There was one woman of color (that I could see) that commented on that thread (magic kitty). And she basically said that she couldn’t be the world’s mommy. That inclusivity is what caused burn out and destruction of the feminist movement the first time around. Beside the fact that I found this comment to be fucking sad as hell, as it was women of color who were trying to be “included” the first time around so she’s basically saying women of color should have shut the hell up (what a great feminist assertion, after all), I think that it doesn’t have to be like this. Inclusivity must be destroyed as a “goal” of feminism. I don’t *want* to be “included”, I want violence in all it’s forms to be eliminated against my community and all those communities that I love or have been a part of throughout my life. So when I look things that way–The question is not so much, what can I do to make “them” listen to me, but rather instead, what do I need to do to end violence? Is it talking talking to people who don’t want to listen? Is it centering white women and their needs in my movement? Or is it creating ways to eliminate my community’s need for the nation/state? Is it looking for ways to eliminate the prison industrial complex? Is it implementing radical day care centers so that more women can go to meetings?…

personally: you know, there is a difference between prioritizing on a micro level (i.e. -today’s- meeting is about thus and so, or the purpose of -this- action is about blahblah, or the -primary- focus of -this- group is xyz) and saying, o well there’s no use working together, it’s all too complicated.

E pluribus unum is as true now as ever it was. these various power abuses do not exist in a vacuum, they are inextricably interconnected.

more to the point here: why would anyone -else- empathize with you (general you), if you’re not prepared to give it to anyone else, -and- they don’t necessarily identify with what you’re saying? How do you expect to persuade people to your cause? I mean -women;- you know, “Ain’t I a Woman” is as relevant now as it was then.

mainly: d’you want to be pure, or do you want to make effective change? what is the goal? because if it’s really seriously radical sweeping change on a large scale, you ain’t gonna get there by being insular and dogmatic. unless you have a lot of power and money and weaponry at your disposal; and, well, radfems don’t, by and large, that i know of anyway. So:

The thing is, trans women are not the only ones who’ve ever had their experiences as women contested by a white majority. the Disabled community, the queer community, women of color–we’ve all had our experiences denied and outright attacked as not legitmate experiences or experiences not worthy of consideration on a larger “feminist” scale. speaking as a chicana, as a former migrant worker, as a child of family that immigrates over the U.S./Mexican border, it speaks volums to me that the violence I experience specifically as a Chicana, and that my community experiences specifically as immigrant women, is overwritten and denied so that white feminists can get the amazing “feminist” nancy pelosi into higher positions of power. Or that hillary clinton can continue her “we *need* them” capaign (which is short speak for we *need* them because they work for pennies and don’t need health care or breaks or a place take a piss in when their out in the fields.).

I’m not counted as a “real” woman, and nobody in my community is. we are the bargining chips that can be traded in to the nation/state so that white women can keep their precious right to choose and their precious female identities in their safe spaces.

And I think you can pretty much go down the line and see that many other marginalized women are in the same position as I am–poor white women, disabled women of all colors, drug users, imprisoned women, teen mothers, native women, etc etc etc. All of our communities have been denied the right to call ourselves feminists at some point or another–, to call ourselves women in the name of the “greater good”–and it was only through the good will of “feminists” that we were able to make some in way. In other words, those in power agreed to share some *space* with us. Not power, but *space*. As long as we don’t get too demanding and we don’t argue with them (because then, the patriarchy wins) etc.

So that’s where I’m coming from before I even get into the actual issue of trans liberation. The same shit is being done to my own community, I don’t need to know anything about the transcommunity to know automatically that there is something very old and tired about the arguments being put forth as a reason to keep the trans community away from feminism.

But looking at the actual theory and politics of trans gender-ism and femaleness–I think it gets into the idea–are females really the only ones abused in this structure we all live under? And if you are multiple identities–if you are, say, a transgendered institutionalized woman of color–what is it, really, that justifies the use of harmful sterilization drugs on you? Is it your femaleness? Is it your disability? Is it your color? Or is that you are all of these identities wrapped into one confusing body that oppressive power structures sees no value in?

