Back from Michigan's Camp Trans
PERSONAL POLITICAL / Reflecting on issues our community can work on together
Ariel Troster / National / Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Share |

I had the chance to think about how activism can become either a mass celebration or a struggle over scant resources, as I pitched my tent at Camp Trans in the woods near Hart, Michigan, for the second year in a row.

It was hard not to feel jealous of the well-resourced Michigan women's festival (officially the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival) that took place just down the road. It felt like the couple hundred of us — trans people and allies — who set up camp in the dusty field a short walk from the venerable lesbian institution, were definitely the have-nots. As in, we didn't have enough food to eat, and the porta potties desperately needed to be emptied.

It felt like sticking to my principles — in this case, protesting against the Michigan Festival's "women-born-women" policy — was a struggle marked by scarcity and unrequited desire.

The experience has certainly helped me understand the poverty and isolation that many trans people face every day, but it didn't resemble any of the experiences that I have had in Ottawa — which has an incredibly diverse and well-integrated queer community. I know that our somewhat staid capital city gets a bad rap for being a boring, bureaucratic town. But there's something about the medium size of the queer community that forces people to hang out together and combine our efforts, no matter where we sit on the rainbow spectrum. And that is a very good thing.

Some of the division I experienced in Michigan represents a generational divide — the gay liberationists and the lesbian feminists in their forties and fifties, versus the queer and trans activists, largely in their twenties. But as far as I am concerned, these groups have more in common than they may think. We all believe in justice and human rights, many of us have experienced some sort of oppression because of how we look or who we fuck, and we all challenge mainstream definitions of love and family, simply by the virtue of who we are.

I think it's a mistake to view social justice as a battle for scarce resources — as in, what should be "the issue" that "the community" works on. The reality is that we all intersect and work on a range of issues together — we don't win every battle, but we build community in the process.

I would rather have a united community and take a couple more years to achieve a particular victory than have a splintered and resentful community, with those with money and power focussing on a single goal at the exclusion of all others. Many argued that this was the case with the campaign for equal marriage. Now that this has been won, there are so many possible ways we could use our collective energy.

Here are a few ideas:

1. Fighting censorship of queer images in public spaces. Laws may have changed, but public attitudes still have a long way to go. Last week, an Ottawa community centre refused to display a poster for the Dyke March. A local health centre still refuses to display a sexual health guide for trans men, and Capital Xtra routinely runs into problems with restaurant and store owners who want the publication turfed from their properties.

2. Fighting homophobia and transphobia in schools. Queer youth are still vulnerable to bullying, and face clamp downs on their activities by leery or discriminatory teachers. We have a long way to go to make our schools safe for gay and trans teens.

3. Supporting freedom of choice. This struggle represents everything from the right to have a safe and legal abortion, to choosing our sexual partners and practices and supporting the decriminalization of sex work. The fight for bodily autonomy started with the gay liberation and pro-choice movements and continues today.

4. Fighting state surveillance. Just last month, the media revealed the ludicrous fact that Maritime singer Rita McNeil was under RCMP surveillance in the 1980s, for participating in feminist consciousness-raising groups. Given the post-9/11 paranoia, I have no doubt that queer activists could be subject to similar scrutiny. Inadequate immigration policies keep queer refugees from entering our borders, and draconian homeland security-type measures could put all of our civil liberties at stake.

5. Fighting for gender justice. Adding gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the federal Human Rights Code, as well as the equivalent provincial codes, would help protect everyone — from the nelly fag to the butch dyke, to the tomboy who refuses to wear a skirt. Restrictive definitions of masculinity and femininity routinely lead to bullying and violence against the people in our community — not just trans folks.

We have plenty of important issues to sink our teeth into. Rather than feeling like we should somehow come to a global consensus on what is the most important, why don't we just roll up our sleeves and work on the issues that catch fire in our bellies? That will certainly fill me up more than any pots of beans.

Read recent columns by Ariel Troster:



