I wanted to talk a bit about what makes a good 'rape crisis' volunter, IMHO. This is partly in reply to montrealais' thought experiment:

quote:

---

[S]ay there were a non-transgendered woman who was tall and had a deep voice. Would the centre be justified in excluding her as a volunteer, on the grounds that the clients might become uncomfortable because they were reading her as trans?

---

I volunteered for a rape crisis centre for several years. My centre's politics were old-fashioned: a woman was a woman was a woman was oppressed by a man -- not much thought given to different experiences of oppression, nor to building a collaborative, participatory centre with the people we meant to help. The excuse that 'the survivors won't like it' was a powerful tool invoked frequently against change. So I am not shocked that the Vancouver Rape Relief Society demonstrated transphobia in this case.

On their argument that Ms. Nixon was not a true peer of the women who came to the society: As I practiced peer counselling, you don't need to identify 100% with the person coming to you. It can be harmful to say something like, "I know where you're coming from," because you don't. Even survivors' experiences of sexual assault are so different.

On what makes a good counsellor (which is really all the society should be concerned with): You need to demonstrate empathy and an ability to listen without judging. Not everyone can do this (most people are hideous at it), and it is extremely important to reject volunteers who can't. People say the darndest things, honestly. You can lecture them for hours on active listening and being non-judgmental and they will turn right around and be like, "But why don't you just LEAVE him?" (That's why I use extensive roleplaying to teach active listening).

Interestingly, I found that many survivors were not automatically great peer counsellors. For example, survivors often shared their story with callers in order to receive support FROM the callers or assumed they knew every part of the caller's experience since they'd gone through 'the exact same thing.'

So I would understand if the centre claimed that "She was pushy...like a man." Or, "She always thought she knew what was best for the survivor...like a man." Or, "She didn't seem to get the seriousness of sexual assault...like a man." Those are sexist remarks, but legitimate reasons to reject a volunteer.

There are certain external characteristics important to being a counsellor in a female rape crisis centre.

You need to be able to project a phenotypically female persona. Really, men, or people who could easily be mistaken for men, can't be rape crisis counsellors for women in this day and age. I know my centre tried to have male volunteers on the phone really early on and they would invariably get hung up on.

So yes, if a genotypic woman came in who looked and sounded phenotypically like a man, I would not hire her for front-line work. However, resembling a male is NOT the issue with Ms. Nixon, according to the Strait.

You also need to have a soothing demeanor. I have rejected volunteers (for the phone) who have harsh or flat voices or who always sound angry: they just don't make good counsellors. Everything they say sounds judging, even if it's textbook supportive. And a person with a honey voice can say the most horrible, judgemental things and get away with it because it SOUNDS so soothing.

Again, Ms. Nixon's demeanor (as far as I can tell) did not come up in the society's case. Instead, they claim that being born biologically female is the only thing that makes you able to adequately empathize with other females. And I think their claim that there is some kind of universal "growing up female" club that all Canadian women belong to is EXTREMELY dubious.

First of all, like I said, it can actually be harmful for a volunteer to over-identify with a survivor. Mostly, volunteers need to be empathic and non-judgemental.

quote:

---

Second, Canadian women come in all shapes, sizes, and experiences. For example, my experience of growing up as a middle class WASP is laughably different than that of my on-reserve First Nations friends. I have no freaking idea what my Ghanian friend must feel as she encounters racism on a regular basis. We can all still interact and be supportive of each other, but there is no way I can assume I understand what they're going through based on some mysterious common female bond.

---

If I follow this thought through how can someone who didn't grow up as a woman know what all that entailed? We all grew up with some commonalities that makes us women - menstruation, breast development, fear of rape, the ability to become pregnancy, etc. Those aren't mysterious common female bonds, they are literal experiences we all share. They are issues we all deal with regardless of nationality or race.

Scout: While I take your point, doesn't it then beg the question of how many years' experience an MTF needs to acquire before they're 'really women'? Michelle raised a similar point in the previous thread, asking (since in this case Nixon has been a woman for 10 years, plus the inevitable couple of years living 'as' a woman prior to surgery, plus the years and years feeling oneself to be a woman in a man's body), whether Nixon's 10 years as a woman count the same as a 23-year-old counselor, who's arguably been a woman for a similar amount of time. And if not, why not?

(And following polly's comments, does it even truly matter, given the job profile of a counselor?)

Scout: I see what you mean. My line of thought seemed illogical.

I guess I was trying to question the dichotomization, the assumption that I automatically have more in common with any biofemale, for example, than I do with a trans female. For example, I have almost no fear of pregnancy and never have, but I do fear sexual violence: a phenomenon that some of my trans friends both fear and suffer from.

And, I guess, just because I didn't grow up as a POC or in a different culture doesn't mean I can't listen to my friends and empathize with them. Otherwise friendship wouldn't be possible. We definitely learn from each other and hear each other. But in important ways, our experiences have differed. And they may differ in ways are just as important as or even outweigh the 'common bond' of gender, in part because people who grew up in different families may experience gender very differently.

I was also trying to get at just how important having those shared experiences is to being a rape crisis counsellor. A survivor, for example, might think it very important to talk other survivors. But we do not require counsellors to be survivors.

I found the most important characteristics of volunteers to be almost unrelated to shared experiences with survivors. Empathy and good listening skills were paramount. Being able to relate to pain in general may be more useful than relating to specific experiences, especially because less empathetic people can relate to some experiences (similar to their own) and not others. ("Oh, you guys only had ORAL sex? And this was TEN YEARS ago?")

Getting back to gender, I think that the important gender for volunteers in a rape crisis centre is non-male, if you know what I mean. Absence of maleness. For many centres, as for mine, the justification of excluding male volunteers has been because maleness is threatening to survivors -- overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male, females are seen as less threatening and more helping, etc. And this absence of maleness is very different, I think, than the presence of biofemaleness.

(Edited to clarify who I was talking to. Also because I am a compulsive editor. Also, sp.)

[ 30 December 2005: Message edited by: pollyperverse ]

And what I've seen is that sometimes, they feel a pressing need to 'pass', and in fact, to prove that they've passed. That they're now really a bona-fide member of the sex that they've always known they were, but which they didn't have the body for.

To this end, then, some feel driven to seek areas that are ever more gender-exlusive, just so that they can prove they pass there--first the women's bathroom, then the lingerie department at the Bay, etc. It's not about the activity, it's about the validation of they can obtain there. They need to prove they can penetrate the sanctum and get away with it. That they now belong.

~~

So--bearing in mind that I don't know anything about the recent court case or it's protagonists more than what I've read in the press over the years--I speculate that in this case, the TG woman whose volunteer help was refused might have had this motive, rather than a genuine desire to help women in crisis.

~~

If that's the case, then it's not a good motive, and the crisis centre would have been wise to screen her out.

~~

It's been my observation that people with this drive rarely stop pushing, or stop 'testing' the limits of their acceptance. They'll disclose more, or to more people--first to staff, then fellow volunteers, and then perhaps to clients--just to test how or if the new piece of information alters things, and that they really really really are being accepted.

Once every possible challenge has been met in each milieu, they lose interest and find a new venue for this game. Because it was never about the service, it was all about the challenge.

You know, I understand the urge, and I can see why someone might have the need to do this. There's lots of places where such behaviour is harmless, or perhaps even a social good expanding the sphere of tolerance in society.

But I don't think a crisis centre is the proper venue for such behaviour. It's putting the counsellor's needs ahead of the client's, and that's selfish.

Some of the callers to a crisis centre (of any kind, but particularly a rape crisis centre) are literally in a life-and-death situation: contemplating suicide, or the like. That's no place to be grinding private axes at their expense.

quote:

---

So--bearing in mind that I don't know anything about the recent court case or it's protagonists more than what I've read in the press over the years--I speculate that in this case, the TG woman whose volunteer help was refused might have had this motive, rather than a genuine desire to help women in crisis.

---

Now, I'm on the same page as you, only heard about this case in the media, now reading bits about it here. But. Why are you 'speculating' about Ms. Nixon's motives when you admittedly know next to nothing about the particulars of the case?

As for the question of who makes a good rape crisis counsellor and the issue of the absence of maleness in rape crisis centres/phonelines, butch-identified women are raped too. And, not to make things too complex, but women are sexually assaulted by their female partners, or other women.

I don't think men should be working or volunteering on the fronts lines at rape crisis centres, but I also don't think Kimberly Nixon presented as a man, and she certainly doesn't identify as a man. Many kinds of women, gendered in different ways, are sexually assaulted.

I liked this line so much I have to quote it:

quote:

---

this absence of maleness is very different, I think, than the presence of biofemaleness.

---

I am not defined by my vagina. I am not my vagina. My vagina is not me. I was born with it, and it was connected to a complex reproduction system. It isn't just a hole, okay?

I'm more than willing, at times even eager, to see more equality for ALL people. And here comes the big "but"...I support Vancouver Rape Relief in this. Completely.

I really don't care how many years this person wanted to be female or what she had to go through to prepare for her change, how much it cost, not just in financial but in emotional and probably family terms.

She has no experience at all with having her hole connected to an intricate reproductive mechanism. Whatever other biases and prejudices she has encountered she didn't grow up in the same ghetto as those grrls who were born female.

This person grew up with the priviledges inherent to and for males in this sexist society. This person had far more choice than the little grrrls who grew up hearing constant "be nice" conditioning. This person grew up with far more choices available than were available to the grrls.

And then this person chose to be surgically altered.

And I really question WHY she fought so hard to force herself on a group which had made it plain they did not want her.

So she now has a surgically constructed vagina. It has never been connected to a cervix, a uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries.

It is a hole.

So?

The Soviet Union and East Germany entered "female" competitors in the Olympics and they won, and they won, and they won, and they won right up until technology progressed to where their original gender could be proven... and they were NOT women, whatever medical marvel had been accomplished. Most of those poor souls are now dead, mostly from complications resulting from ignorant use of hormones which caused bizarre cancers.

Which has little to do with the subject at hand, I know.

This person could have taken training at the Justice Institute, set herself up as a counsellor, and "helped" but she tried to force herself on a group of women...and THAT, my friend, is just too, too, TOO male. THAT is why we need Rape Relief in the first place!!

And now I'll sit back and wait for the little balls of shit to fly my way because I'm sure there are people who are going to go into a flaming fury at what I've written.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
And now I'll sit back and wait for the little balls of shit to fly my way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
Why are you 'speculating' about Ms. Nixon's motives when you admittedly know next to nothing about the particulars of the case?