The thing is–these debates are just a variant on the “gender trumps X” arguement. The idea that you will be abused because you are female, NOT because you are specially a BLACK female, or a disabled female or a queer chicana. And of course, this all links back to the idea that white women and all their battles against THEIR enemy (the patriarchy) must remain central to what feminism is.

So I think from there, the question becomes, are we going to fight them to get our foot in the door? Or are we going to acknowlege that gender does not trump any identity–that there are multiple ways that each of us are violated, mutiple reasons–and our job as feminists is to constantly shift that center–to embrace the shady boundries and unidentifiable centers–because with each shift, with each recentering of a new identity, we are able to find new strands of violence that we can then name and begin to find new ways to address and account for. In other words, allow the boundries to be messy enough where each group of people can cross into the other groups “space” while at the same time, maintain their own space. Intersecting circles, I guess would be the best illistration of what I am trying to say.

There was one woman of color (that I could see) that commented on that thread (magic kitty). And she basically said that she couldn’t be the world’s mommy. That inclusivity is what caused burn out and destruction of the feminist movement the first time around. Beside the fact that I found this comment to be fucking sad as hell, as it was women of color who were trying to be “included” the first time around so she’s basically saying women of color should have shut the hell up (what a great feminist assertion, after all), I think that it doesn’t have to be like this. Inclusivity must be destroyed as a “goal” of feminism. I don’t *want* to be “included”, I want violence in all it’s forms to be eliminated against my community and all those communities that I love or have been a part of throughout my life. So when I look things that way–The question is not so much, what can I do to make “them” listen to me, but rather instead, what do I need to do to end violence? Is it talking talking to people who don’t want to listen? Is it centering white women and their needs in my movement? Or is it creating ways to eliminate my community’s need for the nation/state? Is it looking for ways to eliminate the prison industrial complex? Is it implementing radical day care centers so that more women can go to meetings?

Embracing that shadiness in boundries–embracing the elimination of boundries–realizing that just because condi rice menstruates and has a womb of color, doesn’t mean that she is anybody I want to ally myself with–it is what is great about MY feminism (as brought to me by legions of radical women of color throughout the centuries)–there is a way to negotiate those tricky boundries–it is being done–it has been done for centuries.

That a group is more interested in fighting over how to form alliances with other people who use pads, rather than forming alliances with other communities that experience sexualized violence–well, it really demonstrates a lot of things. None of them good.

Excellent. Let’s move from there, as opposed to “In short, trans are nutjobs”.

True. Why is it, however, also automatically assumed that, as per Lynn’s example, that all men simply are sociopaths trying to get their orgasm without regard to other people? Is that realistic?

I am, of course, assuming that Lynn is heterosexual, on the basis of maribelle’s assumptions.

Don’t pretend not to know that the penetrated figure, in the woman’s position, is reviled in male culture.

That can’t possibly be denied. Lynn isn’t denying this but is giving, you know, an example where certain generalizations may not apply. Therefore, any attempt to deride people on the basis of the culture they live in is simply not practical and is more than a little bit hateful.

This is only half the story. No doubt transfolk suffered from lack of privilege that the cisgendered can never imagine.

But your comment disregards the very real experience of cisgendered women who find those socialized male to have had — and retain– much of the male privilege dolled out to them as boys that they are completely unaware that they possess.

Why do does it have to be “either/or”? Maybe both these things are true.

Magickitty wrote an amazing post on that thread about how her women’s support group from the 70′s or 80′s totally burned out by trying to focus on ending all oppression and not focusing on women and their needs.

The sexuality that has been freed is male sexuality which is fixated on penetration.

Lynn G-S says: Actually, most of the people who’ve wanted to penetrate me seemed to rather like me.

Lynn–yes, they usually act that way to get what they want. But even if all your dates have been the bee’s knees, that cannot be used to deny the fact that sex is too often used as a tool of humiliation–this is evidenced everywhere in our society. Don’t pretend not to know that the penetrated figure, in the woman’s position, is reviled in male culture.

For me, the writer (is that supposed to be luckynkl?) goes too far by seeming to describe all relationships. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater–take out the absolutes and she makes some important points that can be applied to male-female power dynamics in even the most successful relationships.

my rule of thumb on all human rights issues is to ask these questions: “Is anyone getting hurt? Who? How?”

Right on, Sniper. That’s my standard too.