http://www.thefword.org.uk/images/logo2003.gif 2012-05-22T16:11:33Z Latest comments made on The F-Word Blog tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012://3 Movable Type Copyright (c) 2012, The F-Word 2012-05-22T19:57:33Z 2012-05-22T19:57:33Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152843 June42 2012-05-22T11:31:26Z 2012-05-22T11:31:26Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152840 Justine Ossum said: Re the stat that men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women. Obviously, heart disease often has genetic factors, and they types of heart diseases Benetar refers to is probably generalised to 'all diseases of the heart'. 'Real' men eat a lot of meat - remember the Burger King ads? The old 'real men don't eat quiche' trope? Despite most vegans being male, if I recall correctly. Foods marketed at men tend towards the red meat, high sat fats end of the scale, while salads and the like are derided as rabbit food and only suitable for women and effeminate men. So, at least in a percentage of cases, patriarchy causes that too.]]> Justine Ossum 2012-05-22T11:24:06Z 2012-05-22T11:24:06Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152839 IronFly said: What I am desperate to know is, why are so many people so interested in battling it out to define who has it worse? Why is that more exciting to discuss in places like CIF, than trying to grapple with the root causes and come up with practical solutions? It terrifies me that people always prefer to squabble than to sit together, politely, with no hint of ego, and find the threads that bind these sexist issues together and work it all out. No of course it's not as simple as getting together to find a solution (I wish it were that easy!) but I just wonder why the discussion is so lop sided towards Oppression Olympics.]]> IronFly 2012-05-22T10:36:10Z 2012-05-22T10:36:10Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152838 The Goldfish said: This is a great article. A trans friend of mine explained that she did have a girlhood, only one unusual feature of her girlhood was being treated like a boy. Being disabled from my teens, I have missed out on many of the experiences that transphobic feminists argue are universal to "women born women" - for example, nobody has taken much interest in my reproductivity at all, let alone tried to control it or pressured me into motherhood. Not that that's universal for disabled women, but that's kind of the point - there are very few universal experiences for women, so it would be ridiculous to exclude any woman on the grounds that she's had a few novel experiences. Trans women remain one of the most powerless, abused, dismissed and physically endangered group among us - and all those negative treatments are about gender. If feminism is not for trans women, it's surely not for anyone.]]> The Goldfish 2012-05-22T07:29:41Z 2012-05-22T07:29:41Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152837 Jenny 2012-05-21T15:46:13Z 2012-05-21T15:46:13Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152836 Jessica 2012-05-21T15:29:20Z 2012-05-21T15:29:20Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152835 shatterboxx said: One more - the brilliant Anita Sarkeesian is fundraising to make another series of films called Tropes vs Women in Video Games. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games If you haven't seen her Tropes vs Women series, have a watch of it here http://www.feministfrequency.com/tag/tropes-vs-women/]]> shatterboxx 2012-05-21T14:43:27Z 2012-05-21T14:43:27Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152834 JessLeeds 2012-05-21T13:53:15Z 2012-05-21T13:53:15Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152833 IronFly said: I find it a bit of a vicious circle: people make gendered assumptions about you and your social group, which then serve to reinforce gender expectations even more, further putting you off. Having said that, the more hyper aware I am of my gender, the more I take assumptions about me as gendered ones. I've noticed this after talking with male friends after someone makes an odd comment towards me: we analyse it together and it often seems similar comments had been made to my male friends too (gendered ones as well as general weird, snide, or negative assumptions). Stupid people are stupid to everyone! Sometimes a gentle correction of the assumption difuses an akward situation. I met a man recently who was yapping away about his classic sports car to my male friend, then turned to me and with a saddened look on his face said "...but you wouldn't be interested in this sort of thing would you?" I was a little stung by the assumption, because of course being female doesn't mean I can't appreciate the beauty of a well designed machine, so I gently corrected him. Then his face lit up and he continued yapping away. He just wanted people that were equally as into cars as he was. There was no malice behind his assumption, I think. :) But that's not to undermine the assumptions that are clearly sexist and malicious. The frenzied bitchiness towards female politicians is disgusting. As a shy person I am already put off entering the political realm, but the coverage of female politicians puts me off completely!]]