In one of her twitter threads, Marguerite Stern writes as follows:
“If you want to attack or contradict me, do so with real arguments, not ones based on your own feelings.”
I took this as a call, or at the very least an open door.
First of all, I’d like to warn you: more often than not, the way I write is perceived as condescending. I’m sorry about this, it’s the way I express myself, and I know I need to work on it. I feel compelled to say that the following statements are only there to describe my own views and perceptions, and not to express some universal truth. What I mean is this: I write what I believe is, not necesarrily what is.
Or rather, what is, but from my own perception or reality. That’s it.
Let me introduce myself. I’m Awen, I’m agender, but society sees me as a man. I’m fairly certain this is the angle of attack people will take on me, so I’ll explain a few things:
I cannot shut up. I cannot remain silent. Because I'm an ally of people’s happiness. I can understand that, for some people, my message will be perceived as me taking a space other persons, more legitimate, could occupy. Yet, I think that if I define myself as an ally and still keep silent, that would be hypocritical.
Besides, I think this is okay. I write this piece, I react to a call to debate, and I invite whoever wishes to answer me, in a spirit of total and welcome open-mindedness.
SO! When it comes to the structure of this piece, I’ll simply quote Marguerite Stern (in black) and express my views (in red).
And I want to start with this:
"I’m aware some people will tell me that I’m hurting them with my words, but those people need to realise I’m hurt by theirs. And, like them, I have a right to say it."
Yes. You have a right to say it, and it’s important to do so. What goes unsaid stays inside, and burns. If you didn’t speak, it wouldn’t be good for you, nor me, nor us. Because nothing can change if you don’t put things on the table. So, even though it may seem paradoxical, thank you for expressing yourself.
Secondly, I know your words hurt us (since I am myself hurt) and I understand our words hurt you, because I did indeed hear it, your feelings, this invisibilization you described, etc. So I hope this article will help you too.
Let’s do this!
"Three main topics divide feminists: sex work, religion and transactivism.”
Let’s make this division very clear: some people are against the wearing of veil (headscarf, hijab and other variations), against sex work and prostitution, and against transactivism. On the other side of the spectrum, people are for individual liberties.
I can imagine you grinding your teeth already. You must think there are no freedom involved in the wearing of the veil or in sex work, that those are consequences of the patriarchy. I’ll circle back to this, I want to go through your thread in order.
"I see no problem in stating that prostitution is a violence committed against women (even those who are not prostitutes, since ALL OF US can, potentially, become one).”
The way you phrase this is, in my opinion, the direct consequence of the patriarchy and masculinism. Because you are, in fact, viewing prostitution through the lense of a masculinist. For you, intrisically, essentially, prostitution is a phenomenon which objectifies women for the gratification of men, and is sexual slavery.
Thing is, this is not a UNIVERSAL truth, but your perception.
There are many differents ways to see sex work/prostitution. For some of us, this work allows us to reclaim our bodies, and to fight patriarchy.
I don’t say this in an attempt to invisibilize women for whom it is not the case! Of course these women exist. To generalize is not a solution. Because if we generalize, one way or another, some people will become invisible.
People who want to get out, people who reclaim power with this job, people who suffer because of it, people who feel free and independent, people who don’t view prostitution as work but rather something to help get to their destination during migration, people who are getting over a rape, etc. etc. etc.
You cannot generalize. In fact, we don’t need to.
It’s rather simple. Instead of looking at prostitution/sex work through a lense of good and evil, let’s look at through this lense: people’s happiness.
If somebody wants to get out of prostitution, let’s help them! If somebody wants to do sex work, let’s give them rights and respect!
Here you go. End of the problem. Everybody comes out with respect and dignity. And we can move on.
"No qualms in saying that catholicism is shit, that islam is shit, that judaism and buddhism are shit. All religions are equally damaging to women’s dignity."
This is interesting. Because religion in itself isn’t the problem. Personal belief isn’t a problem. What you are actually denouncing is this: masculinism and patriarchy at play in religions.
