Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Fannie's Room

Miscellaneous

: Fannie's Room

My Michfest Journal, Part II

By Fannie

In Part I of My Michfest Journal, I discussed the value of "womyn-only" space in relation to Michfest. Today, I have written about a related topic- how the exclusion of transwomen from Michfest relates to the value of "womyn-only" space.

2. The Trans Exclusion Policy

Michfest is officially a space for "womyn-born-womyn" as opposed to "all women." What this tangibly means is that the organizers of Michfest have made it clear that male-to-female transgender persons (transwomen) are not particularly welcome at the festival. This policy has generated a lot of heated debate within feminist communities.

Personally, I found much value in a "womyn-only" space. Obviously, allowing "men-born-men" into the space would render a woman's festival meaningless. But what is less clear to me is how a "womyn-born-womyn" space would be different and/or less valuable through the inclusion of transwomen. Thus, the way I see it, the main issue in this debate is whether the festival should become a space for "all women" as opposed to a space for only some women... and transmen.

Yes, transmen. That's the inconvenient double-standard of the "womyn-born-womyn" Michfest policy. While transwomen are excluded from the the land, female-to-male transgender persons (transmen) are not. So, more accurately, Michfest's policy is more of an "anyone-born-womyn" one than a "womyn-born-womyn" one. And frankly, seeing bearded transmen walking around this "womyn-only" land was more jarring and unexpected to me than seeing a transwoman would have been. Sometimes, the only way I knew a person was a "womyn" and not a "man-born-man" was because he was at Michfest! I'm not saying transmen should be excluded from Michfest, but it is odd to me that a self-identified man would attend a "womyn's" music festival.

Some transwomen take issue with transmen attending. Julia Serano writes:

"They hypocritically expect their friends, families and co-workers to respect their male- or genderqueer-identities for 51 weeks out of the year, then for that one week at MWMF they take advantage of cissexual privilege (which presumes that one?s 'birth sex' is more legitimate than one?s identified and lived sex) in order to enter women-only space. Their insistence on 'having it both ways' marginalizes me as a trans woman: it delgitimizes [sic] my female identity in both the lesbian and the transgender communities of which I am a part."

I have read many blog articles about this debate and have read through numerous comments. Those who oppose the trans-exclusion policy seem to mostly believe that supporters of transwoman exclusion are merely fueled by "hatred," "prejudice," and "transphobia." While I have no doubt that some feminists are fueled by these ugly emotions, and have in fact observed some serious trans-phobia within some feminist circles, I think that for some who favor the policy it's more complicated. When it comes to trans issues, many trans-advocates can be too quick to label anyone who disagrees with them "transphobic." I mean, from a politically correct standpoint, questioning transgenderism is pretty untouchable. What I think trans advocates need to realize is that many people simply don't understand transgenderism. Yes, there is hatred. But there is also ignorance.

Alix Dobkin writes:

"Doubts and qualms fill the closets of newly silent Lesbians and gay men now afraid of being labeled 'bigoted.' Rather than injure feelings or appear oppressive toward a sexual minority, many remain silent, unwilling to deviate '...from the politically correct gender rhetoric (which) subjects one to being called and dismissed as transphobic,' as long time gay activist and independent thinker, Jim Fouratt, writes."

What are my doubts? For one, I don't fully understand transgenderism. How can I? I am not trans. But I seek to understand. It's about compassion and respect. We can learn some lessons about treating members of our own community with compassion and respect from our less-than-compassionate anti-gay "friends" who are so unable to understand homosexuality that they completely reject it is a valid identity. In their eyes, gay people are just defective straight people who engage in "sodomy."

How can I reject something in someone else just because I myself do not feel that way? Doing so would be the essence of egocentricity. So, even if I myself don't understand what it's like to be trans, I take other people's personal experiences at their word. How can I believe transgenderism is not "real" or "valid" in light of the rhetorical beatings that trans folks endure from those within and without our community in order to be who they are?

Two, we can't really say yet how including transwomen in Michfest would change the experience. Yes, I will admit that something about a "womyn's" festival including people who have had male privilege for sometimes significantly long periods of their lives unsettles me. Would such a person have and/or retain significant differences from "womyn-born-womyn"? Why, exactly, should transwomen have an unadulterated right to attend a festival that is specifically for "womyn-born-womyn"? Would Michfest be a "safe space" for transwomen, in the same way it was a safe space for me, in light of the fact that some "womyn-born-womyn" would resent a transwoman's very presence there?

These are the types of question we need to be having without immediately beginning the name-calling. While I lean towards inclusion, I give myself permission to keep an open mind on this.

Full post as published by Fannie's Room on August 19, 2008 (boomark / email).