Exclusion: A Women's Issue?

[blush]

Originally Posted by Jess

The topic of this thread may seem initially offensive and I pray that is not the case. I see it as a very timely and perhaps imperative discussion to host in this , if not every, LGBT ( et al) community. I see growing pains happening left and right and many folks attempting to touch on the very "touchy" subject of needing and requesting separate space for discussions, etc and not quite being able to " get there".

We as a whole are primarily female ( body) born individuals( whether we agree with that biological fact or are unfortunate to have been "misplaced" in that body) who have chosen a melange of venues with which to express our inner selves. We are MTF's ,FTM's ,gay, queer, trans-sexual-sensual-gendered-continental. Our common denominator is the "female" or "woman" somewhere within us. Sometimes surfaced and sometimes tucked away and less "up front". The experiences we have or have had as these "females" is what connects us. If not, I ask , what is?

I think it is amazing that so many people with such vast life experience can gather within this ( and other similar) spaces and become so very close in our sharing. It is equally amazing, that we often fraction ourselves off defensively rather than allowing for .. no.. "praising" the differences with the respect that can sometimes only come with respectful "exclusion".

Please understand, when I use the term exclusion, it is not without a great sense of dread as we ( women, whether current or former or yet to become) do not "allow" ourselves this privilege. I dread being misunderstood or seen as a "separatist" or discriminatory or any other variety of words that someone looking to take issue with could find. This is my fear... being a woman who is not allowed to "choose" to talk with or be with those whom I choose or moreover.. "without" the voices I don't currently wish to hear in said discussion/ activity.

I have witnessed this in threads from femmes, from female identified butches, from transexuals, from transgendered, from People of Color, from religion based groups, from political groups.. The list goes on within female born communities. It seems as if we don't feel our voices worthy enough to just say " this is for ______ not for _______" That should be enough.

I observe we as humans, share our space daily with all kinds of "others" and mostly we either gain from that sharing or we have moments of oppression for it. Why is it so hard for us to say "I want some time with _______ and while I love you... go away for a while" ? It is often the knowing smile of a familiar that gets us through the day. Why not demand time for that?

I think , personally, that many of the issues that we see become so heated in so many threads might become resolved if we allow one another the space to just be those separate facets of ourselves without interruption. If femmes or transmen or female id'ed butches need a thread for themselves, just own it. Name it and claim it! We have an entire site, or world ,for that matter to meet back on common ground. Perhaps we will be stronger individuals to add to the collective if we take our opportunities to gather our strength.

I imagine a world of strong people coming together to claim what is and should be ours. If parts of the whole need to take some time out now and then to be with like folks to make that happen, Blessed Be! Exclusion is not a wholly bad thing. We do not have to invite everyone to every party.

These are just some thoughts I have been stewing over in the past month or so of observing many thread of thoughts expressed on line. I think there is room and love enough for everyone. I also think there can be respect enough to allow for time/ space for "just us".. whomever the "us" is.

Without trying to "step on toes" and also not trying to "tiptoe around a situation" I think there are simple ways we can make this happen without doing either. EX: A user has a discussion for "femmes".. go to femme zone, post it with disclaimer "for femmes only". That should be simple enough to respect. If someone other than a femme wishes to follow it, do so.. post a "thanks" for something they like, but refrain from commenting unless choosing to do so in private. This is of course, just suggestion. This could allow for private conversing without derailing threads or anyone feeling "silenced" or "invisible". It will possibly also allow the original conversation to flow on its intended course.

Again.... just thought from yet one of a million observers.

I thank you all for taking the time to read/ respond/ discuss.
Respectfully, Jess

Respectfully,

What's your point?
How are we NOT doing this already? You referenced in your post numerous threads where this is exactly what's going on. We ARE requesting dialogue without "other" voices.

So, according to your guidelines, the subgroups that seek a forum to discuss issues without interruption from "other" voices (because so often those "other" voices are very silencing) now should STILL put up with the "others" and NOT disagree publicly? These subgroups must, yet again, refrain?

Really?

Here's a thought...
If one chooses to post in an "only" thread, it is THAT POSTER'S responsibility to read the entire thread and engage respectfully. It is NOT a space to claim or demand everyone dance to your tune.

Jess, I'm pissy about this, but I think your intentions are good. I also know from traveling the boards for awhile that I have learned a lot from reading the dialogue of disagreements. We've all seen minds and attitudes change. If we disallow arguments, then we lose a resource for analyzing ourselves.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by blush

Respectfully,

What's your point?
How are we NOT doing this already? You referenced in your post numerous threads where this is exactly what's going on. We ARE requesting dialogue without "other" voices.

