to make some kind of "journey" by mutilating their bodies and taking dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives in order to supposedly represent the opposite sex.

The same Sheila Jeffreys who has been invited to speak at a conference where discussion will be "rooted in the realities of women's lives". Are we sure this isn't Irony2012? Because if Jeffreys and the conference organisers could bring themselves to listen to trans people's stories, to try and understand or empathise with the realities of their lives, they would realise quite how ridiculously facile and patronising the above argument is.

...

Boycott RadFem2012.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/05/theres_nothing

Of course I checked the author's claims and it's right there on RadFem2012's page.

we aim to make sessions as supportive as possible of discussion and interaction between all women.

RadFem 2012 is women only. We respect that discussion spaces are needed free from oppression and dis-empowerment, and we assert our right as women to organise a women only space. As Radical Feminists we recognise that patriarchy dominates personal and political spaces across the globe. In turn we ask that RadFem 2012 be respected as a space where women born women living as women are able to meet and share information in a peaceful and safe environment.


http://www.radfem2012.com/participants.html

SERIOUSLY? WTF? SHAME ON YOU.


Further reading:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2012/05/women_born_womenWomen born women?
As a controversial conference restricts entry to 'women born women', Helen G analyses this phrase]

You can't smash patriarchy with transphobia

Trans Feminism: There's No Conundrum About It

Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments

Where did we go wrong? Feminism and trans theory - two teams on the same side?

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism : http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/93826/rethinking_sexism:_how_trans_women_challenge_feminism/?page=entire

Legalities of excluding trans women from women only spaces

[Metatron]

1. That sickens me.

I guess the only thing radical about the group is the bigotry.

[Catherina]

2. I thought the same thing and even wrote something similar

then I erased it because I felt an angry rant coming.

I'm shocked and sickened that they would do that so brazenly.

[Starry Messenger]

3. I expect to see some RadFem groups listed on SPLC as hate groups some day.

These views are no different than the ugly theories promulgated by VDARE.

[Catherina]

4. I hope so

I hope so since they can't come to grips with the fact that there's no universal experience of womanhood and they're actively opposing other people's liberation.

I just read some of Sheila Jeffreys (one of the guest speakers) stuff. What a rabid anti-trans bigot. That woman is seriously disturbed.

"We do think that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women." Sheila Jeffreys

Whaaaat? Sheila, the word you're looking for is celibate, not lesbian.

"Recently lesbians have been transitioning to become ‘gay men.' This does seem to be a new development and is particularly common amongst lesbians who have spent years practising sadomasochism, often with gay men"

You can't invent this stuff. The last quote came from this little hate piece. I feel dirty after reading that kind of hate.

[Whisp]

5. what the hell...

"We do think that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women." Sheila Jeffreys

what a freaking loon!

[obamanut2012]

8. I've been surprised none have been

Hate and bigotry is hate and bigotry, regardless of who is doing it.

[Starry Messenger]

14. They infest the #feminism tag on tumblr

They post really evil, hateful stuff. I've read some posts from trans women who say that some of the radfems actively seek them and out their identities on blogs, etc.

Like you said in your post below, it is insane that anyone would believe that someone would undergo gender reassignment just to "infiltrate" feminist spaces. It's like some crazy Nazi shit.

[Zorra]

6. I really like this piece - Trans Feminism: There’s No Conundrum About It.

It's very thoughtful and well written, and is succinct, yet comprehensive.

I have a tendency to want to try to keep things as simple as possible when I have a specific goal, and belong to, and work within, a group with the same specific goal.

Expressing bigotry toward other members of the group creates unnecessary obstacles and is an obstacle in itself, fully detracts from constructive struggle, and can only bring about stagnation, regression, and futility. Bigotry is totally destructive; no positives. There is only loss in becoming our own enemy.

Unwarranted infighting stemming from prejudice, OC nitpicking, and engaging in Oppression Olympics within the group sucks energy from the struggle and moves the group backward, further from the goal. This is self-defeating, and is a useful tactic for those who have become comfortable in, and wish to remain in, the role of eternal subordinate victim.

