Feminist Pub 17: The Bluestocking frolics in the fells and fens of feminism

I've just read the past couple of pages of the Pub and now my head hurts. I'm not sure I have an informed opinion, so I'm going to stay out of the debate. I'd quite like a drink, but as I'm currently responsible for 5 children (rather than the usual 2) I think I'd better stick to

I followed it from snowflakeespecial.tumblr.com. Can't do the link sorry. In an earlier blog he discusses it and links to some blogs by retransitioning mtfs which are very emotive but give another perspective entirely and their voice just isn't heard.

Will look up the proper links when back on PC.

Blistory I don't suppose you've any links to where this is discussed? I'd be interested to read others' perspectives on it.

And what if Group B mostly retain the ability to return to their original group if they want. Doesn't that give them a privilege that Group A never have ? There's quite a bit of discussion about this amongst mtf who transition back.

That's a maybe on the roast, depends if anyone can catch the goat.

I've now reached the point where I have so many links open that I can't remember where they were all posted and which led to which. I fear it may be time to throw my hands up in despair and head to the actual pub.

I think the point of Group B is that they've been through a lot of trauma and want to define themselves as part of Group A. The point of Group A is that they have also suffered and don't want any new groups coming along and telling them what their group is.

Each side has a valid point, but historically there has been so much animosity and anger that there is little hope for reconciliation atm. Which is fairly typical of most conflicts.

I feel that Venn diagrams would help this discussion, although a pint with Sunday lunch seems a better solution right now. Can the pub serve a good roast with Yorkshire puddings and lashings of gravy? Mmmm.

It hurts my head too. It also make me feel very resentful for some reason.

But I agree that who gets to define things is the key.

In my job we do a lot of definition and a lot of what-exactly-do-you-mean-by-that. Though in RL I've got into trouble for wanting definitions and wanting to know exactly what is meant by everything ...

A drink is in order. :)

isn't the point who gets to set up group A and define it?

I'm going to have to ponder on that one. If group A were a new thing people were considering setting up then there could be a discussion about its characteristics, but it's been set up and defined for millennia already. I have trouble with the idea that it can be arbitrarily redefined, because the original concept is still going to exist, if that makes sense. I'll spare you all my longwinded and rambling attempts to sort it through in my head (at least on this thread). But thank you Jeanne for giving me a new angle to think about.

Oh, yes, absolutely agree to saying 'this hurts my head'. It hurts mine too.

Fruity and Belgian and hurt-head-soothing beer coming up. Hey, it's almost sunday lunch time, it's legit. Ish.

Oh, there are definitely enough threads about it already! But this is the only thread where I feel I can safely say "This hurts my head," without the fear that someone's going to have a go at me for it.

So, I'll have a virtual pint of something fruity and Belgian, please, in the hope that it will distract me.

Yeah fair point Jeanne. It's everywhere else. Cheers

To be fair, I don't get that, stormy, because isn't the point who gets to set up group A and define it?

But ... childishly, having said that, I wonder if we want to debate it on here? Or just have a virtual pint (in virtual world, it can be 8pm on Friday, not Sunday morning, right?).

I get sucked into reading them because they hurt my head. It goes:

Group A: We are group A, and our defining characteristics are XYZ
Group B: We'd like to be considered part of group A
Group A: Okay. Do you have the XYZ characteristics that are a necessary prerequisite for group A membership?
Group B: No. But we have 123 characteristics
Group A: Yeah... we don't. 123 characteristics aren't relevant to membership of group A
Group B: But we're part of group A so 123 characteristics must be sufficient to grant us membership
Group A: No, really, 123 isn't relevant. Most of us don't actually have 123. We have XYZ, which is why we're in group A. Group A is only for people with XYZ
Group B: But we're in group A and we don't have XYZ so XYZ can't be a necessary condition!

