click on the image to see in full size. h/t to undercover punk.
I love the “piss somewhere else” graphic! I don’t care where!
i was very happy to find that nature/bushes graphic too. heh. the internets are grand!
the funny thing (to me) about the bathroom dilemma is that the trans politickers dont seem to get that we can have more than one objection to something, or that our thoughts on the subject are multi-faceted and organized. aka. actual reasoning. with reasons! they think just because we dont want men with intact dicks in the womens room, that post-op M2T should be OK, or if we want to keep all MAABs out, that F2T should be OK. not so fast! a flowchart is a great way to express a thought process that involves decision-making and criteria, where the conclusions are dependant on the input. aka. fact-specific. all men, MAABs and male-identified women love to think that radical feminists are just crazy, reactionary fools who dont have coherent arguments. when in fact, the opposite is true. THEY have no arguments. ours can be graphed, they are so clear.
Oh FCM, how adore you! Exactly as you say, radfem arguments are multi-faceted, anything but reactionary ignorance. And yes, they can’t keep up. A graph is exactly what’s needed to make it moar simplr, mapping out the thought process without self-indulgent derails!
Ps. I like that you said “sorry” to the FtT. Sorry, gentlemen. So sorry!
You do need a simple graphic! I don’t understand why they don’t get it. FtM people usually aren’t trying to use the women’s room because they aren’t women identified women. And if a transwoman was really in the bathroom as a woman, intending to use the bathroom, no one would even care. It wouldn’t even be an issue because nobody would even notice. But oh no, allegedly there’s this third group of trans people that believe they should be able to come into the women’s room, full of male privilege, dominant, and force every woman there to submit and support their entitled right to dominate the entire space. Geesh! This insistence that women’s feeling be ignored, that their fears be dismissed, that they must submit, is evidence that gender really is a learned behavior. If you’re dripping with male privilege, you aren’t welcome in the ladies room! Go pee in the bushes and I don’t care if you stand up or squat!
thats the thing isnt it? if they arent passing, they shouldnt even be trying to use the ladies room. and if they really do pass, we wouldnt notice. their whole thing seems to be that they dont have to pass, they can be there as obvious men, and we are just supposed to suck it up. their commentary on the subject confirms that this is true, and that they do hate us, and do wish us ill. see the latest troll on UPs thread, and the “graphics” he created that threaten harm to FAABs. “fuck you” is an appropriate response to this. noan called it! oh yes she did.
Ewww, I clicked the link to that trans-troll in Up’s thread. Yuck!
It’s really not about the bathroom at all, is it? It’s about wanting to threaten, harass, and intimidate women.
As yttik said over at UCP’s, those M2Ts who just want to come into the bathroom to piss and get out again, probably would not be noticed (or challenged), so no big deal really. But transjacktivists are not fighting for that, are they? They are fighting for this dude to be able to enter: https://scumorama.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/because-this-guy-allegedly-exists/
Transjacktivists are fighting to allow all rapist dudes to be allowed into female bathrooms. So yeah, we are more than a little wary of this ‘policy’ proposal.
Great graphic FCM, it should go up on the door of all female bathrooms, LOL.
As for “hormonal trans rex” on tumblr, that is just a rip off of an old radfem (joking) blog from about five years ago:
It seems they can never do anything original, they have to copy everything we do and transjack it for their own purpose, like all our theories.
(comment in mod, due to two links)
urgh, I just had a flashback. I went to a feminist conference last year and there was a bloke reading the paper in the toilet. I was so stunned I just did what any FAB would do and quickly hurried out.
Now I think he was a “trans woman” and just wanted to invade a female space, because of the kick it gave him, especially at a feminist conference.
He was *loitering* in there, that was the weird part.
WHat a rapist.
These men are so women-hating and rapetastic. What kind of sicko wants to dress in “woman-face” and demand that women STFU about women’s right to privacy from pervs in the toilet and shower rooms so he can get his freak on? Just use the bathroom and leave women out of it. Obsessed with access to female spaces they frame the bathroom meme as “we have a right to pee!” “Where do you expect us to pee?” Well who the fuck is telling them they don’t have the right to pee??? They have EVERY RIGHT to use the toilet designated for males. Where is the “civil rights” movement lobbying for the rights of males wearing lippy and a mini (and perhaps having an inverted penis with sigmoid colon fuck-hole sheath). Where is the trans civil rights movement fighting for the right to use the restroom (the biological male restroom)? Nowhere to be found. These male cowards just want to stomp all over the rights of females because that’s what they’re so damn used to doing, and they get off on it. It’s not about peeing. Not AT ALL. No one’s rights to pee are being infringed by having bathrooms assigned according to sex. Everyone has the right to pee. Female impersonators have the same right to pee in men’s toilets as any other male. And male impersonators are free to use them as well.