And on this point, we totally agree, actually!
Therefore, I don’t think we should destroy religions, I think we have to take out the masculinist and patriarchal elements in them.
If you believe that religions are essentially masculinists, I myself believe they can change.
And I suppose that now, you’re thinking about the veil.
To this, I’ll answer something similar to what I’ve already said, about economico-sexual exchanges: it’s about women’s choice. If a woman wants to wear a veil, let her. If a woman doesn’t want to wear it, let her.
Besides, and I think we can agree: why only women? Let each and everyone be free to cover their head or not.
Let’s not be anti-veil; rather, let’s make sure it’s not a patriarchal tool.
Because I’ve met them, women who wear the veil, and not because of their husbands.
But wait! Let’s dig around this idea that “the veil is essentially patriarchal, and women who fight for the freedom to wear it are just being manipulated and used by sexism and patriarchy.”
Come on, let’s dig.
Do you think that forbidding the veil is a relevant and healthy solution? Do you think that forcing a woman to take her veil off isn’t violent? Because if this is your view, bear in mind that the woman has hers! Do you think your view of her view is the excuse to impose yours? Is this healthy and respectful? Do you think that forcing a woman to take her veil off, when she doesn’t want to, will make her feel dignified and respected?
Because this is what you’re fighting for, isn’t it?
Aren’t you fighting for everyone’s dignity, or your own idea of what dignity is? I think this is an interesting question, and I’d invite you to ponder it further, as it can also apply to sexwork.
Let’s carry on.
"However, I have trouble talking about transactivism. Everytime I do, people bite my head off. Those attacks are getting more and more violent, and I know that other feminists don’t dare speak on the matter because they fear, and rightly so, bullying, online and offline."
Yes, humans respond to attacks with attacks. A piece of advice, if you want a carefully crafted response, carefully craft your opinion. In order to do so, it’s easy: listen. Try to understand. Let go of what you think is the truth and try to understand the other’s.
With this, our conversation will become saner, more interesting, truer and with more depths.
For example, right now, I’m not insulting you. I won’t ever do it. Because I get what you want to say, and even though what you say hurts me, I still accept your words.
By the way, I won’t try to bypass the fact that some elements of my answer will hurt you too. I just hope that, like me, you’ll be able to accept them. If we manage to welcome in ourselves each other’s words, we can create a richer conversation. At the very least, we’d have greater chances of success than by insulting each other.
I think so.
"But today, and at the risk of losing a lot of supports, I can’t stand it anymore, and I want to express clearly what I think. It’ll be messy, most likely, and done under the strain of emotions, but to hell with it."
Do express yourself, and I’ll do my best to accept your words and answer with honesty.
"Since I started the public display of messages against femicides, I’m happy and inspired by what I see, thousands of women occupying public spaces. Quickly, other messages started to appear, and that’s a good thing."
Yes, that’s awesome! Let’s be seen! Let’s fight! Let’s have our strength back!
"I myself, for months, displayed other messages before coming to femicides. But today, I feel like the movement I started is turning against me.”
Ah ? Really? Tell me more, I’m intrigued.
"Many local branches like the ones in Lyon or Montpellier, for example, don’t hesitate to display messages on topics which are very divisive within feminism, clearly taking the intersectional approach, and effectively leaving out the universalists".
“Universalism is a philosophical and theological concept that some ideas have universal application or applicability."
I don’t see how a feminist can call themself universalist if they don’t fight for the right of all women. It bears remembering that “fighting for the rights of all women” (which means sexworkers, by choice or not, women who wear the veil, by choice or not, and all the other persons who identify as women) is not the same thing as “imposing an individual conception of what is a free woman.”
Because an individual conception is clearly opposed to the notion of universality. We all have different stories and perceptions, and we all have our ways to live our lives freely. Which means we cannot free everybody with an individual conception of what a free world looks like.
