Confirmation of this can be found on the michfest board itself. A pro-boundary festival attendee - who does not subscribe to anti-transexual politics - has recently written there that a christian fundamentalist heterosexual WBW is welcome at michfest (which I, as a lesbian, have always considered to be primarily a lesbian event) while a transwoman currently identifying and living as a lesbian is not. From what I’ve seen on the michfest discussion board the vast majority of boundary supporters come from the position that an invitation is extended to any woman ( mainly but not exclusively lesbian) who was identified as female at birth and has been perceived (legally if not actually or always in the case of butch women who are often mistaken for males) and acted upon as female for her entire life up to and including now. That’s the shared commonality that makes or should make up the festival community in the hearts and minds of most. The women with anti-transexual politics are a minority, albeit a very vocal one, as I see it. So - if the festival owners officially distanced themselves from anti-trans feminist politics in their justification for the boundary (which I don’t believe they - or she - ever would ) it *might* still stay in place on a ‘vote’ on the basis of that particular shared experience - as widely differentiated in terms of ‘priviledge’ because of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever, as it will inevitably be. The reverse would not be true. So, ‘girlhood’ and the rest *is* the defining factor the way I see it, and it *would* therefore be productive to examine the subjective childhood experience(s) of transwomen - starting by listening with care and respect to what they themselves have to say about it. This might also help in seperating out ‘fear’ of difference (phobia) from ‘respect’of difference, because I think there’s a fair amount of denial going on about that.

Finally, I wanted to comment that Emi Koyama’s analogy only makes sense if one believes that the only or primary reason to exclude transwomen from women-born women space is because of having been exposed to and/or raised with male privilege. I do not disagree that this is an issue, and for some radfems it may even be presented as the “big issue.” However, it is most definitely not the only or even primary reason among many, many radfems (again, as others have already noted, not just radfem bloggers) to object to much of trans politics or for transwomen in women-born women spaces.

Well, it’s irrelevant that there are other criticisms toward “trans politics,” since disagreement over politics does not necessarily mean that those who hold disagreeable political stances must be excluded. I may object to much of what passes as “radical feminism,” and yet I would no way argue for the exclusion of radical feminists from women-only spaces. The beauty of women-only spaces is not that everyone agrees with each other on everything, but that these disagreements can be openly discussed.

So the only relevant question is: under what rationalisation “lesbians” who have lived as heterosexuals and enjoyed heterosexual privilege in the past and now live as lesbians should be regarded as lesbians for the purpose of determining whether or not she should be included in lesbian-only spaces, and not allow transsexual women the same courtesy in determining membership in women-only spaces?

This is not a question about trans politics; it’s one about simple logic.

Just wanted to clarify, I’m here. I exist. I am a real person. I was mentioned in the first post.

I realize that since I changed my perspective on trans, you have all written me out of radical feminism, but I am just clarifying that I DO EXIST, I AM A RADICAL FEMINIST and no, I WILL NOT GO QUIETLY.

I do not disagree that this is an issue, and for some radfems it may even be presented as the “big issue.” However, it is most definitely not the only or even primary reason among many, many radfems (again, as others have already noted, not just radfem bloggers) to object to much of trans politics or for transwomen in women-born women spaces. It’s easy enough to argue against a position if you reduce it to only one aspect and pretend that it’s the only one.

You’re totally right, bean, and I apologize if I implied that it was the only or primary reason that people advocate for the exclusion of trans women from some women’s spaces, or to some broader concept of “trans politics.” There are a lot of different discussions and arguments around these issues, and I don’t think I could begin to create an omnibus survey or analysis — especially since I’m not necessarily opposed to space that excludes trans women, and I don’t think it’s the most crucial issue that needs airing. I only intended to talk about that particular line of discussion since I’ve seen it crop up recently, and it provoked some thoughts about socialization, etc.

I’m not the caliber of intellectual of those here, especially when sleep-deprived, but I have at least my own personal experience to draw upon. When I was two, I was nearly beaten to death by the neighborhood kids as a “sissy.” Have been more than half deaf ever since. Throughout my childhood, male privilege was thrown at me as a kind of “grab this or we won’t let you back on the boat” sort of thing. And then I would, and they (everybody, especially my parents, who meant to be kind, i.e. help me survive) would snatch it away anyway. Apparently I couldn’t grab onto it in a “way” that was acceptable. I developed a kind of sputtering “masculinity” that either leaped beyond what was required, or fell short of it, time and again, for more than forty years. I might not “be” that other gender but I certainly wasn’t “this” one either.

