I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

India is a spiteful individual that often goes straight for the appearance of anyone that dares to disagree.
I can't bring myself to give a shit about that hideous misogynistic idiot.

Let's leave our potential frumpiness or otherwise out of this.

<covers frumpiness with a cloak of invisibility>

I fully agree that 'I do think some of the claims by trans women mean that their appearance is a subject that has to be addressed.'. And I agree with the rest of your post!

I would argue that those claims should be debated in context (I'm trying really hard not to 'tell grown women what to do' but just voice my opinion about what makes a better discussion). If someone has specifically made a claim that no-one can tell they're male it's up to them to defend that. I do believe that no-one can tell who is trans by looking - not because many people pass as the opposite sex but because 'trans' is so many things it's basically an invisible undefinable feeling. I can't tell if an obviously male person in the female toilets is trans or a man trying it on, or both, and why linking trans to appearance is a bit of a red herring.

(Actually I find it really interesting, this aspect of 'TW are trying to look female' alongside the claim 'having a female body has nothing to do with whether you are a woman'. So 'woman' is a feeling and it's just sheer coincidence that many transwomen get breasts, which are a biologically female body part? It's like an explicit admission that a female body has at least something to do with being a woman, while deny, deny denying it out loud).

I think a lot of my position on this has come from seeing many casual snipes about people's looks over the years, purely because they are on the 'other side' and not because 'that is what is being discussed'. I even remember someone linking to a picture of a female head of an organisation with the comment 'oh it's run by a TW' with no evidence to back that up, just because the woman didn't look sufficiently feminine. It leaves a bad taste. As I've said before, I'm not just talking about taking the piss out of SS's clothes.

It's relevant to comment on Willouby's apperance, because Willoughby sets so much store by the male idea of what a woman should look like.

I actually disagree. I think if someone is saying "women must look feminine" - the appearance of the person saying it doesn't at all change whether that is true or not. If IW looked 100% female it wouldn't matter - it would still be a wrong thing to say.

Enjoying the ponce chat, Endless!

(Full disclosure for those who think the validity of someone's argument is affected by their appearance: I am wearing a fleece that could feasibly be described as 'frumpy' right now).

IW's views seem to align with those of many misogynistic men, women should always wear make up, dresses, high heels, and be hair free from the eyes down. Funny that.

The ponce bench is lovely and fancy. It has drinks holders. And special cushions.

<bounces>

Nicer'n the bigot bench, I think. And much improved on the blasted folding chair.

Happy to join you on the ponce bench.

Fantastic! Happy to have you 😀

☕️🫖🍰

Having another 90s flashback- I remember watching George Michael's first interview since The Toilet Incident. He came across so well, along the lines of l well I've made a right tit of myself, haven't I?! Pop stars used to be able to laugh at themselves! It all seems so SERIOUS these days.

Agreed, Endless Tea. Even the ridicule is quite interesting and an inevitable part of the performance. I think SS can wear whatever he likes, and people are obviously tacitly invited to comment and respond.

Happy to join you on the ponce bench.

To quote Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!
I really and truly could not care less if an uppity woman upset a tw on this board with a casual comment.
I'm here about womens rights and protecting kids, the menz are not my concern!

That's fine. My point isn't that the one person you are discussing might get upset. It is that you are reinforcing how important appearance is on how you judge people - and as some people are saying, it seems to affect how valid you think someone's argument is.

Mocking how someone looks instead of engaging with their message/claim/argument is what people do to women all the time. I can't defend it when it's aimed at someone who I don't agree with. It's exactly what IW does - 'those feminists are wrong because they're all old and saggy'.

That’s why there’s a gulf between ‘I’m a woman and I never wear skirts’ and TW’s claims to femininity based on clothes, hair, make up and surgery. They are biologically male so the only way to claim womanhood is superficial or solipsistic. A biological female is a woman whatever she wears.

No - there is a large group of TWAW types who argue exactly the opposite - that your gender identity is a feeling and you don't need to express it outwardly in any way. Any 'typical man' you see might in fact be a woman inside and there is no need to wear any type of clothes or change appearance to communicate this.

They are still wrong.
This is why I think appearance is a red herring. Someone's appearance doesn't change their sex or how valid their argument is.

Again - people are conflating 'feminine' and 'female'. TW can claim to be feminine as much as they like - I'd argue some have some success in this.

And again - how feminine you are or aren't is NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU ARE FEMALE. It's the casual conflation of the two that has got us where we are!

I don’t think it is only for attention. I reckon he does have some really difficult feelings he’s trying to work through. Some of it is probably about his own desire for attention. It is a bonus that it is definitely working to raise his profile though.

SS is, I suppose, "exploring the difference between what we perceive and what is objectively real" AKA making shit up.

The reason for doing that is a desperate desire for attention.

I know I am going against the grain here. But if I put to one side my fury about SS taking away women’s awards, my offence that he imagines himself to be some kind of female, my irritation about his arrogant pronoun demands and his neediness on social media, I think that he is a better conceptual/performance artist, than he is a musician/songwriter.

I know, I know I sound like a ponce, please hear me out.

