The twitter thread is here.
Memo. Radical feminist women never “deny the existence” of blokes who say they are women. It’s impossible. You’re right there. In a wig and a frock performing woman for us. We don’t just think “JFC I’m drunk and seeing things!” You’re clearly there. You’re just not female.
And your dress and wig and lippy and heels are perfectly fine. Crack on. You can sit at my table. Chat with me. Ride a bike with me. You just can’t cross my boundaries and call yourself me. We are different. Woman is different to man. You cannot be in women’s space.
And there’s no “But I can use your loo … I’ll do it quietly … no one will notice … that will be ok..?” No that is not ok. The line is clear. Women need concede no ground on this. We aren’t unkind. We don’t hate or fear you. We have boundaries. For our safety and dignity.
You cannot demonise us or bully us or threaten or coerce us to make us say you are women. We cannot say untruths. We will not lie or pretend. That isn’t hatred. It is respect for ourselves and acknowledgment of our own intellectual capacity to determine the meaning of woman.
So … be yourself. Enjoy your life. Continue to exist. Enjoy all the “womanny” clothes and shoes. I’ll happily smile in my boots and jeans as you totter by in your heels and lace. And we can all get along. Fight for space away from other men if you need it.
But do not expect us to harbour you in our limited and hard-won safe spaces. Women shed blood to get them. You are male. They are your people. Their violence is yours. Women are fighting to stay alive. We do not have resources to help you with that as we are the sex most at risk.
The dead bodies are ours. The raped bodies are ours. The abused bodies are ours. Overwhelmingly. The violence is male on female. So …. we don’t deny your existence. We are simply clinging to our own. We are keeping women alive when we define “woman” and our needs.
And we are not ashamed.
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
14 comments
November 5, 2018 at 10:14 am
easilyriled
Brilliant. Thank you
LikeLike
November 5, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Curious Mother
Arbourist, can you say a bit more about how you came to be a rad fem?
LikeLike
November 6, 2018 at 4:54 am
habeogratium
Merci
LikeLike
November 6, 2018 at 9:52 am
The Arbourist
@Curious Mother
Hello.
My consciousness was raised, oh gosh about 10 – 15 years ago and then I was radicalized by my wife’s views and politics. From there I continued my education and study of radical feminist theory informed by Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, Simone de Beauvoir, Firestone, Daly, Dines…
I try and listen and read as widely as I can in the area.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 6, 2018 at 2:37 pm
Curious Mother
So many wonderful writers – though I can’t resist pointing out that there’s no evidence that most would be trans-excluding (thinking about ‘The Dialectics of Sex’ particularly).
But what I was really curious about was you – what led to your ‘consciousness raising’? Was there a moment (or lots of moments) when personal experience & theory collided?
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 6, 2018 at 3:07 pm
The Arbourist
@ CM
Most would also agree that there are two classes the dominant and subordinate class and the sex based oppression that stems from this division.
Again, not being Trans exclusive – trans identified females are more than welcome in effective feminism, as they are female.
A couple of counseling courses in University, along with continued dialog with a radical feminist. (roughly?) Hashing the issues out with my wife was instrumental, as she is a much brighter intellectual light than I, helped me see the feminist light.
One only needs to take the time to look around to see the amazingly crappy deal women get in society. It really went from there – Susan Brownmillar (Against Our Will) though, was such an eye opener for me.
I can’t have the personal experiences of oppression that women do, as I do wear the mantle of oppressor. I do what I can and speak up and challenge patriarchy whenever possible.
It is why I speak out vociferously against the trans-activist agenda, because so many woman are afraid to, even though its acceptance will mean their erasure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 6, 2018 at 4:23 pm
Curious Mother
OK, thanks for sharing. An interesting perspective – by “mantle of the oppressor” – you mean you’re a man?
I was thinking of Shulamith Firestone in particular because she imagined a day when men would be able to bear children and to suckle them – thus removing some of the inequities driven by biology.
