Feminist Pub XX - may the summer rains wash the patriarchy down the plughole

[NoTechnologicalBreakdown]

Ooh ooh! Do I get to start it?

Wine and cake all round. And a celebratory burst on the patriarchy-blasting cannon!

Old pub here

Just in case any of the feminist massive can add their support....

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_campaigns/2459825-Refugee-children

Thanks for the link!

I once failed a credit check with British Gas because they think my house - which has been here for nearly a hundred and thirty years - doesn't exist. Surely they should have figured out how to tie google earth into address registers somehow by now!

In other news, XSIL has just come out as a transman, and freely admits this is a recently made choice. Thanks to you lot I'm having real trouble resisting the urge to point out the ridiculousness. I just want to shake him and scream, 'biological sex isn't a costume you can swap at will!'

Credit check is pretty mysterious. I was once refused a credit card because apparently I don't owe anyone any money.

I don't really understand what it means to come out as a transman.

I can't tell you what it means, but I can tell you what it looks like: a facebook post saying "I am a man now" with a link to the NHS page on gender dysphoria, followed by a tendency to reframe discussions of biological sex categories as discussions of the trans experience. Also a statement that possession of female reproductive organs has no relevance to whether one is a man or a woman.

Found the pub again, it keeps dropping off the I'm On list.

My Dad said he couldn't come visit our home because "TomTom" can't find it. House was in middle of field and it didn't show on SatNavs when they first became popular, thing is, we had lived in that house for years before he got the TomTom and had done the journey many many times.

It's funny how the possession of female reproductive organs make you subject to catcalls and discrimination and all that shit though.

I know, it's bizarre, innit? It's almost like, I dunno, like individuals don't actually have the power to change how every other person in the world perceives them on a whim, or something. Crazy, innit?

Maybe that's why the whole thing rankles so much. We don't get to dictate how society treats us as individuals. And that's okay! If we all got to dictate such things, not only would we never get anything done, but we'd also be at odds with one another constantly. Possessors of female reproductive systems do not have the power to remove themselves from the class to which society denies bodily and sexual autonomy. If we could, we would, but we haven't, and so logically we are responsible for the violence inflicted upon us. Which is offensive, victim blaming bollocks, and I reject it utterly. And then I get people like XSIL explaining in a gently patronising tone that it's really important for trans people to be able to exist in some sort of solipsistic vacuum in which other people's understanding of material reality is irrelevant, because insisting that sexual dimorphism exists and that penises can be used as weapons is an intentional act of psychic violence.

Excuse me, I seem to have strayed into rant mode...

Does your head in, doesn't it?

Yep. Although on the plus side, at least I can articulate why it does my head in now, which is personal progress!

Hey anyone seen this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388 "Sexting boys naked selfie recorded as crime by police"

The comments section has already been shut down, apparently after just 1 hour, in which it's attracted loads of 'oh so the girl got off scot free did she". It's being used as a story against criminalising kids.

I haven't started a thread on it because there's one crucial question not answered in the bbc story - did she actually ask him to send it? If she did, then yes, she's guilty of spreading indecent images herself. If not though, it was a typical male doing the online equivalent of flashing a girl in a park and deserves everything he gets. The mother is quoted as saying her son was humiliated, "he was "at best naive" and at worst was just being "a teenager"."

It's shit that so many weighed in on the side of the lad without pausing to consider that crucial first question.

And once again, a bit of shit reporting from the BBC on sexual matters...

I'm wondering if it's worth complaining about actually, and how. Presented immediately as a story about 'oh poor boy got criminal record", talk about biased.

Fingles YES to being able to articulate! I have this board to thank for this - it really does save your sanity. Such a relief!

I don't think she's legally guilty ad the crime is distributing indecent images of a minor.

"However, his mother was told her son's details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 year"

Spines like the outcome was the same for all

The phrasing of the article is passive - it's possible there's some doubt if she or the other teenager actually sent the pictureS.

Thought I should make an appearance - the pub had dropped off my 'I'm on' list

Welcome back oubliette!

- thanks Yonic

I'll try and keep up - I've been useless over the summer.

Yonic, yes, it's the biased reporting I object to. All 'Oh poor boy, he's humiliated, got an undeserved punishment". If he sent naked images of himself to a girl who didn't ask for them he deserved a police warning I think. The girl texting them on, two wrongs don't make a right. But the BBC reporting is all on the boy's side.

Do you think so, lightning? The reporting seemed ok up me though I can believe the comments were shitty.

It was wrong to send the image on, whether it was a solicited or unsolicited image.

This phrasing makes me wonder if they aren't sure which of the other two sent it on

"However, before the image disappeared, the girl saved it on her own phone and it was then sent to other pupils at the school."