I’m primarily speaking about the women who are actively opposed to trans-women exclusion because (however they frame the argument) they don’t really see us as women.

Yeah, I ‘m not trying to shift your focus away from that - and I’m going to print off the part two post to read tomorow.

I have tried to ask that question - the last time, I kept getting “Why are you calling me a bigot? I’m not a bigot. There’s more to me than a bigoted thing I said, why don’t you treat me as a person who said a bigoted thing instead of just a bigot?” It’s hard to get past the defensive flurry thrown up to protect against that knowledge. Hmm…maybe I should go back to Nezua’s page and dig up his full White Lens article. :)

I’ll think about this question - how I would follow it up from my perspective - whatever - some more. What I’m thinking is that If I could map and properly articulate my own shift from ‘this (WBW space) is defensible’ to ‘this is not defensible’, hopefully it will eventually prove useful.
Curious as to what bigoted thing was said and admitted to and whether or not the exchange was one the person might have learned something from - even if on the quiet. Hope so!

I’m primarily speaking about the women who are actively opposed to trans-women exclusion because (however they frame the argument) they don’t really see us as women. Those who hear the reasons like “WBW only space” and the explanations for them and support them aren’t necessarily being transphobes as they support a transphobic policy and possibly even say transphobic things.

I have tried to ask that question - the last time, I kept getting “Why are you calling me a bigot? I’m not a bigot. There’s more to me than a bigoted thing I said, why don’t you treat me as a person who said a bigoted thing instead of just a bigot?” It’s hard to get past the defensive flurry thrown up to protect against that knowledge. Hmm…maybe I should go back to Nezua’s page and dig up his full White Lens article. :)

On minority - okay. In that particular instance, it really does mean numbers + relative power, as trans women aren’t very numerous, and BDSM practitioners are a subset of the fair attendees.

And thank you for the explanation. Also, I do use oppressed group a lot of the time… I think!

Thinking more about my own reaction re the word minority — I guess I just overall feel like it can sort of change the subject when the subject is power — oppression of some groups and and overempowerment/domination from others. When I posted that comment I was mainly thinking about a poster I’ve seen on the wall of an activist group that has Che Guevara pointing outward at the room saying “YOU are not a minority!” I mean, IMO the reason for oppression and domination is in the power dynamics, not fewer numbers. If there are fewer numbers, than oppressors can use that for sure and it for sure becomes part of the dynamic, but the way I see it it’s not necessary/core.

And it seems to me that one of the ways it can work, when it’s part of the dynamic, is to rhetorically position the “minority” as marginal, less than, to be sacrificed for the good of the “larger group” etc drawing implicitly on white/Western notions of liberal democracy.

But anyway, I wasn’t so much criticizing what you said as expressing my own little inner “eep!” at the word. It’s just my thing — not saying you were wrong to go there.

Other words? I don’t know to me it’s all about the power dynamics. Oppressed group?

Well I’m thinking maybe I was a bit off-centre describing my previous defence of the WBW boundary as transphobic in another thread here. It might be more accurate to say I was blind to cissexual priviledge - that of the women I was defending a ‘right’ to the space for, though I didn’t feel a desire for it myself , and my own for seeing the space as a defensible ‘right’ for any of us. That’s not to say there’s no transphobia, but this would be an important distinction.

It was my experience on the michfest board that women were very willing to admit to their own white privilege, and to try and be aware of it as much as possible. I’m beginning to see why there’s such resistance to the idea of cissexual privilege ( even the very words ‘cissexual’ or ‘cisgender’ in some cases). Once you admit to it the ‘floodgates’ could open! I’ve heard people say you can’t argue a negative, but I’m wondering if it would be possible to approach the cissexual privilege blind, as opposed to the ‘my belief system that says you shoudn’t exist has more value than your life’ transphobes with the question ‘Why do you think excluding transwomen from women’s space anywhere is not exercising cissexual privilege?’