>> I'm not speaking for the majority of trans women. I'm speaking of them.
Again anecdotally.
>> I mean that the traits I list describe a majority of trans women, in my experience and in my opinion.
Well, here is where the wheels fall off. Prescribing negative male traits to the majority of trans women is beyond the pale. I disagree and find the connotation offensive and transphobic.
>> While there is still need for gendered spaces? We belong in our own spaces.
Again, I disagree, for reasons:
1. Size: The trans population is small, like very small compared to almost all other groups. It would be a greater burden on society to request that all spaces now accommodate unique and private spaces for trans folk, and extrapolated, a different space for flavor of trans.
2. Exclusion and Identity Erasure: Many trans folk (myself included) identify with one of the two binary genders. It is an affront and an erasure of our identities to segregate us from general society. I for one am not looking to wear my trans scarlet letter with pride, thanks.
Now, that is not to say that trans folk should not have access to our own support networks and industry groups. But to claim that we should stay out of the majority groups because we have a different past is offensive, as is the connotation that trans women make cis women uncomfortable. As a passing trans woman, I have been asked to leave trans groups because my "privilege" makes others uncomfortable. In this case, where do I belong? Should I make new industry groups for passing trans women with mixed Irish/German/Greek heritage that enjoy swing dancing and traditional music? Should cis women segregate by ethnicity or by tomboy-ness?
Intersectionality does not imply segregation. Trans women are women, full stop, and should have access to the same groups as cis women.
>> I accept that there are differences between trans women, but I believe my description covers a strong majority. I don't speak "for" anyone, of course.
In my experience as a trans woman in tech and very involved in the MN transgender community for many years, is that your perspective is definitely not shared by the majority. I know my argument is just as anecdotal as yours, but I only can recall a couple trans women out of the hundreds I have met through community work that would agree with you. Most of the women I work with absolutely want to join women's spaces and would be interested in Leap or similar industry groups for women. But again, this is anecdotal. Please don't speak for the "majority" of us without backing it up with polling data at minimum.
>> My concern is that in the case of women-only spaces where trans women are welcome, many trans women will join, responding to their need to belong, which you express and which I feel myself. And that given enough trans women joining, a few of them will eventually display those behavioural traits you can expect from people who grew up like men and that are the traits the community seems to want to keep out.
All groups have to manage certain individuals.
In your opinion, how much gendered socialization is enough for a trans woman to be acceptable to be able to join female spaces? ie. At what maximum age do you think they needed to start transition to access women's spaces? If not at all, then how does your socialization argument hold up against those that transition at a very young age? At what point is a woman "fully" socialized in their gendered role and ready to join women's spaces?
Additionally, how should facilitators of said spaces check to make sure the cis women joining had enough gendered socialization to join? Should they accept tomboys? Butch women? Lesbians?
What about trans men who were socialized as a women before transition? Or inter-sexed folk that identify as women?
Should there be any consideration that many trans women end up picking up (effectually) on many of the socializations women receive while growing up?
Socialization has its own issues with essentialism, and often feels stuck in the second-wave feminism of the 70s. No two women share the same experiences. Gendered socialization differs dramatically across intersectional lines and when referenced in such ways often assumes and superimposes affluent, Christian, and white experiences as the majority and proper socialization. Socialization arguments often remind of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Modern intersectional feminism embraces the intersectional identities of women, trans and cis alike (among many other informing aspects).
>> But this is not yet the case and I really think that trans women need to give some space to cis women until it is and in order to help make it so.
Often I find these lines of thought to be thinly veiled attempts at othering trans folk, erasing their identity, and forcing them out of gender spaces entirely. If transgender women are to stay out of women's spaces while not being accepted in men's spaces, where do they belong?
When it comes to gendered groups and spaces, I would maintain that identity should be the deciding factor.
Leap and similar communities are not essentialist, they are safe spaces for those people who share the experience of existing as a woman in the tech industry. It is a false equivalency to conflate Leap with terf essentialism. Additionally, why the quotes around men and women? Is this an attempt to be subtly transphobic?
> If women felt like their discussions were being treated fairly in public forums, they'd have stayed in them.
This so much. Most men in tech can have a majority male discussion in any open community, due to their numbers. The amount of disparity from men towards leap in this thread is a prime example of why we women in tech seek to have discussions in more closed environments.
We women in tech frequently need to re-hash this discussion. We offer personal anecdotes, and they are written off as outliers. We present diversity numbers and pay gap data, and we are told that those are due to women either choosing family life over career or that we are biologically predisposed to not being as good as men at tech. We present data and stories about rampant, institutionalized sexism at large industry leaders, and we are scolded for being "overly sensitive". Assertiveness is conflated as bitchiness. Timidness as incompetence. The advantage is apparent - the real goal of constantly asking us to prove the advantage is to create doubt and the appearance of a controversy over the data. But I see these as thinly veiled gaslighting attempts. I have worked in tech all my life, and have had many men take credit for my initiatives and ideas, talk over me constantly through most meetings, pass me up for promotions because I didn't "engage with the team" (ie. attending late night drinking sessions at strip clubs), always get second guessed - even when I am the resident SME and was hired specifically for task, etc. I have lived it. If more men would make themselves aware of the systemic sexism in the industry instead of making women repeat themselves, argue every data point, and be 3x as good as their peers to receive recognition, maybe we could stop having this discussion . . .
Again anecdotally.
>> I mean that the traits I list describe a majority of trans women, in my experience and in my opinion.
Well, here is where the wheels fall off. Prescribing negative male traits to the majority of trans women is beyond the pale. I disagree and find the connotation offensive and transphobic.
>> While there is still need for gendered spaces? We belong in our own spaces.
Again, I disagree, for reasons: 1. Size: The trans population is small, like very small compared to almost all other groups. It would be a greater burden on society to request that all spaces now accommodate unique and private spaces for trans folk, and extrapolated, a different space for flavor of trans. 2. Exclusion and Identity Erasure: Many trans folk (myself included) identify with one of the two binary genders. It is an affront and an erasure of our identities to segregate us from general society. I for one am not looking to wear my trans scarlet letter with pride, thanks.
Now, that is not to say that trans folk should not have access to our own support networks and industry groups. But to claim that we should stay out of the majority groups because we have a different past is offensive, as is the connotation that trans women make cis women uncomfortable. As a passing trans woman, I have been asked to leave trans groups because my "privilege" makes others uncomfortable. In this case, where do I belong? Should I make new industry groups for passing trans women with mixed Irish/German/Greek heritage that enjoy swing dancing and traditional music? Should cis women segregate by ethnicity or by tomboy-ness?
Intersectionality does not imply segregation. Trans women are women, full stop, and should have access to the same groups as cis women.