WTF India Willoughby Racist tweet

Bleeding noses? Deep narrow puncture wound first aid?

Yes, I fell foul of that restriction. A pity, because 'trans identified (or identifying) male' is the best expression imo. Honest and clear.

The term 'transwoman' has always bothered me because it's the thin end of the wedge to all these ridiculous further demands. Any word or phrase containing woman needs to be clearly about adult human females.

@EdgeofaCoin and @Hellofabore had some good ideas too.

How it is transphobic to ask what it is that males are doing with so many tampons? Do we know yet why IW was so keen to go and buy loads?

Jesus

The issue in a nutshell.

There are people who would prefer you state that although reality is X, they would prefer the pretense of everyone that it is in fact Y.

People have supported this through niceness, kindness and lots of awareness of difficult feelings and struggles for which they wish to be supportive.

The question is now, how far people should continue to support this when those requesting this enablement have begun to totally take the piss and to insist that Y is literally true, and that X no longer exists. And this has a major impact on many of those whose equality and access depends on X.

At that point, we're into issues of coercive control an abusive behaviour, and whether there are some who it was not kind to enable to believe that Y was real in the first place. Because there's no getting away from X.

I think it’s the part where she implies that if it wasn’t for liberal white people taking pity on black people, Esther wouldn’t have a job that is the most horrific.
IW is a really awful human being.

Well... TM or 'nonbinary' females exist but don't want to be called women.

Transgender is an identity. Man is an adult human male.

Nonbinary is an identity.

No person can identity out of their sex.

Transgender woman is an oxymoron. You can only be one or the other, not both.
Well... TM or 'nonbinary' females exist but don't want to be called women.

Transgender is where the identity begins and ends.

Woman is not an identity; woman is an adult human female.

Women can neither identify into or out of their biology. They just are.

Black woman is a descriptor. You can be both black and a woman.

Transgender woman is an oxymoron. You can only be one or the other, not both.

This is a bad analogy. 'Trans woman' is rhetoric designed to hide the fact that TW are males and therefore not included in the category of woman. Calling someone cis is describing their identity - something which can clearly only be described by the person themselves.

'Woman' is not, and has never been, an identity statement. TW don't like this fact as their belief that they are a woman hinges on the fallacious belief that women 'identify as women'. Most don't.

I'm brown. Thank you for articulating the point so well. I don't mind being in a subset of women. I would mind if that is used to make me a direct comparator to TW, who are not and never can be a subset of women. This is constantly being done to black women by TRAs. The only other group that seems to get this spurious comparison to a sub set of men is butch lesbians, which makes the comparator grossly offensive to those women and homophobic.

Thank you.

Barracker did have a fine way with words.

To go back to IW, IW spends a huge amount of time on Twitter - posting a few days ago that last week’s Twitter screen time daily average was 3hrs 19 mins which was down 66% on the previous week.

Maybe IW would be better stepping away for a while (I see that last night’s flounce didn’t last long).

And just a thought, why, if there simply has to be a single space in “trans woman” (oh the irony), why is transphobe not “trans phobe”?

So if people were to carry on calling you cis then you'd be fine with that.

If someone calls me "cis" I would probably correct them and tell them why I don't think I belong in that category. But if they persist that's up to them. It's their ideological language and if they want to slot me into a category that is irrelevant to me it's not something I would lose sleep over.

Seeing as it's a demand that someone doesn't have to go along with or because they've told you not to?

I'm not sure what this means.

if you do have a problem with someone still doing that after you've said you don't like it, you've got some serious double standards / hypocrisy going on there.

I can not like something and still not want to police other people's language. Other people should be free to use the language they want and I expect the same for myself. Personally I don't think this makes me a hypocrite.

Oh don't be daft. You must realise that both those statements can be true.

But she's not a cis woman. If she's an adult female she is a woman. No other descriptor is required.