Not having much luck explaining this; ah, well. Maybe it can’t be done. Let’s put it this way; now that I’ve come to grips with the conundrum in a way that works for ME, there are a few things I’m willing to commit to as my own truths. Such as: if I knew that I would without fail die in three years a lingering and horrible death for having transitioned, would I have done it anyway?

I think every transperson, and maybe every intersexual, that’s had to make the leap, knows the answer. Other people are often accused of not being able to understand that, but, maybe more people do than transpeople think. Given two places, and only two places to stand, neither of which fits the entire inner person, you may have to pick one. A child often has that choice made for hir. In the 1950s, what chance I had for being me, I don’t know.

So, feeling I’d come to the end of my tether, I fought with counselors (believe it or not, some actually *sneered*) for five years, won the right to “mutilate” myself, and finally entered upon what have been so far, the best three years of my life.

Older transwomen, I’m told, have the burden of being tainted with male privilege. But each oppressive system provides some form of reward for compliance from all its classes. I work in an academic setting; I’ve seen the crushing power of the hierarchy here, and not all of the ones wielding that power crushingly were men.

In my community I’m active with PFLAG, Equality Network, Religious Response Network, the city’s Human Rights Commission, and other organizations. Most of those with whom I work are other lesbians. They help me to understand things I did not know about what it is to be a feminist. As my ignorance is profound, I find their patience amazing. I learn as I go, and we do the work of human rights advocacy together.

There are other groups in town, I gather, where there is a felt need for separatism. I don’t meddle there, because I know, from my own fear of men, a need for space. But I do feel a sadness when I think about these things.

I simply cannot imagine a good, convincing reason why there should not be, IN THE LONG RUN, a universal solidarity in the face of all oppressions.

risa b

I also wanted to vocally support Amber, I realize how hard it is to post in a space that is not, in actuality, welcoming, and to put forth your opinions while remaining respectful.

Finally, I wanted to comment that Emi Koyama’s analogy only makes sense if one believes that the only or primary reason to exclude transwomen from women-born women space is because of having been exposed to and/or raised with male privilege. I do not disagree that this is an issue, and for some radfems it may even be presented as the “big issue.” However, it is most definitely not the only or even primary reason among many, many radfems (again, as others have already noted, not just radfem bloggers) to object to much of trans politics or for transwomen in women-born women spaces. It’s easy enough to argue against a position if you reduce it to only one aspect and pretend that it’s the only one.

This comes from a tough spot… There are those who never shed their male privilidge and there are those who never had it. My sister may be encouraged in arts and I am more technical - but we both had trucks, dogs, and legos. But when it comes down to it, there are individuals. Many. And some are one side and some are the other… Some will never fit in a feminist space, and some will just never feel comfortable there.

But thank you for your long post.

During the Q&A, someone asked about the implication of this discussion in the context of National Women’s Studies Association. Eileen Bresnahan argued that some people in the lesbian caucus feel invisibilised and feel that there is a need for a “lesbian-only” space. I raised my hand and asked: let’s say that NWSA created a lesbian-only space, and which lesbians are allowed to participate in it? Is it only open to “lesbian-born lesbians” who have always been lesbian, or does it include someone who once had straight relationships and enjoyed heterosexual privilege and later became a lesbian? And if she is allowed to participate, would someone who once lived as a man and later became a lesbian?

If someone who once received heterosexual privilege can be included in a “lesbian-only” space, then there is no reason to exclude those who once received male privilege from a “women-only” space. “They are not parallel,” Bresnahan insisted, but the laughter broke out in the audience as they recognised the contradiction in between Bresnahan’s acceptance of lesbians who are not “lesbian-born lesbians” and her rejection of women who are not “women-born women.” I’m sure that trans people and allies in the audience enjoyed witnessing the public exposure of feminist rationale for anti-trans sentiment as hypocritical…

(from http://eminism.org/archive/2007/07/04-23.html )

If we take the entire range of self expression, then yes. I think, for instance, not murdering people is better than murdering people. Tolerating, even celebrating differences is better than not. And I see we agree on that. ^^

In terms of expressing BEING, that is cultural identification, romantic orientation, gender identity, religious choice, etc…, absolutely not; I don’t consider people existing along any of those continuum, or off of continuum completely, to be any better or worse or better than people with different beings.

I don’t consider my way of expressing myself to be best on any sort of shared scale. It is as good as I can manage, being me and in the world I live in. I would dislike it intensely if other people were me; I like people to be different and express themselves diffrently than I do. In terms of self-expression, I don’t feel the phrase “better than others” can even APPLY. It is from that context that I speak and approach the world.

And please, call me out. I like having my assumptions questioned and seeing how other people see my words. They are less true in a world where only I understand them, imo.