‘Rapetastic’ is right GM.
They are pissed off that toilets are demarcated by SEX (as in biological sex) and not airyfairy made up gender shit. They want the rapetastic dudes to have access. As yttik said, any M2T that passes for a FAB, who goes in and does not cause any trouble, goes into pee and comes out again, is unlikely to be challenged. What the transjacktivists are really fighting for is for cross-dressing perverts to have more access to victims. Ironically, they don’t even consider the cross-dressing pervs to be twanz.
Surely no F2T would WANT to use the women’s bathrooms as long as they successfully pass as men (so who wants them to use women’s bathrooms?). Others would probably be regarded as butch (although they don’t think they are butch)?
But why is that: on the one hand M2T are considered MAB and F2T are not considered FAB? Is it what experience taught you? (that would be a sufficient reason since reality is not necessarily symmetric)
P.S. I agree that M2Ts who pass as women are not an issue. Women who look like butches wouldn’t be an issue, too, would they? Is it cocky behaviour that distinguishes butches from not convincing F2Ms?
huh? theres no “considered” about it, when it comes to MAAB/FAAB. either you are MAAB, or you are FAAB. F2T are FAAB. for FAAB, and not MAAB, there is a second level of inquiry: do they identify as male or not? MAAB get kicked into the bushes no matter what.
personally, i might not have excluded F2T from the womens restroom, but since UP did, i graphed it, and i showed that it can be graphed, because it makes sense. aka theres a good reason for doing so.
This is the best graphic you’ve done. Thanks.
you are hurting the feelings of all my other graphics jilla. but thanks!
So men can NEVER be female-dentified (which I also believe to be true) but women can be male-identified OR female-identified. So it means that an oppressor can NEVER identify with the oppressed whereas the oppressed can identify with the oppressor OR not? Then there is more fluidity among the oppressed? Thanks for the response, FCM. (This might help other new readers, too)
Hi. My FtM exclusion rationale has been questioned, and I understand why. It’s a complicated matter and sometimes we don’t all agree. That’s OK. I can understand the concerns.
The long and short of it is that I do not want women who are so invested in masculine-I-dentification that they perceive themselves *as male* in my bathroom. These women seek to purposefully *disown* their female qualities IN FAVOR of male ones. I also think the effects of T are highly unpleasant. Intentionality is very important here. But I can only speak for myself, you know.
@Undercover Punk. Yes, this is the point. There should be more thought about it. I’m not even sure that F2Ts are symmetric to M2Ts. M2T are males (and psychology also shows this). But F2M? They are FAABs for sure.
Thanks. I think there definitely needs to be more discussion around this. I hope we can provoke some here. 🙂
F2Ts are not symmetrical to M2Ts — one of my comments on UP’s thread has some explanation about that (e.g., the lesbian issues, the reality of FABs’ learned fear of men, the claims around being “men” who can get pregnant and give birth).
This one, right, Noan?
No you do not only speak for yourself UP. I don’t want testosterone overdose in my private places either. Or my gym.
so let me see if i understand the concern here. is it a problem of enforcement? wanting F2T to do the right thing is one thing, and insisting that they dont “have their cake and eat it too” is fair. it just is. if they want to identify with the oppressor class so badly, then they can use their fucking toilets too. if they dont feel safe in there, take it up with the men. same with M2T; all trans should take their *beef with violent men* up with the fucking menz, and leave the women and the feminists out of it! we do enough. we really fucking do. its insulting to insist that we be the teat that everyone suckles on, or the skirt that everyone hides behind. its infuriating.
but wanting it to happen and making and then enforcing a rule are 2 different things. butch lesbians are afraid of getting caught up in the F2T net, if this rule is ever enforced. is this correct?
So men can NEVER be female-dentified (which I also believe to be true) but women can be male-identified OR female-identified. So it means that an oppressor can NEVER identify with the oppressed whereas the oppressed can identify with the oppressor OR not? Then there is more fluidity among the oppressed?
im not sure, still thinking about this one. i have never considered it in those terms before. at the start, i am having trouble with “there is more fluidity among the oppressed” because in general, if you are talking about “fluidity” in terms of having more options, NO, the oppressed have NO options, or no meaningful options. thats part of being oppressed; and part of being “privileged” if you want to use that word is that you DO have options, and you do have meaningful options. BUT then i am thinking about womens clothing, and how variety is encouraged with female but not for male dress. at the surface, it might appear as if women have more “fluidity” with our clothing options and the way we dress…but we really have few meaningful options, and cannot do anything meaningful to change our oppressed status, or to be generally pleasing to men, even with our dress. i will think on this more.
