Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Why does 'wokeness' annoy people so much?

999 replies

twwindow · 27/12/2021 20:18

Isn't it just trying to make the world a better place but making people feel accepted no matter their race, gender etc?

It seems to wind some people up so bad - and it's usually those that are part of a majority group that gets wound up most by it (usually white/men) - is it because they feel threatened?

Whenever anyone stands up for a cause they are automatically called woke - and it's now as if it's a bad thing.

It's sad, I see people fed up with 'wokeness' as code for 'we can't get away with our racist, sexist BS anymore as people are calling us out'.

OP posts:
bordermidgebite · 29/12/2021 09:37

@Waitwhat23

I’m definitely not as eloquent with my words as others on here.

I wouldn't agree with this at all - I think your posts are excellent.

And clear !
Datun · 29/12/2021 09:51

@NoNotMeNoSiree

If so, what would be an acceptable way to turn them down?* Just say sorry, you're not interested. Why is that so hard? Why do you have to go into no I don't want to go out with you as you're too fat, ginger, black, whatever?! Just say no thanks. No explanation needed.
This is 'wokery' in action.

Using the concept of discrimination to be homophobic and fondly imagining you look progressive whilst doing it.

Lesbianism isn't akin to racism. Neither is it a sexual preference.

It's a sexual orientation, protected by law.

But I bet my right arm that won't stop people trying to say that sexual orientation is a preference.

prudencepuffin · 29/12/2021 09:55

Ive RTFT now and not seen a clear answer to the question: What does living As a woman` mean, and agree with the poster who suggested we leave John Huffam and No Siree to banter away together. The lurkers have probably seen enough now to draw their own conclusions.

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 10:00

I think it’s really hard to answer the question of ‘living as a woman’. For me, I guess it means ‘presenting in a way that makes other people see me as female’. Now, I guess I can do that quite easily because I have a female form - wider hips, narrower waist, fuller lips etc - so whatever clothes I wear, my shape remains ‘woman’. For people born male, with the different body shape this confers - narrow, straight hips, less full lips, no boobs etc - to present as a woman, they need to wear clothes that either disguise their natural shape (eg padded in certain places) or are typically ‘female’ (eg dresses, skirts, blouses, brighter colours / patterns). They may also wear make up (again, traditionally ‘female’ although becoming more often seen on men) to enhance features to be more ‘feminine’.

To me, these are very superficial, physical changes, designed to make on-lookers read the person as female. I accept and understand they are also based on ‘typical’ ideas of male & female that don’t encompass all body shapes or looks, in either sex. But I also know we live in a very gendered world, where the idea of male & female is all around us. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but I do accept it exists. There are different departments for womenswear and menswear, where the clothes within are shaped and styled differently, different shapes of bicycle, clubs where only men or women can be members and so on.

I can also, I think, understand how the physical presentations can affect how we move within the world, and how others move around us. However, I guess I don’t really understand how anyone who has not presented in a certain way for their entire life can truly ‘live as a woman’ because to me, my understanding of the world and myself is the culmination and combination of all my life experiences, many of which are gendered interactions.

However, I also believe that everyone has the right to live as they wish to. That encompasses trans men & women being welcomed into (most) spaces that align with their presented gender but excluded from others because of their body shape where necessary. To be more specific, I don’t have a problem with trans women in female toilets, but I absolutely do in crisis centres etc. I know there will be some bad actors in all situations but on balance I believe the risk to be low enough to be something worth living with - I know not everyone agrees, but my opinion is valid enough to be stated.

I also do not think anyone should be told they have to find anyone else attractive or ‘have a go’ - of course lesbians should be able to say no cock. They should even be able to say no cock to transwomen, if they want, in the same way they could say no fat women or I only like big boobs, because those are physical characteristics that are important in their attraction. But apart from some vocal and abhorrent instances, does this really happen much more than it ever did? Haven’t there always been the wankers who see lesbians as women ‘who haven’t met the right man’? (Often the same men who believe they’re so irresistible that any gay guy who crosses their path will be trying to shag them). That’s a genuine question, by the way - is this a growing phenomenon or something blown out of proportion by some overly officious TRAs?

Speaking of which, Stonewall comes up again and again, and it seems they have tried to push some extreme changes, but I don’t think it’s either ‘with them’ or anti-trans. And with more and more institutions breaking ties with them, aren’t they increasingly irrelevant?

Linguini · 29/12/2021 10:13

Just say sorry, you're not interested

FFS
It should be enough to say "hi, I'm a lesbian".
Lesbians shouldn't then be forced to explain "that means no penises" then be forced to follow that on with "yes even penises attached to a woman" then forced to say
"Sorry".

Why isn't "I'm a lesbian" enough of a penis repellent on it's own anymore?

Cuck00soup · 29/12/2021 10:14

Today, being a woman means I will get up, put my uniform on and go to work. The exact same scrubs that my male colleagues wear.

Maybe today will be a good day and I won't experience sexual harassment, but I won't bet on it. Meanwhile my male colleagues in the exact same uniform are not even considering whether they will be sexually harassed at work today.

