As another transmasc non-binary person, I 100% agree with you and have been feeling exactly the same way for quite a while now. I’ve encountered a couple examples of bathrooms or dressing rooms being altered toward “inclusivity” by slapping a GENDER NEUTRAL sign over what really says WOMEN but leaving the MEN sign exactly as it is. Like you said, first instinct is to appreciate it, but then you realize that it’s kinda bullshit. If there’s two spaces and one of them is Male then the other one is inherently female regardless of what you call it and it feels very invalidating as a non-binary person to be offered what is obviously just the thinly veiled female space. It’s a whole complicated situation, but you’re right to bring it up, so thank you.
Well I'm glad this landed in a similar place for you. I honestly felt scared putting it out there in case it offended anyone.
As for the bathroom thing, my employer paraded around their new "gender neutral" restrooms in one of our buildings, and it was a huge let-down. They labeled both bathrooms on that one floor with the new signage (so the men's and the women's), but folks are so ingrained in habit that they haven't changed which one they use, and so seeing me standing in the "women's all gender restroom" was instantly concerning to a bunch of women. And me. And awkward. And awful.
Wow, I'm kind of speechless at the Gender Neutral + Men's bathroom. Men get their own bathroom...why? I'm so glad my workplace didn't do that when I started working there (they quickly converted the two gendered bathrooms into all gender bathrooms, which is like, very nice and everything, but also depressing that they didn't think about it until a non-binary person started working there).
There's a bar in DC that has individual stalls that say SIT and a room with like 3 urinals that says STAND. I've also seen a bar with what used to be a men's room say (something like) Includes Urinals and what used to be a women's room say No Urinals...
It’s definitely not just you. When I saw the title, I was skeptical, but when I saw the subtitle, I wanted to scream yes, yes, YES!!! I can’t stand “women + non-binary”, even and especially because I am the exact kind of non-binary person they want: a white and woman-adjacent one. But I know I won’t find many other non-binary people there, and definitely not a diverse group of non-binary people, and we are SO DIVERSE, so why would I want to be part of something that excludes most of us? I think these women+ clubs should be renamed to “no penises or people who look like they could have a penis” because that’s really what they’re trying to get at. Just be honest, just come out and say it. Don’t pretend you actually want non-binary people there when you would freak out if a male-presenting AMAB enby showed up. It makes me so angry! I have ranted about this before, but I’m not sure where. Now I can point to your piece. Thank you.
For those of us working tirelessly to deconstruct gender, this whole thing casts that work aside like it's meaningless. And that hurts. You cannot recognize me as an enby by putting me back in a box. It doesn't work.
And this whole penis-hate thing runs so deep in our culture and in many aspects of feminism. Nobody wants to explore it or figure out what's wrong with it. We're all just cozy about blaming dicks instead of holding people (and society) accountable for their actions. This is the entire (not covert) argument about trans people in bathrooms. It's the entire context of "women are not safe." If our two mantras in any culture are "women are not safe" and also "boys will be boys," how do we ever get anything done??
I initially began having a reaction to this from my white, cis het female lens (understandably, since that’s what I am). Also from the lens of someone who worked for 25 years in victim services, specifically domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and child abuse. My reaction was, “but women ARE unsafe.” I don’t go out alone much at night. I avoid parking garages when I’m alone, and I never hike without my husband, because we have not infrequently seen individual men in the woods looking kind of suspicious (as in, not hiking themselves or bird-watching etc. but just kind of THERE or emerging from a non-trail area of the woods with a strange look on their face). I realize this all sounds like I’m profiling, but the reality is, women in general are taught to just be “nice” or at the very least not be “rude” and it has been to our detriment as we learn to ignore gut instincts about personal safety. I have also been trailed on the highway on two separate occasions and “trapped” by a dude in a car next to me going my same speed and making lewd gestures. Twice. I even came up with a name for it: highway harassment. Very specific because you very much feel trapped when you have no means of speeding off and no idea if you’re going to be followed. (FYI, none of the men in any of these scenarios appeared to be of color).
But then I snapped out of it, realizing I was missing the forest for the trees around what you were saying, Robin. And I started reading your words much differently. And more and more agreeing with them, or at least conceding your points.
And then ultimately I got to THIS, which above all is REALLY the point, for women and for BIPOC and for LGBTQ+ people: “Stop with the heroism. If anyone actually cared about safety, we would be addressing toxic masculinity and violence, gun violence, and the murder rate of transwomen and transfeminine people of color.”
We show “care” as a society by saying, “if you’re unsafe, then just DON’T.”
If you’re a woman, that means don’t go certain places or wear certain things.