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Slumming it?
"The experience has certainly helped me understand the poverty and isolation that many trans people face every day". This is so insulting. Poverty is measured by how much of your money you spend on necessities like food and shelter. Parties in the woods that are poorly organized have nothing to do with poverty. If everyone had just brought as much food as they needed (ie whatever they would have eaten at home) then you all would have been fine. No one was oppression trans people and their friends into lack of leadership. It is really telling that a discussion of trans activism here has come down to a complaint that not enough stuff was done FOR someone by someone else. "I went to a community event and no one took care of the (literal) shitty work for me!". You don't say. When you write "why don't we just roll up our sleeves and work on the issues that catch fire in our bellies" do you mean only male-born-women? Because when transwomen talk only about the issues that directly resonate with them it is considered a celebration, but when women-born-women talk about the issues that speak to them we are critiqued if those issues don't include trans oppression. Why is it okay for trans women to talk in their communities while ignoring crucial issues like abortion and girlhood sexual abuse that will only ever effect cisgendered women, but when cisgendered women want to talk about stuff close to us and our experiences it is mandatory that we include trans women at every turn? When will the sisterhood run both ways? Maybe the trans community needs to take a page from the feminist lesbians that started MWMF and just make the community they want - and yes, sometimes that includes dealing with shit and getting in the kitchen to cook a meal or two - sorry! I guess it's just easier to piggy-back on an existing movement that has already done all the work - without the money and access that comes from being raised male, by the way.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/29/08 4:39 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
to K-L... oh how typical
It's kind of hilarious and sad, simultaneously, that this person is willing to preach to a group she directly oppresses about what they should do and what resources they should have. Ignore the smokescreen of the 2nd wave apologist and check out a few sites for some insight in to the danger of that kind of divisionist and transphobic thinking. http://juliaserano.com/outside.html#backwards http://www.eminism.org/michigan/faq-debate.html http://www.circlesoffireproductions.com/cc4d/argument.html http://divergencemovienight.com/mwmf.htm Maybe it's time K-L check her privilege and think about what can truly help all women, instead of just some women at the expense of a few that she doesn't care about as much. Welcome to the 21st century. Violent attitudes towards trans people will not be tolerated and language distinctions like "male born women" are 30 years obsolete. You might feel passionately that there needs to be enforced distinctions between trans women and cissexual women, but luckily that destructive attitude is fading from feminism, and women can move forward united.
cr, Ottawa On
08/29/08 5:59 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Classic 2nd wave rhetoricals
K-L, you are a classic reactionary, 2nd wave reverse-sexist. "Get in the kitchen to cook a meal or two?" We cooked 2-3 meals/day in our vegan kitchen, thank you. Unlike your costly elitist space rooted in the second-wave prinicples of "feminism= white, middle class", Camp Trans is free for all who come, and relies completely on donations. So we don't have the $$ to buy extravagant meals and work with what we afford. And contrary to what you may believe, male socialization does not guarrantee you a job, college education, housing or the simple freedom to go to the grocery store without being harrased, assaulted, beaten, or denied safe access to a bathroom one you transition. All of you aging, bitter lesbians don't understand that the same that face cis-women face trans-women. Anyone ever get on your case or fire you (or your partner or friend) for looking too butch? For not wearing makeup, long hair or a skirt? That's GENDER EXPRESSION. It has nothing to do with whom you sleep with. It has to do with what you look like and how you present yourself. And finally, it is curious to see you unleash so much hate towards the transwomen at Camp Trans. Are you aware that a sizable percentage, if not majority of the attendees at Camp Trans are FTM? Shall I conclude that conversely to your sexist assertions that male-born women may not be capable of preparing a meal, that we should have expected these "women-born men" to do all the cooking? Goddess, people like you make my stomach turn. I am sorry that you are so embittered and feel the need to hate so much.
M-D, Los Angeles CA
08/30/08 2:44 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
2nd wave?
Haha, I'll take the bait - I'm far from 2nd wave, and I'll bet I'm younger than most of you. Please, if you're going to send me Julia Serano links, read what she says. I can quote her as saying "MWMF is just a party, it's not about your childhood". So either it's a big metaphor or its not. I'm not anti-trans, I support trans people and consider myself an ally and I believe in human rights for trans people.... I'm just sick of places like Michigan being held up in articles like this as huge symbolic similies for poverty and global justice, while the trans community turns around and dismisses them as inconsequential in the next breath. Trans theory is deeply flawed, and I'm forgiving of it because it's still an emerging idea, but nobody - including Serano - has yet written a book about trans philosophy that is internal cohesive. Hell, I don't even care if trans politics doesn't mesh with my views, I just want the books on it to not contradict themselves.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 5:00 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
same old xtra.ca bullshit
"All of you aging, bitter lesbians don't understand that the same that face cis-women face trans-women." Whoa talk about age-ist. Glad I was being dismissed as a bitter dyke because you thought I was old... did I say I was gay?.................. Um, I'm 24, but thanks for trying.... a lot is being read into the fact that I said you should cook a meal... I also said to deal with the plumbing - was that sexist too? Oh, this website is such a joke and it really doesn't teach anyone anything. I'll let Shannon Blatt show up and rant now. Later, folks. Feel free to keep making assumptions about me instead of really listening.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 5:05 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
As requested...
K.L. Ask and you shall receive. But there will be no rant. In fact, there have been no rants from me here at all. There has been legitimate anger at Gareth, at those who've institutionally enabled him, and at the bigots..like you...that come out of the woodwork. I've also pitched some theoretical arguments. Arguments that find traction with pretty much everyone who actually explores them and does some reading. Of course they can't be fully articulated here. Read a book. Read two. They're good for your head. There is so much in your initial argument that just oozes...well, plain hate. I live to challenge people like you, and if you're calling me out on this thread here, I'm obviously doing something right. Just like Ariel is. We are challenging oppressive systems, naming them, outlining alternatives. And believe me sister...childhood sexual abuse is endemic amongst trans people from what I've observed and experienced, so don't try to smear us with that "you've never been victimized" argument. I won't deny experiencing aspects of male privilege as I grew up etc., but I also won't deny being denied that privilege in many aspects, because I was perceived as...ready for it?...QUEER...and not masculine enough. And you might also want to think about what it's like to declare who you are as a child and have it crushed and forcibly denied you, stuffed inside you to devour your self-esteem and any potential for genuine happiness. it rather tempers the unwanted privilege you seem to think we all actually enjoyed.
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
08/30/08 9:38 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
well-integrated
I hesitate to challenge the picture of the Ottawa 'community/ies' presented here. The people we are able to see and talk to, who engage in pleasant little conversations on Xtra.ca, are not those most in need of solidarity. Experience is diverse, even for those who are unable or uninterested in going to Michigan. One of the curses of being around even a few years is to watch rhetoric change. From Human Rights are the most important thing to struggle for, it is part of the grand view of Canadian history to a dismissive mention in the last of five points. In an organization that doesn't include EITHER the B or the T that's something, I guess--the other discussion thread continuing for THREE columns manages to avoid it entirely. In fact, the organizations that I, for one, would look to for leadership, assert that with gay marriage there are no more human rights in Canada to be recognized. Which leads to the former editor's casual dismissal of trans people as not numerically significant enough to be considered. Trans people have ALWAYS worked for the rights of G and L people--we are G and L, though the reverse is not usually true. To recount history is not to name-call. Yet it remains offensive to ask for the same solidarity freely given for the human rights struggles of G and L people for those of T people.
Jessica Freedman, Ottawa Ontario
08/30/08 11:40 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
back to K-L
