The real reason why radical feminists are wary of trans women

Damn it we’ve been rumbled!

A woman selling out her sex like this for cash is horribly distasteful.

obscure matters

VAWG being, of course, an obscure matter.

I think this paragraph is going to spontaneously peak trans loads of people.
"The argument that further extension of trans inclusive rules entails a high and urgent risk of creating loopholes for male predators is obviously neither credible nor relevant. It is a clear example of blowing obscure matters out of proportion in an essentially manipulative attempt to gain or keep control. Of course cis women do not really fear that an abundance of male predators will exploit new gender neutral lavatory rules to commit ruthless crimes"

I hate it when people say "obviously" as if their opinion is gospel. Grrr

She does at least understand that many transwomen whilst wanting to be us have no solidarity with us. You can't claim to want to be part of a group but to simultaneously see that group as the enemy.

The comments are funny. I think the author is trying to be neutral but the use of the word cis immediately puts her in the trans camp as only trans women and handmaidens use the term. She also needs to learn to write in plain English.
It does read like a sociology essay to impress the professor.

feminist cis women are obviously facing a challenge, as they are put under pressure to include into their identity group individuals who perfectly embody an image of femininity conceived by the male gaze

Was this a GF attempt to harvest unkind comments on a mainstream media site? Because, um, well, let's just say that there's a significant gap between this and reality.

Oh blimey, is this how low she's had to stoop to get some cash for writing an article. What a load of crap baloney.

Thankfully its a short piece and I can speed read.

The jealously guarded privilege of being a victim is a really popular trope in anti-feminst and racist writings.
This is a poorly executed example.

bewilder

It seems to me that this: The claim of trans women that their femininity is in fact ‘natural,’ ‘healthy,’ and something with which they were born – a kind of core or inner nature

confirms rather than contradicts feminists.

obviously further threatens feminist cis women as it contradicts their argument that femininity is a social construct invented by men...

Cis women do not so much fear the inclusion of trans women, it seems, as they fear losing their lucrative and comfortable victim position.

what the fuck? there is nothing lucrative about being a victim! quite the fucking opposite thank you years of fucking therapy to pay for while the men that did it continue life unscathed. and the author's use of the word comfortable in that sentence is mind blowingly offensive.

the only time in my entire life have been able to use my position as a victim of crimes committed by men is here, on mumsnet, as examples in a desperate attempt to explain why i think i, and other female sexed people, should be allowed, in a few very specific circumstances, to exercise a degree of consent as to who gets to be near my vulnerable naked body. for fucks fucking sake.

Mette doesn't know the first thing about radical feminism if she thinks any of us are cis gender. Such a lazy piece of writing. No wonder they're not accepting comments.

She's managed to be offensive and (I expect) piss off both women and trans women. Yet still no mention of trans men!

"...in one sense trans women with their conservative feminine aesthetics thus represent to cis women a stereotype"

This might be true for some, but now really not anymore. I think she is writing for the 1950s.

Anyone who unironically uses the term "cis" cannot be taken seriously.

Still, feminist cis women are obviously facing a challenge, as they are put under pressure to include into their identity group individuals who perfectly embody an image of femininity conceived by the male gaze.

I don’t have an ‘identity group’ so it’s pointless applying pressure to try to convince me to include anyone into it.

#thatismad

feminist cis women are obviously facing a challenge, as they are put under pressure to include into their identity group individuals who perfectly embody an image of femininity conceived by the male gaze

yeah no

What alternative reality does this person live in?!

I believe it's called London.

I find the article quite difficult to parse.

The claim of trans women that their femininity is in fact ‘natural,’ ‘healthy,’ and something with which they were born – a kind of core or inner nature – obviously further threatens feminist cis women as it contradicts their argument that femininity is a social construct invented by men to fixate women in a position the purpose of which is to please and affirm masculinity. But perhaps most significant is the highly inconvenient challenge that trans women provide to the established feminist ‘truth’ that the female position in society still to this day is undesirable and miserable and that no man would prefer to switch places were he given the choice. Cis women do not so much fear the inclusion of trans women, it seems, as they fear losing their lucrative and comfortable victim position.

This paragraph is odd. I don't know of any feminist who argues against men not choosing to have the 'lowly' position of woman. It's very obvious they do because they write about the sexual thrill they get from the subordination.

What alternative reality does this person live in?!

"Hugely unproductive seems to be the unwillingness of feminist cis women to admit the real fears and anxieties that make them wary of the inclusion of trans women. The argument that further extension of trans inclusive rules entails a high and urgent risk of creating loopholes for male predators is obviously neither credible nor relevant. It is a clear example of blowing obscure matters out of proportion in an essentially manipulative attempt to gain or keep control. Of course cis women do not really fear that an abundance of male predators will exploit new gender neutral lavatory rules to commit ruthless crimes."

Lucrative victim position? So getting paid less, for the financial community in London 90%, less than men is "lucrative"? Will someone please hand the author of that vile piece of shit a dictionary?

Just about everyone else has commented on fear losing their lucrative and comfortable victim position comment and for me, this is the crux of it.
This is where I think TRAs and their supporters just don't get it.
They wave away rape rates, sexual harassment, fgm, child marriage and every other way girls and women are actual victims and instead complain of women taking a 'victim position'. They're assuming women have the same kind of power to decide their sexual and life choices that men have. It's shows an utter lack of understanding of what life is like for far too many women and girls.

Others have cited women playing the victim card - including other women - blithely ignoring the systemic subjugation and injustices at play that many women have experienced to their economic, educational and health detriment, who have been repeatedly victimised and targeted - this is not imagined but gross structural deficiencies and failures of duty of care whilst ignoring the cause - male violence