On the other hand, if we give legitimacy to all individual perceptions, we could access a universal freedom, which still manages to be diverse and pluralist.
Therefore, it seems paradoxical to oppose universalism and intersectionality, because I believe the former cannot exist without the latter.
"In Paris, when I opened my doors to hundreds of women at the beginning of the movement, I made it clear that beyond any kind of disagreement, I wanted us to be united to fight against domestic violence.
Universalist feminists recall being kicked out of branches where activists positioned themselves as intersectional, and display divisives messages while still being under the brand (because, to my regret, it has become a brand) “collage féminicides”.
Anyways. Today, I saw this public message on the account of “Collage féminicides Montpellier”. It’s not the first one. That’s why I decided to speak my mind."
Wait. Something doesn’t feel right. I don’t understand, how does defending and shining a light on the words or reality of some sexworkers, some women wearing the veil, some trans persons, put the other fights back into the dark?
I don’t get it. But you’ll surely develop.
"Firstly, I find that transactivism and the debates that go with it are taking more and more space in feminism, and actually get all the attention. I see it as a new way for masculinists to reclaim focus and prevent women to express themselves."
In other words, you believe trans people who fight to have their struggle be seen, are effectively making the fight of cis people disappear from the public sphere? Why do you think so? Because, believe me, our goal was never, and never will be, to destroy or silence cis women and their rights.
We want the exact opposite. Our fight is deeply anti-sexist. But please, do carry on.
"From time immemorial, men have tried to silence women by suppressing their revolts. Today, they do so by infiltrating our fights and by occupying the central stage."
This is one of the parts of your speech that deeply upsets and shocks me. And I’m not the only one.
Because, if I’m getting this right, you’re mixing up “trans women who fight for their right to exist, for their dignity and for respect” with “men who pretend to be women to infiltrate our fights”.
Is this really what you believe? Do you honestly think we men came together and said “yes, bros, I have the best idea: we’ll tell women we are actually women too and we’ll destroy extremist feminism from within!”
Something like that? That can’t be very healthy.
Do you believe it’s fun to be a trans woman? That it’s easy? That they don’t experience patriarchy and toxic masculinity? You don’t know what you’re saying!
Picture this, a woman seen as a man, what she gets thrown to her face, everyday? Violence, insults, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia, dysphoria, etc.?
No, it is indeed not easy. And don’t imagine that your speech helps them, just don’t. Because what you’re saying is actually transmisogyny.
And so, it’s just another thing to endure.
And I’m repeating myself, but I don’t know any trans woman who doesn’t fight alongside cis women for their rights. This idea that you have, and I’m sorry about it, comes from your ignorance, your misunderstanding and your anger.
And if you think it is more probable, more logical, that there’s a masculinist lobby out there, dressing itself up to destroy women’s rights, rather than women fighting to get the recognition they deserve, I invite you to think about this, rather than holding on to your certitudes.
When we think we know everything, we don’t learn anymore.
"Secondly, I think it’s despicable that something as formidable as the gender-inclusive language, which is supposed to further women’s interests, is actually being used to exclude them, on feminist debates on instagram (and I’m aware this may be a niche). We are not allowed to use the words “man” and “woman” to speak about specific topics, such as menstrual periods. Now, we use the expression “person with a vulva.” Well, I think that’s just offensive, since it makes me invisible."
Interesting.
From my point of view, saying that “a person with a vulva is a woman” is what makes women with a penis invisible.
Do you really feel invisible when we say “person with a vulva”? Because it doesn’t mean you’re not a woman, you know? If you identify as a woman, you are a woman, and nobody will come and tell you the opposite.
Well, to you, at least. Because I know a lot of women who get kicked in the teeth with the non-recognition of their gender identity.
"No, I am not a “person with a vulva”, I’m a woman. I was born a woman, and even before that day, in my mother’s womb, I was discriminated against because of that fact. I suffered from things that no man who wishes to become a woman will ever understand.
