Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

[dylanredefined]

so as a white working class male who is CIS (i think) i'll just let all of her non-binary crew and BME fight on without me as i am clearly not wanted in the march toward revolution.

it splits people up this shit.

I agree with that it is not helpful and could have been done without getting people upset about it.

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?

If she is also a victim I would say yes.

 

[cesare]

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

How would they know without a fairly extensive series of tests on all abused women that seek refuge?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

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

For anyone who wasn't aware of it, btw, the "bathroom argument" was one that was and is deployed for discrimination in schools. It rests on the idea that trans women are men pretending to be women. It makes a pretence at saying that there are some who are "okay", but there's a danger that men will pretend to be women to gain access to female-only spaces for predatory purposes.

 

[smokedout]

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.

the rape crisis guidelines I posted earlier cover this:

Sometimes women’s refuges are concerned that abusive men will put on women’s clothing
to gain access to women’s refuges. This concern doesn’t match the experience of refuges
that have adopted policies that accept transgender women. The authors of this guidance
have never heard of a scenario like this happening and believe that it is extremely unlikely
to occur. If this unlikely situation were to occur, we believe that intake staff would be able
to immediately recognise that the person is not sincerely identifying as a woman who has
experienced gender based violence: this would be integral to the broader risk management
of abuser access to safe spaces.

I think you have to understand the pragmatism involved in managing womens only service provision (as opposed to political spaces). risk assessment is a big factor, they are not really safe spaces, just hopefully safer spaces or as safe as possible spaces. that means compromises and risk taking, for example is a quiet middle aged trans-women with no convictions really more of a risk than a heroin dependent cis-women with a string of convictions for violence? when you start dealing the the actuality rather than the theory then the way forward is really just a matter of common sense.

 

[Athos]

How would they know without a fairly extensive series of tests on all abused women that seek refuge?

You keep ducking the question. In the example I've given, is it possible that the exclusion could be motivated by something other than bigotry?

 

[Sea Star]

How would they know without a fairly extensive series of tests on all abused women that seek refuge?

If they did some women would get a shock when they turn out be not women, but intersex men.

 

[emanymton]

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?

I think it is the case that because somewhere is a women only space that does not necessarily mean it is open to all women. I am sure that there plenty of valid reasons for excluding some women (cis or trans) in specific cases. But a blanket ban on all trans women does sound a bit like bigotry to me. Thinking back to the earlier arguments about where should the line be drawn. I don't think you can draw one, you just need the people who run these spaces to make decisions as best they can in specific cases, accepting that mistakes will be made.

 

[Wilf]

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.

But clearly that is denying trans women's womanhood. It puts them into the group of people who might only be 'identifying' as women but are not accepted as such. By definition it is treating trans women differently to cis women - and treating them different at exactly the point of deciding who can come into a women's space.

 

[cesare]

You keep ducking the question. In the example I've given, is it possible that the exclusion could be motivated by something other than bigotry?

It might be motivated by fear. But then, fear is often at the root of bigotry.

 

[Athos]

For anyone who wasn't aware of it, btw, the "bathroom argument" was one that was and is deployed for discrimination in schools. It rests on the idea that trans women are men pretending to be women. It makes a pretence at saying that there are some who are "okay", but there's a danger that men will pretend to be women to gain access to female-only spaces for predatory purposes.

And, as I've explained, I'm not persuaded by it. But, that's not to say that some women aren't, such that the decision to include trans women is motivated by their prioritisation of risk, rather that bigotry.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You keep ducking the question. In the example I've given, is it possible that the exclusion could be motivated by something other than bigotry?

Why don't you tell us what you think?

I responded to you earlier and was clear that I think 'bigotry' as in the act of doing, can develop as a reaction to direct experiences and/or internalised prejudice. The reason someone becomes or does this may be different but the result is the same is it not?

 

[Athos]

the rape crisis guidelines I posted earlier cover this:



I think you have to understand the pragmatism involved in managing womens only service provision (as opposed to political spaces). risk assessment is a big factor, they are not really safe spaces, just hopefully safer spaces or as safe as possible spaces. that means compromises and risk taking, for example is a quiet middle aged trans-women with no convictions really more of a risk than a heroin dependent cis-women with a string of convictions for violence? when you start dealing the the actuality rather than the theory then the way forward is really just a matter of common sense.

I accept that. And, as I said earlier on the thread, on balance, I'm instinctively pro-inclusion. But I remain a bit uncomfortable with people telling a group of women (who have good reason to seek to exclude men) how they should manage their own safety, and who should or shouldn't be allowed into their spaces, especially when that is often accompanied by them being written off as bigots.

 

[Athos]

It might be motivated by fear. But then, fear is often at the root of bigotry.

Are they bigots, then?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And, as I've explained, I'm not persuaded by it. But, that's not to say that some women aren't, such that the decision to include trans women is motivated by their prioritisation of risk, rather that bigotry.

I don't understand the purpose of this line of argument. Can you explain what position you are trying to promote here?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I accept that. And, as I said earlier on the thread, on balance, I'm instinctively pro-inclusion. But I remain a bit uncomfortable with people telling a group of women (who have good reason to seek to exclude men) how they should manage their own safety, and who should or shouldn't be allowed into their spaces, especially when that is often accompanied by them being written off as bigots.

This only works if you don't think trans* women are women. It also ignores the fact that some trans* women have also had experiences of abuse, by men.

 

[Athos]

Why don't you tell us what you think?

I responded to you earlier and was clear that I think 'bigotry' as in the act of doing, can develop as a reaction to direct experiences and/or internalised prejudice. The reason someone becomes or does this may be different but the result is the same is it not?

To the limited extent to which it's my place as a man to say, I'm pro-inclusion. But against dismissing every woman who thinks differently as a bigot (whilst accepting that some are).

 

[smokedout]

I accept that. And, as I said earlier on the thread, on balance, I'm instinctively pro-inclusion. But I remain a bit uncomfortable with people telling a group of women (who have good reason to seek to exclude men) how they should manage their own safety, and who should or shouldn't be allowed into their spaces, especially when that is often accompanied by them being written off as bigots.

would you accept a womens only hostel excluding gay women because it made some residents feel uncomfortable or unsafe (this used to be an issue in both men and womens hostel service provision by the way)?

 

[spanglechick]

Are they bigots, then?

homophobes who would deny gay, lesbian and bisexual people from certain spaces (such as gym changing rooms) may be motivated by their prioritisation of risk... but it still also makes them bigots.

 

[cesare]

Are they bigots, then?

Are you asking if fear-based bigotry is less bad than supremacist-type bigotry? My answer to that is that it's more understandable, but just as marginalising.

 

[Wilf]

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

But you're doing it again! Why would you only select trans women as the group who put at risk the 'women only' principle?

 

[Treacle Toes]

To the limited extent to which it's my place as a man to say, I'm pro-inclusion. But against dismissing every woman who thinks differently as a bigot (whilst accepting that some are).

Is everyone who has ever said or thought something racist an out and out racist?

Bigotry, as a thing, can be something temporal and isolated to a specific act/behaviour/thought.

 

[purenarcotic]

I work for an organisation that has supported trans women fleeing abuse. We have housed them in our safe, women only accommodation because they are women fleeing abuse. If other residents have an issue then the support staff will talk to them about it and appropriately challenge their views. Not that trans has anything to do with sexuality like but as an example, we sometimes get refuge residents concerned if a lesbian woman accesses the service as they have children. We challenge that view and make it clear lesbian women are as entitled as anyone else to access the service.

Being a victim of abuse does not make you immune to challenge. Obviously what you say and how you challenge is important but if challenge needs to take place then it needs to take place.

 

[Sea Star]

I work for an organisation that has supported trans women fleeing abuse. We have housed them in our safe, women only accommodation because they are women fleeing abuse. If other residents have an issue then the support staff will talk to them about it and appropriately challenge their views. Not that trans has anything to do with sexuality like but as an example, we sometimes get refuge residents concerned if a lesbian woman accesses the service as they have children. We challenge that view and make it clear lesbian women are as entitled as anyone else to access the service.

Being a victim of abuse does not make you immune to challenge. Obviously what you say and how you challenge is important but if challenge needs to take place then it needs to take place.

This makes me feel a whole lot better

 

[Athos]

But clearly that is denying trans women's womanhood. It puts them into the group of people who might only be 'identifying' as women but are not accepted as such. By definition it is treating trans women differently to cis women - and treating them different at exactly the point of deciding who can come into a women's space.

The groups run on this basis would argue not; that women-only groups are never open to all women - some women will always be excluded, without their womanhood being denied.

But, as I've already said, it's not necessarily an argument I find persuasive. Simply it was to demonstrate that there could be motivations (no matter how misconceived) other than bigotry.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The groups run on this basis would argue not; that women-only groups are never open to all women - some women will always be excluded, without their womanhood being denied.

But, as I've already said, it's not necessarily an argument I find persuasive. Simply it was to demonstrate that there could be motivations (no matter how misconceived) other than bigotry.

I don't think they have other motivations tbh.

 

[Athos]

I don't understand the purpose of this line of argument. Can you explain what position you are trying to promote here?

I'm trying to promote the possibility of meaningful debate where any woman who suggests anything contrary to the prevailing view isn't dismissed as a bigot.

 

[Red Cat]

Is everyone who has ever said or thought something racist an out and out racist?

Bigotry, as a thing, can be something temporal and isolated to a specific act/behaviour/thought.

I suppose I tend to think of bigotry as a strong prejudice resistant to change rather than something temporal.

 

[Athos]

would you accept a womens only hostel excluding gay women because it made some residents feel uncomfortable or unsafe (this used to be an issue in both men and womens hostel service provision by the way)?

No, but I haven't said I would accept the exclusion of trans women - quite the opposite! The point I was making is that such a position isn't necessarily motivated by bigotry.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm trying to promote the possibility of meaningful debate where any woman who suggests anything contrary to the prevailing view being dismissed as a bigot.

tl:dr you've broken something and you are not defending women

 

[Athos]

This only works if you don't think trans* women are women. It also ignores the fact that some trans* women have also had experiences of abuse, by men.

No it doesn't. I think trans women are women. I also believe in all women's right to define their own gender. There's an inherent tension there. Instinctively, I resolve in pro-inclusion. But that doesn't mean I have to write off all exclusionary views as bigoted.