I really feel for what the creator/author of the video has to say here. I believe that until oppressed people can look bast the minor dis-similarities and to the greater similarities we are only making the struggle that much more difficult.

It seems like trans and queer folk have so much in common with women in terms of oppression, exclusion, and the real and legitimate fear of violence and yet you have a group who is exercising their power to exclude a valuable ally.

Is this transwoman's penis the end all be all to who she is? Are there any "womyn" reading this who support this segregation happy with being defined and excluded by those in power based on their own genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics?

I believe this is a matter of ethical principle and everyone wishing to overthrow oppression must ask themselves "Do I wish to replace one form of oppression with another, or do I want to change the dynamic entirely?" I do not see how this can be anything other than clear-cut.

I have a few things to say regarding the subject of this post.

1) Why is it that people who have experienced oppression or discrimination feel it justifies their oppression and discrimination of others?

2) If you're not a transgender person, I doubt you'll understand what it's like to be transgender. You can throw all the scientific theories, philosophical debates, heated discussions and anything else you want at the issue. In the end, all that's left is how people identify themselves and where they feel their place is in society. I don't understand how a woman who identifies as a woman and likes traditionally "feminine" things is acceptable, but a transwoman who demonstrates the same qualities is playing into the "wrong" female stereotypes.

This whole thing physically upsets me, especially as I'm a transwoman myself. But as I see it, those who support the whole "womyn-born-womyn" nonsense are just as bigoted as the people they feel have subjugated them. It sounds to me as if they're just trading artificial male-dominated standards of "femininity" for artificial female-dominated ones.

Specifically, trans women feel they are being kept from attending the festival via the "womyn born womyn" policy.

Not 'feel', they are.

This poet is inspiring; she is a clear, articulate, and beautiful queer voice that I long to hear more of. Together we are stronger.

There was an incident in the past where a trans woman was removed from the festival when it was discovered (in the communal shower area) that her genitalia did not match the festival goers idea of female genitalia.

In 1999, Riki Wilchins led a protest from Camp trans onto MichFest land in order to challenge the WBW policy. One of the protesters, Tony Baretto-Neto, a trans man who'd had phalloplasty, was seen in the showers.

Rumors immediately spread that trans women were deliberately exposing their penises to cis women, that a trans woman had been caught in the shower, and in the time since, some anti-trans feminists have actively spread the story that it was trans women deliberately misbehaving, or even sexually harassing and assaulting women on the land.

More information about the incident is given on page 14 of this PDF.

Tony entered the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival in 1999 and took a shower inside, inadverdantly exposing his transplanted forearm, which was made to appear like a penis. This is considered to be the origin of the myth that “men walked around the festival exposing themselves (which has no concrete eyewitness reports besides Tony’s story itself).

I'm not trying to paint Tony as a bad guy here, either. Per his own words, he asked permission before using the shower, was seen, and the rumors started flying.

Alix believes that "of all the conversations she had heard over the years about trans exclusion at the festival, the most productive or important ones had actually happened AT Michigan."

Nice, the cis-privileged discuss amongst themselves how trans people should feel. Not quite, but kinda like, white people telling each other how racism works.

I can only quote her own words back from "Subtle sister" and wonder if she only understands them from one point of view

You wanna see what it’s like down here in this pool of someone else’s rules, well jump in, take a swim or just sit in this pit squishing bare toes in someone else’s bullshit, we do it all the time.

The biggest joke is that they allow transmen in, ie women who identify as men, so it's men-born-womyn as well.

Seeing as transwomen identify as women full time, it's funny how transmen get a week off from being a guy (except of course they're guys inside the fest as well) and that's perfectly okay. I guess just as MWMF think of transwomen as once-a-man, always-a-man, transmen are once-a-woman, always-a-woman. I know, as a transwoman, I'm insulted if I'm ever regarded as a man, but I'm genuinely surprised that transmen think it's reasonable that wimminists (they're not feminists) refuse to acknowledge their status as men.

Allie commented at August 11, 2008 8:25 PM: "1) Why is it that people who have experienced oppression or discrimination feel it justifies their oppression and discrimination of others?"

