Quite a few years ago, a friend and I wanted to stage a one-day get-together for female-born, male-identified (language has changed since then – this is the language we used at the time) individuals living in Colorado.
Our purpose was three-fold: to get as many of us together as possible to find out overall needs throughout the state; to try to determine the numbers of us throughout the state; and to reach out to those in rural areas who might not be receiving services or who might need connections.
This was going to be a small event, with perhaps three or four “workshops” and a main gathering area for guys to meet and have conversations and discussion. We wanted to make it free and accessible. We had a concept, but we needed an organizing committee, because even a brief event requires volunteers and planners to make it come to fruition.
When we got our committee together, we had the inevitable disagreements on what the thing should look like. But the biggest problem was with inclusion. One committee member suggested that, in order to be inclusive, we needed a space for significant others, and this seemed logical. We could have a private room and maybe have a couple of SOs who would set up some kind of programming, or just have peer-led discussions.
Another member suggested that, in order to be inclusive, we needed to invite those who were female-born but did not necessarily identify as male. Another suggested that, in order to be inclusive, we really needed to invite male-born, female-identified people as well. And, of course, we would need to invite family members, allies, and so on, plus we needed to have programming for all.
By the time we had our inclusive attendee demographics identified, we were basically having an event for everyone. It was a full-scale conference that we had neither the time or the finances to provide, let alone the human power to bring it all together. Our desire for inclusivity had basically grounded our gathering before it left the runway.
It also left us with an event that was not for the original intended audience at all and would not have served the original identified purposes. There was no real space for female-born, male-identified individuals to gather and form community. Now, the community was everyone.
This is just one example of the difficulties inherent in the concept of inclusivity, and it brings up quite a few questions that seem to be on the rise as various groups plan events, and as the number of different groups and events increases every year.
Those questions are: What does it mean to be truly “inclusive”? Does targeting a particular group for an event, or even a workshop at a conference, constitute exclusion? If an event is not open to everyone, is it automatically exclusionary? And what about “safe space”? Is that an exclusionary concept in and of itself?
I don’t know the answers. I have opinions, and my opinions sometimes change and they sometimes can be changed, based on the argument presented. But even though I have opinions, I still struggle with these questions, along with what is right, wrong, and most beneficial to all involved. At the time that I am writing this, these are my current thoughts:
> An oppressed group has the right to remove itself from its oppressor, at any time and for any reason. (An oppressor group, in my opinion, does not have this same right – to remove itself from the oppressed.) An oppressed group denying entrance to its oppressor is not being exclusionary. It is creating safe space.
I have been to conferences where I have seen workshops that I wanted to attend, and I was disappointed when I saw that they were for people of color only or for working-class people only. However, I did not feel excluded – just disappointed, because I was interested in the topic. But these workshops were not for me, and I would have been attending as a member of an oppressor group or privileged group. I have no right to demand or expect to enter this space.
> The concepts of oppressor and oppressed apply differently in different circumstances. One can be a member of both oppressor groups and oppressed groups, and one oppression does not equal another. A person has to be able to identify under what circumstances he or she is the oppressor and under what circumstances he or she is oppressed.
As a trans person, I do not feel exclusionary attending a trans-only workshop or even a trans-men-only workshop. I believe that this is a safe space for an oppressed group of which I am a member. But I am white, and in this case, I am a member of an oppressor group and a privileged group in the United States, and my oppression as a trans person does not “transfer over.” There are some events or activities that I cannot attend in order to allow a safe space for others.
> “Safe space” has to be defined by the people who are creating it, and they have to be very clear about who is and who is not considered welcome in that space. You can’t create something and then define parameters only when you don’t like who has chosen to be there.
I seen nothing wrong with support or social groups targeted toward a specific population – for example, transitioned men who have been living as men for five years or more, genderqueer individuals who do not identify within the binary gender system, women who are just beginning transition and in need of peer support – as long as those target parameters are clearly identified. If these groups are being offered by a nonprofit organization, such as a gender center, a variety of groups needs to be made available to accommodate all those using or covered by the organization’s services.
> Anyone utilizing public funds, public accommodations, or public property that is paid for by taxpayer money, or anyone running a business that is open to the public, must be inclusive. Those utilizing private spaces and private funds can exclude whoever they want to. There are exceptions to this, obviously, as there are exceptions to all of the above.
