To think MN needs its feminists?

[crunchymint]

Sites like MN need its users to generate content. We are its product. All services need something unique about them to differentiate themselves from the competition. At one time what differentiated MN from its competitors was that there were more intelligent discussions on here.
Now the same type of discussions happen on MN as elsewhere.

What differentiates MN from its competitors are the large number of feminists on here. That is what is unique about this site. To keep going as a decent ongoing commercial concern, MN needs its feminists. Otherwise it has nothing to differentiate it from other sites.

N.B What differentiates NM is that its local sites are far superior to any other site.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of that last question, but it's illustrating a point, a very harsh point. I can categorically discount a biological woman, I cannot do that with a Transwoman, and that is just one illustration of how we cannot 100% treat them the same.

*(Bertrand)

@AnxiousPeg "But it all rather depends on what you're saying. If, by 'sticking your head above the parapet' you mean you're stating falsehoods as facts, you're going to get shot at"

No, that's not what I mean at all. I mean that I challenge the more extremely hostile posts, e.g. saying trans people should not have children, that parents of children who permit them to be referred for assessment by NHS gender clinic are child abusers, that specific named children have been castrated, that the children of trans parents will be horrifically fucked up.

These are all real things I have seen posted by GC regulars on the fem chat board within the past month. Some were deleted, but not all.

I used to also challenge deliberate misgendering of named people, or the ones that say they will not never ever refer to a trans person by their preferred name or gender, but there are so very many posts that do that now. Oh, and the troll hunting, and personal attacks on other posters challenging in similar ways. Also had to give up the fight on that. I salute MNHQ for still trying though.

The irony of it is that I'm not even pro self ID - I do however support mnhq in trying to establish a tone that isn't actively hostile and damaging on either side. I'd quite like to examine some of the issues around single sex spaces in particular, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to hostility and prejudice in order to do that.

@TornFromTheInside Both of your examples are ones where a man / woman divide isn't appropriate.

If you require an organ from the body of a biological female, you should get an organ from a biological female, whether they identified as a man or a woman. If someone is raped and semen samples are required, everyone who is capable of producing semen should provide a sample, whether they identify as a man or a woman. So yes to a pre-op transwoman, no to an impotent man.

It's the same as the cervical cancer poster everyone was up in arms about. Man / woman aren't useful definitions there because there are people who identify as men who have cervices and people who identify as women who don't (including biological women).

But there you have it. You cannot actually treat a Transwoman in 100% the same way as a biological woman, and the reason is that they are not biological women.

That's not to say they can't enjoy the vast majority of rights afforded to all biological women, it's simply illustrating that SOME rights must be reserved for biological women only. If you accept that, then there's a debate to be had about which rights are appropriate, and I think this is where most feminists are at.

I don't doubt some feminists (just like any percentage of the population) will be anti-Trans, but I think plenty just want the debate about which rights are appropriate and which aren't. That's not anti-Trans in my eyes.

Some people will say 100% the same rights for biological and Transwomen, but I've just illustrated two examples of where there are good reasons why that can't (or shouldn't happen)

@Lifesavingorange "Superdandy- that’s such a wilful misrepresentation on your part of how your posts go on FWR. Like the vast majority of anti-women’s rights and pro-trans rughts posters your weak, faith based, anti science arguments do not stand up in the face of the well considered, robust, scientific position of gender critical feminists that are based on hard data and incontrovertible facts. You know this so you just bleat ‘transphobia!’ instead and hope that something sticks."

Awesome. Have you ever actually read any of my posts? No faith involved, no pseudo science, no wild statements arguing in the face of reality.

All I do is say stuff like "that's a pretty hostile thing to say, that trans people should not be parents" or "it's quite extreme to suggest that social services should be called to take the child away because the parent wants to pose a legal question in court, as they are entitled to do under our laws"

Again, I'm paraphrasing, but there's an advanced search up there somewhere that anyone can use to go see.

Re shouting down, which a few posters pointed out, it's hard to quantify, and of course you're quite right that you can't literally be shouted down or piled on, but it generally involves lots and lots of posters all saying more or less disparaging things, and throwing in a bit of troll hunting and personal insult or attack along the way, whilst completely ignoring the substantive point of my post. And yes, that happens in all sorts of areas of mn - I'm sure posters know it when they see it.

I think the reason it has felt that way in FWR is the consistency of it happening everyone single time I post in there to challenge a GC poster, be I ever so diligent at avoiding contentious language or anything other than specifically challenging a particular statement.

The question I have asked many times and never had answered, is what does feeling like a woman or man feel like.

Torn, you’ve found two rare and obscure cases where a persons biological sex needs to be considered. And this is your reasoning for denying them their identity as a woman? You could accept a person how they wish to be identified pretty easily without getting involved in their private medical issues.

We can't know. I have no clue if my feeling like a man is the same as other men feel. I have things in common with other men but I also have commonality with women. Arguably, the only reason I have a sense of other men's feelings is because we look similar and so tended to group together as infants... and identified as a group very early on.

Now I'm older, I've disassociated myself from a large number of men because I've learned that I have little in common and don't see things as they frequently do. There's still a lot of man in me, but glad it's not as much as some of the morons I've known.

Crunchy, honestly, what does it matter. You know how you feel, I know how I feel and trans people know how they feel. It’s just what makes sense to you. Nobody else can experience your own individual identity. So what the point in constantly asking that question, other than to try and pick apart any answer anyone makes an attempt to give.

Interesting Hide and thank you for responding. Are you suggesting we should all compete on a level playing field and that would make women try harder and perform as well as men?

I don't agree that's possible, in sport or otherwise. I think there is consensus that men are advantaged in some situations due to physiology and socialisation. That is why we have equal opportunities legislation, because equality can't be achieved by treating everyone the same.

