Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

[Treacle Toes]

You choose to keep your witch hunt ambiguous.

She hasn't been and isn't being ambiguous. You are asking her to name names, which in itself is encouraging her to square up/point the finger at someone.

This conversation has meandered through the very personal and the more general. A lot of questions have been asked and haven't been answered. I still say the detail is important. Unless people are happy to explain what their fears are about being accepting of and/or inclusive of trans* people we can never know..unfortunately that does leave a gaping hole of 'just because' which as you know never suggests anything positive.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm leaving this. It's too polarised.

you on one hand and everyone else on the other

 

[Treacle Toes]

I'm leaving this. It's too polarised.

Binary surely

 

[Athos]

If you're not engaging in Mccarthyism yourself - you'll provide the evidence that excluding trans women isn't bigoted.

Are you suggesting it's impossible that there could be any motivation for excluding trans women from women-only spaces other than bigotry? What about the purely practical argument that it's the best way to ensure that men are kept out, since to allow anyone who purports to identify as a woman could easily be exploited by a cis man seeking to infiltrate? Personally, I think that's a highly unlikely eventuality, but these women's assessment of risks/priorities might be different from mine - informed by their own experiences, but not based on bigotry.

 

[Citizen66]

you on one hand and everyone else on the other

If you do a victory dance I'll piss on your leg.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Are you suggesting it's impossible that there could be any motivation for excluding trans women from women-only spaces other than bigotry?

Who knows? The question has been asked repeatedly but no answers/experiences have emerged.

What about the purely practical argument that it's the best way to ensure hat men are kept out, since to allow anyone who purports to identify as a woman could easily be exploited by a cis man seeking to infiltrate? (Personally, I think that's a highly unlikely eventuality, but these women's assessment of risks/priorities might be different from mine - informed by their own experiences.)

Do you have experience of this happening? If not it seems like you are imagining what other people might imagine.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's the bathroom argument again.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you do a victory dance I'll piss on your leg.

you're too late. piss on your own leg instead.

 

[Sea Star]

It's the bathroom argument again.

And women who do not conform to what is considered a female appearance can have their genitals checked before entry?

Masculine looking cis women have already found themselves being excluded from ladies toilets in the US.

 

[Athos]

Who knows? The question has been asked repeatedly but no answers/experiences have emerged.


Do you have experience of this happening? If not it seems like you are imagining what other people might imagine.

I think the 'infiltration' argument is one used by some groups which exclude trans women (and referred to earlier in th thread). Personally, I suspect the risk is massively overstated. But perhaps that's understandable from women who have been abused by men. And it's not the same thing as being based on bigotry, is it?

 

[purenarcotic]

Excluding trans women from women only spaces is exclusionary because it's excluding women from women only spaces. I have no idea what genitalia has to do with anything as it's quite unusual to ask anyone accessing a service / a group / whatever that isn't gynaecological in nature to show us their bits to help us determine whether they are a man or a woman.

I have dipped in and out of the thread so apologies if the above is covered ground.

 

[cesare]

I think the 'infiltration' argument is one used by some groups which exclude trans women (and referred to earlier in th thread). Personally, I suspect the risk is massively overstated. But perhaps that's understandable from women who have been abused by men. And it's not the same thing as being based on bigotry, is it?

I've been abused by men. Why is my non-trans-exclusionary argument less valid?

 

[Athos]

And women who do not conform to what is considered a female appearance can have their genitals checked before entry?

Masculine looking cis women have already found themselves being excluded from ladies toilets in the US.

It's daft. And it's consequences are discriminatory. But that's not the same as being motivated by bigotry.

 

[Citizen66]

There are women - feminists - that *do* argue against being trumped by this bigotry card though. Rightly or wrongly, should their views be dismissed as bigoted?

 

[Athos]

I've been abused by men. Why is my non-trans-exclusionary argument less valid?

Becasue the absence of trans women wouldn't make you feel unsafe (in terms of the threat from men) in that space, I assume?

But that's really beside the point. The issue wasn't the relative strength of the competing arguments, but whether the motivation would be bigoted in that instance. Would you describe women who organised on the basis of my example as bigots?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I think the 'infiltration' argument is one used by some groups which exclude trans women (and referred to earlier in th thread). Personally, I suspect the risk is massively overstated. But perhaps that's understandable from women who have been abused by men. And it's not the same thing as being based on bigotry, is it?

Can we become 'bigots' and exclusionary because of our own experiences of and reactions to prejudice? Yes I think we can. It's a complex thing though and how we reason that to ourselves is the crucial 'detail'.

Which kinda leads back to the subject of the OP actually. Deploying the strategies of 'your' oppressors is a complicated but very real thing in my experience. Internalised prejudice, reactions to prejudice and how we all deal with those things is important.

 

[cesare]

Becasue the absence of trans women wouldn't make you feel unsafe (in terms of the threat from men) in that space, I assume?

