Comments for Sarah Ditum

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Resist RadFem 101 – Links Round-Up « Resist RadFem12

Resist RadFem 101 – Links Round-Up « Resist RadFem12 — Sun, 27 May 2012 17:08:36 +0000

[...] Ditum points out the contradictions inherent in a ‘women born women’ entrance policy. “The aim was always to simply exclude – based on what some people aren’t, [...]

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Sarah Ditum

Sarah Ditum — Sat, 26 May 2012 20:52:43 +0000

Vagaries doesn’t mean vague, it means “sudden or nexpected change”, and I used it in the sense of gender being a thing not in control of the person it’s applied to. I don’t care much for the suggestion that attending to transwomen’s experience “diminishes womanhood”, though: transwomem are women, according to there own experience of gender (which I think deserves primacy over the expectations of third parties), amd given that womanhood is not defined by reproductive function, I don’t see anything problematic about counting transwomen into discussions about feminism – after all, transwomen arguably suffer particularly sharply from the cultural disdain for feminine traits. Thanks for the link.

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Femficatio

Femficatio — Sat, 26 May 2012 20:45:05 +0000

Hi Sarah

Interesting account. Yet, the destruction of “traditional gender roles” is not the eradication of gender. Tis true, biological gender rituals are essential in maintaining physical and psychological wellbeing. “Traditional” gender roles are what all feminists acknowledge as the patriarchal constructs of oppression (it may seem vague in the UK, but the extreme of patriarchal oppression is seen in Africa and the Arab World).

Women, based on this oppression have a right to assume places and spaces of safety. Transwomen experience the same kind of oppression, therefore RadFem should have included them. But, I think it diminishes the idea of womanhood to say: “the testament of transwomen is one of the best guides I have to the social and biological vagaries of gender”. You contradict your argument: Gender is not vague, for either cis or trans women.

I direct you to the Femficatio article: Is Political Space Necessary, or Unnecessarily Divisive: #RadFem2012 http://wp.me/p2nDBT-1B

It is a bit lengthy, I warn.

Thank you for your article.

Malkia Charlee NoCry

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Sarah Ditum

Sarah Ditum — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:22:04 +0000

Hi Julie. Haven’t suggested you’re involved with RadFem 2012, just used a quote from you as an example of a radical feminist approach to gender. Best, Sarah.

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Julie Bindel

Julie Bindel — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:13:51 +0000

Hello Sarah. I am confused as to why you have used an example of my writing/views to back up your point about the radfem conference when I have had nothing whatsoever to do with organising it. Do you think that is fair?

Best, Julie

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Sarah Ditum

Sarah Ditum — Sat, 26 May 2012 15:48:10 +0000

Julie Bindel has said that radical feminists want to "end the charade of gender". A RadFem 2012 apologist told me on Twitter today, "We want to eradicate [gender], not have it reinforced through trans." And "eradicate gender" seems like a reasonable summary of whatever the opposite to "seeking ‘equality’ with men within a fundamentally oppressive system" might be. In any case, I take the eradication of traditional gender roles to be implicit in radical feminism. So there we go.

Comment on A radical feminist plan for the dissolution of gender by Helen

Helen — Sat, 26 May 2012 15:37:21 +0000

In all fairness (and it’s tempting to be unfair, given how strongly I disagree with the exclusion of trans women from this event), the RadFem 2012 page you linked to does not state the dissolution of gender is its aim. It seeks “the liberation of all women from patriarchal oppression” and “total social transformation”, neither of which, as far as I can tell, involve the end of gender. Unless it’s stated elsewhere as an aim, or unless we assume radical feminism inherently involves the aim of dissolving gender, much of your argument here seems to fall away.

Comment on Why I am a feminist by glasgow sex worker

glasgow sex worker — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:47:22 +0000

I’m so frustrated by university feminism’s on-going obsession with moving lads’ mags to the top shelf/banning their sale on campus/talking endlessly about this issue to the seeming exclusion of all others. It seems like a way of attempting to cover up the fact that university feminists don’t seem to have that many other ideas, not that the women’s officer is alone in that, of course – so much university politics is just filling time ’til you can write “such and such [bullshit] campaign” on your CV. And plus, it unthinkingly alienates student sex workers, which, given that loads of sex workers are excellent feminists, is a huge loss to university feminist societies. Grrr.

Comment on More single mothers please, says Mail by Unity (@Unity_MoT)

Unity (@Unity_MoT) — Mon, 14 May 2012 16:31:28 +0000

Non-electives are included in the estimate of average NHS costs, i.e. £680, but not in the other statistics.

Excluding non-electives brings the average unit cost per abortion down by at least £100, more if you base your figures on BPAS & MSI contract rates.

As for the extra £150k, the Mail added that on to allow for Scotland and Northern Ireland without checking the actual figures, all of which means that they have effectively estimated the average cost of an elective abortion in Scotland to be more than £2,000 and have entirely failed to notice that elective abortions are still illegal in Northern Ireland.

Comment on More single mothers please, says Mail by Sarah Ditum

Sarah Ditum — Mon, 14 May 2012 12:51:35 +0000

Counting in non-electives is a HUGE issue, not just for the statistical cheating but also for the staggering lack of empathy to the women undergoing miscarriages. How unpleasant.