> IronFly 2012-05-21T13:10:32Z 2012-05-21T13:10:32Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152832 emmacrews said: It is bad enough that any human being should have to experience rape or any type of sexual violence but to also be held in anyway responsible is unbelievably - I simply do not have the words! SO MUCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THESE ARCHAIC POINTS OF VIEW X ]]> emmacrews 2012-05-21T11:09:57Z 2012-05-21T11:09:57Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152831 Robyn 2012-05-20T19:40:42Z 2012-05-20T19:40:42Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152826 Louise N said: Thankyou for this. It's been really amazing to see the response from our cis allies against transphobia from parts of the radical feminist community.]]> Louise N 2012-05-20T18:12:53Z 2012-05-20T18:12:53Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152825 Laura Woodhouse said: @ anywavewilldo - I agree that gender stereotyping is extremely harmful and I didn't mean to imply that it's easy to be non-gender conforming. As Jane Fae mentions below, I was trying to tackle this widespread assumption that being trans is an extreme and unnecessary reaction to disliking traditional gender roles. When I talked about my experience being easier, I was referring to my own personal childhood dislike of certain gendered expectations, the kind of basic things that people talk about when they ask why trans people can't just ignore gender stereotypes rather than transition. I wasn't trying to set up a competition or hierarchy between trans and cis people.]]> Laura Woodhouse 2012-05-20T18:07:12Z 2012-05-20T18:07:12Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152824 Danielle 2012-05-20T17:42:24Z 2012-05-20T17:42:24Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152823 Cazz Blase 2012-05-20T14:16:34Z 2012-05-20T14:16:34Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152822 Amber 2012-05-20T14:15:17Z 2012-05-20T14:15:17Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152821 Amber 2012-05-20T13:14:28Z 2012-05-20T13:14:28Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152820 IronFly said: Wow, good to see others that also feel that slackivism isn't a bad thing. To me it's a way to bring activism to people that might otherwise not be able to, for reasons you suggested. Actually on wikipedia they also refer to the positive side of the term: "The term appears to have been coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark in 1995 at the Cornerstone Festival. The term was meant to shorten the phrase slacker activism, which refers to bottom up activities by young people to affect society on a small, personal scale (such as planting a tree, as opposed to participating in a protest). The term originally had a positive connotation." I've just written a comprehensive beginner's guide to activism (http://bit.ly/HvJ61S) and I make a point of saying that "slacktivism" isn't neccessarily a bad thing unless the underlying campaign is flawed or misguided. I think also that if enough people become involved in relatively simple slacktivist ways then sometimes one or two (hopefully more!) of those thousands get enthused enough to take things much further. Well done on the #ididnotreport campaign - such a simple idea but its impact was massive. :)]]> IronFly 2012-05-20T12:13:53Z 2012-05-20T12:13:53Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152819 Sue Gilbert 2012-05-20T00:08:34Z 2012-05-20T00:08:34Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152817 anywavewilldo said: "See, when I was little, I didn't like girlie things. I thought I would rather be a boy. But do you know what I did? I ignored or worked through the girlie things and got on with my life on my terms. Which is far, far, far easier than going through what trans people go through and putting up with the shit they have to put up with to enable them to live their lives as the people they know they are." Really? We need to stop this bullshit view that trans* trumps cis trans* experience is hard but non-gender conforming women of all assigned gender are punished by society. Viciously punished. Are you telling me a mouthy butch AFAB dyke gets more slide from the patriarchy than a gender-conforming, passing trans* woman? Are you telling me the average uppity feminist gets slide because she 'worked through girlie things'. IT IS NOT A COMPETITION Radical feminist *critique of gender* is totally legitimate from a theoretical point of view. Radical feminism is gender-atheist. Online feminist discourse is norming to a point where we are accepting ideas of what is 'feminine' and what is 'masculine' in very essentialist ways - and it's creating this bizarre idea that life is a cakewalk as long as your assigned gender at birth 'matches' your self-gender. Gender is a prison, gender is a system of domination, gender is a social construction that oppresses women and trans* people because they're situated as lesser than default-humans i.e. men. Whatever you think about this particular conference or it's policy there is no excuse for such dangerous and naive positions on gender and its role in women's subjugation.]]