Michigan Womyn's Music Festival: transphobia revisited

Unfortunately, the ongoing brawl over the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (herein known by its nickname, Michfest) continues on for another year.

Each year seems more contentious than the last. Increasingly, there are pro-trans demonstrations at festival, featuring t-shirts emblazoned with "Trans Women Belong Here". QueerFatFemme believes that women should attend specifically to protest the omission of trans women, and believes someday the rules will change, as they eventually evolved to include BDSM and "chem-free space" -- neither of which were initially greeted with kindness. (NOTE: Trans women have attended the festival since its inception, even performing/working there, despite the official rule excluding them. Trans women were already an integral part of Michfest BEFORE the rule became "official" -- so this exclusion can also be viewed as an EXILE.)

This year--in response to a petition--Lisa Vogel, Michfest co-founder/owner of festival land, issued a very confusing statement. She seems to be winking at the presence of trans women, as long as they properly keep their heads down and shut up about it. One might even read the statement as green-lighting the admission of trans women in a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fashion. Vogel's statement reads, in part:

The Festival, for a single precious week, is intended for womyn who at birth were deemed female, who were raised as girls, and who identify as womyn. I believe that womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a lived experience that constitutes its own distinct gender identity.

As we struggle around the question of inclusion of transwomyn at the festival, we use the word intention very deliberately. Michigan holds this particular lived experience of womanhood as honorable, meaningful, unique and rich. Our intention has always been coupled with the radical commitment to never question any womon's gender. We ask the greater community to respect this intention, and to value the complexity and validity of every gender identity, including that of WBW. The onus is on each individual to choose whether or how to respect that intention.

Huh?

~*~

This whole fiasco seems emblematic of the stand-off between radical feminists and trans women, and it makes my head hurt. We should all be getting along, dammit. I often find trans women to be instinctively feminist, due to their unique experiences, and I want them in our ranks. However, lots of radical feminists don't. Further, the two groups seem singularly obsessed with pissing each other off, creating endless Tumblr pages/blogs dedicated simply to trashing the other side. And these hate-blogs (as Mama Moretti commented here) get TONS of hits, every time they are updated.

Some people spend all their online-time enumerating why the other side is not just wrong, but EVIL. Some people, frankly, seem driven nearly insane over it.

I recently wrote about the incident at Portland State University during the recent Law and Disorder Conference, in which trans activists attacked a Deep Green Resistance display table for selling literature they deemed transphobic and unacceptable (I still don't know specifically WHICH BOOK they were selling that set everyone off)... and I expressed my disapproval of their tactics, which included destroying books, marking people up with magic-markers and throwing burritos. Even though I have written here (at great length) of my crazy-Yippie past (and similar tactics *I* have engaged in), I wrote that I now know (as a radical living in possibly the reddest state in the South) what it is like to be the hapless person on the other end of that behavior... and I have grown to believe that these types of tactics are NOT very effective, even if they are great fun and feel deliciously self-righteous. I think these tactics may even do HARM to a cause, sometimes even bringing sympathy to those who are attacked and accomplishing the opposite of what we intended.

The excitable gang over at Feministe became very angry with me; they wrote several enthusiastic posts announcing that I am a Bad Person and saying "fuck you"--which I found even more alarming. Obviously, discussing long-term strategies and points of agreement is no longer even considered an acceptable goal; the war has advanced to the point that there can be no efforts at Detente that don't appear to be "pandering" to one side or another. (sigh)

And Lisa Vogel's strange, ambiguous statement certainly did not help the situation.

~*~

Still, I gotta wonder, is Michfest (a throwback to feminism's Golden Era) an event that trans women truly want to attend? Most women *I* know have not even heard of it (or are only peripherally aware of it) and show absolutely no interest when you tell them about it. Why is this such a big deal to trans women--just because its off limits to them? (I no longer want to attend, for instance, although I did attend way back in the aforementioned Golden Era.) Why does THIS PARTICULAR EVENT matter so much, when there are plenty of other places/events that are also off-limits to them?

Why do trans women care so much what radical feminists (specifically) say about them?

