Group Name and Trans* Inclusion

[Caitlin]

I try to do my best. Before I started in on reading various things like Captain Awkward, I likely would have asked the same question as Nevada.

[Gary]

OK, fine, whatever... Ooohm. OK, fine, whatever... Ooohm.

George wrote: ""Having this name for a group that focuses on books with strong female leads implies that all women have a vagina/that all who have a vagina are women..."

No, it doesn't. If Winx feels that way, so be it. But to simply declare such a thing is unwarranted. The task for Winx is to actually show this purported identity-policing, not just announce it as a problem in need of redress."

Speak it, brother!

Again, "possible maleness POV interceding here" disclaimer.

OK, fine, whatever... Ooohm. OK, fine, whatever... Ooohm.

[Winx]

It's not a matter of listing off groups; it's about a specific issue. Having the name "Vaginal Fantasy" for a group described as focusing on female characters draws a line between sex and gender. It's an example of cissexism which is a real issue and a near constant source of oppression for those who don't identify as cisgender in our society.

It's easy to speak from a place of privilege when you aren't affected by these issues, but just because you're comfortable with it doesn't mean change shouldn't be made. Acknowledging oppression (whether that oppression is intentional or not) is often considered "accommodating subjective feelings" (another example that comes to mind is the #YesAllWomen trend), but that way of thinking makes it even more important that those with privilege use that privilege to facilitate change.

[Nevada]

I have never thought that treating people differently from others is the way to make them feel included. Nor do I now.

I do not agree with the implication that my lack of reading or education is the cause for my acceptance of people based on character rather than something as arbitrary, unimportant, and apparently changeable as gender. Besides, shouldn't the proposed language include "females" not "women" as those females who are not yet of a certain age (who knows what the right age is?) or who are still virgin (I'm looking at you ms. nun that likes to read highlander soft romance) might feel further excluded.

If you want to define people based on gender choices or physiology, good for you all, but my choice is to accept and treat people based on their character. My little boy cousin was born a girl, but hasn't undergone the surgery due to age yet, I talk think and act as if he is a boy, not my transgender cousin, just as I would not say this is my pot addicted dad or my depressive mom, or quadrapealegic stepbrother. They are people, not "special" people.

[Winx]

Nevada, I think the update to "female" from "women" is a good change.

Maybe I haven't explained something well, but I'm not sure why you think I want to "define people based on gender choices or physiology." For one, gender isn't a choice and I've made a statement already about that in this thread. But also, my point through all of this is that a person (and their gender) isn't defined by physiology. The name implies otherwise, and that's why I think it should be addressed.

[Gary]

At this point, I'm going to just reiterate that the most functional and reasonable method of addressing the concerns expressed in this thread is to suggest books that are trans* friendly for the group to read.

Suggesting that the title of the club is exclusionary or otherwise ignores any particular group is to claim an entitlement that is, frankly, hypocritical. If you want to embrace defining the self in disparate ways, it makes little sense to require others to define themselves in a way that suits you. That bespeaks an agenda that may run counter to the judgment being directed at it... but is no less judgmental.

So, let's be inclusive by actually including, and read/discuss something pertinent.

[Michele]

It's strange - if I find a Goodreads group interesting because of the books they read, I join it. I pay no attention to the name of the group, and I couldn't care less what sex/gender/race/color/etc. the group is comprised of. As long as I enjoy the discussions and find the people to be interesting, I stay.

Now, if I join "The Cock and Balls," I really don't expect to find a message anywhere stating that cis females are welcome. Either I will know by reading the old posts or the responses to my posts, whether I feel comfortable staying. If I don't feel comfortable with the atmosphere I leave. Done. Gone. I don't expect an established group to change in any way for me.

I guess what I am saying is that judging the name of a group without bothering to actually experience it, seems a bit touchy. And since the name of this group is about the subject matter of the majority of the group reads, NOT about the members, this whole discussion feels forced and unnecessary.