> The difference between “exclusion” and “safe space” is validity. The reasons for establishing safe space should be valid, such as removing oneself from one’s oppressors or defining a population that is at risk of being oppressed or overpowered if those outside of the group are allowed access. Simply wanting to talk about a particular issue that only certain individuals have experienced and will understand is also a valid reason for creating safe space. But again, there are always exceptions.
Overall, I don’t think “safe space” is exclusionary, and I don’t think “inclusion” has to mean that everyone should be included in everything all the time. There will be those who are exclusionary, but who hide behind a “safe space” banner in order to covertly discriminate. There will be those who support complete inclusivity at all times, with no exceptions, who end up intentionally or unintentionally encroaching on safe space. And there will be those who are criticized for establishing safe spaces and those who are criticized for not establishing them.
Common sense, reason, maturity, and understanding – as well as the law, in some situations – have to be the keys. Is there a reason why some people should not access this particular space? In many cases, there is. Is there a reason why no one should be denied access to this particular space? In many cases, there is. Is your argument for safe space or for inclusivity valid? Then go for it.
Readers, what do you think?
I get into this argument all the time with people. I am gay and genderqueer. Usually, it’s over gay bars and gay websites. While I post here if I have something to say, I do not pretend to understand being fully trans, nor do I attempt to act as if my opinion is as valid as that of someone who is.
I personally saw the horror of how heated this argument could get in the Adam Lambert fandom. The straight ladies who are infatuated with a gay man seem to feel entitled to post on gay websites and hit gay bars and, though many are admitted, lifelong homophobic pricks, suddenly say their eyes were opened by Adam Lambert and suddenly they know OMFG ALL ABOUT the LGBT community, when, in actuality they know nothing. The ignorance and entitlement is astounding.
I;ve been accused of being a heterophobe when I say we need to preserve safe space for both the entire LGBT acronym as well as each letter, for we all have very specific needs and concerns. Sorry, but straight people will never get it. Furthermore, by sheer force of numbers, it would be quite easy for safe LGBT space to become overrun with straight people, thus violating and destroying that safe space.
I do not go to LGBT websites and gay bars and conferences to hang out with people who CANNOT POSSIBLY understand. I get the straight perspective thrown at me from every angle ad nauseum as do we all. It would be really nice to not have to be all PC all the time, and just relax with those like ourselves now and then without people accusing us of being exclusionary.
I think the original idea of the conference was perfectly acceptable, and I am sorry that it did not work out that way.
What about us “straight” trans men and trans women?
I find it odd that gay, lesbian and bisexual people assume all trans* folk are queer, but I find it even more bothersome when a member of the trans* community uses “straight” as a pejorative term, as it identifies many members of the trans* community, like me.
For one, straight isn’t perjorative here.It is just saying that that orientation is not discriminated against as LGB orientations are. That’s it. Sorry if you took it that way.
Of course straight trans men and trans women are welcome. You are the T in LGBT. You are a part of our community.
I didn’t mean to come off as thinking that no straight, cisgender person EVER belongs in LGBT space. However, I think there are situations where they don’t. That’s it.
“Sorry, but straight people will never get it.”
As a group, I agree that not all of them will get it, but individually some will. As a group, not all trans people get all trans issues and all gay people don’t agree on gay issues, so it’s not surprising that non-trans and non-gay people won’t get it as a group, but we do have some awesome allies in both communities.
I appreciate your careful thoughts on the subject. As a transwoman, I am reminded of the times, though, that I have been excluded from women-only events because I am identified in somebody’s mind with the “oppressor” side of this coin.
I’m not the oppressor here and clearly identify with those oppressed so what choices do I have? I choose to continue to work building peaceful bridges so we can together move beyond what I understand is a false assertion that only leads to mutual distrust when we could accomplish so much together.
Rest assured, Deni, in woman only space, you are no oppressor, as you are a woman. The key is going to be able to get cis women to grasp that concept.
This is an absolutely elegant explanation. I’ve written several papers on the subject of oppressed and minority spaces, usually looking at larger scale institutions (for example, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf where I am a hearing interpreting student at a Deaf college, within a larger hearing university- talk about minority space!). You articulate this concept beautifully and I’ll likely use it for my future work. Thank you for writing this!