as for the flow chart, question #1, the first and most important question, is WERE YOU ASSIGNED MALE AT BIRTH? this is the defining moment, where you take the fork in the road. if you are MAAB, we never consider how you identify, its irrelevant. the MAAB problem is THE primary problem, its THE primary characteristic of the bathroom dilemma. i think we can all agree on that. the disagreement seems to be whether there is another fork in the road for FAABs, or if FAAB is all you need to gain access to FAAB spaces.
also, is it just me, or does this whole conversation make more sense if we *stop* saying “bathroom” and start saying FAAB-only spaces? is using the bathroom example, specifically, couching the argument in their terms? the whole reason they started using it in the first place is to be manipulative afterall. to make it seem like we are causing them PHYSICAL PAIN instead of emotional pain. as gallusmag has noted though, there IS something about the womens bathroom specifically that predatory men find appealing, and as someone else noted, its a pickup spot for men culturally. so maybe the bathroom is the perfect place to center the MAAB exclusion from female space.
for F2T though, does it make more sense to want to exclude them from say michfest or support groups or radical feminist discussions, and all women-identified-women and FAAB-only space (including bathrooms), without centering the convo around the bathroom? because it does feel like they have completely sold women down the river, theres a betrayal there and an antifeminist sentiment that would make their presence in a feminist context ring hollow. the bathroom part of it, for me, seems like its largely (if not completely) a “take your fear of violent men up with the men” sentiment, on behalf of the women who dont want to piss next to F2T. is this accurate?
i *do* think its problematic though that gender:male is specifically oppositional to gender:female, and that the way this occurs is often through violence against women. this cannot be lost on F2T who are trying to NOT “butch it up” but rather to gender:male it up, at womens obvious expense (by definition). how far are they willing to take this? i think its a legitimate question. and there *is* a particular physical vulnerablity about being in the toilet. we are more vulnerable there to dangerous adrenaline-surges too i think, when we see someone that looks male in a closed space with few exits, as opposed to seeing someone who looks male across a crowded room.
just my thoughts at the moment!
FCM, great point about re-centering the discussion around womens-only spaces, as opposed to the bathroom specifically. Radfem concerns about trans women in our bathroom are SAFETY FOCUSED. That’s keeping our eye on the ball. And F2Ts are not a *significantly* greater sexual or physical threat to women than other FAABs are. Despite my disdain for T!1!1!
Now, by *their own* definition, F2T have no right to be in the women’s bathroom. The problem is that radfems REJECT the idea that sex is or can be changed. So safety doesn’t justify F2T exclusion from the bathroom.
this cannot be lost on F2T who are trying to NOT “butch it up” but rather to gender:male it up, at womens obvious expense (by definition). how far are they willing to take this?
Right. How far are they willing to take it?? Which is what you’re saying about EXPECTING them to “do the right thing” according to their own stated desires, in terms of bathroom use. Yeah, I guess I don’t trust them to do that, either. Especially, as Noan has noted, *some* F2Ts are still agitating to be allowed to go to MichFest, for example.
I also think there *is* something about the oppressor/oppressed fluidity of I-dentity. Cause I always say that it’s WAY DIFFERENT to deliberately move *up* the social ladder than it is to move *down* it. Doesn’t matter what social class hierarchy you’re talking ’bout. Glorifying and appropriating the experiences/reality of someone with less social currency than you have is quite different than demanding entitlement to more social currency than you usually enjoy, isn’t it?
Yes, wanting to have the trappings of male privilege is perfectly normal, but F2T are going about it the wrong way.
Freud mistakenly called it penis envy, but women don’t envy penises, they envy the social, economic and political power of the men attached to them. And even envy is not the right word. You can’t ENVY somebody for having something that is rightfully yours. (Womb envy on the other hand, oh I believe in that)
M2T are just fetishizing oppression and femininity, which is a sick state of affairs. They’re doing nothing to change the status quo.
Yes, perhaps we should reframe the argument back into FAAB-only spaces vs ‘just bathrooms’. You are right FCM, they reframed the argument, I don’t think purely due to ‘causing M2T harm’ (by not allowing them to piss anywhere, is the inference) but they reframed it to bathroom in order for it to sound petty.
GM’s bathroom post was an excellent way to highlight the fascination that males have for women’s bathrooms, but I will point out, it is not just the bathrooms only, it is just that female bathrooms are common female-only spaces everywhere. They really just want access to any and all female-only space, like this dude (another of GM’s posts):
But, it is the thin-edge-of-the-wedge tactic. By officially allowing in ‘anyone who identifies as woman/female’, the “some dude” figure is allowed in – this is the biggest problem with legislating around the concept of ‘gender’, an internal characteristic, a self-declared characteristic.
