Opinions ? Bi woman's group ousts some transwomen

[MarieDelta]

Chasing Amy society does not permit pre op trans women.

I suppose I support their right to do so with out agreeing with the reasons. There are plenty of other places to go I suppose. Still it hurts to be singled out based on something that you have no control over(especially within the BT community.)

Anyway, Opinions?


http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2119


Thanks,

Marie

[DiamondDog]

oh dear, only in the bay area....


"If a woman with a penis wants to force her way into a group of transitioning women and bio women who have tried very hard to create a safe place for themselves, then that is a very patriarchal energy," wrote Lanier. "A 'me and my cock have a right to go anywhere' kind of entitlement."

I think it's wrong for them to publically out someone like that, and their attitude about trans people sucks; but they should have established rules for their club beforehand like how if it's a club/group for bio women only if club members/the owner don't want trans people there.

[transcendMental]

Of course they have a right to determine who can be a member and who can not.

I think, however, that their policy betrays the fact that they do not believe that transwomen are in fact women. This belief is not uncommon among people who know little or nothing of trans issues.

But their opinion and policy basically invalidate the whole transperson's condition: if I am not a woman, then what the hell is it that they think I am going through? Do they think we are psychotic? Simply confused? Basically, they are saying that we are not who our most core sense of identity tells us we are. Nice of them to decide that for us.

If we are simply confused, then we must be cureable, right? Funny how over 100 years of medical and psychiatric practice has found no effective way to address this "confusion" -- except gender transition. But it makes no sense that gender transition would resolve the confusion by making us into something we're NOT. It makes far more sense to think that it removes the confusion by turning us into something we really ARE.

I think the best way to get groups like this to adopt trans-friendly policies (or at least remove the trans-phobic ones) is to educate them about our condition. There is so much confusion in the general public among homosexuality, cross-dressing (98% of cross-dressers are straight males), and transsexualism (transsexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and can have little in common with cross-dressers), that we can't expect people to be comfortable with who we are until they understand who we are a bit better.

So yeah, it sucks, and it hurts. But society just isn't there yet. Which means that we have work to do.

[Danielle B]

Well, it's a private club, so they get to make up their own rules regardless of whether or not they are perceived as "fair" (no red wine drinkers? Count me out...:bigrin:)

But it seems to be a question of what they consider a woman to be. The one who said that transwomen bring "patriarchal" energy- I dunno about that. I guess some do, but those transwomen who consider themselves women first, and trans secondary don't do that.

I always thought, though, that all in all male policy setters were practically obsessed with our "surgery status"- you know, the ones who decide that we can't get drivers' licenses with "F" without having had "the surgery" and stuff like that. I was surprised and a little bit disappointed to see that from natal women, too. I am sure there are some post-ops out there who retain their masculine "aura" about them, so IMO whether or not one has had a surgical procedure done is no indication of someone's womanliness.

Regardless of any of that, though, it's disappointing.

[Skater Boy]

Of course they have a right to determine who can be a member and who can not.

I think, however, that their policy betrays the fact that they do not believe that transwomen are in fact women. This belief is not uncommon among people who know little or nothing of trans issues.

Yes it sounds like a case of ignorance to me. And also fear, to some degree.

[MarieDelta]

I wouldn't want to belong to this club either in fact, just because I think they're a bunch of snobs.

But it just hurts when you are betrayed by those who are supposedly working side by side with you for equal rights.

Note that not all transwomen are excluded, only those "with penis". So if you're poor or unable to have the surgery (for whatever reason.) then too bad for you if you want to join. It smacks of elitism and privledge.

Then there's the whole MWMF, but I don't even want to open that can of worms here.

Anyway Thanks guys for the responses.

Marie

[Danielle B]

I wouldn't want to belong to this club either in fact, just because I think they're a bunch of snobs.

But it just hurts when you are betrayed by those who are supposedly working side by side with you for equal rights.

Note that not all transwomen are excluded, only those "with penis". So if you're poor or unable to have the surgery (for whatever reason.) then too bad for you if you want to join. It smacks of elitism and privledge.

