Blog # 81: What They Call “Womyn-Only” Space is Really Cisgender-Only Space
Posted on May 19, 2012 by transmeditations
One of the things that has irked me about the renewed “debates” about
women-only space is that the defenders of “womyn-born-womyn” (WBW)
policies keep utilizing specious counter-examples to try to defend
their position. For example, those of us who are criticizing a
non-inclusive women’s space are asked: “would you critique a
transgender-only space? No??? You’re a hypocrite!” Apparently those
who espouse this position need a reminder of Social Justice 101.
Women-only space is necessary. Women are oppressed under the
patriarchy, and need space to heal from the wounds of make-supremacy,
misogyny and sexism. Trans women are women, and thus deserve to be
included in this women-only space. Transgender people are also a
targeted social group, and thus need space to discuss cis-supremacy,
cissexism, transphobia and trans-misogyny as an oppressed social
group. The same goes for People of Color, People with Disabilities,
Old People, and other targeted/oppressed/subordinated social groups
within a given society.
Agent/Dominant/Oppressor social groups do not need separatist spaces
to heal from oppression. They are in the privileged, dominant
categories, and thus the society is set up to cater to their
identities, needs, experiences and viewpoints. From the standpoint of
social justice, diversity and anti-oppression work, the only reason
for separate spaces for privileged/dominant/agent groups would be to
work on their status as oppressors, interrogate their privilege, and
talk about how to be better allies to oppressed peoples.
I would support men’s space that was formed specifically to discuss
male sexism, men’s violence against women, pro-feminist allyship, etc.
I would support a white caucus that was formed to discuss white
privilege, white racism and learning to become better allies to people
of color. I would also support a cisgender group where people learn
about their cis privilege, cissexist oppression and their own role in
interrupting and challenging transphobia and trans-misogyny.
However, I do not support a cis-only women’s space to talk about
women’s oppression in a general sense because it is predicated on a
false boundary and an exclusionary politics. If it is cis women only,
then they should be talking about their superior social status AS
cissexuals over transgender, transsexual and genderqueer people. What
the organizers of cis-exclusive women-only space are proposing leaves
out the voices of trans women, one of the most exploited,
marginalized, and oppressed groups of women all over the globe. And
conference materials that posit a discussion of ”radical feminist
critiques of gender and queer theory” mean that radical cis feminists
who are NOT trans or queer will be talking about queers and trans
folks: defining our reality, distorting our lives, and using their
cis-privilege to demean, degrade and debase our lives and struggles AS
women. To say that this is not “fair” is a supreme understatement.
Many years ago, the disability rights movement developed a slogan for
their movement that is vitally important: “nothing about without us.”
They were tired of non-disabled people with the full weight of
individual, institutional and cultural able-bodied privilege making
decisions about their lives without any opportunity to speak from
their own experiential authority. The time of cisgender people
getting the final say about trans peoples’ lives is also over, sorry
to inform the “rad fems” of the world. But it is not surprising given
that this is the same group that loves to usurp the experiences of
other groups such as sex workers for their own ideological and
political ends without actually listening to the full range of sex
worker activists and writers views on their own lives and experiences.
This is a form of discursive violence and ideological colonization
that trans people, sex workers and others will flatly refuse to
co-sign, whether from right-wing moralists or pseudo-radicals from the
Left.
If dominant/oppressor/agent social groups are meeting together and
their aim is not to further social justice, liberation and equality
for the corresponding subordinated/targeted/oppressed social group
within the same social identity category, then as progressives we have
every right to interrogate their very reason and rationale for
meeting. If men are meeting together, not to interrogate patriarchy,
repudiate sexism, and explore male privilege, but to decry the
supposed victimization of men by women, deny systemic sexism, or
reverse patriarchal reality to posit women as more powerful in
society, then this meeting is counter to social justice and would be
accurately called a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) like group and
rightfully condemned. If heterosexuals meet to form a “Straight Pride
Day” event in their workplace or university campus, rather than
interrogate heterosexism, their own straight privilege, and their need
to demonstrate allyship to queers, then one could rightfully condemn
this separatist space as furthering the status quo and systemic
oppression.
Similarly, a group of cis women coming together to condemn transgender
and transsexual people is not a productive, healthy use of separatist
space, nor is it in keeping in line with the mission of social
justice, diversity, and inclusive, multicultural feminism. So, even a
cursory examination of the “Rad Fem 2012” website reveals that their
proposed conference is not an example of women-only space, but of
cisgender-only space. And it is not a cisgender-only space to
interrogate cisgender privilege, challenge cis-supremacy, discuss
trans-misogyny and tactics for cis women to become better allies to
trans women/people. It is a cis-exclusive women’s event designed to
further transphobia, institutionalize cissexism and foster transphobia
and misinformation. And what’s worse is that trans women, by virtue
of our very exclusion, are not even given a chance to respond to such
attacks and vitriol, thus making the conference a textbook example of
something that is antithetical to progressive, “radical” or
revolutionary social justice, and much more in keeping in line with
neo-conservative, right-wing and reactionary political platforms. It
is no accident that many “rad fems” have jumped with glee on the
cis-supremacist article “America in Transition.” This disgusting
anti-trans hate article from the far-right publication “The American
Spectator” is now being vigorously promoted by the “rad fem”
Blogosphere. And yet they repeatedly claim not to be in bed with the
right wing? Hmmmmm…..
