A comment on cis-guys

[pandora_parrot]

I just read about some presumably cisgender men invading the dyke march this year. Understandably, there were some trans guys upset that cis men were not welcome, but trans guys are. They see it as a challenge to their gender identity, like they're not "really" guys and thus are welcome to join the dyke march.

I can't comment fully on the politics of this, but I think there is some sense in creating "anyone but cis-guy" spaces, and it all centers around male privilege.

First of all, to those that aren't on the up and up for privilege politics, the idea is that when you are a member of a majority/oppressor class for some characteristic, you have various privileges that you may or may not be aware of. It's not a *bad* thing to be this way, and just because you're a minority in one class doesn't mean you can't be a majority in another class. It's just more or less a fact of life. What's bad is pretending it doesn't exist and being defensive when called out on it.

What exactly is privilege? It's the ability to not have to think about or deal with certain things that people of a particular minority group have to deal with. White people don't have to deal with the shit people of color have to deal with, and are often not aware of how much shit people of color get. Rich people don't realize all of the nuances of being poor. Cis people don't realize just how much their assumptions about gender oppress trans people. etc. etc.

Now, these are, of course, blanket statements, and they are generally true, but not always, and certainly not in the same way with all people. Some majority-class members have more or less privilege than others, based on a wide assortment of things such as life experiences, upbringing, membership in other minority classes, etc. But as a general rule, this is fairly true.

As a member of a minority class, privilege can be annoying, and more-over *exhausting.* It's really annoying to hear the same tripe, the same bullshit, and the same crap over and over again. It's really annoying being the token representative of your minority class all of the time, having to explain to people why what they say and do is fucked up. Frequently, you just wish people would google this shit and stop being stupid. But the unfortunate thing about privilege is that it's usually invisible to the person that has it, so they don't even know that they're being offensive or insensitive or whatever.

So members of minority classes often go out of their way to create spaces, sometimes, that specifically exclude members of the majority class. It's a way to create a space where they can gather and be together without having to participate in the same constant-education-bullshit that they have to deal with all the rest of the time. And it's more than just education, but the fact that this privilege crap has been used time and again to hurt and oppress the members of the minority class. It can be triggery to experience it, and it's nice when you can go into a space where it is far less likely to experience it.

So an event like "dyke march" is a great space for queer women to create a space where they can exist in solidarity with less male privilege than usual. There is freedom and comfort and safety in being in a space that is filled with people that are unlikely to be as filled with privilege as normal. It's not perfect, but it's a big step.

So... That's great for queer cis-women, but what about transgender people of all genders? What about the question at the beginning about the inclusion of trans men in spaces like this?

Well... All that other stuff explained... it seems to me that transgender eople have a particularly unique perspective on male privilege. Many, if not most, of us have seen both sides of the coin to some degree. We know what it is like to have male privilege and then have it taken away, or to gain it after having not had it for most of our life.

As a result, I'd like to believe that we're all a little more sensitive and self-aware when it comes to our own unique experiences with male privilege. Trans women being able to recognize the remnants of male privilege from our pasts, and trans men able to recognize the privileges that they now enjoy. I hope that with this awareness comes an increased ability to accept and be challenged on our beliefs, behaviors, etc.. I'd like to believe that we are "safe" for cisgender women to be around without having to worry too much about us being offensive, insensitive, or whatever as a result of our experiences with male privilege.

So it makes sense to me that transgender people of all genders are included in a march focused on the experiences of women, while cisgender men might be excluded. Because I believe that our unique experiences of male privilege make us far less likely to be problematic than cisgender men who have not generally had as much opportunity to explore their experiences with male privilege.

Certainly, these characteristics have proved to be true within my experiences. When it comes to sexism and issues around male/female dynamics, cisgender women and transgender people seem to "get it" far more often than cisgender men. It's a rare cisgender male that I find that accepts his male privilege and knows how to avoid being problematic towards women. On the other hand, it's a rare cisgender woman or transgender person that *doesn't* get male privilege and male/female social oppression dynamics.