Should read because you've not they

I don't tend to do things simply because people tell me to. If I did I would call transwomen "women" and I would comply with "preferred pronouns

So if people were to carry on calling you cis then you'd be fine with that.
Seeing as it's a demand that someone doesn't have to go along with or because they've told you not to?
if you do have a problem with someone still doing that after you've said you don't like it, y ou've got some serious double standards / hypocrisy going on there.

I do not see the vase majority of TW as woman. That does not make me an awful person. I will respect them, call them by their chosen name - use she etc. But they are not the same as me.

The spacing between trans and woman is very deliberate by TRAs so they they are included as a subset of woman. No matter how much they wish that to be, they are not, and I don't think it does anyone any favours to pretend otherwise.

I try and respect others as much as possible but it's hard when so many of them have no respect for me or my daughter, or my mother, aunts, nieces etc etc. Why do females not deserve any respect? I don't know much about Esther K but I suspect I wouldn't agree with her on most things. I don't think what she said in her tweet was bad but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been occasions where she crossed the line that I have. She did not deserve the reply she got and there can be no occasion where a reply like that and the constant doubling down since is acceptable. Willoughby did not reply like that because Esther us transphobic. The reply was because Esther us a black woman and willoughby is a racist individual who can't even hide it.

I use transwoman actually as a politeness. The person is not female, but they do not wish to be know as male. They are not a woman though and I am not a cis woman so trans woman should never be used.

I could refer to people as male? Is that better? It's tempting considering the lack of respect for females.

I didn't say it's impossible to comply with. I'm saying that I don't think the argument made is a very compelling one and it's a demand that I choose not to comply with

Um....

It's not enough. People make demands of us all the time. If would be impossible to comply with all of them

Ok

Oh, I miss Barracker.

The argument that women (of any colour, religion, age) are a subset of women is not offensive in and of itself, used for proper purpose.

Entirely correct. And subset as a term has been used since forever without offence.

So long as the parent group 'women' has clear criteria, all indisputable members of that parent group may be subdivided into subgroups if that subdivision serves a useful purpose.

What is offensive is the TRA argument that black women (they always choose black) are a subgroup of women whose membership of the group "woman" is in as much doubt, as disputable as men's membership.

And that's why it's offensive. Not because of the term itself, but the way it's being utilised by transactivists.

Which is why the intent to offend is obvious when it's a transactivist speaking.

A doctor trying to statistically analyse the effect of smear tests using the word subset to refer to women who have them, is not trying to be offensive.

"Black women are a subset of women" is true of course, but it's a weird thing to come out with, as if they're not prototypical women, somehow at the boundary of womanhood, and we need reminding that they are in fact women. (When the maths teacher says "squares are a subset of rectangles", her point is to counter the misconception that they're not.)

We can and ought to challenge a statement having such an unpleasant subtext, but needn't object to innocuous uses of subset in data analysis and the like.

Barracker's example is spot on:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3556691-a-subset-of-women?reply=86243815&utm_source=thread&utm_medium=share

So because you don't agree, you're saying it's a demand that's impossible to comply with

I didn't say it's impossible to comply with. I'm saying that I don't think the argument made is a very compelling one and it's a demand that I choose not to comply with.

even though women have said they don't want to be referred to that way?

I don't tend to do things simply because people tell me to. If I did I would call transwomen "women" and I would comply with "preferred pronouns."

You do realise right, that you're doing the exact same thing as people who use the word cis towards someone who doesn't want to be called it?

I've already explained why I don't agree that this is the exact same thing as people who use the word "cis". And frankly I'm not into policing other people's language so I'm not going to lose any more sleep over it than if they call me a heretic.

So because you don't agree, you're saying it's a demand that's impossible to comply with - even though women have said they don't want to be referred to that way?
You do realise right, that you're doing the exact same thing as people who use the word cis towards someone who doesn't want to be called it?
Exact same behaviour.
Racism and transphobia are obviously not the same, but as said earlier the issues are!