Why do radical feminists believe trans women (specifically) are such a threat? (And before you answer, "because they believe they are men!"--keep in mind, they seem FAR more aggravated by trans women than they are by men. Many of these hate-blogs do not even write much about feminist political issues, but only cover an issue like abortion when trans women say critical things, or declare it isn't as important to them as radfems believe it should be.)

I admit: I don't get it. And the longer the war continues, the less I get it. It strikes me as patently bizarre.

Yes, the old hippie is pleading for peace. I fully expect to be pilloried, but blessed are the peacemakers.

Buddha told me this would be rough.

~*~

The newest salvo fired at the radfem faction is THIS rather disturbing 2008 Philadelphia Gay News story by radfem Victoria Brownworth. This is OLD news, so at first, I wondered why the trans faction was dredging it up at this rather late date.

Then I read it.

Ohhhh my goodness.

I confess, I was pretty upset and disgusted. This is bad. Like, really really bad. Cristan Williams writes at TRANSADVOCATE:

The reason I chose to do this article is that Brownworth, a self-identified radical feminist, has written extensively about power, privilege, the need for acceptance, boundaries and the well-being of kids. Yet here – even though she felt it was “creepy,” “wrong” and even though she also felt “anxious” about it – she asked this kid to have access to his genitalia (if you believe what she wrote in 2008).

If the power roles were reversed and it was an adult pre-op transwoman who came across a vulnerable 15/16 year old cisgender girl with an illicitly obtained genital body modification, would RadFems (or anyone for that matter!) view it as being okay if the transwoman gained access to the girl’s genitalia for a peek? What if the transwoman then discribed the girl’s genetalia in detail – down to what her cliterous looked like – in newsprint and/or on the internet? What if the transwoman, five years later, tweets that she felt “creepy/wrong” about it but nevertheless defended her actions by saying that the girl asked the transwoman to do it? What would happen? What would be said about that situation?

Take the trans issue out of this. If this was an adult cisgender woman and a vulnerable 15/16 year old cisgender boy with an illicitly obtained genital piercing or tattoo, we all intuitively understand that it’s inappropriate for an adult to deliberately gawk at the kid’s junk while they’re nude, much less detail what the kid’s genitals looked like in print or the web! Yet because it’s transkid, nobody has said anything for FIVE YEARS!

Awful, just awful. I was genuinely disturbed that Brownworth thought it was ever acceptable to exploit this child in this manner. I hope someone can locate this young person (named Devon, who would now be 20 or 21?) and affirm that he is okay.

Regarding this story, Brownworth's various replies to her critics are ... off. Just off. Strange. A lot like Lisa Vogel's bizarre non-statement. It is as if these radfems don't really believe they are dealing with human beings or something. Brownworth seems actually taken aback that you would ask her about it.

Meanwhile, as we speak, the radfems line up and obediently back up Brownworth, even in an instance when she was OBVIOUSLY very wrong.

(sigh)

It all just makes me so ashamed.

Censorship and radical feminist transphobia, episode # 89176

One reason I don't "moderate" (censor) comments on my blog, is because I fear the inevitable slippery slope.

First, I'd be moderating for being offensive. Next, I'd be moderating for any disagreement at all. And finally I would be moderating/censoring just for thoughtcrime, i.e. "upsetting" my friends and readers.

Nope, not going there.

Thus, I don't understand the tendency of certain bloggers to zealously moderate/censor comments. I understand guarding against trolling and spam, particularly after witnessing the manner in which some radical bloggers (such as Renee) have been harassed to death by online viciousness. But for regular, relatively small-time bloggers such as your humble narrator? Censorship is primarily used to avoid ideological conflict; a way to stay safe and avoid being questioned about one's beliefs.

And some of us actually grow and learn through the working out and witnessing of such conflicts. For this reason, I love contentious, argumentative blogs, where all sides of questions are aired and examined.

Whenever I use the word CENSORSHIP, people get very exercised. It's like pushing a button, and the official Encyclopaedia Britannica definition of CENSORSHIP is duly spit out, on cue. (Honestly, why do people bother going to college, if it doesn't teach them to think for themselves?)

The teleprompter reads: It's not censorship since you can write it on your own blog! It's not censorship unless it's the government! It's not censorship since we have not prevented anyone from speaking! Blah blah blah. This is drivel; of course it is censorship. If I sent my kid to bed so she would not see SEX AND THE CITY, then I censored her television viewing, period. If I edited the scene out of the movie BIG, wherein Tom Hanks touches Elizabeth Perkins' boob in implied foreplay-mode--so my very-young child would not see it--but left the rest of the illegally-videotaped movie intact, this means I CENSORED about 30 seconds of the movie BIG. Yes, lil ole Daisy, unentangled by government, CENSORED something, all on her own! This is the proper usage of the word, people:

cen·sor·ship (sĕn'sər-shĭp')

1) The act, process, or practice of censoring.

If you do not want to be accused of censorship, then by all means, do not censor, which is defined as:

To examine and expurgate.

That's all. No mention of the government or "Get your own damn blog"--none of that. It simply means, TO JUDGE UNWORTHY FOR WHATEVER REASON--AND SUBSEQUENTLY DELETE. That is censorship.

When you protest that no, you do not engage in censorship, when you clearly DO, then you are a coward who does not have the courage of your convictions and who does not take responsibility for your own beliefs, whatever those beliefs are.

Thus, when you "moderate"--you censor. Do not argue otherwise, just because you want to come off as some big tolerant liberal. Please admit what you are doing. I just admitted I didn't want my young daughter to see likable Tom Hanks grab a boob, before she was old enough to understand everything about that scene. Now, you can do likewise and admit that you have occasionally done the same, it will not kill you.

If, however, you are one of those people who LIVES TO CENSOR, then I can see why you might want to avoid the label... obviously, alternate versions of truth--as perceived by others--are things you don't like to wrestle with very often. Much easier to squash these other voices, like dragonflies on a hot southern-summer windshield.

~*~

As you all must have guessed by now, I was just censored, again, and decided to address the subject. I was polite and succinct in my comment, so the only reason I was censored was for disagreeing with the majority.

And see? It would have been lots better if Valerie of Valerie Speaks, had just gone ahead and allowed my polite little dissenting comment... now it is going to be FAR MORE NEGATIVE and MUCH LONGER.

On a thread titled Radical Feminists and Trans Stuff (warning, offensive hate speech from Sam Berg and the usual we-hate-sluts contingent), Heart writes the following:

The conflict ideologically speaking between radical feminists and Queer/postmodern people is really located right here, in the disagreement about what gender is. All sorts of things happen to female persons because we are female: we have been denied the vote, denied citizenship, forced into marriage, forced into prostitution, endured the mutilation of our genitals and reproductive organs, had our feet bound, been raped and sexually enslaved, suffered honor killings, forced to cover ourselves in specific ways, forced to bear children, degraded and debased because we bleed or because we are pregnant, and so on. That’s *gender*. It happens to us because of our sex. This is core to radical feminism because the belief that gender is something mystical, something in the head, something someone is somehow “born with,” something someone just “knows” about herself or himself [1] obscures or erases the horrific realities I’ve described, what the process of gendering a human being does to her (or to him.) To gender a person is to force him or her to conform to a patriarchally designed and coerced stereotype. To gender is to coerce. If we abolish gender and all gender coercion, people grow up free to be whomever they want to be, to express themselves in any conceivable way, wear whatever, do whatever they want to themselves and not be told it is “unfeminine” or “unmasculine” or whatever, not be ostracized, marginalized and so on.

Italics mine, not Heart's.

And here is my censored comment:

Correct.

Therefore, forcing someone to present as one or the other gender, simply because their genitalia is X or Y, is to continue the coercion.

Just to be clear, there is nothing remotely feminist about that position.

And you know, I can't understand how anyone could write that paragraph, and still be in favor of forcing gender on people: If you have X or Y genitalia, you are evilll and wrongggg for not identifying accordingly! (Isn't that the conclusion Heart and Co. have arrived at?)

