A gripe about “allies” and trans-exclusive spaces
May 17th, 2008 by Rebecca
There’s a not-half-bad post up at Reweaving at the moment expressing frustration (from a radical feminist perspective) at the vast amounts of transphobia in the radical feminist community, and specifically with regard to trans-exclusive women’s spaces. It’s worth a read, and there’s a good comments thread as well.
However, there’s a couple of things that get my goat. It’s something one sees a bit with cispeople who have gotten down with the whole “transpeople are human, yay!” thing, but haven’t quite said farewell to their own transphobia.
I think there maybe times when cisgendered woman only spaces need to be available and I think that there are times when trans women only spaces need to be available but by and large I think women only spaces should be for cisgendered and transgendered women both and that trans women shouldn’t just be tolerated in them but should be actively accepted in them and be an inherent part of the organisation and structure of them.
The F Word’s Laura espouses similar sentiment in comments. [Comment redacted per comments thread.] Thus, we see:
I think that there is a need both for non-transwomen, inclusive and trans-only spaces, but the idea that automatically excluding transwomen from women only spaces will somehow protest women from male ideas and privilege is, as you say, ludicrous.
It’s the “well, I guess we’ll generally allow you to come, but you’re there at our pleasure” argument.
I’ve said this before, but it warrants saying again. Using the idea of “safe spaces” to exclude transpeople is a disgrace, and there it’s exactly the same as men claiming it to exclude women, white people using it to exclude POC, or able-bodied people using it to exclude the disabled. It’s a position that’s positively swimming in cisprivilege, and I have a real problem with anyone claiming to be a trans ally while holding it, even if they’re, if you will, still learning. Now, I recognise that, with both the people here, the rest of their comments over there were laudable - but nonetheless, I get frustrated at this sort of privileged jerkery.
I can think of quite a few places where it would be plenty justifiable to have a group which would, in practice, wind up being ciswomen-only. This would not, however, include general-purpose women’s spaces who happen to have transphobic people in them. Rather, it might be say, a subject-specific space around something which transwomen actually don’t (in reality, as opposed to in theory) experience. It’s also something that would be completely uncontested by rational people. I’m reminded of the scene in Fight Club where Marla briefly has an argument about being allowed to attend a testicular cancer support group. I’ll put it this way: if it has to actually be disputed, and it isn’t as ludicrous as that, then chances are, you’re being an asshole.
>>I can think of quite a few places where it would be plenty justifiable to have a group which would, in practice, wind up being ciswomen-only. This would not, however, include general-purpose women’s spaces who happen to have transphobic people in them. Rather, it might be say, a subject-specific space around something which transwomen actually don’t (in reality, as opposed to in theory) experience.>>
Yeah, that.
Something like, oh, say, women hitting menopause, or women who’ve had miscarriages, or currently pregnant women.
Even, I would say, cis partners of transitioning people who want to talk their stuff out.
Apart from that, though…yeah, I don’t see it. As I’ve said, even the women-only play/sex parties I’ve been to are trans-inclusive. Nothing -happens-, and no, it doesn’t turn into Invasion of the Straight Cis Men, or even trans people outnumbering cis women (what are the odds?), slippery slope arguments notwithstanding.
to be generous, perhaps that is what Laura & philomela meant (subject-specific that perforce would be cis only)?
I did consider that, but this is the sort of thing where if that is what people mean, it would probably be a good idea to make it clear, considering the history of these disputes. This is especially in the case of Laura, who has advocated fairly strongly in support of trans-exclusive spaces in the past, and as recently as a couple of months ago.
I don’t know…Reweaving’s post does have that imperfection, and I wish that she didn’t carve out that little cis women space, but it doesn’t get my back up that much.
I mean, I’d much, much rather deal with her (or Laura, or Maia, who wrote a similar critique / challenge some months back), b/c at least you can discuss / debate the issue with her. With Heart, lucky, etc, all you get is a wall of hate — they cannot be reasoned with, since they have classified you as subhuman from the get-go.
