Now the term FGM is cissexist? WTAF?

I wish you were right, Weekly, but a lot of younger feminists are buying this stuff and causing trouble for/no-platforming those who resist it.

Weekly - these transactivists actually have quite an influence. I follow a lot of feminists (especially younger academic ones) on Twitter and I see them parroting these opinions over and over again. Radical feminism is very much seen as unprogressive and exclusionary. Hence the no platforming of Bindel and Criado Perez by feminist student groups.

They are shutting down discussion on gender, especially on feminist sites. MN FWR is one of the few places where these issues can be discussed without allegations of transphobia, bullying and misgendering. I have left several other feminist websites out of frustration at not being able to comment freely. I am too frightened to post on Twitter about this because I have seen what happens if you do.

These issues are tiny, but they have generated so much anger and emotion. It is ridiculous and derailing.

I agree with you up to a point, weekly. People do spend a lot of time engaging with the fridge of trolls. And I do think it's not really about most trans people.

My worry, though, is that there seem to be an awful lot of people who are feminists, not trans, perhaps don't know many (any?) trans people, and who have imbibed the axiom that it is terribly bigoted to object to the word 'cis' or to the view of gender identity it represents.

That's not a lunatic fringe position. It's widespread.

Agree that the FGM stuff is dangerous and damaging nonsense.

But also really agree with the poster who pointed out that this whole storm appears to have been caused by just one poster on Twitter (and who knows, maybe that person is a deliberate provocateur/MRA anyway). I do worry sometimes that feminists are spending so much time and energy rebutting nonsensical fringe interpretations of trans that they're getting horribly sidetracked.

I understand that anger and frustration but basically we're arguingg with people who will say that black is white and two plus two equals five, and I'm not sure how much point there is in expending so much energy on it.

Most trans people in my (limited) experience just want to live their lives and be happy and really aren't trying to claim that the clitoris is a male organ.I worry that these rows will end up creating a more hostile atmosphere for the majority of trans people who aren't to blame for what a very small cadre of extremist activists are saying.

Misogynist attacks that are said to actually be about equality.
What can we do about all this dangerous nonsense?

Exact words do matter.

People used to refer to 'female circumcision' and it was changed because women who had experienced this felt it didn't capture what had happened to them. And that was their right.

Someone does not have the right to come along and label these women and girls against their choice. It's disgusting.

And, FFS, it is an issue that is gendered. It matters to say it is female genital mutilation because that is why it is done.

Oh joy, women are dying and exact words matter

A recent transactivists attack on Women' Aid led to them having to publish this statement:

www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-press-information.asp?itemid=3284&itemTitle=Statement+on+the+Women's+Aid+Transgender+and+Transsexual+Equality+Policies+and+Procedures&section=0001000100150001&sectionTitle=Press+releases

This isn't good enough according to many activists. They were protesting the fact that sex needs to be checked before access to vulnerable women is allowed. The fact that a violent and possessive husband could just put on a dress and claim access to the service, obviously doesn't matter to them.

Rape crisis has been attacked for similar reasons.

As was the Night of a Thousand Vaginas, a pro choice event in the USA. Because many women don't have vaginas and uteri, and many men do, so it's exclusionary.

I agree, it's the same thing, Jeanne.

Has Caroline gone from twitter? I just looked and her profile is still there.

I heard her speak on Sunday, and she was brilliant. She wasn't talking about anything whatsoever to do with 'cis' or 'trans' issues. She was just talking about how to cope with internet abuse/trolling.

Anyway. I don't understand this being 'cissexist' at all. For years, I've noticed that when FGM is discussed, someone will always pop up to compare it to circumcision, which made me steaming mad. I think this is the same thing really, isn't it? The idea that whatever is happening to little girls, we must never forget let them be the central focus.

'hmm, we need a word for a person who has the ability to get pregnant to be able to clarify this debate'. Well, we did use the word woman. I don't think infertile women got their placards out because talking about women in the abortion debate didn't apply to them.

This ^

It's funny how male privilege seems to go along with being assigned male gender at birth.

YY flora

Morris feminist conferences have been cancelled
Speakers are no platformed
People are being chased off social media - people who talk about women's rights
That bit upthread about a woman who is a victim of and works against FGM being harangued and abused is appalling. I don't know her, but in general that kind of behaviour could make someone stop, or at least remove themselves from the public eye and thus render their efforts less effective.