I'm glad you feel confident that you have undone all trans theory and rendered it obsolete with neato phrases like "So either it's a big metaphor or its not". This isn't about theory, dear: This is about people's lives. You can't hide behind "well, I found this book, page 300 line 5, contradicts something I read on this book, page 82 paragraph 7, so I don't feel trans rights are interesting because people are saying different things." No. These are people's lives that are being affected. What matters is the women left at the gates being attacked, being raped, having limited health care access, and having far shorter life spans than other women. Women outside the gate you so readily patrol. It is the hypocrisy of michfest, being both an oppressive gatekeeper, and mostly just a party, that makes it the ultimate symbol of oppression for the sake of convenience. Michfest isn't morally freed because of that contradiction, it is condemned because of it. I am sure you think you are a fabulous trans ally locked away in the trans-free woods. But stop and think for a second: "Hey, I am in a space where trans women are not allowed. Isn't this kind of messed up that I think that I am an ally?" Or, you can continue to chastise trans people for not listening to you, the one whom is demanding ivory tower cohesiveness from her guarded WBW gate.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 11:59 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Which do you want?
Shannon & cr want me to "do the reading", "read a book or two", but also, apparently it's not about books, it's about people's lives. It's so assumptive that you all think I do not understand these things. I have done plenty of reading, and I have worked in the queer community in Ottawa, including the trans community. I know it's easier for you all to think that I am missing something if I don't agree with you, but I'm not. I've read the texts you hold up as gospel, and I've talked extensively with and seen the struggles of my trans friends and lovers here and in the States. I just think the approach you are taking is wrong. There will always be many approaches to feminism, even when the feminists have read all the books and done all the activism. You folks need to learn that you aren't going to win any battles or change any minds if you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant (or old, or a bitter dyke, in the style of hetero men dismissing feminists). The problem here isn't that I haven't read enough weblinks or books, or that I don't understand trans people lives, the problem is the arguments made by the dominant trans movement are not even internally cohesive. The are contradictory and non sensical. And I'm sorry, but you will have to realize that some of us believe that gender is a social construct. That is a pretty common perspective in feminism, and trans writing doesn't jive with it. If you keep telling people "go read a book or two" they will stop listening to you.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 5:43 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
reply
How can you talk about internally consistent if you support transphobic spaces, call trans women men, compare their arguments to hetero men arguments, and yet pat yourself on the back for being a super feminst trans ally? You want to feel like an awesome feminist without asking yourself the hard questions. Sorry. I don't care what books you have read. You are far from consistent. Feminism is far from consistent. Trans academia is far from consistent. Irregardless, stop claiming you are a trans ally out of one side of your mouth and reaffirming cissexist hierarchies from the other. You might do good work for some avenues of feminism, but check your privilege and realize you can't claim title as "trans ally" if you just want to wear it as a badge and refuse to listen to trans people that are involved in undoing the damage mwmf causes. The reason people might be telling you to "Read a book" is because it is not the oppressed group's responsibility to spend all of their energy on you, teaching you, reaching out to you. This is work you will have to do, when you are ready. In the meantime, just listen.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 6:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
corrections
I do not call transwomen men. I used the term "male born women" once when contrasting it with WBW. I did point out that it is like the worst heteromale thing to dismiss feminisnt voices as bitter old lesbians. I was called a lesbian in a homophobic way right there, and it was ageist. That does not mean that I was calling anyone a man. I wasn't comparing their arguments to any straight male arguments, I was comparing their use of slurs. You can't really be offended that you think I might have IMPLIED that someone was a straight male when all I was doing was responding to being outright CALLED a bitter old lesbian. I have asked myself the tough questions. I have done the work. I don't expect trans women to do my work for me. But it is not as simple as you make it out to be when you contrast the "oppressed group" as transpeople and the privileged as everyone else. I know you want to think I'm not "ready", that I haven't listened, and that transpeople have nothing to gain from listening to me, that I should just listen to them. You folks don't even want to recognize who your allies are. I would put my ass on the line for trans rights (and have before), I'm just objecting to the insulting discussion of poverty in this article. Yes, I'm a cisgendered woman, but I grew up in (Canadian) poverty, and not all transpeople live in poverty, and maybe that complicates the hierachy of oppression, and does away with the flase binary of trans as always-most-oppressed, but that's the reality. And it's not my job either as the opressed person born into poverty to do that work for Ariel or Xtra or its readers, or whomever is responsible for such irresponsible writing getting published. Poverty is not about not enough place settings at a party.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 6:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
poverty
Ah OK, I was just objecting to your stance as a trans ally while attending MWMF. On the topic of poverty: If you go to Michigan next year, stop by CT and ask around the camp fire about poverty stories there. Not in a one-upmanship kind of way, but the intersections of oppression that many denizens their face and the perpetual poverty they deal with is quite eye-opening. With no Canadian safety nets, their realities are often especially harsh. These are women that are often and easily fired and/or abused for gendered transgressions, and then denied access to all women's social programs and shelters because they are trans.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 7:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Clarification
Of the many assumptions made about me in this thread, one is that I have attended MWMF. I have never been there and have no plans to attend, neiher Michigan nor CT.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/30/08 7:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
straw targets
I just want to say this: I reject and object to K.L.'s saying that trans people are always claiming they are most oppressed, just as strongly as I object to Gareth saying that trans activists have been saying trans people are most oppressed and should be "top priority", and just as much as I also reject the notion put forward by David in the other thread, that LBT people all hate gay men and think they're pigs etc. I don't think any of those things, and I disavow any who does think them. Above all, I don't know anyone who is saying those things. Yet those words keep being put in our mouths. K.L...I'll say to you what I say to Gareth: if you have the quotes and evidence of trans people saying those things...put up. I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that i've never seen it. But if you don't have actual proof of us saying those things...shut up. and think about why you're saying that we've said stuff that we have not. I don't believe in a hierarchy of oppressions. But I do believe that some issues are more urgent than others, and some issues have higher stakes than others. those are always difficult determinations to make, and depending on who we each are and what we face...we may make them differently, place our priorities differently. and that's cool. but where we can pull together and work on common issues of oppression, it not only makes us more effective in our various struggles, but I have to think that somehow..it makes us more human.
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
08/30/08 9:52 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh Shannon, you "shut-up".
This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the hierachy of oppressions in my comment, it is from this very thread: "The reason people might be telling you to "Read a book" is because it is not the oppressed group's responsibility to spend all of their energy on you, teaching you, reaching out to you." Also, I just can't take you seriously with lines like "don't believe in a hierarchy of oppressions. But I do believe that some issues are more urgent than others...." . Hierarchy: "5: a graded or ranked series ". Fucking hell... you tell me "think about why you're saying that we've said stuff that we have not"... think about why you are saying I'm saying people have said things they have not when actually I'm not saying that... it's getting ridiculous. I'm not falsely attributing anything to anyone. I *am* using quotes from you all in order to make my points. But it is the people on this thread that are talking nonsense and calling me a bitter old lesbian. You are so silly, and you can't see it. I'm not trying to take away your rights, or the rights of any trans person. I am not anti-trans or transphobic. I am just sick of the poorly written books and essays like this one where being trans on vacation is being equated with being poor at home.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 2:30 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Question for Ariel Troster:
When you say "why don't we just roll up our sleeves and work on the issues that catch fire in our bellies?", who is the "we"? Is this just for trans people? Like I was asking several comments ago, why is it not okay for cisgendered (lesbian?)feminists to do work on the issues unique to them without including trans people, but it is okay for transpeople to have uniquely trans experiences/writing/activism? Is that not a hierarchy of oppression? I'm honestly wondering.... I'm trying to understand.... if you object to the WBW term, prefer cisgendered women, whatever term... why is it expected that those women include trans women at every turn, at every dyke march, in every anthology, at every bar, concert, party in the woods, etc, but the reverse is not expected? I would never, ever go to an event about trans rights or trans biographies or trans activism and stand up and say they there was not enough said about women born with female sex organs, but the reverse calling out happens all the time: aka calls for more trans inclusion. Certainly there is a need to make sure that trans people are not excluded from civil participation, safety, health care, education, parenting, etc etc and all other human rights, including the right to assemble and create community (ie Camp Trans or anything else), but does this mean that transwomen must be included in literally everything and that it is never, ever okay for cisgendered women to have their own spaces? If this is okay, the only way I can see this being justified is a hierarchy of oppression. I suppose there might be something I'm missing here, but I swear I've read lots and lots on the subject, and listened to the trans activists in my community and in the US and I've yet to hear an explanation that wasn't relying on transpeople being the most oppressed group.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 2:41 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
We versus us and them
Hi K-L, I wasn't going to wade in here, because I have already had my say. But just to clarify that I believe that trans women should be welcomed in women's spaces, period. But within those spaces, there are lots of affinity groups (be they for women of colour, women with disabilities, women with kids, etc.). The point is, we can't even begin the discussion of how to be better allies to each other, and how various oppression intersect, and what issues we want to focus on, if we systematically exclude one group of women from the discussion. None of the trans people I met at Camp Trans thought that trans issues should dominate the Michigan festival (just as none of the trans people I know think trans issues should dominate the queer community). They would just like to the chance to participate, like any other woman who is accepted into our community. Is it okay for cisgendered women to hang out together to talk about childbirth? Sure! It is okay for trans women to hold a caucus to talk about their particular experiences? Of course! What's not cool is systemic exclusion from community, social support and political organizations. Michfest is not just a group of friends in the woods. It's an important political institution that has been the breeding ground for lots of important activist work. They have worked hard to make it accessible for deaf women, for women with children, for women of colour and for women with disabilities. From what I understand, it is a rich and diverse space. As cisgendered woman, I longed to be in that space, with the trans women I care about. I am absolutely convinced that if the Michfest stalwarts and the Camp Trans activists spent some time together, they would absolutely find they have more in common than they do apart. Choosing the issues we care about and allowing ourselves to focus on the things closest to our hearts is different from excluding people for not being "real" women.
Ariel Troster, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:13 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
part 1
K-L said "Like I was asking several comments ago, why is it not okay for cisgendered (lesbian?)feminists to do work on the issues unique to them without including trans people, but it is okay for transpeople to have uniquely trans experiences/writing/activism" Who ever said they couldn't? Have the big-bad powerful trans groups crushed those things? Ummm, no. Almost every single thing written and done about women is cissexual in focus. There is only a minute amount, an inconsequential fraction of things that deal with women that specifically include trans women. Now, you wonder why people think you go to mwmf? Well it doesn't really matter if you defend them to the end. The opposition to mwmf is the it needlessly creates a wall that keeps out women. If you had a caucus for women who have had an abortion, do you suspect trans women would be there? The spectre of being oppressed by the spooky trans presence is a myth long since debunked. There is a huge bitterness in your voice, like trans people have defiled something you once held sacred. I hope you one day realize that trans inclusion does not diminish the topics you find specific to cissexual women. Then on to your next quote at "why is it expected that those women include trans women at every turn, [...] but the reverse is not expected?", which, come... that's patently ridiculous. How many trans-only spaces are you being excluded from?
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:13 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
part 2
To finish, here is something from one of the links I gave you but you never read: "Most women attend oblivious to the fact that they are NOT attending a women's festival: They are attending an exclusionary festival that only includes some women. Other women are left at the gate wondering just how this feminist space could abandon them. In the age of analyzing oppression and owning up to our own privilege, MWMF is an anomaly time-warped from the 70s. Defining a women’s space that excludes trans women in effect defines them as other than women. Denying their common experiences, challenges, struggles and triumphs as women serves to further limit their access to community, health, well-being and dignity. It creates a class of disposable women. The festival allows women to enjoy the party and reinforces how wonderful "women's spaces" are. Because there is no discussion, what is really a women-born-womyn space becomes a "womyn's" space in the minds of patrons. Trans women are made invisible and effectively erased from the landscape. Out of sight, out of mind. They become excluded from the category of women. Some trans-women do attend MWMF, but they have to do so covertly for fear of their safety. MWMF is not a safe space for all women. MWMF is a million-dollar festival and is able to create a wonderful environment for its patrons. Trans women, especially trans women in the U.S.A., have minimal access to resources to fight for their rights and stand up to this kind of discrimination. Cissexist attitudes affect Trans women in access to health care, job security, access to housing and limit the spaces where they can hope to feel safe from violence of all types. The festival attempts to create a space where women can actively challenge oppression against women, the barriers and beliefs about ourselves that hold us back in our day-to-day lives. However, the act of excluding trans women amplifies the oppre
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:14 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
But what about girlhood?
Ariel, as always, you have attempted to be very diplomatic in your answer, but you have not really answered my question. You mention one example of it being okay for ciswomen to meet seperately from transwomen: if they are talking about childbirth. But my question is, is it ever okay for cisgendered women to meet up, with that characteristic being the criteria? You seem to maybe be ignoring that growing up as a girl is an experience. That is the shared experience I am talking about. So Mich is a big, well-attended festival where that is the criteria, but if we leave that aside for a minute.... do you think it is ever okay for women who grew up as girls (meaning in part that they were perceived that way, had female organs, etc) to meet up on the basis of that? And if no, if cisgendered women have to be meeting to talk about childbirth or whatever else, but trans women are allowed to have trans-only spaces no questions asked, then the only possible justification is a hierarchy of oppression. I am only being so relentless here because it has been asked again and again why trans activists get accused of relying on a hierarchy of oppression.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:24 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the "girlhood" argument...
Since you are admittedly someone who has not and intends not to attend fest, we will have to make a separation here since you probably don't know that the day-to-day at MWMF does not center around girlhood. First, if you want to organize women on the basis of having a specific type of "girlhood", good luck at not sounding creepy, classist and racist. People can impose barriers however they see fit, I suppose, but they darn well better take responsibility for the privilege they are annexing and analyze the reasons they find it necessary to create exclusionary spaces. In the context of MWMF, what is the point of having a general women's event that is centered around girlhood? From another one of the links you didn't read: "The "general information" page above does not state anything about the "shared experience of being raised as girls." Besides, if the "diversity" of the festgoers "is authentically expressed in every part of the Festival" as the site claims, I would expect that women at the festival do not really share the same experience even if they were all raised as girls, because other factors, such as race, class, nationality, ability, etc. play a huge part in how one experiences girlhood. Being transsexual does affect how the child experiences her childhood as a girl (who was mistaken for a boy), but there is nothing to say that its impact is more profound than other factors that make one girl's experiences different from another's." Again, check and see what motivates this need within you. And also, how would you want to see this applied? Do you support cissexual lesbian bar spaces in Ottawa? Cissexual only lesbian discussion groups? Do you see personal value in creating those spaces?