If you’re BIPOC, same…and more.
If you’re LGBTQ+, it means suppress who you (think you) are and make different “choices.”
If you’re at the intersections of any of these things and more (disabled, immigrant, neurodivergent, etc.), then holy shit, just stay inside, literally and figuratively.
And so in the end, Robin, I want to thank you for this post. And for bringing your honest, raw self to it. Because you definitely made me pull up, and I’m glad you did (all while still being mad that it’s okay to harass, abuse, and beat down so many groups of people and then blame them for their own hurts).
You know, at first blush I can see how this might be upsetting. You're right, we have a huge problem in most every culture with women's lives being endangered on a constant basis, and it's not just a narrative we're taught. It's real violence happening all around us all the time. And being "nice" absolutely leads to problems where folks don't stand up for themselves, they don't push back, and they don't insist on safety as a human right.
I cannot tell you how many times I hear a group talking about "men," about the violence of "men," about the abuse caused by "men," about the harm of "men," and this little voice inside of me desperately wants to shout back something stupid like "not all men" (which I never do because duh, nobody wants to hear that argument ever). I suppose that's the opposite of what I wrote in this piece - where "all men" get lumped in together, too, and I'm lost in that space as well. It is the same discussion about safety and violence and abuse and boundaries and consent, and THAT is the real conversation I want someone to start.
I'm really glad your brought your perspective here, and that you were willing to listen and think critically and engage. I really value your thoughts.
Thanks for receiving my comment so well, Robin. I think of this lumping a bit like when I’m in community with my Black friends and they talk about white people and whiteness, almost always in the context of having been harmed. It took me a long time to fight the “but…but…not all of us!” urge and to just quietly understand that I don’t have to take what they say personally but that I should still take it to heart, because it keeps me more at the ready to educate and to change systems. The minute anyone gets hung up on the “not all of us/not me!”, they’re stuck on defending themselves and not as able to hear the true message. Do you find there is an analogous point with cishet folks and any part of the LGBTQ+ community?
I do see this in the community of allies who are quick to label themselves as "allies" and then be very detailed about how they are cis or straight. And in that way I often wonder if there is some deeply embedded fear that an ally will be mistaken as gay or trans and... is that then a "bad" thing?
And of course we all hear the "not all cishet people" comments as well. I think that vibe exists in just about any space where identities are openly shared.
But as someone who truly needs allies to help my voice be heard and respected it's really tough to call those things out. It's impossible NOT to take that feedback personally, but it's simultaneously exhausting to absorb it and never voice the issue. Even sharing it here may ruffle a feather. I hope those who read my words can always hear and feel my undertones of kindness and gentleness (even when I rant). Ah look, there's that social conditioning you mentioned at the start.
Oddly enough, this post has gotten a tremendous amount of engagement, and now I'm wondering if we should all take risks and say what we truly feel to find what resonates with those around us (and those we have yet to meet). It's good to be heard, and it's good to be challenged by what we hear.
Robin, you have a way with words that is descriptive, direct, and clear. I think that’s why your readers have been so engaged around this post. You landed the plane beautifully, pointing out all the turbulence while not causing panic/fear. That might not be the best analogy, but you get my point.
I’m glad you said what you did about allies painstakingly pointing out their identities. It had never occurred to me that this might come across as a distancing. I always thought it was more of an “if you’re willing to say what your identity is, then I’ll say mine so that cis het isn’t assumed to be the default.” Always want to be learning, so I appreciate you teaching.
Omg thank you for articulating this. I get that same "bUt yOu sHoUlD bE gRaTeFuL" voice in my head too, so it was a relief to hear other people are frustrated as well. I saw "women and trans people" recently and as a trans guy I feel like I wouldn't want to join that either? Cuz it would be mostly women and I'd feel really out of place?? But I feel guilty for feeling weird about that???
I really don't know what "women and trans people" is meant to imply either. I might go just to see it with my own eyes. I mean, that's like an instant way to out yourself in a space if you're transmasc, right? Way to build a feeling of safety........
Oof. yeah. I do my best to keep my heart open to anyone who wants to be an ally, but some aspects of allyship are harmful. Most of that feels unintentional, but when confronted with the harms they create some allies take offense very quickly. That's how I generally determine whether someone really wants to be an ally.
