Lurkers ahoy! Friendly thread to dip your toe in the murky seas of feminism

[cailindana]

A thread specifically for those who feel a bit out of their depth.

Ask questions, make comments.

All queries taken seriously. No sarcasm, no putdowns.

Ha probably worse Buffy. I feel like I am saying that an orange is an orange, but they are arguing "ah but it could be an apple", and persist in winding me up about it. I know it's an orange, they know I have strong reasons or even proof for believing that, but it's not enough to stop them goading me about it. I don't know what the aim of this is, especially since it's not fruit we are talking about, it's something that they know is central to my values. I am an atheist but don't have a go at my religious friends for shits and giggles.

The annoying thing is these are people who identify as liberal, righteous and rational people, yet they still don't accept my point of view even if I try so hard to explain it calmly without bursting into tears.

Oops I thought this was the whining thread

They heap shit upon you and then merrily go off and have their nice life while you have to clean the shit off. Bastards.

Just thinking of the number of times throw-away comments kept me awake at night.

And I agree with buffy. People who "overthink" are at least fucking thinking. Those who walk about with glasses tinted with delusion of gender are the unthinking parasitic zombies. Bastards. IMHO you can't say this enough. Bastards.

That's exactly it, LordCopper. They think because they are educated, intelligent liberals they have all the answers and everything is reduced to an intellectual debate with them, and once they are done with winning the debate on women's rights they move on to talking about where we should next go to dinner, while I am busy trying to not have a panic attack. "oh prostitution would have no problems if we just legalise and regulate it". "Oh posters telling women not to go out alone after dark dramatically reduce rape". And then, even if I send them statistics to back up why they are wrong, they dismiss me, my statistics must be stretched or manipulated or agenda-fuelled (oh really ). They do not think about why I do not feel the same as them, to me this is not an intellectual debate, it is the life that I am living. If I try to explain this I get mocked for being too emotional and asked who pissed on my chips... I was in bed last night trying to read something else to take my mind of it and my hands were still shaking, from a conversation that happened 10 hours earlier. I am struggling to work out who is just naive and unthinking and who is actually a sinister bastard.

Exactly, Katee. Bastards bastards bastards bastards.

These days I send them emails instead of saying face to face. That way I can refrain from screaming at them. I've done a couple of these emails and reported some people...

Yes, Buffy, but this is going to lead to a very solitary life. Pretty much everyone I know could go in that box...

Many nice men I know go in that box too. But there are some who don't. There is some hope. And sometimes it's surprising where you find an ally.

Lurk and dip in pretty frequently, but think I have only posted once or twice.

There was a thread a while back, I think it was in AIBU or Chat, about an interview in the then current issue of Marie Claire with Sash Grey. One poster started talking about feminist theory, and different perspectives. It was fascinating. But then she selfishly had to go off and give birth, and the thread ground to a halt.

I'd love to read more on feminist theory, but I don't know where to start. And recommendations?

Partial, do you mean with reference to Ched Evans?

Actually, no Yedic , odious as that case may be.

My post is more of a TAAT, vis 'The worst thing you have done when drunk' or something similar.

Many posters recount stories of being drunk and shagging blokes.

Given that the women were not capable of giving consent (i.e. drunk) were they raped?

I don't fully understand these things.

Ok, then I refer you to my answer about the point being not having capacity - and this applies to both sexes.

cardamom I've only read Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender and half of John Stuart Mill's The Subjection of Women. Not sure they count as feminist theory? But they are good books.

Oh I just typed a long post but lost it

I have a question but I know this is a contentions issue so I want to preface by saying I am not anti trans and absolutely agree that trans people should be protected. I admit a little ignorance, so please accept my apologies if I offend. I am also just starting to learn about this so am getting my head around cis, trans, trans + etc, so please forgive me if I get something wrong - please be assured I mean no offence and feel free to correct me. When I say male/female/etc I just mean in layman's terms.

I get that a trans woman is a woman - I agree with that. I also understand that as soon as someone identifies as a particular gender, that's that, they are protected against discrimination for being trans. They don't have to have seen a counsellor, have a doctor confirm it, get a certificate... again there is nothing that makes me vehemently opposed to this, I think it is the right thing.

I understand that a trans woman can use, for example, women's changing rooms and toilets, and I think thisnis the right thing - I have no problem with a trans woman being in the same toilets as me or whatever. I don't feel comfortable in communal changing rooms with anyone, trans or not, as I am sheepish, but if I have an issue I move myself, I don't expect anyone else to move because I feel uncomfortable. Toilets, I don't really mind as the cubicle is lockable and most of the time people keep themselves to themselves.

I know someone (friend of a friend so i don't know full details, but i have met them so it's not urban legend) who was born male and brought up as a boy using boy's toilets etc; as a teen they decided that they identified as female, started treatment and counselling etc, and started using women's facilities. Then in their late 20s they changed back, and started identifying as a man again, using men's toilets etc. I don't have an issue with what they did at any point.

However, my confusion comes when there is a potential abuse of this or a conflict of rights.

