Have you read the Koyama article? It’s really good, and expresses coherently something I’d sort of realised years ago but was unable to express. I do think there’s a reason that, on average, the most transphobic feminist groups are also the ones that are the least interested in anti-racist and anti-capitalist feminism, ie. activism on migration controls, worker’s rights, etc. I mean, everyone says they’re against racism, but I’m talking about the actual activism people do. Perhaps this is not your experience, but I quit the abovementioned radical feminist group because combination of transphobia and appalling Eurocentrism was getting too much to bear.

I have never heard any transperson argue that womanhood was some sort of immutable quality; in fact, that’s the exact opposite of what most transpeople argue. So it would be good if you could actually cite some names of transpeople that you’ve personally read who say that. I say this because alot of people I’ve met who hate queer theory and are against transinclusion haven’t actually read any of that theory; they’ve read critiques by radical feminists that have badly distorted the original argument.

No one I’ve met has ever come up with a definition of womanhood that fits 100% of the time; it may not be possible. Transwomen are saying that biological sex and one’s internal sense of “being a woman” are not necessarily directly linked. That’s not the same thing as saying it’s immutable or unchangeing. They are saying that they “feel” like a woman, but that it’s a personal feeling, and their view of what “womanhood” means is not necessarily the same as everybody else’s. I know that Lisa at Questioning Transphobia, for example, has never argued that her experience of womanhood is the same as a woman of colour’s; in fact, Lisa is really good about acknowledging her white privilege.

Audre Lorde WAS arguing that there is no unitary experience of womanhood, and that differences among women is a source of creativity and as such a positive thing. There’s a reason that a trans* community centre in New York is named after her.

If we accept that women need to organise autonomously because we need a “safe space” from male privilege (to the extent that such a thing can ever exist), then actually, anyone who experiences sexism and needs such a space is welcome. Including transwomen. And yes, Jade Goody would be welcome in a women-of-colour only space (or at least, she would be if it wasn’t for her appalling politics). The president of the “United Sisters of Colour” club at my highschool was a mixed race girl with fair skin and red hair. But she identified as a woman of colour, her father was Black, and no one questioned her right to be there. I’ve met other women of colour who could “pass” as white, but they’ve all strongly identified as women of colour for organising purposes, and have always been accepted as such. I know that all of these women also grew up with racialised bullying and were deeply affected by racism within society.

Arguing that you need to have been a “woman” since birth does make womanhood into a unitary experience. Or in other words -what do Audre and I actually have in common at the end of the day, other than a vagina? We don’t even have similar experiences of sexism, necessarily, as they’ve been mediated through our race, sexuality, class, etc. Having both been women from birth doesn’t actually mean too much in this case – I might actually have more in common with a white middle-class transwoman. You are attributing a unifying quality to a bodily organ.

The smug advice to read Audre Lorde is particularly frustrating coming from transphobic feminists. As Emi Koyama (h/t Feministe) discusses in her usual excellent way, transphobia is underpinned by racism. Believing that there is a unitary female experience open only to those born with female genitals suggests that there is a unitary female experience full-stop. Which is precisely what Audre Lorde, and Patricia Hill Collins, and all of the women of colour feminists of that generation argued against.

Actually it is those people who argue that ‘gender’ is real and objective who are arguing that there is a single unitary female (or more accurately women’s)experience. Because they are saying that there is a state of consciousness of being a ‘woman’ which is common to all ‘women’ and that this state of consciousness is totally unconnected to anything else about that person – eg whether they are born biologically female or male.

If you say that a state of ‘womanhood’ exists regardless of any outside factors and is natural, inherent and unchangeable (which is exactly what transactivists DO say), this is like saying that there is natural, inherent and unchangeable state of being ‘black’.

In other words that the reason black people suffer discrimination is because they are inherently different. Not because society has decided to classify a group of people by the colour of their skin and treat them differently. But because there is something fundamental about them which is different.