I am all about inclusivity, but sometimes I personally feel the need to spend time with people who share my experiences. I am sure just about everyone does. I love my trans sisters, but my experience has been when I attend meetings identified as trans support groups, more times than not, i am one of the of a very few transmen who attend. Yes, I share the experience of transition with trans women, but the topics of discussions tend to turn into areas, that I, as a trans man, want to get away from. So those meetings don’t relate with me. I see nothing wrong with wanting at times to just spend time with trans men.
I really think you hit the nail on the head when you, Matt, stated that it is a matter of common sense and maturity, but I think you need to add understanding and compassion. I find that people who have issues with “an only” group meeting do not have the frame of mind to step outsideof themselves and look at something from someone else’s perspective.
Reblogged this on Zander's Blog.
One of the difficult things I think about is safe space being used as a tool to identify monsters.
I look at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival that has a “womyn-born-womyn” policy, and the fresh push recently by some who identify themselves as radical feminists who are embracing this concept under different language. Some of these folk have been using such terminology as “rapey” to describe trans women — especially trans women who are attracted to other women. And, the way safe space is defined is this particular instance is as a tool for excluding trans women who were born with male genitalia, and functionally declaring trans women as monsters…as sexual predators.
In fact, historic imagery and discussion about African-Americans and Jews has been used to define these populations as having sexual predators, and this alleged propensity of sexual predation was identified as a reason for oppression — much as it’s been used in the “bathroom bill” meme against trans civil rights.
We can look back and say that this approach to safe space — declaring populations to be monstrous, potential sexual predators — and see it as a tool of oppression. But during the times it occurs…well, I’m in a population in which my peers and I are being defined as ‘rapey,’ and therefore are said should be excluded from women’s space.
Sometimes it’s not going to be the populations themselves that define what was safe spacing and what was exclusionary — sometimes it’s going to be history which decides whether a particular exclusion was a safe space exclusion or a discriminatory exclusion based in bigotry.
I wholeheartedly concur with your “current thoughts.”
I have created and attended “transitioned men only” workshops at “trans*” conferences and received both appreciation by attendees and criticism from non-attendees.
I find value in being able to confide in, relate to and support my brothers!!
I agree with Autumn’s comments on “safe space” being used to define monsters.
To assess exclusive spaces, we have to keep in mind other kinds of exclusion — for example, a Christian-only group, or a whites-only group, or a youth-only group, or an abled-only group, or an affluent-only group.
Obviously, we find some of those constructions to be acceptable and others to be offensive, right from the start (although some, like the last example, can be incredibly classist but get overlooked simply because we as a society still organically form our cliques that way).
The difference is in the reason to exclude. Narrowing a group to an age range is seen as an acceptable reason, since people tend to empathize and relate better to people of or near their generation. We accept that. Likewise, transmasculine -focused groups are (to me, anyway) reasonable in that there are unique aspects to the experience that get erased or de-prioritized in larger “inclusive” groups.
When it comes to racial groups, white-only groups are typically motivated by prejudice (i.e. the only real benefit is to exclude); Aboriginal-only groups less so, and there’s more reason to create a safe space for addressing the unique aspects of the oppression of Aboriginal peoples.
In the WBW exclusion paradigm, trans women and women of trans history are excluded because for the most part, the proponents refuse to accept and acknowledge them as women. It’s almost pure invalidation (I say almost, because it’s sometimes phrased around the ability to reproduce during one’s lifetime, which although possibly valid would also exclude some cissexed and biologically intersexed women — and because exceptions are routinely made here, we’re back to an intent to invalidate trans women).
Typically, to my mind, the smaller the minority and the more compounded the oppression that group faces, the more license it has to have exclusive spaces, yet also the more need to accommodate it in more general spaces.
But we also have to define “-only” and “safe space,” here. Are we talking about a hard absolute, or a relaxed “this-is-our-focus-and-if-it’s-not-yours-don’t-attend” kind of environment where someone outside the characteristic group can attend, but needs to mainly just listen and to defer to the wishes and needs of the people for whom the group was designed? Personally, I prefer the latter, and have been fortunate enough to have been accepted in various groups in this capacity, and really learned a lot this way. In this sense, allies and partners can typically attend, provided the emphasis remain on the needs of the characteristic group, and provided privacy is given when / if needed.