To recap, what “Rad Fem 2012” is calling “women-only” space is
actually cisgender-only space. Even a cursory examination of their
web site and a basic understanding of Sociology and Social Justice 101
reveals that their event is not comparable to other separate identity
spaces utilized by targeted groups in service of healing from
oppression or separate identity spaces used by dominant groups in
service of progressive allyship or using privilege to transform
socio-cultural institutions. Rather, this cisgender-only gathering is
being utilized to further cis-supremacy, transphobia and the
institutionalization of trans-misogyny in society and within feminism.
Why this matters is that their attempts to call us “hypocrites” for
critiquing cis-exclusive women’s space but not interrogating
transgender-only space, people of color-only space, etc is specious.
It is like comparing apples and oranges. I call bullshit! Their
space is NOT comparable to other targeted social groups spaces because
they are NOT principally a women-only space because they do NOT
include all WOMEN! Their space is constructed principally a
cisgender-supremacist space, and thus a more apt parallel would be to
compare them to Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) political spaces,
white-supremacist spaces such as the KKK and neo-Nazi party spaces,
etc. Given that the architect of anti-trans feminism Janice Raymond
wrote that transsexualism should be “morally mandated out of
existence” then their relation to trans exterminationism and genocide
should be all the more clear. And since that same founder of
anti-trans hatred in feminism successfully worked to get transsexual
medical care defunded by the government, and many, many transsexual
people suffered as a result of this, then the comparison to
established hate groups stands.
I would like to end this Blog Post with a quote by one of my personal
heroes, writer, activist and warrior Leslie Feinberg:
“Transsexual women are not a Trojan horse trying to infiltrate women’s
space. There have always been transsexual women helping to build the
women’s movement –they are part of virtually every large gathering of
women. They want to be welcomed into women’s space for the same
reason every woman does—to feel safe…What should the sign on the door
of the women’s movement read? I think the key to victory are these
three simple words: ‘All Women Welcome.’” (from Transgender Warriors)
--
About transmeditations
Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan is a professor, activist, writer and speaker.
--
Blog # 81: What They Call “Womyn-Only” Space is Really Cisgender-Only Space
Posted on May 19, 2012 by transmeditations
One of the things that has irked me about the renewed “debates” about
women-only space is that the defenders of “womyn-born-womyn” (WBW)
policies keep utilizing specious counter-examples to try to defend
their position. For example, those of us who are criticizing a
non-inclusive women’s space are asked: “would you critique a
transgender-only space? No??? You’re a hypocrite!” Apparently those
who espouse this position need a reminder of Social Justice 101.
Women-only space is necessary. Women are oppressed under the
patriarchy, and need space to heal from the wounds of make-supremacy,
misogyny and sexism. Trans women are women, and thus deserve to be
included in this women-only space. Transgender people are also a
targeted social group, and thus need space to discuss cis-supremacy,
cissexism, transphobia and trans-misogyny as an oppressed social
group. The same goes for People of Color, People with Disabilities,
Old People, and other targeted/oppressed/subordinated social groups
within a given society.
Agent/Dominant/Oppressor social groups do not need separatist spaces
to heal from oppression. They are in the privileged, dominant
categories, and thus the society is set up to cater to their
identities, needs, experiences and viewpoints. From the standpoint of
social justice, diversity and anti-oppression work, the only reason
for separate spaces for privileged/dominant/agent groups would be to
work on their status as oppressors, interrogate their privilege, and
talk about how to be better allies to oppressed peoples.
I would support men’s space that was formed specifically to discuss
male sexism, men’s violence against women, pro-feminist allyship, etc.
I would support a white caucus that was formed to discuss white
privilege, white racism and learning to become better allies to people
of color. I would also support a cisgender group where people learn
about their cis privilege, cissexist oppression and their own role in
interrupting and challenging transphobia and trans-misogyny.
However, I do not support a cis-only women’s space to talk about
women’s oppression in a general sense because it is predicated on a
false boundary and an exclusionary politics. If it is cis women only,
then they should be talking about their superior social status AS
cissexuals over transgender, transsexual and genderqueer people. What
the organizers of cis-exclusive women-only space are proposing leaves
out the voices of trans women, one of the most exploited,
marginalized, and oppressed groups of women all over the globe. And
conference materials that posit a discussion of ”radical feminist
critiques of gender and queer theory” mean that radical cis feminists
who are NOT trans or queer will be talking about queers and trans
folks: defining our reality, distorting our lives, and using their
cis-privilege to demean, degrade and debase our lives and struggles AS
women. To say that this is not “fair” is a supreme understatement.