Then there's the whole MWMF, but I don't even want to open that can of worms here.

Anyway Thanks guys for the responses.

Marie

I hadn't thought of the privilege aspect.

It seems that even the most oppressed of groups still feel the need to oppress someone else. What a sad commentary on the human race, isn't it?

[hotblue9925]

"Patriarchal Energy" because someone has the vestige of a penis???? Oh please. Why not just come right and say that "we don't like their kind" and have done with it. Don't cloak your ugliness in the gauze of psychobabble. Sheesh.

True - they do have the right to exclude who they want. But I can't imagine who would want to be part of that group with a clear conscience.

[shameless agitator]

I'm with you Hotblue. It's the old Voltaire bit "I find what you say offensive, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

[Azrael]

"Patriarchal Energy" because someone has the vestige of a penis???? Oh please. Why not just come right and say that "we don't like their kind" and have done with it. Don't cloak your ugliness in the gauze of psychobabble. Sheesh.


Well put, buddy. You get a gold star and a check plus!
:bigrin:

[MarieDelta]

"Patriarchal Energy" because someone has the vestige of a penis???? Oh please. Why not just come right and say that "we don't like their kind" and have done with it. Don't cloak your ugliness in the gauze of psychobabble. Sheesh.

True - they do have the right to exclude who they want. But I can't imagine who would want to be part of that group with a clear conscience.


What you guys may or may not understand is that this is typical of the response tht transwomen get from some who are supposedly our sisters.

The MWMF doesn't outright exclude transwomen, but they expect us to respect their womyn born womyn policy.

If we act too girly then we're accused of faking it, if we act too masculine then we aren't "woman" enough. We're caught in a double bind because of our anatomy.

I should just shut up now and get off my soap box...

[Sapphrodite]

First I would like to comment our TG sisters for such an interesting thread - we certainly need to find a way of fostering more acceptance between all aspects of bisexuality. I mean if we cant accept each other among ourselves, then how are we to expect others in the LGBT community and society at large to accept us as a whole?

That being said, I hope no one finds it offensive that I post a few more remarks under this thread... :eek2:

I participate in a bi woman's group that does not currently allow pre-op TGs to attend their all-female functions because of the nature of the group. But I also understand that it is not the group's intent to prohibit or discriminate in any way against transwomen whatsoever. They are merely a niche social club trying to provide what it feels the group as a whole is looking for.

In this instance, all of this group's paid members are verified female, in the sense that they have previously attended an event or referred by an existing member. The privately-operated group does not offer male memberships of any kind; any significant others are covered under the female's membership. There is no reason that a Post-Op TG could not hold a membership with the group, and it would be up to these members to share their history with the girls they chose to be with, and is no business of the group whatsoever.

Most of the members are straight-oriented bisexual women, in long-term relationships or dating straight male partners and seek the opportunity to meet other like-minded bi females. Most women have pre-agreed upon rules and restrictions with their partners as to their activities with others to be limited to women only, often citing a 'no-penis policy'. Since the events are to be females only, I can understand how straight men may view transwomen as a deal-breaker since they as involved partners are not allowed to attend such events.

However this Group has no issue with TG's attending 'Couples & Singles' events as part of a Couple, escorted by either a male or a female, as both genders are present in a semi-public setting (such as a bar). I have argued in favour of TGs that no one has the right to say who can and cant be at a public venue, as I only see it as fair representation of the LGBT community. In fact, they (as a group) have been discriminated against in the past for being discriminatory, until it was explained that as a gateway group between the straight and LGBT community and that by not remaining bio female only, they could actually be pushing people away from the LGBT scene altogether.

In the role of Devil's Advocate, I do see the need for some groups to remain exclusive to provide an understanding environment, especially those in the LGBT community. I can no sooner join a bi-male or TG group as a bi female as it's just not what I am, in the same way there are 'boy scouts' and 'girl scouts' separate from the 'boys & girls club' programs. Most often it's not to discriminate against any particular group, but to best meet the needs of those for whom the group was intended.