Here’s another question — is freedom of expression, free from persecution, “enough” in and of itself?

I think it should be done for it’s own sake, because it’s right. I’m not sure what you mean by “enough”. I don’t think an “enough” will ever exist. People are different, and part of negotiating that is the eternal stretching match between points of view and opinions to lead to a shared reality. That isn’t the sort of thing which can ever reach stasis because it changes with every new voice - or at least it SHOULD in my opinion.

As someone who shares an interest in ending oppression, I’d rather focus on dismantling the machinery of privilege (or whatever you want to call it). To me, figuring out how to do so is a much better question, in need of a much more creative argument.

I have to admit, that’s where I end up spinning my wheels a lot. These days, I’m focusing on boring everyone I know with discussions of race in a modern and historical context. Ah heh heh heh heh.

I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that question. It’s an article of faith or at least profound belief based on experience and feeling that one’s fundamental sexual orientation cannot be changed through conditioning. That’s why so-called “reprogramming” efforts are considered to be, at best, worthless and at worst downright harmful.

And the same is true of a whole lot of trans people and gender identity, at least those of us who aren’t also genderqueer or gender-fluid as well. (But the analogy there would be with bisexuality, or queerness.) “Reprogramming” and electroshock and hormonal treatments that enforce assigned gender have been tried on plenty of trans people for decades.

The difference, at this point in history, in how sexual orientation and gender identity are regarded is that you do get people saying things like “well, nobody is really gay — they’re just confused. Nobody can actually be in love with someone of the same sex, it’s unnatural and you can learn how to find real opposite-sex love” — but those people are considered discredited conservative fringe types by most in the mainstream. They get made fun of on the Daily Show. On the other hand, the idea of “gender identity” is much newer and controversial… and I have to say, kind of confusing and problematic sometimes in how it’s defined, in part because it’s a relatively young way to try and formulate and explain the feelings and experiences of trans people. You can post all over the progressive blogosphere talking about how you don’t know if you believe in “gender identity” and how trans people might just be confused or the victims of social pressure, and most people won’t consider you transphobic. (There is a threshold for that, and at this point it usually has to do with overt hostility or dimissal of trans people’s identities, mispronouning, etc.)

20 years ago, you could say the same things about homosexuality, talk about how you think it might be a choice or a lifestyle, about how gay people wouldn’t necessarily make the ideal parents for a child — and still be considered a liberal, even a left-leaning liberal.

I am sure that Holly’s insights are correct, that transgendered women’s experience of childhood is profoundly different from that of others who are, to all outward appearances, boys. Their experience of childhood is also different from that of others who are, to all outward appearances, girls.

Absolutely, thanks for getting that. Every delivered message is both spoken, and heard. The act of speaking is external, perceivable. The act of hearing is internal, subjective. Of course, in our society we think of “the message” as what is spoken, we privilege what can be seen, the outward experiences. It’s not surprising that the “common-sense” assumption would be that trans women straightforwardly just have “boyhoods” because practically all of us were treated that way, most of the time. But the hearing of messages… oh, that’s where things get complicated, especially because there’s so much talk about “conditioning.” At a level of critiquing individuals (or making blanket assumptions about a group) it almost seems sometimes that people are less concerned about the social fact of male privilege and female oppression than about the psychological effects receiving privilege is supposed to have: the creation of a privileged attitude. I certainly believe a lot of assumptions about this kind of thing, I have to deal with schmucks who have privileged attitudes all the time. And one of the hallmarks of privileged conditioning is that you’re totally oblivious to the messages you receive and to your privilege, to the ways you’re treated differently. Trans people, at least some of us, have a radically different experience of how we hear gendered messages… well, that’s my experience with how I heard messages aimed at both boys and girls while growing up, from the time I was aware that my gender was somehow “messed up.”

The question is, what do you do with folks who don’t have exactly a “boyhood” or a “girlhood?” Which is more important — the outward treatment or the inward reception of socializing messages? That’s kind of a trick question — I don’t think you can really separate those, nor would I want to say that what happened inside my odd little trans-kid brain is somehow more important than the fact of gendered privilege in the vast external world. But it has become relevant, and in part because more and more advocates of spaces that exclude trans women, like MWMF, are doing so on the grounds that a women’s music festival, for instance, is for those who experienced girlhood, not boyhood. I’ve grown to be more and more fond of boundaries as I’ve gotten older (and have scars to show for it) but I also tend to remember the words of intersex writer and poet Raven Kaldera: when you draw a line, you often draw it right across someone’s body, someone’s life.

