The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

I find this absolutely baffling op. The vast majority of the time we all use women in the usual way, but as soon as a tw appears everyone pretends they were including them all along. Yes, how many trans women are included in that 97% stat of women who have been harassed? I'll bet zero. But if it was challenged history would be rewritten and all of a sudden tw would be part of it

But if I ask the question about male mental health or abused men on here, you can guarantee il be called a man's slave and told boo boo poor menz, let them fight their own battles as they have more power than us.

You can ask it in AIBU or Chat or In the News or anywhere else. It just has nothing to do with feminism. It's OK to have a movement that focuses on women and girls and not any kind of male people. Really it is.

But we can't win here , Eresh. You are asking us to give up our beliefs on TWAW because we don't agree with the way women are treated and that isn't fair.

You're not one of the women in the OP, you are not calling out men and campaigning against MVAWG. You are an "equalist", who says WATM to everything women say about male privilege and male violence, and I wouldn't call your beliefs feminist.

This is specifically about women who have cognitive dissonance between their perception of reality for female people as an oppressed class and the TWAW mantra they mouth.

There are lots of other threads where your own TWAW thoughts are relevant. This is quite a specific phenomenon under discussion and the thread is being derailed to centre on your views. Can I ask that you don't, please? If we are going to respect each other?

Gender is not more complicated than vocation to religious orders. As you would know if you had met any real priests, monks or nuns. It is who they are. Their reality. Their lived experience. It's not a choice for most. But it doesn't mean they are exempt from safeguarding requirements if they have access to the vulnerable

The disagreement we are having is how to achieve it.

Rooty
I don’t think that post is fair. This is a specific section on women’s rights I think women are entitled to centre the conversations on women here. I have seen plenty of posters on other sections sympathetically deal with those issues.

But if I ask the question about male mental health or abused men on here, you can guarantee il be called a man's slave and told boo boo poor menz, let them fight their own battles as they have more power than us.

Why can't we work together?

Rooty
I think there are a number of different ideas to unpick.

Firstly, single sex spaces are partly about preventing known risks i.e. women sometimes need safety from a subset of men would behave inappropriately. This doesn’t make women safe outside of those spaces but it removes a risk. Just because people crash cars when they are sober doesn’t make banning drink driving a bad idea; it’s a known risk.

Secondly, why should men help. 1. because they are decent human beings. 2. because it benefits the people they care about (most men will have at least one significant female in their life). 3 because toxic masculinity is harming men - shit like “man up”, proper men don’t show feelings etc is driving a MH crisis for men - I believe the negative behaviour towards women is part of that masculine performance that traps men too.

But we can't win here , Eresh. You are asking us to give up our beliefs on TWAW because we don't agree with the way women are treated and that isn't fair.

It is not all men who are violent, so we should abstain from making any assumptions on violence from males even though the data statistically is quite overwhelming that males commit much more violence than females? Because that is mean to men?

And trans women are women so they are magically (in addition to being very vulnerable) on the same rate of committing crimes as women? Even though about 50% of trans women in prisons appear to have committed sexual offences?

Surely that is not what is being argued here, or...?

I think there is a fair bit of that going on here. This is arguably not the same as the subject of this thread though.

This is about the cognitive dissonance when self-proclaimed feminist women are criticising all men and campaigning against MVAWG but are fully paid up TWAW supporters/activists.

It's interesting to consider how these two views can simultaneously be held and at what point a male moves from being considered a risk to women, or someone who needs to be "called out" to someone who needs to be cosseted and supported at all times, and is someone who women's and girls' sex based rights should come second for. Even though they recognise that being female means something.

I think I am a bit thick here... do I understand the line of argument correctly...?

It is a bigger risk (statistically) that my husband will kill me than a stranger, so I shouldn’t worry walking home alone in the dark?

It is not all men who are violent, so we should abstain from making any assumptions on violence from males even though the data statistically is quite overwhelming that males commit much more violence than females? Because that is mean to men?

And trans women are women so they are magically (in addition to being very vulnerable) on the same rate of committing crimes as women? Even though about 50% of trans women in prisons appear to have committed sexual offences?

Surely that is not what is being argued here, or...?

It takes me back to the same stance I have on all of these issues.

It shouldn't be and/or.

We shouldn't champion women or men.

We shouldn't champion women or transwomen.

We should hold the bad of any group accountable and protect the good , but without penalising the good of another group.

All of this 'enough is enough, I say no,' men have had the authority for years, let them sort themselves out etc etc , doesn't help.

As I always think, this whole campaign is on expecting men to support us by changing their behaviour, speaking up against other men, stopping the lad chat. Fine. But why should they? And before anyone gets out the card about oh we should be nicer to them, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that for anything to work, people need to be in unison. Not us bullying men into acting by holding them responsible for other men's actions.

Fair point Rooty I think they are two separate issues.

1. We know that women get assaulted by men they don't know. When we talk about this issue, that's where concerns over trans women come in.
2. You are quite right that we should give proper weight to the problem of DV and women being assaulted or murdered by their partners.

Both are important issues, and it's not a case of picking which is the correct one to be concerned about. (Not suggesting that's what you're saying!)

For clarity, I should probably have said "When I am vulnerable, e.g. I am in a state of undress, I am sleeping , and I am in a place where there are strangers I want to be in a single sex space."

I don't have a problem with that, at all. But the argument calls down. Any time I say it's not all men, people say well we know that. We know it isn't. We have husband's and friends and parents and family members and bosses etc etc.

But sadly, it is FAR more likely that one of these people are behind the ststistic than a random man in the street. So why the focus on a stranger who may or may not be trans?

The point is not so much that, as a woman, I am afraid of being assaulted by men. The point is that I am much more afraid of being assaulted by a man than I am a woman, and the evidence tells me I'm right to think that way. As a woman, it's (some) men that are a threat to me statistically, not women. When I am vulnerable e.g. I am in a state of undress, I am sleeping, I want to be in a single sex space.

I'm sure il get flamed for this, but men are more likely to be victims of random street violence. Women are far more likely to be murdered or abused in their own home by someone they know. So if we take the narrative that we trust our partner and husband's, why is it that we fear men and transwomen ?

oops, cross post with above - it took me so long to write mine - I got distracted by finding out about sub cortexes.

Curfew for men except for men who pop on a dress and heels!!!

This is an excellent point - I wonder how many pennies would drop if the proposal was that men had to have a 6pm curfew unless they felt that they were women?

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Great post. It really isn't personal that I don't want to share female spaces with male people. Any male people. It's not meant as an insult. It doesn't mean I don't like male people as a sex class. I have a male DP, male family members, colleagues and friends. I just need female only spaces in certain circumstances for my privacy, dignity, safety and comfort.

[quote gardenbird48]hi R00Ty - this is a more general comment but I think I can see where you are coming from.

I think some of the cognitive dissonance is in the words that we use. The use of the word transwoman tends to put the type of people we are referring to in the 'safe' group. By safe, I think I am referring to that deep seated and probably ancient evolutionary brain (I might be talking about the sub cortex - I wish I knew more about this but this seems to be the thing I am meaning (below).

The use of the word 'woman' in relation to a person speaks to the deep instinctive feeling that they present no risk to us. I think when these privileged women like Ash Sarkar and Jameela Jamil are thinking about this (apart from having a high level of safety and stability in their lives due to money and profile) they instinctively think 'safe' person and that is as far as it goes.

They haven't got the imagination or capacity to override that - partly because it doesn't suit them, they don't need to and they like to feel like Lady Bountiful, being gracious and generous to all the poor unfortunate souls that are beneath them socially.

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Trans people have their own difficulties in life, those difficulties are not ours.

medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-subcortex-ancient-brain.html[/quote]
I have to say, despite what people may think, I don't actually know any transwomen, only transmen. I have said my bit on the way I think the 'other side' operate , but I'd be interested to see the views of transwomen (and not nutters on twitter).

Interesting about the word and it's resonance. I have said before, I have had a better relationship with male caregivers than female, so in all honesty I tend to trust men more. Maybe I'm lucky that way.

hi R00Ty - this is a more general comment but I think I can see where you are coming from.

I think some of the cognitive dissonance is in the words that we use. The use of the word transwoman tends to put the type of people we are referring to in the 'safe' group. By safe, I think I am referring to that deep seated and probably ancient evolutionary brain (I might be talking about the sub cortex - I wish I knew more about this but this seems to be the thing I am meaning (below).

The use of the word 'woman' in relation to a person speaks to the deep instinctive feeling that they present no risk to us. I think when these privileged women like Ash Sarkar and Jameela Jamil are thinking about this (apart from having a high level of safety and stability in their lives due to money and profile) they instinctively think 'safe' person and that is as far as it goes.

They haven't got the imagination or capacity to override that - partly because it doesn't suit them, they don't need to and they like to feel like Lady Bountiful, being gracious and generous to all the poor unfortunate souls that are beneath them socially.

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Trans people have their own difficulties in life, those difficulties are not ours.

medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-subcortex-ancient-brain.html

Can yous really not see , regardless of our beliefs, why she couldn't say anything else than that in regards to trans?

TRAs have created a class of people that we are not allowed to criticise and we must automatically trust on THEIR say so.

Yes exactly, a sacred caste, as dear departed Lang would have said.

[quote lifeturnsonadime]And the award for cognitive dissonance goes to the Green Party who are calling for a curfew of men at 6pm in the same week as voting against women's rights.

Apparently men who ID as women are not a risk.

mobile.twitter.com/TheGreenParty/status/1370430900186578945[/quote]

Curfew for men except for men who pop on a dress and heels!!!

😂