If one agrees that gender is constricting and negative, why so judgmental and intolerant of the people who won't live according to their assigned birth gender? Doesn't the existence of such people PROVE that gender is fluid, multi-faceted and complex, rather than something very precise, prescribed and inborn (as the patriarchy has historically defined gender)?

Why are you preserving the gender-system right down to the necessity of panty-checks, if you claim you are against it?

And more to the point: your disapproval of trans people and your implication that trans persons are somehow invalid and trying to "deceive"[2]--is basically an unabashed celebration of inborn gender-roles and identity. (And this is in direct contradiction to your stated claims of abolishing gender.)

More from Heart:

No radical feminist I know and respect is personally concerned so far as what someone else might have done to their body or how they identify or, for that matter, what their beliefs about gender might be. All of us want justice for all people.

What are you talking about? Of course you are "personally concerned"--to the point that you believe such women should be refused entry at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (Michfest). You have written in favor of this position hundreds of times, on your own blog, the old Ms message board, countless other blogs, as well as the Michfest board. Hundreds of posts, thousands of words. You have proudly and zealously gone on record as approving of the active exclusion of trans women. How is that "unconcerned"? How is that "wanting justice for all people"?

The acrimony around transgender issues has to do, mostly, with the insistance that woman-only space and lesbian spaces, especially, be respected.

No, the acrimony is due to the fact that that you have decided certain women do not belong in that space, and you will not give equal time to any defense of said women's rights. They do not deserve inclusion, so OUT, OUT DAMNED SPOT. Ejection without trial! You show such proud disrespect, that you will not even listen to trans women or allow them to post on your blog... then you claim to be about "justice"...(!)

You first claim gender is oppressive, and then assert you want the right to continue to oppress people who do not fit into the proper gender categories. When this contradictory position brings about "acrimony"--you decide it isn't for the reasons feminists like me have enumerated, it is instead because you are too PURE AND GOOD for this world (there's that pesky Calvinism of yours creeping in again, Heart). You will not listen to what WE SAY is the problem and the cause of the acrimony, because of course, you know better than we do, right? We are not important enough for you to listen to. We don't count.

I think they call that predestination.

The experience of being subordinated because we are female from the time of our birth results in a lived reality that is not shared by those born male, even if they have transitioned.

No one has ever said the experiences were identical... but that these experiences do illustrate a different kind of oppression. As a cisgendered woman who has admirably fulfilled your gender-role, you have a privileged status. In fact, the way you are definitively proclaiming Who is What, regardless of their self-definition, is part and parcel of that status. You are giving an excellent demonstration of cis privilege: you know what transgendered people are, even BETTER than they know themselves. As men have always claimed to know women better than WE know ourselves. (Since you claim to be this right-on lesbian-feminist, doesn't imitating the worst habits of men bother you at all?)

As female persons subordinated on account of our sex by men and male-created institutions, we are entitled to gather as women for all the reasons all oppressed groups of persons gather. We are entitled to say that our spaces will not be shared by those born male.

As I said, cis privilege: you will decide who is "born male" and what that means, using the traditional patriarchal definitions. People's own perceptions of who they are, their own accounts and process, do not matter to you.

You are continuing to FORCE the definitions of gender; the very same gender that you criticize as oppressive. Suddenly, gender is your friend, when you need it to keep out the riff-raff.

Do you see the contradiction here?

Our gathering as women born female, who have lived as girls and women all of our lives, ought to be respected. A comparatively small number of vocal persons disagrees and has not only refused to respect women’s and lesbian space but has filed lawsuits against lesbian organizations, in some instances causing them to close, boycotted already marginalized lesbian and women performers and artists, launched no holds barred attacks on lesbian and radical feminist journalists, and so on. We are being told we are not entitled to determine how we will and will not strategize our own liberation. We are called “transphobes” and “bigots” in other words because we believe we are entitled to our own spaces, “our” meaning spaces for women born female, lived as girls and women all of our lives. There is a lot of understandable anger and resentment about this among lesbian/radical feminists. That anger isn’t about bigotry or transphobia, it is about justice for women as a people. Because, in fact, women are a people.

