Silence of the Lambs etc - are TRAs fighting historic battles?

BTW, have you discussed this with the trans person that you know, OP?

Yes, but it wouldn't be Silence of the Lambs, though would it? Why can't you enjoy the film for what it is? A damn good thriller.

I'm a historian who hates revisionism.

I’ve found this thread interesting, didn’t understand it at first, but totally got it when you explained you thought process regarding your friend A.

As it’s been pointed out, the Silence of the Lambs character was based on a real person. It’s not a lazy stereotype. Now you know this, how would you discuss it with your friend A? Do you think they would accept that it’s not transphobic? Or would they still argue that it’s a lazy trope that should not be used, even though it’s based on a real person?

When my dd identified as trans, everything revolved around her. Everything we said had to go through a mind filter first to check she wouldn’t find it objectionable. She found a legitimate channel for all her anger and resentment - one that she used freely and often. The world was not centring her. This is where the activism comes from. Everyone has rights though. We all have to live together. Trans rights and ideology has been a shifting sands of demands and ideas.

I don’t think Silence of the Lambs can be blamed for this.

We do need to understand more. Understand how women's rights need to be defended or they will be marched righted over.

Men didn't decide to give their mothers, sisters and daughters the vote or any other rights. Women had to fight for them. Those women were probably labeled many things too. Men wouldn't and won't miss women rights, irrespective of how they identify. They have men's rights to fall back on.

When James Morris who changed name to Jan Morris 'identified' as a woman, J Morris still stayed at their gentlemen's only 'Travellers' Club' in London. Not quite the full 'woman' experience. Was the now Jan Morris not jumping up and down saying "I can't stay in this men's only club as I am now a woman and women are barred from being members here"? Were they f*ck! Women, or 'ladies', cannot be members still today. But may possibly be tolerated as 'guests' of the gentlemen members.

Women who naturally and biologically just are, don't have men's rights to fall back on. Women's rights are our only lifeboat. We mustn't let it get submerged by those jumping on to sink it.

Women are getting rape and death threats. Violent imagery is used to threaten women who believe in sex based rights.

Are any of the men involved in the making of Silence getting this? Or is it just women?

But I'd advocate for less emotional empathy, because as women we're socially conditioned to over-empathise emotionally with males and prioritise their feelings

A well articulated distinction.

Yes, it is possible to be cognisant of something, yet still disagree with, or run counter to, its 'logical' conclusion.

Empathy and Sympathy are not necessarily the same thing.

I guess what i'm saying above is that we should distinguish between cognitive and emotional empathy. I'd advocate for women having more cognitive empathy with males, from a self-protective point of view. Especially when it comes to the trans issue. I think it's very valuable to understand the motivations in play if you're involved in this discussion.

But I'd advocate for less emotional empathy, because as women we're socially conditioned to over-empathise emotionally with males and prioritise their feelings.

Ah, it's not. What's wrong with deciding to condemn a little more and understand a little less? I may be curious about xyz - you may feel it's a distraction from what you care about

It is perfectly possible to understand a behavioural and motivational pattern, position or set of observances; but to still come to a conclusion which runs counter to it.

People with issues, of all sorts, are often so embedded in those issues that they cannot see the wood for the trees, and can often have tendency for framing the issue as natural, inevitable or out of their own control. The world then becomes a mirror of confirmation - shoring up one's feelings about oneself and/or the situation one finds oneself in.

Historical revisionism, is where by you go back over time and over past events ( or films) and re-create a supporting narrative that justifies, legitimises, or explains your current position or view.

Imho I think too many women stay with the role of showing men that empathy at the expense of showing it to themselves. We need to think about that when considering understanding male violence to women and girls.

I agree with this. But I'd point out that frequently, understanding is useful not from an "empathy" point of view but from a "predicting behaviour" point of view. The article I linked above, regardless of the authors' intentions, doesn't make me feel sympathetic towards abusive TRAs. Quite the reverse. It absolutely increases my determination to keep them the hell out of women's spaces, and reinforces for me that compromise is not a solution and that being nice is not an adequate defence, any more than it is in an intimate relationship with a narcissistic abuser.

People are talking on this thread about "understanding a little less and condemning a little more" and vice versa, but IMO the vice doesn't have to be versa. "Understand a little more and condemn a little more" is how it usually works for me with abusive males.

Women are shamed all the fucking time- for our bodies, for our sexuality, for not being feminine enough & so on. World over.

We don’t go around violently attacking other groups and removing their legal rights protections.