---

Because framing the question as one of discrimination, gender identity and rights only obscures what is the more important issue: the qualities required of a successful counsellor.

One of which is keeping the client's care needs at the forefront and their own issues off the table.

Once Ms. Nixon pursued her grievance into the courts, it became reasonable to suspect that she had some other motive than the pure desire to help.

The quest for acceptance is her motive now, or she wouldn't be going to the courts--but the question then provoked is, was that her motive then. And if it was, would such a motive prevent her from being an effective rape crisis counsellor?

I don't have the answer to the first question--I don't know her motive, but both are possible--and I gave my answer to the second: if that were the case, then I think she was quite correctly (if somewhat clumsily) screened out.

[ 30 December 2005: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

And now I'll sit back and wait for the little balls of shit to fly my way because I'm sure there are people who are going to go into a flaming fury at what I've written.

---

For the record, it seems to me there are three questions/issues going on here in parallel:
- Whether Ms. Nixon qualifies as a 'real' woman. I think she does.
- Rape Relief's desire to select its rape counsellors so as to not further distress its clients.
As polly has pointed out, and I agree, this is a valid concern for people running rape crisis centres.
- And here's the kicker: Does Rape Relief's rejection of Nixon revolve around her unsuitability as a counsellor, or does it hinge simply upon her past life as a phenotypic male?

Now, you could say 'What's wrong with this Nixon woman, she's just trying to force herself on Rape Relief as an counsellor when she's not a good counsellor.'. I'd remind those taking this point of view that Rape Relief didn't (apparently) say to Nixon: "It has nothing to do with you being MTF, it's just that your personality clashes with the rape survivors coming in and you're not an effective counselor, sorry."

From all the information that's come forth, Rape Relief's position was "You lived as a man for a bit, irrespective of how you felt yourself to truly be, that makes you a man forever, therefore you can't possibly counsel women in crisis. So you're fired.". Remember: Nixon was hired by RR to work as a counselor, and only let go when her past physiological history was found out. So those of you speculating that she was 'only trying to prove a point' or 'trying to push the envelope and see how far people would accept her new gender' can get stuffed: RR (presumably, if we're to give them any credence as objective employers of rape counsellors) tested Nixon, found her acceptable, and only changed their minds when her 'past' was outed.

Trans youth have a high rate of homelessness and suicide attempts. Trans people are probably murdered at a greater rate than the general population. They suffer employment and other social discrimination. In related news, they frequently end up in sex work. They are at high risk for suicide. They suffer high rates of physical and sexual abuse. They have high rates of HIV infection. The list goes on, and for a lot of women and queers (like myself) I think it can begin to sound pretty familiar. Not that being trans can't be super awesome, but I don't think it's a 'lifestyle' one chooses for the awesome perks.

I also disagree with a 'special exemption' for helping organisations from being challenged on their politics just because they do tough work. My organisation used every moral loophole in the book to avoid growing and changing, and the justification was always that 'we were helping people.' IMHO, we could have used a lot more tough love and a lot less 'Well, they WORK REALLY HARD...so it's ok that they refuse to learn how to organise or budget or hire staff or to change politics that have been in place since 1982.'

aRoused: I think that is a great analysis of the threads going on in this...well, thread. I'd like to see a lot more evidence of Ms. Nixon's 'male' attitudes or other unsuitability for the position. I have no problem with them firing a volunteer who did not display the skills needed for a counsellor. If they DID have problems with Ms. Nixon's performance as a volunteer or trainee and could not clearly convey them to her or to the news outlets they've talked to since, that is not a good sign for the quality of the counsellors they're letting through.

But I haven't seen any evidence of an attitude problem or of any problem behaviours besides refusing to take discrimination in a ladylike manner. And, as the old chestnut goes:

quote:

---

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute. --Rebecca West, 1913

---

quote:

---

As I practiced peer counselling, you don't need to identify 100% with the person coming to you. It can be harmful to say something like, "I know where you're coming from," because you don't. Even survivors' experiences of sexual assault are so different.

On what makes a good counsellor (which is really all the society should be concerned with): You need to demonstrate empathy and an ability to listen without judging. Not everyone can do this (most people are hideous at it), and it is extremely important to reject volunteers who can't. People say the darndest things, honestly. You can lecture them for hours on active listening and being non-judgmental and they will turn right around and be like, "But why don't you just LEAVE him?" (That's why I use extensive roleplaying to teach active listening).

Interestingly, I found that many survivors were not automatically great peer counsellors. For example, survivors often shared their story with callers in order to receive support FROM the callers or assumed they knew every part of the caller's experience since they'd gone through 'the exact same thing.'

---

pollyperverse, this analysis of what it takes to be a good counsellor is interesting and helpful to me in a completely different context. I'm so glad you wrote it out here. I've been struggling for some time with ways of saying things like "People say the darndest things, honestly," or even just "Most people can't," and you now have me convinced that maybe just spitting it out can be useful.

Not that I've stopped thinking about the problem. (Why can't most people? eg. I guess I wish that most people could.)

That said, really good counselling still seems partly mysterious to me. There are often completely irrational - or at least unavailable - reasons for failed interactions between people. I don't see that we can ever predict those problems for sure.

I can understand and appreciate that growing up with gender identity problems is past merely "rough" and probably all the way to one of the inner rings of hell. It isn't growing up a grrl and being conditioned to be "a good woman".

There is nothing "wrong" with being a trans-gendered person. There is nothing evil, or bad, or less, or inferior. Maybe the day will come when it will be sufficient to be a trans-gendered person and we'll have managed to get ourselves past the either-or head set.

Rape Relief did not look for a politically correct way to remove this person from their job. Rape Relief told the truth. They did not consider her to be a woman, and they have a policy of hiring women counsellors.

I would expect they knew they were going to get flak about it. They didn't weasel out of it. they gave their reason.

I struggled with your parallel even before I wrote. What would I do if a dyke...and I think the parallel is apt, but not one hundred per cent. Lesbians have been integral in the development of rape/assault counselling and yes, 'way back when, we encountered some pretty outrageous discrimination in the feminist movement. To the point some of us would "joke" bitterly that straight women seemed to be convinced they were irresistable.

In every other field of endeavor I can think of, I would support this person. But not as a rape/assault counsellor. If I were in need of help, and a trans was assigned as my counsellor without me being told ahead of time, I would feel betrayed. If I were told ahead of time I think I would choose to wait until a woman counsellor could see me.

Rape Relief hired this person, it seems, under the impression they were hiring a woman. Later, they discovered (I have no idea how) that this person was trans-gendered. If I were a client and, after some sessions, discovered I was dealing with a person born male I would feel as if my sole place of safety had been snatched from me.

There are so many other areas where this person could have worked, and helped. Private practise is only one of them.

Rape Relief has never exactly made a secret of their policy of having women only counsellors, so I detect a suggestion of deceit at the start. And this may well be my own personal resistance.

Why am I resistant? You could take a needle biopsy of the lining of my vagina and the tests would come up female.

It is my understanding of the process that to become transgendered the penis is (I have no idea how!!) surgically altered, turned literally inside out, (and if you think on it, also upside down) and implanted in the body cavity. Take a needle biopsy of the result and the tests will come up male tissue.

A woman's vagina is not lined with penis tissue.
Women have vaginal tissue.

For the rest of the days of her life this will be a trans gendered person, but not a woman. And Rape Relief hires women as counsellors.

I don't really believe in the christian concept of "sin" and yet that is the word I would use for what has been too often done to inter-sexed babies. A doctor has decided hmmm, I think it will be easier to make this one female...or male... and gone to work with the scalpel. All too often the result has been horror. To me, to go carving tender flesh without giving the person a choice, is sin. To decide gender without using the latest technology to determine what nature had in mind is hubris, and is sick.

And maybe in that undoubtedly far-off day when we stop categorizing people based on their plumbing arrangements, inter-sexed kids will be seen as just kids, and left to explore their own possibilities and choices.

And trans gendered people will not feel obliged to try to pretend they were born a particular gender when in fact they weren't.

I have no idea how much sexual gratification can be experienced with an inside-out upside-down artificial construct but I suspect it's not very much. That's sad. It might be one of the prices trans gendered people have to pay for their choice.

Life isn't fair. I might be one helluva basketball player but I'll never make the NBA. I might have yearned since toddlerhood to be Bull Of The Woods and the best damn logger since Tiny Hanson but that's not what nature or physiology allows. I personally have a "thing" with numbers, they mean zip to me, it's called "dyscalculia". My entire life I have yearned to be able to crack the mystery but it isn't going to happen. No future for me as an accountant or mathematician. And it might not be "fair" but it's how it is.

I'll support this person in almost every other endeavor but when push comes to shove, I'm backing Rape Relief on this. This is a trans gendered person, this is not a woman.

I come back to surgical modification because without it there wouldn't be any question.

The law sees this person as a woman. The law in this country saw Donald Marshall as guilty and as soon as technology progressed far enough he was able to prove himself innocent. And he's not alone.

The law, for years, saw First Nations people as non citizens, denied them the vote, denied them even the right to own land.

I don't have a lot of respect for "the law", it can change in the blink of an election...look at the threat to SSM if the Harperites get in...

Surgical alteration allowed this person to become a TransGendered person but that is still penile tissue lining the surgically installed passage.

I guess we'll just have to agree that on this one we disagree.

There are ways, now, that I could darken my skin to any shade I wanted. That would not make me a black woman. My grandchildren are registered status First Nations, that does not mean I am or ever could be "native".

In the past many persons of colour "passed" as "white". Today few would even want to. There is nothing demeaning about being a trans gendered person, perhaps the day will come when they don't feel the need to try to "pass" but can accept their trans state.

The thing I find scary about relying on natural empathy and shared experiences to make a good counsellor is that I found that the people who thought they were best at listening were generally awful. They could not resist giving advice and....what is amazing to me, they would start right in giving advice in minute number two of a five minute roleplay! They came from an expert position, when we all know the survivor is the expert on their own situation and feelings.

When teaching active listening, I found roleplays essential. Practice was the only way most people would get it.

Some details I found helpful: We would generally practice in small groups of six to eight. We tried to create a supportive environment where constructive criticism was welcomed. We covered the basics of constructive feedback and facilitators would then model: for example, do a demonstration roleplay and give feedback to each other.

Things we emphasized: NOT GIVING ADVICE, being supportive, validating feelings, getting the story without being judgmental (e.g. not asking "why" someone did something).

We would have centre volunteers come in to pretend to be callers. They would do selected roleplays with the trainees. The facilitator would cut off the roleplay when appropriate (sometimes, if the trainee was doing a horrible job, the 'caller' would 'hang up').

