As for the rest of you, I couldn’t disagree with your comments more than I do. I posted a version of this on the shrub.com trackback article, but I think it’s pertinent here as well:

Feminism is NOT about achieving equality for all. Feminism is a women’s liberation movement. In the course of achieving freedom for women, sexual violence, homophobia, racism, classism and other problems must and should be addressed. So for men, however that group is categorized (persons born male, persons raised male, and/or persons who live as men), there is a nice collateral benefit to feminism. But feminism is not about freeing men, however they’re defined; if it were, it could not exist: women being in charge of whether men are enslaved or set free would put women in an oppressive, not oppressed, position as compared to men. And that’s simply false.

Calling radical feminist theory and work on gender “transphobia” really misses the mark, and it erases feminism entirely by turning women into the oppressor class.

I realize that’s not a perspective floating out there much these days, but the truth about power dynamics has never been an edgy, sexy topic. Faux radicalism, yes. Real discussions of power and class, no.

I think there’s definitely relevance for women-only space within a patriarchal society, as Piny said. But as those spaces have had to change as the feminist movement fought its own racism, so too do they have to change when we address transphobia and the transgender movement. The feminist movement cannot be static; MWMF cannot be static. I also believe that MWMF is more than a big party (though it certainly is that, as well). And if it would like to remain more than a big party in the woods, then the issue of transwomen has to be better addressed than the current, women-born women policy. It frustrates me that Charlotte Croson speaks for the MWMF community, when there is an enormous diversity of opinion surrounding this issue, surrounding many issues (though as far as the S/M issue goes, I haven’t heard anyone espousing Croson’s misinformation during this decade). On the other hand, I imagine Char wouldn’t be all that thrilled about me speaking for the community, either.

We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?

And that, I think, is the clincher! Colour me convinced. :-)

Muah ha ha ha.

I think the issue wrt some feminist theorists is that transwomen seek to remove from “necessary” and slide into “sufficient” the qualifiers they see as non-negotiable, i.e. being assigned female at birth and living as a woman one’s whole life. People who don’t have that experience are not women, full stop.

There is also the issue of gender identity, which contradicts theorists who insist that gender isn’t determined by anything other than the category into which patriarchy sticks you.

We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?

And that, I think, is the clincher! Colour me convinced. :-)

I am not sure that creating a broader definition of “woman” doesn’t affect woman-born women, or feminism, and that’s what I’m trying to interrogate.

Ah, yes, you’re right. I actually meant to say that, no matter what kind of definition we use for “woman”, we’d never have to worry about being excluded.

I am entirely with you on the fist/face/swing thing and although I’m probably coming across as an asshat my intention is not to create some post-hoc excuse for being a transphobic bastard.

I don’t think you’re coming across as an asshat, or a transphobic bastard. If you were either the former or the latter, I don’t think you’d be even engaging in this kind of debate. I know I use strong language, but it’s not with the intent of making you feel bad. I’m sorry if I came across that way, and for whatever attacking language I used. I’m just very passionate on the subject of rights, and I try to take a point from every angle I can think of instead of just trying to make one side clear.

My point was that gender-aware policy making had its conception, if you will, in the field of health.

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Given the subject and the previous “common experience” listed, I read it as saying that all women have the common experience of motherhood et, al.

Making the ‘definition’ of woman less clear is not going to aid our cause. Of course, this may be balanced out by the concurrent benefit to transwomen.

I guess part of the difference in where we’re coming from on this is that you feel that to make a more inclusive definition of “woman” would be to eradicate, or at least de-emphasize, the current meaning. And, I agree, on some levels it would.

But, part of what I see as a gender democracy is that it focuses on adding to existing definitions, not taking away. Just because I choose to work outside of the home and not have children does not make some other woman’s choice to become a stay-at-home mom any less valid, right? In that same regard, the ability for a transwoman to call herself, and be seen as, a woman should not invalidate the womanhood of women-born-women.

Also, on the “helping our cause” area, I disagree. I think that in order to get society* to a place where the transgendered (et, al) are accepted – be they woman-identifying, man-identifying, neither or both – is to get to a place where a person’s choice is not seen as genderdized. In that way, I see the struggle of women-born-women and the transgendered (et, al) to be one and the same: we all want the same opportunities, rights, and freedoms as men-born-men have traditionally have, as well as the ability for the traditonally “feminine” to be seen as something of equal value so that men-born-men can aspire to it, too. If “masculine” and “feminine” were seen as equal, then I am quite sure that the gender binary wouldn’t be nearly as important as it is now.

* Used in the general sense, though focusing on the West because the way many traditional Eastern cultures deal with transgenderism is much different.

Actually, that isn’t true… Government supported parental leave increases productivity within both commercial enterprises and public sector services (which you assuredly benefit from).

Which is, I guess, another one of my points. I should have said “visible” or “direct” rather than “tangible”. I know that many non-parents (childfree or not) feel resentment towards the system when it pays for parental benefits because they don’t feel that it benefits them. I happen to agree with you about hidden benefits such as those you describe, which is one reason I support increased government support of parents (besides me feeling it’s the right thing to do).