“Thirdly, I’m all about deconstructing gender stereotypes, and I think that transactivism only reinforces them. I see men who wish to be women suddenly putting on make-up, wearing dresses and high-heels. I see this as an insult towards women, this belief that tools invented by the patriarchy are what makes women women. We are women because we have a vulva. This is biology 101.”
Here we are. The basis to transphobia. “Biology.”
Well, for starters, let me share here an extract of a previous entry. It’s the definition of my own agender identity. This was not intended to impose anything, I was just sharing who I am:
"Nature didn’t create words. Humans did. Don’t forget that.”
I thought about it, genders in mind. And I need to explain my perception. Again, yes. Life is evolution.
Evidently, this is a perception I don’t wish to impose on anybody. It’s not a absolute truth. It’s only my own. And I think it has as much reason to exist as yours.
“For me, gender is a concept, invented by human beings.
We all have bodies and they are all unique. I’ve never seen two that are identical. And I won’t.
Some bodies have breasts, a penis, a vulva, some are flat-chested, hairy, some have wide hips, others have Adam’s apple, at times, some bodies are several of the above.
Things that society decided are what gender is all about, as a concept.
But to me, this concept is the basis for sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, etc. To sum up, if gender as a concept didn’t exist, social oppressions which it creates and justifies wouldn’t exist. This is logical.
A body with a vulva isn’t the body of a woman. And a body with a penis isn’t the body of a man.
Masculinity and femininity are only social concepts.
They seem natural only because we learn them at a very young age. In kindergarten, we didn’t have the mental capacities to question what we were taught. We would only take what was given to us, and by doing so, we would let our own perception be shaped by the people who would take care of us.
But for me, and this is a reasonable idea, if we look at the phenomenon, we just put two words “man” and “woman” onto bodies. On bodies parts. Which we later linked to social characteristics. This is not natural, and it doesn’t bear to go without saying. This is something that was entirely built and invented from scratch.
This is where I am. I’m not a man, I’m not a woman, I’m not a concept. Instead, I play with them. But I don’t define myself with them."
What I wish to convey is simple: no, we’re not merely the result of our “biology”. “Man” and “Woman”, they are made-up concepts. Two words that have created a prison in many societies.
Those two words don’t represent a biological reality. The real biological reality is that all bodies are different, some have a vulva, some have a penis, sometimes neither and sometimes both (and likely other possibilities that the mainstream masses are not aware of).
The words “man” and “woman” are not a biological reality, but a conceptual creation that came from human minds, and which is today considered by many as an absolute truth.
Now, I have a question for you. What do you fight for? Does saying “person with a vulva”, which allows trans people to be visible, really make you invisible? How so?
To what extent recognizing the identities of trans people, giving them the respect they deserve, is an aggression on who you are?
Because if you think that the rights of cis women are limited when we look for a way as not to make other inclusives identities invisible, then your fight is a transphobic one.
"Wear dresses, high-heels, wigs, make-up, if you want. I won’t call it cultural appropriation, but don’t come and tell me you are women, just like I wouldn’t have the indecency of darkening my skin and calling myself Black."
Oh. You know, there are men who wear heels and wigs and who are not trans. There are also trans women who don't wear either. Don’t you know any butch trans women? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn’t say such things..
I don’t think it’s clever to compare the mechanism of dominion at play in racism and those in sexism. I believe that “blackface” and the freedom to wear whatever you want are two different things.
"Fourthly, stop telling me I’m oppressing you. You’re the ones oppressing me when you reinforce gender stereotypes. And I have the right to call you out on that, since I’m not being hateful."
The fact that you define your fight according to the patriarchy is an interesting one. You seem to think that dresses, manners, can only be defined and understood by what men feel when they see them.
Actually, what would total freedom look like? People could wear what they want, people could be who they want.
No?
Why should we cater to what men see when they look at us? They can look away! Let’s make it clear: honey, we do what we want, if you don’t like it, go be nasty somewhere else.
Why are we fighting each other on how we each choose to be? Isn’t it a form of submission, to follow their toxic masculinist rules?
Aren’t we being manipulated, by any chance?
"My speech is totally legal since I, unlike you, can see the difference between transidentities and transactivism. Meaning, between people and ideas. I don't care that trans people exist. However, I’m disgusted when I see those persons invading feminist spaces by making it all about themselves, to the point that so-called “cis” women can’t fight for anything else.”
If you think I’m mansplaining, then I think we’re even. Because telling trans people that you know more about transidentities than them, that’s...rather out of terms, isn’t it? What should we call it, cisplaining?
I don’t think you can make the difference between people and ideas, by the way. Because you seem to conflate our fight for dignity and respect with an attempt to destroy your own rights.
By the by, I feel you’re trying to impose your ideas on our lives. When you claim that trans women are masculinists in disguise hidden in a trojan horse, for example. Can you actually tell the difference between your ideas and our lives?"Fifthly, the sacrosanct notion of “freedom”, “choice” and “tolerance” don’t mean anything if they are not explained.
"I’m free to wear the veil”, “I’m free to prostitute myself”, “I’m trans, be tolerant and accept me”, it doesn’t mean anything. Yes, you can say that you have the right to wear the veil, to go into prostitution, or to be trans, but the notion of free will is just an illusion.
I think choices are the result of a brainwashing performed by the patriarchy. If it were anything else, why wouldn’t men wear the veil, or go into prostitution as much as women do? Same thing with transactivism."
I believe I’ve already written what I think before, didn’t I? I don’t identify as a woman, by the way, but I do prostitute myself and it is my choice.
But I do know you give importance to perception you believe are held by the majority, therefore this is not a universalist fight.
"Why are trans people on the center stage, during the march “Nous Toutes”, or why are drag queens (which are more common than drag kings) higher in numbers, or at least more visible? (and I know that in this case, it is more like cross-dressing, but I reckon they’re the result of the same process)”
We are more visible because we make it so. We take the center stage because of everything else we take in our faces, everyday. And if we attend the same march as you do, it’s because we also fight for women’s rights. Let’s make it clear that in this case, fighting for women’s rights means fighting transmisogyny.
Regarding drag kings, it takes time, but they’ll become more and more visible. Because I do agree on one point: we do have a right to equality to fight for.
"I can appreciate the fact that trans people don’t see themselves in the gender attributed to them because of their genitals. The fact that men may want to wear dresses, the fact that women want to be considered not through a sexual lense, or not to be infantilize through language, which is the reason why they change image and pronoun. But all of this (clothes, social names) can and should be dismantle. In order to do so, there’s no need to pervert feminist debates."
I personally believe we should dismantle all our social constructs and certitudes. But I don't believe you can do that with transmisogyny.
"I need to remind you that when I speak on this matter, I usually get a lot of insults, threats and condescending messages. But I also get a lot of messages from other feminists who think like me but don’t say it, because they’re afraid.
Lastly, if you want to attack me, or contradict me, do so with real arguments, not based on your own feelings. I’m aware some people will tell me that I’m hurting them with my words, but those people need to realise I’m hurt by theirs. And, like them, I have a right to say it. But I’m doing it in a reasoned way, and my arguments are based on “hard” and social sciences.
That’s all I wanted to say, I think, because I think I forgot some stuff."
And here’s a part of my answer, even though I feel like I forget a lot. There are many topics I haven’t discussed, or developped. But maybe you’ll still find some elements to explore on your own. I have to be honest, after a while, I felt the tiredness coming.
To sum up, I believe the root of our problem is your belief in what you name “biological reality”, and in what you call your fight to impose your own perception of it, by putting it above the lives of several individuals.
To be honest, I’m not hoping for you to understand everything said here. But I do have the hope that you’ll find some valuable inputs, some tools, some infos and some light on the situation. Anything, really.
Take care.
Don’t hesitate to share this article on all platforms. And thanks to @selinagyde for the translation.
Comments