After the roleplay ended, we found it really helpful to first ask the trainee for feedback on the call. That gave them a chance to critically review how it went and preempt some critism from others. We would then go to the 'caller' for feedback, on how the call made them feel. The callers were good at picking out specific instances of helpful and hurtful exchanges. The rest of the group would throw their two cents in and the facilitators would go last. Each trainee got at least 6 (usually more like 10) roleplays in. Trainees who were having a rough time got extra one-on-one practice before they were turfed out.

I've been reading this thread and wanted to add a few thoughts. I'm sorry - I don't quite know how to use the quote features (I'm new), so I'll pass on that for now.

An ealier poster said that Rape Relief "hired" Nixon then fired her after finding out about her past. While it is true that the Human Rights Tribunal found that the volunteer position for which Nixon applied was analogous to "employment", I think it's important to keep the distinction between trad work and volunteer positions in mind. I don't think it's accurate to describe Rape Relief as having "hired" Kimblerley Nixon. Nixon attended a special training session for volunteers, which was necessary in order to be added to the roster of volunteers. It was at that session that she was approached by the trainer and questioned about whether she had ever lived as a man.

In previous threads some people have wondered how Rape Relief knew to approach Nixon, in other words, how RR "figured out" that she was MTF. The evidence and testimony accepted by the Human Rights Tribunal was that the Rape Relief member guessed, simply by looking at Kimberley, that she had not been born a woman. The member questioned Nixon and Nixon confirmed that information. It was at that point that Nixon was asked to leave.

At several points in this thread posters have asked whether RR clients testified as to their discomfort about being counselled by a MTF person. This specific testimony was not offered by Rape Relief. Personally I do not think individual rape/abuse survivors should have to testify to this. The Tribunal did accept the testimony of a Dr. Margaret Pacey that many women would be upset and discomfited if confronted by a "man". The Tribunal, however, did not accept Dr. Pacey's extrapolation, from that information, that women would also be likely to feel upset if faced with an MTF counsellor. Remember that the Tribunal found in Nixon's favour. In the higher courts, the emphasis shifted to the section 41 issue (whether RR enjoys an exemption from the general prohibition on sex discrimination) and so the broader question of fitness to counsel was not really revisited.

The Vancouver Rape Relief case raises many questions, most notably whose rights should have priority: the MTF volunteer, staff members, other volunteers or the clients.

[ 01 January 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

I get the sense (possibly erroneous) that the men who have contributed are more comfortable with regarding Kimberly Nixon as a woman than some of the women posting, and I find that very interesting.

Some of what I've pondered has dealt with this tentative perception. And I've wondered if , when a male rejects being male in any way at all he is almost automatically considered, by men and particularly straight men, to be non-male and thus female. (if that makes any sense and I'm not convinced it does!)

I think of the terms sometimes flung at gay men, "pansy", "nelly", and Governor Schwarzenegger's infamous "girly man".

We're conditioned so completely from birth; pink for girls, blue for boys, what is considered "short" hair for a little girl is seen as "long" hair for a little boy...then there's the hideous split in "acceptable" toys for kids, even in this day and age people are making comment about the number of cars, trucks, and bulldozers I have for my "girlfriends"... they accept, without question, the stuffies and dolls (the dolls do not get a lot of play, the earthmoving equipment does). The split goes all the way to bicycles, some are "girls bikes" some are seen as "boys bikes". I'm sure there are people who wonder if my grand daughters have so many "non traditional" toys because grandma is an out dyke.

I wonder if the time will ever come when we will begin to realize nature is much more complex than what we see now, either/or? Years ago I saw a two-hour documentary on sex-and-gender and I was stunned by how much more is actually going on than I had been aware of: women who are without any male chromosomes at all and because of it are sterile...women who have so many male chromosomes they barely qualify as female and yet are, and are fertile, and identify female...it was astounding to me and I wish I could remember more about it and find a copy for us all to share but I haven't any idea how to research it and what I remember is mostly my own amazement and the hidden complexity of nature.

I've watched every programme I could on inter-sexed children, and what has been done to them is, in many cases, in my opinion, criminal.

I still do not consider Kimberly Nixon to be a woman, but rather a trans-gendered person, and I still support Rape Relief for their stand.

At the same time I hope Kimberly Nixon can find some way to contribute and to help those people she so obviously wants to help.

And if anyone has any ideas about whether or not men are more willing to accept her as being a woman, I'd appreciate some feedback. It may well be my perception is completely off-base (that has happened a few times!!)

quote:

---

I still do not consider Kimberly Nixon to be a woman

---

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department also seems to hold authority on determining the gender of others. They sure made Kelly McAlister suffer for it. She was put in a jail cell with a male inmate because someone in authority didn't think she was a woman. Not surprisingly, she was raped while in custody.

[ 01 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

Patty: "Any questions?"
Otto: "Yeah, one: Have you always been a chick? I mean, I don't want to offend you, but you WERE born a man, weren't you? You can tell me... I'm open-minded."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Williams:
From the Simpsons:

Patty: "Any questions?"
Otto: "Yeah, one: Have you always been a chick? I mean, I don't want to offend you, but you WERE born a man, weren't you? You can tell me... I'm open-minded."

Ban me now, I guess.

---

Mandos, your "pro-Nixon" category might make sense in the narrowest terms, with reference only to the court decisions, but it defies the spirit of most of the discussion that has gone on here, especially among women posters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron: There is nothing demeaning about being a trans gendered person, perhaps the day will come when they don't feel the need to try to "pass" but can accept their trans state.

---

Anne, and others, there was an excellent thread on trans issues a few months back, here.

In that thread there were many excellent posts; we talked about the issue of "two genders only" and that some trans people, MTFs and FTMs want to "pass" and become identified with their chosen gender. Other trans people identify as trans, as "genderfuck" or some other identity that is neither M nor F.

[drift]

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron: There are ways, now, that I could darken my skin to any shade I wanted. That would not make me a black woman. My grandchildren are registered status First Nations, that does not mean I am or ever could be "native".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron: In the past many persons of colour "passed" as "white". Today few would even want to.

---

[ 02 January 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Do you seriously think that Anne, eg, or anyone else here would approve the actions of the Sacramento Sherriff's dep't? If you do, you are missing the point of the specific quandaries surrounding the support and counselling of women victims of sexual assault.

---

nope.

I used the example because:

a: it illustrates the dangers of trying to tell someone else who they 'really' are.

I'd like to thank most of the people who have responded , this exchange has been incredible and, for the most part, I admire the POLITENESS of those who posted. Even those who had strong viewpoints did not, for the most part, get narky or shirty.

And good on ya's for that!!

I can't say I'm changing my opinion, right now I'd be hard pressed to say WHAT my opinion is because I haven't processed...I'm still sort of mentally reeling... I have personal acquaintance with two trans gendered people, one MtF, one FtM, and some "stuff" which had "bothered" me has been cleared up, other stuff remains puzzling but I do not expect to "understand" everyone I know!!! (hell, there are times I don't understand ME)...oh, I know, you'd think at 67 I'd have some idea of who I am but there's this sneaking suspicion in the back of what passes for my brain that I'll go to my grave asking "why"....and "why not"....

One thing which has resonated several times comes from my experience of being raised in the fundamentalist Xian playpen..a quote from the Bible.."we are wonderfully and fearfully made"...

In my grand daughters extended family there is an inter-sexed child whose mother decided she wanted a girl. Surgery has already been done. In talking about it, my daughter-in-law expressed sorrow that this child had no choice and she said, a tad defiantly, (she was pregnant at the time) that if her baby was born inter-sexed NOBODY was going to decide, the child would be left alone, "as created" until old enough to make a personal choice.

God, I cannot express the relief which flooded through me. Skdadl might understand my reaction, it was to get up and make a fresh pot of tea!

The support we can convey to each other by the simple act of making a pot of tea.

So, whether we fully agree on this or any other subject, should any of you happen to find Tahsis, the tea is on me.

And thank you. This has been challenging, exciting, educational and I hope it isn't finished.

quote:

---

Do you seriously think that Anne, eg, or anyone else here would approve the actions of the Sacramento Sherriff's dep't? If you do, you are missing the point of the specific quandaries surrounding the support and counselling of women victims of sexual assault.

---

Theres a woman in the building that I work with that looks like a guy, really tall (as in 6 foot) Very male features, looks really like a guy with a wig. Yet she is (and always has been) a woman, with kids in fact. She has been asked to her face "were you originally a man?".

What would have happened if she were in nixon's place and answered (honestly) with a no, I am not transgender? For that matter what would have happened had nixon answered no or "thats one of your business"?

In legal terms, Rape Relief has been found to have a legitimate reason for restricting its membership to so-called "women born and socialized as women". Therefore,if a prospective member refused to verify whether he or she fits that category, it seems that Rape Relief would be justified (under the Human Rights Code) in refusing to admit that person into the membership.

In fact something similar to what you described happened at the hearing before the tribunal. A Rape Relief member (not a client) testified that she would be uncomfortable entering into a Rape-Relief type space and finding a man there. She then (incredibly) pointed out, as an example of such a person, someone in the hearing room whom she THOUGHT was a man, but who turned out to be the female partner of Nixon's lawyer. (Yes, I know it sounds too strange to be true, but it's all there in the original decision).

The tribunal member seized on this event to support her conclusion that making decisions to exclude someone based on appearance is inherently unstable and unreliable.

What if the gender reassignment in this case was reversed? What if a masculine FTM applied to be a counseller with RR? Would the "born with a vagina" status force RR to overlook a masculine gender presentation and consider the applicant's skills over the applicant's appearance?

A lifetime of oppression; born with the appropriate genitals; but to all outward appearances, a man.

If an individual like the one I have just described applied to RR, what would happen? The life of oppression qualifies the individual to be an empathizer; however, the gender presentation is not one that would necessarily make women seeking RR's services "comfortable enough" to disclose intimate details.

And what if this individual, having been refused participation in the group, sued for damages?

I sincerely hope I presented this in an appropriate light; is it ever difficult to write without using traditional pronouns!

Nixon's case is groundbreaking in so many ways; would this discussion exist in the same fashion if the genders were reversed?

Thanks for letting me in on an amazing and timely debate.

What, because an MTF was not socialized as a woman? How do you people know that? Because they "enjoyed" male privilege? Another crock of shit.

This attempted monopoly over the term "woman" has me reluctant to post here anymore.

It is no different- NO DIFFERENT, no matter WHAT you say, from saying that queers can never really have full and equal marriage because their relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones.