Yes, I agree. Are they coming from a good place or not? Some "allyship" is exploitative or downright condescending. It can be difficult to navigate because, as you stated in your post, you don't want to then be perceived as ungrateful or conceited. *sigh* 😔
There is this whole problem many of us have with how to visibly signal our queerness (or queer allyship) without also endangering ourselves OR risking being inauthentic. I dressed in men's clothing for most of my adult life before coming out as a transman, and I have no desire to wear anything feminine now. Which means nobody gets that I'm also nonbinary. Add in he/him pronouns and it's just confusing for everyone. And that should not be my problem. Or yours. We should not need to "appear androgynous" to be recognized as nonbinary. I should not need to appear masculine to be seen as a man.
Yes, you're absolutely right, it's not our problem. And the line between risk and authenticity is a tricky one to walk - and it's so much less tricky for me than so many people around the world that sometimes I feel awful for agonising over it. Still that's how it is sometimes. Thanks Robin.
Hi Robin, I'm a woman and a feminist (on my own terms), and I appreciate you articulating your feelings. I've mostly found women's groups to be very white and middle class, so don't feel comfortable in them, and I can see how you wouldn't either. People can gender identify in any way they want and need to, and I accept people for who they are. I don't know if that's any comfort.
Oh yeah, definite ick there. "Womyn" and "womxn" are two examples of inclusive-gone-wrong since they both create patterns of othering. The original reason? Feminist groups wanted to remove "man" from the word.
I think "marginalized genders" is a useful categorization to a degree, but it has its limits. IMO, one of the weak points of critical social justice theory - in terms of how it plays out in the real world - is that it doesn't grapple with the fact that privilge/marginalization aren't as binary or as static as we would like to believe they are. It's really important to view these states in context, and we rarely do that. For example, as an AFAB agender person, I am most definitely a marginalized gender within dominant culture, but there are contexts (such as the one Robin discusses here) where I have privilege compared to a non binary person who is likely to be perceived as male or masc. There are other contexts where that person will have more privilege than me. But for the conversation we're having right now, I must acknowledge the privilege I have. And this is a fairly simple example. When you consider the intersectional possibilities including race, disability, class, etc., it gets even more convoluted. So it's a helpful concept, but we have to be really mindful of the dynamic nature of marginalization, and the context in which we are discussing it.
This is an entire post all to its own, which might be bigger than what I'm taking on right now. I'll hold onto that for later....
But I will say that even calling something a "marginalized gender" seems to reinforce that inherent marginalization. I'm certainly not condoning the concept of colorblindness (as an example) or genderblindness (since I don't think anyone has ever said that). Just considering that grouping folx into a category that calls out the marginalized nature of their gender(s) would perpetuate the problem, specifically by nature of "marginalized" not being a positive word in our current culture. It feels like those surveys that let you select male, female, or "other" as your sex/gender.
I also really feel drawn to this notion that privilege and marginalization are not binary and are super complex for each individual. We all live in some mixture of these descriptions, and even that mix can (and will) change as we grow and adapt and move through life. Disability is the easiest example to see on that timescale as many of us might not have grown up with disability but will very likely face it at some point in our lives.
Yes! This whole conversation is one that I am intensley interested in. Intersectionality, and the way(s) it is interpreted and addressed in real life is one of my special interests. I feel like our aspirations towards liberation (both our own and everybody's) are many times thwarted by a lack of nuance, and acceptance of the inherent messiness, that comes with cultural/societal positionality and how that impacts our experiences and our perceptions about other people. Your perspective on the word "marginalized" is interesting to me, and what you express is definitely a rich topic that deserves thorough exploration! Thanks, Robin.
