Sally Hines is writing female out of feminism- I'm terrified

On Sally Hines logic the category ‘women’ includes e.g. working class women, black women and non-women. The stupidity is painful.

Theoretically we can certainly play around with changing definitions of categories. I would be happy to go along with post-structuralist perspectives that consider that what ‘woman’ means is open to changes. But,and this is a crucial but, we should never, ever pretend that language and all that language constructs exists independently of power relations.

What we, in myopinion, are seeing very clearly right now, is just how much power men have, and arguably also how much progress women as a class have been making over the past 50 years.

Trans redifinitions of womanhood are simultaneously a backlash against feminism, and a demonstration of just how much power over definining reality men have, as a class.

It is astounding to me how postmodernist academics can overlook power dynamics so completely. It is, ironically, as if they never read Foucault, who was all about considering how those with power get to define what counts as ‘true’. In my view, Sally Hines is talking/tweeting garble even on her own terms.

I cannot think of a single society that did not know that women got pregnant and gave birth. If you study anthropology every society in the world has or has had roles defined by sex.

True. Every human society past and present has understood the sex binary and as far as I'm aware every society has also ascribed specific social roles to the two sexes. Some societies have 'third genders' for gay men, which is a way of tolerating male homosexuality by pushing gay men out of the social category of 'man'. See the Hijira of India and Pakistan, the Muxes of Mexico, Thai Ladyboys, the Fa'afafine of Samoa.

But these 'third gender' males are not understood to be actually women. That's why they have a separate word to define them, and the social rules governing their behaviour are very different (less restrictive) to those that apply to women. The claim that transgender males are literally women is unique to the modern Western trans movement.

One thing trans activists avoid mentioning when they weaponise third genderism is that 'third genders' in past and present non-Western societies are almost exclusively male. The societies in which they arise are invariably patriarchal, with strict adherence to sex roles. Unlike men, women in these societies aren't usually granted the opportunity to opt out of their gender. 'Third genders' for women are very rare and tend to arise only under extreme circumstances, such as the Sworn Virgins of Albania, where blood feuds so reduced the numbers of men that many families found themselves without a patriarch or male heir, and women were obliged to step up, by declaring themselves 'not women'.

This also points to the inherent conservatism of third genderism, in that it preserves sex roles by declaring that anyone who steps out of theirs is not really a man or woman at all. My understanding of the 'Two Spirit' tradition in some Native American societies fits into this broad pattern of third genderism being essentially a way for a male-dominated society to cope with male homosexuality. Most nations that did have Two Spirits recognised them only in men (although a few also recognised sex-role non-conforming women), and according to this piece, Two Spirit people were found in patriarchal tribes like the Lakota, but were unknown among the more egalitarian Iroquois. (I'm happy to be corrected on this by someone who knows more. The piece I link to above is well written but unfortunately not referenced, so it might contain some inaccuracies.)

I will jump through every hoop necessary here to not call men any variation of woman...

I will follow your lead on this.

bernard I have just looked at the 'Mumsnet statement on moderation in particular with regard to trans rights' and you are right, my uncle is specifically mentioned. So I won't be going there but just in the last few posts suggestions like 'stereotypically presenting feminine men' or some such was used. Will that be deleted? There were a couple of ideas for descriptive terms which seemed quite innocuous..it's a ruddy mine field!

It took me ages to fix in my mind which way round 'transwomen' and 'transmen' were, but now my brain just automatically substitutes 'pretend-' for the prefix. I probably wouldn't come out with this in real life, and it doesn't do justice to the inner turmoil, but it keeps my thoughts straight. Could do with a more polite prefix, like 'inwardly-thinks-they-are-a-', but that's a bit long.

I see similar confusion in most of the below-the line newspaper comments. Only a small proportion of the population know which way a transman is supposed to have transitioned, as far as I can see. It's so much more intuitive to assume a transman is a man who doesn't want to be, and has thus 'transed'. Oh well.

I will jump through every hoop necessary here to not call men any variation of woman.

I call women, women, and lesbians, lesbians, in a very straight forward manner, so basically, if I'm describing an individual using 10 different descriptors, you can be reasonably confident I'm talking about a man.

It's interesting to put the professorial role in to perspective.

Out of curiosity I went to a public lecture by a professor working on the Future of Legal gender project.

I went with an open mind thinking there may be some future thinking that would benefit human kind and females in particular.

Nope, amongs the repetitive circular sentences about how it's cool to think about changing the law there was only a bit of speculation that it could be wonderful if we did.

I was left baffled. I was expecting thought leadership and to have my understanding stretched.

The only conclusion I reached was that the audience for this work is university age students, so very young adults. This is who professors engage with and are teaching. Beyond that audience it had so little substance and educational content it's useless. We already know those things out here in the world. Unless you are gullible and impressionable it's just fluff. Empty of any actual useful work. It was quite revealing. So they are as said above, quite easy to refute and reject.

Yes, your uncle Tim would have a tricky time here

Bernard, in an effort to be completely accurate I use 'feminine-presenting men', or 'men who adopt feminine appearance norms', because female sex roles encompass so much more than lipstick and dresses.

Men who identify as women usually don't comply with feminine stereotypes, except for the most superficial ones relating to appearance. They remain singularly uninterested in the non-sexy side of femininity, like doing most of the childcare and eldercare, subordinating ones own needs to serve others, etc.

Yes, I do use the forbidden acronym in other places.

Errm...would that be the acronym that I've heard my uncle Tim use?

Just want to make sure I've got this right, and if we do use it we can expect our post to be removed?