Every woman who recognizes the reasons for struggle and subsequently desires to participate in the struggle is important, and should be honored, respected, and accepted as an equal member of the group.

We then individually and collectively work to achieve our goal, moving forward, supporting each other along the way.

Just my POV, and I'm extremely ignorant when it comes to feminist theory, so what I just said here might seem naive and silly.

I really like the ideas behind third wave feminism as described by the author of the piece mentioned in the subject line of this post. It seems to be a very fresh, tolerant, and progressive way, from what little I know about it; intersectionality seems so sensible and constructive to me.

[Catherina]

21. Every woman

"Every woman who recognizes the reasons for struggle and subsequently desires to participate in the struggle is important, and should be honored, respected, and accepted as an equal member of the group."

I've reread your post three times. There's nothing naive or silly in it.

This part should be in Feminist textbooks

"Unwarranted infighting stemming from prejudice, OC nitpicking, and engaging in Oppression Olympics within the group sucks energy from the struggle and moves the group backward, further from the goal. This is self-defeating, and is a useful tactic for those who have become comfortable in, and wish to remain in, the role of eternal subordinate victim."

That article deserves an OP of its own.

[qb]

7. Genetic purity, eh? That's ugly.

[Neoma]

9. Argh.

Reminds me of something iverglas said in a Du Mail to me.

[Broderick]

10. I thought it was a matter of basic transphobia, but I guess I was mistaken

It seems to be a much more prevalent and pervasive thought in some limited feminist circles. There is that thought perhaps that to drive home the feminist movement, it must be driven by those that prioritize feminism at the top of their agenda. Those that have other assorted discrimination battles may not work in parallel to the actual feminist movements if included so they are shunned. Well not shunned perhaps, but not all inclusive in the strategies if strategy exists. That would include feminists that are of color or LGBT for example I guess. Third, second and first waves aside because I am not really in tune with the difference in those.

These are just observations of mine in generality, and in no way constitute an opinion on what is right or wrong. This is just my outside male perspective. I learned more about feminism in general the past four or five months than in my decades of life prior.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. It is taken as an established fact in some of these circles that mtf transpeople are really stealth

Undercover agents of the patriarchy, who are undergoing gender reassignment surgery as part of a well organized and planned operaton to infiltrate female only space with their male energy.

It's more than just a little nuts.

[Neoma]

13. Funny though.

I can't read that without a laugh.

[REP]

16. It's sadder than that; twomen aren't "real" women to these fringes

To ME, that line of thinking allows that a woman with a mastectomy or hysterectomy or even a nullapara isn't a "real" woman, and that's as much fucking bullshit as a twoman not being a "real" woman.

[Catherina]

23. It's very disturbing and I question the mental balance of people who think like that

I was thoroughly sickened reading some of Sheila Jeffrey's writings.

It doesn't even make sense.

Recently lesbians have been transitioning to become ‘gay men.' This does seem to be a new development and is particularly common amongst lesbians who have spent years practising sadomasochism, often with gay men. Pat Califia, the most famous US proponent of lesbian SM has become Patrick and her partner (who bore a child before she 'transitioned') was also involved in SM and is now a ‘gay man.' Linnea Due, co-editor of the anthology Dagger: On Butch Women (1994), notes that at a 1995 conference for FTMs about half were 'gay-identified.’

I understand transitioning to become `gay men' to illustrate the almost total dominance of gay male culture and gay male versions of masculinity within ‘queer' communities. In Drag King shows, now sweeping Australia as they have the US and the UK, lesbians tend to dress up specifically as masculine gay men and seek to outdo each other in the imitation. Gay masculinity has become the highest good and reflects gay men's superior financial status and other resources and glamour. `Butch' lesbians who choose to be gay men do not have functioning penises, phalloplasties are very expensive, enormously painful and do not erect, thus they become `bottoms' in gay male sexual practice.

http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/jeffreysftm.htm

Excuse me? "Lesbians who have spent years practising sadomasochism, often with gay men"?

[Neoma]

24. *Points at sig line*

[obamanut2012]

29. Lesbians transitioning to become gay men???

That author sounds unhinged. And dangerous.

