Log in

27 February 2012 @ 07:18 am
Once Again, Someone With More Eloquence Than I...  
eruca, on February 22, 2012 at 3:10 am said:

How sad it is that you as Pagans are fighting so hard to destroy what little women-only safe-space there is.

No-one is doing nor even advocating any such thing.

The fact of the matter is, your definition of “woman” (and, presumably, “man”, for that matter) is rather antiquated, and encompasses only a portion of those who actually are women. Not even all cisgender (“assigned-female-at-birth”) women have that womb and are part of the “menstrual mysteries” that you seem to hold as a pinacle of women’s spirituality –yet I’ll bet you a hundred dollars that you’d still consider them “women” even though, by your own apparent definitions, you’ve made an arbitrary decision to do so.

The fact of the matter is, now *all women* are claiming a right to “women-only” spaces.[emphasis mine]

Marja Erwinmarjaerwin on February 27th, 2012 06:51 pm (UTC)
I'm not convinced that there is, or can be, an absolute/objective definition of womonhood. So I have a hard time saying that people creating ritual spaces for womyn and then excluding trans womyn are wrong. But sometimes they're not even wrong.

If they are trying to create a space for female spirituality, well, if one believes there are female spirits nd male spirits and presumably other spirits, then one can make sense of trans experience and find significance in trans experience. So the ritual separation seems puzzling here.

If they are trying to create safe spaces for survivors, many of us are survivors. Most of us?

If they are trying to re-create an Amazon past or pre-create an Amazon future, then I would expect them to hope for a whole Amazon society instead of settling for, forever, only a small Amazon sodality amid a wider heterocentric society. And it seems unreasonable to only include müllerian womyn from this Amazon society and exclude wolffian womyn.