Are you a real woman?

How about cis men? Just saying.

I mean did you accuse of being cis men? Just don't ever hear it mentioned. I find it odd.

I have seen more than one instance of that and yes drew the same conclusion.

I'd just like to remind you LassofFyvie that the assumption was that all of us claim this. As has been previously pointed out ad nauseam, we are not a hive mind.

Yes, some posters question the sex of others because they assume no woman would say this, that or the other.

Sometimes they're right, many times they're wrong, but it isn't all of us who do this, it isn't all of us who do it at any given moment and it certainly isn't feminists in general who do it. It's individual posters.

An example of feminists deciding who are "real women" , which is what that article is getting at, is posters on here posting that someone "must be a man"? "are you a man?" "no woman would say that" "you don't understand because you haven't had female socialisation" etc etc.

I alluded that a poster may have been male once (started a right shit storm!) because I naively presumed that people come to this 'Feminism chat' board because they are feminists who like to chat! How wrong I was Because this particular poster was writing what I judged to be anti feminist posts in an insulting, quite aggressive (not 'chatty') way, I thought they might be male. It was understandable to me given the context but I apologised non the less.

I've since learnt that some women, who don't consider themselves feminists, come to the Feminist chat board because they enjoy arguing.

As for the assumption that all of us here presuppose that women share all of their experiences - I think that is a misunderstanding of the feminist argument

The misunderstanding as you call it comes from the fact that much feminist writing does not apply the theory outlined in your post. It becomes emotive and personal and ends up with these universal assumptions. Glosswitch's writing does that.

It's the consequence of that de Beauvoir line about not being born a woman but one becomes a woman (which frankly I think is little more than a sound bite but )

An example of feminists deciding who are "real women" , which is what that article is getting at, is posters on here posting that someone "must be a man"? "are you a man?" "no woman would say that" "you don't understand because you haven't had female socialisation" etc etc.

If the posters accused of this are men they have often either gone to considerable effort to concoct an online persona as a woman or alternatively they are women.

The same way that not considering a same-sex relationship because you think you are not attracted to same-sex genitals without any actual experience is also closed-minded

I'm not sure where the quote above came from - was it in the article?

The quotes below however was made by a regular FWR, lesbian poster. I save the wit and wisdom of MN and also the "I can't believe what I've just read comments"

I find the 'I'm be straight even if it wasn't for the patriarchy' line, or I'm just not attracted to women (and I have no real interest in thinking about why that is) line a bit of a case of head in the sand

but I think it is very arrogant of straight women who claim to be feminist to not be willing to give a little consideration to why they are heterosexual, or at least wonder if it could have been otherwise

I am a real person, and I happen to have XX chromosomes and breasts and a vagina as well as feet and arms and an arse. I wouldn't know where to begin to try and define "real woman".

Funny how you have no trouble in defining and claiming "real person" about yourself though, isn't it? People are real but women aren't, right?

You just described what a real woman is, right there. Then you pretended you hadn't. Why would you do that?

testicle holders

Are they like cup holders? Laughing like a hyena here.

But yes you're right men don't get reduced to their body parts in the name of inclusivity. I wonder why? Answers on a postcard please?

Ereshkigal

Sorry I didn't mean to be so flippant. Dark sense of humour x

Looks like my sarcasm about the article didn't translate well

I was pleased to see that all but one of the comments slated the writer.

That person/teacher's position should now be untenable.

This rapey speech should have criminal consequences

then that is transphobic and closed minded.

No, you meant rape-minded there you go, no need to thank me

I don't want to try sex with anyone I do not feel safe with or attracted to, as that's then all about them, and discounting and dishonouring myself.

Is Jenny Murray party to this anti-women choice campaign?

I don't know what laid the foundations for my sense of what appeals, but I will not force myself to have sex with those I am not comfortable or happy with sexually, that's assisting rapist's mentality.

It's flat out coercion, I seriously worry for the DC at school and the messages of pressure/coercion and being shamed and bullied into giving away their bodies. Gross.

