Some clarity in how the trans movement became so embedded, so preeminent

Your post reminded me of this video. The male dancer is so ridiculous and over the top. It's like a bad spoof.

https://fixvx.com/hertribevibe/status/2102974792794067226](fixvx.com/hertribevibe/status/2102974792794067226)

Just to get clear about "Respecting other people's right to define themselves", do you think the self-definition, "I'm cool, me" (acquaintance of a granddaughter) worthy of respect?

Or what about that guy works down the chip-shop ("swears he's Elvis"): is his self-definition respect-worthy?

If not, how to distinguish?

In a tolerant society it is absolutely fine for the guy working down the chip shop to swear that he is Elvis.

However, he will still have to buy a ticket to Gracelands just like everyone else and isn't entitled to any royalties.

It shouldn't be difficult to understand this distinction, but apparently it is.

social usage is king when it comes to meaning
No it's not 'king' [you say that like it's a good thing!] unless you think that 'exasperate' actually means the same thing as 'exacerbate' and 'disinterested' means the same thing as 'uninterested'.

While words can change their meaning gradually over time - 'nice' is an example - it takes longer than a few years of a small group of people insisting that a word means its opposite.

A good example is the word 'sick'. A dictionary - possibly the one you quoted from, was it the Cambridge Online?
says that 'sick' can mean

very good, excellent:
snowboarders doing sick tricks

But the fact that it that a small number of people at a certain point in time use 'sick' to mean 'good', the way a small number of people used 'gear' in the 1960s or 'dope' in the 2020s, does not mean that the actual definition of 'sick' has changed from

physically or mentally ill; not well or healthy.

So a small number of people at a certain point in time using 'woman' when the subject is male may well have as little staying power as other passing linguistic usages that dictionaries - especially online ones - list alongside the standard definition.

The claim of "Respecting other people's right to define themselves" is be-lied by the utter fury that is unleashed at just the suggestion that a lot of women simply want to define themselves as the female half of humanity and have rights, protections, language, history and political advocacy based on that, and do not especially identify with or find meaningful the mixed sex social constructs Genderists wish to impose upon us.

Oh get over yourself princess.
😂
That's so funny, I think I may steal it!
A bit on the ad hominem side, isn't it, Northern, but amusing.
What is it with you and royalty, though - 'usage is king', 'get over yourself princess'...

Ok. So you’ll respect women’s rights to define woman as adult human female then? If not, why not?

Exactly.

If this really was a natural evolution of language we'd not need all these policies, codes of conduct, social policing and indeed laws they push so hard for to force everyone to use it, because people would be using it naturally already.

They really are dafties with some of the things they try and claim 😂I mean, really! How on earth can anyone square "this is a natural evolution of language" with "you'll lose your job and be prosecuted for a hate crime if you don't use it"!

@Northernlightsss
I prefer to be referred to as "Her Excellency."
It's how I define myself.
Please don't mis-regal me. It's not kind.

The most obvious answer to this whole social usage is...if there were no words used there would still be 2 classes of humans. One designed with large gametes in mind, and one with small.

Princess?!

aint worf it bro!

I think that you should look way more into the psychiatry industry in order to get a bigger picture. Right now in the U.S., there are around 10 million people taking stimulant drugs like Adderall in order to treat their ADHD. Adderall is a class 2 addictive drug. In other words, the worst kind that can be prescribed. ADHD is "treated" with mixed amphetamine salts or lisdexamphetamine, cousins of methamphetamine.

Currently, 5 million people in the U.S. are estimated to be abusing or misusing these stimulants. Possibly out of the 10 million prescribed with it.

And most horrifyingly, 5% of children in the U.S. are taking ADHD stimulants. That is roughly 3.7 million children.

Do you know what the diagnosis of ADHD does to help keep the status quo?
It prevents the unionization of workers who can't focus on sitting in a chair nine hours a day. It prevents and delays a fundamental reevaluation of our education system and how that system effects children.

The ADHD diagnosis uses "dopamine pathways" and "chemical imbalance" in order to seem professional, but in reality it takes a systemic issue and it delays that issue by putting a band-aid over it.

It feeds an unhealthy system that survives off of instant gratification, social media, long, boring and restless work hours, and parents being too tired by work to engage with their children. It individualizes these issues and turns them into a product to be sold. It gets children hooked on meth.

So what happens when a lot of people are upset by the way misogyny affects them? How can we turn systemic misogyny into an individualized problem that can be turned into a diagnosis and a product as well? How can we profit off of systemic misogyny?

"I want to be able to wear dresses and have longer hair"
"I hate my female body because men always abuse it"
"I was told that when I get older, I will bleed, and that it hurts, and it's because of Eve's original sin. I don't want to be a girl anymore, girls suck."
Trans kids aged 12-17 are five times as likely to be female transitioning to male. This is the most common age of transition for female humans. And yes, these minors are getting cross-sex hormones.
Why bother with feminism anymore if we can just tell girls that they can be boys instead, and they'll never have to worry about misogyny again.

The front face of the mainstream feminist movement within the LGBT community right now are trans women who do not have uteruses, and trans men who do not want their uteruses. So as for all of the cis women who have uteruses and are okay with them (who make up the majority of women), where is the representation of women who like themselves as they were born?

