This is bullshit thread #3

[HornyTortoise]

Following on from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2716917-This-is-bullshit-Thread-2

Open ongoing discussion welcome for anyone to join in.

Just tried to reply to see max posts were reached, hope this is OK to do...

This is the point - this is about classes not individuals.

Oppression, discrimination, etc is about classs, not individuals, although oppression is obviously perpetrated and experienced by individuals. But the reasons behind it are class reasons, not because of the qualities of individuals. It's ALL black people, or ALL Jews, etc.

I get the offence. As a white person, if I lived in some southern US states, I am sure I would detest the way that many white people talked about black people behind closed doors and that I would do my utmost to distance myself from that. Whilst on an individual level, I may not be an oppressor (although I may need to examine the ways in which I behave), I would still be a member of the class of people that oppress the class of black people on racial grounds.

Being hurt by being included in that class is unfortunate, but I am still a member of that class. My issues concerning not wanting to be one of 'those white people' are wholly separate from the issues black people experience at the hands of 'those white people'.

My individual feelings as a white person who objects to racism are important. Certainly to me. And probably shared by other white people who object to and reject that socially constructed and socially acceptable aspect of whiteness. But when it comes to respecting that e.g. some Black Lives Matter protests need to be a unified BLACK voice and BLACK presence, that funding etc earmarked for black people is because of class based oppression, with me as part of the oppressor class and them as part of the oppressed class, I think I actually need to suck it up and butt out.

I would hate for class-based analysis to get in the way of personal friendships and relating on an individual level. But this is not what this is about. It's not personal. It can't be personal.

helen, you might completely.disagree here, but one of the reasons I am angry (with wider society, life) is that it appears people do listen to transwomen more than women - look at how quick the government is to think about taking gender off passports, look at new titles eg mx etc etc. it feels like lifetime campaigns pushed through in seconds once "a man" thinks it is useful. so imo tw are still accorded male privilege

But even though we all know that I'm male. Society does not include me in the "man" group because I'm trans

But that was my point, what needs to happen is widening the bandwith of what is seen as man. And stop calling everyone else woman as well. Not stereotypical man does not = therefore woman. This is what is so deeply offensive and wrong.

I agree that male violence is a major issue but there is also a tendency of women to accept without hesitation that MTTs are at risk of male violence in sex segregated spaces. This is not surprising because women understand the fear of male violence although women are socialised not to express this (through devices like NAM, among others). It's gone so far as an unquestioned acceptance that MTTs are at risk while poo-pooing concerns that women are at risk from MTTs or other men. There are many reported cases of women being attacked by men in women's spaces, sometimes dressed as women sometimes not. I'm not aware of reported cases of MTTs being attacked by men in public toilets. While some MTTs may be genuinely fearful of male violence, there are MTTs who want to use women's spaces for validation of their "womanhood" or to avoid outing themselves if they pass.

to think about taking gender off passports, look at new titles eg mx etc

I think that has nothing to do with trans people - why would a TW want to remove M or F from passports or use Mx.

I think that's the new world of gender queer? Neither M or F, not wanting titles - which seems to be to rejecting gender.

Not all men!

(sorry I couldn't resist )

Indeed!

I think the interesting thing is the 'conscious process' part of it. If someone is consciously resisting that process, then that's a different thing from someone who is consciously presenting as broadening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman by growing a beard while dressing in feminine clothes.

Personally, I disagree with virtually everyone except a few postmodern feminists because I think that sex is a social construct, so I have no problem with a penis being female. My concern with the Alex Drummonds of this world is that they haven't really thought much about what a female penis symbolises. So they're still part of that conscious process of keeping women in a constant state of fear.

Oscar said it so much better

Fritz

Actually I totally agree with you. It's totally wrong and I think it's because TA's act with male entitlement and are extremely manipulative that they achieve this. I think so many people are blind to the way that women are treated (women included) because it's just what they are used to.

It's easier to see someone as discriminiated against if they are obviously different so TA's perhaps have an easier ride than women.

