What Am I Missing?

This whole ‘ultra’ denigration is punishing those who point out the inconsistent views being expressed by someone.

And frankly, someone declaring a padded bra being worn by a female means it is fine for any male to wear prosthetic breasts is really writing from a position of male entitlement. However, it is good to know the person has this view because it sets the expectation for any future view point that they may express.

“But I think a lot of the argument we shouldn’t use them is a fear-response to the argument we should.”

Not really. I think you are forgetting that so many of us simply won’t use wrong sex pronouns because we don’t believe someone has changed sex and therefore we apply the correct sex pronoun. While I acknowledge the harm that using preferred pronouns have caused, I am also not interested in effectively twisting my language into a lie.

There is also a degree of narcissism that is evident with the expectation that someone will stop and think especially about that person before using particular words for them.

There are many reasons why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns and other changes in language and none of them are based in hate. And the only reason I have seen for people to use that language is to make the recipient of that effort happy. Hence my question as to ‘why?’ I am sure people will have their own reasons why they will, but they will all be based in emotional response.

And as long as they acknowledge why and they understand they cannot compel others to follow and that they may hold this thought which is incompatible with their other thoughts, or even their work and activism, I don’t worry too much.

I do object however when this preferred language impedes clear communication. And I think that is where some of this pushback is occurring. Those who are striving to ensure communication is clear and accurate might push back with a comment about ‘please use accurate language’ and those who have chosen to comply to the language request feel they need to justify it.

Again, it wouldn’t be an issue if the person using that language was doing so in private. However, if they are writing or speaking about issues relating to female people and the impacts of identity, it becomes an issue. And if that person is fighting on one hand to uphold and support the rights for women and girl’s while inconsistently perpetuating the harms by adding power to those claims by activists that ‘the world refers to me as ‘she’ it is cruel to exclude me’, then people will point this inconsistency out.

There's mandating other people's language and there's drawing firm boundaries on your own. I will not use pronouns that misrepresent someone's sex. Anymore than I will recite PBUH after saying Allah.

My impression of the "ultra" position such as it exists is that it does object to anyone using prefered pronouns at all. At least that was my strong sense when people had the discussion here.

I don't think I've ever excoriated anybody - I'm a vegetarian.

I came across twitter thread from Genevieve Gluck that I think is relevant to this thread’s discussion:

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830780596379095122
‘The entire purpose of the linguistic sleight-of-hand involved in the term "gender dysphoria" is to normalize and depathologize male sexual fetishism.

"Transgender" turns every single major paraphilia in diagnostic literature into a protected identity.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830968358898160010
‘The very first wedge used in diagnostic literature - by sexologists and psychiatrists - was to claim that men who masturbated wearing the stolen clothing of women was not a sexual act, but an identity crisis.

That men who were absorbed in BDSM, in making themselves into torture porn, scenes that reflect what they are aroused by seeing done to women, was not sexual in nature, but an expression of themselves.

This wedge, detailed in the DSM-4, allowed every other paraphilia to fall under the dominant category of gender identity or dysphoria - the category that is now regarded as not a sexual pathology, but an inborn trait, an identity.

All the while, there has been the knowledge that paraphilias rarely ever appear in isolation - they overlap. So now, every major sexual pathology gets to hide under the "skirt" of gender dysphoria.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830972657761931349
’"Transvestic fetishism is not diagnosed when crossdressing occurs exclusively during the course of Gender Identity Disorder".

This diagnostic recommendation, used to excuse an obvious sexual behavior intrinsically linked to sadomasochism, and to further escalation of fetishism - which can result in criminal sexual offending - was the only door that needed to be opened to allow all forms of paraphilias, even pedophilia, to fall under a protective "umbrella" of sexual identity - rather than as a potentially dangerous pathology.

Why did it happen? Precisely because the abuse involved in transvestic fetishism is directed primarily at women, and therefore invisible.