My partner is a transsexual woman who has to deal with shit from people who espouse similar opinions every day of her life, and I can only imagine what it is like.

Let me say a few things about the process transpeopel have to go through to transition into their identified gender. Recent evidence suggests that transsexuality has more to do with changed that occur while they are in utero than anything else.

Transpeople don't just decide that they watn to get a vagina, or a penis. First they go to a therapist, or a GP, or whoever. They see this person for at least a few months (often much longer), then after some serous consideration, the shrink writes a letter of referral to an endocrinologist. These letters do NOT by ANY means come easily. After they get the letter, they see hte endocrinologist, who takes their blood levels to determine what levels of male and female hormones they have in their bodies. After more therapy, and more tests, they finally get a hormone prescription. They take the hormones as directed, and their bodies change accordingly.

In the case of MTFs, the body fat is redistributed, breasts develop, the complexion changes, etc., but the voice does not change on its own (unlike FTMs). They often must undergo months, if not years, of voice therapy to train the vocal chords to reflect a female voice. It can take years before they get vaginoplasty, if they get it at all (many do not, for medical, financial or personal reasons).

Think about it: this is not a quick process, and throughout the whole time, transpeople must go through the real life test, where they must live as a member of the gender with which they identify in order to obtain letters of recommendation to obtain sexual reassignment surgery.

This is NOT about whether or not cisgendered men should be allowed to wear skirts, or about how men and women express themselves. This has less to do with traditional conceptions of the roles of men and women than you might think. Even if society were more accepting of men wearing skirts in public, or of men or women expressing themselves in a way that is not traditionally associated with members of the sex that is associated with what lies between their legs, the isue would not go away for a second.

I would dare any one of you trnasphobes (think about it: lots of bigots on this board have been trying to say that they "aren't homophobic," but that they can never support equal marriage- THIS IS NO DIFFERENT) to try and say that my partner is not a real woman and see just how far you get. I know what a "real woman" is, and she is definitely a "real" woman.

quote:

---

This is NOT about whether or not cisgendered men should be allowed to wear skirts, or about how men and women express themselves. This has less to do with traditional conceptions of the roles of men and women than you might think. Even if society were more accepting of men wearing skirts in public, or of men or women expressing themselves in a way that is not traditionally associated with members of the sex that is associated with what lies between their legs, the isue would not go away for a second.

---

Oh, just noticed this was already asked.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Doug ]

Incidentally, during Kimberly Nixon's trial, one witness was called who had been seen by Ms. Nixon at Rape Relief. The witness said that she knew right away, from looking at Ms. Nixon (I'm not sure what Ms. Nixon looks like, myself, but even after SRS, some transpeople still do not "pass" as their identified gender), that she would be uncomfortable seeing her as a counsellor. HOWEVER, when asked to point out anyone from the audience that she would be uncomfortable seeing, she pointed out two people: the first was a man. The second was a cisgendered (non-transgendered) woman who appeared slightly "butch", and had been previously mistaken for a man. Are we going to ask that rape counsellors "dress feminine" so they "look like women" now?

quote:

---

one witness was called who had been seen by Ms. Nixon at Rape Relief. The witness said that she knew right away, from looking at Ms. Nixon (I'm not sure what Ms. Nixon looks like, myself, but even after SRS, some transpeople still do not "pass" as their identified gender), that she would be uncomfortable seeing her as a counsellor. HOWEVER, when asked to point out anyone from the audience that she would be uncomfortable seeing, she pointed out two people: the first was a man. The second was a cisgendered (non-transgendered) woman who appeared slightly "butch", and had been previously mistaken for a man. Are we going to ask that rape counsellors "dress feminine" so they "look like women" now?

---

Scout's last post gelled my swirling thoughts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Cause it's becoming apparent that rape victims have the least amount of rights. . . . Nothing like fucking with somone's suffering to make a point. Let's make it so there is no safe place for rape victims to go because everyones else's agenda is far more important.

---

Seems to me it's got to be the clients of the agency, people (mostly women) in dire straits, perhaps with no one and no place else to turn, whose priorities should be put first.

Front-line workers, the first contact, must be very carefully screened and trained. If there's any doubt about a candidate's ability, then maybe that person should have more training or placed somewhere else in the agency.

I (knock wood) have never been assaulted or raped. But I have been in a 'tricky' situation where I had to ask for help. When I finally screwed up my courage to go and ask, 'skittish' would be way way too mild to describe my approach. Almost anything could have made me bolt. Then I would have had to start the screwing-up-of-courage again. Now, I dunno, because, luckily I didn't have to bolt, but it seems pretty obvious to me that screwing up the courage a second time would have been a tad more difficult.

But it is beyond babble's power to address transphobia in the general population, which is where a great many victims of sexual assault are going to be coming from. And that is all that some people here have focused on. An organization like RR is in the odd position of needing to answer for its politics on two different levels at once: in terms of employment equity and in terms of responding to its clients, who are not required to be politically sophisticated in order to get help.

I'm convinced that the two interests need not clash - that is, I don't see why Nixon can't work at RR because I don't see why clients can't be given some freedom to keep seeking a counsellor they are comfortable with. The rest of us do that with doctors all the time (I sure do), and it isn't usually sexual orientation that drives us to decide that we need a better doctor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm convinced that the two interests need not clash - that is, I don't see why Nixon can't work at RR because I don't see why clients can't be given some freedom to keep seeking a counsellor they are comfortable with.

---

Indeed. I don't see why, in the interests of all concerned, the woman seeking help coudln't be presented with a couple of potential counselors and just told, 'Ok, Person A and Person B are both available right now, which would you like to talk with today?'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:

Indeed. I don't see why, in the interests of all concerned, the woman seeking help coudln't be presented with a couple of potential counselors and just told, 'Ok, Person A and Person B are both available right now, which would you like to talk with today?'

That would also tend to get around more subtle, unforseeable problems like the woman seeking help silently thinking, 'Oh my, Person A reminds me entirely too much of my Mom. I could never open up to her.'

---

Exactly, Tape. I think that is in fact the much more common problem and the much bigger problem: people who have been traumatized may just have a huge problem at the start with almost any counsellor, and it is always hard to know what is going to work between two people.

quote:

---

The second was a cisgendered (non-transgendered) woman who appeared slightly "butch", and had been previously mistaken for a man. Are we going to ask that rape counsellors "dress feminine" so they "look like women" now?

---

quote:

---

And I really question WHY she fought so hard to force herself on a group which had made it plain they did not want her.

---

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how a feminist could say this, especially one with some of the experiences you have recounted, anne. Why would women who wish to be priests try to force themselves onto a group (the Catholic church) that made it so plain they did not want them? Why would women with a drive for politics and public service forces themselves on a group (i.e. male parliamentarians) that made it so plain they did not want them? Why would women who wanted to marry other women try to force themselves onto a a group (i.e. homophobic society and/or churches) that made it so plain they did not want them?

I could list examples on and on, for women, for the LGBT community, for people of colour, for Aboriginal people, for people with diabilities. For any marginalized group (and, as the history of the women's movement shows, especially for marginalized women within the women's movement. I'm not a fan of identity politics, but I do know of the major problems of inclusion that women have had to fight for within the women's movement, starting with race from the earliest days, to NOWs "lavender menace" scare in the 1960's, to Canada's 1980's struggles for women with disabilities, immigrant and visible minority women, and others, for real inclusion and acceptance. All of which has been at times fought against with shocking fury, dismissed as distracting from "real" feminism and women's goals. And which I see in statements like:

quote:

---

she tried to force herself on a group of women...and THAT, my friend, is just too, too, TOO male.

---

Feminism doesn't mean we can't discriminate. I remember being in university, being a women's studies major, being very well read in liberal feminist and Marxist feminist lit, such that most of my classes were boring and elementary (I was reading that stuff at 15!). And yet rejecting wholeheartedly the idea that racism was a feminist issue. After all, if it didn't reflect my experiences as a white, able-bodied, middlish-class woman, then it was outside "real" women's issues. I was incredibly naieve.

I could continue, but as is I am so sad that apparently, individuals should be suspected for claiming their rights from groups that don't want to provide them.

/end rant/

quote:

---

Originally posted by pollyperverse:
In short, I would feel comfortable rejecting a volunteer who looked and/or acted like a male.

---

I have come here rather late and cannot be very thorough about following every post in this thread. But I do find this statement to be outside of the range of things I can agree with.

generalizations never work. and this whole debate seems to disregard one important fact: there are more than 2 genders, and that fact isn't recognized yet by the law.

One, Rape Relief is known for its political orientation (not as in intervening in politics, but as in holding a radical feminist stance). It contributes to its strength, but could also act to make some women uncomfortable (particularly as it is evident in their transition house, or so the website makes it appear). The organization is pro-choice, pro-legalization of prostitution, and hold a systemic understanding of (male) violence against women. Are all of those they counsel comfortable with that? What thought and consideration has been given to that? I know Rape Relief's political orientation, but I'm not sure if every woman seeking counselling would.

Second, along with the lack of comfort some discuss with being counselled by "masculine looking" persons, whether biomale or biofemale, what other aspects of the counsellor are open to disbarring a counsellor from serving a client? Should women of colour be barred from volunteering in case the assaulted woman is racist? (etc.) What experiences does Rape Relief have with clients not wanting counselling from those with certain characteristics? What research/data gathering had been done to acertain that the clients of the centre would be uncomfortable with being counselled by Kimberly Nixon, rather than the centre's counsellors being uncomfortable having her there for political and/or personal reasons?

And, in a client-centred atmosphere, what would have justified excluding Kimberly Nixon? One client saying she was uncmfortable? One percent of clients? Fifty percent of clients? And is the same test applied to any other characteristics that a client might be uncomfortable seeing in their counsellor, both personal and political? (pro-choice or anti-capitalist t-shirt; some types of piercings or body adornment; lack of "feminine" dress or characteristics; age; race; etc.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by FeministQueen:
well said, Kim Smith.... i'm amazed by some of the statements here that, in a different context, would be considered just-this-side-of hate speech.

generalizations never work. and this whole debate seems to disregard one important fact: there are more than 2 genders, and that fact isn't recognized yet by the law.

FQ

---

Well. Speaking of overgeneralizations:

No one comes to babble to be abused. But everyone who posts here takes on a certain responsibility.

If you see something posted to babble that is "just this side of hate speech," and you charge that on the board, then you should give specific examples of what you mean.

More importantly, though, since that is such a serious charge, you should notify the moderators, again with specific examples.

I started my initial response on this subject by saying I was having trouble with it. I'm still having trouble, a lot of trouble, and I've been sifting, sorting, examining, questioning and re-visiting things I thought I "knew" and "believed". And I suspect I will continue to question and to challenge myself.

