I am a woman because I say so

[Darrowisred]

Bought Grazia not realising it was a special gender issue.

Paris Lees has three pages of editorial.

Gems include;

'I don't need permission to use the label 'woman', I'm a woman because I say so'.

And

'Womankind is a broad church, and it's time to celebrate our wonderfully diverse congregation'.

And

'When my win (as female comment writer of the year) was announced, it unleashed a barrage of transphobic abuse. 'What a farce, Lees is a man' wrote one'.

Finally

'I love being a woman'.

Aaaargh.

[IfTheCapFitsWearIt]

Thank you Lurcio and shiny

Plenty of reading ahead I think, and plenty of things to refer back to, when need.

[shinynewusername]

Just saw this on Tumblr:

[Nightofthetentacle]

Thank you all for this thread - a little like Silver I held myself as a lefty liberal and supportive of anyone who wants to live 'differently', particularly if it meant all the old gender assumptions can go in the bin. However...

I had wondering awhile why some feminists were getting upset about this (something about prisons?), and why I'd half-read that Germaine Greer was clinging to some outdated definition of woman, and your thoughts have been helpful in confirming my own increasing worry that this is all about keeping the existing gender roles firmly nailed in place.

I not massively engaged with current feminism (sorry) and it (not this thread) looked a little to me like feminists being arsey about new people joining in and being very fearful of penises - I think the points above have been really helpful in developing my understanding. Thank you .

I'm pleased that I now reagree with Germaine Greer (everything!), and FWIW if I was solely responsible for reworking society's understanding of gender, I'd leave the prisons to last.

[Nightofthetentacle]

Oh and one perhaps nice thing from the old Eddie Izzard interview from above:

"What he wants is a situation where men can go to work in skirt-suits and make-up if they want to..."

Praise be!

[grimbletart]

Good for you Night: I'm not particularly radical: just an old fashioned second waver. But I really really struggle to see how any feminist of any age or political description could not see the problem with "I am a woman because I say so". It is such an illogical, irrational view - no more logical or rational than if I said "I am a cat because I say so".

There seems to have grown up a generation of (mainly) liberal lefty feminists who cannot tell the difference between the social construct of gender and the biological reality of sex.

None of us on here (I think) would argue against men who want to live their lives differently/dress differently because of issues they have with their bodies, society or inside their heads doing whatever they felt comfortable with.

What we take issue with is when they a) claim that they are women, when the truth is that they are men, will remain men their whole and die men and b)shove women under the bus for objecting when they park their tanks on our lawn and c) when they object to women talking about the biological things that make us women such as periods, childbirth, menopause etc because they feel excluded. It's just male entitlement in a frock.

I was totally sympathetic to struggling trans women who, rightly, acknowledged they are "trans women", not women, but this new (ish) fashion for "I am a woman because I say so" or women are the "not-man" sex has lost any empathy or sympathy I ever had. It beggars belief and should be ridiculed for the nonsense it is. So call me a TERF trans activists - like I could give a shit.

I feel that it gained ground when the meaningless rubbish term "cis" became part of the language. Straight out of the Humpty Dumpty dictionary.

[Nightofthetentacle]

I guess for me grimble, I'd got to the view where "woman" was a solely gendered term that didn't have any identity for me and came with a whole host of (negative) assumptions about who I was. And that if it had meaning and identity for someone else (and tbh they could be born female or male), then up and at 'em, identify away.

But I recognise it's not just about me and if other women are upset that they'll have to self-refer as notmen or female humans then I'd be voting for that to be respected, given the whole long-term oppression/breeding underclass thing.

[CoteDAzur]

"no explanation with a neurological basis for transsexualism"

There may very well be a neurological basis for it, but that doesn't make it a perfectly normal part of human physiology, and it certainly doesn't make males who have it female. It just means that there is an abnormality in their brains that explains their erroneous perception of their own bodies.

There is a neurological basis for schizophrenia, too. That doesn't mean it is perfectly normal to see little green men who whisper that you should kill your husband in his sleep.

[DianaTrent]

Thank you, Empress. I had watched that before, but missed the very end as my lunch break ended, so hadn't heard that bit. I just very much enjoyed watching it through again with a cup of coffee and would very much recommend anyone who hasn't taken the time before to do so, it's very worthwhile.

[lalalonglegs]

Quote from Eddie Izzard in the Times today: "I'm not a transvestite. I have some of the same genetics as a woman so I'm transgender. When I see a pair of nice heels, I think: "Yeah, that could work. That could feel kind of fun, kind of sexy." Anyone can feel that.

My. Jaw. Dropped. So disappointed.

[SilverBirchWithout]

Do real many biological women in their 50s wear heels to feel kind of sexy? Isn't that just the man genetics part of his brain talking?