So, according to your guidelines, the subgroups that seek a forum to discuss issues without interruption from "other" voices (because so often those "other" voices are very silencing) now should STILL put up with the "others" and NOT disagree publicly? These subgroups must, yet again, refrain?

Really?

Here's a thought...
If one chooses to post in an "only" thread, it is THAT POSTER'S responsibility to read the entire thread and engage respectfully. It is NOT a space to claim or demand everyone dance to your tune.

Wow .. Sorry you chose to read this that way. It's not what I am attempting to say at all.
Your tone sounds hostile and defensive simultaneously and apparently we may be speaking a different language.
I never suggested anyone "put up" with anything... Quite the opposite, actually.
At any rate.. really sorry my words obviously do not make themselves clear enough for your ears.

[blush]

Originally Posted by Jess

Wow .. Sorry you chose to read this that way. It's not what I am attempting to say at all.
Your tone sounds hostile and defensive simultaneously and apparently we may be speaking a different language.
I never suggested anyone "put up" with anything... Quite the opposite, actually.
At any rate.. really sorry my words obviously do not make themselves clear enough for your ears.

I agree, Jess, I did sound hostile and pissy. That's why I edited it a bit. You got the first edition.

Reconsider?

[Jess]

I appreciate your addition and on one hand agree that often arguments can be healthy discourse. I do still think there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying a space is exclusive, unless it is excluding the advancement of person or group of people.

I think that other groups or individuals can still learn quietly by observing and asking direct questions privately, without disrupting an entire thread.

Is it a woman's need to absolutely "include" or a weakness to fear "excluding"?

This is what I am trying to ascertain.

Thank you, blush.

[NotAnAverageGuy]

What about other threads on the websites that are age related? Like say someone posting in the 30's thread and they arent even in their 30's, would that be exclusion?

[Kosmo]

I agree. Claim it and name it. Own it and be clear up front which group the thread is reserved for or which groups are being invited to post.

[atomiczombie]

The only thing that would bother me in a sub-group only thread is if there is untrue or over-generalized things said about another sub-group. Then that other sub-group can't say anything about that. It just hangs there in the air un-answered. Other than that, I think it's awesome to have "only" spaces for particular sub-groups, if they felt a need for it.

[blush]

Originally Posted by Jess

I appreciate your addition and on one hand agree that often arguments can be healthy discourse. I do still think there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying a space is exclusive, unless it is excluding the advancement of person or group of people.

I think that other groups or individuals can still learn quietly by observing and asking direct questions privately, without disrupting an entire thread.

Is it a woman's need to absolutely "include" or a weakness to fear "excluding"?

This is what I am trying to ascertain.

Thank you, blush.

I'm not sure who you're directing this question to? I can give you a woman's perspective, but many members of our transgendered community are not and never have been women. Perhaps their opinions/"take on things" may differ? Does that make sense?

As I read it, your question seems to give the "lesser of two evils." On the one hand, if I say I have to "include," then I have an absolute need for approval. If I say I fear "excluding" then I am weak. Could you clarify that?

[Jess]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm not sure who you're directing this question to? I can give you a woman's perspective, but many members of our transgendered community are not and never have been women. Perhaps their opinions/"take on things" may differ? Does that make sense?

As I read it, your question seems to give the "lesser of two evils." On the one hand, if I say I have to "include," then I have an absolute need for approval. If I say I fear "excluding" then I am weak. Could you clarify that?

It was a general question. These are things I am attempting to understand for myself as well.

I cannot and would never attempt to speak to the take on things from someone who id's s trans or femme or anyone else that I am not. The experience varies from person to person, what the point I m trying to make is that "who better to seek solace or understanding from than another familiar"?

I am not trying to say that women are weak or anything like that. I am saying it is a trend I have seen in many arenas to not "take space" for themselves.

I hope this helps, blush. If not.. I will keep trying as sometimes my words really don't come out as I hear them in my head.

[BullDog]

Great thread Jess. I see a lot of positive things happening on this website that fit in with what Jess is talking about. Various threads are in place right now for specific gender identities where femmes, female identified butches, the Bravehearts and others are staking their claims to have conversations where people can talk with others about their identities without a lot of outside intrusion. Sometimes there can be a fine line as to who "belongs" in a conversation and sometimes it is clearer. Sometimes people with good intentions can unintentionally break the flow of the conversation. I think those who the thread is intended for do have a right to speak up respectfully to get the conversation back on track. I think these types of conversations do strengthen us and perhaps threads like this and SuperFemme's Negotiating Silence or, say, a thread for all butches and threads like that can be used to have conversations across gender identities where we can raise our questions or concerns we have as part of the larger community and how we are perceived.

