The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

Are there no depths you will not plumb?

Why do TRAs constantly, wilfully misunderstand the idea of certain risks only applying to women? It doesn't mean 'all women risk this' but it does mean 'only women are at risk for this'.

Why do TRAs pretend that male strength is not present within transwomen, when science (and common sense) indicates it is?

Seeing your DARVO-ing, dude, and not buying it.

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

False.

Notyourhandmaid, I never said they are at special risk.

What is horrible is deciding transwomen are at no risk because they can't get pregnant and didn't grow up with the narratives. (I'm surprised at your audacity to say trans don't have victim blaming, that's all they get! Blame, sneering, and criticism!)

A transwoman could be weaker than a male assailant. How on earth would you know that?

Is a transwoman physically weaker than a male assailant? No.

Is a transwoman at risk of being impregnated after a rape? No.

Has a transwoman grown up with the victim-blaming narratives that women have? No.

Stop lying. If transwomen imagine they are 'just as at risk', they are mistaken. Telling any group that they are in a special danger when they are not is horrible.

I agree with you too Arabella and I've said it on here many times before. If I were in my 20s now I would almost certainly be naively in the other camp.

It was a gradual realisation from my late 20s, as I saw and experienced discrimination at work, then later when I became a mother, was in and then left an abusive relationship and became a single mum and tried to maintain a career that things changed. I also looked back and fully understood some of the other things that had happened in my life and viewed them differently.

I have arrived at this point in my 40s where my 'lived experience' confirms just how unequal we are. Older women are dismissed. It's really infuriating. But I remember being dismissive myself

And Feminism became a much more concrete subject for me, especially as my children grew up and have bought into gender ideology :/

Because statistics.

Because you aren't reading what is written in good faith.

Men are at risk from male violence

Women are at risk from male violence

Men are more violent than women

Transwomen are male

Transwomen are just as at risk as biological women in these types of cases.
Why would you think that? It's not true.

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

You don't automatically become less scared because you were born male.

I don't understand your point.

I expect I would be described as a 'lib fem' up until a few years ago. I think having children has a huge visceral, earth shattering effect on women's lives. So that might be part of it.

But thinking back ... it wasn't that I rejected sex-based rights as important, it just wasn't on my radar. I did think feminism should include males (I still think equity will and would benefit everyone) and I'd arrived at that conclusion from a humanist point of view.

I thought various other issues were very important - more abstract things like how women are seen, treated, published, viewed, etc. I think I had a more abstract kind of feminism, in fact. All to do with fairness, theories, musings and not much to do with real life, statistics, shitty nappies, ob-gyns and domestic violence.

I think I compartmentalised. I knew dv and abuse were issues, but I didn't really connect them with feminism (I know, I know). It's only been from reading rad fem stuff on here that I've started to see a huge (and rather horrible if I'm honest) underlying truth to how misogynist and anti-woman the world is, and how that is connected to so many issues.

The fantastically intelligent, challenging, thoughtful and knowledgeable women on MN have provided an incredible introduction to the breadth and depth of feminist thought - an object lesson, often, in how to tackle misogyny.

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.

@bravebananabadge

Yes Helen Lewis does get a lot of stick for her feminist writing.
Her interview on Woman's Hour a year or so ago about TW was pretty interesting -very thought through and nuanced. It was meant to be a debate with someone from stonewall but of course they wouldn't actually have a conversation with her so it was separate interviews.

Select the correct answer, using as reference 4 million years of hominid evolution as reference for your answer

A) Man wants to look pretty and wear nice clothes and face paint therefore man must be female

B) Man want to look pretty and wear nice clothes and face paint therefore societal norms must be wrong as it is in fact normal

Warning if you chose the wrong answer you’ll be even more screwed than you were when you were just fighting straightforward misogyny and male aggression

Feeling quite ill seeing how quickly talking about male violence against women has descended into endless lies about how transwomen are most at risk. The cognitive dissonance and indeed hypocrisy is just enraging.

I’m not a ‘feminist’ in that I don’t prescribe to a lot of the male bashing that goes on - it’s not done in my name but by virtue of being a woman it’s assumed all women agree with it.
But male bashing isn't part of feminism?! Like many feminists I have sons, a husband - if I thought men were irredeemably bad I wouldn't bother fighting for them. Patriarchal society is bad for both sexes. I don't think you have a clear idea what feminism is.

but it’s a shame that it’s now about damage limitation rather than addressing the very real dangers that many men continue to pose to us today. What do you mean by damage limitation?

I apologise if that’s how it came across as that’s was not the sentiment.

It was merely to observe that those who promoted this ideology back the last century did so without thinking through the consequences or asking those they were fighting for if the ‘answer’ was correct. Now its becoming apparent that it wasn’t and in fact it’s made things worse.

I admit I'm ignorant on this topic and find these threads valuable in educating me. I realise that I’ve benefited enormously from the actions of the many brave women and men who have fought and continue to fight for me and my daughters today and I will support them and do what I can, but it’s a shame that it’s now about damage limitation rather than addressing the very real dangers that many men continue to pose to us today.

But obviously none of these educated people have ever bothered to look up the easily available information. Or worse, they know it’s a lie, and they willingly repeat it.

A recent video conversation with Glinner, Jane Clare Jones, Helen Staniland and Arty Morton included a discussion about what happened when someone who was asked to do some research for a university's Trans Day of Remembrance did conduct some relevant research from validated sources. The student's bafflement was apparently palpable when none of the claims about the death rate could be verified.

If you think that the voices of women are being heard you haven't fully understood the reasons behind much of the current actions. Look up the various female academics who have been threatened, had their office doors pissed on, their jobs out at risk.

And if you see threads as being generally man hating you have missed the nuances. Violent men yes. But as I share my life, my home, my bed with a man it would be ridiculous to suggest that, when I rail about male behaviour I mean all men, all the time.

There is a big difference between women saying no, and the actions of some men (and women) trying to stop them being heard.

Follow the violence.... you'll see it then!

But the problem is all sides. I’m not a ‘feminist’ in that I don’t prescribe to a lot of the male bashing that goes on - it’s not done in my name but by virtue of being a woman it’s assumed all women agree with it. I was struck when I watched Mrs America on why Philiys Schlafly fought against women’s rights . Now I see things from her perspective . No one asked all those women across the country if they agreed or bothered to understand their views and as a consequence they couldn’t hear the message or how the reforms would help them so fought it. This happens time and time again across all walks of life and in business. Apportioning blame is not the answer either. That’s why listening to all sides of the debate and soliciting the views of all stakeholders is so important and so is being adult to accept the majority consensus if the vote goes against you especially if you were part of the process , which doesn’t seem to be in the pysche for many people. (Brext - we were all part of the process, outcome wasn’t as what we wanted but most of us accepted it, last nights Scottish Parliament decision - women not part or the process hence they have every right to fight it tooth and nail)

On a positive note though, women are better at mobilising themselves and ‘fighting’ for what they wanted in a peaceful way, which for change to be successful and long lasting is the only way.

Thanks @EmbarrassingAdmissions and @Doyoumind

”the real issue is that cis women are prioritising their own safety”

How wicked and selfish of us
Nice of him to tell us straight out how unimportant we are.