User: xaea Date: 2011-07-13 20:15 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

sophie, i know that you've known me for a while so i'm trusting that you will hear the innocence in my question and not take it the wrong way?

i don't understand why a term separating women born women from women who chose to be women has to be considered transphobic. it seems almost like me getting offended that there's the term "woman" to differentiate from "man". i can certainly understand someone wanting to consider themselves a WBW, when they're transgendered, and i think they should have the right to. but aren't there those who might also want to distinguish themselves FROM the "women born women"?

i would not have read that term as transphobic on my own; since you mention it, i can see how someone might interpret it that way, but i am skeptical that they intended it that way. the context of their site lends itself to that idea, also.

isn't 'transphobic' supposed to mean anything that promotes the fear or mistreatment of transgendered people? do you feel that a term like WBW does that?

i am honestly asking for your thoughts and not at all intending to start an argument or anything of the sort. i'm fairly naive when it comes to the LGBT community, as you know, so like i said above, i trust that you will hear my heart on the matter and not read me as attacking or offending. ♥

User: sophie Date: 2011-07-13 21:54 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

There's nothing wrong with having a term that differentiates between groups like you suggest. In fact, we already have one - "cisgendered women", with "cisgendered" being the opposite of "transgendered". (And like "trans", it's often shortened to "cis".)

The problem is that trans women *don't* choose to become women; they already are women. Think of it like you would homosexuality - gay people don't choose to become so, it's part of who they are. They may have denied to themselves that they're gay for various reasons, though, and they need to choose to *embrace* it. The same is true of trans people.

"Women born women", then, takes its meaning from the assumption that transgendered women were not born women. That's like saying gay people weren't born gay, and it's wrong for exactly the same reason. And while the term as written might not seem to promote fear or mistreatment of trans people, it does in fact 'other' us because the underlying line of thinking is that trans women are not real women. It's because of this line of thinking that most people who use the term are using it in a transphobic manner.

"Cis women", on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of transgendered women in a way that's respectful, and you'll find that the phrase is almost never used in a transphobic manner because of this.

Does that help?

User: xaea Date: 2011-07-13 22:02 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

ah yes! that helps tremendously! i am really glad i know you, soph, cos i surely wouldn't have anywhere else to go with my questions! :) thank you for answering.

User: sophie Date: 2011-07-13 22:13 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

No probs. :) I'm glad I could help; spreading information like this is the best way to raise awareness of this, so I'm really glad you asked!

User: sophie Date: 2011-07-13 22:04 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I should also point out here that, quite apart from my reply above, this is also talking about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. You'll notice the deliberate misspelling of "Womyn" there; that's done deliberately in order to make it clear that the festival is for these so-called "women born women".

When you combine that with the idea of the "WBW" shirts, it's basically a way of saying "Oh, I'm so glad I'm not one of those icky trans people. Ugh." It'd be like wearing a shirt that said "Proud to be white"; the entire reason the shirt would exist would be to differentiate the wearer from people of color. Similarly, the entire reason the "WBW" shirt probably exists is to differentiate the wearer from trans people. Just like the former is racism, the latter is transphobia.

Edited (Using a better term.) 2011-07-13 10:05 pm (UTC)

User: xaea Date: 2011-07-13 22:06 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

and that clarifies even further.

also, in my opinion, the whole "womyn" thing is just...weird. i hope i'm not offending anyone, cis or trans, by saying that. :p

User: sophie Date: 2011-07-13 22:20 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

I think I was actually slightly wrong with the "womyn" thing; the word comes from other feminist ideas, with the point being to signify independence from men. (The idea being that "woman" has its etymological roots in the word "man", and feminists didn't want that association.)

So yeah, that was my mistake. Their actual policy on who can attend is "womyn-born-womyn".

User: annalee Date: 2011-07-14 19:25 (UTC) Subject: (no subject)

"woman" has its etymological roots in the word "man"

It does, but actually, "man" doesn't mean what people who misspell woman think it means. The "man" part of the word indicates species, not sex or gender (the earlier word for male human is "werman," which is the same wer- as in "werewolf."). So spelling woman with a y actually implies that women are not people, which is kind of the polar opposite of what they were going for.

So, Michigan Womyn's Festival: Not just cissexist; also misogynistic. Oops!