| |
|
Plus, of course, one might argue, if one were some kind of loony politically correct nutter, that almost the whole world is a "men only" space - in the sense that women can be expected to feel marginalised, threatened and unwelcome if they have tohe temerity to turn up in pretty much any part of it.
However, that is not the discussion here. In fact, the only "men" who are being excluded in the terms of this discussion (and, having got a handle on where this is going, Rosa, I agree entirely that we should try to keep focus for now) are ftm transexuals, whose status as "men" or "not-women", and thus ipso facto their exclusion from wimmin-only spaces, both in terms of physical space and discourse.
So, GRIM, I would suggest that another thread on whether "women-only" or "men-only" space is allowable *at all* would no doubt spark a fascinating discussion, but in this thread it would probably diffuse the discussion rather.
I must admit the whole thing is making my brain boil. For example, a lesbian couple are sitting in Candy Bar (and unlike the gay male scene, 'Nesh, there are fairly few specifically lesbian bars in London to my knowledge) and what *appears* to be a man walks in and sits down. This may cause some consternation, as the Candy Bar is meant to be closed off to unaccompanied men. So, if a man has somehow eluded the door policy, and is sitting there haviung a drink, this is bad. Is it better if that "man" has a shared basis of experience of being a woman? Or worse, that that "man" self-consciously decided to reidentify? Is it better if the "man" is preoperative - still largely "biologically" female? Presumably if the "man" is just a very accomplished drag king, then that is in no way a violation of the Candy Bar's door policy or conceptual space. Further complicate the issue by noting that the CB allows accompanied men in, *if they are gay*, and thus has already its own ideas of what constitutes an "acceptable male". Presumably, this is based on the idea that gay men will not trouble the clientele with unwanted sexual attention. So what about a "man", who happened to have been born female, who *is* very definitely sexually interested in women. And how *do* you avoid the "well, can you prove you're really female" question, especially if (or even if?) you invalidate the response "Well, many of the things that make me female are not actually physically located, cheers. Would you like to check my soul?"
'Course, all of this could be criticised as assuming that FTM transsexuals are heading towards "manhood", and that there is a waypoint along that straight line where they are "male enough" to be denied access to wimmin's/lesbian space, which could be said to be a paradigm little less limiting than the "everybody snaps to one gender or *the* other" paradigm... |
|
|
