Women's Hour features interviews with Professor Alex Sharpe and Professor Rosa Freedman as part of 'Sex & Gender' series **Thread title edited at OP's request**

Dr. Jane Clare Jones
‏*@janeclarejones*
OKAY PEOPLES. IMPORTANT THING. PLEASE RT.

We need to raise some support for Woman's Hour for their recent coverage. Can you please send an email with your thoughts, especially the good work they are doing to address the previous imbalance in the debate, and to rectify the >
reputational damage they were suffering from for not giving space to women to express their concerns.

[email protected]

Brilliant post knicknack

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life' because it's the conflict and fighting and demanding and ranting that is in itself meeting needs.

I've seen TRAs actually admit this. "When I'm feeling down, I want to go and argue with some TFs".

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life'

Another reason this isnt like the gay rights movement.

They will never stop pushing. Nothing is ever going to be enough.

Yes. That's something the establishment need to get their heads around. The people leading this movement often demonstrate they are not looking for specific goals to meet specific needs; much of it is driven by the need for conflict, for control, to have emotional needs met, to not have to take responsibility for themselves, their behaviour or to recognise other people's needs, and the whole anarchist thing of smash the norms and other people's sense of stability and security. There's a lot of angry toddler type expression of wanting to create the chaos and feelings in others that are in themselves, and reality/goals are frequently driven by the emotion of the moment with only a passing relationship with reality, truth and facts.

Even the more sane members of the movement such as SW are demonstrating some highly emotional agendas and pathology in their thinking, which is why the movement focuses on removing rights from and colonising/hostile taking over and rebranding women rather than a proud identity of its own alongside.

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life' because it's the conflict and fighting and demanding and ranting that is in itself meeting needs.

I agree that this is a highly unwelcome change of tack.

They will never stop pushing. Nothing is ever going to be enough.

Who does this language benefit?

Those non-female cissexual women.

both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women

I agree that this is a highly unwelcome change of tack.

It doesn't really matter how many though. Once the binary is smashed, sex based descriptions, spaces , policies etc are all mixed sex.

Yes, I think Alex and others are suggesting via trans, non-binary, cis ness etc that some people can choose.

Only some people, or everyone? Who decides who gets to choose?

Or is Alex suggesting that if you are cis-sexual but not cis-gender you can choose whether to identify as male or female?

Yes, I think Alex and others are suggesting via trans, non-binary, cis ness etc that some people can choose.

#project 'Smash the Binary!'

Who does this language benefit?

FloralBunting I just read your post on another thread and think its relevent here too. Hope you won't mind me quoting you:

"Important to remember how language is used by cultists. It's not meant to make things clearer. In fact, the only thing it is meant to communicate is who is in, and who is not.

The different labels that collected like Pokemon by adherents of Genderism aren't really meant to tell you anything definable about the adherent. It's meant to keep you off balance so that you either capitulate or be marked clearly as an outsider who needs to be worked on more, or labelled as a heretic."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3435531-Another-pregnant-man-and-the-LGBs-having-none-of-it-see-comments?msgid=82932873#82932873

According to Alex's theory, both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women.

Wait a minute. That can't be right. If we apply some logic to this, if TW who like their penises are women, then GC feminists would have to be men, even though we don't identify as trans.

But since GC feminists are women and identify as women, then TW who like their penises are men.

Or is Alex suggesting that if you are cis-sexual but not cis-gender you can choose whether to identify as male or female?

Distended = cisgender.

My autocorrect isn't quite up to speed

Debbie Hayton was called cis on twitter the other day when they explained that they knew they weren't actually a woman in their body. I don't really know how to follow trails on twitter so I doubt I could find it again easily, but it was a response from a transactivist who was angry with Debbie for straying off message.

I don't know whether that meant cissexual or distended, though.

According to the batshit logic I mean

And if I was transsexual but cisgender, would I be a man or a woman?

Just to say KnickKnack, I in no way meant to imply that women who do capitulate to all this for the headpats shouldn't be judged for their choices. I know that where I used to be, as a vocal anti-feminist, there were powerful incentives to conform and I know how hard it was to break through that. I was entirely wrong, and I offer no excuses for it - I should certainly be judged harshly for some of the things I said at that time, which is why I went back and deleted/disavowed it when I saw what a prat I had been.

I guess my post was more of a cookie crumb trail for women who tread the path I did so they know that there is a way out of that mindset. It certainly wasn't a plea for a get out of judgement pass, and I share your anger.

both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women.

Very good point.

So can one be transsexual but cisgender?

One that doesn’t countenance that gender expectations are harmful, preventing you from naming and fighting the problem!

Alex says cis-sexual means you are content with your sex and cis-gender means you are content with the gender expectations associated with your sex.

So if I live in Afghanistan and am unhappy that I can't go to school because I am female, which category do I fit?

I appreciate your rage Knicknack

I'm just not convinced many women have 'asserted their cis-ness' as an 'ethical act' to Alex in response to the WH broadcast. I haven't seen many, although this could be because those accounts have blocked me. The example Alex held out was JG and she really didn't do that.

'Cis-sexual' is more alarming the more I think about it. Alex says cis-sexual means you are content with your sex and cis-gender means you are content with the gender expectations associated with your sex.

Alex says plague-riddled gendercrits gender critical feminists are not cis-gender but are cis-sexual.

There is another group of people who are content with their sex but not content with the gender roles expected of their sex and that is the group of TW who are perfectly happy with their penises and have no intention of getting rid of them. Crucially, this group also describe themselves as 'women'.

According to Alex's theory, both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women.

I can't imagine a group I'd least like to be mooshed into, and thus expected to share with, than TW who like their penis.

Who does this language benefit?

That wasn't about Jane, Pencils , that was in reply to the shared tweet by Sharpe thanking all the women who had asserted their cisness in solidarity with Sharpe since the programme.

Yes, I get it. Go to AIBU and Relationships boards any day of the week and you'll find women taking a kind of sadistic/masochistic pleasure in insisting other women must absorb the most awful treatment from partners and parents and mother in laws, always put them first, always think of excuses and reasons why they need to treat you so badly poor them, to always be the bigger person, to always be a kind doormat. Sometimes one of them digs down a bit and admits one core of the mindset, that they had no choice and no escape when they were the victim so they can't deal with seeing another woman being encouraged and supported to stand up and leave. It makes them feel too bad.

I understand it. But when it's this serious, and it's going to have this severe consequences to other women, I judge. I really do judge. I don't give a flying fuck if you're happy to pee next to someone with a penis, or if you're totally open minded about the risks and feel great about smear tests from male bodied people who are obviously male born. Some women don't. You do not get to consent for them. You do not get to tear other people's safety, privacy, dignity and needs away in some virtue seeking behaviours to meet your own needs. And call it being 'nice'. It's about as far from nice, inclusive and intersectional as you can get.

Compliant Individual Signalling

How utterly sickening that women have rushed to assert that they're good girls who accept the label they've had coercively assigned to them, and embrace their inferiority and subjugation. In a gesture to appease and soothe the ruffled feathers of Alex in Alex's trampling of women and their rights.

Jane Garvey really didn't give that impression. It was during her interview with Rosa and she said Now, I'm a woman, cis female - well this is all - it's not - I wish it was funny, it's not, is it? and it sounded like there was some giggling going on.

To me it sounded less like rushing to accept the label, more like trying it on for size and going WTF?!