Are feminists getting played?

So, Sakura, how do we ensure that the category of women as a distinct sex class is sustained if men can declare themselves via law that they are women too?

Women will always be a distinct and separate sex class. Our biological reality is what makes that so.

What men are thrilled about with the trans activism, is that they no longer have to bother humoring the women. That's why men in politics are all in full support of it, even if everyone knows transwomen are just fags, like Lord points out.

So you want to make men see. But why? They already know! And they're just playing us.

The fact that a GC feminist doesn't understand how terrorism, war and conflict can be discussed from a feminist perspective really saddens me

I came to where I am now precisely because of terrorism and this led me to having an interest in war (you should see my collection of books on the subject).

That led me to my degree. Which looked at propaganda and everyday use of it as well as its use in war. And the toxic masculinity within that.

When that has clashed with my understanding of issues relating to childbirth and medicine that's how I ended up with the thinking I have

I have a particular fascination for war journalism and was history, not because I want to know the order of battle etc etc but because of the humanity that has come out of it (which leads me to the very concept of rights) and how people cope with the reality of daily ordinary life in war.

I think there is a huge amount of this that comes from the fact I look at it all from the angle of being a woman and a more pacifist angle (though I wouldn't class myself as a pacifist).

So yeah erm. I kind of apply all this to how I think about everything. Not just feminist issues but political thinking in general.

shrugs

Just because you don't explicitly mention war, I don't think it means you aren't in effect talking about the subject.

I think the notion of what war is has changed fundamentally anyway. The head of GCHQ said recently that we are at war atm in terms of it being a technological war. 'Bombing shit' isn't the only facet of war.

Then you have the entire gun lobby in the US, and how gun ownership is related to domestic violence. Is that part of the current culture war? Is that part of the influence of social media interference across international barriers and the rise in nationalism? Is Russia actively trying to stoke this with troll farms? Are we under cyber attacks from various other nation States?

My point here is these things are indivisible from each other, especially when the meaning of words and language are currently under a huge attack to corrupt them.

Feminism is a liberalist concept and this is under threat from both within and without.

I don't think that when you are talking about trans issues, that you aren't talking about war even if you don't realise it.

mumbles and shrugs

It's all the same to me.

think the first consequence would be that gender becomes meaningless

It won't. Men don't buy into this gender stuff. Many men see transwomen as essentially being 'fags' (not my opinion btw, but what I hear working in a blue collar male dominated sector. I even get the piss taken out if me for wearing a brightly coloured t-shirt - "borrow that off the missus, did you?").

I've been wondering too what would happen if trans goes mainstream and people being men or women has nothing to do with their biological sex. I think the first consequence would be that gender becomes meaningless - or only meaningful to the extent that categories like "nerd" or "hippie" are meaningful. But still there would be the major biological difference between men and women. Specifically, only half the population could give birth still, and that half would still need fair representation in government. Necessity would force a means for describing that category. So that's why I'm not all that fussed. I like the words women and mother, but fair representation is more important, and I can use whatever word.

Gender is a hierarchy of power, is it not? Men, regardless of how they present themselves, assume and express dominance because that is what patriarchy teaches them.

I can see how trans women might skew the quota stats etc, but let's be honest, the typical rugby watching, old Etonian type isn't going to want to give much favour to a transwoman as many men are still very bigoted towards them (men like to favour those they see as their proteges etc, hence the continuation of patriarchal structures).

Other than that the only other card we have up our sleeves it to completely refuse sex and wifework and to completely separate from men in all social interactions unless the ones that are absolutely necessary for our survival. Feminist separatism I suppose.

Don't a lot of radfems already do that? The majority of Love-Island-watching women probably won't want to (I'm already amazed how they put up with these arrogant, misogynistic Essex boy player types).

So, Sakura, how do we ensure that the category of women as a distinct sex class is sustained if men can declare themselves via law that they are women too?

Typing it out like this I actually feel sorry for us feminists and I do see why so many women hate feminists and are put off feminism.

The fight is just so futile

At least the trans issue is a fight we can most probably win, so that in itself is a good enough reason to focus on it

I really don't know why women think men are concerned about displacing women. They have always displaced women and will continue to do so whether the trans war is won or not. Like an MRA on mumsnet once said, you can always find a pretext not to hire a woman

*Men make war. Women want to stop it. How? The only way I can think of is by getting more women into positions of power and influence. I'm not sure how we do that but if we can't define who a woman is how can we even try? If statistics are not sex-based how can we even monitor it?

I know that is a very simplistic explanation but It's where my understanding is at right now.*

You're saying if we don't focus on trans we'll have an even lesser chance of stopping war because we won't be able to get women into power ? That's an interesting theory.

