Transphobic and Transcritical - what is the difference?

I agree. It's not about challenging gender, it's conforming to gender stereotypes. And, it is very damaging and regressive. The example you mentioned is a prime example of this, someone claiming to be the ideal woman by presenting themselves as a passive fuck toy. Women have spent generations trying to overcome this, and it makes me so angry to not only see this being presented as somehow enlightened, but also to see so many self-proclaimed feminist women endorsing it.

The thing is, it's as damaging to someone with dysphoria as it is to women. It makes them appear to be fetishists, but I don't think they are. The very people who claim to be fighting their corner are massively damaging their cause. I don't know why, maybe selfishness, but it is happening.

saskia
I agree that gender is imaginary, or made up. But they are identifying with a way of presenting themselves that (they hope) will produce results. To me, it's not so much about how they feel, it's how they want to be treated - it goes way beyond 'typically' damaging stereotypes.

Even yesterday I was reading another account of a transwoman who was banging on (to men) about how great sex would be with her because she would be 'compliant', 'enthusiastically accepting of anything and everything' and never refuse sex (as long as you didn't get hung up on the fact that she had a penis and not a vagina).

It was a wholly male view of the 'ideal woman'.

And, of course, I realise that that is not representative of many transwomen, but it is of a certain kind.

Gender stereotypes have always been very damaging to women, but these particular stereotypes are far worse.

So 'gender critical' is exactly the focus. I don't at all mind how someone presents themself, but I do mind if I have to treat them in a certain way because they think their that presentation warrants it.

It goes back to 'what did she expect? wearing a skirt like that?'

Sorry, that should be identify as an imaginary construct not with

I prefer gender critical too. I think the trans issue is a symptom of the pervading nature of gender, rather than something discrete. I accept that dysphoria is a real thing and that even if gender disappeared there may be people who suffer from a disconnect with their biological sex. However, I don't see that as the same as identifying as a gender because 1) gender is not a real thing so it's not possible to identify with an imaginary construct 2) it's damaging, it's saying that gender is real and there are standard behaviours for men and women, and 3) it's not consistent. TAs would now have us believe there are as many genders as there are human beings, which suggests it is about personality, not some innate aspect of being male or female.

Transphobia is manifest when men murder transwomen. At least that's the only thing that actually qualifies for such a serious accusation.

But the definition of what is transphobic in most places these days is saying absolutely anything that has been objected to by any transactivist ever. You can be the best ally you think you can be, but put one linguistic foot wrong and you'll get it in the neck. Being called a transphobe is far, far too easy.

"Transphobia" in anything other than some weird pomo alternative universe where words can mean whatever the speakers says they do, is an irrational fear or hatred of trans people.

Transphobia is what the men who kill trans people display. And that, no matter how many people want to to be, is not the fault of women who want to get rid of the concept of gender. I am willing to put good money on the fact that not a single killer of a trans person has been an avid reader of Dworkin or Greer.

Ironically, the phrase biologically born female would be seen and denounced as transphobic by the same people who say that being gender critical is transphobic.

Well, I don't like the "-phobic" thing as used in "homophobic" - it means people who hate homosexuals, while the actual meaning of the word would be having an irrational fear of homosexuals. Which is not what the word is used like.

If we are to pretend that -phobic means hating that group and people and beating them up then, well, transphobia clearly is killing trans, beating trans up, et cetera.

I have no problem at all with men who wear dresses, everyone can dress how they want.
I just don't think that makes them women.
In short, I reject the unprovable, belief-based notion that transactivists would have us believe.

I am not sure "transcritical" is completely accurate, but it sure fits better than "transphobic"

I am a biologically born female, I have no issue with transgender females, be it in public loos, changing rooms, calling them selves women, whatever. It doesn't lessen me as a woman, it doesn't under mine me, I don't feel my rights are being trampled on. I'm not going to change that view unless something in real life happens to change it.
Fair enough, Bluntness. But then what happens when a MTT, male sex organs still; intact, wants to use a women's refuge? Apply for a scholarship previously reserved for women? Or when a MTT, inevitably bigger and stronger than many or even most women despite surgery and hormones, wants to play on a women's sports team? Certainly, if my nieces (who compete in martial arts) lose in competitions in future to MTT people, I will damn well feel that their rights have been trampled on.

Can you not see that there might be a few problems?

Also, people disagreeing with you does not amount to bullying. People saying that they think you're talking nonsense does not amount to bullying. And the whole point of this particular thread, it seems to me, is to discuss a range of views and try to come to some sort of a consensus.

And yes, I agree that gender critical is a better term. I'm happier to use it than transcritical, because I think that many trans people have enough shit to deal with without us using a loaded term. The fact that much of the shit comes by way of TRAs is perhaps relevant....

I like the term gendercritical - it pretty much sums up my views.

You were pearl clutching about "transphobia" all over that other thread, Bluntness. Or don't you read your own posts before you press the button?

Yep. Gender critical covers it.

Gender critical is the more accurate and fair term.

The rigidity of gender is such that noticing your 3 yr old boy likes pink is enough for some people to think that medicating him is the best way to cure him of gender nonconformity.

This times a million. There's nothing wrong with the boy in this example, but there's plenty wrong with a society that thinks there is literally nothing worse than a man who likes pink, to the extent that we can't let him be a man any more.

You were pearl clutching about "transphobia" all over that other thread, Bluntness. Or don't you read your own posts before you press the button?

I was pointing out that your personal definition of transphobia does not include most people on mumsnet.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace me neither, I should stop and go have a lie down

Then stop wantonly slinging around the term "transphobic" about people who do not dislike transpeople in general nor are prejudiced against them.

Yes, sorry - not on all cylinders today!

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace No, sorry I thought it was clear that was a response to the previous post. My comment doesnt relate to yours at all. but if you read the post before mine it makes sense.

I'm not sure I understand, DJ - was that addressed to me?

LumelaMme This sounds to me a touch post-modernist (the word means what the person using it says it means).

It does have a meaning. Someone who calls you a homophobe pr a transphobe for opposing X, Y or Z is imparting a value judgment that you are wrong for opposing whatever it is. You can elect to not actually give a monkeys if you genuinely think that X, Y or Z should not happen.

It would be simpler if people just stuck to using these terms about those who demonstrate prejudice or bigotry, but just making an observation that they do get used with the other meaning and pretty much any negativity towards the group or the aims of part of it, may be fair game for being 'phobic.

ghostlygoulie if you listen in the to the BBC Radio 5 live discussion with Dr Polly Carmichael you may find it answers some of your questions.

Eh?
You dont think they really exist, but would let them use the womens bathroom anyway?