This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
The biggest strawman ever?(14 Posts)
It also accuses the GC position of being 'structurally similar' to the 'right wing.' There is a dismissive reference to grooming gangs and then the curious phrase 'so called' white working class.' Hmm. Is this supposed to be an academic paper?
ah, my son sent me this
I did read it properly at the time and sent him my critique, I can't bear to read it again
I think that's why I steeled myself initially, they did spell it out, with disparaging comments.
The knot tying was hilarious towards the end.
How on earth can three people write something that's clearly been intended to be a serious analysis but use all
sources from the US, where there is no EA10, or GRC and use those to back up their arguments around the EA10 and GRC??!
And then base all arguments around oppression; dismissing the reason why women are oppressed and the whole point of feminism in the first place.
Poor gcse essay attempt.
On the plus side, it's the first time I've ever seen a self-ID supporter who genuinely acknowledges and understands the GC position.
In doing so it makes a strong case for us and a weak case for them. I think this is good for sharing with people who just spout TWAW and anything else is transphobia.
To summarise their argument: TW are oppressed, women should be kind.
Still, a number of discussions I've had with people who shout at me to be kind, have included a "of course sex and gender are different, duh" statement.
However then melding the sexist stereotypes thus further.
It's the lady brain thing again.
They're actually arguing: We don't know for sure that it's male biology and socialisation that causes males to be more violent than females, it might be gender identity that causes it? grin
That's where you've got to go though, isn't it? When your faith is being tested and you are too invested to to let go of it. When the well considered arguments that were previously being stifled by "no debate" are starting to leak into the public discourse and you realise you have to say something.
I fully expect this idea to take off, btw. It will be a relief for those who want to look like they can think but who really don't want to step out of line.
Just WHY is their biggest argument “trans women are the most oppressed and more vulnerable group of people”
No they fucking aren’t. In fact, they even manage to get women kicked out of WOMEN’s shelter
If that is what oppression is, well damn sign me up
We should content themselves
Is that a yoda sentence? Wtf does that actually mean?!
It was such a let down.
I was preparing myself for a huge difficult mental battle, but the premise of their argument was a complete non event.
Alot of verbiage to basically make the unsubstantiated claim that trans women are the most vulnerable group, consequently any risk posed by being socialised as male and still anatomically male is incalculable. And irrelevant. This sentence struck me as a good representation of the jarring illogicality at the core:
We should content themselves
What a loads of bollocks.
They're actually arguing: We don't know for sure that it's male biology and socialisation that causes males to be more violent than females, it might be gender identity that causes it?
it really is so stupid. I'm having flash backs. "If TW are a subset of women..." 🤣
I've been saving this to read as it's like wading through the swamp of eternal cognitive dissonance.
Is this the biggest and best example of a straw man arguing ever?
A very loud twaw friend shared it, and a close friend found it "thought provoking" though I think she's more on the feminist side tbh. I think it was all the big words.
It's a good exercise in challenging my own beliefs, though I started to lol a lot towards the end. (The bit about "its well known in sexist societies..." when it's well known sexist societies tend to have gender identity issues.)
The biggest issue in terms of their argument evidence, apart from all the stupidity around "they're not really men," is that they've used and muddled US sources to back up their U.K. arguments which is really important to remember.
If you dare read it, I wondered what others' thoughts are.
Please login first.