I don't want to try rape sex to see if I like it
I don't want to be porned by 2or more penises at the same time to see if I like it
Or all the other things I don't fancy and seem derogatory and harmful to women , objectivising and humiliating them

I am not going to force myself to do anything that puts me at risk emotionally, physically, psychologically, and talk of it should bring charges.

The content of the article is horrifying enough, but then I scrolled down and read that the author is a teacher. I can only hope they're not an English teacher, because that is one of the most poorly written articles I've come across lately, and I've come across a lot.

I am an adult human female, I.e. a woman. I have no idea what a 'real' woman is as there are only women, men and intersex sexes as far as I know.

If the only reason a person doesn’t want to have sex with a trans woman is because they have a penis, and they have not previously had penis-related experiences to base their level of desire off, then that is transphobic and closed minded. The same way that not considering a same-sex relationship because you think you are not attracted to same-sex genitals without any actual experience is also closed-minded”

Jesus wept. They clearly haven’t thought this through, because the logical conclusion of straight people trying harder & experiencing same sex genitals & not being so close-minded is that gay and lesbian people could be heterosexual if they just tried a bit harder too - thankfully an attitude long gone in most sections of society!

And let's be clear that this is a woman saying this.

Bold fail!

*If the only reason a person doesn’t want to have sex with a trans woman is because they have a penis, and they have not previously had penis-related experiences to base their level of desire off, then that is transphobic and closed minded. The same way that not considering a same-sex relationship because you think you are not attracted to same-sex genitals without any actual experience is also closed-minded”

So is it closed minded to reject rough anal sex if you haven’t even tried it?

And is it closed minded to reject sex with this guy you’ve never met before because you haven’t even tried it?

The argument boils down to the fact that a person with a penis is entitled to have sex with a woman simply because they want to. Her wants and rights don’t come into it. When you really get to the bottom of it, it’s the same age-old bullshit.

I read the article but really there's not enough wine in the world to make any of it OK with me.

It isn't OK, I was horrified by it too. Sorry I didn't mean to be so flippant. Dark sense of humour x

Ugh ereshkigal

If the only reason a person doesn’t want to have sex with a trans woman is because they have a penis, and they have not previously had penis-related experiences to base their level of desire off, then that is transphobic and closed minded. The same way that not considering a same-sex relationship because you think you are not attracted to same-sex genitals without any actual experience is also closed-minded. Having had a negative penis related experience or not finding penises arousing are of course valid reasons to be hesitant, but there is a difference.

Ereshkigal

I read the article but really there's not enough wine in the world to make any of it OK with me. The final "cotton ceiling" paragraph is basically a lesbian can't object to penis until she's tried it. Well they can fuck off and so can auto-correct today.

Can't quite believe that article isn't satire.

Worth reading this, by the same author. Have wine handy.

medium.com/@transgressions/why-sexual-assault-is-not-an-excuse-for-transphobia-a-response-to-gender-critical-feminists-74a0d26b1f8a

I'm not sure it is a misunderstanding so much as a difference of perspective.

Women are not seen as full people by men but often as 2d sterotypes. They have also always sought to define us. What we can and can't do, what we can wear. Where we can go. Which of us are 'real` women. They have always felt they owned our category and could say which of us were allowed in. So, this is natural to them and a shock when we say no.

Plenty of posts from tra types saging gc feminists /lesbians are not' real ' women this is no different to my sexist dad. Anyone who does not pander to males /male gaze is not a' real ' woman and is laughable /angering etc

Why are there no angst-ridden articles about what a real man is?

I think I know the answer.

All this deliberate "misunderstanding" of what a woman is makes me SO angry.

Oh ffs. How to miss the point.
Women are women because we are adult human females. We have xx chromosomes etc etc.
Men are men because they are adult human males, xy chromosomes etc etc
Any one with different chromosomes = intrasex.
we all know this, everyone knows this.
It's not rocket science, it just suits some to pretend they don't know.

I am a woman because of the above, not because I happen to be wearing a skirt and like knitting.