Now the term FGM is cissexist? WTAF?

I agree that these TAs only care about the implication they are not real women.

noble you said above:

I'm completely baffled by why a trans woman would want to identify as a woman if the word 'woman' is now meaningless in that it can be claimed by anyone.

What exactly in the word 'woman' are they identifying with? Is it a gender stereotype thing?

What can the word female be applied to?

I think the answer is that they don't care. The transgender theory is utterly individualistic. The only thing that matters is the feelings of the individual TW claiming to be a woman. It doesn't matter what being a woman means, just that the TWs' view of themselves is endorsed by women in general. There are many different descriptions of transgender:

• "I have always been a woman / female and have a female penis"
• "I was a man but now I am a woman"
• "Woman = gender (feelings conforming with feminine gender stereotypes) female = sex" (this is where attempted allies usually come to grief)
• "I am male / a man but I hate my life and body and I want to live as a woman"

I'm sure there are more and that's not getting into genderfluid rubbish.

There are also different reasons put forward including "woman's brain in a man's body" (now not accepted by the "always female" crowd), "identity is what I say it is", autogynephia (almost never admitted but often evident) etc.

They don't care about women as a class or what might happen to women as a class in the future if they get acceptance of their view of womanhood. Unfortunately, feminist thought that focuses on women as individuals instead of women as a class will not have any framework to analyse this which, IMO, is why those feminists think gender critical feminists who analyse feminism on a class basis are horrible people who hate TW.

When it comes to FGM, they don't analyse why FGM is inflicted on girls and women because they don't recognise the class impact of being born female and raised to be a woman. On another thread a few months ago, a TA told me there was literally no need for a word to describe that group of people born with XX chromosomes with egg producing reproductive organs who may actually or potentially give birth to children because it simply wasn't necessary. With this sort of thinking, how is it in any way possible to analyse why FGM, selective abortions of girls, reproductive rights or any other women's issue happens?

Tunip Yep, and they get abuse for daring to think differently to the TA's

Noble, I agree. I'm not sure the "offence" is perceived to be against trans men who feel alienated from their past experience of FGM by the terminology - if so, that would seem more understandable. It seems to be more about trans women who simply will not ever experience FGM.

I guess this is a small number of activists rather than a large number of trans people?

noble All the trans activist I ever see are transwomen. I don't think honestly give a fuck about actual transmen who may or may not have had FGm done to them. I think they only care about someone using a word that leaves them out and implies they aren't real women.

And not just 'are there any trans men who have had this done to them?' but 'are there any trans men who have had this done to them and whose theoretical understanding of trans is the same as the particular one held by these activists?'
Thing is, this 'I have always actually been the sex I have transitioned into' belief is NOT universal to all trans people - some understand their histories as 'I used to be the opposite sex but now I am this one.'

Are there any actual instances of a trans man who was subject to FGM as a child who has been offended by it being referred to as FGM?

Or is any offence merely hypothetical?

I'd suspect that the horror of FGM and the relief at seeing people trying to tackle it might outweigh any hurt feelings, and that any trans men who come from a community that practises FGM might have bigger fish to fry, but I could be wrong.

Eating: "Seven I imagine your first paragraph is just what Vivian is saying except that trans men do not see themselves as girls. I'm not quite sure how trying to include everyone who has had FGM is erasing the problem."

Eating, last night I went on the Reddit subgroup formed by people who do believe that calling FGM FGM is cissexist. They are not (on the whole) coming at it from the angle of "but what about children assigned female at birth who grow up and decide to identify as trans* men."

They are coming at it from the angle of "I wish, as a trans woman, to insist that the term female primarily means those who choose to self identify as female - I am a gender essentialist, I believe that what matters is whether you feel inside yourself that you have a female or a male mind, and biology is an accident (to the extent that I am happy to call a trans woman with no intention of surgically transitioning the owner of a 'she penis'). Thus, by calling FGM FGM, these nasty TERFs [and the WHO, and NGOs, and basically anyone who's trying to speak out about the issue and actually do something about it] are using language in a way that does not accord with the way I think it should be used, and it's triggering for me, so I insist you call it something different [even though that then systematically obscures the reasons and power imbalances leading to the structure in the first place]."

And I am calling bullshit on that as an argument. Trying to explain away FGM as clitoral amputation/ vulval mutilation without reference to the fact that its something done to women by male-dominated theocracties is like trying to explain rape as "oops, I accidentally tripped and sat on an erect penis."

(BTW, I would not recommend that Reddit subgroup if you want your blood pressure to remain reasonable).

*because as noblegiraffe those women are affected by abortion still see it as a "woman's issue". Even a lot of women who would never have an abortion themselves still see the right as a "woman's issue".

There are certain things in this word that affect women because they are women and having "activist" attempting to take over theses issues ( that don't affect them! ) to prove a point is disgusting.

Vulvas aren't cut because they are vulvas but because they belong to women.

It's only recently that taboo had relaxed enough for this practice to be discussed at all in the mainstream. People know what fgm means or are learning. If we start again from scratch and divide it into different classes then what will that mean for the message and efforts to stop it. The efforts will be watered down and different types will be judged less harmful so let's not focus on them is what.

