Feminism Is Not An Existential Sheild
trans inclusion should change the dynamic
Forum: camp_trans list
Date: 08/04/2003
On 8/4/03 3:08 PM, "Bobbi Hume" wrote:
True, only those who hold the power can oppress others, but not across the board. women don't have power in the gender realm, so they can't oppress men. but what about race? age? ethnic origin? sexuality? class? are you saying that white women can't oppress women of colour? rich women can't oppress poor women?
Again, we were talking gender, not race, physical ability, class, or even sexual preference.
No, we are talking about being transsexual. Non-transsexual people have power and privilege over transsexual people in this society. Being a female non-transsexual will not negate her cissexist privilge any more than being a white female would negate her white privilege.
Why can't we hold a respectful conversation about the topic at hand without throwing around accusations?
Since when is talking about power and privilege an "accusation"? Are feminists "accusing" men of having male privilege, or simply stating their analysis?
In my humble opinion, this is one huge reason the dykes and the trans community can never seem to communicate.
Yes, I have to agree that some (white, middle-clas, able- bodied, non-trans, etc.) dykes' inability to recognize that they too can be privileged in some way is one of the obstacles for them to communicate with trans people, as well as dykes of colour, working-class dykes, dykes with disabilities, etc.
Emi K.
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.
Date: 08/04/2003
On 8/4/03 6:44 PM, "Bobbi Hume" wrote:
No, we are talking about being transsexual. Non- transsexual people have power and privilege over transsexual people in this society. Being a female non-transsexual will not negate her cissexist privilge any more than being a white female would negate her white privilege.
Aren't transsexual issues in part gender issues?
You could say that. You could also say that homophobia is in part an issue of gender. Does that mean that gay men or straight women do not have any power and privilege over lesbians?
Yes, I have to agree that some (white, middle-clas, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) dykes' inability to recognize that they too can be privileged in some way is one of the obstacles for them to communicate with trans people
I would like to remind you that communication is a two-way street. My point, Emi, is pointing fingers and throwing around acusations is no way to solve a problem. By using the words "dykes' inabilty to..." you are not only labeling all dykes, but you are accusing.
Interesting. You keep complaining about being "accused," and yet there is no "accusation" except in your mind. Sure, anything can be turned into an "accusation" if you intentionally leave out important words in someone else's comments or otherwise misquote those you disagree with.
If what I said above amounts to an "accusation" that's wrong and should not be made, then that must mean that every single (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) dyke recognizes (intellectually as well as through their actions) that she can be privileged because of her race, class, ability, cissexuality, etc. This is obviously false, and trivializes many women's experiences within women's and lesbian communities.
And describing women of colour, working-class women, women with disabilities, transsexual women and others as "pointing fingers and throwing around accusations" when they start discussions about racism, classism and other oppressions that operate among women is a traditional tactics used by some (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) women to silence these discussions.
My point was to come together in a positive manner and see how we can help each other.
Somehow, your intent and behavior seem to be in contradiction.
Emi K.
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.
Date: 08/05/2003
On 8/5/03 6:51 AM, "Bobbi Hume" wrote:
You could also say that homophobia is in part an issue of gender. Does that mean that gay men or straight women do not have any power and privilege over lesbians?
I am sorry, I am missing your point here.
To say that the issue A is in part the issue B does not mean that people who are oppressed by the issue B (but not by the issue A) cannot be privilege in the issue A.
A = transphobia, homophobia, sexism
B = "gender"
For example:
a) Gay men are targeted by homophobia. So in a way they suffer from gender oppression. But they still have male privilege.
b) Women are targeted by sexism. So in a way they suffer from gender oppression. But they still have heterosexual privilege.
c) Lesbians are targeted by both sexism and homophobia. So in a way they suffer from gender oppression. But they still have the privilege of being non-transsexual.
In your post, you negated c), so you would be logically inconsistent, hypocritical and self-serving if you also didn't negate a) and b).
I think this is what the festies fear. This sounds distinctly patriarchal and reminiscent of women hearing, "it's all in your mind" since the beginning of time.
You said "By using the words 'dykes' inabilty to...' you are not only labeling all dykes, but you are accusing." However, before "dykes" I put a long qualifier to show that I was only talking about "some (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) dykes." You made up the part that I was "labeling all dykes." You made it up, because it does not exist anywhere except in your mind.
And yet, you call it "patriarchal" when someone corrects your mischaracterisation of their comment--which, again, is a classic tactic used by some (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) women to stall discussions about the issues of race, class, ability, cissexuality, etc.
I didn't misquote anyone, I cut and paste everything from text, I did pull phrases I had questions about.
You took my comment wildly out of context and even pretended that there weren't any context (i.e. I specified "some white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc. dykes," and yet you pretended that I was talking about all dykes). That is misquoting.