And Heart telling little light that she was not “allowed” to honor a goddess from her *own tradition* was pretty fucking racist, as well as transmisogynist.
There’s a reason I’m engaging with the likes of these two: as far as I’m concerned, the likes of Heart aren’t worth my time. If someone can’t so much as respect my basic humanity, they can simply go to hell as far as I’m concerned: it’s like trying to reason with James Dobson - why the hell would I bother?
That’s why I generally only call out people who have made a bit of an effort to begin with - they’re the ones that warrant actually being reasoned with.
“This would not, however, include general-purpose women’s spaces who happen to have transphobic people in them. Rather, it might be say, a subject-specific space around something which transwomen actually don’t (in reality, as opposed to in theory) experience.”
That’s exactly what I meant when I said I think there is room for women-born-women space.
To be honest, I’m not sure where I was supposedly spouting “transphobic shit” - could you enlighten me?
[…] Currently, that fire is burning brightly at both Philomela’s blog, Reweaving and over at Rebecca’s appropriately named Burning Words. It should go without saying that I recommend them unreservedly; as regards this post, you should read Philomela’s post, Lets go round again, and Rebecca’s A gripe about “allies” and trans-exclusive spaces. […]
Laura: That’s good to know. I’m sorry; in hindsight, I think I may have gotten you a bit confused with someone else. Now that I check the archives, the post of yours that frustrated the hell out of me was the one about the cissexual label, but it wasn’t that bad.
Fair enough. Fwiw, I don’t have a problem with the label at all in its basic meaning of “not-trans”, I just wanted to discuss definition that Helen had given of it and how it related to my experience of gender. Which is of course very different to her’s, and to your’s.
>>I can think of quite a few places where it would be plenty justifiable to have a group which would, in practice, wind up being ciswomen-only. This would not, however, include general-purpose women’s spaces who happen to have transphobic people in them. Rather, it might be say, a subject-specific space around something which transwomen actually don’t (in reality, as opposed to in theory) experience.>>
What is strange is that I tend to think of these groups as, well, GROUPS not gender groups because I can come up with many exceptions including transitioned men who happen to be pregnant who would not be considering themselves one of cis-women and yet at said “spaces.” But then I tend to find that most medically oriented “spaces” are tending toward the majority, as for instance breast cancer clinics are the prime example (10% of those with breast cancer are male, however thier mortality rate is vast because there is of course, no one TELLING males they can get breast cancer and because it has about an inch of fat to go through until it become BONE cancer).
I find as time goes on that much of these arguements are done away with advances in society and/or medicine. Certainly you could have said 30 years or ago (or you could say today) that a group for those who have lost thier husband SHOULD be a cis-women group, except that both 30 years and today there would be plenty of men who fit that catagory as well. The first attempted womb transplant into a transitioned female was I believe 100 years ago; a successful womb transplant HAS occurred, but then, it has already been demonstrated that 1) sperm and egg and reproduce OUTSIDE the womb and b) that a baby can be carried WITHOUT a womb for quite a long period of time (I think they used the large intestine attachment).
While on the other hand, I have found it FAR more likely to run into cis-women who don’t have the “appropriate experience” who ARE included in cis-women only groups. Women who were raised as boys, women who may not have know they WERE women until a certain age in life, women from certain religious and other orders. I mean, when you know in your heart of hearts from your experience your period is your CURSE FROM GOD for Eve having sinned; er, how exactly does that fit next to the cis-woman from the suburbs and Judy Blume exactly? But then, I think it has been shown over and over that I just “don’t get it” (as in I am TOO thick) when it comes to these sorts of arguements - meaning, if you set up a protocol and have legal and medical people work on it and do study after study for generations and say, “Yes, these women are female both medically and legally” - well, I tend to find that works for me. Please however feel free to hit with a whiffle bat of some arguement or another.