Audre Lorde by contrast pointed out that the experience of, for example a middle class, white heterosexual woman is very different from that of a poor, black lesbian. Which is not the same thing at all really.

Although transwomen do undoubtedly experience misogyny if they ‘pass’ as female (if not they experience homophobia as they are seen by society at large as gay men, whatever their sexual preference) what so called ‘transphobic’ feminists argue is that the experience of someone who ‘becomes’ a ‘woman’ is not the same as someone who has experienced being treated as ‘woman’ by society from birth.

Similarly, if a white woman were to somehow convincingly alter her appearance so that she appeared black at the age of 40 would we argue that her life experience was the same as someone who is born black? Does Jade Goody (who is in fact mixed race but appears ‘white) have the right to enter a space for black women when the world at large sees her as white. Think about it.

Of course, I’m tending to err on the side of caution at the moment, because it’s so easy for this kind of thing to end up in a room, not daring to disagree with anyone because we’re all feminists, with passive aggression flying all over the place, and no procedure in place to handle that kind of thing, because let’s face it, we tend to be kind of crap at being assertive.

Procedures themselves seem kind of boring when you’re all radical and feminist and stuff, but they avoid lots of trouble later on, and they probably enable you, at the end of the day, to work with a greater variety of people.

I mean, if you start out all enthusiastic and expecting to be able to agree with everyone, that’s not going to end in a group hug with wonderful feminist sisters, that’s going to end up with a choice between bitching behind people’s backs and being passive aggressive, or setting up disciplinary procedures, neither of which are particularly great, although the latter is infinitely preferable to the former.

As for Object, I would work with people from Object on any issue on which we agreed. For the conference, we were specifically trying to foster debate by having different groups come and discuss controversial subjects, like pornography. Object refused to show, as did any “anti-porn” feminists, and so the conference was very one-sided.

I would be prepared to work on other issues with individuals involved in Object and other anti-porn organisations, but I wouldn’t be prepared to work with the actual organisations, not that they’d work with me either! I am an anti-censorship feminist after all, though not a very glamorous one.

To be honest, from what I’ve seen of Object – and without wishing to be too controversial – I wouldn’t want them at any event I was organising, I’d be kind of glad for them to keep their distance. I’ll work with most people, often regardless of political views, if we’re walking towards a common goal, but with Object I’d feel like I was working with someone I was at complete cross-purposes with, just for the sake of ideology. I don’t have to agree with everything someone says, but the goals have to be shared. And feminism for its own sake, to me, definitely isn’t a goal.

I think you’re right that there are more of us, but that we’re dispersed. I also think you’re right about the lack of media attention. The main reason I started this blog was to raise awareness that there were other kinds of feminism in the UK. But Depression and the Real World intervened, and I’ve barely blogged at all.

I think actions are more important than words anyway. The feminist group with which I’m currently involved is interested in doing anti-racist and anti-capitalist activism. Hopefully people were hear about it, and feel inspired to do their own, or to join in. I think that has a lot more potential to transform the UK feminist movement than simply blogging, to be honest.

For my sanity non-engagement is probably best. Especially since I swore up and down that I was going to try to make this blog positive about other feminists. But I can’t help but suspect that the reason non-engagement is even an option for me is because of privilege, in particular my white privilege and cis privilege.

Also, one of the things that frustrates me the most about “radical” feminists is their absolute refusal to work with anyone who doesn’t adhere rigidly to the party line. I know from experience organising conferences, for example, that Object won’t appear on any panel, or participate in any conference, with anti-censorship feminists. So, I feel that if I refuse to engage, I’m just being hypocritical.

In the end, I left a couple of comments on Beyond Feminism, and it actually turned out OK, insofar as at least one person quasi-defended me (she disagreed with me but acknowledged that I had a point, which is all I ask for) and said person writes an anti-porn blog that is also anti-racist, which I will be reading.