I've certainly met my fair share of sexist people in all gender combinations. One of the most sexist people I've ever met, in fact, was a cisgender woman that claimed that women should not "work men's jobs" because she believes it takes away the opportunity of men to support their families. In college, I wrote a long letter to the school newspaper calling out a presumably cisgender woman for her sexist comments regarding the decline of chivalry in men towards women.

Excluding cisgender men doesn't exclude all male privilege, and it keeps out some really awesome feminist-type guys that *get* and *understand* their male privilege. But when you've got little else to go by, it's not a completely horrible way to keep the usual guys with their unexamined privilege out.

Case in point... the presumably cis guys in the dyke march? Standing in the way, taking photos of the topless dykes, pointing, laughing and giggling. You know... acting in ways that demonstrate their ignorance of how their behavior hurts women. Demonstrating their male privilege.

Comments

[dblume.livejournal.com]

Would you begrudge a march where neither cis-guys nor trans-guys were welcome to participate?

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Me? I don't think I'd care, really. To some degree, I really feel like it's not my place to tell other people how to run their events. If you want to exclude one group and not another, that's your business. Sometimes, I might think that a particular exclusion is counter-productive or unnecessary or the product of oppressive social dynamics, but even then I kinda just take a step back and let other people argue the point.

I intended this political essay to discuss why including transgender men, but not cisgender men, can actually make sense in some situations. It was not intended to make any value judgements on whether or not this is a better or worse thing to do than anything else in particular. Just that it sometimes could make sense, IMO.

[dblume.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think you were great at making your point. I was running off on a tangent in my head, and went ahead and asked what I was thinking.

My scenario made it more a matter of self-identified gender rather than sensitivity to privileged cis-male state. I admit I was changing the criteria as a thought experiment, to see if it would matter.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

I think it's pretty simple, dyke march should be for self-identified women who live as women and love women.

And I also think that lesbian spaces have a huge problem with letting in trans guys. But this action was just a gross violation of a safe space and will probably end up being counter-productive in the long run.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying what dyke march should or shouldn't be. Just saying that I could see it being acceptable to welcome the category of "anyone but cis men" to an event due to my discussion above.

And yes, I agree with your analysis of lesbian spaces. There is a degree of cissexism going on there, I imagine.

[bridgeweaver.livejournal.com]

See, here's my problem with all this kind of analysis, it ignores individual circumstance and history. If all you know about me is that I am a cis-gendered white maile, you are likely to assume that I inhabit a world of privilege that my disability, economic status and even size undercut and deny. We know the incidence of violence directed against women. Do you know the incidence of violence and abusive behavior directed to people with disabilities? Shall we subdivide our events into an event for large, poor, Senegalese trans-gendered women with a less than 30 degrees field of vision who also use wheelchairs?

I know you are examining an argument rather than making one, but in response, I take issue with the things that emphasize group identities over individual circumstance. It's so much easier to make assumptions about someone because of visually verifiable characteristics than to actually engage with them and find out whether they get the concept of privilege. Camp Courage was one of the few places I have found where activism was tempered by an open-arms welcoming of allies. It gave me hope for a future where our differences were less important than our souls.

So, while I know my view will not be taken seriously by the advocates of separatist spaces, and my race, gender, sex and orientation will be held up as evidence that I am participating in white, male, straight cis-gendered privilege, I find the concept counterproductive and disheartening.

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

This is where the term "intersectionality" comes in. The able-bodied in our society enjoy all kinds of privilege that the disabled don't; some of those privileges overlap with things like cis privilege or white privilege or male privilege, such that a disabled male and an able-bodied female (for example) might both experience similar forms of discrimination, e.g., being viewed as less able or as possessing less agency than (for example) an able-bodied male.

Sometimes a space is intersectional, and sometimes it isn't. When I'm in a safe space for people with my disability (Asperger's syndrome), sometimes the people in that space don't want to include neurotypicals, even neurotypicals who might be able to sympathize with our experiences, because we have to deal with neurotypicals all the fucking time, and we're tired of having to wear our neurotypical-interaction hats. It doesn't mean that we want to reject all interaction with NTs, just that we're not interested in it in that space at that moment.