I understand when say, female identified butches are having a conversation that perhaps other butches may feel left out or feel that things are being said that mischaracterize them. I haven't agreed with everything that has been said about butches or how butches interact in the femme thread, but I certainly respect the space and recognize how very important the conversation is. I also know that my truth may be different and I believe the femmes are speaking theirs. It is my job to listen, and I learn a lot from listening and not interjecting into the conversation.

I think the specific spaces carved out have been for people of various gender identities to speak from and about their own experiences and not to bash others. I think those of us participating in the groups should speak our truths, remain respectful of others, and be willing to also have discussions across gender identities to make us all stronger.

I truly want to thank Jack, Medusa and the Moderators for all the support they have given to these endeavors. I also thank everyone in the community contributing to these very important conversations. I do believe they will make us all stronger.

[NotAnAverageGuy]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm not sure who you're directing this question to? I can give you a woman's perspective, but many members of our transgendered community are not and never have been women. Perhaps their opinions/"take on things" may differ? Does that make sense?

As I read it, your question seems to give the "lesser of two evils." On the one hand, if I say I have to "include," then I have an absolute need for approval. If I say I fear "excluding" then I am weak. Could you clarify that?

Can I get some clarification please on the sentence which I bolded, are you saying that FTM's were never women to begin with?

[blush]

Originally Posted by NotAnAverageGuy

Can I get some clarification please on the sentence which I bolded, are you saying that FTM's were never women to begin with?

I'll clarify, but then I'll hush because I realize it's not my place to speak for FTM's.

Female-bodied, yes, women, no. But again, I'm regretting writing that part of my post because I'm not FTM, and I'm not trying to speak for that community.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Jess

Is it a woman's need to absolutely "include" or a weakness to fear "excluding"?

This is what I am trying to ascertain.

I'll answer this question for me, because of the way that it relates to the Dear Femme thread in that I have insisted repeatedly that I prefer not to close the discussion to femmes-only.

I have absolutely zero "need to absolutely 'include" or, more hideously, a woman's (dear me) "weakness to fear excluding." What I do have, is a sincere desire for masculine people to participate secondarily to the discussion should they feel so inclined, and to have meaningful dialogue whenever they do, around how and whether their words are supportive, or conversely, not supportive, in the event that they - consciously or not - hold up an old paradigm of masculine-over thinking or action. We are having this same discussion among ourselves - how we support this paradigm. It's why the thread was created.

See, only-spaces do not personally serve me. They very well may serve other people and I honor that. I don't wish to trample on them or their spaces. But good, honest, gritty dialogue is more important to me. I believe there is important work to be done in all of our spaces and that this work necessitates hard conversations between and among all of us.

When I see one group holding up bars for its only-space, I see how that group is failing to acknowledge that there are really no bars holding up the subtext of our identities. It's going to offend some folks that I just said that, "subtext of our identities," but a lot of what creates our identities are the linguistic structures we create. And language, while mind-blowingly huge in the whole of who we are as human, just ain't all there is, y'all.

A woman is shut out of women's only space because her kind of woman does not equal your kind of woman. A self-identified male is shut out of a query on classism put to female-identified butches only. Why? Because of an underlying need for togetherness? Because someone who linguistically created an identity around "male" does not experience classism in the same way that other butches do? For reasons that are internal? And I should close a discussion of the femme experience, why? Because no one else can have anything relevant to say to us about it?

I'm not going to call a girl's only club house because what's more important to me than whether I get my feelings hurt is whether or not I learn anything about you, me, us. What's more important to me than whether I chance being offended is whether I need to have my mind changed.

I see more people inflamed by the idea that we have difficult conversations than I do by the idea that we're not having enough of them. I wish more of us were willing to roll up our sleeves, tuck our hearts firmly back in our chests where they bloody well belong, and speak to one another about the things that matter, bravely and without reservation. We should, all of us, cease conflating "topic" with "individual."

[Jess]

Originally Posted by evolveme

I'll answer this question for me, because of the way that it relates to the Dear Femme thread in that I have insisted repeatedly that I prefer not to close the discussion to femmes-only.

I have absolutely zero "need to absolutely 'include" or, more hideously, a woman's (dear me) "weakness to fear excluding." What I do have, is a sincere desire for masculine people to participate secondarily to the discussion should they feel so inclined, and to have meaningful dialogue whenever they do, around how and whether their words are supportive, or conversely, not supportive, in the event that they - consciously or not - hold up an old paradigm of masculine-over thinking or action. We are having this same discussion among ourselves - how we support this paradigm. It's why the thread was created.