There are real transphobes everywhere, zillions of them in the mainstream, many of them, as you’ve noted, in alternative communities as well. Radical feminists are not, for the most part, transphobes and neither are lesbian feminists/lesbian separatists. Defense of our own spaces is not bigotry; it is insisting that we retain the right to strategize our own liberation.

Who is "our"? If you are going to continue to justify your exclusion of certain women, this is counterfeit liberation... it only refers to you and your friends. This is not all women. Certainly, it bears no relationship to radical feminism, but is instead a parody, a joke, by pseudo-feminists who were too busy during the birth of radical feminism to be involved... but like you, came on board much later, after reaping the considerable benefits of acceptable middle-class heterosexuality, as well as religious authority within Christianity.

Aren't you even a little embarrassed to be on the side of the censors, the segregationists, the haters, this time? Do you honestly believe there is nothing to the lawsuits, the boycotts, the challenges? They are just filled with the devil and are out to get you, is that it? These progressive feminist trans women who want to be included are simply trying to co-opt feminism, is that it? Why would they do that? What is the purpose? What's the frequency, Kenneth?

It seems to me, they want to be included, as disabled women once agitated to be included, as LESBIANS (whom you claim to be, something you mystically "just know" you are) have also agitated to be included. This is the same. But for some reason this time, you dig your heels in. THESE WOMEN you will not accept. They are too inferior; you simply will not associate with them.

And I think we can see, more boycotts, more lawsuits, more hell-raising, all are necessary.

Like the last segregationists, they will not give an inch unless they are forced. Bigots rarely learn a thing.

(sigh)

PS: Valerie, see how much LONGER this version is? Two lines would have caused much less fuss!

~*~

[1] How on earth could someone decide they are lesbian while still married to a man? Maybe lesbianism is "something someone just “knows” about herself or himself"?

[2] Heart has written that any trans person who does not disclose their trans-status to a prospective sexual partner, is guilty of rape. It is basically the feminist version of the "trans-panic" defense, used by trans-bashers throughout the land. Most recently, it was used as a legal defense of Allen Andrade, convicted murderer of trans woman Angie Zapata.

Feminist update: The transgender wars wage on!

Left: from postmodernbarney.com by way of lovely Lisa!



Yes, fight fans, it has not abated since I had my last big thread during the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival in August of last year. A few stand-offs, a few truces, but recently--a brand new conflagration.

The problem with cataloging blogwars is: who started it? In this case, I suppose we could accurately say the whole thing started back in... ohhh, I don't know. Long time ago.

This round appears to have been started by a thoughtful post at Maia's blog, titled Transphobia and Radical Feminism - A challenge:

I found that transgenderism / transsexualism is not the weird fetish of disturbed freaks, but a genuine - and very difficult - lived reality. I looked at some of the statistics for mental health and suicide rates among transpeople - both those who transition and those who do not. I read the blogs of transfolk, mainly transwomen - some who are out in real life, some who are not. I looked into medical evidence about the causes of transgenderism and found that there is no certainty about the true cause - whether it is physical / biological or whether it is mental / emotional / social or whether the individual cause varies from person to person. Sometimes intersex biology is relevant, sometimes not. From all this I learned that gender identity is a real phenomenon, even if we do not all consciously experience it; and I learned that gender dysphoria (where gender identify does not match biological sex attributes) is a real phenomenon, even if few of us are unfortunate enough to experience it.

What I found is that the definition of class Woman is not a simple matter, and I am not the person who can define what a woman is.

Radical feminists - especially those who are separatists or who advocate (as I do) the need for woman-only space - often struggle with this. We often act as though we know exactly what a woman is, and that a transwoman is not a woman. Even if we recognise that the question is not straightforward, we still struggle with the inclusion of transwomen in women-only spaces.

Sometimes our exclusion is expressed by straightforwardly characterising transwomen as men, so that it is then self-evident that they should be excluded from woman-only spaces. This really isn’t a very profound analysis.

I agree, it isn't.