Dworkin’s partner also said last week that she would not have supported excluding trans women from women’s spaces. (unfortunately she can’t speak for herself, obviously).
I admit that part of what provoked my question was thinking that the trans girls and women that I’ve met are nothing like the caricature in your Tweets. I was wondering how transgender people you knew well.
I also wonder how many cis women do feel that accepting trans women will mean their erasure. For me, feminism is very much about giving voice to those on the margins cf Spivak’s ‘Can the SubAltern Speak’, for instance. And the work by Rosie Braidotti. As de Saint-Exupery said (with apologies for French pronouns): “He who is different from me does not impoverish me, he enriches me.”
Thanks again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 6, 2018 at 8:35 pm
The Arbourist
@ CM
Yeppers. Guilty as charged. It changes the nature of our interaction and I’m sorry to participate in a society in which it is a necessary feature. (female/male interaction vs female/female interaction)
Her advancement of a ‘cybernetic’ solution to the reproductive oppression women are yoked too is quite a revolutionary idea. In her words, “The freeing of women from the tyranny of reproduction by every means possible, and the diffusion of child-rearing to the society as a whole, to men and other children as well as women.” (The Dialectic of Sex p. 213).
There are many precursors to overcome that would be necessary to properly realize her vision. Tackling the misogyny in the medical and research sciences along with the historical anti-woman bias would be a huge step, but only the first if were actually move toward the ideas outlined by Firestone in the DoS.
Stoltenberg says many things. None of them particularly sensible. Derrick Jensen comments on Stoltenberg’s revelations [link]:
“A much more important and relevant question is “Were Andrea Dworkin alive today, would she be labeled a ‘transphobe’”?
It’s an easy question to answer. We can do it with some other questions.
Would she believe that women living in a rape culture, including those who have themselves been raped, should be forced to accept biological males—men, including those who have been, to use your term, “subordinated like a woman,” and including those who believe (or in some cases simply state) they were wrongly “assigned male at birth”—into vulnerable spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms and shelters?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.” Neither this nor any of the other questions and responses are hyperbolic. They have all happened to people (both women and men) I know.
To be even more clear about this one. The biological males who say they want to go into women’s restrooms because they’re afraid of being assaulted aren’t afraid of women: they’re afraid of biological males. Would Andrea Dworkin suggest that in order to alleviate the very real and understandable fears of these biological males of being assaulted by other biological males in restrooms, that women then be subjected to this same fear?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
To be even more clear: given how hard women in the UK and US struggled for the rights to sex-segregated bathrooms, in order to be able to experience a more robust and less terrorized public life (because it greatly reduced the risk of sexual assault in public restrooms), would Andrea Dworkin be willing to force women to accept biological males into their restrooms?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
And one more time. Right now women in many parts of India are struggling for these very same rights that in the U.S. are being eroded: they want segregated public restrooms because that will enable them to attend school. Read that sentence again: girls are afraid to go to school for fear they will be raped when they go to the bathroom. Would Andrea Dworkin be unwilling to support these women and girls in this struggle?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
Would she believe that women living in a rape culture, including those who have themselves been raped, should be forced to accept biological males into groups advocating for the rights of women?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
Would she believe that women who call a rape crisis hot line after having been sexually assaulted by a biological male should be forced to take the chance that the counselor with whom she speaks is a biological male?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
Would she believe that women should be forced to compete with biological males in sex-segregated sports? Would she believe that Title IX should be eroded?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
Would she condemn women for speaking of safe access to abortion as a women’s issue?
If the answer is no, then she would be labeled as “transphobic.”
Women who say no to men in this culture run the risk of facing severe consequences for doing so. These consequences can include domination (as in forcing women to accept unwanted males in their spaces), disidentification (as in suggesting that one is not in fact a “female” but was “assigned female,” meaning that female-ness itself, and not just femininity, is a social construct), despisal (as in labeling those who wish to be left alone as “transphobes”), derogation (as in labeling those who wish to be left alone as “transphobes”) destruction, and death (as in the rape and death threats suffered by those who are labeled “transphobes”).