Thanks for so honestly sharing your feelings and perspective here. You are most definitely not an asshole, and while there probably are plenty of people who feel offended or threatened by what you have to say, that doesn't mean you shouldn't say it. You have every right to object to being excluded. I am AFAB agender (but refer to myself usually as non binary, mostly just because it gets exhausting to explain to people what agender means). You've opened my eyes a bit here, because, while I've always found the "women and non binary" category a bit clunky and cringey, I can see that I've underestimated the extent to which it implicitly excludes anyone who is - or might be perceived as - on the masc side of the proverbial gender spectrum (that spectrum-based metaphor is, to my mind, kind of problematic anyway, because it still relies on the traditional binary framework. Sure, it creates a hazy, gradual blend between the two rather than a delimeter, but it's still constrained within the scope of those two genders that are normalized by dominant culture). Depending on whose eye is beholding me, I appear either vaguely fem or androgynous, so I have the privilege of being automatically included in that "women+" category. I've wondered sometimes what people really mean when they use it, because I've always assumed that they are genuinely trying to be inclusive, but haven't really thought it out. Unfortunately, good intention (if that is, in fact, the case) is no guarantee of eqitable and inclusive impact, and your post here has reminded me just how damaging unskilled attempts at inclusion can be when they are based on a misguided or over-simplified understanding of all the ways gender can be experienced and expressed. The reality is a clash between Social Justice 101 rules about intersectionality and the very complex and nuanced reality, in which not only are there no clearly delineated categories of gender that can be sorted and ranked in any systematic way, but there is also a huge potential for mutually exclusive needs and experiences in this world where one officially recognized gender has traditionally been granted superior status over all others, and that has caused a lot of harm and unresolved trauma. I do believe that there is a good case for creating spaces that are not open to cismen, not because of their gender per se, but because their gender is privileged, and no matter how well intentioned a privileged ally might be, oppressed people ( as a group; this might not be true for every member of the group) need and deserve access to spaces where they can shed the debilitating burden of hypervigilance in the presence of members of the oppressive class, even if only for a short time. This is just as true for marginalized genders as it is for marginalized races, and designating a space as such is no more exclusionary than it is for BIPOC to have spaces where white people are not welcome. The problem here is not in the exclusion of the culturally privileged gender - it is in the oversimplified and deconstructed assumptions about what nonbinary actually means, and who is marginalized because of their gender. That, I believe, is the crux here: we have not grappled yet with the conundrum of how to be inclusive and eqitable in situations where we can't neatly divide people into binary privileged vs. marginalized groups. In spite of trying to attend to the concept of "non binary," we are very binary in our approach, and that won't work. I believe that your words here are important for everyone to understand, but most especially, for those who are offended by them. You've very eloquently expressed the harm the "women+" approach causes, and I have no idea what the solution to this looks like, but I know it has to start with being willing to witness your pain and to delve into the complexity and discomfort of figuring out how to do it better.
I mean what in the nine is the point of not just calling it Safety+ and leave gender out of it? Some men might prefer not ending up listening to some MAGA skinhead driver ramble on too.
I think you're right about this being a lazy attempt at inclusion. Like they're planting it now so when Pride Month rolls around they won't look like they're suddenly pandering *then.*
Since I didn’t exist (Substackishly) in early April, I’ve only just seen this for the first time. Sometimes someone needs to step up and be The Asshole, as you did here, and you did it brilliantly. Applause.
I don't have anything good to add, just that as a genderqueer/genderfluid person, I agree. This "woman+" stuff is bullshit meant to appease the bigots and virtue signal for the rest of us. We're barely leaving the binary boxes and they're already constructing another >.>
It’s this “lumping” of folx into categories that becomes the new problem for many of us. I would rather see some tangible action taken to address why some folx are less safe than others that doesn’t put the onus on those of us being victimized. But, you know, dreams and all…
Thank you for writing this.. This is something that also bothers me, and it is challenging to articulate exactly why.
Another tangled mess of an issue is when women, including transwomen, actively accept me, a binary transgender man, into their spaces.
From my perspective, this creates a weird situation where all conversations about gender are intrinsically linked to a relationship with hood, making the concept of gender itself to be "a thing for women", if put in the broadest and most general terms.
Another topic that splinters off is that there is so much emphasis on cismen being the danger and the excluded group for a "safe space for women and nonbinary people", which erases the fact that ciswomen are also extremely capable of causing harm, especially to people that that this article calls out as being unwelcome in the "women+" spaces described.
I did not know how much I needed this post, and this blog.
Absolutely. It is often extremely clear when a marketing gimmick is written by cis people who genuinely don't have the lived experience that trans folks have.
YES! Also, I've read discussions of this before, and agreed with it every time. My favorite feminist organization now states: we represent all oppressed genders. I love that! And for what it's worth, I don't love the term nonbinary. I don't want to be a non. That means the binary still defines me.
Skylar, same. It’s helpful to have a group to belong to, but the title doesn’t fit some of us. And I’d rather be defined by who I am that what I’m not.
As another transmasc non-binary person, I 100% agree with you and have been feeling exactly the same way for quite a while now. I’ve encountered a couple examples of bathrooms or dressing rooms being altered toward “inclusivity” by slapping a GENDER NEUTRAL sign over what really says WOMEN but leaving the MEN sign exactly as it is. Like you said, first instinct is to appreciate it, but then you realize that it’s kinda bullshit. If there’s two spaces and one of them is Male then the other one is inherently female regardless of what you call it and it feels very invalidating as a non-binary person to be offered what is obviously just the thinly veiled female space. It’s a whole complicated situation, but you’re right to bring it up, so thank you.
Well I'm glad this landed in a similar place for you. I honestly felt scared putting it out there in case it offended anyone.