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:35 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Answers
If you heard about a black women's choir, would you complain because they are just singing, and not doing anything black? I doubt it, because we understand that so-called "race" is one of those things that can affect many things. Gender, girlhood, childhood, those are experiences that permeate many aspects of life. I understand that girls grow up with different racialized and class experiences, but I am talking about the instances when girlhood is the chosen common issue. I think that's valid, just like I wouldn't say transpeople sharing their common experience is bogus because some of them were raised with different class experiences. I think people have a right to make their own community. I'm not arguing it to be "more profound" as a difference - I'm not, not, not making hierarchies here... I'm just saying it is one thing people might want to meet around. If trans people can meet around being trans, why can't cisgendered women have spaces too? I think those discussion groups/social spaces/parties/whatever are as valid as are trans spaces. Otherwise, you are relying on a hierarchy of oppression. I'm just sick of feeling like childhood is dismissed as irrelevant and then celebrated as vitally important when it is convenient for trans activists. I really believe in equality, and I desperately wish trans theory and philosophy was more coherent and internally cohesive. If you are going to rely on the idea of hierarchy of oppression - the idea that because of lack of privilege trans women have the right to do things ciswomen don't have the right to do - then you, or anyone else, needs to acknowledge it. Otherwise the arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, even by the standards of the logic presented in trans theory itself.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:47 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
own it.
I agree K-L, cisgendered women spaces might be valuable. Can you point to a single one that is defined as such? MWMF does not call itself the MWBWF. Women. Not women born women. I would have little problem with cisgendered women's spaces, as long they were defined as such. No one enters a trans caucus, a POC space, a space for differently abled people, etc, without knowing how the space is defined. I have not seem much in the way of "cissexual women support" groups. When it is merely implied, or suggested, then we get in to areas of discrimination and injustice. By saying it's a women's space, but oh, only one type of women will be honoured, it a does a disservice to all women. Likewise, if every woman walked in to MWMF knowing full and well that they were entering a cissexual women's only environment, it would create a far different space. But no, the event is marketed, packaged and sold as an event for womyn. Trans women are just discouraged and scorned from attending, and this same prejudicial behaviour plays out in women's groups across the continent. If you are defining a cissexual women's space, say it loud and clear so there is no mistaking it. Own it.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 3:54 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Well, that's what I'm asking Ariel...
...would she suddenly be okay if it were called MWBWMF?
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 4:02 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Part 1
"Since you are admittedly someone who has not and intends not to attend fest, we will have to make a separation here" ............... I've already said that, in my question for Ariel, we can leave aside MWMF, but even doing that, it is hard to get transactivists to agree that cisgendered women have a right to ANY WBW spaces. .................... "If you want to organize women on the basis of having a specific type of "girlhood"" .......... I'm not at all talking about a TYPE of girlhood, I'm talking about girlhood in general. Why is growing up as a girl/young woman, perceived as such, experiencing it on those levels, not reason enough to celebrate? Maybe that doesn't seem important to you, but why does that matter? ................... You ask, "what is the point of having a general women's event that is centered around girlhood?" But don't you see how anti-ciswoman that is? Would I EVER EVER have the right to look at a meeting of trans women doing ANYTHING - dancing, eating, camping, whatever - and say "What is the POINT of having all these trans women get together?" No, I would not, because I think people have the right to make their own community. This is where there is huge hypocrisy. I completely support transwomen and their allies meeting where they want in spaces they create, but I also think ciswomen have the right to do the same. There are things transwomen (and transmen) personally experience that I do not, and needs they have that I do not, but I think it should also be okay for me to say that transwomen do not experience everything I experience, and they do not always have the same needs I do, and sometimes it is okay to meet alomg these lines, and sometimes all women-identified people need to meet together.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 4:04 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Part 2 of 2
And yes, you are correct when you point out that cisgendered women may experience different racial/class/ability-influenced girlhoods... but how is that an argument against what I'm saying? What is your point? Look at your argument: if you are to apply your logic consistently, I could raise my hand at any transwomen's gathering, or women's gathering of any kind, and say "why are there people of different races here? We have different experiences!". That would be crazy. Sometimes women meet up along different lines. Sometimes women of colour meet up together, sometimes we make gatherings all together, and that's okay, but there seems to be a logic in this thread that transwomen must be allowed EVERYWHERE. That is unfair privilege, and it is not equality, but it is disguised as equality.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 4:05 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
...
"Well, that's what I'm asking Ariel... ...would she suddenly be okay if it were called MWBWMF? " Even if you made a MWBWMF space, would that be best serving the purposes of those you are trying to reach? If say you wanted to talk about abortion, why would you not say "Open to people who have had or have considered abortion"? Saying WBW means trans men (do you call them women-born-men? Do you think that respects their identity?) could not share in their experiences either. ---------------- You give the statement "but there seems to be a logic in this thread that transwomen must be allowed EVERYWHERE", can you please give any examples of trans women demanding entrance in to things that do not concern them, in this thread or in real life? Transwomen don't want to be allowed everywhere, just everywhere that all woman are supposed to be allowed. You seem to conceptualize this gigantic divide between cissexual women and transwomen, a sacred chasm. ------ The reason people immediately called you an "old lesbian" is that you give the same reasoning as Janice Raymond put forward in 1979, which is of course founded on the basis that transwomen are less than women, or at worst, not women at all. Cis women, aka "real women", need to fortify on all fronts. ------------ And btw, comparing cissexual women organizing to women of colour organizing is slightly problematic. You are not the oppressed minority, you are the hegemonic majority that is represented in all ways by all aspects of culture.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 4:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
more answers
"And btw, comparing cissexual women organizing to women of colour organizing is slightly problematic. You are not the oppressed minority, you are the hegemonic majority that is represented in all ways by all aspects of culture" ****** There you go Shannon, there you go: this is the hierarchy of oppression: cisgendered women, whether oppressed or not, are not AS oppressed as transwomen, apparently. There you go. ................. As far as the idea that I deserve to be called a bitter old lesbian because you think one of my arguments sounds like one that a lesbian gave a long time ago, you would FREAK OUT if I called transwomen straight men just because on this thread they are saying things some straight men have said..... imagine if instead of drawing the comparison I had outright called lesbian transwomen straight men? Oh my oh my. ............... But I will try to answer your question one more time: I am not just talking about abortion, I am talking about meeting over girlhood as an idea. Yes, of course if you are looking to meet over abortion you would mention that in your call for attendees, but that WAS NOT my question. I am asking why cisgendered girlhood, all on its own, just that complicated, difficult, miraculous experience is not enough to meet around? Especially since transgendered childhoods apparently require rallying around? Just because we are the majority that means we can't meet? Oh? Does that mean that POC in New Orleans shouldn't have a right to their own spaces? I'm really, really, really trying to follow your logic, and I'm begging the people on this thread to be consistent. Hierarchy of oppression can be a valid point of view, but you need to cop to it.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 4:43 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
This isn't a hard concept