I also feel that there will be hidden benefits for non-trans people if we move away from a restrictive gender binary, since it will necessitate a moving away from the strict gender roles that have kept women oppressed in the West. Although I also feel that the direct benefits to the transgendered population for a more inclusive view of gender would be worth it on its own, as well.

And, after me writing yet another novel on this subject, it’s back to your original question…

If the term “woman” becomes so mutable as to cover anyone who cares to claim it, then how can women’s distinct needs be readily identified and addressed? If transwomen are bundled in with all other women, how will their needs be readily identified and addressed?

This goes back to something I said above, but I’ll reiterate it for clarity. I don’t belive having a less strict (more mutable, more inclusive, etc) definition of “woman” necessitates the eradication of the subtleties of the current defintion. We already have a diverse set of people who fit under the word “woman”, we already need specific subsets to deal with their distinct needs, so what’s adding yet another subset onto that in order to help alleviate the oppression of some of our sisters?

Piny, thank you for all your gracious comments, and for not being discernibly offended and horrified by all my blundering around this subject.

It doesn’t seem to me that you’re blundering. Most of the answers to questions about transpeople’s lives and needs are, sometimes, sorta, not really, and it depends.

If it seemed like you were actually trying to use policy problems as an excuse to make the icky transpeople go away, I’d probably be really pissed off. But these are valid questions; I’m just not sure that a more inclusive definition would necessarily make it difficult to talk about women as constructed under patriarchy, to say things like, “reproductive choice is a vital issue for women,” and to formulate policy with the overwhelming majority of women in mind. It’s true, after all, that non-trans women are not all alike even when it comes to very basic needs, and those differences don’t seem to have diluted feminist arguments in the least.

Going back to what I said first: one of the biggest problems with this, it would seem from the discussion here, is that transpeople as a community cannot be handily described in terms of their assigned or mediated gender. According to some of the problems you’ve listed, I should be in “woman;” according to some others, I should not. My place on that sliding table is as different from that of many other transmen as it is from many transwomen. Admitting our existence on either side of the fence becomes equally problematic: I can neither be a man with a female history or a woman everyone privileges as male. This, then, is where strict class theory can become transphobic in practice: for purposes of its arguments, we cease to exist at all.

The reason: because, when it comes down to it, a broader definition of “woman” doesn’t affect us, it affects the transwomen, the intersexed, and the genderqueer women we are trying to include/exclude. I subscribe pretty closely to the idea of “your right to swing your fist ends with my face” – and it’s the transwomen’s face we’re punching if by excluding them (or certain transwomen) from what a “woman” is.

I am not sure that creating a broader definition of “woman” doesn’t affect woman-born women, or feminism, and that’s what I’m trying to interrogate. I don’t have fixed ideas on this, and I don’t believe that it’s wrong per se to explore it. I am entirely with you on the fist/face/swing thing and although I’m probably coming across as an asshat my intention is not to create some post-hoc excuse for being a transphobic bastard.

Please, don’t buy into the same misogynistic essentialism that I have to put up with from the rest of society. I shouldn’t have to come and hear that same bullshit espoused by my feminist sisters.

I don’t think you are hearing the same bullshit from your feminist sister. My point was that gender-aware policy making had its conception, if you will, in the field of health. Because men can’t have children and women can, it was obvious even to the most gender-blind health mandarins that women required provision that was differentiated from men’s.

To pretend that motherhood is not a choice made by a huge proportion of women, who then need maternity leave, and will doubtless have primary responsibility for childcare is not to meet the needs of women where they are.

>>It won’t further our claims for reproductive rights, for equal pay for work of equal value, for freedom from male violence.>>

Will it lessen those claims?

I mean that as a purely innocent question.

I don’t have an answer to your question. My point, I guess (badly made due to the fact I really don’t have time for this!), was that Tekanji and my’s conversation is privileged in that we are two women sitting at our computers in the west, arguing about semiotics. Given that a bunch of women died today because of misogyny, it’s kind of luxurious for us to spend our time in this way. Of course, that argument is also bullshit-ish because words and names are important: the amount of times I’ve bitched out male friends for saying “girl” instead of “woman” is testament to that.

However, I am concerned that if we say that gender has any meaning an individual cares to ascribe it, then it must become problematic to argue collectively for women’s rights. It’s really hard, with a so-called transphobic definition of “woman”, to get policy makers working outwith gender to recognise the institutional and systematic discriminations against women as a group. Making the ‘definition’ of woman less clear is not going to aid our cause. Of course, this may be balanced out by the concurrent benefit to transwomen.

Let me put it another way: government supported childcare, parental leave, etc. won’t benefit me in a tangible way, either, does that mean that I should ignore all the struggles that mothers go through because it doesn’t fall under my narrow worldview?