As for the bathroom thing, my employer paraded around their new "gender neutral" restrooms in one of our buildings, and it was a huge let-down. They labeled both bathrooms on that one floor with the new signage (so the men's and the women's), but folks are so ingrained in habit that they haven't changed which one they use, and so seeing me standing in the "women's all gender restroom" was instantly concerning to a bunch of women. And me. And awkward. And awful.
Wow, I'm kind of speechless at the Gender Neutral + Men's bathroom. Men get their own bathroom...why? I'm so glad my workplace didn't do that when I started working there (they quickly converted the two gendered bathrooms into all gender bathrooms, which is like, very nice and everything, but also depressing that they didn't think about it until a non-binary person started working there).
There's a bar in DC that has individual stalls that say SIT and a room with like 3 urinals that says STAND. I've also seen a bar with what used to be a men's room say (something like) Includes Urinals and what used to be a women's room say No Urinals...
I really love this concept. It's not about the people, it's about the available facility. Perfect.
It’s definitely not just you. When I saw the title, I was skeptical, but when I saw the subtitle, I wanted to scream yes, yes, YES!!! I can’t stand “women + non-binary”, even and especially because I am the exact kind of non-binary person they want: a white and woman-adjacent one. But I know I won’t find many other non-binary people there, and definitely not a diverse group of non-binary people, and we are SO DIVERSE, so why would I want to be part of something that excludes most of us? I think these women+ clubs should be renamed to “no penises or people who look like they could have a penis” because that’s really what they’re trying to get at. Just be honest, just come out and say it. Don’t pretend you actually want non-binary people there when you would freak out if a male-presenting AMAB enby showed up. It makes me so angry! I have ranted about this before, but I’m not sure where. Now I can point to your piece. Thank you.
For those of us working tirelessly to deconstruct gender, this whole thing casts that work aside like it's meaningless. And that hurts. You cannot recognize me as an enby by putting me back in a box. It doesn't work.
And this whole penis-hate thing runs so deep in our culture and in many aspects of feminism. Nobody wants to explore it or figure out what's wrong with it. We're all just cozy about blaming dicks instead of holding people (and society) accountable for their actions. This is the entire (not covert) argument about trans people in bathrooms. It's the entire context of "women are not safe." If our two mantras in any culture are "women are not safe" and also "boys will be boys," how do we ever get anything done??
I initially began having a reaction to this from my white, cis het female lens (understandably, since that’s what I am). Also from the lens of someone who worked for 25 years in victim services, specifically domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and child abuse. My reaction was, “but women ARE unsafe.” I don’t go out alone much at night. I avoid parking garages when I’m alone, and I never hike without my husband, because we have not infrequently seen individual men in the woods looking kind of suspicious (as in, not hiking themselves or bird-watching etc. but just kind of THERE or emerging from a non-trail area of the woods with a strange look on their face). I realize this all sounds like I’m profiling, but the reality is, women in general are taught to just be “nice” or at the very least not be “rude” and it has been to our detriment as we learn to ignore gut instincts about personal safety. I have also been trailed on the highway on two separate occasions and “trapped” by a dude in a car next to me going my same speed and making lewd gestures. Twice. I even came up with a name for it: highway harassment. Very specific because you very much feel trapped when you have no means of speeding off and no idea if you’re going to be followed. (FYI, none of the men in any of these scenarios appeared to be of color).
But then I snapped out of it, realizing I was missing the forest for the trees around what you were saying, Robin. And I started reading your words much differently. And more and more agreeing with them, or at least conceding your points.
And then ultimately I got to THIS, which above all is REALLY the point, for women and for BIPOC and for LGBTQ+ people: “Stop with the heroism. If anyone actually cared about safety, we would be addressing toxic masculinity and violence, gun violence, and the murder rate of transwomen and transfeminine people of color.”
We show “care” as a society by saying, “if you’re unsafe, then just DON’T.”
If you’re a woman, that means don’t go certain places or wear certain things.
If you’re BIPOC, same…and more.
If you’re LGBTQ+, it means suppress who you (think you) are and make different “choices.”
If you’re at the intersections of any of these things and more (disabled, immigrant, neurodivergent, etc.), then holy shit, just stay inside, literally and figuratively.
And so in the end, Robin, I want to thank you for this post. And for bringing your honest, raw self to it. Because you definitely made me pull up, and I’m glad you did (all while still being mad that it’s okay to harass, abuse, and beat down so many groups of people and then blame them for their own hurts).
You know, at first blush I can see how this might be upsetting. You're right, we have a huge problem in most every culture with women's lives being endangered on a constant basis, and it's not just a narrative we're taught. It's real violence happening all around us all the time. And being "nice" absolutely leads to problems where folks don't stand up for themselves, they don't push back, and they don't insist on safety as a human right.
