Well drat. Tomorrow is Monday and I am really trying to keep to a once a week blogging schedule. So I spent the entire day writing my perspective on the gender issues which have flared up in our community. I thought it’d be a nice gesture to participate in something that is obviously important to my community, and to show that I do in fact care about something other than music ;+). So I read up on the various blogs discussing the issue, and began to write my views. As I wrote, I realized that some of my statements required more research. So I read more. And the more I read, the more the entire discussion put me off.
No one is listening to each other. Everyone is in knee-jerk reaction mode. To the point that it feels fruitless to participate. It reminds me why I so rarely participate in these types of conversations. Because, overwhelmingly, they boil down to individuals wanting to make a point far more than being willing to listen.
Yep Z’s comments were ugly. And I have now seen numerous comments in response that are equally ugly. Blecch.
Perhaps I’ll participate in this dialog more fully when the frenzy has died down. For now, I will leave you with the few thoughts I have already made public, as a comment over on Jonathan Korman’s blog:
Well, I guess it’s time for me to weigh in. There is another piece of this that I haven’t seen discussed much – abuse. Many so-called cis women turn to “cis women only” space because they have suffered abuse at the hands of men, and they simply don’t feel safe sitting in a circle, particularly a skyclad circle, in the presence of male bodies. As unfair as this may seem, this is a visceral response, not an intellectual decision to exclude, and these women deserve to have space and time to heal from these wounds. Because it is about feeling safe, I don’t feel the “whites only at a Norse ritual” analogy applies. “Whites only” is synonymous with “We feel superior”, and that is not what we are talking about here. The way this situation was handled by Z was insensitive to be sure. But it is equally insensitive to ask cis-women abuse survivors to “just get over it”.
An example, from the comments onhttp://mullenkamp.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/truly-inclusive-gender-based-mysteries/ -
“They have every right to have it, but label it as such (can you imagine a sign: “Ciswomen with Victim Complexes only, all others will be considered MALE!”)”
Is this any less trivializing?
Understanding and compassion are needed on both sides.
And then I added:
I’d like to add, I appreciate the distinction you’ve made, that the protest was not about cis-women having a private space, but about a culmination of things. I appreciate this distinction and feel is is an important one. I have not seen this distinction made in several other places on the web where this discussion is taking place, and it saddens me how quickly folks are willing to demonize each other. An abuse survivor is not a bigot. Do we really need to throw that word around so carelessly?
I am glad this dialog has opened. I think it is important, and it raises some questions for me about my own assumptions. I do hope, in continuing this conversation, that we can do so with less drama and knee-jerk reactionism than I’ve been seeing.
Assuming that can happen, the deeper conversation seems to be “What makes a woman?” I have a lot more to explore here myself, and it will probably take awhile before I have anything definitive to say on the topic. For now I have only questions, such as “Is biology the only thing that defines a woman?” As I currently understand it, the very words “Man” and Woman” arise from biological differences, so to change this are we redefining the word? Is it time to redefine the word? What do we lose by redefining the word? What do we gain? Will cis-women be expected to stop joking about our wacky hormones and moon’s blood in women’s circles because trans-women may feel excluded? (If so, I can see how this would feel like a loss to a biological woman.) How do I feel about referring to myself as a cis-woman? Is expanding the definition of “woman” to “cis-woman” and “trans-woman” the way around this? Or does dividing the term in this way create more separation?
These are big questions, and they challenge everyone’s sacred cows. I don’t think we can, or should, come to an agreement quickly or lightly. Maybe we never can. But I do hope we can hold each others’ point of view in a place of compassion and mutual respect.
“Will cis-women be expected to stop joking about our wacky hormones and moon’s blood in women’s circles because trans-women may feel excluded? (If so, I can see how this would feel like a loss to a biological woman.)”
I don’t believe anyone intends to ask cis-women to deny their own experience. Trans women have a different experience as well, they are also human, form communities and have their own hormone issues to joke about among themselves. Trans men too. It is human nature to need space to explore one’s own experience.
I have no intention of addressing the entire issue here, just that portion of your blog which I’ve quoted.
What this reminded me of is the experience of difference. I am unable to run or dance now. I haven’t really done either since last Beltaine, a few days before I was hospitalized. At PantheaCon I wanted to go to several workshops that involved movement and dance that I stayed away from because I felt like I would not be included. But I would never ask anyone to stop running or dancing just because I cannot share the experience. Now, what would cause me to get angry would be language that made it clear that I was less human because of my inability to share that experience. Do I expect you to change because I am different? No. Do I want you tripping over your words and avoiding saying things like “gotta run”? No. Trans women want what ciswomen do: safe space, respectful language, community, etc. Disabled women want the same thing that able-bodied women do: safe space, respectful language, community. We all get upset at language that makes us feel less human, less important and less deserving of respect. And none of us need to stop sharing our experiences with others, either the same as us or different.
I’m not sure I’ve fully expressed my feelings on this or even if I’ve expressed them accurately. I hope you can hear the positivity with which I am dealing with the entire gender issue within our community. I truly feel that the conflict is a positive thing, but to address the entire issue, I’d need to write an entire blog post of my own… or maybe 3 of hem.
Hi Rhi!
Thanks for writing. I definitely hear your positivity. I also think this conflict is positive in the long run. If indeed, the issue is the language that was used by Z, I definitely get that. It feels like more than that, but I may be wrong. My own ideas and thoughts about the whole thing are far from complete, and I too would have to write probably several blog posts just to get to the core of my feelings about it. I notice in myself where I feel defensive is the thought (fear?) that cis-women are going to be demonized for ever wanting some space just to explore their (our) own experience, that we are going to be labeled as “Cis-Supremacists” or something. The comparisons to “whites only” has felt really over the top to me. Wow – just in writing this, a new layer is revealed. I hadn’t yet realized how much that was bothering me. Talking about this stuff is useful.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The way that the whites-only analogy has felt useful to me is that it has highlighted the ways that we may feel differently about a group’s asking for separate space depending on whether or not we perceive that group as powerful. I observe that I’m not entirely consistent in my preferences: I’m more okay with some powerful groups asking for space than others.
On the topic of defining women, I’ve found the separation between sex (female/male, which is physiological) and gender (woman/man and feminine/masculine, which is social) to be really useful in furthering my thinking.
And, of course, it was awesome to get to hear your concert!
Hi Sarah. Thanks for participating. I appreciate it, and the helpful tone in which your views are offered. I hear you when you say that powerful groups asking for separate space raise more concerns for you than disempowered groups. I would add that intent is a huge part for me. The objection I have to the comparison to “whites only” is that that scenario has almost always been about superiority, whereas the “cis-women only” stance has almost always been about feeling safe. More relevant analogy would probably be “Ancestral Heathens only” or “Heathens of European Descent”. This type of gathering wouldn’t bother me at all even though I’d be excluded. As long as there were some other ways I could experience Heathenism I wouldn’t mind. Live and let live.