I seem to recall somewhere some woman or another writing some books about these processes of how this whole culture (and especially men as a collective in this culture) terrorize or manipulate or coerce or mindfuck women into saying yes. But just right now I can’t quite remember her name. . . .
Were Andrea Dworkin alive today, would she be labeled as “transphobic”?
But really, that’s not the question either. She’s dead. She can’t argue her case. So I don’t really see the point of doing an extremely superficial exegesis to figure out whether she would or wouldn’t be “transphobic,” Or, for that matter, whether she would or wouldn’t be “labeled as ‘transphobic.’” It smacks too much of those Biblical exegeses that took up so much ink in the early 19th Century trying to argue that Jesus would or wouldn’t have supported slavery.”
If one was to look at Dworkin’s writings, she would most clearly fit the label of ‘transphobic’ because she does, indeed, recognize sex based oppression and the necessity of female only spaces in our society.
I address my commentary and argumentation against violent trans-activism.
1. The San Francisco Public Library Exhibit – I punch TERFS… Meghan Murphy on the Exhibit. The SF Public Library Twitter Feed.
2. Transactivists #What about the Men-ing with regards to the École Polytechnique massacre of 14 women here in Canada.
3. Transactivists storm Vancouver Women’s Library.
4. Transactivists assualting women on the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park (UK).
5. No platforming radical feminist Julie Bindle
I can go on…
So, I’m not sure whose ‘caricature’ we should be discussing? And to speak to the notion of outliers and isolated incidents, what would you suggest a reasonable standard be to accept the notion that trans-activism and trans-ideology is inherently misogynistic and has no place in a feminist movement whose goal it is to emancipate women from the patriarchal structures of society? (I’d do my darnedest to provide the required reasonable amount of evidence)
The trans people I’ve met and taught have been fine individuals. I do recall though, one trans identifying male student claiming he was a woman displaying long hair and wearing a skirt exhibiting male patterned aggressive behaviour in school. Talking over people, taking up space, acting like he was fully human. I interacted with him in a professional manner, but in no way would I ever consider him a woman.
‘Cis’ is sort of offensive don’t ya think? Females do not identify with femininity or their oppression, they simply are female. Also no one (as usual) asked women if they wished to be labelled as identifying with the very means of their oppression. The irony is quite thick coming from a ‘progressive’ group that will threaten violence when their system of labeling and self-identification is not followed.
Ruth Barrett Writes (Female Erasure Anthology p.2) –
“Because I feel that I am a woman, therefore you must treat me as if I actually am, otherwise you are transphobic. As I insist on participating as a woman in your groups, gatherings, or spaces you also must forgo discussing anything about your female socialization, female anatomy, or female functions because it hurts my feelings. If hurts my feelings because I was neither socialized as a girl nor am I capable of experiencing what the female body experiences from cradle to grave. But if you speak about this I am then reminded that I am not female, and therefore not really a woman. My experience of feeling like a woman must not be invalidated by your experiences of being a woman, therefore I will shame you for being female, teach you in university to estrange your body from your mind, make your distinct physicality and oppression that is specific to your sex irrelevant in the laws of the land or anything that names our differences until there is only the mind. Now only how I think about your body is real. Mind over body. Mind over matter. Spirit over matter/mater/mother. A woman is anyone who says they are a woman. My word is now more real than your mitochondrial DNA. Accept that by my word, you really don’t exist.”
I suspect the more that women learn the actual goals of trans activists and muster the courage to endure their violence and threats, the backlash will begin in earnest. This is evinced by the Woman’s movements in the UK that are speaking out against the totalitarian gender legislation that is currently on the table (Fair Play for Women). It brings me great hope to see women banding together and fighting for their existence in society.
The instant that the trans activists call out men for their violence in society and devote themselves to changing the root of the problem you will find me at the head of the Trans-march. Currently though it is mostly nothing but patriarchally approved misogyny in a frock and I, and I suspect many women, simply don’t have time for that.