I still support Rape Relief. And I still consider it a real shame that so much money has had to go to legal fees when it ought to have gone to those who go to Rape Relief for help.

I wrote a response to Swirrlygirl this morning but for reasons I don't understand it hasn't appeared; are submissions to this thread being edited or with held if not sufficiently politically correct, or is this just a co-inky-dinky and the first time in my experience such a thing has happened?

I still support Rape Relief in this and I regret that those who do not automatically agree with the pro-Nixon stance are called "transphobic". I don't think we need to insult each other. We can agree we disagree and continue to search, challenge, question ourselves and our responses.

There is much Squirrlygirl has written that is spot on, her examples are particularly apt and telling. I agree with much of her analysis. And I continue to support Rape Relief in this.

We are more than either/or creatures, we work , too slowly perhaps, toward the day when even the law will recognize a plurality of genders. Until then we are pretty much stuck with what is being imposed on us. Either this or that.

Those in transition and those in flux are having more problems with the current categories than many of the rest of us. If the day comes when the law changes, and I am certain it will, trans people will not need to feel obliged to claim to be "either this or that", but can just be who and what they will be seen to be; transgendered people.

And I'm sure, for some, that is an incomplete and possibly even enraging notion. If it hurts anybody's feelings, I apologize. But surely, if we are to try to be honest with ourselves and each other, there has to be room left for us to examine and explore even the most painful of subjects.

I support Rape Relief, I do not consider Kimberly Nixon to be a woman, I consider her to be a trans-gendered person, neither more than nor less than either "woman" or "man", just different. Like Quebec, for me , she is "pas comme les autres".

I'll be interested to see if this appears in the thread or not. The other one still hasn't.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: anne cameron ]

To say that her actions are "just too male" because she was "imposing herself on a group" is equally inflammatory. Excuse me while I go put my pink skirt and lipstick on, evidently my tattered jeans are not female enough to coincide with the fact that I still have a vagina.

Skdadl, I wasn't suggesting that babble should have a mandate to eliminate transphobia in society at large, just that transphobic statements should be given no less stern treatment than homophobic ones within the confines of this board.

I just find it fairly condescending that we allow non-transpeople who make objectionable statements to dictate whether or not they are "transphobic," whereas we (rightly) do not allow people who make homophobic statements (such as the surge of so-cons who have come here making statements in opposition to equal marriage) to dictate whether or not they are acting in a homophobic way.

Ms. Nixon is a woman. End of story. Of maybe I just haven't "questioned myself", as if I haven't done plenty of that in my own gender self-discovery (I am a transperson myself). I don't know, perhaps I have a Transgendered Agenda to advance, and that's why I feel the way I do.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

No one is suggesting that any of the less trans-positive posters who posted in this thread ought to be lumped in with the types of people who have killed/raped hundreds and hundreds (if not way more) of transpeople in the past; but to say that you do not consider Ms. Nixon a woman jsut because hse had a penis in the past (despite the decades of gender questioning, despite the way her brain was wired, etc.) is no less hurtful than some of the less violent, but still hurtful statements made against queer people.

sorry..in addition to the subtleties of the chat here, i haven't figured out the quote function yet.

always open to always learning all ways...

What about me? I still have a vagina, and I have been a victim of sexual assault myself. WHy should I be forced to see someone I am not comfortable with, i.e. someone who might not have an idea of what it is like to be trans, just because a few women might not want to see someone like Ms. Nixon? For all this, I could say that your position completely ignores my needs/wants. I am a rape victim too.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

I'm not speaking of fundraising, but of setting up much-needed resources for transpeople who are victims of sexual violence.

No one likes being excluded, especially those who have been excluded from BOTH gender structures for a lifetime. There was an opportunity missed here; the opportunity to create some good out of a difficult situation, and to nurture a compassionate new voice.

Instead, politics superceded treating someone with respect.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

However, I can't help but think that in this case, a positive move could have been chosen over the non-inclusive step that was taken. Kimberly may have still said that wasn't enough, but we will never know because it was never offered.

After reading the court transcripts, I feel that she seems like someone who isn't afraid or ashamed of what she is/was...those type of transpeople are important, as they can bridge communities, and foster a lot more understanding.

Politics aside, VRR showed very little tact in dealing with the situation. I also feel they missed out on a very rare opportunity to assist even more people.

I always feel so fucking special on babble when it gets to be a competition about just how horribly fucked over we each are. The "no my hurt is bigger" wars make me ill. "You're just a stupid "phobe" rhetoric is so unprogressive and it sickens me to see the abuse feminsit take on this board from men and women. As if some how we are so priveleged and nothing retched has ever happened to us.

We try and rip the already exisiting supports away instead of finding a way to add services to support more people without shoving others out into the cold.

And googly, you shouldn't be forced to see someone your not comfortable with. That's the whole fucking point. There should be some place you can go and find what works for you. More space not less. But it shouldn't be put upon the victim to make a political decision in a time of crisis. A rape victims centre shouldn't be a chew toy for anyone and comparing not letting a former man counsel rape victims to the priethood is disgusting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
... they want to be seen as teh women they are, and resent the pontifications of others as to whether or not they have the "right" to call themselves women (the same goes for FTMs for sure).

---

I guess we can call ourselves whatever we want. But the seeming desire here to take away the right of women to ponder and possibly even discuss with others what constitutes womanhood, or men to ponder what constitutes manhood seems extremely reactionary and punishing to me. You're telling us to think only some thoughts and not others.

Umm...jas, where did I say that I was trying to define what woman means for all women? I was just suggesting that you could not control what it means for anyone else. I am simply saying, as I have been from the FUCKING beginning, that Ms. Nixon has the complete right to define herself as a woman. To question it, well, try and see it from her perspective, which I doubt very much any of you have done. No one else has the right to question what my gender identity means to me; no one else can tell me what I should consider myself. No one else has the right to tell me that I should not consider myself a man/woman/something else entirely.

And you people cannot extend your perspectives to understand why I might be angry? Why I find many of the comments made here condescending? Why the implication that I am trying to force my perspetive on rape victims is nothing short of inflammatory bullcrap?

Christ, I haven't been this angry in years.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

What the final Supreme Court of Canada outcome will be remains to be seen, but I for one hope that Nixon prevails because I am very leery of hiring standards based on something other than ability or competence or reliability or some other job performance type approach. You're out because you're no good the day you're born is outside the acceptable range for me, unless there is a good reason (eg, it's a position for Aboriginals). In this case, I don't think there is, because Nixon is now a woman, even according to the courts that found against her. For me what she once was is not relevant, any more than a woman's fertility history is relevant, or for that matter her own history, or lack of history, as a rape victim herself.

If rape counselling services were being offered by a public agency, say the health board or the Solicitor General's Ministry, and the people performing these services were government employees, there would be no question of allowing this kind of hiring discrimination where a woman is recognized as a woman for now, but ruled out anyway because she wasn't always a woman.

Of course, to be with Ms. Nixon is to be against rape victims. I wish I had that useful tidbit of information 7 years ago. Not that I could possibly have any idea whatsoever what it's like.

Boy, with *allies* like (most of) the allegedly non-transphobic people on this board...I think I'm just a sucker for punishment. As much as I value the opinions of most people here, at some point, like anyone else, I reach a limit beyond which I cannot abide further humiliation and the *audacious* requirement that I prove to non-transpeople why they should respect my right to determine what makes me a member of my identified gender, and what makes Ms. Nixon a woman.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

And again we are being intimidated to just hide our feminism under our hats, not dare to probe, question, and, who knows, possibly edit or even, goddess forbid, adjust our beliefs.

I've dared to expose my beliefs, I've stated how I feel and I'm not going to smile while someone has a temper tantrum more suitable to a two year old.

quote:

---

Rape victims, like victims of other crimes, deserve our sympathy and help, but their rights are not expanded because they are victims.

---

Y'see, I find this statement problematic.

I repeat: I think there is a lot of unnecessary worry going on here; I don't myself see that employment fairness should be all that difficult to achieve.

However, the whole point of counselling for victims of sexual assault is counselling victims of sexual assault. I don't see how that can be compromised or qualified. And I can't imagine most victims responding very well or staying long with a counsellor who thought of herself as offering "sympathy and help." To me, anyway, that is put just a touch condescendingly, especially if it is also tied to an implied assignment for those victims, that they pull up their socks politically.

Just making sure -- it was a volunteer position, yes? Not an employment issue then.

Now, I did not know that the Rape Relief organization was/is known to be radically political. But then I'm not in Vancouver. Presumably many people knew this, including perhaps Ms Nixon herself.

I'm also presuming that there is more than one rape crisis centre in Vancouver.

If Ms Nixon wanted to counsel rape victims, and not cause a shit-storm, why didn't she offer her services elsewhere? Sounds to me like she knew she'd cause a shit-storm.

quote:

---

But it shouldn't be put upon the victim to make a political decision in a time of crisis.

---

It's been noted that a victim might be just as uncomfortable dealing with a "butch" counsellor (just as an example).

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
Just making sure -- it was a volunteer position, yes? Not an employment issue then.

...

If Ms Nixon wanted to counsel rape victims, and not cause a shit-storm, why didn't she offer her services elsewhere? Sounds to me like she knew she'd cause a shit-storm.

Just saying. . .

---

It would have to be a paid position to attract HR tribunals and cases, not just a volunteer spot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Quite frankly if I had to discuss my impending abortion, a result of a date rape I don't even remember, with someone who has never had a uterus and will never face the same decision, ever, I would have never set foot at that facility again. I would have just left. I needed empathy not just compassion. The insensitivity to my situation would have been unacceptable.

---

My question here is: how do you know that the woman you are/were talking to had/has a uterus, or is fertile, or ever was? Or do you just assume that all persons you see as women would have the same life experience as yourself, or "similar enough" ones? I am not being facetious here - I am trying to understand what steps you took/would take, to acertain that any person you spoke to in this situation was a biological female with a uterus who was/had been fertile, since you are stating this is integral to any support they could offer you. Or is it enough that the person can pass as a biofemale better than Ms. Nixon could? And, what other types of screening of volunteer characteristics (both required and not allowable) should a crisis centre be required to offer in order to avoid insensitivity to victims?

I used to volunteer at a sexual assault crisis centre, on the hotline, and while it was too emotionally draining for me to handle for long (I got through about 6 months on the job, volunteering 1-2 days a month), I was never questioned by any of the victims/survivors on my credentials as a woman. So, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding where you come from. I know speaking out can be difficult for many assaulted women, but I'm not sure that personal characteristics of counsellors are the best way to ensure a safe environment, and in fact I think it can lead to an unsafe environment, where only certain women feel welcome (including certain assaulted women).

quote:

---

And googly, you shouldn't be forced to see someone your not comfortable with.