So there are real consequences here, of these people silencing and threatening those who work for women around the world - and it is always them, they don't seem to be doing much to attack the people who actually do stuff like fighting governments who are horribly oppressive etc. Or are they? Happy to be corrected on that point.

transgender

transvestism is different

before any posts get deleted

morris I agree that "cis" and "cissexist" have no meaning but I don't believe this is irrelevant.

Only this week, the Cambridge University Women's Union complained to the university about Caroline Criado Perez speaking there as she is a "notorious transphobe". This thinking is gaining a lot of ground among young people who are eager to make sure everyone feels good about themselves individually and think less about structural oppression.

Priorities indeed.
Slightly off topic, but having two teen DDs this made me cry

m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29727875

While this is the world girls and women live in, upsetting the odd cosseted western transvestite seems very unimportant.

Noble "If they believe that anyone can call themselves a woman and thus be identified as a woman, then that renders the word woman completely meaningless. A label for a group of people with no defining features." I suggested on another thread that the word would be "non people" which handily is how people born with vaginas are seen across large swathes of the world anyway.

There are huge problems with their approach. Which I started typing but can't be bothered actually. But suffice to say that if you redefine everything to take account of the fact that men and boys might have vaginas and women and girls might have penises, how is that going to work in the 99.9% of the world where people say "it's a girl" or "it's a boy" and proceed accordingly. All that will happen is that loads of people will continue to have loads of fucking appalling things done to them, and no-one will be able to identify the problem if that problem is in any way linked to the genitals the person has when they're born.

You don't see for eg campaigners for the elderly, when saying that older people should be listened to respected and given opportunity to engage in society like everybody else, that also they want to erase the concepts of "young" and "old" and thus ignore any vulnerabilities inherent to either of those states.

Either they can't see the end point of their own logic or they genuinely don't give a fuck about all the shit that is done to women and girls around the world because they are born with a vagina. I think it's probably a mix of those two things.

And YY they never go after men do they. The ones who actually do all the damage. Because well they're a bit scary aren't they. They go after people who have never hurt anyone, and in the process try to derail the efforts of those fighting against FGM. Would it make them happy for people to stop concerning themselves with it? Maybe concentrate on circumcision instead?

What do they actually want FFS. I need to know how much these people are my enemy really - is there a hidden agenda here.

WTAF. Really, I just don't gave the words for this level of self absorption. It is utterly ridiculous.

Howstheserenity. I'm with you on this one.

Are we basing this outrage on three tweets from somebody called Vivian? I see no evidence anywhere in real life that 'cis' and 'cissexist' are words with any meaning at all.

It's only in the deepest reaches of online debate that anybody gives a hoot.

It's such a tiny minority of (American) people writing in such niche corners of the web as to be utterly irrelevant and beneath mainstream debate.

It amazes me how many feminists support this though, and how vile they are to anyone who dares question it.
Feminism has basically been divided by this issue. It's depressing as hell.

It sickens me that some of the trans community are whining about semantics and their rights while little girls are being mutilated. Priorities people. It really won't hep their cause.

If they think that anyone can call themselves a woman, then what do they mean when they say they feel they are a woman? What exactly are they identifying with?

If men can have abortions and women can have penises then what exactly makes one a woman?

They don't want new words. They want validation that we, the rest of the world, fully and completely accept and agree with their view of themselves. It would be like anorexics demanding we agree they are fat and that we redefine the BMI for obesity so that they are considered medically obese.

There's always going to be a fundamental problem between two ideas that are based on conflicting ideas: gender is social construct as opposed to female brains in male bodies (and vice versa) Difficult to reconcile those two things - especially in the lack of conclusive proof either way.

It does make life a bit difficult, however, when one suggests that one can't necessarily associate the word woman with person possessed of a female body. Men have abortions? No, can't get my head around that one.

Velvet I think I'm going to do the same.

This issue blows my mind every single time another thread comes up on here - I sort of want to read more and frame my argument, but know that the amount of emotional energy I would need just isn't in the bank - and ffs why should women-born-women have to be spending time and energy defending this fundamental core of our existence. We are born one sex or another, we have gender imposed on us.

If they believe that anyone can call themselves a woman and thus be identified as a woman, then that renders the word woman completely meaningless. A label for a group of people with no defining features.

Then you get to debates about thing like abortion and you think 'hmm, we need a word for a person who has the ability to get pregnant to be able to clarify this debate'. Well, we did use the word woman. I don't think infertile women got their placards out because talking about women in the abortion debate didn't apply to them.

I don't understand why they don't come up with their own words for man and woman and champion them instead of confusing the entire debate over special cases.