The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

Everyone is still aware of course that TWANW. But it's too late.

Well written. Or in cartoon form...

From the other thread on Owen Jones, I think the poster who said Jones' TWAW is such a shallow belief, he doesn't really believe it, he thinks it is the correct mantra to chant and that it doesn't matter if he says something that is logically nonsense. I think this cognitive dissonance is common to many. I think part of the thinking fills in with silent qualifiers:

'of course when I say TWAW I don't mean it literally, I mean that we should care for the feelings of a marginalised and sometimes vulnerable group, and respect their lived experience, but it's okay to say TWAW because it's so clearly not factually or literally true that nobody would actually think that I meant it that way'

Yes exactly.

From the other thread on Owen Jones, I think the poster who said Jones' TWAW is such a shallow belief, he doesn't really believe it, he thinks it is the correct mantra to chant and that it doesn't matter if he says something that is logically nonsense. I think this cognitive dissonance is common to many. I think part of the thinking fills in with silent qualifiers:

'of course when I say TWAW I don't mean it literally, I mean that we should care for the feelings of a marginalised and sometimes vulnerable group, and respect their lived experience, but it's okay to say TWAW because it's so clearly not factually or literally true that nobody would actually think that I meant it that way'

Fine. I can understand that and extend sympathy to a marginalised group and of course trans rights are human rights just like all of us and trans people should be protected and free to live free of harm or abuse.

The problem is that so many people have now said TWAW so passionately and vociferously that they now can't retract, even as certain factions say: 'Okay, TWAW therefore sex doesn't exist, single sex spaces can be scrapped and there is literally no difference between male bodies and female bodies'.

So TWAW is being written into law, the difference between W and TW has been erased, in policy and law, with the only difference being something like the new hate crime law in Scotland affording greater protection to TW than to women, result that women are 2nd class citizens.

Everyone is still aware of course that TWANW. But it's too late.

I do see what you're saying here and it does make sense on the face of it. My problem is it's a slippery slope and we're already half way down on our arses as far as I can see.

I would accept "Transwomen are transwomen." And I would even accept knowing a transwoman on a personal level and referring to them as "she" out of kindness and respect. I would agree that transwomen and transmen have a legitimate cause to fight to make sure they aren't marginalised or discriminated against in society.

But I cannot lie and say they are women. They are not. I cannot concede that language. It is too important. I don't understand why the trans community (or rather, why some in the trans community) are so insistent on removing the term "trans" and claiming that they are in fact women.

OK, here's where I sometimes come unstuck, as someone who was a liberal feminist until about a year ago and is still working and thinking through this stuff (with the help of this board):

I accept the importance of biology. TW are not biological women. Sex and gender are different and shouldn't be conflated.

I believe that biology is at the root of sexism. We are oppressed because of our sex and because of gendered expectations and limitations heaped upon us (and on men) from an early age based on our sex.

I'm on board with the need to distinguish between biological women and trans women in certain circumstances, and to reserve certain spaces for biological women.

I agree that we need to fight the erasure of the word 'woman' and of words describing our sexed bodies. We need to be able to talk about menstruation, breasts, pregnancy, menopause etc. as women's issues, because (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that TWAW are women and TMAM) they are issues that overwhelmingly affect and unite us as women. We need to continue to exist as a sex class, and we need to retain the ability to organise politically to fight oppression.

What I'm unsure about is this: Why is it necessary to always and exclusively define the word 'woman' based on sex? 'Woman' is a word that carries multiple layers of meaning, including aspects that relate to gender (by which, again, I mean the expectations and limitations placed on us based on our sex). It is perfectly normal to me, as a linguist, for words to have multiple, sometimes overlapping, meanings depending on context. I know that this will sound like 'ceding language' to some, but honestly, I think 'woman' and 'man' have always had gender-related meanings as well as sex-based ones. If you'd asked someone in the 15th century to define 'woman', I'm sure you would have got all kinds of shitty gender stereotypes as well as biological facts.

Basically, I don't know if arguing about the definition of the word 'woman' is all that constructive. In the circumstances where you need to limit its meaning to biology, surely you need to specify that anyway, given the scope for confusion and equivocation if you don't? Why can't we say that TWAW, in a certain sense of the word?

I'm only going by your previous posts Rooty. And you are putting one group before another. Do you not agree that transwomen should be able to use women's single sex spaces? That's putting them before women and girls. Particularly ones that won't be able to use those spaces any more .

It was you who connected them.

You can't raise it and then say stop trying to talk about them.

My point was , using fertility is not on.

We should not be using fertility in any argument or manner, full stop.

If women lose single sex spaces then they lose that psychological sense of safety - not because any individual TW is a threat nor because TW as a class are a threat - but because women know that someone from the set of people who are bigger and stronger than them are in the same space. The psychological safe space has gone - the sub conscious risk calculations kick in - is this person genuine or are they a Karen White. Women live with a real consciousness of their own vulnerability (too many women aren’t even safe at home) and so the impact of losing single sex spaces is psychologically significant not just physically important.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, it's very well expressed.

Good point. If every man could think back to their 11 ayear old physique and imagine spending their whole life with that body, how safe would they feel walking home late at night?
Mind you my son was almost 5ft 11 at that age so maybe not a very good analogy but you get my drift

Trans are not at the forefront of my mind. Nobody is. Because I don't put one group before another.

And I would add, that single sex spaces are also a refuge from the male gaze when women and girls are feeling vulnerable at their most vulnerable and self conscious. Women are also conditioned not to take up space in mixed spaces.

One set of questions I would want to ask a room full of people male and female including trans people is this:-

How often are you the smallest or physically weakest person in the room?
Are you the smallest and/or physically weakest person in your household?