Many years ago, the disability rights movement developed a slogan for
their movement that is vitally important: “nothing about without us.”
They were tired of non-disabled people with the full weight of
individual, institutional and cultural able-bodied privilege making
decisions about their lives without any opportunity to speak from
their own experiential authority. The time of cisgender people
getting the final say about trans peoples’ lives is also over, sorry
to inform the “rad fems” of the world. But it is not surprising given
that this is the same group that loves to usurp the experiences of
other groups such as sex workers for their own ideological and
political ends without actually listening to the full range of sex
worker activists and writers views on their own lives and experiences.
This is a form of discursive violence and ideological colonization
that trans people, sex workers and others will flatly refuse to
co-sign, whether from right-wing moralists or pseudo-radicals from the
Left.
If dominant/oppressor/agent social groups are meeting together and
their aim is not to further social justice, liberation and equality
for the corresponding subordinated/targeted/oppressed social group
within the same social identity category, then as progressives we have
every right to interrogate their very reason and rationale for
meeting. If men are meeting together, not to interrogate patriarchy,
repudiate sexism, and explore male privilege, but to decry the
supposed victimization of men by women, deny systemic sexism, or
reverse patriarchal reality to posit women as more powerful in
society, then this meeting is counter to social justice and would be
accurately called a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) like group and
rightfully condemned. If heterosexuals meet to form a “Straight Pride
Day” event in their workplace or university campus, rather than
interrogate heterosexism, their own straight privilege, and their need
to demonstrate allyship to queers, then one could rightfully condemn
this separatist space as furthering the status quo and systemic
oppression.
Similarly, a group of cis women coming together to condemn transgender
and transsexual people is not a productive, healthy use of separatist
space, nor is it in keeping in line with the mission of social
justice, diversity, and inclusive, multicultural feminism. So, even a
cursory examination of the “Rad Fem 2012” website reveals that their
proposed conference is not an example of women-only space, but of
cisgender-only space. And it is not a cisgender-only space to
interrogate cisgender privilege, challenge cis-supremacy, discuss
trans-misogyny and tactics for cis women to become better allies to
trans women/people. It is a cis-exclusive women’s event designed to
further transphobia, institutionalize cissexism and foster transphobia
and misinformation. And what’s worse is that trans women, by virtue
of our very exclusion, are not even given a chance to respond to such
attacks and vitriol, thus making the conference a textbook example of
something that is antithetical to progressive, “radical” or
revolutionary social justice, and much more in keeping in line with
neo-conservative, right-wing and reactionary political platforms. It
is no accident that many “rad fems” have jumped with glee on the
cis-supremacist article “America in Transition.” This disgusting
anti-trans hate article from the far-right publication “The American
Spectator” is now being vigorously promoted by the “rad fem”
Blogosphere. And yet they repeatedly claim not to be in bed with the
right wing? Hmmmmm…..
To recap, what “Rad Fem 2012” is calling “women-only” space is
actually cisgender-only space. Even a cursory examination of their
web site and a basic understanding of Sociology and Social Justice 101
reveals that their event is not comparable to other separate identity
spaces utilized by targeted groups in service of healing from
oppression or separate identity spaces used by dominant groups in
service of progressive allyship or using privilege to transform
socio-cultural institutions. Rather, this cisgender-only gathering is
being utilized to further cis-supremacy, transphobia and the
institutionalization of trans-misogyny in society and within feminism.
Why this matters is that their attempts to call us “hypocrites” for
critiquing cis-exclusive women’s space but not interrogating
transgender-only space, people of color-only space, etc is specious.
It is like comparing apples and oranges. I call bullshit! Their
space is NOT comparable to other targeted social groups spaces because
they are NOT principally a women-only space because they do NOT
include all WOMEN! Their space is constructed principally a
cisgender-supremacist space, and thus a more apt parallel would be to
compare them to Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) political spaces,
white-supremacist spaces such as the KKK and neo-Nazi party spaces,
etc. Given that the architect of anti-trans feminism Janice Raymond
wrote that transsexualism should be “morally mandated out of
existence” then their relation to trans exterminationism and genocide
should be all the more clear. And since that same founder of
anti-trans hatred in feminism successfully worked to get transsexual
medical care defunded by the government, and many, many transsexual
people suffered as a result of this, then the comparison to
established hate groups stands.
I would like to end this Blog Post with a quote by one of my personal
heroes, writer, activist and warrior Leslie Feinberg:
“Transsexual women are not a Trojan horse trying to infiltrate women’s
space. There have always been transsexual women helping to build the
women’s movement –they are part of virtually every large gathering of
women. They want to be welcomed into women’s space for the same
reason every woman does—to feel safe…What should the sign on the door
of the women’s movement read? I think the key to victory are these
three simple words: ‘All Women Welcome.’” (from Transgender Warriors)
--
About transmeditations
Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan is a professor, activist, writer and speaker.
--