> anywavewilldo 2012-05-19T19:12:52Z 2012-05-19T19:12:52Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152816 Iris 2012-05-19T19:11:24Z 2012-05-19T19:11:24Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152815 Shadow 2012-05-19T19:09:52Z 2012-05-19T19:09:52Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152814 Shadow 2012-05-19T18:13:17Z 2012-05-19T18:13:17Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152813 Jane Fae said: Laura, really pleased to read this, for two reasons...both to do with your upending some fairly clichéd arguments that keep being trotted out in this area. First is the rationale why peeps are trans (or gay, or whatever). You suggest that that's a "so what" issue and i so agree with that. It seems that according to minority taste and interest it is either a useful tactic to claim some degree of genetic determinism/ essentialism (lgbt) or not (women). That's often in response to reactionary arguments about how some aspect of gender, sexuality or identity is not "normal". Persoanlly, i have never seen the need for that argument. Our rights as individuals come from the fact we are human beings: and we each demand equal respect for ourselves and our personal identities, no matter where those came from. Second, thanks for the reverse tomboy story. One of the constantly irritating themes to turn up on tabloid (and even Grauniad) comment pages from time to time is the narrative about how "i used to be a bit girly/boyish when i was young...but _I_ never saw the need to transition". To which the simple answer is: quite. Maybe that ought to be a clue (to the person expressing that view) that there is a world of difference between someone who plays with or challenges gender norms...and someone who feels profoundly at odds with their assigned gender. I'm talking less and less about my own journey now...but a couple of out-takes. Once i knew that i could transition, it was not a matter of "if": it was an absolute, unremitting "when", which i would have fought for against almost any odds. Not a comparison, so much as a simile: i suspect, without personal experience of same, that the sense is not unlike the way some individuals feel when they decide it is time to have children. Overwhelming. Second, as you note, there is a lot of pain associated with that decision. Psychological, emotional and yes: very physical, too. Perhaps my most physically painful life experience to date happened about a week after surgery: a "minor complication" which had me screaming in agony...and needed an urgent trip back to theatre to sort out. And was it worth it? Yes. A million, million times yes. I am still to this day filled with joy at a birth mistake put right...can add a little skip into my walk down the road, just proud to be a woman. Humbled, too, by the fact that so many brilliant women, feminists and occasionally not, are perfectly happy to accept me as i am now. ]]> Jane Fae 2012-05-19T17:31:24Z 2012-05-19T17:31:24Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152811 Beverley B 2012-05-19T16:52:01Z 2012-05-19T16:52:01Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152810 Vicky said: In the blog post that Laura links to, a trans woman has challenged Jeffries' views in the comments, only for the blog owner to start telling her with authority exactly what her feelings mean and why she feels the way she does. Stripped down to the bare ugly truth, this is what supposedly 'radical' opposition to trans women means: a belief that cis-gendered people know more about trans reality than trans people do, and a refusal to accept that trans people can possibly be qualified to speak about their own experiences. Trans women need educating...by cis women. And in case they do something really dangerous (like opening their mouths) they need to be kept out of conferences organised by said cis women, who will talk about them and talk at them, but not with them. Looks familiar, doesn't it?]]> Vicky 2012-05-19T16:09:10Z 2012-05-19T16:09:10Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152809 Dorothea said: This was the first time I had come across this debate within the feminist community, and I was genuinely curious about what constitutes 'womanhood' in their definition, so posted these questions: What do #radfem2012 think defines being a woman?Periods?Pregnancy? Not all women have those.. Surely most 'women's issues' are more social than biological, and equally experienced by trans women? #radfem2012 To which I was greeted with: Gallus Mag ‏@GallusMag @dorotheainrome #radfem2012 Oh leave the females alone why don't you. We have a right to our space and our voice. Piss off. which hasn't really encouraged me to engage any further with their viewpoint! And are they implying I'm not female? That would be news to me!]]