And I'd also say we still need sex segregated spaces. That isn't suggesting that trans people are a risk to my safety. It's acknowledging that generations of us have been conditioned to feel we need privacy and dignity in some situations. Some may disagree on the necessity of it; but that is a social issue to debate separately.

Hideandgo Because it is at the root of people's claims that they are really another sex.

Torn, you’ve found two rare and obscure cases where a persons biological sex needs to be considered. And this is your reasoning for denying them their identity as a woman? You could accept a person how they wish to be identified pretty easily without getting involved in their private medical issues.

Have you read my posts at all?

I said they should be allowed to live the life of their chosen gender, and have virtually all the same rights (but I illustrate two points, and there are more..) where we might need to differentiate. I am simply illustrating that 100% the same is not realistic.
It is not denying anybody's identity as a woman (or man), it's supporting that identity, but the key word there is 'identity' not sex.

It's easy to say all transpeople should have EVERY right of a woman / man, and I've just illustrated why this cannot be. That's not saying they can't have 98%, or 99%, but they can never have 100% the same rights because they are not 100% the same biologically.

It's the failure to acknowledge this crucial issue that causes all the tension and it's needless. How you perceived that it's denial of identity I do not know.

Incidentally two points here:

1. This thread is going down the rabbit hole that most threads do - the Trans one, when in fact it was supposed to be about feminism on MN

2. Whilst it's going down that rabbit hole, it's at least civilised and respectful (I feel), which is rather nice to see. Despite differences of opinion, if we can debate those differences sensibly, there's hope.

Sorry Torn, I hadn’t linked up your previous comments and assumed you were building on the ‘they are men’ argument.

No, not that. I see a transwoman as a woman, but can't deny the biological difference and want to reserve some rights for biological women. Not to oppress trans, but to protect biological women. Not to protect them from trans, but from those who might seek to harm women under the banner of trans. Whilst idiots with a knife cause harm, all knife holders must pay a price. In the same way, whilst idiots with a penis cause harm, all penis holders must pay a price.
I'm unsure on my stance for post op trans. I can see a case for increased rights there.

Superdandy I do read your posts though sometimes I wonder why I bother because in the nicest way they never say anything new, you don’t engage properly with th convincing and evidence based arguments levelled at your flimsy arguments and have said nothing to date that would even remotely convince me you might have s point. You’re not alone in that to be fair. Pretty much everything posted by transactivists pushes me further down the GC road.

SuperDandy

It's great that you challenge hostile stuff. But I think all the regular GC posters are quite hot on this too. The examples you've given are a mixed bag- it's clearly not on to suggest trans people shouldn't be parents or that their kids will be fucked up. That sort of stuff isn't ok and is not the sort of stuff I see as characteristic of the boards.

I see robust, watertight arguments from GC feminists. Arguments that can't be "shouted down" because they're built on solid step-by-step points.

The eg you gave about a child who'd been castrated is unfortunate because it's not great to talk about individual children. But that's more of a sort of safe-guarding thing than a transphobia thing; it's still a fact (if you're discussing who I think you're discussing) even if it's a bit unpleasant to mention. Facts don't stop being facts if they're unpalatable.

It's a fact that trans women are male. It's at the crux of this issue. I won't say they're female. It's a fact that I think they are men. Perhaps this will be deleted because of that? That's the real issue.

Sure, I'll call someone "he" or "she" as they desire. But I won't believe they've changed sex.

I've stopped reading feminism because every single new post seemed to be about trans and descended into awfulness.
Which is a shame because I do have actual worries about women's rights and girls and women being kept safe in general.

The trans people I know have issues with self ID because they feel it will cause hell for them and make things harder to gain acceptance from others and want the same as me (walls in changing and toilets that are floor to ceiling) and are just quietly trying to get on with their lives.

For a group that doesn't like name calling, they call alot of people names.

Everybody ought to challenge offensive stuff. But surely somebody ought to respond to non offensive stuff too? Are there really no legitimate questions that deserve answers? I think I have asked some on this thread but been ignored.......

BertrandRussell

There are lots of issues around the current form of trans ideology that needs to be questioned and answers given.

But until the extreme sides back-down and allow the middle ground to take over neither side will get anywhere, and until that happens many children will be physically and mentally damaged due to lack of the correct support.

Indeed. I regard trans issues as tiny and de minimis (not many people are trans and those that are do not on the whole affect most of us - at least not so far but we clearly need to be alert to damage to women caused by it); but issues like is your man putitng his career first, why do women lose their economic power often when babies come; who does the dross cleaning jobs at home are at the core of how women's lives can be affected by sexism which is a much more important issue. Who cleaned the bathroom and the baby's bottom day by day at home rather than did I see a hulking great man in a skirt when I nipped into the vanishingly few public toilets the other day.

Xenia-as a lawyer donyou have any concerns about crime statistics? And about equality in women's sport?

Thing is Xenia, in your post you're primarily referring to issues that affect biological females. Most of us think things like who does the cleaning and the childcare and by extension policies on things like childcare subsidies, reproductive rights, parental leave etc need to be pretty front and central within feminism. But you'll find you're being called trans-exclusionary (even though these affect transmen who give birth too) if you suggest these are more important issues for women as a group than, say, pronoun usage.

So it's all very well saying you regard trans issues as de minimis, and by extension that you think we spend too much time talking about them. But that in itself is a stance that would get you no platformed in a number of places because it's considered cis-centric. Gotta centre the concerns of transwomen now, ya see. Never mind the fact that plenty of transwomen don't agree with that stance. And some of the posts you decry for their irrelevance are basically pointing that out.