I'm not sure if it is the same for men - unfortunately I havent a wide enough gay male friend base to make general comments on this next issue. I have heard from many bi men that they can go to a gay club or bathhouse and no one seems to care if they are gay, bi, trans or otherwise. Maybe men in general aren't as concerned about it and take things at face-value: other men out to socialize and have a good time.

Personally I have found it frustrating to even socialize, far less make friendships and connections, with other females in the public LGBT scene. I walk into a predominantly lesbian enviroment and they part like the Red Sea around me: as a straight-oriented bisexual I read as 'straight' and therefore am made to feel out of place. In a straight bar, I am accepted for who I am on the surface, however it's all but impossible to pick out the bi femmes in the crowd, and it's not as acceptable to be bi or gay in those clubs. So what's a bi gal to do?? Likely the same thing as the rest of the world does - try to find a place they are accepted for who they are, and so we've come full circle.

It's a very delicate balance between providing service for specific demographics in the bisexual community, as bisexuals have more variety in what we are looking for than any other LGBT group. We can be straight- or gay-oriented, seeking long-term or short-term with either sex, and can be a bio or altered gender and/or orientation. It's simply too difficult to lump us all together in one big group and excpet to meet anyone's needs.

Please feel free to comment on my remarks, but it may take me a while to get back to you: I'm going to try to sign up for the Gay Men's Naked Bowling League.... (again).... *STRIKE* ;)

[gb11vt18]

I can see the reason to be a little anoyed with the women, but it is a private organization just like any private Country Club in Americia they have a choice of who they want as members. Do I agree with what they are saying yes and no, I think they make a valid point in saying that some times they get semi to completely nude and as a bisexual women organization they might feel uncomfortable with a pre-op transwomen their with a penis. But I agree restrictions upon the entrence of members into the club is a bit extreme. Any ways if I was a women I would not want to join her club any ways, just too many rules.

[transcendMental]

I wouldn't want to belong to this club either in fact, just because I think they're a bunch of snobs.

But it just hurts when you are betrayed by those who are supposedly working side by side with you for equal rights.

Note that not all transwomen are excluded, only those "with penis". So if you're poor or unable to have the surgery (for whatever reason.) then too bad for you if you want to join. It smacks of elitism and privledge.

Marie

I don't know the people, Marie, but even a bunch of snots deserve to be educated about trans issues. I think that the more ignorant and closed-minded a group is, the more important it is that they receive information. If we exclude them, then they will remain ignorant and their fear will only grow.

On Sapphy's post, I think the issue breaks down this way for me:

If you're viewing me as a body, then ok, I am biologically male and still have male bits.

If you're viewing me as a person, though, then I am female, and feel that I should be treated as such.

So if the point of a group is exclusively to hook up sexually, I can understand having a restriction based on the bodies of the members. But if part of it is to give and receive support, then it is transphobic to disallow transwomen...disallow them from the sexual follies, if that makes partners more comfortable, but curtailing membership outright is transphobic.

As many have pointed out, they have a perfect legal right to be transphobic. But that doesn't make it right to do so.

[onewhocares]

With what little time I have spent being close to a TG woman, I can see many obstacles that altough apparently "OPEN" to woman, she is not seen as one. She faces a long road ahead, as do you.

I know that I would not be allowed to join....I love red wine....Malbec especially.

Belle

[Long Duck Dong]

sadly I have to agree with the group on their stance

the no penis rule is a rule that is up to abuse, if leeway is given

the no penis rule refers to a body part... not the person

a cross dresser could claim that tho they own a penis, when they dress in females clothes, they identify as a female.... its like a * crude and nasty * form of true transgenderism

when the group bans a penis, they are saying no to a body part, and not a person

tho a pre op person is in a state of transition in the body, they are the gender they identify as mentally and mentally...but a female that still have male genitalia....
hence the ban against penises, excludes them, not for being female, but for having a part of the part that is excluded from acceptance

when we demand the right to be included, we are saying that we deserve the right to be accepted ....however, we fail to see the rights of others not to have to cater to every group, in every situation.....
as a private group, they has the right to state membership criteria...and refusal to a penis, is not a sign of ignorance or rudeness.... but simply a desire not to view a certain body part... the fact that its been turned into transphobic behievour, amuses me

