5 ms·

I and a lot of other progressives take issue with it because it is trans-exclusionary and continues the long tradition of mainstream feminist demonstrations or

by legodt 10y ago

I and a lot of other progressives take issue with it because it is trans-exclusionary and continues the long tradition of mainstream feminist demonstrations or expressions being explicitly for a white, cisgendered audience. I think OP was being mysoginistic and wasn't thinking this, but there is criticism on the left of the symbol as well. That said, now is not the time to start infighting with people just starting to become politically aware/active. Most of the marchers have never done anything political before so mistakes/naivety are to be expected

mattnewton 10y ago
The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity and to reclaim the word pussy though right? It's not trying to be anatomically correct, and afaict doesn't inheriently exclude trans people any more than it excludes progressive mens issues or the black lives matters movement. I am honestly asking from a position of near total ignorance. edit: Is it just that it's more a missed opportunity to pick a more inclusive symbol?
- legodt 10y ago
  You're not wrong, but there is more context. There is a near inexhaustible list of feminist art that defines womanhood as an anatomical feature or set of features, and seeing this March that is ostensibly for all women be so tone deaf to this existing fault in the feminist community shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to truly be intersectional. This is what makes the symbol exclusionary to non-binary or transgendered women, it's continuation of a trend of exclusion. During second wave feminism, this was so common a phrase grew out of it- TERF, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. A prominent example is Gloria Steinem. For decades, the gender-nonconforming have been written out or excluded from the feminist movement at large, and this was a major opportunity to unify everyone for possibly the first time. A more inclusive symbol could have been chosen. Q: The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity...? A: The solidarity excluded a major group that has historically been discriminated against even by progressive causes
  - nyolfen 10y ago
    i'm an outsider to all of this, but i've seen this come up repeatedly on my twitter feed and it seems like a lot of contention for what must be cumulatively (trans, non-binary) less than one percent of women(?)
    - legodt 10y ago
      Their smaller numbers does not render their concerns or oppression invalid
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        Right... but: We've got to pick our battles. It's looking like we might have done some serious damage to the climate. Does this mean we should ignore some minorty or another? Probably not. Inclusivity is all people working toward our collective betterment. Inclusivity isn't agonising over which symbol or colour or words includes all the freaks. There will always be someone who feels left out. Inclusivity is all the freaks working the frontline with the normals and everyone getting on with the job, then having a beer together afterwards. Or whatever roasts your goat.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        Their smaller number does mean they can expect mass propaganda to target mass audiences, and that they have to speak up for their own interests to be heard. I don't go around complaining that every single non-Jewish progressive or leftist demonstration has somehow failed to include Jews simply because I don't see a Magen David on most signs about racism.
        legodt 10y ago
        The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions. I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at historical context or complexity in social issues people just shut down, despite the fact that this site is made up of such a well educated, creative group of users.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>I and a lot of other progressives take issue with it because it is trans-exclusionary and continues the long tradition of mainstream feminist demonstrations or expressions being explicitly for a white, cisgendered audience. How is a public gesture, worn in front of everyone, supposed to target... actually, whom? The most intersectional possible audience? In fact, why should we rate the progressiveness of the message on which audience it seems to most precisely target, rather than assuming the audience (as ever, for politics) is everyone? Instead of complaining that gestures aren't precise enough, we can acknowledge that this one gets its damn point across and talk about the policy question. Rape: for or against? Assault: for or against? Personally, I'm against on both.

by legodt 10y ago

mattnewton 10y ago

The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity and to reclaim the word pussy though right? It's not trying to be anatomically correct, and afaict doesn't inheriently exclude trans people any more than it excludes progressive mens issues or the black lives matters movement. I am honestly asking from a position of near total ignorance. edit: Is it just that it's more a missed opportunity to pick a more inclusive symbol?

legodt 10y ago
You're not wrong, but there is more context. There is a near inexhaustible list of feminist art that defines womanhood as an anatomical feature or set of features, and seeing this March that is ostensibly for all women be so tone deaf to this existing fault in the feminist community shows a real lack of understanding of what it takes to truly be intersectional. This is what makes the symbol exclusionary to non-binary or transgendered women, it's continuation of a trend of exclusion. During second wave feminism, this was so common a phrase grew out of it- TERF, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. A prominent example is Gloria Steinem. For decades, the gender-nonconforming have been written out or excluded from the feminist movement at large, and this was a major opportunity to unify everyone for possibly the first time. A more inclusive symbol could have been chosen. Q: The hats were meant more as a symbol of feminine solidarity...? A: The solidarity excluded a major group that has historically been discriminated against even by progressive causes
- nyolfen 10y ago
  i'm an outsider to all of this, but i've seen this come up repeatedly on my twitter feed and it seems like a lot of contention for what must be cumulatively (trans, non-binary) less than one percent of women(?)
  - legodt 10y ago
    Their smaller numbers does not render their concerns or oppression invalid
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      Right... but: We've got to pick our battles. It's looking like we might have done some serious damage to the climate. Does this mean we should ignore some minorty or another? Probably not. Inclusivity is all people working toward our collective betterment. Inclusivity isn't agonising over which symbol or colour or words includes all the freaks. There will always be someone who feels left out. Inclusivity is all the freaks working the frontline with the normals and everyone getting on with the job, then having a beer together afterwards. Or whatever roasts your goat.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Their smaller number does mean they can expect mass propaganda to target mass audiences, and that they have to speak up for their own interests to be heard. I don't go around complaining that every single non-Jewish progressive or leftist demonstration has somehow failed to include Jews simply because I don't see a Magen David on most signs about racism.
      - legodt 10y ago
        The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions. I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at historical context or complexity in social issues people just shut down, despite the fact that this site is made up of such a well educated, creative group of users.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>I and a lot of other progressives take issue with it because it is trans-exclusionary and continues the long tradition of mainstream feminist demonstrations or expressions being explicitly for a white, cisgendered audience. How is a public gesture, worn in front of everyone, supposed to target... actually, whom? The most intersectional possible audience? In fact, why should we rate the progressiveness of the message on which audience it seems to most precisely target, rather than assuming the audience (as ever, for politics) is everyone? Instead of complaining that gestures aren't precise enough, we can acknowledge that this one gets its damn point across and talk about the policy question. Rape: for or against? Assault: for or against? Personally, I'm against on both.