My own process mirrors Maia's in many ways. My deepest, sincerest compliments on her honesty and willingness to ask the hard questions:

I do get that this is hard. I get that - especially for women who have been traumatised by men, women who have good reason to fear men, women who do in fact (as I once did) view transwomen as just men in drag - this is very hard indeed. Doing the right thing is often hard. It is still the right thing.

I keep making a connection in my mind with people who have suffered in war or conflict who are then asked to make peace with those whom they identify as their (former) enemies. We can understand if a person who suffered and was traumatised by long years in a prison camp, a rape camp, a concentration camp, if this person cannot forgive the group of people responsible for the suffering, is intensely distrustful and triggered by the mere presence of a person who looks like those people or shares their nationality… We understand, but understanding is not the same as condoning the organisation of, say, racist mental health spaces from which even innocent members of that group or nation are excluded - even members who were themselves traumatised, who fled as refugees, who reject their birth nationality and claim citizenship in their place of asylum…

I understand that this is hard. We want to protect those among us who have been hurt, who are still hurting. The question is not whether we want to protect women who are asking for safety. The question is whether we can actually achieve that by the exclusion of transwomen, and whether it is even acceptable to offer such protection when it comes at the expense of transwomen, by perpetuating the poorly analysed othering of transwomen, by ignoring the hurts and the violence that transwomen experience precisely because of their (desire to have) membership of class Woman. I don’t think so.

There is one more argument for trans-exclusion that I want to cover. It is touched upon in the Ogyn quote about “females who were raised as girls.” The idea is that transwomen, because they were raised as boys, cannot understand female oppression, that they have absorbed a degree of male entitlement that is impossible to reconcile with radical feminist women-only spaces. This is a big fat stereotype. If you tell a radical, young, woman-loving transwoman of colour that she is too dangerous and privileged to be allowed into your radfem women-only space then she will, if she is strong enough, laugh in your face. Rightly so.

The quandary for radical feminists: Are transwomen (people assigned "male" status at birth, but now identify as women) "really" women? Should feminists treat them as ex-oppressors or comrades-in-arms?

And why are transmen (people assigned "female" status at birth, but now identify as men) totally INVISIBLE in this conversation? What is to be gained by simply ignoring them, as many of the anti-trans radical feminists do?

Why such acrimony, viciousness and rancor from radical feminists? All out of proportion to events, IMHO.

And now, we bring you the greatest hits of this round. First, at Questioning Transphobia, we have the hoopla over the word CISSEXUAL, a handy-dandy word in these discussions. CISSEXUAL simply means "not transsexual." However, some trans activists have defined the word as: one who's genitalia "match" their social gender. Some feminists become rabid at such descriptions, since they have been mistaken for men or have been very butch; they feel this term erases them. A better description would be: one who's genitalia "match" the gender they feel themselves to be.

Is there such a thing as "cissexual privilege"?

There is also hoopla over the term transphobia--just as back in the day, there was consternation over the term homophobia. Some of you may remember the righteously indignant bleatings of various right wingnuts: "Phobia? I ain't skeered of no fucking fags!" Rush Limbaugh was one of the main wingnuts offering this line back in the early 90s.

At one point, I jumped in the fray. (Eh, I've done better.) You don't have to read all 120 posts, but keep in mind, I am UNBANNED by the end! (((bows)))

Belle sums up admirably:

well, it interests me, because it's coming up at the same time that the argument is supposedly y'know that they're going for this expansive sisterly communion, radical feminism (by the lights of people like this) is all about Class Woman, all 3+ billion of us, you know, we are strong, we are powerful...which is why the stakes are so high, because it's a -universal- movement, not just another little political faction or clique.

AND at the same time, there is an insistence that the -real- danger that transfolk pose to the women-only space is that they threaten the "safe space."

Safety.

This is, in fact, what's on the table; this is what's being so passionately defended when the author (and others) start talking about "radfemphobia" as a counter to the term "transphobia" (which is simultaneously being rejected and mocked as invalid).

“I want the ability to be with like-minded individuals and only like-minded individuals.”

The response:

Here’s a question: why? And, what do you mean by that exactly?

