I’m a trans woman, but not a binary one. I used to be on Reddit, and I hated r/twoxchromosomes. You know they had trans people complaining about the name within a month of being created? They always use the excuse that they’re too big to change, but they knew about the problem before they got big.
So when I saw c/womensstuff on Lemmy, I was cautiously optimistic. Women need a space on Lemmy to be women without harassment from cis men. There’s a lot of sexism on this site. More than the transphobia, actually, which is a weird dynamic. For the record I’d rather be with the bear than the man, because the bear is probably going to mind its own business.
But I also know how horrible cis women can be to trans people when they’re fixated on maleness as the problem instead of patriarchy. J K Rowling was abused by a man, and she chose to deal with her pain by becoming a Death Eater. Excluding men from the women’s space is a good idea, but I wanted to see if the mods were woke enough to pull it off without falling into the TERF trap.
Yesterday there was a post to the community that hit the front page, and a lot of cis men not reading the rules. I’m glad those cis men are being told to go away, they were turning the women’s community into a men-talking-over-women community. Spaces with more men than women need to have the patience to hold space for women, or they’ll end up as spaces with only men.
And I fucked up yesterday. I pointed out that a man might be bigender, and was rightly told by atomicorange, who is smarter than me, that any bigender people on the community should introduce themselves as a woman before introducing themselves as a man.
But then there’s thermal_shock…
If you assume anyone who isn’t a woman is a cis man, then 99% of the time you’ll be right. But then there’s the 1% of people who are nonbinary. And spaces with more binary people than enbies need to have the patience to hold space for enbies, or they’ll end up as spaces with only binary people.
I’m glad thermal_shock didn’t get banned, but I’m a bit upset that they were told to go away. If c/womensstuff is only for women (binary or nonbinary), that makes sense to me. If it’s for women and enbies and trans men, that makes sense too.
But if the mods mix up those two things, then enbies who aren’t women are in a weird place. Allowed by the rules, but still told by mods to go away.
Society tells us all there are only two genders. A lot of people know that’s not true, but they kinda forget it, because they spend all their time dealing with men and women. And that makes enbies wanna hide ourselves away to avoid having to inconvenience the binaries and maybe get in a confrontation. But we need enbies to be visible so that everyone can have experience around enbies and stop forgetting we exist.
I don’t think c/womensstuff is a TERF space. I think they just fucked up yesterday, like I did. But I’m worried about the future, because I don’t think their mods have been careful enough in how they think. They’re mixing up being a women’s space and being a general gender minority space. They haven’t picked one or the other. And it’s making them mess up.
The one suggestion I would perhaps make, not really relevant to this specific poster, is that the mods might be better off saying “women or women-aligned people”. The mods clearly do their homework, but it’s still possible a woman-aligned non-binary person might get this message, not check the rules and end up excluded.
this is a good idea, I’ll try to standardize a template for responses that includes the full language policy and fully clarifies, just in case and to avoid confusion that might lead to accidental / unintended exclusion
Thank you! You did really well in that thread, I’m sorry this poster (not so) subtilely accused you of impropriety.
hey thanks! There’s no ill-will with OP, I have respect for how protective they are 💖 It was just a misunderstanding.
and so exclude the non-binary people like me who don’t “align” with women (or men, for that matter)? sounds more like you mean “women or women-lite”
the policy doesn’t exclude non-binary people who don’t align with women, the policy explicitly allows non-binary people like you to decide for themselves whether they feel they belong or not in a women’s space … that is, the community is clear that it intends to be a women’s space, but it leaves the choice up to gender-diverse folks about whether they feel they belong or not - we won’t exclude a non-binary person who chooses to participate, and you are certainly welcome
I was commenting on the “woman-aligned” phrasing and not the actual policy.
the phrasing is to clarify the intention of the community is to be a women’s space; it is a women’s community that allows enbies who don’t identify as women to participate if they want
No, I mean that the rules are pretty clear about non-binary people being welcome if they believe a women’s community is a good fit for them. I interpreted that as “women-aligned” and I stand by that. It is a group for the discussion of things that affect or are related to those categories of people. So yes, naturally, if you don’t feel you are in those categories, you are being excluded. I don’t understand why that’s offensive to you, and as a trans femme non-binary person I resent the implication that I am labelling myself “woman-lite”.
to be clear, you don’t have to be “woman-lite” to participate in the community - the rules explicitly allow non-women enbies to participate if they want to … however, it makes sense that being “woman-lite” would result in wanting to be a part of the women’s space - just wanted to clarify it’s not necessary
being viewed as a woman by most people means I might care to read or comment on a women’s community, as we have many shared issues.
seeing that I should be “woman-aligned” to participate is saying to me “if you come here, you go in the women box, or at least next to it.” (YES, I know the rules do not say or intend this)
it’s not good phrasing. it’s the opposite of letting people self-determine.
why not “women and non-binary people”?
if the policy and rules don’t intend or say this, then where are you getting it from? The rules and phrasing directly does allow self-determination, what’s the issue?
We previously had a policy that had language like “women and non-binary” but it quickly became clear that the community is not intended to be “everyone except cis men”; for example, trans men who feel they are men and don’t identify as women and don’t feel at home in a women’s space, do we really want to invalidate their gender by implying this women’s community is for them in particular? No, instead we wanted to clarify it is a women’s space, and allow trans men who are in transition or who may have some connection to womanhood to be able to participate, without us having to make judgements on their manhood or womanhood - we allow them to figure that out and choose whether they belong.
So it was important to clarify the community’s intention to be a women’s community, focused on the experiences of people who socially are treated like women, or who might have some connection to womanhood, etc. while still allowing gender-diverse people to self-determine whether they feel they fit in, belong, or wish to participate.
Sometimes non-women are viewed as women in society, or have some connection or tie to womanhood - this allows them to decide their level of participation and comfort in the women’s community without sacrificing the purpose of the group as being a women’s space, without invalidating anyone, and without us having to be gatekeepers deciding when a trans person is or isn’t “woman enough” to belong.
Maybe we’re just operating on different definitions of “woman-aligned”. But also, I really don’t understand why you’re jumping down my throat about this rather than just having a productive dialogue. It’s put me on the defensive in a way that makes me uncomfortable, and like I shouldn’t try and make suggestions in good-faith.
you made a suggestion for the policy language, and I gave you feedback on how I would perceive such language, as well as suggested an alternative.
I don’t see why you would read aggression from that, but it’s alright. sorry for the bother.
I think this, as a statement, was meant to put me down. You also didn’t suggest an alternative until your second comment…
Have a good day though, and I hope you’re able to take this feedback to improve with communicating your needs in the future.