QT/Trans: Trans women say feminism and women's rights should include ALL women, and this means anyone who identifies as a woman. But 99% of women are cis. Why then do trans women not care about the history and rights of 99% of women?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I can see why you wouldn't think that's a big deal because you're not a woman, but try to have a little empathy.

I am a cis woman.

I haven't in particular read Kimberlé Crenshaw but I know she coined the term intersectionality and I know what it means. Intersectionality means oppressions are interconnected. For instance, women get paid less than men. But WOC will get paid less than white woman. Women are more likely to get their pain dismissed by doctors. I remember a Facebook comment on an Everyday Feminism article about racism. A black woman wrote she goes to a hospital in her state of Florida for heart issues, but they don't treat her and instead test her for drugs because she's "young and urban" (code word for "black"). LGBT people experience discrimination and heteronormativity, but disabled LGBT people experience more of it and may experience discrimination within the LGBT community.

Everyday feminism has plenty of articles on sexism, street harassment, pay inequalities, etc. if you look.

Some people think intersectionality is the "oppression Olympics" or a competition to see who is most oppressed. But that's just an internet myth, not the understanding of intersectional scholars.

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some people think intersectionality is the "oppression Olympics" or a competition to see who is most oppressed. But that's just an internet myth

I think you're misunderstanding. I don't think that, nor do I know anyone who does, though I and others I know criticize "oppression olympics" because people really do attempt to compete to see who is most oppressed. I have never confused that with intersectionality, nor have I ever seen anyone else do so. The majority of articles there aren't about the intersections between womanhood and other minority classes. They're about other minority groups. For example, in the "Fem 101" section, the vast majority of articles aren't about feminism at all. There are also articles on the site about racism and disability, without mention of its intersection with woman/girlhood.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Some articles do talk about how certain oppressions intersect, like what not to say to a mixed race woman, or how racism and rape culture work in similar ways. But you're right, most articles only focus on one topic. I'll admit I don't like many of their articles, like when they say food and yoga is cultural appropriation or we need to stop hating on sociopaths. I do wish sometimes they could be more specific in what allies can do. But I have to give them credit for some things.

  1. They always use racially-diverse stock images for their articles. For instance, in an article about disability, they had a photo of a Mongolian woman using sign language. You won't find this kind of representation on most American media.

  2. They're open to criticism. They posted an article about what employers can do to help food insecure employees, such as by changing the language around food insecurity. People criticized the article and pointed out the only thing employers can do to help food insecure employees is to pay their employees better. Everyday Feminism removed the article, admitted they were wrong and apologized. There are other instances when they were open to accountability.

  3. They talk about all kinds of oppressions, which affect women too. I am a disabled woman. Ableism affects me.

  4. The staff for their site are diverse, and they also believe in paying livable wages to their staff.

So those are the positive things about them. Also, anyone who is competing to see who is the most oppressed is doing intersectionality wrong. Intersectionality does not mean people get to silence certain issues just because they're more oppressed. But that's not something I see often enough that it's worth discussing.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

For instance, women get paid less than men. But WOC will get paid less than white woman.

For the same exact job working for the same employer withe same qualifications & experience? In what country?

Sounds like you're confusing earnings inequality with wage inequality.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

For the same exact job working for the same employer withe same qualifications & experience? In what country?

Yes, for the same exact job, employer and hours. I'm talking about the US

Sounds like you're confusing earnings inequality with wage inequality.

I'm not. There was a study where they sent out fake resumes for STEM-related positions. All the resumes were identical, except half had a male name and half have a female name. Men were more likely to get a call back. Scientists were also asked to rate applicants competence, and men were rated more compete tent than women and were more likely to be offered a higher starting salary, even if they had the qualifications and identical resumes (except for the name).

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Women are 30 percent less likely to be considered for a hiring process than men - phys.org

Employers' Replies to Racial Names - National Bureau of Economic Research

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was really taking issue with your claim that WOC get paid less than white women. I was wondering where it is that white women and "WOC" in the same job working for the same employer get paid different wages.

The wage and earnings gap between the sexes is clear. Still, salary is not the same as a wage. And anecdotal evidence concerning starting salaries offered to job applicants in STEM or any field is not necessarily indicative of the actual salaries paid across all the employees in that field. To get a sense of the pay gap, you've got to look at much broader evidence concerning all the people actually hired - not just some (fake) prospective hires in an experiment - and over time.

Starting salaries in a field like STEM are discretionary and negotiable. One of the issues is that when applying for positions men ask for higher starting salaries than women do, and women do not put their foot down and drive a harder bargain.

But to get a picture of the sex wage/salary/earnings gap as well as the race one, STEM is a bad example, since it's a male dominated and also mainly white and Asian. To get a sense of the sex wage, salary and earning gap(s), you've got to look in fields where males and females work in more balanced numbers and in the exact same jobs. Same goes for when you're looking to compare what WOC and white women are paid/earn. Since so few women work in STEM, it's not a good source for info about wage/earnings disparities between/amongst women of different races. For that, you've got to look at areas like retail, health care, office work, hospitality, teaching - areas where women work in droves and there's a vast variety in terms of race, color and ethnicity.