---

I think everyone accepts that. But, again, I think the real issue at Rape Relief was that the workers weren't comfortble, not the clients. And, the lack of comfort exhibited by those could lead to a whole variety of exclusion, based on being "too masculine" physically, even if one was a biological female, and in my mind leads to a slew of other characteristics that need to be considered in case they make clients "uncomfortable." As I see it, it was a political decision, not one based on the needs of clients.

quote:

---

As a rape victim it doesn't scream concern and compassion to sue the centre

---

Kimberly Nixon was sexaully assaulted as well. As a rape victim herself, it doesn't scream concern and compassion for the centre to tell her "you aren't one of us - you don't belong here." What treatment might other survivors of sexual assault recieve at such a judging and exclusionary centre is just as valid a question, in my mind.

quote:

---

But hey, you're life and experiences and needs are obviously far more important than mine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Smith:

Perhaps Nixon wanted to work at that particular clinic, just as Rosa Parks wanted ro ride the bus that went past her workplace and towards her house, and also knew her ride might create controversy.

---

Huh? Working as a counsellor is not a civil right; riding a bus is. Working as a counsellor is something that anyone - as in anyone - has to qualify for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Smith:
[QB]

It would have to be a paid position to attract HR tribunals and cases, not just a volunteer spot.

QB]

---

Not true. Nixon was seeking a volunteer position and the HR Tribunal held that in the circustances of VVR's organization this was analogous to employment. It therefore fell under ambit of the Code.

This is one of the aspects of the case that troubles some people. Nixon did not approach VVR as a client would (seeking a service), or even a potential paid employee, but as someone with something to offer. While it can be argued (and obviously was accepted by the adjudicator here) that the damage to her dignity was just as great, it does seem to stretch the parameters of what human rights codes were intended to address.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Or do you just assume that all persons you see as women would have the same life experience as yourself, or "similar enough" ones?

---

quote:

---

to acertain that any person you spoke to in this situation was a biological female with a uterus who was/had been fertile, since you are stating this is integral to any support they could offer you.

---

I spoke up about my own experiences and that gives you what right to be a hostile asshole and demand I explain and justify my feelings and experiences more than I already have in connection with the actual subject of this thread?

quote:

---

I used to volunteer at a sexual assault crisis centre, on the hotline, and while it was too emotionally draining for me to handle for long (I got through about 6 months on the job, volunteering 1-2 days a month), I was never questioned by any of the victims/survivors on my credentials as a woman. So, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding where you come from.

---

So over the phone then? Not face to face?

quote:

---

But, again, I think the real issue at Rape Relief was that the workers weren't comfortble, not the clients.

---

That what you “think”, you don’t actually know that. You don’t also get to decide for them what they feel their clients need. So your just talking out of your ass to defend your position.

quote:

---

Kimberly Nixon was sexaully assaulted as well. As a rape victim herself, it doesn't scream concern and compassion for the centre to tell her "you aren't one of us - you don't belong here." What treatment might other survivors of sexual assault recieve at such a judging and exclusionary centre is just as valid a question, in my mind.

---

They didn’t refuse to counsel her, they refused to let her counsel others. She has no “right” to counsel anyone just because she wants to. And she has done her best to keep them in court which is just too much like not getting what “No” means.

quote:

---

Why are your so much more important than Ms. Nixon's, or googlys? Why decry a hierarchy of oppression then claim top of the heap?

---

I don’t think my anything are more important I just don’t think Ms. Nixon's, or googlys are more important. I’m merely asking them to be aware that their rights end where mine begin. I wouldn’t force an agency with their best interests in mind to hire anyone they didn’t want to hire. I would trust those running that program to have a better idea about what is needed than I would no matter how pure my intentions.

No matter what, Ms. Nixon wants something she has no “right” and may cause the centre to shut down. So if anyone is putting themselves at the top of the heap it would be her and those who support her by screaming “transphobes”. Those attempting to silence other victims of violence are the ones at the top of the heap. Where they get to more moral and superior.

quote:

---

I know speaking out can be difficult for many assaulted women, but I'm not sure that personal characteristics of counsellors are the best way to ensure a safe environment, and in fact I think it can lead to an unsafe environment, where only certain women feel welcome (including certain assaulted women).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:

Not true. Nixon was seeking a volunteer position and the HR Tribunal held that in the circustances of VVR's organization this was analogous to employment. It therefore fell under ambit of the Code.

This is one of the aspects of the case that troubles some people. Nixon did not approach VVR as a client would (seeking a service), or even a potential paid employee, but as someone with something to offer. While it can be argued (and obviously was accepted by the adjudicator here) that the damage to her dignity was just as great, it does seem to stretch the parameters of what human rights codes were intended to address.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

---

Huh, that's interesting. I just assumed that volunteering was a different kettle of fish.

I am NOT saying that this was Ms Nixon's intent. But it seems a dandy way to screw up an organization one doesn't like or agree with.
How about a pro-lifer volunteering at an abortion clinic, then suing the place when s/he was not accepted?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:

pookie, did the reasoning include something about public funding?

---

No. Some of the indicia that should be considered are: a formal recruitment and interview process; a training process including defined tasks; an agreement to abide by the organization's policies; and set requirements for volunteer availability.

I understand why people might think that Rape Relief might be under more stringent scrutiny if it receives public funding, but that point is not relevant to determining whether the human rights code applies to a particular organization. Applying human rights law is really about what an organization or individual has done that might violate the code, not who they are or how they are funded.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

I spoke up about my own experiences and that gives you what right to be a hostile asshole and demand I explain and justify my feelings and experiences more than I already have

---

Because you didn't adequately explain them, in my mind. In fact, from what you posted, and your INCREDIBLY hostile response, I'm guessing that you did nothing aside from an up and down of the person to ensure that they were not someone

quote:

---

who has never had a uterus and will never face the same decision, ever

---

Which means that its possible you were well served by someone who doesn't fit the criteria you set out. Maybe not likely, but possible. Unless you specifically asked, or knew for sure some other way, I don't think its correct for you to claim your experiences in this way because it isn't factually accurate. It may be true to your perception of the person who counselled you, but that isn't the same thing.

quote:

---

That what you “think”, you don’t actually know that

---

Sure. I "think" that, like I "think" that political opportunity structures is the best social movement theory to explain the decline of NAC. Something about doing research, looking at the evidence, talking to people, and thinking about the issue brought me to both of those conclusions. You can put "think" in all the self-righteous little quotes you want, it doesn't make your position any more valid, or mine any less so.

quote:

---

don’t also get to decide for them what they feel their clients need

---

But they do? How paternalistic, and the opposite of client-centred.

quote:

---

They didn’t refuse to counsel her, they refused to let her counsel others.

---

True. But with the fight to protect "women only" space going so far as tran-exclusion, what would happen if an assaulted trans woman who wasn't passing (well) walked in for counselling? What if a butch woman walked in? Does everyone have to have proof of ovaries to recieve service? What kind of a safe space is rape Relief providing when they act this way?

quote:

---

She has no “right” to counsel anyone just because she wants to

---

Again true. But she wasn't rejected because she didn't have the skills to be a counsellor. She was rejected because Rape Relief doesn't believe that trans women are women. And the Human Rights Tribunal said that was wrong.

quote:

---

And she has done her best to keep them in court which is just too much like not getting what “No” means.

---

Ah, yes, align her with the rapists. Probably the best proof she's not "feminine" enough, eh? She doesn't just take it when people trample on her rights and dignity.

quote:

---

No matter what, Ms. Nixon wants something she has no “right” and may cause the centre to shut down. So if anyone is putting themselves at the top of the heap it would be her and those who support her by screaming “transphobes”.

---

So, in your mind, wanting people to acknowledge the rights, needs and experiences of trans people means they want to be top of the heap. Pointing out transphobia within the women's movement is an attack. I think women of colour, Aboriginal women, lesbians, women with disabilities and others have all heard this before.

quote:

---

Those attempting to silence other victims of violence are the ones at the top of the heap.

---

Maybe we should listen to these victims. Maybe we should have listened before it was too late.

Scout, I am sorry that you are the survivor of such a terrible incident in your life - I don't wish that on anyone. And I'm sorry if you regret sharing your experience on the board - I don't want to make this an unsafe space for anyone.

My rights end where yours begin. Who argued otherwise? Ms. Nixon wasn't invading women's space; she was a woman. We have to let go of the automatic stereotype that having once had a penis automatically makes one a man. See below.

I think the root of the conflict if a fundamental ignorance of what transsexuality really means. People prefer to hold onto their own oppressive models of gender and sexuality, and often are reluctant to listen to people like us until someone close to them comes forward with their own story. (unfortunately, sometimes people don't change their perceptions even afterwards, but that's an entirely different issue) What is at stake is a real physically based comdition, not some "gut feeling" that one feels like becoming a woman, or a man. This is someone who was biochemically wired as a member of the gender with which they identify. Google is your friend. Learn to love it.

The claims you are making are no different from the claims made by certain religious organizations who get uppity about those darned homosexuals invading their space, cheapening the nature of marriage and sexuality for demanding a little recognition and respect. These organizations tell homosexuals that they can't be homosexual and *insert religion here*, that they are not qualified to work in religious organizations because they will corrupt the impressionable, or that they have some fundamental character flaw that makes them incapable of relating to so-called *real* Christians (or whatever religion it is).

Of course it's about strngthening the women's movement. Transwomen are women, and people need to get their information straight and learn that.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

Scout, we did nothing to make you regret sharing your experiences. What about our rights?

---

quote:

---

The claims you are making are no different from the claims made by certain religious organizations who get uppity about those darned homosexuals invading their space, cheapening the nature of marriage and sexuality for demanding a little recognition and respect. These organizations tell homosexuals that they can't be homosexual and *insert religion here*, that they are not qualified to work in religious organizations because they will corrupt the impressionable, or that they have some fundamental character flaw that makes them incapable of relating to so-called *real* Christians (or whatever religion it is).

