Your peaktrans moment for today! Top this if you can.

I know you may not like this but other women don't actually have to do what you tell them to, or even agree with your analysis of the situation. Trying to DARVO when you don't get your own way is certainly interesting, though
I know they don't.
Dear me.
Get angry feminists claiming debate and different views, alternative takes on how debate can be percieved is DARVO.
Got radical TRAs claiming that any challenge to them is bigotry and violence.

Makes it very clear why moderate, centre ground voices across the gender debate probably decide it's not worth engaging.

And there's also a chance that there are people who're just as put off by the kind of controlling of other people's language that you're attempting

You need to listen to this Maisy. She's right.

Ereshkigal
By replying to those who have replied to me.
But as predicted on some of these threads, there's one view to have and that's be angry and claim any debate to the contrary is silencing women.

Between that and radical TRAs, it's sonetimes hardly surprising that many women don't really want to get involved in debate. Best let the radicals at both ends of the spectrum sling mud and everyone else should stand well back and leave them to it.

Remember when Masie was talking about points scoring earlier? Projection is a thing people often do.

And there's also a chance that there are people who're just as put off by the kind of controlling of other people's language that you're attempting. Certainly there's more than one person so far just in this thread who has been.

I know you may not like this but other women don't actually have to do what you tell them to, or even agree with your analysis of the situation. Trying to DARVO when you don't get your own way is certainly interesting, though.

The attempt to control how other women speak is going in one direction only, and those who it's being aimed at have every right to say no.

So, I'm saying no.

YY. Me too.

I'm really not sure what you think you are achieving Maisy, apart from derailing this thread. You've made your point. People disagree. Move on.

angry
After i first posted in feminism i buggered off and didn't come back for ages. The reason wasn't because of heated debate, or the topics, it was because there a sense of 'well some of us are angry so should be as direct, combative, selectively blunt to score points under the guise of just pointing out the truth. If anyone disagrees with us then that is women silencing other women. In an odd way it reminded me of someone I knew at university who knew for sure that their feminism was the only real kind and any other kind was women sticking up for men and more proof you were a silly woman who hadn't seen the light (again, similar narrative when people have all the 'peak.trans' moments in a i was blind but now i see).

You get people offline who are all "i'm like marmite, you either like me or don't", "people often have an issue with me but that's just because I tell it like it is", "i'm just blunt, if people can't handle the truth that's their issue". More often than not when people have that approach people don't think 'wow what an intelligent person', they tend to think people are just being an arse because usually 'tell it like it is' tends to translate to just being rude, inflamatory, argumentative whilst pretending that they are 'only saying...'

There's a chance that some of the feminism/trans/TRA threads end up being like those people offline who pride themeves on 'just telling it like it is' so people in that view love it, but it may not help bring others in.

Thing is, it's not just the TRAs trying to control how women speak, it's also other women right here. And it's not on. It's controlling, it's unfeminist, and for every women who then thinks "oh I like the tone there now, maybe I should join" there will be (at least) one other who thinks "if I try to say anything someone is going to jump all over me, you can't say anything right there, some bugger is always chiding people about could they just phrase things differently and consider how they may come across and also are they aware that they're making gender critical perspectives look bad?"

Notice that those of us objecting to this policing of other women's language aren't saying that the women who prefer a very impersonal tone devoid of sarcasm or anger or even mild irritation shouldn't communicate that way if that's what works for them. The attempt to control how other women speak is going in one direction only, and those who it's being aimed at have every right to say no.

So, I'm saying no.

Yeah I’m the same. In my three years of marraige I have only ever received one card with the correct surname on it.

My grandma even calls me by my husbands first initial so I’m mrs d teacups husband. Even though she knows I have never changed my name. She does it because she has different beliefs to me and believes I am disrespectful to my husband for keeping my name.
It’s irritating but not violence.

@transauthor It'd be like if I was your mum and you got married to a person I hated and started using their surname. My letters to you would be addressed to your maiden name and every time you received a Christmas card, you'd feel like your life choices were being disrespected. It would eat away at you over time and you'd feel less than equal to everyone else who your mum respected their marriage

You do know this happens to women all the time?

I didn’t change my name on marriage. People insist on calling me Mrs dh’s name. When i’m dr myname.

All the fucking time. It’s ignorant, but it isn’t literal violence.

It is one more thing about being a woman that a biological man would never get.