Lemme guess, they're aware of the privileges they don't have but take the privileges they do have for granted so much that they don't realize they are privileged? I'm reminded of when some of the people who speak out against Islamophobia are still sexist.

Lemme guess, they're aware of the privileges they don't have but take the privileges they do have for granted so much that they don't realize they are privileged?

I believe it's this. Privilege and oppression intersect, and just because someone is oppressed in one way certainly doesn't mean they'll automatically possess special insight into the ways that others are oppressed.

It is interesting, though, because people who explicitly reject privileged commentary directed toward them will turn around and use exactly the same form of arguments against others.

I respectfully disagree with the prevailing response here. It seems to me that "womyn-born-womyn" and transwomen have qualitatively different experiences that justify separate spaces on occasion. Then again, maybe MichFest isn't the time or the place. Maybe I misunderstand the mission of the festival.

Apologies for double-posting, but let me clarify: I think "separate spaces" can be accomplished WITHIN MichFest, respectful of all, the way separate areas have been designated for WoC and other groups. Why couldn't there be a "Womyn-born-Womyn" camp for those who feel the need and, in all fairness, a transwomen camp as well, with the rest of the space open to both?

I agree with the post above that said there is a difference between saying someone FEELS like they are being discriminated against and being discriminated against.

I also think that immediately framing the issue around the safety issue was wrong. I don't believe that is the issue here or in the this discussion (which by the way was started by the video of an awesome trans girl). Trans women have been excluded from these womyn only events for decades and I don't believe that trans women are not allowed at Michigan because of one incident in the early nineties. This incident, if it did occur, is being used as a basis for continuing transphobic policies and beliefs and it needs to be questioned , not immediately treated as a legitimate concern.

also, awesome people need to be called out when they aren't being so awesome.

"1991: Nancy Burkholder comes out to others as trans within the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Festival security questions her about this and escorts her out to the road in the middle of the night and has to find her way back to town. The festival began for the first time to enforce a policy of allowing only 'womyn-born womyn' to attend."

Never been policed? It is only 2006 that an out trans woman would be allowed to buy a ticket (while made to feel discouraged from coming). Until now you could only go if you "passed" and didn't say anything.

"1991: Nancy Burkholder comes out to others as trans within the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Festival security questions her about this and escorts her out to the road in the middle of the night and has to find her way back to town. The festival began for the first time to enforce a policy of allowing only 'womyn-born womyn' to attend."
from camp-trans.org

Never been policed? It is only 2006 that an out trans woman would be allowed to buy a ticket (while made to feel discouraged from coming). Until now you could only go if you "passed" and didn't say anything.

Thanks for posting the video. I probably would have misssed it if you hadn't.

camp-trans was also formed to fight for trans inclusion, not the right for this person (again whether or not it actually occured) or persons to expose themselves like that. That really needs to be clarified in the post, because again that just seems how the position is framed a bit.

I also feel like we should question people who advocate against trans inclusion. I mean... should we not question events with policies discouraging gay/lesbian/queer couples to attend because the other people there "appreciate the space and community it creates" without them.

I also sincerely doubt that Alix Olson has been to the "the most productive or important" talks about trans issues because as far as I know Julia Serano has never been to the festival to take part in them.

I should say that appreciate all the time that feministing has devoted to trans issues (in particular trans women issues). It has made me feel very welcome here, even I take issues with this here.

I'm sorry that I keep posting more and that my comments obviously need to be proof read, but...

It also bothers me that the girl's video is only described as "appropriate". I mean, this is just how it seems to me, but the lead in before the video is that this was appropriate, then you talk about how Michfest was "built out of nothing" and "creates a space", then there's the video... then its all about defending michfest and Alix Olson's position (if that is her position, from everything above I'm assuming that she shares the womyn-born-womyn policy). Not once does anything that the trans woman says in the video get discussed. I guess you could say that there is a case being built in response against some it, but never do the concerns that she raises get mentioned. That really bothers me.

