Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Can we find a good historical analogy to the trans debate

135 replies

StillTryingHard · 09/02/2018 09:56

The problem as I see it is that here we have two opposing factions that each see each other as the victim.

We (me) see biological women as the victim - that we have been the victim of male privilege & supremacy politically financially and physically for millennia and still are in many (most) countries

Trans identifiers see themselves as a sexual minority who are being devised access to spaces.

All the analogies I come up with side with the people who want to gain access to denied spaces. Rosa Parks, suffragettes etc

Is there a sufficient historical analogy that can show even though we want self identifying trans folk to keep out of women's geographical political economic ring fenced spaces - that this does not make us the oppressors.

I fall into the terf camp btw. But I have these arguments in my head

OP posts:
Original poster
StillTryingHard · 11/02/2018 08:42

Like sophocles I'm also very struck by the multiple disorder analogy. It's so close to the non-binary gender - and also instances where eventually one of the non-dominant personalities actually became dominant through therapy and although the person was cured of the multiple personality syndrome it was by allowing a different personality to be 'her'

Surely this is like gender dysphoria- where confusion over gender becomes one gender but a different one to the one you had originally.

I do think that in 20 years we will look back in horror at the surgery we performed (on children particularly) in the name of gender transitioning

Oh yes - and thanks craigey ... #nodebate eh?

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 11/02/2018 08:40

Craigey makes me think of the old cliche about not getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. It's like kicking a puppy really, or would be if in this case the puppy didn't have the ability to vote and thus fuck things up for other people.

SophoclesTheFox · 11/02/2018 08:23

Lots of great comparisons here and food for thought. I'm very struck by the multiple personality one in terms of how we did not see pushes to have legal rights instated for all of the personalities - you didn't see people campaigning for multiple passports etc. Or perhaps the push for that was there, but in the prehistoric time before twitter and before people apparently gave up on critical thought, it didn't get the traction?

I've made the point before about the role of the refugee and the colonist. Women never had problems with men refugeeing out of toxic masculinity (transexuals in old money). It was when the new wave of colonists arrived (transactivists) that women started to object. Because it is OK to object to being colonised!

craigey, mate, you're so out of your depth here, you're embarrassing yourself. I'm cringing for you. Look at all the well thought through, historically informed analogies above your silly post of "completely wrong, but". Do you really not see how lacking in depth and conviction your point is?

Materialist · 11/02/2018 05:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

No1IronGirderRS · 11/02/2018 03:49

@Melamin Me too. Just been revisiting Raising Steam and the Grags' actions really remind me of what is happening here - unreasonable, attacking their own, hating everyone else, and violence violence violence.

thebewilderness · 11/02/2018 03:11

The words matter and so do the deeds. Men are rewriting laws to give themselves unfettered access to women. Women saying no to men having unfettered access to women is oppressing them? Pull the other one. It has bells on.

CraigyRichererer · 11/02/2018 02:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

thebewilderness · 11/02/2018 02:00

I am perfectly aware of the history of eugenics but you seem to have glossed over the reasons why it was repudiated in order to focus on blaming women for what men did. Odd that.

Materialist · 11/02/2018 01:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Undercoverswede · 10/02/2018 23:23

The colonisation/Wild West analogy has traction, I think.

Also; albeit less colourful, a few things strike me:

  • fetishised femininity from a male gaze perspective
  • dominating the conversation
  • seeking to silence others with abuse, and even threats of violence
  • deprioritisation of issues related to female sex biology (reproductive rights, rape culture)

These are the characteristics of misogynistic patriarchy - not women.

thebewilderness · 10/02/2018 23:17

Eugenics is a similar case where doctors experimented on children until the Nazis took it too far and made it look bad.
Hint: It was already horrible.

borntobequiet · 10/02/2018 23:17

Any cult will do.
Anabaptists in Munster, sixteenth century?

Everyonematters · 10/02/2018 23:09

#weneedtotalkaboutsex

Materialist · 10/02/2018 23:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lovetheway · 10/02/2018 17:01

Very like the Satanic Abuse scandals of the 80s- when nobody dare say 'Did that really happen?' without attracting all sorts of opprobrium.

But the best argument is - what country has the largest number of state funded gender reassignment surgeries? Iran.
Is that because a) they are much more woke or b) they really hate gays?

HawkeyeInConfusion · 10/02/2018 16:39

#sorrybutcannotchangebiologicalfact ?

BeyondTerfyCassandra · 10/02/2018 16:35

#nodebatingnonsense ? Grin

Original poster
StillTryingHard · 10/02/2018 16:02

I really like that hawk

I wish there was some hashtag we could appropriate that sums up that sentiment. It's the opposite of #nodebate because we are acknowledging desire & argument but sadly refuting it as being nonsensical

OP posts:
HawkeyeInConfusion · 10/02/2018 15:56

It is a poor analogy, and not historical, but the TRA argument came to mind in a 'discussion' with 4 year old DS.
DS: I want to wear these shoes
Me: Sorry, you can't. They are much too small
DS: But I want to
Me: You grew out of them a year ago, they won't fit on your feet
DS: I WANT TO WEAR THEM!
Me: It doesn't matter how angry you get with me. Or how much you shout. It doesn't change the fundamental reality that the shoes will not fit you. I'm sorry. I wish I could change that. But I can't. They will not fit.

Hopefully DS will grow out of his irrational demands that reality will change in line with his wishes. But maybe not everyone does.

BreakingDad77 · 10/02/2018 15:44

Isreal v Palestinians both feel a minority to the other?

liloland · 10/02/2018 10:30

Henry VIII. In his mind he was second only to God. Women were chattel.

Original poster
StillTryingHard · 10/02/2018 09:43

Didn't really articulate above well - on train & slow phone

OP posts:
Original poster
StillTryingHard · 10/02/2018 09:43

I think the witch trials connect above has massive merit - has all the components of what's happening now. Against women, some women pitting against other women thus splitting us, sexual undertones, & eventually died away

OP posts:
Myunicornfliessideways · 09/02/2018 19:10

Cassandra thank you! Flowers

I was fairly sure in WW2 no captured prisoners were reminding their captors about their legal commitment to their lady dick.

RedToothBrush · 09/02/2018 18:30

I bet Vietnam Vets would love that one.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread