> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.
Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.
While this may be a thing, what I have observed is that those most concerned with feminism in tech offer pretty consistent solidarity with their trans brothers and sisters. I don't believe this was invoked in good faith. Next level concern troll.
Thanks for discussing this issue and offering links, too.
You can be a human, you can be someone with the flu, but you can't really "be" a feminist, or any other political "ist", being that there's no agreed-upon definition of the word. So it's more productive to talk in terms of people "identified as" X.
Just 'Feminist and transphobic' somehow seemed wrong language-wise. That might just be because English is not my native language though, so I've edited the comment.
Whether it is logically inconsistent depends on how you define several terms. Of course everyone is going to choose definitions that make their points of view self-consistent... so that obstacle needs to be cleared first. You very quickly fall down a relativist hole.
The best way out of that hole is to describe things literally, with as little interpretation as possible.
For example, if you interview a hypothetical person Alex, and Alex claims to be a feminist, then you could write: "Alex, a self-described feminist, ..." but should perhaps avoid writing "Alex, a feminist, ..."
The first only relies on you, the audience, and Alex agreeing on the very basics of the English language. The second implies some sort of agreement between you and Alex on what it is to be a feminist; basically you are injecting your assessment of Alex's beliefs. In the first, the audience may disagree with Alex, but they should have very little room to disagree with you. In the second, the audience disagreeing with Alex pulls you into the fray as well.
You will find irrational extremists on either side of every political issue. In the case of gender relations, you have the religious right and MRA wackos on one extreme and the mysandric, transphobic "RadFem" fruitcakes on the other.
Much of "radical feminism" holds that gender isn't about expression, and that you can't switch genders as much as you can switch races. This makes people extremely uncomfortable, of course
Do you agree with the following definitions commonly used when discussing gender issues?
Sex: Assigned biological category -- male or female: designated at birth by visual assessment of anatomy based upon presumption of reproductive role.
Sexual Orientation: Term for an individual's physical and/or emotional attraction relative to their own sex such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight.
Gender: The social meaning given to biological sex.
Gender Expression: External characteristics and behaviors associated with gender that are socially defined and associated with masculine or feminine. For transgender people, their gender expression doesn't match their biological sex.
Transgender: People who identify with a gender that is different from their biologically assigned gender.
Intersexed: Describes people who are born with external genitalia, chromosomes, or internal reproductive systems that are not traditionally associated with either a "standard" male or female.
Cis-gender: People who identify with the sex or gender they were assigned at birth.
Gender is generally assumed to be defined as that part of 'sexual identity' which is a social construct and hence changeable.
I think the phenomenon is brought up in discussions of sexism in the tech industry disproportionate to the degree to which it occurs. I don't think people who typically bring it up are actually concerned with the issue, but rather want to poke a stick at the notion of feminism itself.
I'm not sure whether your first sentence is meant as snide, but given the quality of your posts on gender issues in general I'll assume you're just taking the opportunity to elucidate the logic behind both viewpoints.
I do have to say that as a person somewhere on the trans* spectrum some of those posts do feel rather hateful towards 'my kind' though.
You specifically posted links equating radical feminist concerns with queer theory/transactivism with "transphobia," cheapening real transphobia, given that the links I posted (have you read them? I recommend them) illustrate that "radical feminist" desired exclusion of transwomen from conferences, etc, is not motivated by hatred, but a gender politics that doesn't have much to do with queer theory/transactivism specifically.
If you think I'm saying bigoted things (or trans*-spectrum-phobic), I'd appreciate knowing where I've done that so I can learn not to.
I simply shared two wikipedia articles on the topic to refer to a somewhat impartial source and added an article which illustrated the existence of a transphobic fringe within the feminist community.
I didn't intend to make any statement concerning exclusion or condemnation of transwomen from conferences; although it seems like you did jump to that conclusion. Neither did I explicitly mention 'radical feminism.'
As for feedback; the part that's hurtful here is that while the article I posted seems to take great care to attempt to perform a level-headed in-depth deconstruction of transphobia in the feminist community and painstakingly ensuring to criticise specific behaviour by specific people rather than the feminist community as a whole.
Many of the articles you linked invoke a variety of ad-hominems, strawmen and generally mostly seem aimed at eliciting a certain emotional response towards the trans community.
Actual transphobia (like the rampant homophobia, specifically against lesbians, before it) in "feminist" communities is tragic, just as it is anywhere. I don't mean to excuse bigots, only to provide context for the discussion of the political exclusion of (rather than emotional, bigoted marginalization and violence against) transwomen from women-only spaces, which is the overall topic at hand here and the concern of many radical feminists.
As I suspected we're mostly on the same page then with the main difference being (if I'm correct) that I interpreted radical feminists as the subset of feminists who hold radical beliefs rather than referring to a specific 'radical feminist' belief system and its views on trans* issues (whose existence I was not aware of until now.)
I have never heard of such a thing in a conference context, but I have seen it come up in others. And I don't think it's helpful to label such exclusion "hate", as it typically comes from women who feel that self-identifying as female is not sufficient to qualify one to be called a woman.
But it's a very complex and interesting issue, not worth bringing up here, as you note. It's brought up here to stir the pot, I seriously doubt GP actually cares about transpeople at all.
[Edited later: for what it's worth, I regret choosing the word "typically" above. "Sometimes" or "often" would have been more appropriate word choices]
OK, so if I follow what you're saying, since RadFem2012 excluded transwomen, the Female Founders Conference probably will too? Perhaps, nawitus. Perhaps.
I agree that it's largely to stir the pot in this case, but as a gender-dysphoric bisexual male I am curious where the line would be drawn.
I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense.
Not that I'd be able to attend either way though; even though I would very much love to.
> I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense.
Why? If anything, a heterosexual man would be more likely to benefit from a conference for female founders because his SO is a founder or wants to start a company.
(Not trying to start a flame war — I just can't see the difference between a bisexual man, a homosexual man and a heterosexual man in this context.)
You were born male and so have not experienced female socialization and experiences throughout your life. You have what is often called "male privilege." I'm not comfortable with my "gender" either (who is?) but I don't plan on taking up space at the conference.
Radical Feminism (one concept) is somewhat equivalent to separatist feminism, which takes it as axiomatic that women making decisions under the influence of men are not free to make decisions (they're the "all sex is rape" school). Given that, they historically[0] tended to see trans women as male invaders of a female space, which makes them de facto transphobic. Transphobia is not a typical property of feminists who happen to be radical in their views - if anything, it's the opposite (radical feminism is a second-wave school which had its peak in the 70s).
Not all people who call themselves radical feminists believe that "all PIV is rape" (notice how you equate sex with penis-in-vagina intercourse). You forgot to provide a link to that [0], I'll give you one: http://againstallevidence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/cant-we-a...
I didn't mean to imply (and I don't believe) that all radical/separatist feminists believe that, but that the idea originated in that movement. I don't equate PIV with sex but didn't want to add jargon to what was meant to be a 101 post. Hence quotes.
Any time. I believe there's a high amount of nuance to the writings, activism, and ideas referred to by the phrase "radical feminist," and without noting it, it becomes very easy to get the wrong idea about the whole thing. "All sex is rape" and "all PIV is rape" are two vastly different statements in the context of this politics.
Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.