Say I had an ex partner who was harrassing me, but in a very subtle way that I couldn't prove or make a complaint about. Say we worked in the same place, he could claim to have decided to identify as a woman, even if it were a blatant lie, and follow me into the toilets because he knows that very act is intimidating me, there is nothing anyone could do to challenge him? If a trans argument is "what's your problem with a trans person with a penis using the facilities designed for people with a vagina?" then surely the counter argument is what's their problem with sharing with other people with a penis? I know some places now have accessible toilets for trans people to use if they so wish, but I don't think i believe they should be obliged to (much like, say, a breastfeeding room - it's there if you want it and feel more comfortable there, but you have a right to do it elsewhere). If anyone can choose, in theory, to identify with a particular gender as they please, what is the point I having gendered facilities at all? I actually don't think that's a terrible solution...
Another thing I struggle with is as someone who has been sexually assaulted several times, always by a man - I was sexually assaulted asa child and find certain situations triggering, though with careful counselling I do not generally fear people with penises. However, what about things like rape crisis? If a person who identified as a woman applied for a job as a rape crisis advsior they could not legally be turned down for having or once having a penis, right? I would feel extremely uncomfortable if I had just been raped and then had to have rape crisis advice with someone who possibly has the potential to attack me in the same way. Or i would feel extremely uncomfortable to have an intimate medical or forensic examination performed by someone who in their own head identifies as a woman, but as far as I am concerned is someone with a penis - it would make an already distressing situation worse. So if a person has a very very genuine reason for not wanting to take the risk, they can't have tgat allowance because of the trans person's rights? Nb I don't mean if someone just doesn't like the idea of transsexualism - I'd see that as the same as refusing to deal with someone of a certain race or whatever.

What about the potential abuse, again by men? What if an abusive man claimed to identify as a woman, they need to provide no proof of this, what if they got a job in a refuge to prey on very vulnerable women?

There are very good reasons for certain parts of life being men/women only (again I mean lay men's terms) - are the trans rights the ones which take priority?

Sorry this is very garbled, I hope this makes sense!

Katee I haven't read this yet, but I saw it on twitter as a summary of the various feminist views on trans issues.

www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/who-owns-gender/

What you are talking about is a most definitely a concern for some feminists, I've seen it talked about a lot. It's related to the argument about why domestic violence shelters need to be single sex, because there have been cases where violent men have claimed abuse in subsequent relationships in order to gain access to their previous victims. Awful stuff.

With the drunk thing - I would say forget the idea that it's alcohol and there was a choice involved to drink.

Instead think about a person who is not really fully aware of the implications of what they are doing. Who isn't in possession of the full facts or their full consciousness, if you like. A child of 13, 14, who thinks they are much more mature than they are, a person with a learning disability, a person under the influence of medication, somebody suffering from delusions, grief or mania, somebody being duped by their persuader. They are not in a position to consent because they're not in possession of the full facts, their full senses, whatever you like.

Of course in the vast majority of these cases the sex is wanted, even if only in the moment, in that sense, it's consensual and nothing more is ever thought about it except perhaps "Oops!". And often, especially in the case of alcohol, the other party is equally less in possession of their full senses than they usually are so it is chalked up to experience. A side effect of grief, mania, adolescence, and yep, drugs/alcohol.

The flip side would be if a man (I'm just going to use man/woman because it's easier to follow) is in possession of most or all of his senses at the time an opportunity presents itself, and he chooses to take advantage of the fact she is not fully able to process whether she is consenting or not, that is rape. That's the meaning of not legally being able to consent, aside from the blind obvious like if she's asleep, restrained or unconscious. This is why most countries have laws which mean that students cannot legally consent to sex with their students, prisoners cannot legally consent to sex with guards, possibly patients/doctors as well although I don't know. In a residential facility I would assume so. Because it is recognised that power dynamics can exist in these situations which would allow the teacher/guard/doctor to take advantage and manipulate their student, prisoner, ward, into believing that they were consenting when they are not.

So, should men never have sex with a woman who is drunk, tipsy, grieving, younger than him (obviously not underage!), depressed, etc? No, I don't think that's what needs to be taken away from this. I think it needs to be said that it's the man's responsibility to ascertain enthusiastic consent at all times, and if he's unsure about her state of mind, to be more vigilant than usual in ascertaining this, and not go ahead if he can't be sure. Not assuming that acceptance is enthusiasm - it's not. And if the man is drunk or not in possession of his senses for whatever reason himself, I don't think there is reason to worry - if he always runs with the understanding that it doesn't happen if there's not enthusiastic consent coming back to him loud and clear, that mindset will persevere even if he is not very aware of himself.

The thing is, that this is the whole reason why there is that clause in the law about "if he can reasonably believe that..." etc. I can see why it's there but I think it gets misused/misinterpreted, or perhaps the focus is just wrong - currently it feels like the onus is on the woman to communicate clearly "NO" unless she was clearly out of it/duped/drugged/etc when that isn't really how interactions work in general.

I mean, think about how we conduct everyday rejections. If you don't want a particular friend to come over for coffee, you don't shout "NO!" in their face or tell them to fuck off, that would be rude. Instead you avoid their calls, make excuses and hope that they get the message, suggest a compromise - meeting somewhere else, or invite someone else over at the same time so you're not stuck with this boring person alone. If you're absolutely pushed, we tend to apologise with a load of false crap "I'd really love to, but unfortunately..." when really the answer is that you don't want to.

Thanks Bertiie. I've read. Will sleep on it!