K-L, I think the point you are missing is that MWMF isn't about discussing girlhood. It is about music and activism and stuff that women of transsexual experience of course do have a stake in. If MWMF were inclusive I might go but I wouldn't go to the caucuses (imaginary- not saying they exist) on childbirth (I can't have kids) on being a rich kid (I was born poor) or on being a straight woman. (I'm not straight). It is barring people of any sort at the gate that is wrong. And it is wrong because women of transsexual experience are women, period, end of story no argument. It's also so amazingly classist as of course rich women of transsexual can simply go in anyway if they are prepared to "don't ask, don't tell". The "girlhood" argument, along with being inherently sexist as it "others" women, has to be one of the greatest Hail Mary cop-outs of all time, given the camp isn't about girlhood. The only possible explanation is that a subset of ciswomen find women of trans experience and genderqueer people in general "icky", particularly the poor ones who can't "pass" (And I do hate that word) and this from the group saying that gender is a social construct, and then turning around and saying birth gender, whatever that is, is everything. Oh, and before you simply restate your arguments back at me there was nothing special about my trans childhood, and I oppose trans only spaces unless they have express purpose such as organizing activism around our issues. If there was a trans only bar I wouldn't go there just like I wouldn't go to a White only bar.
L Newman, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 8:27 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
cutting to the chase
If someone tried to create a space for "white women only" there would be shitfits, and with good reason. if they tried to create a space for "women of colour only" there would not. one is a space of the dominant group, excluding the traditionally marginalized. One is a group of the traditionally marginalized, building community and empowerment. That is the crux of why Michfest's WBW arguments reveal themselves as nothing but poor rationales for exclusion and oppression. They are not trying to celebrate WBW or girlhoods. They are trying to keep trans women out of a space that accepts ALL OTHER WOMEN. The girlhood shit is erected to be a standard that they KNOW trans women won't be able to satisfy. K.L. thinks the argument is like the nuclear bomb of this debate, and maybe it is...but not in the sense she thinks. It's like a nuclear bomb because it destroys and despoils vastly more than its intended target. THE HATE CAME FIRST. THE BOGUS ARGUMENTS CAME SECOND TO ATTEMPT TO RATIONALIZE AND JUSTIFY THE HATE. WBW proponents are not feminists. they are crypto-patriarchal oppressors, totally internallly inconsistent in their theory, because they argue traditionally that bodies are not destiny, biology does not constrain or define women. UNLESS THEY'RE TRANS, right? Ugh. As they deny me my womanhood, I deny them their feminism. They use the tools of the patriarchy to oppress a portion of the population of women. That's sure some fine feminism... It's laughable. BTW K.L.: there nothing inconsistent about saying "no hierarchies of oppression pls." but still seeing certain issues as more urgent than others. I can easily say that sexism, cissexism, homophobia, ableism and transphobia are all completely equally objectionable (no hierarchy), yet be fully coherent in saying: I think that pushing back against the encroachment of sharia law into Canadian societies is more urgent than obtaining OHIP
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
08/31/08 8:54 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
the cut off portion of my last
...for facial electrolysis for trans women. (just wanted to be clear i wasn't arguing about SRS. not sure whether I'd see encroaching sharia law as more urgent than SRS funding...but I probably would.) and I'm not a racist, for the record. I'm a rampant religiophobe. I pick on all book-based, stupid oppressive religions equally. I just chose sharia as an example. I could as easily have chosen examples from christianity, judaism, or whatever.
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
08/31/08 8:58 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
incoherent hearts
To be clear, I have not called anyone names, ranted (except possibly now); I have attempted to point out some of the reality on the ground concerning transsexual and transgender/genderqueer people. Facts may not be a word well-accepted here. The absence of formally recognized human rights, and even the acknowledgment of this either in CapX or on this thread, marginalizes trans people in a way ciswomen, regardless of orientation, are. This fact has been erased by Canadians for Equal Marriage, Egale Canada, CapX, Ottawa Pride (in a Pride Guide published by CapX). I'm sure some will dismiss this as the dreaded 'hierarchy of oppression.' But then, as Canadians we make such a big story of human rights violations--as long as they are somewhere else. As long as they don't affect us where we live. This is why I believe the whole Camp Trans thing is a distraction from struggles that must be engaged HERE. Few remember how important all the above organizations considered the human rights of gay and lesbian people were and placed then as the culmination of this struggle. The struggle for human rights in Canada has not ended, no matter how inconvenient it clearly is for so many who have long had their human rights recognized. There is much discussion of internal incoherence; how can anyone anytime speak of human rights, though certainly not here, and not even acknowledge the void in law, society and in their very hearts where transsexual and transgender/genderqueer youth, adults and seniors should be.
Jessica Freedman, Ottawa Ontario
08/31/08 9:25 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
that about ends it...
K-L says "There you go Shannon, there you go: this is the hierarchy of oppression: cisgendered women, whether oppressed or not, are not AS oppressed as transwomen, apparently. " -------------- OK, first off, it should be pointed out that I am not Shannon. Irregardless, if you do not think that trans people are an oppressed minority in relation to cissexual people, the vast majority of society, then the conversation is over. You can't argue against someone who fundamental concept of the world is so skewed. That is like saying that POC are not more oppressed than white people, because white people experience types of oppression to. ------------ Go have fun erecting your spaces built on "shared girlhood". Thank goodness most of the feminist community won't stand for that.
cr, Otawa ON
08/31/08 11:33 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Action at home
Hey Jessica, I absolutely agree with you that the Camp Trans issue is not as important as the day-to-day struggles for human rights that people in our community are facing. But I do think it's an instructive example, because clearly (as you can see above), it reveals some of the schisms that exist between some feminists and queer activists. What I was trying to point out is that the intellectual debate over WBW spaces is not necessarily echoed in the conversations I hear "on the ground" in Ottawa, and that I think it's more productive to focus on the issues that we can work on in solidarity with each other, rather than focusing on the differences between GLB and trans people, which I believe and very few.
Ariel Troster, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 2:20 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
ooops
Too fast with the typing. Meant to say " ... which I believe are very few."
Ariel, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 2:23 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hierarchies of Oppression
"If someone tried to create a space for "white women only" there would be shitfits, and with good reason. if they tried to create a space for "women of colour only" there would not. one is a space of the dominant group, excluding the traditionally marginalized." ......................... Shannon, this means you believe in a hierarchy of oppression, which is what I believe in too, in the case of the white/POC example. But you really need to own that that is why you think there needs to be a hypocrisy, why trans only spaces are okay but WBW spaces are not. What you are ignoring is that white people are dominant in the biggest list of races, but WBW aren't - men are. ...................and cr: yes, I know you aren't Shannon, but I quoted you and pointed it out to her because she was asking me to point out where people are asking for a hierarchy of oppression. .................. If we have clarified that the transactivists on this thread think that transwomen are to cisgendered women as POC are to white people.... well then I can't really say anymore. If you are going to repeat that cissexual women are the "more dominant" group, which has been said by everyone but me over and over, then it means you think transpeople are the more oppressed.... and here you have hierarchy of oppression. I want to support trans people, but I cannot get behind trans activists that think it is never okay for cissexual women to have their own spaces. It's really insulting that girlhood is not considered important enough as a reason to find community. Trans people are the ones themselves that talk about childhood being so different and influencial.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 5:40 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
.
I can't help but think you're not following along... you say "I cannot get behind trans activists that think it is never okay for cissexual women to have their own spaces", but we have said, over and over, that it is fine, albeit problematic in the eyes of many people. If you want to define a WBW space, go ahead, just be sure everyone there knows it is a WBW space and what that means. This almost never happens. And if you want to make a community based solely on girlhood, good luck. Making a space that focuses only on the first 10 years of your life kind of odd. I think most women are interested in finding community with other women based on their lives as women, and that includes everyone. -------- Other than that, if you don't the hegemonic cissexual basis of our culture and most of feminism does not oppress trans people, I think that is rather unfortunate for you.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 6:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