---

quote:

---

Because you didn't adequately explain them, in my mind. In fact, from what you posted, and your INCREDIBLY hostile response, I'm guessing that you did nothing aside from an up and down of the person to ensure that they were not someone

---

You need to check your ego and actually read what people say before you apply your bullshit all over it. The “INCREDIBLE” hostility was here before I got going, googly had already shit all of some of the women posting here. You can’t see it because you can’t see past your own nose in this thread. I don’t have to adequately explain my rape to you Swirrly and it’s unfeminist to attempt to bully me over it.

quote:

---

Quite frankly if I had to discuss my impending abortion, a result of a date rape I don't even remember, with someone who has never had a uterus and will never face the same decision, ever, I would have never set foot at that facility again. I would have just left.

---

Swirrly this is what I wrote. You have managed to fabricate all sorts of things out of that.

For example:

quote:

---

My question here is: how do you know that the woman you are/were talking to had/has a uterus, or is fertile, or ever was?

---

What woman was I talking to?

quote:

---

I'm guessing that you did nothing aside from an up and down of the person to ensure that they were not someone

---

What person Swirrly?

quote:

---

Which means that its possible you were well served by someone who doesn't fit the criteria you set out.

---

Served by who? And perhaps you meant “weren’t well served”.
You made up an experience for me that never happened. Nor did I claim it happened. I merely gave my opinion what I would have felt having been a person that did need a centre like that once upon a time. Instead I just went to my GP.

Next time you mount up on your high horse at least mount up so your aren’t face the ass end of it.

quote:

---

Sure. I "think" that, like I "think" that political opportunity structures is the best social movement theory to explain the decline of NAC. Something about doing research, looking at the evidence, talking to people, and thinking about the issue brought me to both of those conclusions. You can put "think" in all the self-righteous little quotes you want, it doesn't make your position any more valid, or mine any less so.

---

No Swirrly not like that all. You claimed to know the motivation and actions of other based on limited knowledge. You just expressed an uneducated opinion that fit your bias and ego. You were assuming, not thinking at all.

quote:

---

But they do? How paternalistic, and the opposite of client-centred.

---

No Swirrly that’s not paternalistic. And it is a client-centered decision as I think I am special in what I would have wanted of a safe space. Paternalistic is telling this centre that they don’t know what they are doing or accusing them of being transphobic because they won’t do as they are told.

quote:

---

True. But with the fight to protect "women only" space going so far as tran-exclusion, what would happen if an assaulted trans woman who wasn't passing (well) walked in for counselling? What if a butch woman walked in? Does everyone have to have proof of ovaries to recieve service? What kind of a safe space is rape Relief providing when they act this way?

---

No one refused anyone service? Can you stick to reality here? This isn’t about getting service it’s about serving. And the fact that your muddying the waters here with things that didn’t happen and things that have already been agreed by everyone in the thread as not acceptable shows me that you are just looking to shove your bias down my throat and silence those who have a different opinion about who’s right are really being fucked with.

What your playing at is starting to sound just like those guys that show up in this forum and bitch us out for not starting up spaces for men who have be assaulted to go to. Like because we are women we have to be their for everybody, all the time and ways that we don’t even get to define?

quote:

---

Ah, yes, align her with the rapists. Probably the best proof she's not "feminine" enough, eh? She doesn't just take it when people trample on her rights and dignity.

---

Do you expect your snottiness to win me over? No one trampled on her rights. She has no right to counsel. She’s punishing them for saying no. That reeks of a paternalisitc sense of entitlement consider she had no right to counsel victims.

quote:

---

But she wasn't rejected because she didn't have the skills to be a counsellor. She was rejected because Rape Relief doesn't believe that trans women are women. And the Human Rights Tribunal said that was wrong.

---

Well, I do believe that women have a right to believe what they want about their gender and what makes them part of that gender. Suggesting that is paternalistic as well. No one has the right to define trans-women in your opinion but they get to define what is “woman” for all women, that doesn’t add up.

quote:

---

So, in your mind, wanting people to acknowledge the rights, needs and experiences of trans people means they want to be top of the heap. Pointing out transphobia within the women's movement is an attack. I think women of colour, Aboriginal women, lesbians, women with disabilities and others have all heard this before.

---

Swirrly you should really stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths. I think your mostly full of shit with your accusation of transphobia. I think your crying wolf. I think it’s bullying under the guise of PC speak.

quote:

---

Scout, I am sorry that you are the survivor of such a terrible incident in your life - I don't wish that on anyone. And I'm sorry if you regret sharing your experience on the board - I don't want to make this an unsafe space for anyone.

---

I don’t think your sorry for making me regret my candor. Mostly because you called me a bigot and transphobe before you bothered apologizing. And you did make this an unsafe space. You used your opinions and agenda to make this an unsafe space for women who don’t agree with you and offer up personal experiences to explain their different views. You gave me the third degree about my experience as a rape victim, called me names in a very PC way and fabricated things I experienced. You tried to silence me. So who is climbing over whom to get to the top of the heap?

And I'm damned if I'm going to sit this out and let Scout be the target for an absolute load of totally unacceptable shit and abuse.

You can take your bogus charge of "transphobia" and send it to transylvania where it can hang above the transom with the rest of the bats and the batty.

We had a chance to do some real examination of a problem which all womenBorn are going to have to face. And that opportunity got blown apart by a few people who do not seem to have even a basic understanding of what feminist debate is and can be.

I find that very telling.

Scout has every reason to be right royally pissed off.

And if anyone wants to use me as a target for their bile, just go right ahead.

You aren't winning any converts. I, for one, was very busy examining, questioning, challenging my position, picking nits with myself and generally putting myself in a very uncomfortable position.

And the bullshit, taradiddle and unrestrained bitchiness has sent me right back to where I was at the get go. If what has been screeched about "transphobia" and what has been directed at Scout is any indication of the position of a couple of posters then I want no part of their parade. You can stand on your lonely little bandwagon while the music fades, the crowd stops cheering and goes home and the rest of us support Rape Relief AND the Michigan Women's Music Festival because you JUST PROVED THEIR POINT!

You have become the spokespersons and examples of what the people who have never been your enemies have been leery of all along.

This goddam conditioned sense of entitlement which few feminist women have ever had is a total pain in the jaw.

And I'm not going for tea . I'm not going to just abrogate my responsibility to the feminist forum and leave it in the hands of the fucking bigots.

Damn, but I do wish this had been a womanBorn only thread. We might actually have managed to make some progress without spilling heartsblood and wounding some of the most open-minded of us.

This is the bloody feminist forum. In which we women, whether born so or not, do not bully, do not silence, do not rake a victim over judgemental coals.

The discussion was interesting, as anne also points out. People including me were obviously rethinking or thinking for the first time about things.

Then shit hit fan. And Scout.

quote:

---

Damn, but I do wish this had been a womanBorn only thread. We might actually have managed to make some progress without spilling heartsblood and wounding some of the most open-minded of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
This is the bloody feminist forum. In which we women, whether born so or not, do not bully, do not silence, do not rake a victim over judgemental coals.

---

I understand that's the goal of the feminist forum but it certainly doesn't appear that's being accomplished. The following is all too familiar:

From googlymoogy:

quote:

---

The claims you are making are no different from the claims made by certain religious organizations who get uppity about those darned homosexuals invading their space, cheapening the nature of marriage and sexuality for demanding a little recognition and respect. These organizations tell homosexuals that they can't be homosexual and *insert religion here*, that they are not qualified to work in religious organizations because they will corrupt the impressionable, or that they have some fundamental character flaw that makes them incapable of relating to so-called *real* Christians (or whatever religion it is).

---

From Scout:

quote:

---

Uh, fuck you.

---

What if they had sat down with Kimberly and said, "This is a new situation for us and we would like to try and find a way to explore it with you. Would you consider volunteering in another capacity so that we may get to know you and you may get to know us"?

What if Kimberly had said, "I know this is an new situation for you, what if I volunteered in a different capacity...?"

Where do people who are transgendered go when they are raped? Would this not been an opportunity for them to look at this?

I wonder how we can be kinder to one another.

I have no idea how to assess the situation given that I have met none of the parties involved. I can see the possiblity for problems with all the individuals.

[ 14 January 2006: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:

this is the bloody feminist forum...

---

Unlike most of the people who've posted here, I don't have any experience being female, any experience with transgendered issues outside of studying it in an academic context (I know scarcely any transgendered people), or any experience of sexual violence. And on this particular topic, I acknowledge that these things put me at a disadvantage in terms of my ability to discuss it, as this is a topic that's largely ABOUT the effect that one's personal experiences have on the ability to confide in / counsel people with a differing set of experiences.

That doesn't mean I can't try to understand, to imagine what it's like to be someone with a very different life from mine. And I think I can sympathize with both Ms. Nixon's perspective and with the Rape Relief Centre's perspective. They both had some good reasons for doing what they did. But whatever way I look at it, I always come to the conclusion that whether or not Ms. Nixon tried to reach a compromise with the centre (and maybe she didn't), the centre could've done more than to simply say, "Sorry, you're not enough of a woman to work here."

I hope that attitudes are changing, even if only slowly, so that more and more people will come to think of transwomen as REAL women, and transmen as REAL men. For people who've grown up and lived most of their adult lives thinking otherwise, it can be difficult to adjust to that idea. It can also be difficult to adjust to the idea that a transwoman's experience living as a woman might give her the insight necessary to counsel women who have been sexually assaulted. Hopefully there are enough adults who can change their way of thinking about transgender, and hopefully more and more children will grow up with a different understanding of it.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

I do, however, think it is less than helpful to make the claim that what one person wants, regardless of whether it is based on experience or not, is what all survivors want. The reality is you can't actually know that the counselor in front of you can fully empathize with you simply based on the having/absence of a uterus. She could be didelphic or "barren" for any other reason and still empathize.

According to this theory, the question would more accurately be "are you able to bear children?" rather than "are you biologically female?" There is a bit of sleight of hand in play in collapsing those two questions.

quote:

---

There has to be some sort of protocol in place such that if a survivor is presented with a counselor who makes her uncomfortable - for whatever reason - she can ask to have someone else.

---

I both agree and disagree. I agree because I know that not every counsellor is a good fit for every client, and a client should certainly be able to request to work with someone else. I disagree because some clients will be racist or homophobic: do they then get to refuse a counsellor who is a woman of colour or a lesbian? In some rape crisis centres, racism and homophobia are considered acts of violence, and a client exhibiting those characteristic would be refused service, on the grounds that the agency must be a safe space for all women. Fostering racism or homophobia, even from a survivor, is antithetical to the centre's anti-violence mandate.

Other centres would allow the client to work with another counsellor (i.e. one who is white and/or straight) but would have an internal policy that the new counsellor would work to educate the client about racism/homophobia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Off to tea again with Scout and Anne. I'll get the chai tea, loose leaf of course.

---

I'm not entirely sure at whom this is aimed, but it hardly seems constructive.