How can a movement be feminist if there are no representations of cis women loving themselves as cis women, within that movement? Remember, cis women make up the majority of women. It does not make sense for a movement to claim to represent feminism if its members do not include the majority demographic of who the most prominent feminist issues allude to, such as abortion rights, femicide, female infanticide, rape, women's reproductive health, and maternity leave.
It's a distraction that serves the status quo and individualizes misogyny. I'm all for people being whoever they want.

But when FIVE TIMES the amount of female children are entering gender clinics, really, why are you so shocked that the feminists have started speculating about it?

Especially when we all know about how...nice... the psychiatric industry has been to women in the past.

*Also, you don't have to take a prescription to be gay, and there was no universal explosion of gayness that happened during the internet boom. Gay rights were always being fought for by feminists, so why are trans rights so controversial? Because not all members of the trans community actually care about feminism. Same way not all cis people do.

Maybe a monarchist disguised as a republican?

The 'be kinder' edition …😂

There are two things to unpick here. First, what is the emotion: are we talking about resentment, anger, fear, or disgust? Or something else or a combination of these?

Whatever accompanies internalised misogyny I assume. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the point you previously alluded to. Afraid you'll be excommunicated from the GC mob? 🐔

Second, is this reaction just coming from GC women, or is in actually common among all women but you don't notice it? For example, if the reaction is fear, many/most women will deliberately try to hide that by fawning (an evolutionary defence mechanism against perceived danger). You may be overlooking or misinterpreting the reaction of non GC women.

OMG 'fawning'. Modern women in the west 'fawning' is a hot one. 'Fawning' is just another GC snookie rationalising a difference of opinion as fear. That they can't conceive that women are not a monolith is just another internalised misogyny tell.

I don't consider these to be mocking or demeaning, but accurate descriptions. We have to have terms to describe the phenomena we are analysing.

Oh so your'e perfectly comfortable with accusing butch presenting females as 'imposters'/'man face'/'cross dressers'? No? See: Internalised misogyny.

This goes back to the question of identifying the underlying emotional reactions: women's fear, anger, resentment, disgust, or whatever. Add to those the long-standing cultural conditioning that means people find men in dresses simply funny and ridiculous. It is a normal reaction to mock the ridiculous. Not saying it is morally right or kind, but it is an explanation.
We can unpick just why people find men in dresses ridiculous, which would involve a discussion of the psychological phenomenon of 'humour' and a whole lot else. Not sure I have the energy for that.

'Humour'? Lol. I get it. Admitting your 'team' has a raging internalised misogyny problem isn't 'comfortable'. But we both know you understand this full well despite your back peddling.

But the words feminine and femininity do simply refer to stereotypes. That is all those words mean. See the discussion over the last few pages.
The entire rickety edifice of 'gender' and 'femininity' is built upon nothing but social stereotypes.

In your world perhaps but not reality. Its purely scientifically uncontroversial that gendered behaviours are biologically influenced by hormones genes & evolutionary pressures AND shared by the sexes hence butch women & effeminate men existing.

It is an ongoing discussion as to how genetic and biological factors interact with social stereotypes. But here's the thing: only biological females can have 'feminine' or gendered traits arising from genes / biology. Males don't have this biology, so if they want to present as women, all they have is the adoption of stereotypes.

False. The sexes share gendered traits via different hormone distributions & genes which again is scientifically uncontroversial.

Of course. As every feminist will agree. Not sure where this fits into your argument, unless it is a straw man?

Your'e the one that suggested that feminine expression was purely stereotypical/socially constructed don't forget? Do you even understand the implications of your words?

There is no gendered trait that is shared by the sexes that arises from biology. Men and women may share many gender traits that lead to "the psychological & cognitive interchangeability of men & women", but they arise from social stereotypes, nothing else.

False.

You mean respect the right to believe in GC ideology? Of course.

Laws should be followed but can also be challenged particularly when they aren't specific like regarding toilet etiquette. Special exemptions require rights balancing that hasn't been tested in case law yet so we are yet to see what the law actually is.

In terms of public opinion, that's certainly not uniform globally. The UK being subjected to politically motivated astro turfed media saturation scare campaigns & moral panics by far right operatives can't be considered as a grass roots phenomena. The arc of history is long & bends towards liberty not slavery.

politically motivated astro turfed media saturation scare campaigns & moral panics by far right operatives can't be considered as a grass roots phenomena

Deep breath, babe. Out slowly through the mouth.

The arc of history is long & bends towards liberty not slavery.

Its an arc, eh? Always wondered what shape it was. What happens when we get to the end? Pot of gold? Redemption? Sunlit uplands?

No. Respect thst women define themselves as adult human females and no male can ever be a woman. Otherwise you’re a bit of a hypocrite aren’t you?

The UK being subjected to politically motivated astro turfed media saturation scare campaigns & moral panics by far right operatives can't be considered as a grass roots phenomena

This would be frightening if it was true. However, the vast majority of people in the UK consume their news through sources that are very much not far right (unless the BBC is the mouthpiece of Reform).

pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/traditional-outlets-still-top-uk-news-sources-survey/

All individuals have every right to self determination of their identity. What they don't have is the right to tell others who they should be.

And no, you don't speak for all women.

I think you'll find that's what the arc of history will bend to, not illiberal fads.

The human spirit seeks authenticity however much fascistic impulses attempt to repress it won't change that.

Re astro turfed right wing funded campaigns, sure, FW Scotland and the Darlington nurses, Sex Matters and the owners of Mumsnet are rolling in cash, all of us here have been primed to direct bigotry to bolster the impending fascism ailing the UK.

The context was mass media campaigns & how they influence public opinion.