We can see how Dorm Dude has made very little effort in pretending to ‘be a woman’, it is obvious to radfems that he is a creepy perv that just wants to get his rocks off by being in a woman’s dorm. The liberals, libfems, will side with this dude regardless of looking at the bigger picture with “aww, but [s]he identifies as a woman, so should be allowed in”. What neither the liberals or transjacktivists do is SET A BOUNDARY. They won’t even set the boundary of “no penis” (which is the part I highlight all the time), and so by not setting any boundaries, anyone, with a SELF-declared, INTERNAL, I-dentity, gets an all-access pass into any and every FAAB-space. Thin edge of the wedge.
In many ways we have already lost this war. The UK government have their Gender Recognition laws, which include declaring anyone woman/female after a 2-year GID assessment. There is no no-penis rule in that one either.
So the modern version of the eunuch guarding the harem, is actually a fully be-penised version of the eunuch. And the policing now includes at least the threat of rape, if not actual rape. And all FAAB-spaces are no longer FAAB-spaces any more. And transjacktivists have the nerve to call us the big meanies because we will not play along with their little game. We just know what they are up to.
Following on from FCM, who brought up the appearance of ‘more fluidity’ like with women’s fashion as the opposite in reality. It allows women as individuals to be judged ‘by fashion’ so opens them up to misogyny. It does not matter if individual women go along or shun fashion, they are still subject to the judgement. And BB made a good comment at her blog and mine about ‘clowning us up’, which is what fashion does, or it hobbles us. So dudes can laugh at us either way, if we follow fashion, they have their private little joke at our expense, if we refuse to follow fashion, we get the abuse because we are non-conformist. How often do dudes get criticised for their dress or appearance – almost never.
See, this frustrates me. We really need to be pushing the conversation forward! Its not a radfem concession to acknowledge that the PENIS matters. We can’t sit here and be so purist about our theory that we fail to agitate for the one and only BOUNDARY that we have any hope of being set. Ideally, yes, there would never be another “TransWoman,” but that’s not realistic, IMHO. And we are losing the war.
Help! HTML error!
We can’t sit here and be so purist about our theory that we fail to agitate for the one and only BOUNDARY that we have any hope of being set.
My statement was related to the current state of play in the UK. The UK govt has already made laws ignoring teh penis with regard to this (so never let it be said that M2T/tranz do not have support, they do, and I don’t recall any mass street protests to get it either, it was handed to them).
So that is what I mean when I say that in many ways we have lost the war, or at least significant ground within the war. We have already lost effective control over FAAB spaces (and services) in the UK. The rest of your countries will probably follow suit, like dominoes.
It is also an illustrative example of moving the goalposts too, by redefining sex [discrimination] and replacing it with gender [discrimination]. FAAB-only spaces and services are made impossible, or near-impossible, by the introduction of this gender bullshit. Sheila Jeffreys is correct when she says that gender/tranz is the important issue facing us today. You can also see this in the UK, that FAAB-only services have been undermined financially by the UK govt (Poppy Project). This has undermined, a backlash, against all the infrastructure that the second wave put in place.
I am not giving up, or conceding, but merely reporting the current state of play, as well as outlining the defensive position we are fighting from. Not helped by the libfems either.
I’m sorry, FAB, I didn’t mean anythig about what you said except that it’s the TRUTH. We. Are. Losing. Right or wrong, we have to be realistic about where we stand. And it’s not good at the moment. PENISES cause impregnation. As I say, its the only boundary that we can reasonably hope to enforce. Is it a compromise? YES. But what’s the alternative? Exactly, THIS.
No worries UCP. I was not really sure if you were hinting that I was being a bit pessimistic, and was not sure what ‘pushing the conversation forward’ really meant. So I clarified my position on what I was talking about.
Which is (libfems, take notes please!) we are witnessing the loss of (2nd wave instigated) FAB-only services and spaces, get a grip and stop trying to play nice, because they ain’t!
It certainly is now that we must remobilise, the theories are basically there for the most part (not saying to stop them coming, because the anti-feminists keep changing the rules of engagement, ie their crackpot theories).
And maybe I will make “Militant Monday” a regular thing, LOL
I am still waiting for plastic man to take that fucking tranny to task on the graphic response thread. I suspect I will be waiting a long, long time.
BTW, plastic “girl,” isn’t. As long as he doesn’t mind being called plastic MAN, and as long as he comments well, I don’t mind publishing him here. Femonade is still FAAB only of course.
Militant + Monday = YAY!
Femonade + FAAB Only = YAY!
OMG, Hormonal T.Rex is just begging to be torn apart. He’s all: “brain scans are conclusive evidence of my female-ness, but your uterus means nothing.” What a delusion moron.