To this day, Ray Blanchard, who coined "autogynephilia", agrees with this assessment from the DSM-4: that an explicit male fetish for misogyny is simply an identity crisis.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830975509205000611
‘The pass given to the diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism was made because of the perceived issue of homophobia.

So homosexual men in drag (inadvertently?) helped to normalize heterosexual male fetishists who claim to be women, and are aroused by humiliating us.

The caveat in diagnostic literature exists because of this. Blatant misogyny, excused because calling it out fully might be homophobic... On loop forever.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1831681541090767186
‘When you realize that 'gender dysphoria' has been part of a larger grooming strategy all along, it becomes apparent that the worst fetishists were granted the status of "woman" first, and not the other way around.

The men so absorbed in their paraphilia that they underwent dangerous, and overtly sexual body modification procedures were the legal starting point.

Which is why trans activists argue that it doesn't make sense to deny womanhood to those who haven't had the surgery.

It's not sex that's a spectrum, it's fetishism that's the spectrum, and the law opened the door for the most dedicated fetishists and worked its way back.

The belief that devout suffering entitles men to womanhood is not so dissimilar from the entitlement of inceldom ‘

I believe those are known as 'microaggressions', m'lud. 😃

I don’t like it much. Sometimes I tut and roll my eyes

does that help?

His definition is "It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.” However they characterize themselves, they maintain that, even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women."

I think that means if you aren't "excoriating" the conduct of trans people in the course of your disapproval you aren't ultra

Yeah I know. He's starting the debate from a point that its taken as read some people will identify as "trans". This is his framing:

"what exactly do we mean by “transgender rights"? What framework can best help us to explore the many issues and questions that are involved, and to resolve the conflicts that arise?
I maintain that we can better understand the controversy if we distinguish between two sorts of claims: (1) equality claims, or claims to be free from discrimination, based on one’s transgender status, concerning the distribution of basic goods such as employment, education, and housing; and (2) belief claims, or claims that we are discriminating against those who identify as transgender to the extent that we do not accept certain beliefs promoted by trans activists as literally true, or, at the very least, that we do not act as if we accept those claims as literally true and support changes in social institutions and practices so that they accord with those claims"

Then he's talking about the framework. Its up its own arse. Bloody philosophers 😂

The crunch point I suppose is when men are using women - or women's reactions to them - to get off.

So, Grayson Perry or Debbie Hayton who are self confessed, openly auto gynephliac, or cross dressing fetishists in old money, have admitted that dressing 'as a woman' is part of the fetish for them.

While I appreciate that practically speaking one can't actually prevent a man from getting off on going out dressed 'en femme' I can bloody well loudly object to it and explain my discomfort and unwillingness to participate in the fetish.

And if ‘choose to identify as trans’ really means ‘make impossible, unreasonable claims’, then so what if people do identify as trans?

if you believe all humans have the right to belief and self expression, some people will choose to identify as trans

but what does ‘identify as trans’ mean?

1. Claim to be a member of the opposite sex?

2. dress and behave in a gender non conforming way?

but if you do number 2 without number 1, you’re not trans surely? It’s that impossible, unreasonable claim that makes you ‘trans’

I didn't read it that he was talking about trans people at all. I read it that he was starting from a logical position that if you believe all humans have the right to belief and self expression, some people will choose to identify as trans. And exploring the more "ultra" GC position and implications from that starting point.

It is a starting point that exposes differences in the "GC camp" (to use your term) more effectively than focusing on why some males are trans and so sparls debate. For that reason I think its useful, if overly intellectualism, because basically its a more long winded version of the left v. right debate.

@PriOn1 I think your analysis of the women currently being designated ‘Ultras’ as being concerned about the blurring of lines and the resultant reducing of safety (and safeguarding) is a good summary.