My DH and sons are bigger and stronger than me. I am average height for a woman but both my sons passed me by the age of 13. My eldest is a 6’2” rugby player who is probably double my strength or more.

A TW will be bigger and stronger than the vast majority of women. TW have genuine fears for their safety, that is accepted. However, TW also have to recognise that women grow up and live with a degree of physical vulnerability that they don’t. Women need spaces where they are not reminded of that physical vulnerability, where they can relax their guard and just be. If women lose single sex spaces then they lose that psychological sense of safety - not because any individual TW is a threat nor because TW as a class are a threat - but because women know that someone from the set of people who are bigger and stronger than them are in the same space. The psychological safe space has gone - the sub conscious risk calculations kick in - is this person genuine or are they a Karen White. Women live with a real consciousness of their own vulnerability (too many women aren’t even safe at home) and so the impact of losing single sex spaces is psychologically significant not just physically important.

It is understandable if you know and love someone suffering from gender dysphoria that you might be willing to advocate for things that might make their lives " easier"
without considering how that might affect others. For example, If your child had to use a wheelchair and can't access the playground you'll fight for ramps and no raised areas but you'll not fight to ban kids using skipping ropes or running around because your child can't do this. However, you might try to devise games everybody might play and enjoy but again you can't force them not to do other things.
In the same way, much as you might want other people to see your friend/ relative as they wish to be seen, this is not something that can be compelled and expecting another group to give up their safety, dignity and or privacy to accommodate them is wrong.
Be kind yes. Allow people to dress as they like, provide third spaces as needed but compromise others' rights and safety, no

Instead of fighting against regressive stereotypes, this generation has wholesale bought into them - is this what our generation has done wrong? We have been so progressive in our lives, that the next generation has to rebel against us in this way? Bring on that pendulum to smack them in the face as it swings back.

At DD's school, all the girls have long hair, they all wear skirts, most of them very short skirts. The boys have a variety of haircuts and styles. But the girls pretty much only one look. It's bizarre. We fought to wear trousers at school (and never won that fight whilst I was there) and we had a variety of looks (it was the 80s after all). It's like a cult of femininity.

Rooty is the perfect example of the type of person the OP is taking about. She has no argument against many of our concerns and has admitted that on here before. She knows there is an issue deep down but her barrier is the Trans people that she knows. They are forefront in her mind during these discussions. Just a shame the women in her life aren't. Particularly if they are from a minority that will be excluded from their own single sex spaces if males are allowed in.

no Rooty the weaponising of infertile women and twisting it to equate to it being somehow like a TW inability to get pregnant is utterly and completely offensive

TW are less at risk because they are male and have male biology otherwise they would be 'women'

These days I find it very hard to understand how any feminist could still square TWAW with the glaring in-your-face daily reminders of TRAs, queer theory, gender ideology, etc.

But cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing. Compartmentalisation, ditto. And denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

I completely agree. It's the devoted zealotry to this anti-feminist cause that shocks me. I can understand submitting. The constant demonstration of how misogynistic the ideology is and what will happen if you speak against it. But I guess it's a way of proving that you're "not like the other girls" as it were.

Look at Sian Berry of the Greens, weeping tears of joy that a motion calling for sex based rights to be recognised alongside gender identity was defeated.

I can't get my head round the twisting and contorting it takes to carry in with that line!

It requires deliberate misunderstanding and misstatements about what has been posted.

A concerted effort to negate all of the biology, physiology based differences between the sexes and a total willingness to accept that TWAW, whilst throwing transmen under the TRA bus as collateral damage!

Transwomen are just as at risk as biological women in these types of cases.

Still completely untrue.

Using the 'trans can't get pregnant argument ' as an excuse as to why they're less at risk and therefore who cares about them and we should only worry about biological women, is surely offensive to biological women who also can't get pregnant!

If you guys choose to believe I meant that on a malicious way, that's your choice. I think that says more about you guys than me, and it's such a preposterous and frankly vile agenda that I don't feel the need to defend myself (as you also know nothing about my own fertility, thanks.)

To answer the questions which appeared to have popped up -

I was not the PP who said that woman are more at risk because they can get pregnant after a rape.

I was reminding said PP that that is a disgusting phrase in itself that shouldn't be used in this type of argument.

That doesn't mean Wendy, that it can't happen.

I wasn't the one who used it.

So why curious and Wendy have decided to jump on me I don't know. The deliberate misunderstanding of my very obvious point , (which was clearly NOT oh it's okay because all women don't get pregnant ) is only down to my viewpoint which immediately puts me in TRA category.

These are not echo chambers.

Interestingly enough I saw a post this morning from a man detailing how he changes his behaviour on his daily travels to make sure women know he is not a risk. This is what people are calling men to do after rubbishing the not all men campaign.

I assume people are perfectly OK with men having to change everything they do on a daily basis, due to the actions of some men? I assume it's OK to have to do that as long as you're not female?

I'm not a TRA, despite the goading every time I'm around. I just don't agree with some of you, and despite your beliefs on here, that is allowed.

I'm going to try asking, politely, that you please stop using "pregnancy after rape" in any of your arguments against women. I'm guessing it's not something you have experienced. It's not semantics for some of us. It's is real, lived, terrifying experience.

For anyone interested psychologist Dr Jessica Taylor has started a new organisation MOCRA - Mothers of children conceived in rape and abuse.

www.mocra-foundation.com/support-services

As a woman who couldn’t get pregnant if she was raped, it appears not Samphire!

I can’t get pregnant because I don’t have any Fallopian tubes which is nothing like I can’t get pregnant because I’m a man

I remember the “are we the baddies?” thread from a few weeks ago. I doubt TRA ever stop & ask themselves that question whilst at the same time stomping all over threads about violence inflicted on women to make it about them