I cannot tell you how many times I hear a group talking about "men," about the violence of "men," about the abuse caused by "men," about the harm of "men," and this little voice inside of me desperately wants to shout back something stupid like "not all men" (which I never do because duh, nobody wants to hear that argument ever). I suppose that's the opposite of what I wrote in this piece - where "all men" get lumped in together, too, and I'm lost in that space as well. It is the same discussion about safety and violence and abuse and boundaries and consent, and THAT is the real conversation I want someone to start.
I'm really glad your brought your perspective here, and that you were willing to listen and think critically and engage. I really value your thoughts.
Thanks for receiving my comment so well, Robin. I think of this lumping a bit like when I’m in community with my Black friends and they talk about white people and whiteness, almost always in the context of having been harmed. It took me a long time to fight the “but…but…not all of us!” urge and to just quietly understand that I don’t have to take what they say personally but that I should still take it to heart, because it keeps me more at the ready to educate and to change systems. The minute anyone gets hung up on the “not all of us/not me!”, they’re stuck on defending themselves and not as able to hear the true message. Do you find there is an analogous point with cishet folks and any part of the LGBTQ+ community?
I do see this in the community of allies who are quick to label themselves as "allies" and then be very detailed about how they are cis or straight. And in that way I often wonder if there is some deeply embedded fear that an ally will be mistaken as gay or trans and... is that then a "bad" thing?
And of course we all hear the "not all cishet people" comments as well. I think that vibe exists in just about any space where identities are openly shared.
But as someone who truly needs allies to help my voice be heard and respected it's really tough to call those things out. It's impossible NOT to take that feedback personally, but it's simultaneously exhausting to absorb it and never voice the issue. Even sharing it here may ruffle a feather. I hope those who read my words can always hear and feel my undertones of kindness and gentleness (even when I rant). Ah look, there's that social conditioning you mentioned at the start.
Oddly enough, this post has gotten a tremendous amount of engagement, and now I'm wondering if we should all take risks and say what we truly feel to find what resonates with those around us (and those we have yet to meet). It's good to be heard, and it's good to be challenged by what we hear.
Robin, you have a way with words that is descriptive, direct, and clear. I think that’s why your readers have been so engaged around this post. You landed the plane beautifully, pointing out all the turbulence while not causing panic/fear. That might not be the best analogy, but you get my point.
I’m glad you said what you did about allies painstakingly pointing out their identities. It had never occurred to me that this might come across as a distancing. I always thought it was more of an “if you’re willing to say what your identity is, then I’ll say mine so that cis het isn’t assumed to be the default.” Always want to be learning, so I appreciate you teaching.
Oh and footnote 1? that’s BONKERS.
Omg thank you for articulating this. I get that same "bUt yOu sHoUlD bE gRaTeFuL" voice in my head too, so it was a relief to hear other people are frustrated as well. I saw "women and trans people" recently and as a trans guy I feel like I wouldn't want to join that either? Cuz it would be mostly women and I'd feel really out of place?? But I feel guilty for feeling weird about that???
I really don't know what "women and trans people" is meant to imply either. I might go just to see it with my own eyes. I mean, that's like an instant way to out yourself in a space if you're transmasc, right? Way to build a feeling of safety........
Yes, the wording sounds forced and disingenuous. Inauthentic "allyship" is sometimes worse than just leaving well enough alone.
Oof. yeah. I do my best to keep my heart open to anyone who wants to be an ally, but some aspects of allyship are harmful. Most of that feels unintentional, but when confronted with the harms they create some allies take offense very quickly. That's how I generally determine whether someone really wants to be an ally.
Yes, I agree. Are they coming from a good place or not? Some "allyship" is exploitative or downright condescending. It can be difficult to navigate because, as you stated in your post, you don't want to then be perceived as ungrateful or conceited. *sigh* 😔
Last year I saw an advert for a walking event that was for women and non-binary people. There was also a men's event.
I'm non-binary. I wear a beard and I've had a penis my whole life. When I put on proper walking gear I look like a man going for a walk.
I spent a couple of weeks imagining conversations on the women and non-binary event. Defending my place there. Wondering if I was actually welcome.
Piercing my ears (which I'm so glad I did) was partly a response to these imaginings. How could I signal queer in my waterproof trousers and coat?
Eventually I noticed there was a welcome to all event and joined that one.
I can see the value in protected spaces, but this women+ gets under my skin...