I am trying to “push the conversation forward” so that it makes more *sense* and can dovetail with reality. For example, WHY don’t radfems want F2Ts in the women’s bathroom? Or don’t we care?? I mean, everyone knows *I* do, but my (somewhat emotional) reasoning was insufficient. Help!
yeah, HE stole my flowchart and put it up on his tumblr. how original! just like how he ripped off the radfem dinosaur blog. yawn.
anyway, i suspect that not wanting F2T in women-only spaces has to do with the feeling of betrayal, like i said. they are anti-feminist by definition (JUST LIKE ALL MAABs) so not wanting them in feminist spaces is a no-brainer. as for the bathroom…well i think its a fucking act of cowardice and hypocrisy that would cause them to seek refuge in the womens room, because they are too afraid of the OTHER MEN (HA) in the MENS ROOM. if they want to be men so badly, why not take them on, on their own turf? could it be because they are afraid of…being raped and impregnated by them? if this is the case…it should be obvious to the F2T (who are afraid of being impregnated) that they themselves ARENT men, afterall. so their attempts to erase the import of biological sex is just a bunch of shit, and they know it. if they just dont want to get beat up (and arent impregnable due to the T or surgery)…well i thought they wanted to be MEN? thats what men do, afterall. it doesnt mean they cant be FRIENDS, hell this is how men socialize much of the time! beating each other up, and getting beat up, is recreation for them. if the F2T dont want to do that…well AGAIN, maybe they arent really men afterall?
also, there seems to be a problem with enforcing the no F2T in the womensroom rule, although noone has responded to that one yet. anyone? if you could just make the rule, and not worry about enforcing it (ie. no butch lesbians would get caught in the F2T dragnet) would you want the rule, or not?
Your points are valid on the F2T and the sense of betrayal. And the activities of dudes in general, I do see them break into a fight for the slightest (no?) reason.
So glad I was not born a dude.
Lol, you really think that “YOU WERE RAISED AS A RAPIST SO YOU ARE ONE” is a rational argument?
You people spit in the faces of those that actually have been raped when you reduce everything to rape in this way. You’re degrading the amount of mental anguish that comes with rape in your pathetic efforts at sensationalism. You are harming women when you do this sort of thing, and you should feel horrible for it- not triumphant that you created a degrading and offensive graphic that plasters out your ignorance like an all-encompassing stain.
Wow the MTF rape apologist. “You are harming women by insinuating that males are the ones who rape”. “It HARMS WOMEN to point out that rape is a MALE ACT”. “You SPIT IN THE FACE of RAPE VICTIMS by POINTING OUT that it is MALES WHO RAPE”. “You DEGRADE RAPE VICTIMS by discussing the fact that RAPE IS AN ACT OF MALES AGAINST FEMALES”.
This from a male-to-female transsexual. THIS is the PERSPECTIVE of “MALE TO FEMALE” TRANSSEXUALS. There isn’t a SINGLE MTF TRANSSEXUAL countering this perspective on this thread even though MANY MANY MTF’s troll this blog.
THIS is why we reserve the right to spaces free from males.
YAAIHM comes from the (MRA) place that a crime is only a crime if it happens to a dude.
Stop trying to appropriate rape as a male-only experience – GTFO the internet you scum
oh, and btw, with the rape stats as either 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 women who will be raped or sexually assaulted within their lifetimes … do the fricken math, and count up the number of female posters on this an all other radfem threads.
We ain’t appropriating jackshit here… so again, GTFO the internet
The other bit of inferred MRAery in that comment was “real rape victims”, who are (supposedly) women who do everything patriarchy tells them (femininity, don’t be a slut, don’t dress like a slut, be a virgin etc etc). The thing of it is, none of that works either as prevention of rape, nor of being regarded a “real rape victim”. Even 11yo’s and 15yo girls are being packed raped these days, and they don’t even get the sympathy or designation of “real rape victim”. So fuck off.
Frequency of occurrence severity of consequence (impregnation)= Radfem theory.
If you can’t grasp this simple equation of female REALITY, you have NO credibility whatsoever.
oh you all are so excellent! thank you for taking this assclown to task while i was in the shower.
what he also missed of course is…WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. i never said MAABs are raised as rapists SO THEY ARE RAPISTS. he made a leap there, and attributed it to me. what i said was MAABs are raised as rapists SO WE DONT WANT THEM IN OUR RESTROOMS. see that nice sleight of hand he did there? too bad for him i know how to read…and i remember what i said. in case i or anyone forgot what i said though, there is a handy DIAGRAM to remind us.
reading comprehension fail!! in addition to what you all said!!
I can’t see my [ ] sign! HTML has a cosmic grudge against me. In my latest post I kept losing text before and after these: >>
I’m surprised that we didn’t get a nice side of *women rape too!!1!* while he was at it.
