From the previous thread, by TiggyD:
^For those who don't like the word 'cis': It's only ever relevant when taking about trans and cis people. If you never used either prefix it would make talking about the issue really bloody hard.
"Cis" is just the opposite of "trans". We use both of neither. To say there are women and trans women is rather 'othering'. A bit like how the Daily Mail like to say "Gay politician", but never "Straight politician".^
I don't think there are words in English to express to you, Tiggy, how adamantly I object to use of the term ciswoman to describe me. 'Don't like' doesn't cover it, for me.
What you are telling me I have to accept is that now that transwomen are here I must accept a redefinition of my entire experience here on earth and suspend disbelief about certain irrefutable biological facts.
Transwomen are 'other' if they are the opposite of 'cis' as you assert. ("Cis" is just the opposite of "trans".)
Transwomen are not women, by definition (your own and others') and by biology.
Women are women. They are not men.
Men are men. They are not women.
Women are not 'ciswomen', in any context.
Men are not 'cismen' in any context.
We are all 'other'.
Get over it.
If you are offended by that suggestion, I suggest you reread your own post where you try to tell women to get over being called 'ciswomen' and explain that there is relevance to the term.
I find myself agreeing with earlier remarks that there is a huge whiff of mansplaining to this and a very masculine tendency on the part of the self identified transwomen here to crash in and expect women to forget about their experience and cater to transwomen's need to define themselves. Very ironic.
When a redesignation of someone else is 'relevant' in the context of your self definition, what you are doing is making someone else's experience of existence in this gendered world all about you and your experience.
I don't want you thinking of me as a ciswoman or referring to me as a ciswoman. I know from reading both threads that I am not the only women here who finds the term repugnant.
'Ciswoman' is a womanphobic term.
Transactivism does not have to be taken up by women.
Calling women 'ciswomen' is about using our existence for transactivist ends.
........
Kim (from previous thread):
Trans unemployment, suicide, self harm, mental health issues, lack of housing, abuse etc are very high. Those are the issues trans people should be fighting for. Not the issues that you hear so often on FWR.
So where is the campaign?
By that I mean 'When are you going to start it?'
Where are the voices raised by transwomen against the misogyny and woman phobia of transactivism that are discussed (and rightly because there is hatred of women involved) on FWR? Where are the voices of transwomen on FWR redirecting shrill transactivism's attention to real life issues for transwomen?
Must the feminist women and men on FWR do the job?
Tiggy I think the main problem on Mumsnet with regard to trans issues is that, particually in the FWR bit, a few nasty things some trans people have done are brought up continually as example why trans people shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. It's like if somebody were to say their company was making a prayer room for muslim staff, and lots of people started talking about suicide bombers. Yes, some people in both groups can be arseholes but the way some people talk you'd think these extreme examples were typical.
Tiggy, I think you don't understand what FWR is here for. It's here to challenge misogyny.
Should posters on FWR just ignore the hatred directed towards women and turn instead to the plight of transwomen? I'll answer that myself with a 'No'.
No, because feminism is about women's experience and women's rights, and women's unemployment and suicide rates and stopping the abuse of women and trying to do something about poverty among women. And feminism is also about challenging those who very obviously have as their agenda the hatred of women, whether that hatred comes from transactivists or MRAs or random common or garden kneejerk misogynists, and therefore challenging that is what you will tend to see on FWR, very appropriately.
In a nutshell, FWR is about challenging the arseholes who hate women. Hence the very proper focus on the arseholes.
Kim,
If you want activism on employment and other bread and butter issues for transwomen then you could start by asking MN for a specific trans board.
FWR is very correctly a discussion board for 'Feminism and Women's Rights'. (Note, not Ciswomen's Rights and not Transwomen's Rights.)
Thanks for explaining about how hard it is for women in the job market. See - if you were a man, I would call that mansplaining. I have been on MN for many years so I understand that.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that transwomen are not the only people with employment and other problems. It's not mansplaining to point that out, nor is it transphobic to ask transwomen to acknowledge it.
Nor is it transphobic to ask that the problems of transwomen be discussed on a separate board from those affecting women.
The comments on these threads about life for women in this gendered world are in response to the perception that transwomen are talking about these issues as if they are the first or the only people ever to run into difficulties getting on in the patriarchy. If you think the problems have a different character from those affecting women then a separate board is the way to go.
(Fwiw, from your comment that years of participation on MN have allowed you to learn about mansplaining I am very glad of the feminist presence here and FWR in particular, and glad the educational role of Feminism is having an impact.)
...........
And Kim, I think that categorising suggestions that trans people have mental health issues as insults is mental health issue phobic.
You perpetuate the stigma surrounding mental health issues every time you experience a suggestion of mental health issues as an insult.