This is going to ruffle some feathers, but I would put Madonna into the same category, whereas Lady Gaga I think is a better musician/songwriter than she is performance artist. Bjork, David Bowie, Grace Jones and Boy George I feel are pretty balanced between the two.

Queer theory, postmodernism, existentialism and Cartesian subjectivity, I believe, have no place in policy, politics, medicine, science - in reality basically, but I do think they have a place in art where you can meaningfully explore illusion.

Exploring the difference between what we perceive and what is objectively real, our thoughts and what feels like the accident of our own unique body, understanding our relationship with feelings like embarrassment and disgust, attraction and appeal, approval and disapproval, our sense of self, our sense of ‘other’ - I believe is a rich source for artistic exploration.

Sam Smith seems to be doing that well. The elastic bands around the arms I found really interesting because it did, at first, disgust me - it reminded me about the fear of the ‘muffin top’ - how shameful it seems, to have put on enough weight that straps cut in and bulge. The fact he did it on purpose and was photographed like it, did make me confront certain feelings I had, and then I realised that I didn’t think it looked disgusting after all.

He definitely seems to be influenced by Leigh Bowery.

Only if IW is reading. Fairly sure Sam is way to busy and important to check wether there is misgendering going on on mumsnet. India...or someone India adjacent, gets every post they find saying he, him in regards to India deleted faster than the page can refresh!

The last IW thread was a sea of deleted posts!

In Willyboy's case, it could be "ad gitiam."

Was about to say the same thing as @borntobequiet and @GromblesofGrimbledon

Latin has no grammatically neuter word for 'person'. So it has to be 'ad hominem' or 'ad feminam'.

Transphobic bloody languages, eh?

borntobequiet · Today 06:47

I’m sure calling them ad hominem attacks is a form of misgendering and I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been deleted.

Yes, ad feminam!

The thing about TW’s appearance becomes relevant because the claim to womanhood is based on some mixture of an internal feeling and an attempt to look like a woman.

That’s why there’s a gulf between ‘I’m a woman and I never wear skirts’ and TW’s claims to femininity based on clothes, hair, make up and surgery. They are biologically male so the only way to claim womanhood is superficial or solipsistic. A biological female is a woman whatever she wears.

But we are talking about celebrities here: people who have built their careers in large part around aesthetics. Comments on any aspect of their carefully cultivated to generate attention aesthetic are not comparable to personal comments for most individuals. Most people are not looking to make money from how they look.

The arguments about ‘be kind’ are being co-opted by brands. Sam Smith in his hot air balloon gimp suit is a product to be sold, separate from sam smith the individual. But that individual has chosen to make what Sam Smith looks like an increasingly important part of the product. Sam Smith doesn’t get to just take the positives from it and have everyone silence criticism of how Sam Smith looks because it’s ‘unkind’.

Sam Smith is letting us all know what he thinks of women.

TRA ideology aside, he's a dreary, boring, middle-of-the-road musician who has clearly decided an outrageous visual image will compensate for being less musically edgy than The Lighthouse Family. If your music doesn't live up to the video or the outfits you can't get away with this stuff.

Judging by those photos, if you're not commenting on Sam's clothes, Sam will be sorely disappointed.

Likewise Sam's body image. You may personally feel uncomfortable, but Sam is overtly offering it up for discussion.

As for IW. I don't recall a lot of outfit discussion either. India's clothes are unremarkable.

Well after looking up what ad hominem means ...

When you make a statement with your clothes , when you use clothes to say something about you then I do think comments on the clothes are more attacks on a position - the statement you are making - not personal - you are saying look at me and then objecting when others say omg that's aweful

just saying "shes ugly " would be personal , or laughing at ginger hair .

And it can be bullying to exclude someone from your group if they don't have the right brand of trainers

Clothes are an interesting case because many people do use them to indicate what group they belong , to express their personality , to make people go "what on earth are they thinking .." there are social rules on clothing - it's not appropriate to show knickers in the office

So wearing certain clothing could be considered taunting people

It also is part of the "what is appropriate to wear at school " thinking

Sorry. - rambling

I think Sam Smith has a lovely singing voice, lots of his songs are catchy. I hated Unholy but, the video notwithstanding, I'm Not Here to Make Friends is a good pop song.

Sam Smith is obese, his body type is only "normal" in that we are going through an obesity crisis and over a quarter of the English population is obese. It's not normal, as in a normal human body type. Not that he should be mocked for that but all the comments I've seen about his weight, come from his supporters. There is a current trend for claiming the only problem his detractors have with his video is because of his weight. Which I don't think is true and is also a case of the people being hurtful about his body being the people defending him. But there is absolutely form for that kind of unthinkingly awful defense, that is more hurtful to the subject than those critcising them.

Grombles

I kind of agree OP, I find it uncomfortable how many of the comments about SS are about him being fat. If anything it feeds into the nonsense rather than tackling it, as it just serves to confirm that a man can't dress in a non masculine way without being mocked, therefore they DO need another label for being so very unusual.

But as a side note, surely if we are using they pronouns, we are saying "they are", not "they is"?? We're not obliged to pretend it's a singular pronoun, are we?

OP get the threat title changed to "Ad theminem" please