There is this whole problem many of us have with how to visibly signal our queerness (or queer allyship) without also endangering ourselves OR risking being inauthentic. I dressed in men's clothing for most of my adult life before coming out as a transman, and I have no desire to wear anything feminine now. Which means nobody gets that I'm also nonbinary. Add in he/him pronouns and it's just confusing for everyone. And that should not be my problem. Or yours. We should not need to "appear androgynous" to be recognized as nonbinary. I should not need to appear masculine to be seen as a man.
Yes, you're absolutely right, it's not our problem. And the line between risk and authenticity is a tricky one to walk - and it's so much less tricky for me than so many people around the world that sometimes I feel awful for agonising over it. Still that's how it is sometimes. Thanks Robin.
Hi Robin, I'm a woman and a feminist (on my own terms), and I appreciate you articulating your feelings. I've mostly found women's groups to be very white and middle class, so don't feel comfortable in them, and I can see how you wouldn't either. People can gender identify in any way they want and need to, and I accept people for who they are. I don't know if that's any comfort.
Diana, your words are very comforting. Thank you.
I'm really glad to hear that, Robin. Take care.
Yep, and also “womyn” is supposedly supposed to be inclusive. ICK.
In my experience these terms have also been co-opted by people spreading TERF rhetoric.
Oh yeah, definite ick there. "Womyn" and "womxn" are two examples of inclusive-gone-wrong since they both create patterns of othering. The original reason? Feminist groups wanted to remove "man" from the word.
Thank you for this. You have a new subscriber in me.
I’m wondering if anyone has thoughts on “marginalized genders” as a category?
I think "marginalized genders" is a useful categorization to a degree, but it has its limits. IMO, one of the weak points of critical social justice theory - in terms of how it plays out in the real world - is that it doesn't grapple with the fact that privilge/marginalization aren't as binary or as static as we would like to believe they are. It's really important to view these states in context, and we rarely do that. For example, as an AFAB agender person, I am most definitely a marginalized gender within dominant culture, but there are contexts (such as the one Robin discusses here) where I have privilege compared to a non binary person who is likely to be perceived as male or masc. There are other contexts where that person will have more privilege than me. But for the conversation we're having right now, I must acknowledge the privilege I have. And this is a fairly simple example. When you consider the intersectional possibilities including race, disability, class, etc., it gets even more convoluted. So it's a helpful concept, but we have to be really mindful of the dynamic nature of marginalization, and the context in which we are discussing it.
This is an entire post all to its own, which might be bigger than what I'm taking on right now. I'll hold onto that for later....
But I will say that even calling something a "marginalized gender" seems to reinforce that inherent marginalization. I'm certainly not condoning the concept of colorblindness (as an example) or genderblindness (since I don't think anyone has ever said that). Just considering that grouping folx into a category that calls out the marginalized nature of their gender(s) would perpetuate the problem, specifically by nature of "marginalized" not being a positive word in our current culture. It feels like those surveys that let you select male, female, or "other" as your sex/gender.
I also really feel drawn to this notion that privilege and marginalization are not binary and are super complex for each individual. We all live in some mixture of these descriptions, and even that mix can (and will) change as we grow and adapt and move through life. Disability is the easiest example to see on that timescale as many of us might not have grown up with disability but will very likely face it at some point in our lives.
Yes! This whole conversation is one that I am intensley interested in. Intersectionality, and the way(s) it is interpreted and addressed in real life is one of my special interests. I feel like our aspirations towards liberation (both our own and everybody's) are many times thwarted by a lack of nuance, and acceptance of the inherent messiness, that comes with cultural/societal positionality and how that impacts our experiences and our perceptions about other people. Your perspective on the word "marginalized" is interesting to me, and what you express is definitely a rich topic that deserves thorough exploration! Thanks, Robin.