Hatemongerer. Stupiderer. 😛
Thanks for the link, UP.
I think I get it now. Men are insisting that F2T should be allowed in female-only spaces because men don’t care about gender identity: http://ballbuster4ever.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/men-dont-care-about-your-gender-identity/
Of course feminists don’t care about it either: http://fabmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/no-one-cares-about-your-gender-identity/
The problem might be about concessions (like what FCM wrote about). The main point is like yttik said: people with male privilege are not welcome or should be not welcome. BUT females (FAAB!) can gain male privilege under conditions (!!!) and temporarily limited (!!!). This would be the concession: females may gain male privilege BUT it can be taken away from them at any time. As long as women are convincingly disguised as men they will be TREATED LIKE MEN BY ANYONE. As long as the fact that they are women is hidden. It happend in the past (female warriors) and it’s happening now. But the male privige those women gain can be taken away from them if the truth is found out. So they gain male privilege and are not welcome as long as they still have it. We can’t see that they are less violent then MAAB. Butches are visibly female and don’t have male privilege.
M2T, even the convincing ones, lose male privilege but if they want to, they’ll tell the truth about being MAAB and regain it. So they make sure that they really never lose it. But this doesn’t matter because they are MAABs and therefore a potential threat. But if they really never told anyone they would be treated awfully/ like women by anyone. Here is the place for a limited concession, too.
Both don’t change society, obviously.
Deceit by M2T doesn’t make sense to me. Would you say the same thing about poor people who became rich? Do they matter at all? Or that much? Ok, I know it might be inapropriate to compare to different kinds of oppression but I don’t see the problem here. Is there even one woman alive who never betrayed women and feminism one way or the other? M2Ts seem to be the real problem. Besides I suspect that might be misogyny like it is common among females to pick on each other. But I can be wrong about this.
A person with male privilege over women is – regardlesss of the sex – always perceived as male (not necessarily masculine). This sounds like a good reason.
So if I were to make the graphic I would ask: 1. Do you have male privilege OVER FEMALES nowA? Non-trans MABs and F2Ts would be kicked out. 2. Do you have male entitelement and are you dangerous? Most M2Fs would be kicked out.
Does this make sense?
Would you say the same thing about poor people who became rich? Do they matter at all? Or that much?
I can answer this point easily FW, it is the exceptionalist argument, not the rule. Tokens in other words. Exceptions do not prove the (more general) rule.
the order of the questions can be altered, so that the order of people who get kicked out is the same as be FCM.
1. Male entilement and predator mentality? -> MAAS (and M2F)
2. Male privilege? -> aditionally F2T
I’m skeptical of re-framing the debate in terms of “privilege” and “predator mentality.” NOT because it isn’t true, but because we are fighting the dominant stream of thought in ways that are extremely difficult to substantiate. The sheer numerical DISPARITY between male and female sexual predators should be enough to convince a 5 year old that we have a serious fucking problem in regard to the social construction of “masculinity” and “hetero-SEXuality.” But it isn’t. People don’t understand the problem. They do not WANT to see the problem.
Additionally, many trans people–and I mean those who are actually PASSING–will deny the receipt of (“cis”) privilege to their graves. In fact, this is another problem: they want to foist “cis privilege” on all women, including gender-non-conformers who reject the “queer” and trans labels, while simultaneously denying the reality of their own gender-conformity privilege. I don’t want to derail with a discussion of the meaning of “CIS,”but my point is the trans narrative that frames them as having the WORST of everything. This is in conjunction with the refusal to acknowledge the prevalence of a “predator mentality” among MAABs.
Logically, however, I do not disagree with the latest question-framing.
PS. Economic status is not comparable to sex-based oppression.
Oops, perpetrator it is. (I read too many books about war, in which most perpetrators are men (obviously) who become predators)
Ok, I take back the economic status. And I don’t want to exclude myself blaming you for misogyny, I just despise other women (bdsm-folks) more than trans. Sorry, if this sounded otherwise. However, I wanted to find a logical argument, that’s all.
UP, feminists language will always be corrupted by others. Does it help to change the terms? “Women-identified Woman” kann be found on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-Identified_Woman
This is much more than can be said about the usual FAAB who is not a feminist (but welcome in female-only spaces). That is why I was confused because of the term in the graphic. And then there is this importance which is given to “identity”.
Besides, even if some women wished that they were men, they would still not get any male privilege as long as they looked female. + Females would be less afraid to counteract against them even if they tried to be dominant.
The problems of masculinity as gender (which are tied to the biological sex per definition) are male privilege and male entitlement (my guess). Violence as part of it. My questions adress these things. There may be better explanations though. Basically, I am critical of the graphic, too.