LikeLike
November 7, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Curious Mother
I’ve heard other versions of what happened at the Speaker’s Corner and the Bindel no-platforming, but so have you, probably.
I have a lot of marking to do (as I teach undergraduates) so I keep coming back to your comments and then swerving off to think about other things. Your comment deserve more thought, but I probably won’t get a chance to say too much, for a while.
All I’ve got today is some observations about how unfortunate it is to glibly label the political positions of others. ‘Transphobic’ doesn’t make a lot of sense in the contexts you give (unless it describes a fear of trans people, which would be an odd thing to accuse Dworkin of). I acknowledge that some people will yell ‘transphobe’ much as they yell ‘terf’, with very little encouragement, and with very little sense.
I think it’s a problem when either ‘transactivists’ or ‘terfs’ focus the worst behaviour of the opposing side and then give it as evidence that their position is invalid. It’s a very disingenuous strategy (problems with essentialising the differences of others get a lot of critique in feminist theory, incidentally).
My Dad made a point to me years ago about the universality of human rights: we don’t get to pick and choose who ‘deserves’ basic human rights based on whether or not we think they’re a nice, good person. At the time, Dad was referring to the treatment of an Australian, David Hicks, at Guantanamo Bay. Many Australians didn’t want him home because there was evidence that he had sympathised with Al Queda. My Dad campaigned for him on the principle that, like all people, he shouldn’t be held indefinitely without trial. It was nothing to do with liking him or not.
I think the same principle holds in considering ‘trans activists’. Transactivists deserve the same rights as any other human being, even if they’re behaving horribly. Some might be shrill, badly dressed, even violent. these behaviours don’t erase the right of all trans people – read everyone – to urinate and defecate safely and in peace. Similarly, transgender people deserve the same rights of employment, housing and medical treatment as anyone else. I don’t know what (or who) you are seeing to believe that advocating for trans rights is “patriarchal approved misogyny in a frock”. Are you talking about me?
Above all, I get amazed that those in power seem to be so keen on devoting so much energy to such a small number of human beings. With environmental catastrophe all around us, why are we focusing on this?
LikeLike
November 7, 2018 at 8:44 pm
Curious Mother
One more thing:
“The dead bodies are ours. The raped bodies are ours. The abused bodies are ours. Overwhelmingly. The violence is male on female.”
The violence done to trans women is also “ours”. And also everywhere.
LikeLike
November 7, 2018 at 10:11 pm
windupmyskirt
Eloquently put. Without hate or judgment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 7, 2018 at 10:53 pm
The Arbourist
@CM
There is no timeline on this side. Please take as much time as necessary. I usually do comments on the weekend, as I teach during the week.
I agree. Opinion and the amount of political involvement from both groups is on a spectrum. I would like to put forward though for consideration is that many of the examples mentioned are people acting in a political capacity. The demand to ban books at the Vancouver Woman’s Library is a political act undertaken by transactivists. Do I think they represent all trans people? Absolutely not. Do I think that entitled males should be able to determine the contents of Woman’s Library… of course, absolutely not.
Agreed again. So then who shall we assign responsibility to when radical feminists are denied a platform to speak, or when lesbians want to march in a pride parade and are barred from doing so. It would seem that are some marginally distinct sides to the issues being raised.
Do they have the right to determine my version of reality? Because in mine the definition of woman is adult human female. There is nothing reasonable about the demand that personal subjective identities must be validated by other people.
And what of women? It is their boundaries and safety that is also at stake, and if you believe personally that it isn’t a problem, should others be expected to share your opinion? Some women are expressly forbidden by their beliefs to share in mixed sex facilities, shall we exclude them from the single sex facilities designated for them because inclusion should take precedence?