First 10 years of your life?
When trans people are living as their desired gender but they still identify as a community, is that not basin community on the beginning of your life? Is it not okay for people that immigrate to Canada to have community with other immigrants from their home country, even if they don't live there anymore? If I grew up in NYC but live in Ottawa now is it weird for me to care about NYC? And talk to people from there? You're doing it again: trans people love to act like childhood is REALLY REALLY important, but then, suddenly, not important at all.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 6:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No making community around things from your past?
Okay, here is what has to be understood. Comparing WBW spaces with white spaces is not the same, because white people are almost always the dominant group. Whereas WBW, people who grew up as girls, cissexual women, are not the dominant group - unless you look only at a false binary of trans vs cis sexual women. The dominant group is men, and the oppressor is the patriarchy. Under this oppression there are transwome, and there are also WBW. Growing up a girl is not some dominant experience. Yes, it is oppreessive to grow up trans, being told you are one thing you feel you are not, etc etc, but growing up as a girl who is not trans also involves oppression. So WBW spaces and trans spaces are not the same as white spaces vs spaces for ppl of colour. More analogous would be thinking of white spaces as men's spaces, with trans spaces and WBW spaces being spaces for black people or indian people. I'm not sure if this is making sense and maybe I need a diagram or something, but to look only at the trans/cis binary is to insist that WBW are always dominant, and of course we are not. In the big picture we are also dominated, and we have a right to make community as women that have come out of girlhood. And yes, it matters past 10 years. I would never, ever dismiss a trans person's past as insignificant once they feel they have fully transitioned. If you feel it still informs who you are, then it does. This argument of "so what if you grew up as girls? That was only the first ten years of your life and making community around that is weird!" is so offensive, and it is not for you to judge. If people are abused in childhood, but only for the first 10 years of their life, are they allowed to say it still affects them later? If you grew up in a refugee camp, but only for 10 years, can you meet and make safe space around that? Why are trans childhoods the only childhoods that matter? Either childhood is important or it isn't. Either getting gendered msgs as a kid matte
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 7:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
cut-off
Either getting gendered msgs as a kid matters or it doesn't. Again, I'd really just like to see some consistency, especially if you are going to consider yourself the police for what constitutes a significant enough experience to build community around.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 7:04 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
see ya.
Wow, you are full of words to put in other people's mouths. Good luck with your life and your WBW spaces. Here's to hoping you won't have a major say in feminism and trans activists won't be cajoled in to wasting their time fighting people like you that should know better. Next time I meet a trans women who needs to be told her place, I'll send her your way.
cr, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 7:08 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
my view
WBW spaces are oppressive bullshit. All of them. In aggregate, cis women are dominant, relative to trans women. The most hurtful bashings and ungenderings i've experienced have all come from cis women, in fact. I'm not saying that every trans woman is more oppressed than every cis woman of course, I'm speaking of the wholes in our society. I can certainly accept that I may be less oppressed than some cis women by virtue of my skin colour, level of ability, education, monetary resources etc., but compared to a cis woman with all those same things...I will be more marginal. Relativity. And KL...I don't know if cr is a trans individual or not, but if they are not, then you have yet to provide even an arguable example of what I asked for: examples of trans people saying we are most oppressed, etc. And I don't share the view that creation of a WBW space can ever be OK. A space created for women who have given birth? ok. a menstruation support group? ok. WBW? false community of interest, defined ex-post facto to exclude trans women. nothing more. your defense of them makes you a cissexist. you need to own THAT KL. Nothing I've described is an argument in favour of hierarchies of oppression. You don't seem capable of actually reasoning fairly or intelligently in this debate, and I conclude that is because of your own issues of bias. that makes you a petty bigot like so many others...and really not worth any more time. but i won't let you have the last word...so keep the hate and illogic coming, and I'm sure others will keep responding.
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
08/31/08 9:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
cut off..
...as will I.
cut off, Ottawa Ontario
08/31/08 10:31 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Seriously, weren't you going to shut-up?
Yeah, if you're going to resort to calling me a petty bigot, then fuck you, you're not worth talking to.
K-L, Ottawa ON
08/31/08 10:49 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Fessing up
K-L, I am the one who made the comment about the "bitter old dyke". I'll fess up to that. Even though I've not posted since, many of your follow-up posts in response to others' comments make reference to this particular comment that I made. Apparently this has struck a chord with you. What is that chord? Realizing that most feminists and/or queer WBW's of your age group ARE trans inclusive,and that you are behind the times? If you'd like to call me agist, so be it. But your rhetoric is right out of the early 70's crap that in part led to the breakup of the DOB and the general lesbian/feminist split due to issues of inclusion/exclusion (and not just along trans lines). When are people such as yourself going to realize that when women (WBW or otherwise) fight and divide amongst themselves the patriarchy has won? Don't you see that you are making value judgments on who is woman enough and who is not? That is the same thought process at the very root of what the patriarchy does to women, to GIRLS (GASP! A transwoman who might be able to relate to what GIRLS experience, even though I grew up as a BOY! Oh my!)... Patriarchy has hegemonized an imprinted societal behavior on women to judge the worthiness of other women... are they thin/femme/smart/pretty enough, did they get the right man/coat/home/etc... So you, my friend, are barely the feminist whom you claim to be. I have a professional career in a male-dominated field and am subjected to sexism and descrimination in the workplace on a daily basis. I play in a band, and after gigs men walk up to me and tell me I play the drums pretty good for a girl. I live, breathe and eat all of the shit that the world throws at women. You want to tell me I am not a woman? Sister, I stood up in a room full of coworkers, mostly male, and announced that I'd be returning to work as female. I've once and for all proven my womanhood (not that I or any woman should have to), and I sure ain't gonna a
M D, Los Angeles CA
09/01/08 6:08 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Further fessin'
I've got a follow-up question for you, K-L. You stated in an earlier post "did I say I was gay?"... implying that you are not "gay". Are you queer identified? I think that would be appropriate to reveal here, given that you know most of our orientations. Because in a later post you commented that you'd had trans lovers, which would make you queer regardless of the lived gender of the transperson you'd loved. For the record, I am a queer femme-butch tomboy transwoman by the way, dyke-ish, and definitely not a lesbian. If you want to say my comments are "typical heterosexual male", I'll tell you to go fly a kite, because it takes all kinds and I know me some WBW's with quite a bit of that elusive "male energy", "male-mouth", "male communication style", "male space-occupation style" etc... The range of human behavior is just too wide. And to say that all WBW's have so much in common and transwomen could never understand... I'll bet that I have alot more in common with a 30 something queer woman from the eastern US than either of us would have with a WBW who grew up in Sudan, or Moscow for that matter. You just can't expect that argument to wash. And finally, let me just say that you are not the gatekeeper to my identity. I don't care how many times you've "put your life on the line for the trans community", I don't care if you are queer or not; You still don't get to determine if I am a woman, a feminist, or if I can come into WBW spaces (I am many, many other transwomen move through the world "undetected" anyway, but of course we'd rather be able to come clean with our identities, however thanks to people like you who "put their life on the line" but still hold up this WBW patriarchy rooted garbage, we can not). So don't patronize me with your rhetoric either validating or denying my identity... I'll define my own, thank you. And ya know what sister, the
M D, Los Angeles CA
09/01/08 6:23 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
last sentence!
times they are a changin', and you can sink or swim. And a correction: 30 something queer woman.... should read 30-something WBW queer woman.
M D, Los Angeles CA
09/01/08 6:26 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
internal coherence