@Feuerwerferin, I lost you. I’m not sure what you are critical of, but if you could be clearer about that maybe we could communicate more effectively.
wait, whats wrong with the graphic?
also, YES theres a difference between “i self-identify as a man” and “i am a collaborator with the patriarchy and support PIV-centric sex”. question 2 deals with the first one only. i think that self-identifiying as a male places those FAABs in a one-up position over FAAB who self-indentify as female, BY DEFINITION. thats the whole point of making the distinction, and its offensive. its NOT depedant on whether they look like men and are treated like men IMO (because women can NEVER have true male privilege, which is the power to impregnate women and expolit that vulnerability for their own benefit). gender:male is literally built in oppostion to gender:female and is harmful to FAAB who idenfify as women. its kind of an academic point, but kind of not, since one way the opposition is supported is through violence. gender:male-ing it up COULD and in fact DOES include violence against women. implied violence counts.
i do agree that theres an enforcement problem, which we have talked about. if someone was FAAB and femme looking yet inside her own mind she self-identifed as male…well she would have to keep herself out of the womens restroom, because the rest of us wouldnt even know. its a problem with men who dont perform femininity yet self-identify as female too. yes all *zero* of them that acutally exist (talk about a fucking red herring). THEY want to be let into the womens room too. obviously they would be very easy to spot.
“i think that self-identifiying as a male places those FAABs in a one-up position over FAAB who self-indentify as female, BY DEFINITION.”
Sexism needs power in order to be effective, which is why women can’t be sexist against men but men can be and are sexist against women. Does the self-identification (wishful thinking) as a man really grand that power to a woman? Does it grand that power even if the offensive woman is visibly female? If so, why? How?
(Of course what she does is offnesive but there are women out there who call other women “bitches” or/and “whores”. Also offensive.)
I don’t think that wishful thinking grands the power to be sexist unless the offender is perceived and treated as a male by everyone/society(!!!). This would be an objective mesure whereas self-identification is not an objective mesure. I argue that treatment by society is the most important parameter. That is why T/self-identification would not be important.
I argue that self-identification doesn’t grand power but mimicry does. (main point)
Important is only whether the disguise works or not. Because: If other women don’t know that the offensive woman is a trans who can’t empregnate and rape them, they would still be afraid of rape because they CAN’T SEE/KNOW that it’s a disguised female. Here is male privilege! Obtained by women! But it is limited and can be taken away if the truth is discovered. (Here is the concession). It is a temporal achievement of male privilege! Like mimicry. It works (!!!) within certain limits. (Male privilege can’t be taken away from men though. But that’s not the topic.) Therefore my reframing of the questions. Besides M2Ts are treated with misogyny when the offender doesn’t know that they are trans. I’ve seen other feminists admit that much when arguing that trans encounter misogyny and NOT transphobia. Equally F2Ts obtain male privilege through mimicry. As long as their secret remains a secret. (And it’s not feminist but this is not the point either.)
The graphic makes the identification with men a distinguishing point. But I argue that mimicry is more important even though T is offensive. And I say that mimicry gives limited power but mere self-identification does not.
Was this understandable?
Again: Does the mere self-identification (wishful thinking) as a man really grand that power? Does it grand that power if the offensive woman is visibly female? If so, why?
FCM, I really like your blog and am reading the old texts, too. It’s just this one graphic. UP, I still haven’t gotten to your blog, yet. It’s about the argument.
yes but whats wrong with the graphic specifically, in your opinion?
it expresses exactly what it was meant to express. if you dont accept the IDEA the graph conveys, thats one thing. but i think the graph itself is fine, and says what it was intended to say. do you think it doesnt?
You, re right. The graph does convey the idea it intended to convey.
But my results are not exactly the same. I would olny exclude F2Ts who really pass as men but don’t bother with the rest (no matter how manly they wish they were or think they are) because I would only accept objective mesure (male privilege and mimicry) and not mere self-identification. But that’s what your graphic says: “identify as male?” This questions makes the result a bit messy. We don’t have to agree though. But I still would like to have an answer to the question how a female-looking “man” can be dominant/sexist towards women because I can’t see here the male gender at work. Or do you think that there is some sort of partial male gender at work? Do women take masculine-looking women more seriously or are they more afraid of them? (To what degree?) If so, I would be mistaken after all. But then not only F2Ts would be concerned. All masculine-looking women would be. And then the second question would be obsolete because of discrimination.
This would be women having gender-privilege over other women?
i dont think so. it would be more akin to being a violent religious nut or a psychopath wouldnt it? gender:male is built on virulent misogyny and violence against women. it does not exist independently of that.
i see where you are going though, because on the cis-priv threads we have said that women cannot oppress others with gender-related power, because we dont have any. does that assume the gender-powerless women are gender:female only? i dont know, i wasnt thinking about it at the time.
also, “female-looking men” impregnate women. thats all i need to know. they are a threat.