Similarly I don't see a problem with a group deciding to establish a safe space whose entrance criterion is "are you now, or have you ever been female-gendered?" Cis males, i.e., people who have never had the experience of living female-identified, can't answer "yes" to that question; cis women, trans women, and trans men can.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point, and one that a friend of mine brings up constantly in these discussions.

One of the reasons I don't get involved in the argument about creating exclusionary spaces is because I have never felt any need or reason to create one of my own, and would rather have a space where all is welcome rather than a space where some were not. But that's because my spaces tend to be small, and I can personally vet whether or not people are going to be problematic or not.

That said, I can understand why some people desire such a space. Without other information, people make snap judgements about people based on historic experiences. My experience with cisgender men is that they generally have a tendency to be problematic towards women in various ways. They don't understand that women would prefer not to be treated as objects and stuff like that, for example. They don't *mean* anything by it... they just don't understand that their view is problematic. Now, this isn't the case with most of the cisgender men that I choose to include in my life, but again, that's because I'm able to judge them more deeply and not make snap judgements based on superficial characteristics. But give me a guy off the street, and you can bet I'll make snap judgements. It's a safety thing.

Incidentally... Re: . If all you know about me is that I am a cis-gendered white maile, you are likely to assume that I inhabit a world of privilege that my disability, economic status and even size undercut and deny.

Being cisgender, white, and male puts you in a position where society is more inclined to assist you and help you than non-cisgender, non-white, non-male individuals that are otherwise identical to you. Theoretically speaking, a transgender female person of color that had the same issues of disability, economic status, and size would receive less general support from society than you.

The concept of privilege only allows us to compare people with otherwise similar or identical social classes. It allows us to make statements about majority and minority groups within a given class. But the reality is that when you start mixing and matching minority group memberships, the fact that these are sweeping generalizations about classes of people starts to become more apparent, as you point out.

This doesn't invalidate the concept, but does make it more complex.

In the end, I think these systems are like most elements of prejudice. We use them to quickly determine whether or not we're going to be safe in a given situation. As we have more time and energy to devote to analysis of a person, we lean more and more towards individual characteristics and differences from the norm, rather than generalized concepts like probabilistic models based on apparent group membership.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

my race, gender, sex and orientation will be held up as evidence that I am participating in white, male, straight cis-gendered privilege,

I probably shouldn't even get into this, but let me just say: You seem to be operating under the assumption that privilege is something one has to actively "participate" in -- that is, that privilege is something one must choose to have -- and therefore you resent people assuming you have it when you don't in fact "choose" to.

But privilege is not a choice. You do have privilege along the above named axes if you are indeed generally perceived as belonging to those categories, and so people who observe this are not making an assumption about you that may or may not be true; they are simply stating a fact.

Nor does the fact that you may lack privilege along some axes "deny" the privilege you have along others; it may mean that you are not at the top of the kyriarchichal pyramid, but it's disingenuous for you to ignore or deny the fact that you're not at the bottom of it either. And it's also disingenuous for you to suggest that it doesn't make sense for event organizers to choose sometimes to focus on some axes and not others.

[bridgeweaver.livejournal.com]

i take your point about privilege being a passive attribute, thank you. However, I reject your assertion that group membership is more important than individual conduct. That's the very essence of privilege and disadvantaged status, and by allowing yourself to make judgments based on group identities, you are in fact supporting the very system we all agree should be overturned. (Ok, we as in folks reading this discussion, large but probable assumption there.) Yes, it's harder and requires more exposure, and yes I get the lure of the security of exclusionary spaces; shit I'm an initiate of a very not mainstream religion, some of whose tenets run very counter to the mainstream and could in theory be used as a way of taking my children, discriminating against me in employment and other financial matters. I understand the warmth and dropping of guard that comes from being in a gathering of my fellow initiates, where explanations aren't required.