Winx, you say you love the group, so you know what it's about. You must have told your friend she is welcome, that nowhere is it stated that only cis females should join this group. If your friend can't get past the name, does she even enjoy the kind of mostly traditional-type love stories we read about? Is she judging this book solely by its cover?

I don't think any comment anywhere in these posts is negative toward any type of sex/gender. I doubt anyone here cares what sex the members are - this is the interwebs, we could all be tentacled aliens sitting at our screens.

But we all like to read romantic, fantastical fiction. And that usually (though not always) means love stories involving a cis man and a cis woman, with the corresponding throbbing pillars and tunnels of joy.

If you have alternative books to suggest, please do. I think many will enjoy reading them. If the group in general (the people, the discussions, the subject matter) interests you, wonderful! Stay and contribute. If you have a political point to make, excellent. New viewpoints are healthy and informative.

But let's keep it about the books please.

[Winx]

My point is about the books and the lead characters within them. I'm using my partner's (who is trans* but doesn't identify as female) input as supplemental information and an opinion from a trans* identified person. Seeing how the name made them feel pushed me to start this thread, but the request is coming from me. I'm not asking to change the name, the books we read, or how the group works. I was just asking for a line or two of text on the name's origin or a disclaimer to clarify something others and I have found to be exclusive to an underrepresented community.

I still enjoy the compromise of reading a book featuring trans* lead characters. I'm sorry the thread took a negative turn there (though I'm not sorry for standing up for my beliefs, and I'm sure you all agree), and I hope we can at least come together in this renegade read (or in suggesting books for an official group alt). My goal overall is that starting this conversation could add some trans* inclusiveness to the group.

[Nevada]

The name of the group is Vaginal Fantasy, not fantasy for people with vaginas. Lots of people like a little smutty brain candy. Vaginal fantasy is a fantasy genre, not a girls' club. Much the same as the Paranormal Romance and Fantasy group I'm in is concerned with the PNR genre, not excluding me for being a normal human in a relationship with another normal human instead of a vamp or were.

Let's just start the group dealing with LGBT issues within the vaginal fantasy genre.

[Caitlin]

Vaginal Fantasy + "strong female leads" draws a direct parallel between having a vagina and being female.
I'm not sure why people are objecting to a disclaimer saying the group knows that isn't true in 100% of cases.

[Michele]

I'm not against any disclaimer - I feel it's unnecessary, but whatever makes everyone happy.

It doesn't change the fact that every book the group has read so far has focused on cis women, whether they were gay, straight or bi.

This is where the change would have some actual impact, this is what the suggestions should be about - not some "cover all the bases" disclaimer in the show notes.

[Caitlin]

Yeah, both would be preferable. Hopefully we can add a line to the group description and the next time it's time for a group vote we can suggest the theme be trans* romance?

[Winx]

That would be fantastic! :)

[kitsch_brigade]

I think Winx brings up a fair point and one I had not previously considered. I don't see why both options can't be implemented. I think a disclaimer would be great and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be. I also agree some more inclusive book choices is a great way to go! I'd certainly vote that way in the next poll as well as be happy to read a renegade book choice such as the Le Guin book mentioned above.

[Sean Lookielook]

@George http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2...

[Amanda]

Thanks, George, for asking that. I wanted to ask myself but tumblr has really trained me against asking questions like that

[Amanda]

I can't wait!

[Gary]

George wrote: "BTW, I know I'm asking for trouble here, but why the asterisk next to Trans, ie "Trans*"? Is it a character wildcard or place holder?"

Apparently, Facebook added these gender descriptions:

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-Binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

[Winx]

Thanks for all the great posts and links! :)

Yeah, I was very excited about Facebook's update on genders with such a really inclusive list! I hope that starts a trend with other sites that ask for gender.

I haven't had a chance yet to go through the book list George posted, but sounds like a great find! :)

[Winx]

George, there are actually a lot of people who don't adhere to the gender binary (don't identify as male or female), and there are a lot of identities within that. Pangender is one of them. My partner also has a non-binary gender and identifies as genderqueer.