I feel silly being the only one posting here so much. I also feel a bit awkward being trans and posting. I don't know. I feel this and I think a lot of what trans women are saying is that we feel like our identity as women is too often disregarded or ignored. Here I feel like using the safety concern and not adequately addressing all sides on that issue or discussing anything that was actually said by the trans woman, sets trans women's identities up for being disregard, ignored, or set below that of other women's concerns in these issues.

It especially needed to be mentioned that most trans women would never behave inappropriately or purposely try to offend others in this way at such events.

I just made my Feministing account last night, Carasande, and that was because Helen G pointed out the "trans woman exposed herself" statement.

Anyway, I think that the entire structure underpinning the "WBW only policy" needs to be questioned and discussed, and those questions and discussions absolutely have to include trans women or they're not important at all. While I'm sure cis women and trans men have discussed the matter of allowing trans women into MichFest, it doesn't mean a whole lot because trans women don't have a voice inside MichFest.

The MWMF forum doesn't count, as all discussion about trans women is relegated to one ghettoized forum where cis women are given free reign to say anything up to and including "trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist."

I do think it's appropriate to acknowledge the anger and frustration that fueled Kat's performance in the video. I think that her words should be celebrated.

Also, I don't believe the question of ending anti-trans segregation at MichFest (or any other woman-only space) is controversial at all. I think it has a pretty simple answer, and the only thing preventing cis people from applying that answer is their unwillingness to accept trans women as women - something that is their problem, but something we - trans women - are constantly blamed for.

@AnnaArcturus -
did you really just advocate for "separate but equal"? really? cuz that's sure as heck what it sounded like.

@HelenGB -
I see where you're coming from on the self-congratulatory/privelege front, but I think there's a good point to be made there. Those kinds of conversations HAVE to be taking place on "the land", during the Festival. There have to be people attending the Festival who do NOT support the policy, so that they can engage with the opposition and be a force for education and change.

I attended the Festival about 5 years ago, working for a vendor. I was deeply ambivalent about it, but wanted to experience it and make up my own mind about it. It was freakin' AMAZING in so many ways and the only thing that marred the experience was the stupid trans policy. and yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever that people that i know for a fact ID as men off the land are welcomed, but transwomen are not. there's no sense to be made.

But I'm not sure what kind of change can be effected...it's a private enterprise, owned by a woman who is not budging on the policy. certainly more folks in the younger generations don't see the point in the policy (although you'd be surprised how many of the older lesbians support their trans sisters! it brought me to tears several times), so that feels like progress.

It never ceases to amaze me how deeply ingrained notions/beliefs of gender are in people, and how violently and passionately they react toward anything that challenges those notions/beliefs.

Mina: it makes no sense whatsoever that people that i know for a fact ID as men off the land are welcomed, but transwomen are not. there's no sense to be made

I think this hits the nail on the head. There's no justification or logic for the policy, it's just based on the ignorant opinions of a few transphobic women. Unfortunately, the number of people attending the event, even if they know of and disagree with this stupid policy, give credence to the beliefs of the festival's management.

I think in the end, perhaps it isn't so much about transpersons, but about the misandry these women choose to express. It isn't about including all women, but about excluding men. But given their attitudes on transsexual women, that they're somehow men usurping the womanhood of "real women", it would make sense that they'd feel that transmen are usurping manhood. But in the case of transmen it's seen as furthering their cause. Thus the double-standard.

I wouldn't call it misandry, I'd call it transmisogyny. Regardless of the stated reasons for excluding trans women, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is discrimation and hatred aimed at a group of women.

Lisa Harney: I wouldn't call it misandry, I'd call it transmisogyny. Regardless of the stated reasons for excluding trans women, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is discrimation and hatred aimed at a group of women.

The reason I say I feel it's fueled by misandry is because while transwomen are the recipients of the hatred, it's not because they identify as transwomen. It's because, biologically, they were male at one point. It's all based on the hatred of men, unless you're a transman, where you're to be applauded for "infiltrating" the male world.

I may be completely wrong. These are just my opinions on the subject. It makes me terribly angry.

And I think it is explicitly about trans women, since cis men haven't been asking to be a part of the festival, and trans men are welcomed in (both a sign of how society valorizes masculinity, and a sign of how trans identities are not respected).