It's not the clothes.

Waitwhat23 · 29/12/2021 10:16

To be more specific, I don’t have a problem with trans women in female toilets, but I absolutely do in crisis centres etc. I know there will be some bad actors in all situations but on balance I believe the risk to be low enough to be something worth living with - I know not everyone agrees, but my opinion is valid enough to be stated.

I don't believe that putting women in harm's way is a 'risk low enough to live with'. How many is OK to be harmed? 1? 10? 100? Self ID means that predatory men (however they identify) will be able to access single sex spaces. This puts women at risk.

Lesbians have always been told by unpleasant men that they should just 'have a go' with penis. Those men were considered the unpleasant idiots they were. The difference now is that lesbians are being told that transwomen are literally women, that their own sexual orientation is a 'genital preference' and that they are bigots for refusing to consider someone with a penis as a sexual partner, along with the chilling effect scream of 'transphobe'.

The Scottish Government have, after being lobbied by Stonewall, removed the word 'mother' from all their maternity policies. This happened less than 3 months ago. The influence of this powerful lobby group on institutions and organisations across the country is endemic - there may be some organisations who are withdrawing from the Diversity Champions Scheme but it's going to take years, if not decades, to push back the chances to policies and legislation.

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 10:28

@Waitwhat23

To be more specific, I don’t have a problem with trans women in female toilets, but I absolutely do in crisis centres etc. I know there will be some bad actors in all situations but on balance I believe the risk to be low enough to be something worth living with - I know not everyone agrees, but my opinion is valid enough to be stated.

I don't believe that putting women in harm's way is a 'risk low enough to live with'. How many is OK to be harmed? 1? 10? 100? Self ID means that predatory men (however they identify) will be able to access single sex spaces. This puts women at risk.

Lesbians have always been told by unpleasant men that they should just 'have a go' with penis. Those men were considered the unpleasant idiots they were. The difference now is that lesbians are being told that transwomen are literally women, that their own sexual orientation is a 'genital preference' and that they are bigots for refusing to consider someone with a penis as a sexual partner, along with the chilling effect scream of 'transphobe'.

The Scottish Government have, after being lobbied by Stonewall, removed the word 'mother' from all their maternity policies. This happened less than 3 months ago. The influence of this powerful lobby group on institutions and organisations across the country is endemic - there may be some organisations who are withdrawing from the Diversity Champions Scheme but it's going to take years, if not decades, to push back the chances to policies and legislation.

I don’t agree with self ID, if that means anyone can decide day to say which way to present, and I honestly think that predators don’t care about the sign on the door. I don’t believe that men who want to harm women will regularly dress up as women in order to do that in public loos.

As for the lesbians being called bigots, I addressed that in my earlier post - and I asked a genuine question to try and understand more.

I don’t really get the decision by the Scottish parliament, tbh. How is ‘pregnant woman’ more inclusive of trans men?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 10:34

As for the lesbians being called bigots, I addressed that in my earlier post - and I asked a genuine question to try and understand more.

You seem to think there's something different about a lesbian saying no to a bog standard man to a lesbian saying no to a MTF trans person, and that not liking cock is a "preference". There isn't and being a lesbian isn't a preference like not liking ginger people or fat people, it's a sexual orientation.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 10:39

As Datun said, this is an example of "wokery" in action. Gay and lesbian people used to be encouraged to be out and proud about their exclusively same sex attraction. Now we have people implying that it's something you should keep to yourself not to offend members of the opposite sex. Much progressive.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 10:47

And with more and more institutions breaking ties with them

Who do you think has achieved this?

Waitwhat23 · 29/12/2021 10:57

@bingbangbongbash

But men don't have to dress as women to access single sex spaces. 'Acceptance without question' means that a man can walk into a single sex space and say 'I am a woman'. The Wi Spa incident was an example of this. A man accessed the women only spa area with his penis out and when women protested, they were told that nothing could be done as that person could identity as a woman.

Mine was a genuine answer to your genuine question. Stonewall have pushed to change the very definition of same sex attraction to same gender attraction.

The Scottish NHS recently ran a national radio campaign to encourage the take up of the cervical screening programme. The word woman was not used once. 'Those with a cervix' was their phrase of choice despite this excluding the many (50% in recent surveys) of women who don't know what a cervix is or the women for whom English is a second or other language and will probably know the word woman but may not have come across the word cervix. There's no push to add words 'women and transmen' or 'women and those with a cervix' but just the removal of the word woman.

NoNotMeNoSiree · 29/12/2021 11:04

Now we have people implying that it's something you should keep to yourself
Nobody's said that though.
Anywhere.
Again with the word twisting and making shit up.

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 11:05

@Ereshkigalangcleg

As for the lesbians being called bigots, I addressed that in my earlier post - and I asked a genuine question to try and understand more.

You seem to think there's something different about a lesbian saying no to a bog standard man to a lesbian saying no to a MTF trans person, and that not liking cock is a "preference". There isn't and being a lesbian isn't a preference like not liking ginger people or fat people, it's a sexual orientation.