Precisely, I have two DDs (13&16) their generation is just begining to discuss this subject. Female, genitles (auto correct can't cope with this) and mutilation are words you can just about use in a senior school assembly or on TV. It's a term that is both precise and vague enough to allow Children to go and seek information in an age appropriate way.

No way can I see words like clitoris and vulva being used on mainstream TV or in a house assembly.

You imagine that's what she's saying.

Have you actually seen her say it anywhere though? Out are you giving her the benefit of the doubt.

There is a context around this as well. A lot of ta are not keen to say boys meaning children with Willie's and girls meaning children with vaginas, for obvious reasons. Removing this differential from speech means that with problems that affect one sex you can't identify it at all. Using cis or trans for young children and babies makes no sense. So you can't refer to who you mean in that way.

It is a good way of obscuring oppression due to sex and getting half the funds at least diverted to males when they are meant for females iyswim.

Eating do you think that abortion rights sholuld be seen as a woman's issue or should it be seen as an issue for "people who were born with uteruses that are young enough to still conceive and also fertile"?

So if these activists want to call it clitoral amputation, what the hell do they want to call pharaonic FGM? If they that that clitoral amputation is "all" there is to FGM they should really get out more. They are making fools of themselves.

Seven I imagine your first paragraph is just what Vivian is saying except that trans men do not see themselves as girls. I'm not quite sure how trying to include everyone who has had FGM is erasing the problem

I see your point about the term though.

Flora I didn't see Vivian's bio where they say they don't use he or she which was lazy of me.

Jeanne I did not say trans men assigned female at birth were female I said they were assigned female at birth!

Have fun making up things to be outraged at. I knew I shouldn't have broken my do not post on FWR rule.

Eating I have followed your link and there is no explanation. She says she is upset because people have been mean to her but that's OK because she's right and anyway puppies.

Was it the right link?

Eating it is done to children. Suggesting that it is done to cis women and trans men, well they may have had it done in the past and do organise and support etc but most of the efforts are to stop it happening in the first place to children, to girls. If you obscure the fact that this is done to girls then how do you tackle it. The people doing it don't care that a particular girl might identify as a boy. That won't stop them. Or that she might identify as a boy in the future, and she might be dead before then anyway because of fgm.

The suggested new name for it also doesn't describe it. There are different forms of fgm. Is each type to be described in full in order to say what sometime is talking about? Won't that be overly complicated? Won't it mean that different types get "ranked" when they all are appalling mutilation? Why remove the word mutilation?

It's only recently that taboo had relaxed enough for this practice to be discussed at all in the mainstream. People know what fgm means or are learning. If we start again from scratch and divide it into different classes then what will that mean for the message and efforts to stop it. The efforts will be watered down and different types will be judged less harmful so let's not focus on them is what.

It would be akin to doing that for MRA I think Freddie and just inviting extreme abuse from extreme people. I'm not sure how productive it would be.

I do not 'do' Twitter, and this thread just reinforces my prejudices (maybe unfounded) about the whole site.

But is there a hashtag of any kind that women can get behind, something like #silencingwomen, that could be used to call out every instance of this type of bullying?

or am I being hopelessly naive

"I've actually seen transactivist refer to being "raped by ciswomen TERFS" (because we don't accept their identity). When some of them are actually being raped by men."

It's bizarre isn't it? They also like to talk about radfems being a massive risk to TW

I once asked if there were any stats on attacks by radfems on transwomen and got put on the block bot.

Eating The issue with VV's tweet is covered quite comprehensively on this thread, but briefly - by saying the the term FGM is cissexist and it should be renamed "clitorall amputation"
a) it uses a horrific practice against vulnerable girls to place trans issues at the fore
b) it shows no understanding of what FGM involves
c) it minimises the fact that FGM happens because of the victims being female - it is a practice rooted in the idea that women are lesser and need controlling
d) the phrasing sounds more like a medical procedure, when it is mostly performed by untrained individuals without anaesthetic

No one is saying VV thinks FGM is ok, what people are saying is that this is a horrific issue to be used in such a flippant way and that erasing the word female distracts from the cause of FGM.

Bindel recently came to a debate at my uni (nothing to do with trans issues).

The protests before and after by TA were ridiculous. I refused to take a leaflet and was told to 'get fucking educated'...by an 18 year old (31 year old feminist of many years here)

It completely derailed why she was even there (to debate hardcore pornography and the degradation of women)

I do think it's fucking ridiculous that transactivists have decided to put their energy in to stopping people saying "women's issues". There are so many genuine issues for trans people that seem to be pushed to the back burner. I realize people ask the same of feminists (why focus on A when there is B to worry about). But the "women's issue problem" doesn't actually hurt them and it is at the expense of another very vulnerable group. I actually wonder if it is a kind of jealousy of women. When they should really be worried about violence perpetuated by men. I've actually seen transactivist refer to being "raped by ciswomen TERFS" (because we don't accept their identity). When some of them are actually being raped by men. fucking mind boggling.