It is the expectation that women are to cede linguistic and societal space. Gender neutral bathrooms are almost always formally female bathrooms, and that is a injustice in itself. I fully support additional gender neutral bathroom to be in all public buildings, but not a reduction in female only space. Heavens, I would completely support changing male bathrooms to gender neutral ones. That won’t fly because, patriarchally speaking, men won’t tolerate a violation of their space or boundaries.
Male socialization and male pattern violence continues after transition. I’ll find the study if you’d like, if you think it would make a difference. On that assertion alone, single sex facilities must be maintained.
I fully support these things. What I cannot condone is the expectation placed on me to have my views and responses fall in line with someone else personal, subjective reality. Especially if it does not concur with reality. Human beings are mostly sexually dimorphic, and we cannot alter our sex. These are facts. Trans women are men, and Trans men are female. To demand that others follow your personal dictates – I feel that I am a woman, therefore I am a woman – isn’t reasonable, nor does it have any place in a society that values individual freedom and expression (not to mention a commitment to grounding actions and behaviour in material physical reality).
Male socialization and behaviour remains, in whichever guise an individual happens to present themselves as. The behaviour and actions of many transactivists and men’s rights activists can share some similarities, and that is the basis for the statement in question.
Men making it all about themselves to the detriment of rest of society? Shocking.
A united female movement with the intent on dismantling the toxic patriarchal constructions that are responsible for poisoning the earth is a threat. The patriarchal status-quo is durable and resilient (not to mention crafty). What better way to consume the energy of a radical movement that to bog it down with internecine strife? I may be going utopian in my assertion here, but like Firestone, I really do believe in the possibility that we can form a society that isn’t built on the principles of domination and submission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 7, 2018 at 11:02 pm
The Arbourist
@CM
Also almost exclusively perpetrated by men. So why then isn’t the reduction of male violence and violent male socialization the first tier in the transactivst platform?
If it was, again, you’d find me at the head of the march as the elimination or reduction of male pattern violence is the root of the problem for women and Transfolk.
Currently though, much of transactivism, is about defining women out of existence and removing the hard won protections females have struggle to obtain. And that is quite unacceptable.
LikeLike
November 15, 2018 at 8:28 pm
Curious Mother
“Like Firestone, I really do believe in the possibility that we can form a society that isn’t built on the principles of domination and submission.”
Now you’re talking. Yes, I’ve witnessed this in action on a small scale – not on a societal scale. One of my favourite books is (or was) Marge Piercey’s ‘Woman on the Edge of Time’. The utopian world she imagines (Mattapoissett) owes a lot to Firestone. One of the difficulties indeed is conceiving of how men would cede power. More recently I’ve wondered what decolonisation would actually look like.
One of my frustrations in talking to radical feminists about transgender lives and politics is feeling that neither side gets very far. I used to spend some time writing on the 4thWaveNow website. In the end I was accused of ‘concern trolling’ and, much as that was not my intention, there was some truth to it, in that I’d come onto a site where everyone was hostile to my perspective and I’d attempted to get them to see my point of view.
It’s a mug’s game, probably.
The basic point of difference between us is that you are never going to see trans women as women and trans men as men. Through personal experience, I’ve come to believe that trans people are, in the main, exactly who they say they are. Sometimes I do question if my own life has been too comfortable – I haven’t been assaulted, raped or denied health care and education because I’m biologically female. I have never met a brazen trans person who denied me respect, privacy and safety. How bizarre that some would see this as a privileged life in this world! Biological females need safety, support and respect: I would not endorse any trans person who declared otherwise.
But – and this is important – it was feminism that taught me to distrust rigidity, binaries, authoritative voices, grand narratives and either/or propositions. It taught me to see notions of dimorphism as complicated and indistinct long before empiricism troubled this further. I distrust hard, polarising voices that tell me that they’re ‘right’ because they have the backing of science. These are voices of the patriarchy. The feminism I know allows uncertainty, ambivalence and spaciousness. It allows all bodies and all people to live as they need to be. I don’t see the stark contradictions that you seem to see.
LikeLike