No, I don’t think there’s any difference at all. Say no to whomever you want for whatever reason you want. I also didn’t suggest being lesbian is a preference. But I do think that certain physical attributes - like not being attracted to cocks - play a part in sexual orientation. Don’t you? And if not, what is it that attracts women to women? Surely not some sort of innate femininity? I know your views on that.
Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 11:07

@Ereshkigalangcleg

And with more and more institutions breaking ties with them

Who do you think has achieved this?

I don’t think it’s nasty anti-trans rhetoric on MN. I think it’s a logical conclusion to the more extreme pathway Stonewall has chosen to take coupled with some excellent feminist advocates.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 11:08

Nobody's said that though.
Anywhere.
Again with the word twisting and making shit up.

Notme look in a dictionary, it will have the term "imply". Hope that helps!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 11:10

I don’t think it’s nasty anti-trans rhetoric on MN. I think it’s a logical conclusion to the more extreme pathway Stonewall has chosen to take coupled with some excellent feminist advocates.

Many of whom are on Mumsnet. Who do you think crowdfunded the important legal cases? Where is all this "nasty anti trans rhetoric" then?

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 11:10

[quote Waitwhat23]@bingbangbongbash

But men don't have to dress as women to access single sex spaces. 'Acceptance without question' means that a man can walk into a single sex space and say 'I am a woman'. The Wi Spa incident was an example of this. A man accessed the women only spa area with his penis out and when women protested, they were told that nothing could be done as that person could identity as a woman.

Mine was a genuine answer to your genuine question. Stonewall have pushed to change the very definition of same sex attraction to same gender attraction.

The Scottish NHS recently ran a national radio campaign to encourage the take up of the cervical screening programme. The word woman was not used once. 'Those with a cervix' was their phrase of choice despite this excluding the many (50% in recent surveys) of women who don't know what a cervix is or the women for whom English is a second or other language and will probably know the word woman but may not have come across the word cervix. There's no push to add words 'women and transmen' or 'women and those with a cervix' but just the removal of the word woman.[/quote]
I don’t know why you’re aiming this all at me. I’ve already said I don’t agree with the Stonewall definitions, or self-ID if it means changing on a whim.

Part of this entire thread has been complaining that the ‘woke’ bundle anyone who isn’t completely on their side as being [insert ism].

You are doing the same to me.

Your problem seems to be with Stonewall. So go do something about them.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 11:11

Say no to whomever you want for whatever reason you want.

Again, saying no to men as a lesbian is not the same as saying "no fat people".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 11:12

But I do think that certain physical attributes - like not being attracted to cocks - play a part in sexual orientation. Don’t you? And if not, what is it that attracts women to women? Surely not some sort of innate femininity? I know your views on that.

I have no idea why you think I would? Being a woman is about more than not having a cock, physically.

Waitwhat23 · 29/12/2021 11:15

@Bingbangbongbash you asked questions. I answered them. That's how discussion boards work. I was engaging in good faith but I now suspect that you were not given your 'nasty anti trans rhetoric' comment.

In term of Stonewall, I am doing something. Many of the women on here are. Because we're pro women's rights.

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 11:16

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I don’t think it’s nasty anti-trans rhetoric on MN. I think it’s a logical conclusion to the more extreme pathway Stonewall has chosen to take coupled with some excellent feminist advocates.

Many of whom are on Mumsnet. Who do you think crowdfunded the important legal cases? Where is all this "nasty anti trans rhetoric" then?

Is this a joke?

Look at the response you wrote above this one - where you tell someone to look up ‘imply’. Then go follow your own advice.

Every thread where trans comes up has troubling and inflammatory language. ‘Men in dresses’ and the ilk. It’s unnecessary.

But I’ve been down this road with you before and I’ve no interest in going there again. As usual, you are so vile and aggressive, you simply scare any debate away. You take it as you’ve won, and if that makes you feel better about whatever your inner sadness is, have your internet points. Congratulations. Hurrah for you!

bordermidgebite · 29/12/2021 11:17

Fwiw I think sone people have redefined vile and aggressive as well as woman and lesbian

Bingbangbongbash · 29/12/2021 11:17

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Say no to whomever you want for whatever reason you want.

Again, saying no to men as a lesbian is not the same as saying "no fat people".

I’m not saying it is. I’m literally saying it is a reason to say no. Not the same reason, a reason. You really need to take the chip off your shoulder and stop reading everything as an attack on your beliefs.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 29/12/2021 11:21

Look at the response you wrote above this one - where you tell someone to look up ‘imply’. Then go follow your own advice.

Look at their posts to me, why don't you.

Every thread where trans comes up has troubling and inflammatory language. ‘Men in dresses’ and the ilk. It’s unnecessary.

No one has said that. Granted, it may be implied, but that's the way it goes. Most people don't share your belief in gendered souls or believe that "everyone can live as they want to". Because it's patently not the case much of the time, except for when this group of males demands it.