When did I do this again? I didn't once comment on the lives of WOC, differently-abled women or etc.
You keep using the same old tactics to which generations of women of colour, working-class women, women with disabilities, transsexual women, and others have said "enough, stop silencing us." Of course that's offensive to all of these people because it shows complete disrespect for what they have been saying for at least three decades.
What I said was that the trans community aimed acusations at dykes and that I didn't see that as a worthy approach.
You haven't shown a single evidence of an "accusation" except the one that you made up by butchering someone else's statement.
Your job is complete. I no longer feel safe to speak here and will unsubscribe from this board immediately.
Go away. Don't expect others to tolerate your offensive comments and tactics just to make you feel safe. While I can't possibily undo all the damages you are causing, I can at least make it as uncomfortable as possible for you to continue spewing hate and ignorance disguised as "feminism."
To me, feminism means dissenting and contradicting the way things currently are: it's unfortunate that some people have turned it into an existential shield to dismiss all criticisms, thereby preserving the status quo.
The sad thing is, you have all of these potential allies in the lesbian community and you don't see how your patriarchal approach negates women,
As I point out, calling legitimate criticisms of individual lesbian or the "lesbian community" as "patriarchal" to dismiss them is a tactic used by some (white, middle-class, able- bodied, non-trans, etc.) women to silence the critics.
yet your mission is to be accepted by this same community.
I sense a thinly veiled threat here: if you want to be accepted, silence your criticisms, however legitimate they might be. Again, a classic tactic used by some (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) dykes. But a commitment to social justice should not be conditional on the oppressed group being passive and obedient. I hope that we are talking about social justice here, and not whether or not to include certain people into your high-school clique.
I now see what they mean when they speak of how frightened they are that allowing T's into the fest will change the dynamic.
I hope it will change the dynamic, because as it is the existing dynamic within the "lesbian community" (such as that represented by your comments) often result in silencing of women of colour, working-class women, women with disabilities, transsexual women, etc. In fact, if transwomen are welcomed but the fundamental dynamic didn't change, I'd consider that only half a success.
Nonetheless, I don't represent Camp Trans. I've never even attended it. So it's probably not fair for you to judge Camp Trans based on your communication with me--that would be as wrong as "labeling all dykes" as racist just bcause some are.
Emi K.
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.
Date: 08/05/2003
On 8/5/03 5:20 PM, "Bobbi Hume" wrote:
Go away? How dismissive, thank you.
You are welcome. But I thought you said you were going to leave this list "immediately"--what's keeping you here? Did you change your mind?
I expected nothing but dialogue.
And you have chosen to terminate the dialogue when you stated "I no longer feel safe to speak here and will unsubscribe from this board immediately." Don't act like you are being asked to leave against your will.
My feeling safe has nothing to do with conversation but has everything to do with the name calling I have experienced.
You were not called names. You made offensive, hateful, and/or ignorant comments, for which you were confronted. If you think this is not the case, show me a single evidence where I (or others on this list) called you names. You can't.
Your use of "feeling safe" as a tool to dismiss criticism is tired and old. And it's at the core of the controversy at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival: a certain group of people, the dominant group, feels entitled to exclude or dismiss those who criticize or confront it, because the presence or voices of the marginalised group makes the majority "feel unsafe." It's not about safety at all--it's about entitlement and privilege.
Again, you don't know anything about me other than how to twist what I have said.
Show me a single evidence where I "twisted" what you said. "Twisting" someone else's comment is like saying that I "labeled all dykes" negatively, when the truth is that I specifically referred to "some (white, middle-class, able-bodied, non-trans, etc.) dykes." If you think I've twisted your comments like you did mine, show me where. Or else, stop making false allegations--it doesn't help your position at all.
Keep alienating everyone who attempts to understand.
This is a classic passive-aggressive attack employed by members of the dominant group to shift the responsibility to educate them about oppressions they don't experience to those who are marginalised by them.
Do as Sadie suggested and stop wasting your time on everyone who disagrees with you or challenges you, that way only those who currently see your position will be the only ones that ever do.
I'm not wasting my time. I don't think I'm going to change your mind about anything, but as I've said before, my goal is to make it as uncomfortable as possible for you to continue spewing ignorance and hate on this list. And it worked--it made you feel so "unsafe" (which must mean "uncomfortable," since you can't physically get hurt over an email dispute) that you've decided to leave! Now, do as you said yourself and go away.
Also, I'm planning to put this dialogue in my next 'zine (I'll only include my own posts, which quotes your posts-- I'm willing to include your entire posts if you wish). That way, it will help more people understand what NOT to say or expect if one is trying to become an ally to any marginalised group.
Emi K.
--
http://eminism.org/ * Putting the Emi back in Feminism since 1975.