“i see where you are going though, because on the cis-priv threads we have said that women cannot oppress others with gender-related power, because we dont have any.”
That’s right. So which is it?
When I said “female looking “man”” I meant a woman who deludes herself. I was not refering to a MAB, but to a FAB like this one: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/ftms-fight-for-right-to-party-with-men-who-have-dicks/
Sie can’t do either thing. She looks female AND a bit feminine. (I do distinguish female (sex) and feminine (gender))
I see that it wasn’t a clear statement on my part, sorry about that.
Ok, does she have power or gender-privilege over other women??! She self-identifies as a man and you seem to care about that (your graphic says: “identify as male?” and your graphic doesn’t say anything else). I do not. My argument is framed differently and she is not excluded from female-only spaces (different results). And if I met her on the street or in a women’s bathroom I wouldn’t KNOW what she thinks unless we talked. Do you think she bullies other females like men do? Do you think she is more successful in doing it (bullying females) than the average FAB? Even if she called me a bitch without any reason I wouldn’t react in the same way as I would if she was really a man (ok, maybe I would). And I wouldn’t know that she thinks she’s a man unless she pointed this out.
Do butches have power or gender-privilege over other women? Society would probably perceive them as masculine (gender?) but not male (sex). Or let’s frame it more neutrally: do masculine looking women have gender-privilege over feminine-looking women? Isn’t it rather convenient for females to look feminine?
“It is true however that people are rewarded or punished under the heteropatriarchy depending on how well they conform to their assigned role, so it might make more sense to speak of “gender-conformity privilege” instead (which means that a transwoman who “passes” and adopts feminine trappings and behavior may be granted far more benefits out in the world than a butch woman).” (Miska)
And as for F2Ms who are just not convincing: it is difficult to tell them apart from drag kings, queers or butches, sorry UP. I really am. But I don’t know unless I ask.
All of them wouldn’t be excluded from female-only spaces by me.
Besides the self-identifying trans claim that their gender is not based on their sex. But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Females who think they are men or wish they were men can’t possibly have a male gender. Or can they? If mimicry works, they don’t need it very much because even shy men oder not very masculine men still have male privilege, right? Appearance matters. So I guess that it is meaningless when non-mimcry or unsuccessfully mimicried FABs claim to have a male gender. Therefore their identity doens’t matter. And there is no need to exclude them from female-only spaces. Right?
I correct myself. The exclusion of F2Ts is not necessary. Anyone who looks like a man is to stay out and that’s it. That would only be the successfully mimicried F2Ts.
Ok, I see of course that SHE is pain… : http://fabliberationist.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/chaz-youre-a-dyke-not-a-dude-accept-it/
Abominable. Her partner should dump her. Her words remind me of other women’s though. A female aquantance of a friend of mine says that she prefers to socialize with men because she thinks that women are annoying, slandering etc.. She is a normal woman, not a feminist. I tried to talk to her about it but…
Anyway. Does Chaz have male privilege over women? Or other gender-related privilege? Is she more of a nuisance than a threat? Does she even go to female-only spaces? (I don’t think it is enough to exclude a woman from female-only spaces just because she is disgusting)
see at 4:00 where he complains that i approved his “im going to piss on radfems” comment. be careful though, he has a cold and keeps wiping the snot off his face. EW.
He blames you for making him “look bad” BY APPROVING HIS COMMENT. HAhahahahah
I like where he says being a man makes him a “better feminist” than those silly people born female. Whattaguy!
I see now that I was mistaken: http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2011/10/truth-about-transmen-testosterone.html
I’m sorry for the interruption.
So, FtM’s can’t use the women’s restroom, since they’re identifying as male. But FtM’s also can’t use the men’s restroom, since the restrooms should be segregated based on physical sex, not gender identification. Therefore, FtM’s cannot use *either* bathroom… MtF’s can still use the men’s room, though, since they’re biologically male, but FtM’s can’t use their bio-female status to get into the women’s bathroom because they might still be seen as a threat..? Thus, a certain class of bio-females (FtMs) are the ones getting the worst deal here, as they aren’t allowed in either bathroom. You’re in favor of them having less rights than the bio-males, and yet you have the audacity to claim to be in favor of women’s rights… (Yes, I know the FtMs would be the first to say they’re not female, but what about female-identified butch WBW, who might look indistinguishable from FtM’s? A lot of FtM’s I’ve seen are actually considerably less masculine-looking than a lot of butch women like myself.)
you are wildly misguided if you think i give a flying fuck about who uses the mens room. i dont.
Comments are closed.
Blog at WordPress.com.