I have personally never seen the women-born-women (or womyn-born-womyn) argument as a valid one (although I do see a “women-only” argument as valid), and I think it becomes even less so as we increasingly discover the many variations inherent in what we define as “sex.” As science progresses, we are discovering that what Westernized humans once thought of as a concept with specific, measurable parameters is not that at all.
Aside from the obvious, which is that by the very nature of an event being a “woman’s event,” trans women and women of transsexual history should be included, the events that use “safe space” as a cloak to disguise exclusionary practices are, in my opinion, inherently classist.
If the event uses surgical status or genital status as a criteria for admission, then it excludes trans women who cannot afford surgery. But aside from trans women, many of these events exclude non-trans women with their rule of “no males over the age of eleven” (a rule that several of these events have or have had in the past).
If you are a non-trans woman with a male child who is twelve years of age (or older), you can’t bring that child. So let’s say that you are a working-class single woman who has saved all year to attend a specific women’s event. You have managed to negotiate paid time off work (which, in many jobs, is not flexible, if it even exists at all). But now what do you do with your twelve-year-old son?
You can’t bring him, because males over eleven are not invited. You can’t leave him alone for several days. But you can’t afford child care for several days, either. So now you can’t go to the event. The only people who can afford to go are those who can afford the fees, travel costs, time off work, and child care for an older male child.
In my opinion, some of these events have been destructive not only to trans people, but to non-trans women of certain income levels or financial situations who are being excluded simply because they gave birth to a male child.
Kinda makes you go “Hmmm.”
This was a seriously great post Matt! Such clarity and calm in an often fractious topic.
To me it’s clear that the focus and mandate of the one-day get-together that was initially planned got hacked. If the main protagonists who thought of this meeting had kept on track with the purpose of this event, it would not have gotten out of hand like it did. The goals were centered around:
1- to find out overall needs of transmen throughout the state
2 -to try to determine the numbers of us (transmen) throughout the state
3 -and to reach out to those (transmen) in rural areas who might not be receiving services or who might need connections
Having had kept that focus, whenever someone brought inclusive arguments like you “need a space for significant others”, or “need to invite those who were female-born but did not necessarily identify as male”, or “need to invite male-born, female-identified people as well” etc…, the counterargument could have simply been: does the presence and opinions of these people help the mandate in the three points? No, it didn’t, unless of course significant others, born-female-but-not-identifying-as-male, and male-born, female-identified people come only for the purpose of serving the mandate of and have valuable input with sharing information regarding the 1- needs of transmen in the state, 2- regarding the count of transmen in the state, and 3- reaching out transmen in rural areas.
It seems as though the working group thought that wanting to gather information and cater to transmen’s specific needs was somehow wrong.
François
“To me it’s clear that the focus and mandate of the one-day get-together that was initially planned got hacked. If the main protagonists who thought of this meeting had kept on track with the purpose of this event, it would not have gotten out of hand like it did.”
Yup, I thought the same thing – somewhere in the planning, the original purpose was lost. Too bad, ’cause it sounded like an awesome idea.
Unfortunately, here’s another thing that has been turned PC and runs amok. I liked what Francois said – simple and elequent as to the purpose of this event the reader asked matt about.
I see this in the disabled community where the blind are about 1% of the disabled population in the U.S. And i don’t mean Romney’s 1% either! What happens when all the disabled are lumped in together at events, the blind somehow get shunted to the back of the bus. Like the transpeople get shunted back there and the genderqueer folks get it as well.
I TOTALLY get it about the need for safe space for particular groups and subject matter of the workshops or support groups. Yes, Zander Keig ran a grooup here locally for transmen who were several years into transition and post transition. It made sense to me, as a beginner in transition that I bnot be a part of this group. Their issues are different than my issues. When I’m in my blindness-only groups, our issues as blind people differ than issues of people who are deaf or people who use wheelchairs. I’m sorry that the reader’s conference in colorado fell apart and hope they can try again soon.
Hey Zander, great to see your post on this.
Hey Lyn!
Reblogged this on American Trans Man and commented:
A well-articulated post by Matt Kailey:
Really excellent post and discussion. Thank you Matt for posting and thanks to everyone who commented.
There is quite a bit of research on female socialized behaviour in girls, and one of the major points is that girls tend to create in-groups. They act with a “the boat is full” mentality that polices who can enter and who cannot enter the group space. I see that a lot within female socialized subcultures. And as a FAAB person I’m just so sick of it. Get a grip, people. Try to grow up.