But that's really beside the point. The issue was whether the motivation would be bigoted in that instance. Would you describe women who organised on the basis of my example as bigots?

I'd feel unsafe if someone did a genital check on me before admitting me to space after I'd been abused by a man. I'd feel abused by the women and the originator of the abuse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

... but only if we define them first.

And those definitions have been asked for multiple times in this thread (starting with Thora, as it happens), but nobody has attempted to actually tackle them.

Possibly because a definition (as in definitive description) is precisely what can't be given due to the fact that the normative terms of reference currently exclude the possibility of there being much beyond biological sex and the "traditional" gender roles attached to biological sex. Wider public debate about gender roles, let alone gender itself is only decades old, and terms of reference that encompass all genders and none are in their infancy, relatively speaking.

 

[Athos]

Can we become 'bigots' and exclusisionary because of our own experiences of and reactions to prejudice? Yes I think we can.

Which kinda leads back to the subject of the OP actually. Deploying the strategies of 'your' oppressors is a complicated but very real thing in my experience. Internalised prejudice, reactions to prejudice and how we all deal with those things is important.

I absolutely agree that we can become bigots as a result of our own experiences. But I would hesitate to describe the motivation of the women in my example as bigotry. Would you?

 

[Athos]

I'd feel unsafe if someone did a genital check on me before admitting me to space after I'd been abused by a man. I'd feel abused by the women and the originator of the abuse.

I agree, that would eb a ridiculous state of affairs. But, again, you're ducking he issue. In the example I gave, is bigotry the women's motivation to exclude trans women?

 

[cesare]

I agree, that would eb a ridiculous state of affairs. But, again, you're ducking he issue. In the example I gave, is bigotry the women's motivation to exclude trans women?

But this is the issue. How do you suppose that "born women" decide who gets admitted?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I find it easier to imagine Kabbes in a clean, well pressed frock than sporting either a tattoo or an earring.

Yep.
And for some reason he's ironing bedsheets.

 

[Athos]

But this is the issue. How do you suppose that "born women" decide who gets admitted?

For the purposes of this example, lets assume that this group of cis women coalesced around the fact that they have been abused by men. And that's their reason for creating a space in which they can feel entirely safe that men won't invade. Is their decision not to allow trans women to enter (for fear that that such a policy could be abused by cis male 'infiltrators') an act of bigotry?

 

[cesare]

For the purposes of this example, lets assume that this group of cis women coalesced around the fact that they have been abused by men. And that's their reason for creating a space in which they can feel entirely safe that men won't invade. Is their decision not to allow trans women to enter (for fear that that such a policy could be abused by cis male 'infiltrators') an act of bigotry?

It depends if you consider trans women to be women or not. In any event, admitting a trans woman wouldn't be admitting a man.

 

[Wilf]

Are you suggesting it's impossible that there could be any motivation for excluding trans women from women-only spaces other than bigotry? What about the purely practical argument that it's the best way to ensure that men are kept out, since to allow anyone who purports to identify as a woman could easily be exploited by a cis man seeking to infiltrate? Personally, I think that's a highly unlikely eventuality, but these women's assessment of risks/priorities might be different from mine - informed by their own experiences, but not based on bigotry.

This is ... odd. Are you suggesting a women's group might exclude trans women (aka other women) on the grounds that a bloke might sneak in? Or are you really suggesting that trans women are actually part of a group whose claim to being female is disputed?

 

[Athos]

It depends if you consider trans women to be women or not.

And if they considered trans women to be women, but felt that the risks to the existing members of opening up the possibility of male infiltration too great? Are they bigots then?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Triggers is the new fangled word for it I think. It's like something out of 1984. I didn't see anyone being bigoted but because their opinions sailed too close to other stuff - guilt. This discussion has been the poorer for it imo.

Forcing people to police their language, to enact codes of self-governance so as not to cause offence to others is worrying. Requiring people to conform to social norms with regard to language-use is one thing - swearing in front of kids not being generally tolerated, for example - but expecting people to police all their language on the off-chance that someone will be offended? That's anti-social (in the wide sense).

 

[Athos]

This is ... odd. Are you suggesting a women's group might exclude trans women (aka other women) on the grounds that a bloke might sneak in? Or are you really suggesting that trans women are actually part of a group whose claim to being female is disputed?

As I understand it, some women's groups are suggesting that their exclusion of trans women is based on the former i.e. not in denying trans women's womanhood, but from the possible consequences of allowing anyone who identifies as a female to join.

 

[Athos]

In any event, admitting a trans woman wouldn't be admitting a man.

No. But admitting anyone who purported to identify as a woman would facilitate entry by cis men for nefarious purposes.

 

[Wilf]

Excluding trans women from women only spaces is exclusionary because it's excluding women from women only spaces. .

That rather gets to the heart of the whole thing.