What is strange is that I tend to think of these groups as, well, GROUPS not gender groups because I can come up with many exceptions including transitioned men who happen to be pregnant who would not be considering themselves one of cis-women and yet at said “spaces.” But then I tend to find that most medically oriented “spaces” are tending toward the majority, as for instance breast cancer clinics are the prime example (10% of those with breast cancer are male, however thier mortality rate is vast because there is of course, no one TELLING males they can get breast cancer and because it has about an inch of fat to go through until it become BONE cancer).

I find as time goes on that much of these arguements are done away with advances in society and/or medicine. Certainly you could have said 30 years or ago (or you could say today) that a group for those who have lost thier husband SHOULD be a cis-women group, except that both 30 years and today there would be plenty of men who fit that catagory as well. The first attempted womb transplant into a transitioned female was I believe 100 years ago; a successful womb transplant HAS occurred, but then, it has already been demonstrated that 1) sperm and egg and reproduce OUTSIDE the womb and b) that a baby can be carried WITHOUT a womb for quite a long period of time (I think they used the large intestine attachment).

While on the other hand, I have found it FAR more likely to run into cis-women who don’t have the “appropriate experience” who ARE included in cis-women only groups. Women who were raised as boys, women who may not have know they WERE women until a certain age in life, women from certain religious and other orders. I mean, when you know in your heart of hearts from your experience your period is your CURSE FROM GOD for Eve having sinned; er, how exactly does that fit next to the cis-woman from the suburbs and Judy Blume exactly? But then, I think it has been shown over and over that I just “don’t get it” (as in I am TOO thick) when it comes to these sorts of arguements - meaning, if you set up a protocol and have legal and medical people work on it and do study after study for generations and say, “Yes, these women are female both medically and legally” - well, I tend to find that works for me. Please however feel free to hit with a whiffle bat of some arguement or another.

That’s exactly what I meant when I said I think there is room for women-born-women space.

To be honest, I’m not sure where I was supposedly spouting “transphobic shit” - could you enlighten me?

That’s why I generally only call out people who have made a bit of an effort to begin with - they’re the ones that warrant actually being reasoned with.

I mean, I’d much, much rather deal with her (or Laura, or Maia, who wrote a similar critique / challenge some months back), b/c at least you can discuss / debate the issue with her. With Heart, lucky, etc, all you get is a wall of hate — they cannot be reasoned with, since they have classified you as subhuman from the get-go.

And Heart telling little light that she was not “allowed” to honor a goddess from her *own tradition* was pretty fucking racist, as well as transmisogynist.

Yeah, that.

Something like, oh, say, women hitting menopause, or women who’ve had miscarriages, or currently pregnant women.

Even, I would say, cis partners of transitioning people who want to talk their stuff out.

Apart from that, though…yeah, I don’t see it. As I’ve said, even the women-only play/sex parties I’ve been to are trans-inclusive. Nothing -happens-, and no, it doesn’t turn into Invasion of the Straight Cis Men, or even trans people outnumbering cis women (what are the odds?), slippery slope arguments notwithstanding.