I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

[SophieJenkins]

I was listening in the car to WH yesterday and they were doing their 'power list', first off discussing Kim Kardashian (have a vague idea who she is but not much) and then they started off the list and after about 1 or 2 interesting women, they announced Caitlyn Jenner.

I turned it off instantly as I couldn't listen. I don't know why but it just made me really angry.

I didn't want to start another thread about this as I realise from titles that people were getting sick of them, but cant get it out of my head and wondered if anyone could briefly help me figure out why it pissed me off SO much?

If we're not allowed to discuss this then I apologise and feel free to tell me. I haven't been reading any of the other threads about it which perhaps I should have done after all.

I think I feel like being female has been hijacked by someone and used to get publicity - when a lot of women are denied even the basic human rights that come with being a bloke.

And then to be put on a list of high achieving women for what? For wanting to be a woman?

I don't get it.

I am very much on the side of analysis in the context of education, of rehabilitation and of recovery.

What I am not in favour of is using psychological issues to excuse behaviour that harms other people.

Making up an example, not being sure of the facts in the case you cite, take a man who is abusive to his partner.

You can't say 'Oh well he was confused about his gender, that's why he was abusive' and then follow on from that by excusing his behaviour and not ensuring there are consequences for him (as there have been for the abused party already).

It may have contributed to his state of mind, clearly, no one could dispute that, but it doesn't make everything he has done alright.

It sometimes feels as though men who 'become women' are getting a strange sort of adulation reserved only for their kind.

IMO someone's personal issues and their behaviour may well be connected but they are not inexorably linked in terms of cause and effect.

Bertrand, you may give individuals a moment, sadly many here have condemned without thought. The 'boss of me stuff' is one of the discussions I think would be great to have... without the heated (and usually protracted) entrenched exchanges.

Innocent... that's the point! Take any judgmental comment... and wonder why KM acted that way? Is it because he was in turmoil or just an unpleasant person? If the former then there are ramifications for others going through a similar transition. If the latter then there must be some understanding of why/how that is different from the former, so we don't waste time on it.

What may sound like excuses may actually be keys to understanding the reasons for behaviour... condemning without thought does not allow any learning, any understanding, any proactive measures to be taken.

Until we understand the behavioural psychology of any transgender journey comments that condemn out of hand are themselves bigotry.

So yes, I think your last sentence does display bigotry, or at least a lack of empathy for someone in an unusual situation. I hasten to add that I don't think you are bigoted, I don't know you. But that last sentence is another of the discussions I would love to see happen here, without the monster shouting, iyswim.

Cross posted, Sophie

That explains that then. I do believe that behavioural psychology is important. Not to excuse but to identify and understand causality.

I would prefer to take time to understand behavioural causality for 2 reasons:

1. To rob individuals of that 'get out of jail free' card
2. To help individuals understand the changes they are undertaking and so to reduce the trauma.

Actually, 3 reasons:

1. To educate the wider society to further aid individuals in their transition.

But would repeat reason 1, ad infinitum!

Lou, OP has stated she doesn't consider herself a feminist.

It would be just lovely if you could refrain from attacks on "MN Radfems" - I disagree anyway with what you are saying about the OP but please remember FWR is open to all. After all, you yourself are posting here and you obviously think of yourself as a feminist MN poster but not an MN Radfem. A little logic, please.

Lou,

I agree that analysis is extremely important and I would apply that to everyone, not just transgender people - I don't get why it is relevantto this thread, though.

No one's saying, Oh, he's a wanker/insert other term because he is transgender.

People are saying, being transgender doesn't excuse that.

You cananalyse his behaviour all you like, it is probably quite interesting but the upshot is he was violent and whatever sex or gender he is, or why he did it (unless it was self defence, which it clearly was not) that is still wrong.

And it is not bigoted to judge someone who seriously assaulted their spouse and has never apologised. Some people who commit crimes do have a number of issues, mental, cultural, whatever. Provided they have capacity in the legal sense, they are still judged and punished for those crimes.

Sorry, my space bar is a bit fooked

I really object to being called a bigot because I don't believe that changing gender gives you a get out of jail free card for past misdemeanours.

FWIW I don't personally know any transwomen who've ever committed any violent acts. And I suspect they'd disagree with you too.

