Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Are we arguing about the wrong thing?

238 replies

DonkeySkin · 20/07/2018 18:02

Inspired by a Glinner Twitter thread...

In which Graham Linehan stated that Stonewall advisor Alex Drummond was not female, and that anyone who believes otherwise is 'nuts'. He was inundated with people arguing this point, including some accusing him of 'defining women by gender stereotypes'. Someone else tweeted separately in another thread (paraphrasing), 'I had no idea this many people were this crazy.'

But the thing is... they're not crazy, are they? All the people who espouse the ideology of 'gender identity', which that holds that male and female are a feeling-state, rather than a physical fact.

GC feminists often describe such people as 'delusional', but this is ascribing a level of good faith to them that is undeserved. People who are willing to state outright that a male person can be female if he says so aren't delusional. THEY ARE LIARS. They are lying when they say that sex is a social construct, and no one can tell the difference between male and female human beings, and they need to be called on this lie, not indulged with esoteric arguments about linguistics, metaphysics and (inevitably) intersex conditions.

Every single person on that thread arguing with Linehan knows as well as he does that Alex Drummond isn't female. So even arguing the point with them is attributing a weird legitimacy to this lie, by assuming that the people repeating it are making a good-faith argument.

Let me reiterate: nobody actually believes this. Every politician and high-profile person who smugly intones: 'Trans women are women' is perfectly aware that male human beings aren't female human beings. No one is truly confused about the difference between the class of persons who have the potential to impregnate, and the class of persons who have the potential to get pregnant. Nobody has lost their ability to tell the two sexes apart, and there is no way anyone can cognitively trick themselves into perceiving an obviously male-looking person as a woman.

So the disagreement about whether 'trans women are women' isn't a real disagreement. It's a cover for a different argument altogether.

This isn't a dispute between people who believe that male human beings are really female if they say so, and people who don't believe it. Because NOBODY believes that. What we are actually arguing about is whether female human beings should be permitted to define ourselves separately from males.

When people say 'trans women are women', they are not expressing a sincere belief that adult human males can become adult human females. They are asserting men's right to claim membership of the same ontological category as women, on their terms whenever they so wish. Conversely, and just as importantly, they are also denying the right of human females to have a separate ontological category to ourselves.

Feminists should not be reduced to arguing that women and girls exist as a real material thing in the world. Everyone already knows this. We need to stop arguing about whether 'trans women are women' and move the argument onto its true ground, by putting the case that women have the right to define ourselves – in language and in law – separately from males. Female human beings have the right to an ontological category to ourselves, a name to ourselves and the language to define our physical and social reality. And let the trans ideologues and their 'feminist' supporters argue the opposite, in all its stark brazen misogyny, if they wish.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Ereshkigal · 20/07/2018 23:31

but I don't see how it is possible without showing what the other side is saying for the nonsense it is.

I agree with you, though I think Donkey has called it right.

Original poster
DonkeySkin · 20/07/2018 23:30

Then they have to reconcile their belief that they are an honest / intelligent / independent thinker with their knowledge that they've been going around saying that men can be women. Doubling down on TWAW becomes the least costly way of resolving the dissonance.

This is an important point, Talullah, which highlights another reason why the whole 'trans women are women' argument is a dead end. Because once someone has repeated it, their instinct, as you say, is to double down on it, probably because they know at some level that it's intellectually indefensible. If we charge in going, 'No they're not, what are you daft?', or 'Prove it' they just get defensive, and that's when they usually start a) preening about how much nicer and kinder they are than you, you heartless bitch; or b) babbling about intersex and clownfish. (I am talking here of well-meaning people repeating TRA slogans, not TRAs themselves, who are a whole 'nother level of gaslighting).

Instead of challenging people who say 'trans women are women', we need instead to talk about the reality of sexed bodies, and the needs and rights of people with female-sexed bodies, and make them acknowledge out loud that 'TWAW' means that people with vaginas have no right to a separate legal and ontological existence at all.

OP posts:
SirVixofVixHall · 20/07/2018 23:29

I also think that if you have direct experience of male violence and manipulation, as I have, and/ or coercive control then this behaviour stands out starkly, and makes the lie far harder to believe. It also means that the stand against trans activism comes at a cost to many of us, it pricks all our fear senses. I have even found that the mumsnet stance of policing womens’ conversations on this , kind, decent women who have fought for equality, comes at a cost at times to my emotional well-being . So many of us have experienced tip-toeing around angry men, after all most women will need to do that at some point in society, that to be censored and policed on a forum for women is particularly damaging to us as individuals and collectively . We do need to be able to have conversations that are only for and about women’s needs, and we do need to set our own parameters.
This is a very good thread op. Thank you.

seafret · 20/07/2018 23:27

Thank you fermats that is excellent.

People just going along for the ride, unconsciously telling themselves small lies, rationalisations and denials to defend their ego and position within the system.

flourella · 20/07/2018 23:26

Sorry, I posted that before I'd finished editing, so that last sentence isn't right. Pragmatism is the only thing that can win out, but I don't see how it is possible without showing what the other side is saying for the nonsense it is. As soon as we say what makes a female, they'll opt into it. Who or what is going to stop them? Whether transactivists and allies really believe it or not, their view of how things are with regard to sex and gender is supported by lawmakers.

Ereshkigal · 20/07/2018 23:23

I am not saying transpeople are evil or like Hitler. I am saying that their is a technique that can sway people and saying that transwomen are women (and quite possibly female), is a huge lie by all known standards of biology and science.

And yes.

Ereshkigal · 20/07/2018 23:22

What an excellent post Fermats. So true.

flourella · 20/07/2018 23:18

DonkeySkin I know that. But when that "thought-terminating mantra" is chanted as high up as NHS policy makers, the prison service and the government itself, I can't see a way forward without dismantling this way of thinking. I guess I'm just less hopeful that pragmatism can win out here.

FermatsTheorem · 20/07/2018 23:15

They are treated as women sometimes treat drunken men who might kick off at any moment, or overtired toddlers who need to be kept from a full-blown tantrum.

Time for that great extract from Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" (once more... and apologies for the length, but it is worth a read).

{4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

{5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

{6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

{7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

seafret · 20/07/2018 23:15

Hitler and The bog Lie

From Mein Kampf ^"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes"^

The disgusting evil bastard was pretending tot alk about Jewish people, but of course he was projecting and talking about himself.

The art of Hitler's propaganda was to repeat the lie over and over again so that it would be taken to be self evidently true as such a big lie must have some truth to it... surely? And to make other small lies easier to swallow, and for smaller evils to go unnoticed.

I am not saying transpeople are evil or like Hitler. I am saying that their is a technique that can sway people and saying that transwomen are women (and quite possibly female), is a huge lie by all known standards of biology and science.

And that Emperor's New Clothes saying came from somewhere - I would be interested to know what RL event prompted it.

Original poster
DonkeySkin · 20/07/2018 23:13

don't we have to bring the lie and the willingness to go along with the lie crashing down before we start? How do we do that?

Flourella - The willingness to go along with the lie is grounded in misogyny. It's actually that which we need to expose, not the lie itself – which, as I said, nobody really believes. It's a Sunday truth, as per Bertrand Russell. It would be like wasting our time trying to prove that cold doesn't cause water to boil.

The misogyny is that they are denying female people the right to define ourselves separately from males; to exist as a distinct, named category of persons, with concomitant rights in law. All 'progressives' and 'feminists' who support this extreme misogyny (in the form of parroting 'trans women are women') need to be made to own that position, explicitly. They need to be made to own that they believe that people with vaginas have no right to a name, nor any separate legal standing, or any ontological category at all, as well as no right to any space, anywhere in the world, that is not accessible by people with penises. Instead they are being allowed to hide their misogyny behind a thought-terminating mantra ('trans women are women') that is repeated so often precisely because it is thought terminating.

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 20/07/2018 23:05

Take Owen Jones. Swears up and down all day long that 'trans women are women', and women who won't go along with this are as bad as racists and homophobes. But if you look at the way he talks to and about self-identified trans women, and the way he talk to and about those he knows to be women, it's clear that he doesn't see us as the same type of person at all.

Precisely. And also how he considered the cunnilingus question to be homophobic. How so, Owen?

seafret · 20/07/2018 23:02

Its Friday... i'm gonna do it... prepare for Godwin.

Hitler and The Big Lie - a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

I think we are there

and apolgises if this brings shit down on our heads

LangCleg · 20/07/2018 22:58

They are treated as women sometimes treat drunken men who might kick off at any moment, or overtired toddlers who need to be kept from a full-blown tantrum.

This.

seafret · 20/07/2018 22:57

Unfortunately some are claiming to be female already Donkey.

#biologymatters or something. We shall not give up!

BeUpStanding · 20/07/2018 22:49

they are still not at any point actually confused about the fact that adult human females are a distinct category of persons who are not the same as males.

God I hope you're right. I think there are a few people genuinely confused, there's so much trans propaganda out there.

My brain hurts. I can't think about this anymore tonight. The world has gone mad and I'm going to bed.

Great thread though Smile

Original poster
DonkeySkin · 20/07/2018 22:47

donkey so we give up on the word woman and fight for what, female instead?

Absolutely not, seafret. I never suggested that, only that we stop engaging in fruitless arguments about whether 'trans women are women'. But we probably are going to have to use 'female' a fair bit, because we need to ground the legal definition of woman in biology, and we need to remind people of the reality of sexed bodies. It's because of the differences between male and female bodies that we need sex segregation in places like prisons and change rooms in the first place. How a person feels about their identity is irrelevant for the purposes of sex segregation. Only bodies matter.

Of course, that does just mean (as we are seeing) that TRAs will start claiming to be 'female' too. But it's a harder sell because everyone knows that female and male applies to animals as well - they're harder to separate from biology.

Because the problem is that some people want to be women/female/ whatever we name oursleves even if we called ourselves trolls, htey would (probably) want that.

Absolutely, yes, they would. Whatever we call ourselves is the word they will want. Trans-trolls ARE trolls!

OP posts:
FeminaSum · 20/07/2018 22:46

It's also interesting that the people who claim that you're a man or woman based on your gender identity, biology is completely irrelevant and you have to ask someone to know what they are - don't actually go around asking every single person they meet if they're a man or a woman. How can they possibly tell without asking?! It's almost as if...they don't actually believe the nonsense they spout on Twitter.

flourella · 20/07/2018 22:45

Hence my suggestion that we move on from arguing whether 'trans women are women'. And focus on the right for female human beings to define ourselves separately from males, in language and in law

I do understand your point. But there are so many people who are insisting that TWAW (whether it be through dishonesty, brainwashing, credulity, wanting to appear woke, whatever) that when we try and define what female is, they will just say that they are included. If our bid to define ourselves is to have any legitimacy, and be allowed to stand as only including actual females, don't we have to bring the lie and the willingness to go along with the lie crashing down before we start? How do we do that?

seafret · 20/07/2018 22:43

yes over-compensatory fawning and appeasing the unstable bullies. I missed 'appeasers' of my list of peeps.

HawkeyeInConfusion · 20/07/2018 22:39

If you want to understand more about how people can be manipulated, this is a fascinating read.

seafret · 20/07/2018 22:39

Well Owen Jones would obviously prefer male women wouldn't he, what with being gay. Its all the 'right' bits of feminity plus the right bits of being male, and being essentially male.

Some of the pics I have seen lately make me think that he has some level of attraction to Paris Lees at least.

But maybe he just that cuddly and smug with all the girls.

SirVixofVixHall · 20/07/2018 22:38

I agree op. I was watching that Question Time with Paris Lees, and while professing to believe that transwomen are women, no-one treated Paris as they would treat a woman. There was a peculiar sort of over-compensatory fawning. The same thing has happened in interviews I’ve seen with other well known transwomen . They are treated the way that an unstable person in my wider family is treated (A bully with added mental health issues making him a loose cannon). They are treated as women sometimes treat drunken men who might kick off at any moment, or overtired toddlers who need to be kept from a full-blown tantrum. Everything the interviewer says is designed to express “ I believe you, I believe you are a real woman “ just as everything they do says loudly quite the opposite. Big Brother with IW was a masterclass in this.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 20/07/2018 22:37

It's also about cognitive dissonance. People see everyone agreeing that men can be women so they agree too because they aren't confident enough to go against the apparent mainstream or they want to fit in etc.

Then they have to reconcile their belief that they are an honest / intelligent / independent thinker with their knowledge that they've been going around saying that men can be women. Doubling down on TWAW becomes the least costly way of resolving the dissonance.

People are prepared to believe all sorts of stuff under these kind of circumstances

Original poster
DonkeySkin · 20/07/2018 22:34

The conversations I've had with slightly woke friends who just want to be nice and inclusive, often boil down to them not understanding the significance of changing the definition of the word 'woman'.

Yes, but my point is that while they might want to change the definition of women to include men, they are still not at any point actually confused about the fact that adult human females are a distinct category of persons who are not the same as males. They just think that we shouldn't have any words to describe this, because it hurts the feelings of men who want to be regarded as women.

I mean that, right there, shows the lie up for what it is: somehow, despite claiming to see males as women, they still manage to never put the sexist expectations on them that they put on us cunty types; they still know which type of 'women' are supposed to give up our boundaries, accommodate others at our own expense and be shamed for not being 'nice' and 'kind' enough. And funnily enough, it's never the male ones.

Take Owen Jones. Swears up and down all day long that 'trans women are women', and women who won't go along with this are as bad as racists and homophobes. But if you look at the way he talks to and about self-identified trans women, and the way he talk to and about those he knows to be women, it's clear that he doesn't see us as the same type of person at all.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread