One of the things I have noticed over the weekend in the responses to the Women’s March is a bunch of women people complaining that they felt excluded by all of the signs talking about vaginas, uteruses and so on. I’d like to talk about that for a while.
First up, trans women were welcome at the marches. (Sex workers less so, but that’s a different conversation.) Janet Mock, Raquel Willis and Julia Serano were all on platform. I don’t know of any trans women who were invited to speak at UK marches, and would like to hear if any were, but at least there were some in the USA. Also there were many trans women marching, and many trans-supportive banners.
Obviously I understand that a huge crowd of women being very positive about body parts that you desperately wish you had, but don’t have, can be very triggering. On the other hand, there are plenty of cis women who can’t conceive for one reason or another, and I didn’t see any of them complaining about the reproductive rights signs.
The reason why there were so many signs talking about vaginas and uteruses is because Trump brags about his sexual assaults, and that he can get away with them, and because he and his cronies are planning an all-out-assault on women’s reproductive rights. That’s what those people were marching about, and they have every right to do so.
OK, I understand that trans rights are under assault as well. People were marching about that too. But that march wasn’t all about us. To put it another way, would you complain about all the people with Black Lives Matter signs because you are not black?
It’s all too easy these days to condemn any popular political movement because it is not aligned 100% with your concerns and beliefs, but where that gets us is all of the angry left wing people who refused to vote for Hilary because, “she’s as bad as Trump”.
Of course there is also the point that anyone claiming that “trans women” are excluded by signs about vaginas is saying that you can’t be a trans woman if you have a vagina. In which case, who’s being exclusionary now? Mostly I suspect people didn’t think of this, but some of us remember the 1990s.
Finally, a little bit of inclusion. Here’s Raquel getting all of the points across on MSNBC. Great job, sis. And thanks for reminding me that I’m not the only one who can’t force herself to smile all of the time while on TV. Doing TV interviews is really hard.
Update: I’m getting reports of some marches that were hostile to trans folks. Obviously where that was the case people have every right to protest exclusion. Austin, I am deeply disappointed in you.
I refuse to recognise as feminist any woman who is anti men or anti trans women. I’m not putting those two in the same boat – they are two different groups that often get called out by women who see themselves as ardent feminists.
It isn’t feminism if it excludes people. The only way we can get equality AND eliminate some of the really negative parts of today’s gender expectations is if we all work together.
So anyone who excludes is intentionally preventing equality and is therefore not a feminist.
I didn’t hear any of the speakers at Lancaster identify as transwomen but at least two made reference to trans rights amongst listing women’s rights to defend.