Either I am really stupid, or there's a logic fail in there. I keep reading because I'm worried the former may be true and I have a feeling I may be missing something obvious that would make it all make sense.

I've come away from the whole thing feeling genuinely upset that there's people out there who think I'm a bigot because I'm more interested in feminsm than trans issues.

I'm exactly the same. It's why I stay away from trans discussions.

Until I start reading things where people get all "oh but mtf trans are women so you have to include them in your feminism" (when I start getting confused and upset because I don't think I'm a bigot and I wasn't aware I was doing anything wrong) I'm usually relatively comfortable with my level of interest in trans issues (sympathetic but not actively thinking about it) for the most part since (a) I'm not trans, (b) no one I know is trans, (c) a relatively small percentage of the world's population is trans, vs the percentage that is born with a womb, (d) I don't feel any guilt about not being massively involved in black issues, or the struggles of indigenous Central Americans, or any other minority group that I have sympathy for but not a lot in common with so I don't see why not actively waving the flag for trans issues makes me a bad person.

I don't know. It just seems to be a very nasty and aggressive debate for the most part, the trans vs feminists one. I don't see why. It's two related but different debates about rights, and one of those does actually involve being born with a womb and fanjo.

Perhaps there needs to be a new acronym - BFETA (biologically female exclusionist trans activist), because surely it's just as exclusionist to refuse to accept a definition of biologically female as a relevant concept in any debate about women's rights (not to mention somewhat conveniently blinkered)?

Sigh.

We all make arseholes of ourselves sometimes

I don’t; I'm perfect.

I was walking back to Waterloo this evening, round the back of the National Theatre. A bloke, who was not a native English speaker, but beyond that, not sure where from (which is relevant, as it may be a cultural thing,) was going in the opposite direction. As he approached, he started to say, "I like your..." pause and looked me up and down, "...jeans. Great, beautiful." (They are, they're bright red.) I half muttered, "Er, thanks." But it was like he had to comment on a single woman, (he ignored the middle-aged couple a few steps behind me,) and then looked a bit closer to find something he did actually appreciate. Though I may just be being paranoid.

Unlike many/most women, I hardly ever get public comments of any sort, never have, just invisible, so I've never really learnt to respond. My main feeling after this was mostly confusion about what had actually happened. And maybe he hesitated because he was trying to remember the word for jeans/jins.

Then I wondered about a couple of small blue mosaic tiles instead. They are with swallows on, which are at the back of what I think was the Hayward.

I've spent this weekend reading a lot of threads and articles about transactivism etc. It's not actually something I've paid much attention because I'm cis-gender. Now, I've come away from the whole thing feeling genuinely upset that there's people out there who think I'm a bigot because I'm more interested in feminsm than trans issues.

This is true, and I've made one too.

Oh, I feel an arsehole now, she's just been very nice and made peace.

Anyway, thank you.

And freddie, hope the handmaidening bits are few and far between, and the subversion frequent.

elisaveta - mmm, sounds awesome, can I come? I would almost trade toddler-wrangling for that food.

Just checking in for a large single malt. DCs' joint birthday party tomorrow, 16 children and toddlers coming (I asked everyone thinking some would not be able to come, they all said yes). Have made 16 pirate hats, a massive pirate to pin the eye patch on and a ball pool to walk the plank over. Also made dozens of fairy cakes with pirate flags, lemon and amaretti pots, BBQ chicken wings and cheese palmers. DH is in the kitchen making gourmet sausage rolls and I am putting a few more layers on Pass the Parcel.

Keep that whisky topped up, won't you?

Hmm, can't really go into too much detail, but a bit reluctantly being handmaiden to a traditional country sport (long story) followed by church business - but as our minister is in a same-sex relationship it sort of subverts the patriarchy rather nicely

TBH, I try to stay off threads about trans issues, because I think they get hurtful to everyone. But I agree, it's good we can actually talk about it.

Hope you're enjoying the red. What was the patriarchy supporting?