Thanks for so honestly sharing your feelings and perspective here. You are most definitely not an asshole, and while there probably are plenty of people who feel offended or threatened by what you have to say, that doesn't mean you shouldn't say it. You have every right to object to being excluded. I am AFAB agender (but refer to myself usually as non binary, mostly just because it gets exhausting to explain to people what agender means). You've opened my eyes a bit here, because, while I've always found the "women and non binary" category a bit clunky and cringey, I can see that I've underestimated the extent to which it implicitly excludes anyone who is - or might be perceived as - on the masc side of the proverbial gender spectrum (that spectrum-based metaphor is, to my mind, kind of problematic anyway, because it still relies on the traditional binary framework. Sure, it creates a hazy, gradual blend between the two rather than a delimeter, but it's still constrained within the scope of those two genders that are normalized by dominant culture). Depending on whose eye is beholding me, I appear either vaguely fem or androgynous, so I have the privilege of being automatically included in that "women+" category. I've wondered sometimes what people really mean when they use it, because I've always assumed that they are genuinely trying to be inclusive, but haven't really thought it out. Unfortunately, good intention (if that is, in fact, the case) is no guarantee of eqitable and inclusive impact, and your post here has reminded me just how damaging unskilled attempts at inclusion can be when they are based on a misguided or over-simplified understanding of all the ways gender can be experienced and expressed. The reality is a clash between Social Justice 101 rules about intersectionality and the very complex and nuanced reality, in which not only are there no clearly delineated categories of gender that can be sorted and ranked in any systematic way, but there is also a huge potential for mutually exclusive needs and experiences in this world where one officially recognized gender has traditionally been granted superior status over all others, and that has caused a lot of harm and unresolved trauma. I do believe that there is a good case for creating spaces that are not open to cismen, not because of their gender per se, but because their gender is privileged, and no matter how well intentioned a privileged ally might be, oppressed people ( as a group; this might not be true for every member of the group) need and deserve access to spaces where they can shed the debilitating burden of hypervigilance in the presence of members of the oppressive class, even if only for a short time. This is just as true for marginalized genders as it is for marginalized races, and designating a space as such is no more exclusionary than it is for BIPOC to have spaces where white people are not welcome. The problem here is not in the exclusion of the culturally privileged gender - it is in the oversimplified and deconstructed assumptions about what nonbinary actually means, and who is marginalized because of their gender. That, I believe, is the crux here: we have not grappled yet with the conundrum of how to be inclusive and eqitable in situations where we can't neatly divide people into binary privileged vs. marginalized groups. In spite of trying to attend to the concept of "non binary," we are very binary in our approach, and that won't work. I believe that your words here are important for everyone to understand, but most especially, for those who are offended by them. You've very eloquently expressed the harm the "women+" approach causes, and I have no idea what the solution to this looks like, but I know it has to start with being willing to witness your pain and to delve into the complexity and discomfort of figuring out how to do it better.
I mean what in the nine is the point of not just calling it Safety+ and leave gender out of it? Some men might prefer not ending up listening to some MAGA skinhead driver ramble on too.
I think you're right about this being a lazy attempt at inclusion. Like they're planting it now so when Pride Month rolls around they won't look like they're suddenly pandering *then.*
Of course I'm also a highly suspicious pessimist.
Yeah, this is how you "rainbow wash" your Uber or Lyft ride I guess. Definitely feels like pandering.
I wish it weren't but I am long past giving humanity the benefit of the doubt.
Since I didn’t exist (Substackishly) in early April, I’ve only just seen this for the first time. Sometimes someone needs to step up and be The Asshole, as you did here, and you did it brilliantly. Applause.
I don't have anything good to add, just that as a genderqueer/genderfluid person, I agree. This "woman+" stuff is bullshit meant to appease the bigots and virtue signal for the rest of us. We're barely leaving the binary boxes and they're already constructing another >.>
It’s this “lumping” of folx into categories that becomes the new problem for many of us. I would rather see some tangible action taken to address why some folx are less safe than others that doesn’t put the onus on those of us being victimized. But, you know, dreams and all…
Thank you for writing this.. This is something that also bothers me, and it is challenging to articulate exactly why.
Another tangled mess of an issue is when women, including transwomen, actively accept me, a binary transgender man, into their spaces.
From my perspective, this creates a weird situation where all conversations about gender are intrinsically linked to a relationship with hood, making the concept of gender itself to be "a thing for women", if put in the broadest and most general terms.
Another topic that splinters off is that there is so much emphasis on cismen being the danger and the excluded group for a "safe space for women and nonbinary people", which erases the fact that ciswomen are also extremely capable of causing harm, especially to people that that this article calls out as being unwelcome in the "women+" spaces described.
I did not know how much I needed this post, and this blog.
Brilliant points! It’s funny how something a marketing team thought would be inclusive turned out to be so EXclusive to many of us.
Absolutely. It is often extremely clear when a marketing gimmick is written by cis people who genuinely don't have the lived experience that trans folks have.
YES! Also, I've read discussions of this before, and agreed with it every time. My favorite feminist organization now states: we represent all oppressed genders. I love that! And for what it's worth, I don't love the term nonbinary. I don't want to be a non. That means the binary still defines me.
Skylar, same. It’s helpful to have a group to belong to, but the title doesn’t fit some of us. And I’d rather be defined by who I am that what I’m not.
Yes! Exactly!
We as humans just have to start doing better... Thanks for this post!