I also agree that a lot of men (and some well-off women) just don’t get this because they life safer lives. Róisín Michaux described this difference of experience in a great article:

https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

'Illiberal' seems a odd word in the context. Never mind a view being illiberal, is it true? Or accurate? isn't that more important?

I must admit, when, as often, I read pieces that begin with a rider to the effect "yes, of course we all agree that trans people should be free to present as they choose...", and I think, hang on a minute, do we, really? Is a male teacher with huge fake tits and fish-nets OK? I don't think it is. So I think, at the very least, there is a line. It's question of where we draw it.

I know that call themselves ultras don’t want there to be any blurred lines about which men can safely be allowed to cross dress and enter women’s spaces.

My position is:

• Any man can wear a dress¹.
• No man should be allowed in women's single-sex spaces, whether he's in a dress or not.

Does that make me.an ultra?

¹ I reserve the right to disapprove if they are in an inappropriate dress or 'dresssed as a woman' (other than for theatrical purposes).

I read that and felt certain he was misrepresenting the position of those who self describe as “ultras” on Twitter, but it has taken me some thought to define what I think he gets wrong. I get the impression he doesn’t have much time for them and therefore dismisses what they say without really listening.

My understanding is not that those women object to anyone using preferred pronouns ever. I think the objection is more to do with those who claim they are campaigning for women’s rights. I think the feeling is that, on a “gender critical” platform, so to speak, those speaking on women’s behalf ought to consistently put women’s rights first. In order to do that, it isn’t possible to include males like Debbie Hayton in your campaigning, because of the strong suspicion that he is outwardly supporting women in order to retain some of the privileges transactivism has given him.

So calling those men “she” and “her” weakens every argument we make that men are not women. At least, that is where I think the “ultra” label stems from.

It also cropped up when there were a group of medics who (like Dr Cass) use a lot of the language of gender identity ideology and took a kind of soft approach to the medicalisation issue. The argument is between those who openly state that they consider all medical transitioning is inappropriate and those who want a more softly, softly approach. The problem here, again, is blurred lines.

Maybe I have it wrong, but the women I know that call themselves ultras don’t want there to be any blurred lines about which men can safely be allowed to cross dress and enter women’s spaces. They reject the claim that any man should be in there.

They also see a risk in blurred lines around the idea that there are patients who would benefit from medical transition, if we can just find which they are, and that maybe we should still be taking it seriously enough to propose experimenting on more children. If you believe the whole experiment has been based on untruths and fetishism, from the beginning, then the straightforward answer is to stop medically transitioning and find a better path. Taking a middle path might easily slow or stop progress at that middle point, and then it might take much longer to reach the point when realization dawns that all medical transition is politically driven and not medically beneficial and therefore ought to stop..

A large part of the problem is, that there are indeed a large group of men who are now cross dressing in public, partly because it’s sexually arousing and that it used to be fully understood that part of the arousal was in watching women’s reactions. Men like him are unaffected, so it’s easy to dismiss.

It’s a form of sexual behaviour that used to be governed by societal norms, but has been normalised. I would ask, if men are allowed to wear anything they like, as long as there’s no public indecency, should it be argued they should also be allowed to wear gimp suits, as long as they are fully covered?

It is obviously a difficult line to draw, but blatant public displays of sexuality should be unacceptable, including some men who wear women’s clothing. If fashions become normalised, so that men’s clothing becomes more feminine, then of course men can wear dresses. But while a large majority of the men in dresses are performing their sexual fetish in public, they are only going to normalise it for other men who want to do the same.

I think the author is missing the nuance because he is male and men and women are not equal. There is still a big difference between women in men’s clothes and men in women’s clothes and it’s the sexual element, which is much more common among men, which is the complicating factor.

It strikes me that, in saying women can’t possibly have blurred lines around which males in women’s clothes leave women feeling safe and which don’t, all we end up with is different blurred lines.

Normal healthy male bodies do not require bras

when a man starts wearing a bra it's a pretty good indicator that something fishy is going on