[Gary]

George wrote: "Jokes aside, this is an odd list. How can one be "pangender" given that some of the categories are mutually exclusive?"

With goat legs and horns? Nyuck.

Folks who want to be called pangender would probably mean "pan" in the sense of "across" or "shifting" but not necessarily all of them at the same time. However, even if something is seemingly mutually exclusive, I'm sure the argument would be that one could exist within that conflict. But they might say all at once and just not be concerned about the perception of conflict that other people might attribute to that definition.

I like that "Neither" is on there; it has a little attitude.

[Winx]

Yes, some people don't identify as being in one spot on the gender spectrum. I have several friends who are GenderFluid and will present as either male or female depending on what feels right that day, but don't identify strictly as either male or female. Some people feel strictly gender neutral. Others identify as being neither male, female, or gender neutral, but just in a certain spot on the gender spectrum (someone who doesn't identify as male but feels more masculine than feminine). And of course it all just depends on what feels right for the person. :)

[Sean Lookielook]

@Winx
I think this would be a good time to start a new thread under the Book Discussion & Recommendations header specifically for trans* suggestions. If nothing else, you could discover some interesting new authors and titles. Just be sure to state what it is you are looking for in the first post. There is also the "suggested reads thread". You should also make some suggestions for the group read there.

[Winx]

Will do! I'm at work right now, so just on here sporadically, but I'll set that up later this evening. :)

[Philippa]

If I might muse in a vague sort of way which is entirely not directed towards anyone who has commented so far; if there is a disclaimer added to the group to clarify this somewhat obscure issue(only in the sense that it has taken quite a while for anyone to mention it and it is not an immediately obvious offensive statement,) is there a risk of turning off anybody who would see that statement and misinterpret the group's character? Maybe we shouldn't mind that if that's the case since the principle is important enough, but I figure we should probably at least air the possibility that the group may be perceived as less inclusive towards those who find adding such a disclaimer as being too cautious.

[Amanda]

Philippa wrote: "If I might muse in a vague sort of way which is entirely not directed towards anyone who has commented so far; if there is a disclaimer added to the group to clarify this somewhat obscure issue(onl..."

Well, I don't think that it would if it's a vague disclaimer. There was one that was suggested that they say the group's title is a wink-nudge to the genre, so there's that.

[PointyEars42]

So then - we need a vague but all-inclusive disclaimer, like saying it's open to everyone with an interest in the selected books and/or the opinions of the hosts, as long as you play nice with everyone else? All welcome, just bring your brain and don't be a douche? Everyone would mean, well, everyone- of every race, nationality, orientation, identification, etc, etc.

It should say on the info page that you see when you look at VF to see what its about:
"Group Type: This is a public group. Anyone can join and invite others to join. This group meets in real life."
Then it needs to back up its everyone play nice mandate with:
"Rules: No harassment, please be as classy as you can. This is all in fun!"
Oh? It already does? Hmmmm. Odd what happens when a non-douche starts a group focussing on her personal interests but wants anyone to feel open to joining the conversation.

Like so many South Africans who have strong pre-democracy era memories, I have a hair-trigger response to anything that might possibly exclude a section of the population, but even I don't know how to quibble with "Anyone can join" and "No harassment". Am I wrong in assuming that real inclusivity means not having to point out who counts as "everyone"? As some of you may know from experience, "affirmative action" segregates as strongly as open prejudice.

[Winx]

My concern has never been about who can join; no one is arguing that everyone is welcome to participate. The point I'm raising is about how the name and group description connects gender with sex.

[Winx]

Also, I've created a separate topic to discuss book suggestions! :)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I tried to grab the books and lists that were mentioned so far, but I apologize if I missed any.

And a big thanks to everyone for those suggestions and for being a part of this discussion. We haven't all agreed on everything, but I think it's been a very beneficial conversation overall and I appreciate it. :)