But I'm looking at the bigger picture here, and that which fragments us leads to the construction of walled gardens filled with uses and thems, which strengthens the hand of those who would use our fears to control us. I am not equipped by experience to understand the lives of people who labor under different disadvantages than I do. It's my job as a conscious, thinking person to overcome my own ignorance so that I can act not only for my own self-interest, but in the interests of my community, which ultimately is everyone, even people I vehemently disagree with. Walls, no matter with what good intentions they are constructed, impede this quest for undrstanding. Are you tired of educating the public? So am I! Did you know that the unemployment rate among the blind is over 80%? Shall I write the thousands of words necessary to explain the interlocking systems of educational insufficiency, presumption of incompetence, religious misperceptions of role and technological development that bring this about? I'm damned tired of it myself, of educating, one person at a time so I can rent an office, or be understood to be a competent parent or even a sexually active adult. Do you really want to get into the business of comparing suffering? That's an unproductive road.

So I reject the characterization of my view as disingenuous. I believe that it is reflective of a sense of the universality of suffering, a sense that is decreased when we retreat to our safe spaces and wall ourselves off from the annoying and sometimes dangerous and nearly always disheartening work of educating one more ignorant person. As I said, I see the lure of this sense of security, but I think that in the end it makes the world darker and less safe.

[paradox-puree.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... See... on one level, I entirely agree with you. That's why I do a lot of inclusive stuff and constantly work to educate those around me on topics related to my various minority class membership attributes.

But on another level... I know that I only found the confidence and strength to be this way... and to do a lot of what I do that makes me capable and happy... by coming into an environment that was far more accepting and understanding of me and my class of person. By moving from my hometown to California.

Although I never explicitly engaged in exclusionary group memberships and tend to avoid gatherings that do, I understand their allure and how advantageous they can be in some situations. In some situations, they may be what is necessary for a person to overcome the abuse that they have survived as a result of an oppressive society and find the strength within to maybe survive, or even join those of us that perform our little acts of activism to make things better for all of us.

I think you're onto something with your comments about the universality of suffering. When you are cloistered in your own little walled garden, you lose touch with the reality that those outside are also suffering in their own ways. I think I agree that it is *better* to create environments that are *not* walled gardens. That this will ultimately make the world safer and brighter for everyone.

But I have to disagree on just this point. There is a place and a role for these walled gardens. They are not an unconditional bad and are, in fact, very useful and important in some situations.

[bridgeweaver.livejournal.com]

And I respect your disagreement. In thinking about this, I acknowledge the difference in perspective that comes from the fact that my societal disadvantages stem from feelings of pity and incorrect assumptions about my experience and competence whereas those for you often stem from fear and visceral hatred. The emotional outcomes of that difference must be profound after all, even if some of the bottom line results look similar. My own experience of walled gardens surrounding disabilities for example is one of stultification. I have never had the sense of empowerment that came from the exclusive nature of the grouping. Security and convenience yes, but empowerment no. This too is a major difference in our experience and can lead to our different takes on this situation and your disagreement with me. And kudos to you for being articulate.

[nodesignation.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the points you're making here, but it seems to me like you're missing something. First off, I think there is a big difference between "being privileged" and having access to privilege. You're right that it's unfair to say that all men are privileged, there certainly are a lot of women who carry huge amounts of privilege from areas other than their gender, and plenty of men who seem to have less privilege then them. However, that doesn't mean that all oppressions are interchangeable.

Just because someone is a person of color, doesn't mean they know what it is like to live with a disability. And just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're going to know how not to be sexist. You may experience oppression, but that doesn't simply cancel out the privilege you experience. There may be elements that are universal, but there are plenty that are not. This isn't about which form of oppression is worse, but the simple fact that you have a lot of options that a trans woman of color who shared the rest of your experiences would not have.

It's true that there are certainly straight men (cis or trans) who know how to act appropriately within a queer women focused space, but there's still a difference between a straight man who understands homophobia and sexism and a queer woman. That may be "making judgments based on group identities" but I never signed up for the "we're all the same" mantra. Because we're not. Being recognized for my differences rather than being forced to assimilate is just as important as not facing discrimination on the basis of them.

Ultimately, even if there's a perfect straight man who is totally on top of everything, the vast majority of people there will have no way of knowing that he's one of the good ones. And just like Schrodinger's rapist, his mere presence is going to change the dynamic of the space.

Exclusionary spaces are not perfect, and have a lot of flaws. But the most important thing is that it's not an either-or situation. Most of the time we have our walled gardens in the small corner of big public parks that we spend most of our time in.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

I reject your assertion that group membership is more important than individual conduct.