What if we do manage to stop the trans madness and they still refuse to let women into decent positions of power . Stranger things have happened.

Or they let women in, like Thatcher, who don't much like women.

I think a lot of young women are saying the only answer is to stop having babies . Japanese women are already doing this.

Other than that the only other card we have up our sleeves it to completely refuse sex and wifework and to completely separate from men in all social interactions unless the ones that are absolutely necessary for our survival. Feminist separatism I suppose.

The only way I can think of is by getting more women into positions of power and influence.

And if men succeed via law in being included in the classification of women there is no hope of achieving anything since those men displace women and will necessarily dominate all the discourse.

And on the very slim chance that you are feeling sad about it all, I feel sad that you cannot see what a HUGE issue this actually is

All through this thread people who question (not even disagree with!) the idea that GC is vitally important to feminism are told to leave or post on another thread or that their comments are a waste of time. But why? That's the topic of the thread!

You can't have many topics that you think are important enough to warrant their own thread if you want to keep them all in one thread here. I thought you were going to astound us with all your insights and observations on a myriad of things that the silly one-track-minded mumsnetters just hadn't noticed.

Oh well, maybe next time.

We are being played, and it's from a lot closer to home than you are implying.

War and nuclear disarmament is a major feminist priority because it's men who build nuclear weapons and its men who bomb. It's not women.

A few points in response:

1. Taking ISIS as an example, it's not just men's way of life that is fuelling their hatred of our society. It's also women's refusal to be subjugated and wear burkas etc. Our (primarily male) army are fighting for your right to live as you see fit.

b) What do you think would happen without our nuclear deterrent? Do you trust people like Kim Yong, the successors of Bin Laden, etc. Do you think they'll hold back if they know we have no means of retort?

On the subject of WDIT I saw a politician on Twitter the other day arguing that WDIT in regard to violent sexual offences, citing as evidence a list of sex offenders which included - you guessed it - men identifying as women. Putting male crimes into the female category and then using it to say that Yaniv's behaviour was female pattern predatory behaviour. Exactly as feminists predicted would happen. Males crimes are being used to promote the belief that VAWG is not in fact gendered.

Same with the endless WDIT posts by Lord "sexual offences by women have increased dramatically in the last decade" Rudolph. Have they now? Some one remind me how long that FOI request said the police had been recording crimes by self ID for...?

This is a genuine question, not goading, I'm still learning.

Men make war. Women want to stop it. How? The only way I can think of is by getting more women into positions of power and influence. I'm not sure how we do that but if we can't define who a woman is how can we even try? If statistics are not sex-based how can we even monitor it?

I know that is a very simplistic explanation but It's where my understanding is at right now.

I'm a bioeseentialist. I think men and women are fundamentally biologically very very different. So I don't know what eliminating gender really means in this context

The way I view sex and gender is this:

Sex = female; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as feminine / femininity [subordinate].

Sex = male; gender = learned stereotyped behaviours described as masculine / masculinity [dominant].

Gender is the set of behaviours imposed on either sex from birth by our patriarchal society to ensure that males are always dominant in every sphere.

Sakura did you see my question. It was a simple question

JackyHolyoake

I think eliminating gender is an interesting theory.

I'm a bioeseentialist. I think men and women are fundamentally biologically very very different. So I don't know what eliminating gender really means in this context.

I want men to stop with their nuclear weapons, with their utter destruction of the environment, with their mass rape, mass femicide. You can argue that this is socially constructed. I think most feminists are beyond caring whether it is or not. We just know it's men that are doing it, and they must, somehow, be stopped.

WDIT is like NAMALT

Anti feminist arguments disputing feminist class analysis

"Not all men are like that"
"Women do it too"

What is WDIT please?

All through this thread people who question (not even disagree with!) the idea that GC is vitally important to feminism are told to leave or post on another thread or that their comments are a waste of time. But why? That's the topic of the thread!

For me, a core aspect of the feminist agenda is the abolition of gender, not just being critical of it. So, yes, issues around the patriarchal tool that is gender are critical to feminism, since gender is patriarchy's control mechanism.

So, I disagree that feminists are "being played" here. Transgenderist ideology is the biggest threat to the very existence of feminism, since if it becomes impossible to define women as a distinct sex class it becomes impossible to define feminism or for feminism to exist.

I would say one of the the feminist issues that makes me the most angry is the cries of WDIT when it comes to war crimes and genocide

If the definition of 'women' is meaningless and male-bodied people are also women, then it seems feasible that WDIT in terms of war, in the same way some women have penises.

Which is why genderism and the subtle shifts in language from talking about sex classes to talking about gender classes is so important to every feminist issue.