Because that’s very telling, to me. You’re not even really interested in mystical sisterly communion, much less political effectiveness, so much as being around people who you don’t have to argue with. Like, at all.

“Birds in their little nests agree…”

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but: even if you do manage to purge your community of all dissenters on transpeople (much less the transpeople themselves), sex work/prostitution, femme accoutrements, BDSM, and so on and so forth, there’s -still- going to be something that’ll tear you apart. Does. Hell, I can see it happening from here. Yeah, it happens to everyone, we all have fights, often over stupid shit, but y’all…I gotta tell you, from where I'm sitting? you really put the “fun” back in “dysfunctional.” This goes a good way toward explaining why.

It’s, like, a -betrayal,- isn’t it, when your “sister” suddenly turns out to be, -not- an extension of yourself, but -a completely whole other person-. -Different.- This isn’t what you signed up for! You came for the merge! This was supposed to fix everything! Why, it makes you feel so, so…*alone*. Again. And terrified.

Welcome to life.

Welcome to adulthood.

And featured below, more links to more arguments, and replies to arguments, and offshoots and derails of even more arguments, from Jack and Witchy Woo. Priceless! A must-read.

Witchy, of course, has edited all 'unpleasant' and non-adoring remarks from her blog, like the good Stalinist censor she is. So, for the whole exchange, check out Jack:

Recent blogwar in a nutshell.
Terrible people are TERRIBLE people
You are, actually, like the right wing.
[Opens up dictionary] *Ahem*
No, you're wrong. Sorry if that deeply troubles you.

Yes, it certainly does trouble them. They go on and on and on, then forbid arguments in response. (Because of course, they can't reply, or they wouldn't be afraid to allow an open discussion.)

Stay tuned, fight fans... I'm sure this won't be the last installment!

----------------
Listening to: Talking Heads - The Girls Want to Be with the Girls
via FoxyTunes

The Male vs Female Gaze

At left: Girl before a mirror by Pablo Picasso.

When I first saw the Picasso painting, I didn't know squat about art or cubism, but I remember thinking, "She doesn't like what she sees." (Rorschach test, anyone?)

In the discussion over my last post (about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival), a related issue came up: Do we feel our appearance is judged more harshly by women or by men?

Maggie Jochild wrote:

I was not visibly disabled the first time I went to Michigan in 1977, but I was fat. Very fat. And it was the first place in my life where I ever went naked in public -- even with my lovers, I'd not shown my body. Michigan created enough safety for that to occur. It was also where I learned that women have beards, have mustaches, have flat chests, have enlarged clitorises, have mastectomy scars, have unimaginable scars (like I now have), have every kind of body type you can imagine, -- that women often look like what our culture calls "men" -- because bodies are on full view and it's just not voyeuristic. We come out of our mothers this way. It was tremendously validating and educational.

[...]

I am now really fond of nudism, and have often gone to events where clothing is optional. And the fact is, at venues where men are present (even or sometimes especially leftie/gay men), I get snickered at. Always by a man. NEVER by women. I do believe this is conditioning -- and what I refer to as ideology is conditioning, not hard-wired into any brain -- but it's so entrenched and laid in so early, the only way around it is a complete re-do of identity. NOT appearance.

Others immediately disagreed. Bint commented:

I have often had my body ridiculed by women. I remember when I was going through radiation and the skin on my back was burned to a crisp. It wasn't a bit contagious or oozing, just charred. I was engaged and had gone to try on wedding gowns. Of the people who saw me in that store, daring to show my non-conforming body, feel free to guess the gender of the person I could see sneering at me when I turned around to face them. I could give even more accounts of situations like this. The idea that men are conditioned to be less accepting to variations on body types is a joke to me and many other women of color and women with disabilities.

Octagalore has also felt more *judgment* from women:

Bint: I too think what you said was very reasonable, especially the above. Most of my friends are women -- I'm not someone who claims "women don't get me" -- in fact, women usually get me better. But I've also gotten the most heartbreak from them.