Just a comment on the first 10 years' argument. What about those children who are raised cross-gender? This is not so rare as certain perspectives might want and rather common in the histories of those who grow up to be what we call transsexual. Recently reading Chris Skelly's new book I was struck by the interviews with the many FtM's who as children were accepted and socialized as men. We know FtM's are accepted at the MWMF so maybe their lived lives are less important than their genitalia, pre or post-op. There are many stores in the media of male-bodied children who are raised from very early ages as girls--the struggle now is not so much access to hormones, but access to hormones that delay puberty. Now a hard one. What about the case of a female-bodied child who was raised as a boy, socialized and accepted as a boy, but in his teens realized she was really a girl and wanted/decided to be one? Would she be accepted at MWMF? And the hardest one of all. A male-bodied child who realized, actually we know from the earliest age, that we want/decide to be a woman. Of course, we aren't accepted at MWMF. Why the difference? Socialization determines for male-bodied children; socialization doesn't determine for female-bodied children. Genitalia is destiny for the male-bodied child but not for the female-bodied child. Or is it the other way around? For female-bodied people only biology isn't destiny but for male-bodied people it is. What about internal coherence?
Jessica Freedman, Ottawa Ontario
09/01/08 9:21 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
complicity and marginalization
I have recently discovered a blog called questioningtransphobia. In a recent post the meaning of transphobia was, well, not explored, but vented. One of the many points angrily made was that to speak about trans people, without trans people being part of the discussion, is transphobic. Clearly, this is a controversial statement, especially on Xtra.ca and in the pages of CapX--well it would never get into the pages of CapX. So, substitute: if a bunch of white people said there were not really enough POC to matter, with no POC as part of the discussion. . . Or if, say, a gay man said: once lesbians thought they were doubly oppressed, once because of who they slept with and again by being women; that silliness has passed. With no lesbians part of the discussion. . . . . Possibly no one really cares about a former editor bringing attention to himself by writing the very things referred to above regarding women--or the first example, though with trans people in place of POC. Some clearly believe posts such as this constitute part of the 'discussion.' Yet I'm unaware of ANY columnists on Xtra.ca or in CapX who do, or have ever identified as trans anything and have the privileged position in these 'discussions.' Those who have held/hold significant positions in marginalizing organizations/participated in their evolution as marginalizing organizations may wish to change. Amends, however, must be made. Pilgrimages to Our Lady of Lourdes will not do. Occasional columns in marginalizing publications will not do. Much must be done to render an incoherent heart whole.
Jessica Freedman, Ottawa Ontario
09/01/08 10:05 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
calling it like it is
Without mincing words. There is no legitimate debate over the WBW issue. to debate it politely is to suggest that there IS a legitimate debate, when there simply is not. If you defend WBW reasoning, you are defending cissexism, transphobia and trans-misogyny. if you defend those things, you are a bigot. It's really not very complicated, and I'm sick of watching people pretend it is. And no...I don't plan to shut up until you do KL. If there was someone spouting homophobia on this page, people would rise up to crush it. trans-misogyny? gets pretty easy ride. people try to argue it away, instead of crush it for what it is. I refuse to play that game. bigots don't respond to reason. they need to be called out as bigots. what really tears me up is that when one does so, everyone gets all uncomfortable and feels like they need to somehow restore peace and validate everyone's perspective. bullshit! some opinions need to be eradicated, not accommodated or validated in any way, shape or form. If KL doesn't like being labelled a bigot, she should cease writing bigoted things. pretty simple.
Shannon Blatt, Ottawa Ontario
09/01/08 10:48 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
THOUGHT POLICE
I cannot believe that PTP, putative champions of freedom of expression, have allowed my last 2 posts to be censored. Both were quotes used as evidence for a question asked by someone on thread for evidence that some trans people hate gay men. The examples demonstrated this clearly. You act of censorship renders PTP, this site and the people who control it to be totally under the control of some Cultural Revolution where thought suppression, silencing, censure and shunning are tools of your trade. I expect this response to be expunged as well. However I am posting it because I am saving all of my quotes to use in another forum on freedom of expression and the tyranny of the New Queer "liberation".
David, Toronto ON
09/05/08 7:26 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
PTP = BIAS AND CENSORSHIP
I read David's posts and they weren't even offensive! I can't believe they were taken off. How do they violate the terms below? The Ministry of Xtra strikes again!
Chris Damdar, Toronto Ontario
09/05/08 7:49 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No censorship
David and Chris, PTP is committed to freedom of expression and we are staunchly anti-censorship. Any comments posted after Sep 3 were lost during the transition to our new website. I'm sorry for the trouble, but I can assure you we did not censor your posts. Please feel free to repost your comments!
Web Editor, Ottawa ON
09/05/08 7:59 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
swamp land in florida for sale
Web editor -- you actually expect me to believe that garbage -- no one makes such mistakes -- I have complained to your bosses, Gareth, and PTP staff. Your behaviour in censoring me is outrageous. And it totally proves me point. Xtra is an LBTransQueer communities publication that despises and censors gay men's thoughts if they stray an iota from the QueerTrans Party line. Vile -- good riddance. ps Thanks Chris Damdar -- your supportive comments will soon be accidentlaly erased in a strange electric surge of computer smoke...
david, Toronto ON
09/05/08 11:22 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
The Web Editor Spoke the Truth
David and Chris, the Web Editor spoke the truth: this week we've been switching over to a new web design. The website as it existed at a certain time was captured and transferred — and your comments along with anything else that was posted after that, until the new site went live Friday, was not captured. Nothing was lost because of an opinion expressed by anyone. I am sure that you have noticed the changes to the website. I think this has been a very heated series of postings and that perhaps people are tossing around accusations of censorship without first taking a deep breath — and thinking of a more likely reason given how clear it is to anyone reading the postings that there has been no censorship of what people have written.
Gareth Kirkby, Ottawa ON
09/05/08 11:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
reposting deleted comments
Shannon asked for examples of LBTrans/Queers hating gay men. Here is one outrageous example that in any other context would be considered sexual assault.: http://www.fabmagazine.com/tgirl/archive/286.html Fab magazine archive issue: t-girl - issue 286 FTM fooling with fags Posing proves he’s a real fag “Everyone at the bathhouse thinks Jesse has a hard, hot cock under his towel. No one knows he has a vagina. He brags, “I fool everyone, and I confess it makes me feel like a man.” Jesse laughs and agrees with me when I suggest that tricking gays is his biggest sexual thrill.” In the article, both the author (MTF) and the subjects (FTM) all have a big laugh about fooling gay men into having sex. Can you imagine changing the genders in this story. What if a straight man disguised as a woman snuck into the Women’s bathhouse night and had without their knowledge let alone consent, had oral sex with dozens of women? Would you view this as the stuff of laughter and derision (those women are so stupid they didn’t know a hetero man was doing them – ha ha). Or would you view this as what it is: Sexual Assault. Why does trans sexual assault on gay men warrant a humour column when any other variation of this story would end up in court? And these are the people gay men are supposed to “build community” with? Disgusting. Another example of LBTrans/Queers hating gay men comes from the very letters printed in response to Gareth’s column. “oh poor white gay man! Oh poor gay white men and women why do we slag them so? My black queer Trans man, son of immigrants is playing my little violin for you and saying thank you great white Massa for giving little old me so much over the years... But where were the likes of you for me when I was beat up in a gay bar in Ottawa for being too black , too butch too damn fabulous by your same white middle class gays and lesbians. Where were the likes you… when I went looking for services and support around transitioning in the 80’s, and 9
dwerk, Toronto ON
09/06/08 12:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
continued from last post
CONTINUED Where were the likes you… when I went looking for services and support around transitioning in the 80’s, and 90’s and was met with puzzled pity by middle class gays and lesbians? Ignorance like yours needs to be eradicated. Justiz, toronto ON 08/13/08 12:10 PM EST” This person rails against gay power and privilege in a tone that is hostile, hateful, vicious, dismissive, rude. They’re message precisely sums up the hatred and contempt many trans people have for gay men. How are gay men supposed to build coalitions and community with people who despise us as their oppressor? Ridiculous. ps this is from david (aka dwerk)
david, Toronto ON
09/06/08 12:38 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.