I think that the things that for example the Trans Enquiry started by Maria Miller are listening to and takimg note of are deeply one sided and are extremely damaging for women. This is what we need to take a stand against. Women, and sympathetic trans women need to stand together and not be silenced. We need policy makers to listen.

Apropos of 'passing', over quarter of a century of moving in gay/trans/alt circles, I have consistently found that very little gives a TW away more than the tell-tale signs of their male socialisation particularly male entitlement. Add to that the (usually) autogynephilic (thus objectifying and misogynistic) view/presentation of 'what it means to be a woman' and it's a dead giveaway.

Not stereotypical man does not = therefore woman. This is what is so deeply offensive and wrong.

Yes I agree. Do you know how much shit I get from trans people for being able to say that I'm a man? Not just TRA's but prettty much the entire trans community.

I get told that I'm not really trans because a real trans person would never be able to say that. I get called an Uncle Tom (which is also appropriative and deeply offensive on that level). I get told that I'm hateful and that my words are violence. I get told that If I don't detransition that I'm a hypocrite.

The views that are so offensive are so deeply ingrained in society.

Do you know how much shit I get from trans people for being able to say that I'm a man

You are entitled to your view. There are many who would disagree with you. It's how they disagree that is important.

Oscar totally agree with your comparison with whites people being offended at black activism. Men who believe they are not consciously contributing to male oppression should not tell women they are offended as part of discussions of class analysis nor pop up with a NAM especially not in response to a Susan Brownmiller quote FFS

Flora

Sorry. I apologise.

So what is wrong with:
Women
Men
Transwomen
Transmen

And afford the transgroups the appropriate protections (as listed elsewhere on these threads in great detail in order to 'prove' I and others are not bigoted and hateful)?

Why in order to achieve this do we have to erase the reality and immutability of biological sex and insist that transwomen are women as much as women are?

That is the real question. Why is working within reality and science and working to ensure no discrimination etc not good enough? There is a tendency to tie ourselves up in knots trying to work out how to accommodate MTT within womanhood, or include MTT in (some but not all, and then which, why, when and how) women's spaces. Thinking about what we would each be happy with and why. This still ends up making it women's problem to solve. It's not.

Oscar

I have no issue with that and will support it.

Other trans won't because it feels that it others them and they have deep unresolved internalised transphobia.

I think it should be, has to be, the end goal. We have to start with what the medical profession tells trans people.

So what is wrong with:Women,Men,Transwomen,Transmen

How does that relate to your thread calling transwomen men? You seem to want to call transwomen men. Blokes. He. And you have clearly said you will describe us as that?

Have you changed your mind? Would you be happy calling a transwomen a transwomen rather than a man? Would you call them 'he'?

Other trans won't because it feels that it others them

But they are other, that's the point. Other isn't bad. It's just different. If a TW doesn't want to be called a man then that's fine, but he's not a woman either. So is other by default?

I don't know how to describe myself except as an individual person with my own needs, issues and concerns who is just trying to get by in a society that is still coming to terms with people like me.

f a TW doesn't want to be called a man then that's fine

Great. I would never call myself that.

Most of the time, I never have to describe myself. But I do what I do to get by and survive life with my head down and without making a fuss.

Transwomen are not women. Humans are sexually dimorphic, therefore transwomen are a subset of men. Invoking the individual vs class distinction, whilst on an individual level I may make a decision as an individual to use a MTT's preferred pronoun, on a class level they remain 'he' and it is accurate to refer to them as such. And, as such, I reserve the right to use my language accurately to refer to any or all MTT as 'he'.

As MTT are not women, they are not entitled to access women's protected spaces, or stuff that is earmarked for women - whether that is college places, grant money, or women's sports. They should not be counted as women when looking at issues of equality, education, crime, or health. The issue of discrimination MTT face and any risks from male violence needs to be tackled separately and it is not the business of feminism to deal with this. Whilst individual women may choose to be involved with this (and I would certainly support this) it is not the business of women as a class to make this right for MTT. It is neither necessary, nor honest, for MTT to claim they are women in order to secure the rights due to them nor the safety from violence that should be guaranteed them.