[REP]

15. It's "Womyn Born Womyn" last I heard and I reject this "theory"

[maddezmom]

17. truly revolting

And the saddest thing is some people don't see this as discrimination.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. Nice of them to create their own patriarchy

and stick the rest of us with their bigot label.

[LeftyMom]

19. That's exactly what it is.

I know I've posted before that I read fundamentalist blogs and literature as a (admittedly rather odd) hobby. It would take very little alteration to turn one of these anti-trans "feminist" rants, or rants about any sort of unapproved woman really, into something they would say.

It never fails to shock me that people who hate so many women manage to identify as feminists.

[Neoma]

20. Matriarchies aren't any better.

If anything, they're proof of that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. how ugly. nt

[Catherina]

26. Fighting back and winning

‘RadFem 2012: a uniting force against transphobia’ by Orlando
May 25, 2012

In mid-May, a London-based ‘radical feminist’ conference called RadFem2012 was announced, and parts of the internet began to rumble. A few days later, that rumble on Twitter became a roar on the blogosphere. Why all the attention? The website stated that entry was restricted to ‘biological women living as women’ – later edited to ‘women born women living as women’ – and renowned transphobe Sheila Jeffreys was billed as a speaker. A week later, and I’m – actually, kind of elated.


“But Orlando,” you may say, “surely there’s nothing to be elated about, when outdated transphobia seems to be rearing its hideous head in our feminist communities?” On the contrary! I am so, so fucking proud of feminists and allies right now – this transphobic door-policy has sparked off a string of declarations of support for trans inclusion and, hopefully, shown the organisers of RadFem2012 that they are just a vocal minority within a feminism that is, for the most part, far more diverse and accepting. As someone who is still a (postgraduate) student, I’m particularly pleased by the number of student groups that have released statements on RadFem2012: so far including Royal Holloway FemSoc, Oxford University WomCam, the NUS LGBT Campaign (published statement still pending but I’ve seen a draft) and the NUS Women’s Campaign (http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/news/article/womens/NUS-Womens-Campaign-Statement-on-RadFem-2012/) – that last one, which designates its annual conference as a women-only space, has several years of trans-positive policy, building up to its current stance (http://transactivist.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/nus-womens-campaign-recognises-gender-complexity/) that includes not only trans women, but other trans people whose identity includes (but is not entirely encompassed by) ‘woman’, such as AFAB* gender-fluid folk like myself.

And it’s not just support in the form of words, either. Within a few days, activists – from the trans community, the feminist community, the queer community, and the community of ‘awesome people who give a shit’ – got mobilised. Letters were sent (http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/05/conway-hall-respond-on-transphobia/) to the venue, Conway Hall (http://www.conwayhall.org.uk/), questioning how the exclusionary door-policy and incluson of Jeffreys’ hate-speech at this event was compatible with the venue’s existing policies on discrimination (http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2012/05/conway-hall-transphobia/), and indeed, with the 2010 Equality Act. Just today, prominent trans writer and activist Roz Kaveney revealed in the Guardian that Conway Hall has expressed these very concerns to the conference organisers: it seems the final decision has yet to be announced, but I’ve got high hopes. Furthermore, there are plans in the works to run events in direct response to RadFem2012 – call them teach-ins, fringes, or alternative conferences, they are being planned from London to Manchester.

...

This has the potential to be much bigger. This is not only the trans community, this is the feminist community as well. And we’re talking, we’re making alliances, and we’re making plans. We are showing the trans-exclusionary ‘radical feminists’ (TERFs!) behind RadFem2012 that they do not speak for all feminists, or even for all radical feminism. Indeed, Lashings is committed to being both radical and intersectional in its feminism, an identification that might be seen as contradictory, but which (to me) makes perfect sense:

We are Radical because we believe that we need a revolutionary change in how we think about gender, sexuality, and other issues of human diversity.

We are Feminist because we recognise that society has different expectations of men and women, and that these expectations damage people of all genders.

We are Intersectionalist because we see feminism as one of many areas in which we need to be radical, and we don’t think these issues can be disentangled from one another.