I was horribly unpopular in grade school through high school. Although I became identifiably conventionally attractive during this period, I was very "different" in religion, how my parents dressed me (awful crocheted ponchos, "interesting" ethnic outfits) and in other ways. New boys would come to the school, hang out with me, then inevitably a girl would tell them how weird and oddly-dressed and outcast-y I was and they'd back off. High school was more of the same.

How about you? More nasty comments from men or women? Has that changed since you have aged vs when you were young?

If you agree with Bint and Octagalore, do you think women's negative judgments are due to oppression and rivalry, or is this just because we are also so hard on ourselves? After staring at ourselves in the mirror a long time, it seems likely we have developed a hypersensitive awareness of physical appearance, which we then turn on each other.

On the other hand, men have this way of humiliating women that, for me, far exceeds anything women do. It just feels different. The misogyny? Aggressive language? The tone of voice? I'm not sure why. Is there a possibly-physical threat present in men's statements, that is not present in women's?

As a child, were you ever picked on for looking different? Did this come from boys or girls, mostly?

On a related note: Do lesbians have more positive experiences with other girls, regarding personal appearance, than hetero girls? I'd be curious to know if lesbians ever wanted to tell their friends they were pretty, but refrained from doing so. Or did you go ahead? As a child, I had a friend who always told me I was "pretty like a doll" (I wasn't, but I loved hearing it), and I have always wondered if she grew up to be a lesbian or was just being a nice friend.

Say Yes to Michigan

Just for the record, I am not the one who tried to comment on the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (herein known as Michfest), over at Women's Space/Margins. It wasn't me! Besides, Heart is once again shilling for plane fare, and damned if I will interfere with her reindeer games. But I decided to start a Michfest thread, seeing as how we are in countdown mode! ONE WEEK TILL FESTIVAL!!! Par-tay!!!

For those living in Antarctica and unaware, Michfest is for women only. I have been there and it is fun, but that was a very long time ago. I don't really know what the festival is like now. I don't know exactly when the controversy started, and it depends on which account you read, but I didn't hear about it until the 90s. The controversy is about the phrase "women-born women" and what that means. The festival is for "women born women only." Camp Trans, for transgendered women, was set up to counter Michfest, as an alternative for everyone. But keep in mind, many transfolks, both transwomen and transmen, have attended the festival since it's inception.

One of my initial problems with Camp Trans was the fact that there are many, many places and institutions that are unapologetically closed off to transpeople, such as the military, Miss World, Miss USA, the priesthood, the convent, the FBI, and so on. Yes, they all do panty-checks at some point. I wondered: Why weren't people concentrating on protesting THOSE institutions? Why attack feminists? This seemed plenty suspect to me. In some ways, it still does.

And then, I realized: If *I* were a transwomen, I wouldn't want to go any of those places, I'd want to go to Michfest. This is a feminist gathering, or at least it began that way. It is women's culture, and many feminist women go to Michfest at least once. You might say it is like the feminist Mecca or Rome; it's like a pilgrimage. Once I thought about it that way, I thought it made sense that feminist transwomen would want to attend.

Some background on the issue:

Official Michfest website.

Wikipedia on Michfest Contains an excellent account of the history of the festival, as well as Camp Trans. Great links and resources.

Dykes to watch out for-Episode 495: Last year's Michfest thread with 350 comments! (bonus: a great comic!)

Michigan Womyn's Music Festival sets the record straight Women's Space/Margins (8-22-2006)

Camp Trans (although it says CAMP TRANS 2006 at the top, information applies to 2007, too.)

Your opinion?

Please try to respect the concept of an all-women's festival in your reply. And transwomen are welcome to give their opinions, of course: Are you interested in actually attending? Or has this just become a symbolic thing, as I often suspect it is?

I'd certainly be interested in comments from any transwomen who have managed to attend anyway, and if you felt "at risk" or if anyone actually seemed to care? (some think this is mostly a "management" opinion, and the festival attendees themselves actually don't care as much)

You are welcome to comment anonymously as long as you are NICE. This is a SOUTHERN blog, and we try to be polite as we reload. :) (old joke, don't get upset!)

Thanks in advance.