I don't know that you're understanding what I mean. Of course, you might not be misunderstanding me at all, and simply disagree with me. But let me try to explain with a little diagram I just made (please forgive it's crudeness). The little -> represents transition from one gender to another:

Bad
----
Man -> Woman == evil man subverting womanhood (always a man, regardless of gender identity)

Good
----
Woman -> Man == woman subverting manhood
(always a woman, regardless of gender identity)

In all honesty, it's because these people completely disregard the concept of gender identity altogether. The above example is why I feel it's more about hating men than it is about specifically hating transwomen. In the end, they do a disservice to all transpersons, but I think they're too blinded by their bigotry to see it.

I understand what you're saying, but to me it takes discrimination that's specifically aimed at trans women and centers it on men.

I also don't agree that their disregard for gender identity is a sign that they hate men. I see their disregard for gender identity as hatred aimed specifically at trans people - they're saying that who we say we are is not valid and cannot be trusted. This is not hatred that can be aimed at cis men under any circumstance.

I'm not saying it means they don't hate men, either. I'm saying that it does trans people a disservice to describe hatred specifically aimed at trans people as hatred that's more generally aimed at cis men.

Also, sorry if the previous comment comes across as combative. I kind of have strong feelings about it.

Especially after wading through the anti-trans rhetoric and propaganda written by feminists from Robin Morgan forward. The attacks on trans women and our identities have been particularly hateful and vicious, have called for our eradication, compared us to serial killers, and paints us as delusional. I just find it hard to see this as simply "they hate men."

I'll also add that quite a few of the trans-hating feminists don't really seem to hate men so much.

I think we're sort of on the same page, but thought processes are different. :)

I understand what you're saying, but to me it takes discrimination that's specifically aimed at trans women and centers it on men.

I think the difference we have here is that, in my view, they feel the discrimination of transwomen is justified by their dismissal of gender identity and their misandry. They see us as men, not women, and they hate men.

I also don't agree that their disregard for gender identity is a sign that they hate men. I see their disregard for gender identity as hatred aimed specifically at trans people - they're saying that who we say we are is not valid and cannot be trusted. This is not hatred that can be aimed at cis men under any circumstance.

That's not what I said. I'm saying their disregard of gender identity is what allows them to hate transwomen while praising transmen. They hate transwomen because they consider us men, while they praise transwomen because they consider them women. They're doing a disservice to all transpersons, because they don't care about transpersons.

I'm not saying it means they don't hate men, either. I'm saying that it does trans people a disservice to describe hatred specifically aimed at trans people as hatred that's more generally aimed at cis men.

I'm saying that I feel their hatred of transwomen is fueled by their hatred of men, combined with their dismissal of the concept of gender identity. They consider us men, regardless of our feelings and experiences, and therefore feel justified in hating and discriminating against us. They're wrong.

I'm not trying to say that us transwomen aren't bearing the brunt of this discrimination, and that we aren't the ones most hurt by this. We definitely are. But, I don't think they hate us for who we are, they hate us for what they think we used to be, and they're convinced that's unchangeable. I was trying to point out that the only logic or reason that explains the double-standard is to point out how they could hate one trans group while embracing another.

I think there's a lot tied into the idea that gender is a social construct (and thus, gender must be an imaginary non-existent thing, unlike all other social constructs).

I'm just not sure that it can easily be tied back to hatred of men. I think there's stuff like the attitude that womanhood is some kind of unique, ineffable experience that trans women are stealing, and the society-wide hatred for people who cross gender lines.

Trans men are not unambiguously accepted either - Alix Dobkin has elucidated how many women - including many who attend MichFest - view trans men.

Also, I don't believe logic or reason informs bigotry - just hatred and privilege.

But yeah, I think we're on pretty much the same page and approaching this stuff differently. Thanks for the discussion. :)

Yes, good discussion! :)

Kat I think this video is amazing and I'm so proud of you and I have your back. Simply brilliant.

Jen, yr rock camp bud

Kat you are amazing and inspiring.

xo
Jen, yr rock camp buddy