(source: :http://lashingsofgb.blogspot.co.uk/p/about-lashings-of-ginger-beer.html - Lashings’s ‘About’ page)

http://resistradfem2012.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/radfem-2012-a-uniting-force-against-transphobia-by-orlando/



"Resist RadFem2012 has been set up to organise, encourage and document responses and resistance to RadFem2012. Anyone who wants to run an alternative conference in their local area, offer skills and time to one that is already being planned, or otherwise contribute, is wholeheartedly encouraged to contact resistradfem12 at gmail dot com. (Incidentally, to see an example of the kind of non-exclusionary conference RadFem2012 COULD have been, check out INTERSECT – it was a few days ago, but videos and transcripts are being made available – and to get a whiff of what attending RadFem2012 might feel like, perhaps have a gander at Alicia Izharuddin’s brief account of a session at Fem11.)"

[Catherina]

25. Radical feminists are acting like a cult

This story is getting legs. Good!


Radical feminists are acting like a cult
The banning of trans people from RadFem2012 is just one of the disturbing aspects of this monolithic conference

Share 1135

Roz Kaveney
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 May 2012 12.07 BST
Comments (742)


Twitter has been flooded with controversy for the last week about the RadFem2012 conference, currently booked into the Conway Hall, which announced its membership as restricted to "women born women and living as women" (it originally said "biological women", but that got changed after much mockery). This disturbed the trans community, which it is meant to exclude, but also those feminists who regard trans-exclusion as something other than radical.

To be clear, I know no trans women, still less trans men, who want to spend time in a space organized by people who slander us. However, one of the main speakers at the conference is Sheila Jeffreys, who has a forthcoming book critiquing trans medical care. In much of her earlier writing (see, for example, page 71 of this journal), she calls for "transsexualism" to be declared a human rights violation and then surgery banned by international law, so it's fairly clear that we have an interest in the debate. What Jeffreys proposes has, of course, other implications for all women – the Vatican would love to make similar declarations about reproductive freedom.

There is also, more importantly, the question of whether what Jeffreys and her supporters say about trans people constitutes hate speech. As of two days ago, the Conway Hall expressed their concerns about the legality of trans exclusion, and about hate speech, to the conference organisers.

One of the problems with the Internet is that it is possible for people to lock themselves further and further into a restricted mind set where they hear no other voices. On the other hand, it makes it possible for those with a strong stomach to overturn every stone and find out just what people are saying and thinking. It's clear that Jeffreys and her supporters are very hurt and disappointed that so many younger women don't agree with her – Jeffreys blames the corrupting influence of post-modernism and queer theory; "trans-critical" lawyer Cath Brennan - who uses Twitter to deride trans people's experiences and mock non-trans feminists who are their allies - is also a RadFem2012 attendee.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012#start-of-comments

[Fearless]

28. So disgusting!

I'm glad someone called them on this! No sense in creating second class citizens out of our trans population.

[FloridaJudy]

30. That's frightening and sad

Gender is a whole lot more complicated than a lot of people think. Generally speaking, if one's missing a chromosome or has an extra, the results are catastrophic: children with trisomy 21 are not only intellectually delayed, but have a host of other medical problems. Those with trisomy 18 rarely live into their teens. And those are the chromosomal abnormalities that survive til birth. The rest are almost always miscarried early.

But mother nature plays weird games with our sex chromosomes all the time. People are walking around with XXY, XXX and XYY who are perfectly functional, although usually sterile. I've met a few women who were XO (Turner's syndrome). They look a little peculiar, but most have normal intelligence and can enjoy a normal life-span with treatment to prevent bone loss.

And then there are the cases where one's apparent gender (phenotype) is the opposite of what the genetic blue-print (genotype) indicates. Boys born with androgen insensitivity syndrome look like girls, and girls with adrenal virilizing syndrome are often mistaken for boys. I'm not even going into transgenders, where the person's brain belongs to the opposite sex.

Confining femininity to those "born women" is not only cruel, it's scientifically ignorant as well.

[MerryBlooms]

31. That's some pretty heinous stuff.Disgustimg. :(