When bending gender around can be described as a fetish, and
you combine that with a sizeable population of transmen and transwomen in a
smallish subculture, the results can be explosive, confusing and often pretty
offensive.
Of all the arguments I've seen pan out in the BDSM
community, the debates over where transwomen are 'allowed' to be and what they
represent are often the longest and most heated.
We've had the argument over the personal ads, whether
transwomen should have to put themselves in a separate category from other
women so men don't have to look at their profiles. We've argued at great length
about the London Ladies' Munch, who took a democratic decision to only allow
physically transitioned transwomen in. I get what they were trying to do (which
I'll explain later..) and think the move was well-intentioned, but it resulted
in a lot of people using the contention over exactly what constituted 'fully
transitioned' to have a grand transphobic rant. We've also had an argument
about women's toilets at clubs and who should be allowed in them, which
resulted in the same.
The mainstream UK BDSM scene is pretty heterocentric and, as
a bi, queer identified woman in a hetero relationship, there are parts of that
heterocentricity that marginalise me let alone gender queer, lesbian and
transgendered people. I know some lesbian SM communities turn their noses up at
transwomen (and there was one SM dyke who was probably the most offensive of
the lot) and people who engage in relationships with transwomen, but
fortunately SM Dykes don't share that
view at all.
I think the issue the Ladies' Munch were trying to address,
originally, was the problem of predatory straight men who crossdress, or who
are transvestites only in their scene persona. I get that this is a problem.
The whole point, as I understand it, of the Ladies' Munch, just like the
under-35 munches, is just to have an evening with other kinky people where you're
less likely to get approached and preyed upon. I know that SM women get this
all the time. When I went to my first munches, aged 19 or so, I was the
youngest female - and female sub at that - by a mile, and did feel I got a lot
of unwanted attention from much older men, waiting to approach me one by one. I
barely got a chance to talk to other women until I learnt to feel more
confident in those spaces. I get that women only munches are useful for noobs,
particularly, but I still feel the emphasis of them is oddly heterocentric.
After all, what is the point of a 'safe space' for women not to get preyed upon
if they allow lesbians to attend but not straight pre-op transwomen? What is it
about transwomen who do not yet have or have chosen not to have a body sex that
matches their gender that makes them less acceptable or somehow understood as
more predatory than lesbian women? I find this confusing.
What a number of people seem to miss is that there is a
major difference between someone who fetishises female clothing and appearance
and someone who has been born into a body that does not feel like their own. I
think it's really important that women in the BDSM community begins to accept
and embrace transwomen's presence and offer them support. There are sexist male
dominants, and there are a lot of men who are made incredibly uncomfortable by
transwomens' presence, probably more uncomfortable than most women. There are
dominant men whose approach to transwomen on the scene is almost aggressively
exclusionary and I'm still unsure of exactly what it is that makes them so
uncomfortable when so much of the scene is based on assumption and appearance.
But transwomen on the scene need women's support and to feel included if we
don't want them to feel marginalised and so men begin to offer them the
courtesy they deserve.
Most people can accurately guess whether someone is dominant
or submissive by the way they present themselves (well, I get told I must be a
dommay quite often, but I've stopped letting it bother me) and I don't really
understand why it's so impossible to refer to someone as the gender they are
presenting.
It seems to me the problem is all about how well someone
'passes'. If a transwoman is dressed up in high femme clothing, or has had
cosmetic surgery on her face to 'feminise' it, or is generally 'convincing',
she might be allowed in and accepted. If not, she's just 'a bloke in a dress'.
Or even just 'a bloke'. For them, there is nothing more complex than that going
on; there is no differentiation to make between a woman who has lived part of
her life with the wrong genitalia, and a man who has a fetish for women's
clothing. And that's no good at all.
I want to make it absolutely clear that this feminist space
is trans-friendly. It's cross-dressing friendly. Hell, it's
feminist-man-friendly.
But we still don't want no predators here. Simple as that.