Calling any individual MTT 'she' is very often the thin end of the wedge. Starts with a pronoun, goes on to using the word 'woman' or 'girl', and then after a short while, bang. You're in the mess we are currently in.

My personal latitude re pronoun use is actually irrelevant. It has be one rule across the board, which means that if 'she' is to be used of any MTT the sentence 'this woman committed rape with her penis' has to be acceptable and meaningful. (I consider that if any MTT is a woman, then all must be, including eg Danielle Muscato, but if you prefer to cling to the notion that only those who have had 'bottom surgery' are deserving of 'she', then the meaningful and accurate sentence needs to be 'a woman committed rape with the penis that she used to have'. Still meaningless.)

And why the focus on willies? How is this fair? Helen alluded to the fact that surgery is booked for November. I like Helen and want to be accommodating. So, do I call Helen 'he' up until November, then tactfully ask if the chop has happened and if it has use 'she'? How does that work? That's a pretty horrible way of going about things. And anyway, I thought we had decided that a woman is not simply a bloke minus the nadgers. In that respect I think TA are correct - it's all or none. I say it's none, they say it's all.

I don't know how to describe myself except as an individual person with my own needs, issues and concerns who is just trying to get by in a society that is still coming to terms with people like me.

This is a salient point.

I believe that some TA have lumped transpeople together and decided that the world needs to change for this giant, one-brained hive of people instead of individuals with different wants, needs, ideas, and lives.

I admit that I still have no idea how one could feel like a woman without being heavily influenced by gender stereotyping but as Helen said up thread: we can think it's terrible to be influenced but we still are.

If I am being totally honest, I would much rather see a person be able to live the way he/she wants without having to pick a gender.

Butchering yourself to become something scientifically impossible is just so sad to me. I hate that anyone has to do that.

So, do I call Helen 'he' up until November, then tactfully ask if the chop has happened and if it has use 'she'? How does that work? That's a pretty horrible way of going about things

What about Paris Lees and others? You've called them 'he' and 'blokes' on the Spartacus thread? I think that's pretty horrible.

Butchering yourself to become something scientifically impossible is just so sad to me. I hate that anyone has to do that

With due respect - have you read anything on here about gender dysphoria and the relief that surgery has?

To describe life changing surgery as butchery and mutilation when you don't know the relief it brings is pretty ignorant. There was a lot of discussion on the last thread about surgery.

If it 'others' them, that is their problem to sort out, not mine to pussyfoot around, lying to make people feel better about themselves.

Sure, I'd never follow someone around all day singing a newly versed 'You'e a Bloke' song. That's because I'm not a twat. But I'm not going to lie and say, yes you are she and yes you are a woman.

The question is not why shouldn't I do this. The question is rather - why should this be asked/required of me?

Again. Chucking it back onto (mostly) women to accommodate through language. This is still male privilege.

It actually fucking hurts, angers and enrages me when I see 'she' used of MTT. Why is my hurt, anger and rage (and fear - a lot of fear for teh real and seen ramifications of this) less than the hurt experienced by MTT at this 'othering'? Why is the latter bigotry and an act of violence? Why is the appropriate of language not considered to be violent? Why?

Answer: male privilege.

Again. Chucking it back onto (mostly) women to accommodate through language. This is still male privilege

You do know that there are transmen who ask to be called 'he'. Why are you ignoring their requests to be called 'he' - they have never had male privilege but still expect to be called 'he'.

Ego - cross- post, although my post just now does address why I call PL a man and he.

Why is doing so horrible?
Why is it not horrible to women to say that PL is a woman? Why is this appropriation of womanhood, denial of biological reality, and reduction of womanhood to not having nadgers and the performance of patriarchy approved femininity not horrible?

When MTT say they are women, real actual womanhood is diminished. Why does that not matter? Why is it up to me to accommodate this? Redefine myself? Should I actually be grateful for the descriptor 'cis' in that is still permits me a way to distinguish myself from these other women, women who are women just as much as I am?

Why is this on me and not on you? (group you, not you personally)