I beg your pardon? Are you seriously unable to distinguish between "group membership matters" and "group membership matters more than anything else"? Because I did not for one moment "assert" the latter.

by allowing yourself to make judgments based on group identities, you are in fact supporting the very system we all agree should be overturned.

Oh gods, not the old "if you perceive race (or class, or whatever) at all, you're just perpetuating racism (classism, whatever)" argument. Look, we can pretend all we want that oppression doesn't exist and that nobody therefore has any need for safe spaces, but pretending doesn't make it true.

Are you tired of educating the public? So am I!

Then why don't you think anyone should ever be allowed to take a break from doing so?

Just because it's your job to educate yourself does. not. mean. that it is ANYONE'S job to teach you. Part of your job is to find people who are willing to teach you (directly or indirectly) rather than sit on your ass whining that everyone should be willing, let alone that everyone should be willing at every moment of every day.

No one is entitled to my time and energy. If I choose to spend some of my time in spaces where I don't need to explain myself to anybody, I may be doing just what I need to refresh my energy enough that I can actually do some educating when I'm outside those spaces -- or I may be doing what I need just to survive spending the rest of my time outside those spaces. Either way, I have the right to keep some of my energy for myself.

Do you really want to get into the business of comparing suffering?

No, I don't. It certainly seemed to me as though you did, and unlike you, I don't mean that rhetorically.

As I said, I see the lure of this sense of security, but I think that in the end it makes the world darker and less safe.

Darker and less safe, perhaps, than it would be if we spent all our time actively reaching out to others. But since spending all our time reaching out to others is not and never will be feasible, it behooves us to ask whether safe spaces make the world darker in themselves, rather than whether they make the world darker merely by preventing us from spending all our time educating others, since they aren't in fact what prevents us from doing so. I'm inclined to think the answer to the question we should be asking is no, but on that point I'm a little more open to being swayed. But don't tell me that safe spaces are a bad idea because no one should be allowed to take a break from helping people who mostly don't even want to be helped, or because oppression only exists when oppressed people think it does.

[lizthegray.livejournal.com]

Elly and I brought a cisgender male-identified friend with us to the dyke march. He was an awesome ally. I don't see a problem with cisgender men being *invited* to join the dyke march as allies.

[lizthegray.livejournal.com]

(this was the Boston Dyke March, which is different though)

[nodesignation.livejournal.com]

The kinds of spaces that I like to see are the ones that set an intention (i.e. "for people who have significant experience of misogyny," "for women focusing on issues of sexism," etc), then make it clear that each individual is the one in charge of determining if they fit that, themselves. Absolutely no policing. If there are trans male spectrum folks who have a non-binary identity, or who are mid transition and feel an important part of them meshes with the intention of the space, then by all means they can participate. It's up to them to decide when they should stop going to women's events.

However, part of what's disrespectful is to call it a dyke march and publicize that trans men are welcome, because that sends the message that trans men are automatically dykes. If there is to be an "everyone but cis guys" space, then it'll have to be names "Everyone-But-Cis-Men March," and organizing around an exclusion like that doesn't seem very motivating.

But additionally, I challenge the idea that trans men automatically understand sexism better than cis men. A lot of trans men internalize societal messages through a male lens long before coming out as trans, and even all through childhood. I've certainly known some great feminist trans men (and cis men as well), but I've also run into trans men who told sexist jokes their whole lives and feel it's okay because they were never called on it when they were seen as women and don't recognize how creepy they sound now, I've known trans men who claim what they are doing doesn't count as sexist because they are trans, I've known trans men who sexually harass women, who rape women, and I personally was abused by a trans man. The theory that all trans men understand sexism and fight patriarchy is just false.

It's complicated because no space is ever safe. I was non-consensually spanked at dyke march a few years ago (and it was by a woman, so far as I could tell). And while I know some awesome trans men who I'd appreciate marching alongside me, I don't like the idea of a policy that would give all trans men a pass no matter how sexist they are while flat out prohibiting all cis men no matter how awesome they are.