Edited to add:
This has been a long and painful read. It seems to have devolved into an argument about "who has the right to say hurtful things in their 'evolution' or 'discovery process' and who doesn't".

I have a lot to think about regarding the content of this thread, but this post really just seemed mean - a way of saying, "there are a bunch of us who are now going to go talk about you bad, bad space invaders."

(And I know that the "sensible thing" for me would have just been to read the thread and flee, but that really was an awful thing to read as the last post.)

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: GigiM ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Blink: Just how should I repsond to bullshit blanket accusations of bigotry?

---

Cancer statistics are such that any dismissal of a survivor is less than helpful. And introducing the uterus topic is enough to make many people go for tea because it's just irresponsible.

I would suggest that painting an entire group of women as "transphobes" is unfair, insulting, and bullying. What "homophobes" would allow all gay and lesbian people is erasure. Nobody who has posted here has suggested trans-gendered people be denied housing, employment, voting rights or the freedom to breath air and live.

I have spent the past several days researching trans-gendered and trans-sexual sites, including one which step-by-step showed the surgeries necessary, and another which offerred books and courses on how to "pass as a woman". And it is that word "pass" which I find relevant and important.

Whatever surgery has been done, and some of the photos would defy anyone to "tell the difference", there are those years of upbringing as a male. Several Popes, and Hitler, said "give me a child until he is six and he is mine for life". There are recent studies suggesting the first three years are the most telling, and even some which hold out for the first eighteen months. Early childhood conditioning cannot simply be overcome by making a decision as an adult. If reason and logic could overcome conditioning we might not have to worry about the Cons hidden agenda, they'd all have become enlightened.

"gender" right now is seen as either male or female. This in spite of evidence that there is an entire spectrum of differences.

However, so far, I have not found any evidence that the basic "common denominators" are vastly different...and needle biopsy of a surgically achieved vagina would still turn up penis tissue. And that would indicate a formative childhood of male conditioning. And that is not easily or even fully overcome.

It is easy to say Rape Relief should have... ought to have... could have... and much of what has been suggested is true. And could as easily have been applied to Kimberly Nixon... who could have...ought to have... should have... and who still might, we dont know...

Rape Relief has always been "radical". It is interesting that Kimberley Nixon did not try to volunteer at a mainstream Victim's Services organization.

I particularly regret that Kimberley Nixons decision to continue fighting this has diverted so much precious money from Rape Relief's funds. This takes money needed for victim services and support.

But "transphobic" is not the correct term to apply to their decision. They have not in any way worked to deny Kimberley Nixon housing accomodation, a job, or the right to vote, buy property, adopt, get married, or run for public office.

And "transphobe" is not the term to throw around in this feminist forum, especially not when it is aimed at someone who has a long (and known) history of supporting the rights of other people.

We do not all of us get everything we think we want. And when even those who support transexual people refer to "pass as a woman" then we're gnawing on a very complex and tough subject. One which will not be made any more tender by public displays of what one poster defended as "trans rage".

We have, in the past, been tolerant of some pretty outrageous postings of "gay rage" where some truly vindictive and insulting words and terms were thrown.

Perhaps we just need to tighten up on that, as it seems to have given some other people a handy canopy for their own "rage".

And deciding to go for a cup of tea is in no way an insult to anybody. Sheeesh, let's all get a fekkin grip here, please!

I'm going for tea. I'm very low rent, I like Tetley (tea tiddlydee). With sugar, no milk. And I'm going to thaw a nice piece of cod for supper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
Het heru: I don't agree that the question should be "are you able to bear children", or that the presence or lack of a uterus is relevant. And I would suggest that contributing this to the discussion is not only unhelpful but also a red herring.

---

My point was that solely having a vagina is inadequate if you (and in this case it wasn't the you in particular) are going to argue that the issue is the ability to empathize, and in specific empathize with the fear of potential pregnancy. My question wasn't posed as a herring but to expose another.

And to talk about bullying when you have indulged in a first order woman-on-woman bullying technique - implying that you are taking your little clique and meeting offline in an attempt to ostracize another poster (and no, not me) - smacks of hypocrisy. I do believe that it wasn't done intentionally (by you, Anne), yet that doesn't make it any less of an example.

Back to the subject at hand, all the conditioning in the world didn't drive out Ms. Nixon's innate sense of womanhood, even if it did take an operation to make her physical being match her psyche.

I don't agree with the VRR and their decision not to allow Ms. Nixon to counsel there. That is simply my thought on the matter, it is not a "challenge" to your right to believe what you do. I am also not calling you "transphobic" as a result of your coming to your conclusion. Not being a trans-person, and not being sufficiently aware of the nuances of transphobia, I couldn't possibly make that call.

I don't know if it has escaped the attention of some, but we aren't in grade three. There are no cliques or gangs or ... but I do think it's time for more tea, this is all starting to seem too much like...paranoia, perhaps..or...just obtuse posing or...

quote:

---

My point was that solely having a vagina is inadequate if you (and in this case it wasn't the you in particular) are going to argue that the issue is the ability to empathize, and in specific empathize with the fear of potential pregnancy. My question wasn't posed as a herring but to expose another.

---

I think I would be in a better position than you to know what sort of empathy I felt I needed at the time and what would have not be empathy but merely sympathy. Isn't this line of reasoning the same that your accusing of other engaging in when it comes to defining what transphobic would be? What exactly is it I am allowed to define for myself?

For me an uwanted pregancy was scary as shit. If it can never happen to you it's not empathy your offering. Just like if I attempted to empathize with a POC about racism I'd be smacked down and told I can't possibly be truly empathetic just sympathetic, and it's true and that line of reasoning has been unheld on babble so I see no reason that in this instance the same line of reasoning shouldn't stand too.

I'm getting mighty sick of people using other groups suffering to put women in their place. I'm not interested in progress at the expense of women. That's not what feminism is to me and I won't see it used a a weapon for other disempowered groups to climb up a rung over us. cause then no one is really getting anywhere. It's just divide and conquer.

And I didn't engage in any offline cliquing. I have mostly been avoiding babble as a result of some pretty unfeminist behavior in this thread. Because sometimes that's just better than letting it all hang out here. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other women in this thread who have been likened to homophobes feel similarly. That hurts and is insulting. It not hard to reason that it would make some people withdraw. And to accuse people who are removing themselves from the line of fire as engaging in bullying by doing so is uncalled for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:
I do, however, think it is less than helpful to make the claim that what one person wants, regardless of whether it is based on experience or not, is what all survivors want.

---

Did you even notice what I said? I am not detracting from what you want/need as a survivor, I am merely saying that you can't possibly dictate what every one will want/need.

And I was thinking the whole "we're going for tea" thing seemed pretty out of place, and relatively junior high. One of the factors with this form of communication is choosing what you type carefully - and I don't think I am the only one who read it as such.

quote:

---

and I don't think I am the only one who read it as such.

---

Ironic.

quote:

---

Did you even notice what I said? I am not detracting from what you want/need as a survivor, I am merely saying that you can't possibly dictate what every one will want/need.

---

quote:

---

whether it is possible to destroy essentialist categories such as "woman" or "man"

---

Oh, well: if that is what is going on, a warning would be in order.

I am often a critic of essentialism myself, but people need to recognize that that critique always cuts many ways at once. The very notion of identity, eg, is essentialist, eg - what could be more essentialist, after all?

I'm not saying that these analyses can't be done in serious and helpful ways, but they are fraught and complex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
Transwomen are women, and people need to get their information straight and learn that.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

---

I agree with this sentence, but I keep coming back to the same question: is rape crisis counselling really the time and place to address it?

quote:

---

It is asking a lot of the client to expect her to either overcome her predjudices or request another counsellor.

---

What if the problem is that a counsellor looks "butch"?

It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that the only time a woman in need of counselling could be possibly be uncomfortable with her assigned counsellor is if that counsellor is MTF.

Is VRR going to make sure there are no "butch" counsellors??

- We've been told that every person who goes for rape victim counseling has different needs. Well and good, as the former partner of a rape victim, I'm fully on-side for that POV.
- We've been told that there is always the possiblity that counselors and counselees don't always 'fit'. Also well and good, as a former counseling patient, I'm fully on-side for that one as well.
- We've been told that a 'lack of fit' between the above is cause for moving to a new counselor. That makes perfect sense.
- We've been told that an 'unfitting' counselor will make some people run a mile and never seek counseling again. Also, easily within the realms of all our imaginations given the traumatic situations we're ultimately discussing here.

BUT

It seems to me all these considerations operate whether a potential counselor is 'butch', 'femme', MTF, FTM, FTW, a brain in a tank of saline, an expert-system AI device, or otherwise. And yet somehow only the MTF counselor is the shocking one?

edited to clean up language and add this:

To me it falls down to the level of the race/sexuality question: If someone self-identifies as a POC, they're a POC and we accept that. If someone self-identifies as gay, they're gay and we accept that. For some reason, I'm discovering that there's a reluctance to extend that same acceptance of self-identification to gender self-identification. Why is that, or more properly, why should that be so if we're prepared to extend the self-identification umbrella as far as we currently are? What makes gender self-image so vastly different from racial self-image?

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

It is asking a lot of the client to expect her to either overcome her predjudices or request another counsellor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrean:

If a client values her prejudice more than the help that the counsellor is offering, she is free to take her prejudice and seek help from a mainstream victims' service organization that won't demand that she not oppress other women.

---

But putting aside the politics, and speaking from a caring perspective: is that a kind way to treat a rape victim? To say "you can take your prejudices elsewhere, we can't help you?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by vmichel:
But putting aside the politics, and speaking from a caring perspective: is that a kind way to treat a rape victim? To say "you can take your prejudices elsewhere, we can't help you?"

---

Well, not really, but then again, that's not the only option. Would we say it's okay not to hire a Black woman as a counsellor because some racist white women might not be able to get over their prejudices at a time of trauma and might run in the other direction if confronted by a person of colour in the counselling chair? Or would we try to make procedures for the victim that would make it really easy for them to switch counsellors (without even having to give a reason at all if necessary)?

And regarding the argument that a MTF person can't empathize about accidental pregnancy - what about a person who is infertile? Should we only allow women who are fertile and who might be able to have an accidental pregnancy become a counsellor?

And what about class? Shall we have only impoverished women as counsellors because only someone who has experienced poverty will be able to truly empathize with an impoverished victim facing the loss of her minimum wage job if she stands up to her employer who raped her, or who is facing an unwanted pregnancy from rape on minimum wage or welfare - or by the sole breadwinner of her home who may be supporting her financially?

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]