I could turn that groups standing from a simple no penis rule, isto something else, hence its penis phobic, anti male, transphobic, anti LGBT etc etc etc
rather than just say that its a private group that would perfer not to have to view penises during its social events

[Azrael]

I should just shut up now and get off my soap box...
Don't even joke about it ;)

[transcendMental]

when the group bans a penis, they are saying no to a body part, and not a person

...

when we demand the right to be included, we are saying that we deserve the right to be accepted ....however, we fail to see the rights of others not to have to cater to every group, in every situation.....
as a private group, they has the right to state membership criteria...and refusal to a penis, is not a sign of ignorance or rudeness.... but simply a desire not to view a certain body part... the fact that its been turned into transphobic behievour, amuses me



Silly me. I didn't know they were talking to my penis. I thought they were talking to me!

If it is simply a desire not to view a certain body part, then I don't see the problem, since I don't show that body part to anyone except my partner. Somehow I think it runs deeper than the body part, LDD.

And forgive me for taking myself seriously, but nothing about transphobic behavior amuses me.

[shameless agitator]

sadly I have to agree with the group on their stance

the no penis rule is a rule that is up to abuse, if leeway is given

the no penis rule refers to a body part... not the person

a cross dresser could claim that tho they own a penis, when they dress in females clothes, they identify as a female.... its like a * crude and nasty * form of true transgenderism

when the group bans a penis, they are saying no to a body part, and not a person

tho a pre op person is in a state of transition in the body, they are the gender they identify as mentally and mentally...but a female that still have male genitalia....
hence the ban against penises, excludes them, not for being female, but for having a part of the part that is excluded from acceptance

when we demand the right to be included, we are saying that we deserve the right to be accepted ....however, we fail to see the rights of others not to have to cater to every group, in every situation.....
as a private group, they has the right to state membership criteria...and refusal to a penis, is not a sign of ignorance or rudeness.... but simply a desire not to view a certain body part... the fact that its been turned into transphobic behievour, amuses me

I could turn that groups standing from a simple no penis rule, isto something else, hence its penis phobic, anti male, transphobic, anti LGBT etc etc etc
rather than just say that its a private group that would perfer not to have to view penises during its social eventsSo based on your logic eunuchs would be okay? (Yes I know eunuchs have their testes removed, not their penii, but I'm making a point)

[coyotedude]

Marie and TM, I don't have a good answer for you on this one. I really don't.

From my perspective, you both live in an incredibly complex world. Your inner selves -- your spirits, if you prefer -- simply don't match the physical plumbing you were born with. I would assume that has caused the both of you a certain level of confusion and even pain on occasion. I know for a fact that your very existence challenges our deepest assumptions about gender, which of course plays a key role in our own sense of self.

Assuming the article you posted is an accurate portrayal of the situation, I do get the impression that transphobia is playing a role in this particular case. ("Patriarchal energy" my ass!) Personally, I'm not too impressed by their attitude as a whole - cat allergies? red wine drinkers? Give me a break!

Yet to be completely honest, I can also understand (in general terms) why a bisexual woman's group would be uncomfortable with a pre-op trans woman participating in certain events. I would not necessarily label such discomfort in itself as transphobia. Still, I also see how this could be hurtful to a pre-op trans woman (or post-op, for that matter), for all the reasons you have described and more.

I'm just not sure there is an easy answer, my friends. I may be blind, of course, but I just don't see it, at least right now....

Peace

[Sapphrodite]

I'd like to state that the group that I belong to is not the Chasing Amy Social Club, the one originally commented upon by MarieDelta, but another local private group. I agree very much with the logic that no one should be "phobic", be it gay or bi or trans phobic, and that yes people need to be educated, but that is not restricted to a small bi-female social group, but the world at large. It's not a phobia of a private ladies club but a general ignorance of society, and that is the issue that needs to be addressed, not how a private club chooses its membership. And my in my experience to date, I have found equal rejection among both the straight and gay communities for being bisexual, so it's an issue to tackle across the board.