Beyond11cisRetinol
I agree that kidding yourself something that is biologically impossible is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm coming at it from a different angle, but as someone who originally felt the feminism board was only for people who agree with one set of views/very hive mindy/ more for people who want to make angry digs or score point, to see loaded personal comments about individuals sticks with me as ^if a lurker saw these threads, would they see women debating very serious debates, or would they look at them.and think 'this isn't my scene, maybe it's best to leave them to it'?

It's not about tone policing or.expecting women to be lovely and cuddly all the time (I hope that's not what anyonr takes from it), but more that we need more women to see the problems.and join the debate. To me, part of that means maybe being aware of how gender critical feminists present themselves.

TRAs or that person thinking they're having periods - they don't give a shit about our feelings. So why should I give a shit about theirs?

Yes. I think people really ought to give this a bit more thought. Why are male feelings important and women's not? WAWAG?

No it absolutely is not just you, Angry.

AngryAttackKittens

It's possible that I'm the only woman here who's getting very tired of the constant attempts to tone police other commenters, but I doubt it.

Nope. In fact I've been mulling this over for days. It's an issue that comes up regularly with my DH (Disclaimer: he is no more an ass than I am in this relationship. At times. We just do different things. This is one of his.)

I always get told if only I'd been nicer, kinder, friendlier in saying something, asking for something. But I've actually tested it - it doesn't make a blind bit of difference how I raise an issue or make a request when he is not inclined to cooperate. None. Absolutely zero bloody difference.

Well, that's not quite true. In actual fact, what happens when I self-censor is that I put myself into a submissive position of giving way and giving way and giving way until my space is where I'm standing and his is the whole world. He senses blood when I do it and goes for the jugular thinking "she's already given in on that, what else can I gain ground on". I never win when I tone police.

Sometimes standing your ground means not giving a flying fuck about offending someone because the issue goes way beyond hurt feelings.

Sometimes it's a line in the sand I need to draw unequivocally. Without pussyfooting around. This far. No further.

And that's where I'm getting to with this issue about self-id and women's rights. I will admit that when I first became aware of it, I found some of the women who were entirely uncompromising harsh, offensive even. But I get it now. This having to be nice all the time, to care about other people's feelings, to put other people's needs above our own, it's why we are here.

DH doesn't give a shit about my feelings (or anyone else's for that matter) when he needs something that is absolutely vital to him. So, why should I?

TRAs or that person thinking they're having periods - they don't give a shit about our feelings. So why should I give a shit about theirs? Especially when it's about using pronouns talking about randoms on the internet. Just to have the moral high ground? Just so that other lot of randoms can't pronoun-police me? Fat lot of good that's going to do me when my rights are gone.

Fighting for your rights isn't pretty. It cannot be sanitised.

I'm not name calling when I say a male who believes he has periods is delusional. That's the very definition of what a delusion is. It's not an insult.

I am trying to learn to engage enough for the lurkers to see there is objection and then stop.

That's why the rules of misogyny are good. Is possible the use them to highlight behaviour without engaging too much.

failure to object is deemed acquiescence

Yep, yep

I really do not have a problem with people pushing back, but I think sometimes engaging just gives oxygen to the people with bizarre ideas.

It is a catch 22, I think. Failure to object is deemed acquiescence, while engaging with trolls gives them the attention they crave.
I am trying to learn to engage enough for the lurkers to see there is objection and then stop. It is a steep learning curve for me that I have been climbing and backsliding on since I was a snarky teen.

It would be funny if it wasn't really happening. Suddenly madness is normality.

I think sometimes engaging just gives oxygen to the people with bizarre ideas
That's kinda where i come from.

There's so many big debates to have that engaging with individual TRAs and handing them amunition to go down the 'boohoo look at these nasty women' seems counterproductive to me.

Biological men cannot have menstrual cycles. That is a fact.
Why name call people who choose to kid themselves? If they're so wrapped up in their lies/thoughts/fantasy then so be it. I'd rather call out the idea than give victim fodder to someone who probably believes stating biological reality is violence

What fuckery is this?!? Am pretty speechless at the audacity of it all.

The world has properly gone insane.

But just as an example. The lady on that thread ended up being booted off it, and the other person ended up as a 'victim'.

Subsequently that transwoman was banned, as were five or six others, including a transwoman moderator.

They went too far.

CadyHeron

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

It's a well known abusers' tactic. Hence it's become an acronym.

Women who are at the coalface of domestic violence and abuse are only too well aware of this sequence.

It's fairly chilling when you see it played out by men who have no idea their behaviour has been previously noted, documented, and analysed.

LangCleg

Having woken up earlier this week in the middle of the night crying and in a pool of blood, I'd rather like to appropriate your period experience. Not sure how well that's going to work out for me though.

Deny Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.