I am also very very angry with this implicit racism in that only 'The West' believes in a sex binary and that other societies are more ...what? Flexible? Magical in their thinking. It's all a bit Noble Savage- whereas I cannot think of a single society that did not know that women got pregnant and gave birth. If you study anthropology every society in the world has or has had roles defined by sex.

The misappropriation of Two Spirit is a profound misunderstanding of the culture. It's nit used because the dear old Native Anericans/ First Nation people didn't know the difference between sexes, and had to wait for the white man to come along to tell them.

Agreed!

Yes, I do use the forbidden acronym in other places. But I like the inclusion of the word ‘stereotypes’, it makes things very clear

‘Should males who feel compelled to comply with feminine stereotypes use women’s toilets?’

It kind of answers itself doesn’t it?

I won't us TW because they are not women.

I still prefer the three letter acronyms that we're no longer allowed to use here.

Maybe we could use braveandstunning as a noun or using ma'ams as the general term..?

Yes, I’m done with the term transwoman, it hides the truth

I’ve been experimenting with ‘males who feel compelled to comply with feminine stereotypes’

It doesn’t roll off the tongue, but seems to me to reflect reality more accurately

I am constantly amazed at feminists who will argue tirelessly that men cannot be women, yet at the same time refer to those men as 'transwomen/ trans women'. Thereby implying that they are indeed a type of woman.

Me too.

A statement of fact, that transwomen are men, is also not a judgement or a measure of value or a comment on authenticity. It’s just a fact. There is no weighting or hierarchy attached to it.

However whatever garbage Hines claims, and however Hines tries to reframe reality in Hines' own view, it does not make it true, or real. Or even comprehensible to the average person in the street, who will just dismiss Hines as a twit.

I think that the central point here for anyone feeling scared by Hines. Whatever she or anyone else believe, material reality just is what it is. Yes this nonsense threatens us in terms of policy influence, but we can campaign against that (and slowly we are actually having an effect in that area). The underlying facts will never change regardless of how you label them. Even if everyone else in the world agrees that TWAW, and that Feminism (TM) must include them, we (the GC not-real-feminists and anyone else with a brain) will still continue to organise and fight for the rights of "cis" women and trans men (washes out mouth with soap and water). Even if they win the language battle we can still use that language to fight our cause. Even if we have to call ourselves "XX liberationists" or some nonsense, we'll still exist, as will the XX people we're liberating. Biological reality hasn't changed, and neither has the need for a feminism that centres it and as long as those things are those two things are true that feminism will continue to exist. You cannot actually redefine things in or out of existence (see the Ontologial argument for the existence of God, for example). This shit has been debunked in different forms for centuries now.

ADropOfReality your post is absolutely spot on, especially "I often am amazed that some academics in arts subjects make the most glaring logical errors and/or fallacies as if they were completely ignorant of the basic rules of logic." I'm often amazed by this about people in general. The inability of people in this debate to spot even the most evident logical fallacy is extraordinary.

It just exposes the fence sitting position of ‘transwomen are transwomen’ for what it is-people need to stop trying to be nice, this is too important

Transwomen are men

That’s not an insult for heavens sake, it’s just a fact

This.

The logic of Hines' argument is implicit in the neologism 'transwoman/ trans woman', which takes the word 'woman' and adds an adjective. That's why the 'they're just another type of woman' claim seems reasonable to so many people.

I am constantly amazed at feminists who will argue tirelessly that men cannot be women, yet at the same time refer to those men as 'transwomen/ trans women'. Thereby implying that they are indeed a type of woman.

‘Trans women are trans women. Women of colour are women of colour. Disabled women are disabled women. Working class women are working class women. Older women are older women. Young women are young women.’

Reminds me of the old Sesame Street song, ‘one of these words is not like the other’.

I bet most children could spot which it is.

Posted this before wrt SH, but it sums up her and her ilk...

That TRA invocation of 'black women are women, so..' 'argument' is so fucking racist it makes me boke.

They think it's a 'gotcha', when - in fact - the gotcha is the depths to which they're willing to stoop to make people believe their woo woo.

We’ve seen this before in relation to the position of black women, we’ve seen it before in relation to the position of working class women. As feminists we’ve got to move away from a politics which is based around perceptions of realness.

Is she saying that working class and/or Black women could be perceived by some as not "real" women if trans women aren't?
I'm not professor, but that s horrifically racist and fascist! Saying men can't be women is not the same as saying poor women or black women are not women!
Or have I read that wrong?
She's not terrifying she's just never had a proper job. She wants to get out more.

2BthatUnnoticed

I haven't seen Hines' full Twitter post, but do I take it she's saying "Coloured women are women, disabled women are women, therefore trans women are women", as if all prefixes work the same way?

Because that's the equivalent of saying "brown horses are horses, grey horses are horses, therefore rocking horses are horses, the Trojan horses was a horse, seahorses are horses".

Having a maths degree I often am amazed that some academics in arts subjects make the most glaring logical errors and/or fallacies as if they were completely ignorant of the basic rules of logic.

How does academia work?

It can be a pretty arduous process in the UK especially to become a Professor. That said - as someone who worked in academia - it isn't always a guarantee of common sense or even rounded knowledge. It can often produce a blinkered academically over-processed view which seems to currently be bogged down by post-modernism. In theory it should be a free flow of ideas, constantly challenged and evolving these days that doesn't seem to apply. I no longer work in that environment (and one of the reasons was the politics in that world) but it still seems to have become less fluid and critical than my experiences of academic thought, which is a shame because that was the bit I liked about it. I'm sure current academics will have a more relevant view though and I think there are quite a few of them on this forum.