Is this woman a transphobe?

[Santino]

Yeah thats a fair point, but still you can see the roots of it - sex class oppression, every fuck is a rape etc. Once you've decided sex is the primary basis of oppression then its not far to go to deny trans women are women.

Sex IS the primary basis of the oppression of women.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Whether or not it was a 'strong trend', it's false to say that 2nd wave feminism is about biological essentialism. Do you accept that?

I didn't say 2nd wave feminism was about biological essentialism. It isn't! But radical feminism as in the strand of feminism that sees male oppression of women as natural and inherent is in my opinion biological essentialism.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Trying to ignore the attempt to trivialise the concern by reducing the thing to "boy plays with dolls"...

I would be very worried about a boy who plays with a doll being told that if he wants to play with dolls, well that's fine, but the thing is that society expects girls to play with dolls, and therefore maybe he should consider living his life not as a boy who likes to play with dolls, but as a girl. Because that's kind of what this implies:

It doesn't imply that at all. Why don't you answer the question? Are you worried that children who play with toys not associated with their sex/gender will be told they are trans and encouraged to transition?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Sex IS the primary basis of the oppression of women.

In your opinion. I'm a socialist and a Marxist and I believe that private property and patriarchal society are the basis of the oppression of women.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Does this not exist in your understanding of the world?
I know you’re not engaging with me anymore but honestly have no idea how you can live on the same planet as me and think that this isn’t a thing, that people are wrong to imagine it is.

No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example - or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.

 

[Santino]

In your opinion. I'm a socialist and a Marxist and I believe that private property and patriarchal society are the basis of the oppression of women.

This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?

 

[Santino]

I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women.

I think this is the issue. These doesn't have to be anything inherent in sex for it to be true that women are oppressed on the basis of it - it's just the way that it is.

 

[SpackleFrog]

This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?

I've just said I don't believe women are a class. What do you want from me?

 

[SpackleFrog]

I think this is the issue. These doesn't have to be anything inherent in sex for it to be true that women are oppressed on the basis of it - it's just the way that it is.

I can accept that, no bother.

 

[Dystopiary]

It's all just very sad. I understand a lot of cis women's fears around this, but the idea of trans women having to go into a men's prison, or solitary confinement, well it's barbaric. I don't know if there's gonna be a situation in which everyone can feel comfortable and safe. But the negative stuff being bandied about online (twitter for example) about trans women is just awful, cruel really. There's so much stereotyping and disinfornation, and then cis men stirring the pot.

 

[Santino]

I've just said I don't believe women are a class. What do you want from me?

What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?

 

[co-op]

One of the problems here is that there is no easy equivalence between racism and transphobia.

(I also think it was unhelpful and wrong of the person on Twitter to attempt this equivalence.)

My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.

 

[SpackleFrog]

What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?

I mean, clearly some women do. Why would I do anything about that?

 

[Santino]

I mean, clearly some women do. Why would I do anything about that?

Have you told them that they're incorrect?

 

[bimble]

No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example - or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.

You think radical feminists have been saying for decades ‘women are and always shall be oppressed cos of having wombs’ ?
this is.. incorrect.

 

[Santino]

I'm curious, how did it happen that half of the population, those who are a member of the reproductive sex class, ended up being forbidden to own property, raped with impunity, and murdered? How did it come about?

 

[Santino]

SpackleFrog , do you accept that in our society, women are oppressed on the basis of their sex?

 

[Border Reiver]

My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.

It really matters little what we think about "transphobia". Twitter have their view and it is unlikely to change.

I have still not see a definition of "transphobia".

 

[teuchter]

It doesn't imply that at all. Why don't you answer the question? Are you worried that children who play with toys not associated with their sex/gender will be told they are trans and encouraged to transition?

No, I am not.

 

[SpackleFrog]

No, I am not.

Great. Im really glad you're not worried. I was worried for a minute there!

 

[co-op]

No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example - or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.

Yes and it's a key part of much radical feminism to argue that as private property became critical to political power - always via inheritance of course - that it is then that women need to be subordinated and controlled in order for the powerful and wealthy (who happened to be men) to control the transmission of that power and wealth across generations. And it is then that the seeds of gender roles that made that subordination seem "natural" also come into being (women are passive, emotional, irrational, indifferent to sex etc)

So radical socialism and feminism were for many rad fems absolutely inseparable.

 

[Knotted]

My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.

I feel that collectively we were all coming to an understanding that trans people don't necessarily have quick and easy answers to the nature of transgenderism. Just like you don't ask a gay person "why are you gay? Is it genetic, is it the way you were brought up? I've never seen anybody satisfactorily explain it. Justify yourself!". This little point here and more broadly the whole thread probably looks like a demand for trans posters to explain themselves. Smokedout is really good at it and maybe even comfortable with it, but it shouldn't be something they feel they have to do. Other trans posters may feel completely alienated by the whole discussion.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah thats a fair point, but still you can see the roots of it - sex class oppression, every fuck is a rape etc. Once you've decided sex is the primary basis of oppression then its not far to go to deny trans women are women.

Oh yeah, like I say I'm not a 1970s radical feminist by any means. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that the original radfems did at least exist in conversation with (even if those conversations were often quite heated arguments!) socialist and Marxist feminisms that were in turn tied to the mass struggles of the day. Idk, I just find it a bit sad and misguided how you sometimes see people arguing as though the Posie Parkers and Graham Linehans of the world were like the natural outcome of second-wave feminism, rather than being the debris left behind by its defeat.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Have you told them that they're incorrect?

Aye, just now

You think radical feminists have been saying for decades ‘women are and always shall be oppressed cos of having wombs’ ?
this is.. incorrect.

Weeeeellllllll, is it?

I'm curious, how did it happen that half of the population, those who are a member of the reproductive sex class, ended up being forbidden to own property, raped with impunity, and murdered? How did it come about?

So tell me if you see it differently Bimble, but I think Santino is saying that women being denied property and violence against women are because of their biological reproductive systems.

SpackleFrog , do you accept that in our society, women are oppressed on the basis of their sex?

I think the origins of women's oppression are connected to sex and reproductive labour. But I don't think that's the only factor in the basis of womens oppression. I don't believe that womens oppression has existed as long as humans have existed. I think the oppression of women came later on, with the advent of private property and the development of the family unit.

I feel like you must have come across this idea before? But if not its not as if its something I've come up with - you could try giving this a read.

Origins of the Family

www.marxists.org

 

[SpackleFrog]

Oh yeah, like I say I'm not a 1970s radical feminist by any means. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that the original radfems did at least exist in conversation with (even if those conversations were often quite heated arguments!) socialist and Marxist feminisms that were in turn tied to the mass struggles of the day. Idk, I just find it a bit sad and misguided how you sometimes see people arguing as though the Posie Parkers and Graham Linehans of the world were like the natural outcome of second-wave feminism, rather than being the debris left behind by its defeat.

Yeah, I take your point and as with all movements there was obviously crossover between socialist/Marxist feminisms and radical feminisms. Was being a bit glib which I probably shouldn't have been on this thread!

 

[bimble]

So tell me if you see it differently Bimble, but I think Santino is saying that women being denied property and violence against women are because of their biological reproductive systems.

Thats not what they're saying, no. Not 'because they has wombs'. Honestly cant be arsed right now, i did sit through a whole degree in anthropology in a pretty full on rad fem department, back in the last century, and that was bad enough. Not trying to claim superior knowledge due to that just your takes on this are so clumsy and your boots so big that it sort of feels disheartening. Reproductive class is not same as ‘has womb’.

 

[ska invita]

This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?

arguably through a change in property relations

 

[smokedout]

What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?

The goal of most 1970s radical feminists was to destroy the sex class of women not endlessly police the borders. There was a universal recognition that whilst women may have been oppressed due to their physical bodies this was not inevitable and certainly not a natural state. Many believed that womanhood could only be understood in relation to male dominance, that patriarchy invented and policed what a woman was. This famously led Wittig to declare that as a lesbian she was not a woman and her arguing to demolish the sex classification system - a goal shared by Dworkin and Firestone. It is no surprise that most of the surviving women involved in that movement support trans inclusions, it is perfectly inline with the writings and imaginings of most 1970s radical feminists.

As many of it's adherents will angrily point out the gender critical movement is not a feminist movement but a movement which includes feminists. It is a world away in both ideology and goals from radical second wave feminism. It is essentially a conservative doctrine that instead of calling for radical and revolutionary change accepts male violence as a biological inevitability from which women need protection in the form of single sex spaces and that the role of feminism should be to protect those spaces. They are not fighting a class war in the way Firestone understood it with the aim of destroying the sex class system. They are conceding defeat, and accepting society as it is, or as it was before trans people came along and ruined everything.

 

[smokedout]

The goal of most 1970s radical feminists was to destroy the sex class of women not endlessly police the borders. There was a universal recognition that whilst women may have been oppressed due to their physical bodies this was not inevitable and certainly not a natural state. Many believed that womanhood could only be understood in relation to male dominance, that patriarchy invented and policed what a woman was. This famously led Wittig to declare that as a lesbian she was not a woman and her arguing to demolish the sex classification system - a goal shared by Dworkin and Firestone. It is no surprise that most of the surviving women involved in that movement support trans inclusions, it is perfectly inline with the writings and imaginings of most 1970s radical feminists.

As many of it's adherents will angrily point out the gender critical movement is not a feminist movement but a movement which includes feminists. It is a world away in both ideology and goals from radical second wave feminism. It is essentially a conservative doctrine that instead of calling for radical and revolutionary change accepts male violence as a biological inevitability from which women need protection in the form of single sex spaces and that the role of feminism should be to protect those spaces. They are not fighting a class war in the way Firestone understood it with the aim of destroying the sex class system. They are conceding defeat, and accepting society as it is, or as it was before trans people came along and ruined everything.

To be fair this isn't the complete story. There is one current within second wave rad fems that has influenced the gender critical movement and that is political lesbian separatism - the idea that woman who have sex with men are sleeping with the enemy, that true feminists should overcome their patriarchal sexuality and declare themselves lesbians and as a group should seperate from men completely and form their own spaces and communities. Many of the most strident feminist voices in the gender critical movement come from this tradition, most notably Sheila Jeffreys who really laid down the foundation for much of current GC ideology.

 

[bimble]

Are Teuchter’s friends transphobes in your view smokedout ? They’re not much interested in policing women’s physical space, and I don’t think they are all man hating lesbians.
Your caricature just ignores most of the people I think you’re trying to smear.
Maybe the focus on these big names that you allude to a lot (posey jeffreys whatever) is not helping much with understanding what’s really going on, imo, outside of the loudest voices on twitter.