I thought my post was pretty clear, but on reading it back, it isn't... my apologies.

In context, transgender males, in a wider context individuals, any individuals... any and all aberrant behaviours need to be understood if we, as a society are to be able to ameliorate / punish or eradicate them! And I don't mean the act of gender reassignment, before anyone screams at me!

Yonic, I have been clear, I didn't say OP was a RadFem, just that some pps here come across that way. This is a fairly regular observation and I know you have read my explanation on another thread, where I also explained why I had stopped posting in here. I have stated clearly I do not seem to fit the prevalent/current definition of feminist here. There is no lack of logic, I am being as transparent as I can be. And I will continue to post stating my disappointment with some of the 'RadFem' posting until you point out the rule that says I cannot. Or are you simply trying to stifle debate, silence anyone that has a slightly different viewpoint? That was the basic point of the other thread wasn't it? Why do some people post/not post in here....

It is interesting that despite having very clearly stated that I don't consider understanding a behaviour to equal forgiving or excusing it, posters are still typing as though that is indeed what I meant.

oddfod see my above post. I said nothing of the sort. It is that kind of lazy debating that I find so disappointing.

Yes, I know you could go back and paste a snippet of a previous post, that would prove you are right. But it would be, at best, disingenuous, when the meaning of my posts have been clear when read as a whole.

Sarah Vine is poisonous...

Yes, I do see that it is offensive. FMs actions were wrong, where have I said otherwise? KMs defence of her actions are also inexcusable. But I would take into account the fact that KM and her ex wife remain on friendly terms. I would have to accept that they know more about that time than I do and would also accept that if Tracey Maloney can bring herself to come to terms with what happened then I have no higher moral right to disagree with her... to read her say that, whilst she would have done so many things differently, she is still supporting Kellie to move on, is, in my opinion, to see a very strong woman acting in a most compassionate manner. Tracey is, imo, behaving in a most dignified and humane manner. I would take my lead from her rather than the piss and vinegar postings here.

I have not called any individual a bigot. I have said that many statements made on threads such as this are bigotted, show little empathy, are often vitriolic and sometimes seem to follow a cant I do not hold to.

Am I supposed to ignore it, not to mention it because someone will take offense? OK! That's that debate stifled.

I agree with all of sophie's recent posts, for shorthand. It is hard for someone who does not wear make-up or feminine clothing, but still feels they are a woman (mainly because of ovaries, uterus and stuff), to understand how, for some, this is what makes them a woman. It seems fetishistic, in the case of Bruce Jenner, especially the point of 'stealing' someone else's underwear rather than buying his own.

I am not a "mumsnet radfem" whatever that is supposed to mean, I consider myself a feminist by definition in that I believe in equality between the sexes, and would speak and act for that end in given circumstances.

There are many people who have undergone gender transition, or had deep problems in any walk of life, who do not use violence against others. I am not 'condemning' KM, it is not my position and my level of interest doesn't extend that far (though honestly further reading isn't particularly edifying), but there must be other examples of people more worth your time and analysis. (Lana Wachowski for eg, just calmly got on with things without fanfare and attention seeking, and as far as I know hasn't attacked anybody, or been racist)

I really don't see all that much difference between KM and BJ, they have a similar trajectory and are similarly problematic. They are just currently in the tabloids, they have not achieved anything of note as 'women' that I can see except to serve their own desires, sometimes at the expense of others.

"know you have read my explanation on another thread, where I also explained why I had stopped posting in here."

I don't recall this, although i don't dispute it. I don't have a photographic memory.

As the OP is making statements disapproving of KM, I assumed perhaps you were including her in your generalisation. Of course, if you just want to use this thread to rehash other threads rather than taking the current discussion at face value, I can't stop you. I do feel you made a PA with your post, though.

"Sadly the continued comments here simply go further to proving that MN RadFems give no quarter to any man who wishes to be a woman. The dismissiveness, mealy mouthed, nasty certainties voiced here really do help reinforce the opinion that today's feminist is really quite an unpleasant bigot."

You don't think this is a nastier point than any the "MN Radfems" have made on this thread? Really, Lou?

"But I would take into account the fact that KM and her ex wife remain on friendly terms."

Really? Have you met many abused women?