See, only-spaces do not personally serve me. They very well may serve other people and I honor that. I don't wish to trample on them or their spaces. But good, honest, gritty dialogue is more important to me. I believe there is important work to be done in all of our spaces and that this work necessitates hard conversations between and among all of us.

When I see one group holding up bars for its only-space, I see how that group is failing to acknowledge that there are really no bars holding up the subtext of our identities. It's going to offend some folks that I just said that, "subtext of our identities," but a lot of what creates our identities are the linguistic structures we create. And language, while mind-blowingly huge in the whole of who we are as human, just ain't all there is, y'all.

A woman is shut out of women's only space because her kind of woman does not equal your kind of woman. A self-identified male is shut out of a query on classism put to female-identified butches only. Why? Because of an underlying need for togetherness? Because someone who linguistically created an identity around "male" does not experience classism in the same way that other butches do? For reasons that are internal? And I should close a discussion of the femme experience, why? Because no one else can have anything relevant to say to us about it?

I'm not going to call a girl's only club house because what's more important to me than whether I get my feelings hurt is whether or not I learn anything about you, me, us. What's more important to me than whether I chance being offended is whether I need to have my mind changed.

I see more people inflamed by the idea that we have difficult conversations than I do by the idea that we're not having enough of them. I wish more of us were willing to roll up our sleeves, tuck our hearts firmly back in our chests where they bloody well belong, and speak to one another about the things that matter, bravely and without reservation. We should, all of us, cease conflating "topic" with "individual."

I sincerely thank you for expressing your opinion, evolveme. I will agree with you on the notion that yes, we all "should" be able to discuss "anything". I will however have to agree to disagree with you, in that I "do" think often times a "safe" space must be created for purpose of connecting with folks who are uniquely similar.

I quite simply, do not see it as a "bad thing". If in my "taking a backseat", as it may be interpreted by some, has aided in my learning how another group thinks then I do not see anything "bad" in that.

Perhaps I see things on a far too simplistic level. I see that if a group "wants" or "needs" safe space then let them have it. If someone reads something within that space that pertains to them, or their "group" then they can simply start a thread that engages different voices regarding the discussion.

I am not sure I agree with the "limited inclusion" theory. In that, as I interpret it.. "you can speak here, but only in the words "we" choose" as for me, that seems far more "silencing".

I don't think there is an easy way to resolve the creation of "safety" for any group, much less "sub-group". "We" as a collective, have thus far failed to do so. I truly believe it rests in the arms and actions of individuals and their personal walk through life. Which for me, is the dichotomy...The need for collective safe space ( for whatever select subgroup I seek ex: artists as QofQ mentioned) and the simultaneous need or desire to be integrated.

The dream of a common language eludes me still.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Jess

I sincerely thank you for expressing your opinion, evolveme. I will agree with you on the notion that yes, we all "should" be able to discuss "anything". I will however have to agree to disagree with you, in that I "do" think often times a "safe" space must be created for purpose of connecting with folks who are uniquely similar.

But, see, Jess, I never said they shouldn't exist, I only said that they weren't for me, and I went on to explain why I found them problematic. Further, "safe space" is a fallacy, even in a virtual, text-based world. Given that we're abiding the TOS, we really are all in charge of ourselves here and how we manage our own sense of "safety."

Originally Posted by Jess

I quite simply, do not see it as a "bad thing". If in my "taking a backseat", as it may be interpreted by some, has aided in my learning how another group thinks then I do not see anything "bad" in that.

I cannot imagine how anyone could interpret this position as a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Jess

<snip>
I am not sure I agree with the "limited inclusion" theory. In that, as I interpret it.. "you can speak here, but only in the words "we" choose" as for me, that seems far more "silencing".

I hope this isn't how you read Dear Femme. The idea is more that, if you're willing to engage with me, personally (because I'm the only one who has either been inclined or willing to do it) I'd like to talk about the ways that we sometimes believe we are being supportive (usually with rote language), but that given a second look, it can read as dismissive to a feminine person. If this has "felt silencing", I think it has more to do with an automatic defensiveness that our words were not heard the way we intended than to any real effort to silence. There is no effort to silence. (On the idea of silencing, I have a lot to say, but haven't made it to the Negotiating Silence thread yet.) And I did and do recognize your intention, but delivery does matter.

To wit:

I can't know if you're reading me in the tone with which I'm attempting to engage, but this conversation and you, as a deeply feeling and truly intelligent member of my community matter to me. I see how other femmes write a lot of "gently/s" and utilize emoticons when they do this, but that isn't who I am. I'm a straight shooter. I need you to know that this doesn't mean I do not respect you or that I don't feel I have nothing to learn from you. I do, and I'm sure I do.