I did a little more homework and visited www.chasingamysocialclub.com (http://www.chasingamysocialclub.com) for the first time ever. I quickly found their group's policy (on the "About" page), stating that their group was private and restricted to bio and post-op females, and extended its apologies in saying that "one group cannot meet every bi woman's needs within the queer community", a sentiment I mirrored in my previous post. I also reread the news article from the Bay Area Reporter, and felt it was very pointed, dismissing the public works the club organizer has done with and for transwomen and focused on the one private biwomen's club she operates. And BTW Coyote, although I found them equally ridiculous at first, the cat allergies are because events are held in the organizer's 'feline friendly' home and apparently she has a ridiculously long list of allergies which include red wine, which causes anaphalatic shock (so it would seem reasonable that no red wine be present at events).

I also identified the offensive and ignorant 'me and my cock' remark as a club member's comment and NOT that of the club's organizer, and I feel although it does reflect some people's transphobia, tossing it into a LGBT news article is equally responsible for sparking more conflict, as it pertains to one person's opinion, and not a fair representation of the club itself. In fact, the CASC organizer moderates a separate public poly discussion group for all women who identify as female, and offered to assist the trans community to create another club which could include all women without restrictions, efforts which were miniminzed in the article.

Although the club I belong to is not intended to just "hook up" for sex, but a way to meet and socialize with other bi females, however many of the girls do find that special chemistry and a few of the events are a bit more on the risqué side, including nudity. If this was a strictly online community, I'd be the first to stick my neck out by saying All Women Welcome (bio or trans) because then it is all about the woman inside and it makes no difference what you have below the belt. But once nudity and sexual contact mat be present, then I can understand and support the need for these kinda of rules IF they are promoting 'women only' private functions.

There is a distinct difference is between a singles dating site and a bisexual social club. About 90% of the bi women in the club I belong to are already in a long-term commitment with a male and have to equally consider the feelings of their mates as opposed to the singles scene where they can meet/date each person on an individual basis. I don’t think this is a phobic behaviour, but finding an appropriate venue in which to find what they are looking for: I would no sooner go to church Sunday morning to solicit swinging sex partners as I would go to a swingers club looking to find a monogamous-minded man to be my future husband. It's a little like boycotting a Jazz Club for not playing Country Music - it's simply not what the club is about.

I hope I haven’t further exasperated the point, but I wanted to be able to bring a (hopefully) positive bi woman's view, however straight-oriented or solitary in expression. On a social level, I accept all persons who identify as females to be just that, and I would easily accept and make real-life friends with transwomen and go shopping with them as I would any other female friend. However when it comes to the physical side, I am personally looking for the potential for sexual encounters with other women, and that includes the physical sexuality of an anatomically representative female to which I am attracted. If I am looking for a club to meet women who may potentially become sexual partners, then I have the choice to join a group that includes or excludes pre-op transwomen based on the experiences I'm seeking.

And that doesn’t make me phobic or trans-negative or anything... other than a pussy-lovin' bisexual gal. :tongue:

[MarieDelta]

There is no easy answer here.

Unless we talk about it though, we will never understand each other.

That's why open forums are important, and why free speech is important.

And that is why I posted this article to get different veiwpoints than just my own.

And also to educate, and talk about issues which are important to the (albeit tiny) community that I belong to.

This is a debate that isn't going away anytime soon, because the answers aren't one size fits all easy type answers.

Trans inclusion in womens spaces is a debate that is /has/ will have no easy solution, at least not in my veiw.


:flag2::flag1::flag2:

[the mage]

Every organization has to, and has the right to draw the line.
A sexual dynamic is a unique thing where sensibilities are affected deeply by surroundings.
Just as you have the right to say you like cut or uncut, white or black, penis or no penis in your private play, they do too.

Just as a woman is not allowed in the baths.
Or a legal male in the pussy palace.

Private is private.

A legitimate support organization will have provision for Trans people in all stages of physical condition..