> Dorothea 2012-05-19T16:05:46Z 2012-05-19T16:05:46Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152808 Adventures and Japes said: Twisty Faster from I Blame the Patriarchy blog is the most rad-fem of all the rad-fems I know. And she says transwomen are women and that this debate is distasteful. So, I think it's the organisers missing a trick rather than rad-fem philosophy.]]> Adventures and Japes 2012-05-19T15:56:17Z 2012-05-19T15:56:17Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152807 Adventures and Japes said: In Denmark, if you are a foreign woman, the banks feel no compunction about running everything about your finances by your husband. They treat your personal account like a joint account. I know women in a total panic because they are starting divorce proceedings and are afraid that the bank will hand their escape savings over to their ex. They are not "supposed" to do it but they do it anyway.]]> Adventures and Japes 2012-05-19T15:45:22Z 2012-05-19T15:45:22Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152806 Lisa Egan said: I slightly think that a boycott will be pointless. If you're not there your voice isn't heard. Turning up and protesting loudly at every possible opportunity about discrimination will be far more bothersome for the organisers.]]> Lisa Egan 2012-05-19T09:40:06Z 2012-05-19T09:40:06Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152805 Gwen Clark said: Thank you for writing this. Reading some of the recent attacks on transwomen by so called radical feminists has me questioning their identity as being radical as well. If you develop a philosophy in the 70's that is unchanged 30 years later how is that still radical? Trans women have changed, gay and lesbians society has changed, queer culture has emerged, all of society has changed but this philosophy has not and is stuck back in a 70's timewarp. Moreover in resisting change the once radical culture has by all appearances become reactionary and alignes quite well to conservative thinking. Reactionary Feminist Conference? Perhaps a better description.]]> Gwen Clark 2012-05-19T03:22:10Z 2012-05-19T03:22:10Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152804 Feminist Avatar said: As I understand the law, in a case like this event, a man may well be able to make the case that he is discriminated against by not being included. It is not against the law to have same-sex events, but you have to be able to 'objectively justify' it, and usually in terms of benefit/disadvantage to the service user (so it's an exception usually used for healthcare and accommodation services, where a female service user is viewed to be able to legitimately object to being seen naked by a man or vice versa, and so single-sex services are ok). If you are a registered charity, you can also provide single-sex services as long as "it is done to prevent or compensate for disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic [in this case gender]". However, as Radfem are not registered charity (or do not make that clear on their site), they don't have this justification. They could still try to make it under the first section by arguing that it disadvantages women as the service user and that may well be fine (certainly lots of similar events have got away with this, although I'm not sure if it's ever been legally challenged). However, their approach to transgender women is still illegal. The law pretty much requires that transgender people are treated as the sex they present as, except for in some very specific circumstances. Once more, you have to be able to 'objectively justify' exclusion and for reasons not based on prejudice, and you have to do it on a case by case basis, so you cannot have a blanket exclusion. The guidance that accompanies the law says: "Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so. Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services." And, as someone who has worked in domestic violence refuge provision, we were (rightly) required to provide services for transgender women and did so (and without any complaint), as did the rape crisis centres in the same area as us. So, given that other organisations who work in this area have made these adjustments, I'm not sure why Radfem can't or how they can justify not doing so in legal terms. I would also add that the volunteers at Radfem should seriously reconsider, if not because they care about transgender women, but for their own self-interest. When you discriminate, it is not just your organisation but you individually that can be held liable. This means that you could be individually sued and, if you lose, would have to pay compensation and legal costs. Volunteer