I am sure that Holly’s insights are correct, that transgendered women’s experience of childhood is profoundly different from that of others who are, to all outward appearances, boys. Their experience of childhood is also different from that of others who are, to all outward appearances, girls. This couldn’t be otherwise because fundamentally they are not, to all outward appearances, what they appear to others to be. (I am inferring from previous comments — such as, feeling at odds with one’s “assigned” gender norms.) This almost certainly means more or less depending on whether your parents go with the flow when it comes to raising their children, or whether they impose a lot of normative conditioning based on the nature of your reproductive organs, rather than, say, your innate interests and temperament.

In my entire life I have never felt threatened by the existence of transgendered women, and my feelings wouldn’t change no matter what theoretical view of gender I ascribed to. It doesn’t freak me out to see men in a public restroom, and if it did, it would probably because the man was doing something I perceived to be threatening. I’m not a theorist, so I’ll go back to lurking.

To put a different spin on it, almost everyone received “heterosexual conditioning” as a child. For some people, it just didn’t take, right? We accept that as conventional wisdom, and you don’t even need to make any suppositions about whether being gay is “nature” or “nurture.” These days, there are more and more kids who are being raised with less heterosexual conditioning, although it’s still rare. Supposing some might grow up to be queer, how different are they from other queers?

This is an excellent point, and one I will shameless steal every time the issue of ‘WBW’ comes up.

—Myca

Well put.

Lately, now that a lot of the talk has moved to the blogosphere and become more public, the emphasis has shifted to talking about girlhood, privilege, socialization, and conditioning, with statements that basically add up to “trans women were conditioned to be male.” Every time I read stuff like that, including responses made by non-trans folks who are debating the other side, it strikes me that most non-trans people don’t really have much idea of what trans childhood is like. Not from the inside, at least — subjectively impossible, but I don’t even think this kind of stuff gets talked about much.

Not that there is a single, unitary experience of trans childhood, but to generalize that trans women have male conditioning is missing a gigantic piece of what it’s like to experience intense disjuncture with your assigned gender as a child. Even people advocating for trans women tend to talk a lot about stuff that happens to visibly gender-different kids (for instance, feminine boys getting the crap kicked out of them). Even though I have plenty of experience with that stuff too, it somehow misses the crux of what’s wrong with making blanket statements about how people are “conditioned” and what that “conditioning” means. Really, it sometimes ends up as just another form of essentialism.

To put a different spin on it, almost everyone received “heterosexual conditioning” as a child. For some people, it just didn’t take, right? We accept that as conventional wisdom, and you don’t even need to make any suppositions about whether being gay is “nature” or “nurture.” These days, there are more and more kids who are being raised with less heterosexual conditioning, although it’s still rare. Supposing some might grow up to be queer, how different are they from other queers?

Daisy, I’ve been meaning to post on your blog about why I think the “Michfest issue” is so obsessively pursued as a symbolic struggle (perhaps disproportionate to how important it really is outside of the Michfest community). But I’m not sure I want to get sucked into a Michfest debate. In fact, the more I think about the “conditioning” arguments, the more I think I should probably write a post about that

Are we automatically “boy” or “girl” if we were “raised that way”? I have to admit I find this a very confusing subject, and feminism seems to compound my confusion when it comes to “women-only space”–which is where Heart/Seelhoff is coming from, too.

While I feel such a discussion is important, I dislike any labelling of one genre of feminism as inherently transphobic when in fact there are many radfems who are inclusive of their trans sisters.

I won’t get into the whole trans argument - only state my own opinion. Transwomen are women, are therefore, should be included in women-only spaces. I am not uncomfortable with transwomen and while I will concede that many transwomen may have benefitted from patriarchal privilege to some degree, transwomen have also been incredibly oppressed by patriarchal gender norms.

It’s hard to get people to not assume things based on other things– it’s what people do… we see patterns and sort.

~

IMO, personality traits involving how one expresses one’s self are not inherently linked to traits involving character (e.g it’s possible to be a messy dresser, yet be highly organized, to be feminine and aggressive or terse and sensitive).

I know, that was what I was trying to say. They’re not related, but people tend to attach different appearances with different qualities. What I mean is, how would we possibly get people to not attach value judgments to differences in expressing oneself, and how do we get those expressions to be neutral if some people don’t want to change the ways they express themselves because some expressions are considered better than others? By and large, people don’t seem to like change unless there’s some sort of incentive, and ….well, now I’m whiny, because the patterns people like to use don’t work all that well. It’s like those 3D images, people look at them and take away something from it, where all I see is deviating colors, shapes and sizes. It’s just a pair of eyes fooling the mind. Also, on a totally unrelated note, it irritates the hell out of me that I’m missing neat pictures.