Actually, that isn’t true. Europe is already experiencing the terror of the demographic timebomb in which there won’t be enough little worker bees to pay into pension pots to sustain pensioners. Government supported parental leave increases productivity within both commercial enterprises and public sector services (which you assuredly benefit from).

I don’t, however, believe that we have the right to exclude any woman from the definition of “woman” just because it is something that we aren’t.

I don’t disagree with this. Where I think we disagree is that I don’t think that a postmodern view of pluralities of gender, under which every individual selects their own meanings for sex and gender is helpful. My concerns are the same as the ones I initially posted: If the term “woman” becomes so mutable as to cover anyone who cares to claim it, then how can women’s distinct needs be readily identified and addressed? If transwomen are bundled in with all other women, how will their needs be readily identified and addressed?

Piny, thank you for all your gracious comments, and for not being discernibly offended and horrified by all my blundering around this subject.

It makes some sense ideologically, but there is a tension between that and the solidarity that women have expressed around… a common experience of pregnancy/childbirth/menstruation/breastfeeding that has been the impetus for demands for gender-aware policy making.

And now you have just excluded me from this solidarity. I have my tubes tied. I am childfree by choice because I never have, and never will, want children. Especially not the biological kind. I hate, hate, hate it when other people conflate womanhood with motherhood. Please, don’t buy into the same misogynistic essentialism that I have to put up with from the rest of society. I shouldn’t have to come and hear that same bullshit espoused by my feminist sisters.

While pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding are a part of some women’s experiences, and therefore an important part of feminism, it is in no way a common experience for all women. And it’s offensive to those of us who are not, and will not be, mothers to say that it is some basic part of female solidarity.

This is a very privileged conversation. Constructing a postmodern analysis of gender in which signifiers of gender become fluid and malleable will not address any of the very real and very concrete difficulties that face women under patriarchy. It won’t further our claims for reproductive rights, for equal pay for work of equal value, for freedom from male violence.

I feel like you’re trying to worm your way out of acknowledging your non-trans privilege. This isn’t just an abstract conversation; this is about understanding those who aren’t the same as us and acknowledging their struggle as valid. It won’t further our claims for repro rights, equal pay, or freedom from male violence in a large way. Is it all about us – the women-born-women? Or maybe the white women? Or let’s exclude me and make it the mothers. Or better yet, the straight and only.

Let me put it another way: government supported childcare, parental leave, etc. won’t benefit me in a tangible way, either, does that mean that I should ignore all the struggles that mothers go through because it doesn’t fall under my narrow worldview? Should I decide if they should breastfeed in public, or try to take away my tax dollars from programs that help them, or tell them how many kids they should have, how they should raise them, etc?

One of the defining characteristics of patriarchy has been its willingness to mandate what “woman” means, and to slap back in line (quite literally, sometimes) any woman-born woman who does not conform to this mandate.

And what, exactly, do you think a woman-born-woman deciding which transwomen can be included in the word “woman” is?

The point is that “woman” should be more inclusive. Inclusive of the “feminine”, but also of the “masculine”, inclusive of the intersexed, the transgendered, the genderqueer, those who identify as it should have the right to live their lives without fear of ridicule, shaming, or being told that they are not women. And, frankly, I have had more than enough of being told I’m not “feminine” enough, or that I’ll want babies because I have tits and a vagina, or I’m wierd because I rarely wear makeup. Doing that to transwomen is just being a tool of the repressive patriarchy and trying to enforce a strict gender binary that smacks of gender caste, rather than gender democracy (people have the right to self-identify, to express whatever kinds of “masculine” or “feminine” characteristics that they feel is right for them, dress how they want, etc).

I guess, when it comes down to it, I believe in a person’s right to happiness. I believe that a basic tenet of feminism is to ensure that happiness, that equality, for all people. I don’t, however, believe that we have the right to exclude any woman from the definition of “woman” just because it is something that we aren’t. Think about it, if this were a discussion on butch lesbians, no one would be arguing about whether or not they were “women” or if letting them into the woman club would dilute the meaning of the word “woman” or even destroy it. No one would say that fat women are any less women. Or black women.

So, okay, a transwoman’s experiences aren’t the same as a woman-born-woman. But my experiences aren’t the same as a poor woman. Or as a black woman. Does that give me the right to say that their experience with the patriarchy is any less valid?

>>It won’t further our claims for reproductive rights, for equal pay for work of equal value, for freedom from male violence.>>

Will it lessen those claims?

I mean that as a purely innocent question.

Heh. I initially read this as “nag, nag, nag….”

On a second read:

Dunno. I have as little patience with postmodernism in the key of “everything is different things to different people” as I believe feminists like Emma do. There is a very good, totally non-hypothetical example of what happens when people forget that misogyny is primarily something that happens to women, and that women have a great many issues that are extremely common if not universal and extremely likely if not exclusive. It’s a pernicious distraction that manages to elbow into so many discussions of feminism and women’s issues that it has its own acronym: PHMT.