The whole world is geared up to understanding male violence, why do we need more focus on this?? There is so so much that seeks to understand why men are so violent, most of which is sympathetic and often excuses it. Films/books et overwhelmingly show sympathetic or even attractive portrayals of violent men- see the thread on jk and people showing you who they are. Why do we need to feed into this more? Let men understand why other men do this, let them correct this. Women are victimised at least as much if not much much more than men and we don’t go around abusing others like men do. The only difference is men are socialised to be entitled to our bodies, our spaces etc. That’s the only factor we need to understand. It’s still men’s job to correct that as they are the ones belonging to the class that has all the power.

I had a really abusive childhood. I spent years as a teen reading criminology and psychology books- weird habit for a teen seemingly. Years later in therapy I learned that I had been trying to understand why those who harmed me did so that I could ‘correct’ my behaviour and be at less risk (which is a myth of course, I never had any control over what they did to me). This is a common reaction for kids who are abused, and obviously so many women are at some point of other in some way. Part of healing from that requires stepping away from trying to understand and be empathetic towards the abusers and start showing myself that same empathy, understanding and compassion. Imho I think too many women stay with the role of showing men that empathy at the expense of showing it to themselves. We need to think about that when considering understanding male violence to women and girls. Imho.

You wonder if TRAs are fighting the battles of the past because of what you saw in old films and think It might explain the sense of “mission” and the clear feeling that the ends justify the means. Just a thought

I agree it is helpful to understand why TRAs are behaving like they are. I do not think your theory is correct though. I do not think think this is a major factor.

In films cross dressing men and women were at worst part of a joke. Those demeaning jokes were no worse than the ones women got in Carry On films and Bond films. Gay men got the piss taken out of them too, lots of limp wristed camp comedy sidekicks. Negative racial stereotyped characters abounded wildly popular entertainment: Bonanza, Gone with the Wind.

So, no, I don't think historic depictions of gender non-conforming people particularly cross dressers and transsexuals (as described back then) is a major driving force behind the anger today that results in the stomping of women and women's rights.

To me the sense of mission and ends justifying the means are like you get with extreme religious people. The grievance seems to be with people refusing to hold the faith, or failure to follow the faith in the right way. If you want to understand where TRAs are coming from I suggest you look at religious fervour instead.

Thank you for your insightful post. Hecates. 👏🏻

Trans people have been mocked throughout history. The ‘ugly sisters’ can only be played by men, because only men in drag are considered truly ugly enough.

Um, the ugly sisters are often played by women and their purpose is to highlight their unwomanly qualities in direct contrast with the perfect womanhood of Cinderella. In the original French tale they were not ugly, they were 'proud' because this was a highly undesirable characteristic for women to possess, in comparison with their humble sister who accepts her servitude. It's interesting that over time the less desirable quality to have has morphed into ugliness, since society prizes beauty above all else. Cinderella is the ultimate objectified female. They also exist to divide women - through their jealousy of her beauty and her ability to bag the prince. It's a tired & misogynistic cliche. They have been played by women on numerous occasions on TV and in film, the reason that they are played by men in pantomime is that pantomime dames are and have always been grotesque caricatures of middle age women. Their purpose is to ridicule older women and their existence stems from a time when women weren't allowed on the stage so girls and women were played by men and boys. For centuries women were not allowed to make a living from acting. Plus the more modern twist of having women play the lead boy came about because of the thrill of seeing women's legs on stage. The history of stage drag is dripping in misogyny.

I watched this the other night and was pretty shocked by the transphobia......

Trans people have been mocked throughout history. The ‘ugly sisters’ can only be played by men, because only men in drag are considered truly ugly enough.

You don’t even have to look at films. Up until fairly recently journalists could write quite openly vile things about transsexuals in mainstream newspapers including Julie Birchill’s ‘bedwetters in bad wigs’
www.imediaethics.org/calling-transsexuals-bed-wetters-in-bad-wigs-ok-with-pcc-rules-not-discrimination-or-harassment/

Suzanne Moore’s ‘Brazilian transsexual’ comment seems positively mild in comparison (bless her).

And Julie Bindel (who I admire hugely) writes: There can be no doubt that transsexual people are often targets for abuse and cruelty. Good liberals should find this appalling, and add our voices to those within the transgender rights movement, calling for an end to discrimination towards this community.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/01/mytransmission

So there may be something in what you say. Nothing excuses misogyny though. But Silence of the Lambs is an odd one to focus on. Lector clarifies that the killer is not transsexual, but someone trying to escape childhood abuse and will have been rejected by every sex change centre in the country. The whole point is he does not have genuine gender dysphoria.

Nevertheless you do see the odd ‘it puts the lotion in the basket’ comment on here from time to time. Anyway, yes interesting discussion.

You are still convinced there's a direct link? Even though your premise on SofTL is false?

On a slightly different note, I've been watching Cobra Kai. You can really see the shift in cultural attitudes from 1980s Karate Kid and the teen world today.

None of this has anything to do with why a bunch of misogynistic arseholes continue to shit their misogyny all over social media.

That's right.