organisations are particularly vulnerable to having their members be individually sued as there is often no limited company or charity as barrier, and so no defence that they were behaving 'as instructed by the company'. Moreover, they almost never have insurance to cover legal costs or losses. Just because you aren't paid or your intentions are 'good' doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. This latter part I feel strongly about because I have both worked and know many more people who do work in the 'Third Sector' and it seriously worries me how many people in this area don't realise their legal obligations and behave accordingly, often because they see themselves as volunteers, not professionals or businesses. If you want to read more: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/equality-act-guidance-downloads/#Guidance_for_service_users]]> Feminist Avatar 2012-05-18T23:18:28Z 2012-05-18T23:18:28Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152802 romseygirl said: When the other speakers are announced it might be worth contacting them and respectfully asking them to boycott the conference? As well as making sure that we publicise the fact that the conference excludes trans women as widely as possible so that women can make an informed choice about whether they want to attend - when I first saw the conference I thought 'great, a radical feminist conference!' & might have signed up to it if someone hadn't posted this article on Facebook]]> romseygirl 2012-05-18T21:35:25Z 2012-05-18T21:35:25Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152801 cathryn said: Hannah.. I got the exact same reply, it makes me wonder if he even bothered to read my email? Laura.. I agree, the reply would seem to suggest that none of the isssues being discussed have any bearing on trans women.. because, of course, they are never involved in the sex industry or have suffered violence, have they! I also note the talk on "Radical feminist critiques of gender and queer theory" It just seems to me that the organisers have promoted the 'vulnerable groups' reason to enable a platform for Jeffreys and others to give their trans critical views without recourse to debate or fear of contradiction ]]> cathryn 2012-05-18T18:51:06Z 2012-05-18T18:51:06Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152799 Brian Berk said: Oh dear lord, I'm so angry I can barely breathe. My only contact with radical feminism has been online stuff, and I assumed that it was fringe stuff, but they apparently have enough support to hold a conference in a totally legit setting (fuck Conway Hall, by the way). This is absolutely disgusting. ]]> Brian Berk 2012-05-18T18:50:08Z 2012-05-18T18:50:08Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152798 LazyJay said: Can I just add it's especially offensive that they have invited someone to speak on "gender and queer" issues while at the same time prohibiting those who are most intimately concerned by it? It's as patronising and indefensible as a panel of men debating female health issues. While I can understand that hardcore feminists and lesbians might have trouble grasping the hard-to-describe feelings of a trans person (we had a conference at the local lesbian bar; they tried hard but it really was a foreign concept), this deliberate discrimination is both hurtful to us and damaging to all. Most trans people are feminists, after all. We know what it's like to be a woman, no matter what our genitalia.]]> LazyJay 2012-05-18T16:49:14Z 2012-05-18T16:49:14Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152797 Jamie 2012-05-18T15:57:38Z 2012-05-18T15:57:38Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152796 sian norris said: Laura - i completely agree!]]> sian norris 2012-05-18T15:35:11Z 2012-05-18T15:35:11Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152795 Valerie Keefe said: I always find the 'born women' metric especially willfully stupid. We're a sapient species with sexually dimorphic midbrains that are non-neuroplastic at birth. Trans women were born women, have been women their whole lives, and are living as women today. Coercively assigned sex at birth has nothing to do with that. Essentially, they want not only to discriminate against trans women, but to degender trans women with misleading advertising.]]> Valerie Keefe 2012-05-18T14:57:17Z 2012-05-18T14:57:17Z tag:www.thefword.org.uk,2012:/blog//2.152794 Laura Woodhouse said: That vulnerable groups argument works if we're just talking about excluding men. But trans women?! They would be the vulnerable group in the context of this event, because they are oppressed by a cis-dominated society, as women are oppressed by a male-dominated society. It makes no sense. What exactly do these people think will happen if trans women are included in women only space? If anything, a trans woman would be more likely to be harmed than a cis woman, given the likelihood of transphobic cis people being present.]]> Laura Woodhouse