Men and Non-men

[noblegiraffe]

Interesting discussion here about men as default.

debuk.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/default-male/

Apart from wondering whether the Green Party tweet about non-men is an April Fools, men-as-default is something I've had to make an effort with when talking to my DD. I've noticed that unless the toy/picture in a book is specifically a girl, I'll call it 'Mr Octopus' or say 'What is the doggy doing? He's eating a bone'.

Yes, I get that frustration and not being able to explain how your thinking works.

I suppose I might try and sum that up for myself as being a romantic (in the 19th century sense, not the greetings card sense), but then I wouldn't go around claiming everyone else should be able to easily place themselves on a romanticism spectrum or say a romantic was anyone who felt like a romantic.

Yes, I agree.

And that's the problem of gender identity. It seems to be claiming some kind of universal system that is related to biological sex, which is hugely important in society.

If the genderists were content to just identify as whatever sparklegender they like best, and be done with it, that'd be okay.
That they demand access to women's spaces (i.e. spaces segregated by sex) is the problem.

I slightly disagree with that Vestal. I think identifying as a sparklygender or whatever still upholds the gender hierarchy. And that's never going to be good for women.

scallops, true, it would still be bad for women - but I did ignore the whole transvestite, transsexual and drag queen group and their woman-face thing when it was still universally acknowledged that they are men who are playing pretend.

They were bad for women, yes, but no worse than any other sexist stereotyping in media, etc. And I think men who actually considered themselves transsxual were a tiny minority back then, and most of them wanted to get surgery because they acknowledged that penises aren't female.

Now, though, the problem is much, much worse than that.

The good news is we retain the word and therefore concept of 'sexism' so at least we dont have to think about how to prevent 'genderism'

@BombadierFritz: Do we? Or will we be banned from using that word sometime soon?

I was just thinking how much time we are spending on these threads trying to understand where the trans activists\genderists are coming from and wonder why trans activists/genderists can't give the same attention and thought to where we, as females, are coming from.

How many times do we feel we must include a disclaimer e.g. expressing sympathy for individuals who are dysmorphic or suffering or whatever? Yet how often do we hear trans activists/genderists express sympathy for a group (women) that has been discriminated against for far longer and in much greater numbers? No they just want to budge us along the pier so we fall off first.

I must be deeply cynical in thinking that it is same old same old i.e. they are blokes and however small their number (and statistically it is very small) they must take precedence over females, even if said females are huge in number - 'cos that's only natural isn't it?

I really am sick of pandering to their demands. Men and non-men indeed. Fuck off.

I doubt that student activists/ Twitter warriors have actually read Butler. I teach it to 2nd year undergrads and they have difficulty even coping with a section of a chapter from Gender Trouble And I think I remember reading her Preface to a new edition of that book, or maybe it was a recent essay by her, where she admits that some of the ways her work has been used has gone a bit far.

.

I mean, religious identity is studied in depth by school pupils doing RE. All the aspects of it are set out in a curriculum

Is it? Or is it simply one is taught religions exist? Sorry but I am as uncomfortable with the idea that we all have a religious or spiritual identity or an understanding of what that means as most of you are with the idea of a gender identity.

I don't understand religion. I have no understanding of the experience of a god. On the other hand I am female of sex and feminine of gender.

DD is doing GCSE RS. It definitely goes into all kinds belief and practice.

I don't think religious identity is any more complicated than holding a set of beliefs and participating in a set of customs. It doesn't require an experience of God.

If someone said they were a Christian, would you not understand what they were referring to?

I understand what femininity is. It's been defined by various people including psychologists. But it doesn't seem to be what genderists are talking about.

And nobody is claiming we all have a religious identity!

If someone said they were a Christian, would you not understand what they were referring to?

Only in the sense of they are telling me they believe in Christ.

I have no idea what that feels like or how that manifests itself in that person's mind. People talk of finding God, or letting Christ into their lives, or speaking to God. I have no understanding of what that means or feels like. My mother was a devout Catholic. She told me her faith was very important to her but what she was actually experiencing was, and still is, a mystery to me.

But nobody is asking others on this thread to empathise with another person's feelings so that we would know what it was like to that extent.

For example, if someone says they are experiencing murderous intentions, I don't have to be able to imagine what that feels like to understand what they are conveying. It has a clear meaning.

Common mystical experiences are described. They're on Wikipedia for a start! It's things like feeling a sense of union with the whole universe, or feeling a sense of harmony when praying. I don't have to feel personally harmonious to understand what harmony is, or to understand the concept of being in unity with something.

But genderists aren't offering any characteristics of what a gender identity is.