b8-n-cstr8 asked: hey as a twoc - i find that quote that equates white skin with "penises" in terms of triggers really false and oppressive. and that whole article is really transmisogynistic (defends wbw space like michfest). it is basically radscum politix coded in race theory so its more "palatable". its really upsetting to me to see that posted in a trans female space, and i think it should be removed from your blog immediately.
But, this paper traces the historic divides within our community as well, those along surgical divides. Post-op trans women siding with factions of MichFest who advocated for only post-op trans women. Documents Riki Anne Wilchins’ role in GenderPAC and the divides it caused by the more radical anti-normative stance it took in it’s later years. a stance which demanded, rightfully so, an intersectional approach with attention to race and class.
That alone should make the paper worth sharing in the interest of intellectual honesty and integrity.
I read your post: http://b8ncstr8.tumblr.com/post/48982667249/hey-for-all-you-critical-thinkers-out-there and I think you take some things out of context.
The paper is not defending the “womyn-born-womyn” but placing it in a context:
Defenders of the “womyn-born-womyn” policy argue that transsexual women who truly value the women’s movement and culture should respect the festival policies by refraining from entering the Land. “Just as many Womyn of Color express the need for ‘room to breathe’ they gain in Womyn-of-Color space away from the racism that inevitably appears in interactions with a white majority, womyn born womyn still need and value that same ‘room to breathe,’” argued Lisa Vogel, the owner of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.  This exact pattern of argument is extremely common in lesbian and/or feminist publications — complete with the comment about how much they respect women of color space and how transsexual women should do the same for “womyn-born-womyn.” “I’ve spent years educating other white festigoers about honoring the workshops and spaces that are planned for women of color only… It grieves me to see ‘progressive’ folks attacking an event that is sacred space for women-born-women” wrote a reader of Lesbian Connection, for example. 
It uses direct quotes from anti-trans feminists. And then goes on to highlight the flaws in that logic of only focusing on a simple sex hierarchy and not an intersectional one. The radical feminist/lesbian separatist logic tokenizes Women of Color and is an example of the casual racism inherent in radical feminist exclusionary tactics. The author ends with a pretty good quip:
In other words, Dobkin attributed the accusation of racism to the patriarchy’s attempt to “wipe” lesbians out and not to the legitimate concerns of women of color, effectively accusing these women of color of conspiring with the patriarchy. “What is the theory behind racist feminism?” asked Audre Lorde.  She argued, “many white women are heavily invested in ignoring the real differences” because “to allow women of Color to step out of stereotypes… threatens the complacency of those women who view oppression only in terms of sex.” 
I don’t think that characterizing someone as dismissing legitimate concerns of women of color is very much in support of them or their position. It kinda is calling them a bigot who wishes to perpetuate a white-washed feminism under the guise of defending “lesbians.” That is a pretty damning characterization of the white-washed myopic focus of radical feminism.
Seriously this paper is well researched, well written, and is theoretically deep.
You could just read the ending out of context and see where the author stands:
By the same token, feminists who are vehemently anti-transsexual have much better understanding of how threatening transsexual existence is to their flawed ideology than do transsexuals themselves. The power is in consciously recognizing this unique positionality and making connections to the contributions of women of color and other groups of women who have been marginalized within the feminist movement. With this approach, I am confident that transsexual women, along with all other women who live complex lives, will be able to advance the feminist discussions about power, privilege and oppression.
So radical feminists recognize that the experience of trans women represent a flaw in their logic, and must be dismissed or marginalized or else they will further advance an anti-racist anti-classist dialogue. I’m fine with representing a flaw in that oppressive logic.
I’m honestly not sure if we read the same article.
Also, who cares if the author uses transsexuals, sure it’s a bit out of vogue, but honestly some people identify that way.
EDIT: an example of why context matters, I put in bold the quote you had and italicized the part of the argument missing in your characterization:
To make thing more complicated, some trans activists who are politically more savvy support “womyn born-womyn” policy or at least accept it as an acceptable feminist position. Kate Bornstein, for example, “encourages everyone to engage in mutually respectful dialogue, without specifying what outcome might be desirable or possible,” because “exclusion by lesbian separatists” cannot be considered oppressive when lesbians do not have very much “economic and social resources.”  Another transsexual woman, in a private conversation, told me that she would rather be excluded from the Land altogether than risk the possibility of a male entry under the pretence of being transsexual.  While I appreciate their supposedly feminist good intentions, I must remind them that their arguments support and reinforce the environment in which white middle-class women’s oppression against women of color and working class women are trivialized or tolerated. I must remind them it is never feminist when some women are silenced and sacrificed to make room for the more privileged women.