[HelenaDove]

I wonder why Grazia didnt ask for Miranda Yardleys viewpoint. I follow her on Twitter and she gets a really hard time for pointing out some of the issues here so was it because Miranda didnt/dosnt fit the narrative they were aiming for.

[LyndaNotLinda]

Because Miranda isn't glamorous enough? Or because she asks some uncomfortable questions that doesn't fit their fluffy narrative? Or a bit of both

[FirstShinyRobe]

This article shines a light on that question:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/kellie-maloney-newsnight-and-debate-transgender-community-refused-have

TAs don't want debate or discussion and certainly not with women who ask uncomfortable questions and are well read and who have actually taken the time to think about what trans activism means for women - ever wondered why MN is relatively unscathed in all of this?

[nooka]

I'm not in my 50s yet, but when I see heels I tend to mostly think 'that looks painful'. Definitely not sexy (heels = sex is a bit of a porn led view isn't it?).

I saw this article being pilloried as ever so transphobic in an American academic newsletter thing I follow (I work for a Canadian university) and thought it very interesting. Written by a gay man who is clearly finding transactivism difficult. I didn't agree with all of it but some is very much to the point I thought.

[Darrowisred]

Just read Miranda's article. They really have successfully closed down all discussion around this, haven't they? It's chilling. I just don't know how women can make their voices heard in this debate. I despair.

[shinynewusername]

It is genuinely frightening. The rights for which women fought for 200 years are being erased in the blink of an eye. And who is going to defend them? No liberal or left-wing party is going to be caught appearing transphobic and the Greens have already re-classified us as non-male.

There is a major credibility gap. 99% of the public do not believe that the TAs can possibly be saying what they actually are - that any man can simply identify as a woman - because it is self-evidently absurd. So it is hard to get the public to push back against TAs because they don't perceive the threat.

[LurcioAgain]

The article by Miranda Yardley was great as always (think I vaguely remember reading it at the time). I am a big fan of hers.

The article by Daniel Harris on the other hand I did not like (I know you said you disagreed with it on a lot of points, Nooka). Now while I agree with part of its thesis, namely, why do TA latch onto the superficial trappings of what celebrity culture defines as femininity, and why is plastic surgery seen as mutilation when in pursuit of a "trout pout", but not when it's GRS, I found the overall tone vilely misogynistic.

It did make me stop and think about one part of the push back against the trans-activist narrative which I'm increasingly coming to think is a misunderstanding, though. "The implications of this covert homophobia are particularly distressing
for children. More and more, parents are encouraging their sons and daughters to transition when they spot even the slightest hint of effeminacy or boyishness on the grounds that such behaviors indicate desires to be the opposite sex when in fact their desire to play with dolls and throw footballs may reflect the desire to be something less exotic, even banal, namely, gay. "

It seems to me that this is swapping one sort of gender essentialism for another - why should wanting to play with dolls or footballs mean anything other than that this particular child wants to play with dolls or footballs? It doesn't tell us about their "gender identity", it doesn't tell us about their future adult sexuality, it just tells us they like dolls and/or footballs.

I've seen so many accounts on here from women (myself included) who say we went through a tomboy phase as a 7,8,9... year-old, some commenting that they grew up to be gay, but many commenting that they grew up to be heterosexual women, who although still being pissed off at the social restrictions placed on them due to their sex, still found some aspects of having a female body - usually the ability to have children - pretty cool, and other aspects - e.g. painful periods, pretty annoying. (I dressed as a boy, passed as a boy, because I wanted to play cricket instead of rounders and do woodwork instead of needlework in primary school - girls not being alllowed to do cricket and woodwork in my primary). Child reasoning goes something like "I want to do X, I'm not allowed to do X because only boys are allowed to do X, therefore I will fix the problem by fooling the grownups into thinking I am a boy..." Child reasoning (certainly, my child reasoning) did not stretch as far as "It's the grownups saying only boys are allowed to do X, and they're wrong about that, therefore I need to change their minds".

It just seems to me that underlying the "and they turned out to be gay as adults" narrative is yet another piece of gender stereotyping - a girl playing football (or cricket, my childhood passion) is an oddity that stands in need of an explanation, and isn't something that "normal, heterosexual women" should be doing. It's yet another example of how deeply entrenched beliefs about what constitutes proper womanly behaviour are.

[shinynewusername]

The comments on the Miranda Yardley are largely encouraging. The trouble is that, no matter how consistently BTL comments demonstrate that the public do not support TA craziness, the media continue to promote the TA line.

I liked this comment on MTT in women's toilets:

They will call someone a man-hater if a female says they don't like the thought of someone with a penis in changing rooms. They say women have a problem being hysterical about the threat of men. However, they then say that THEY don't want to go in guys toilets because of the threat of violence to them from people with a penis? *facepalm

[RufusTheReindeer]

I think a big problem is the mainstream media

We only seem to hear about trans people not allowed in changing rooms or their fashion ideas or little kids (and little kidss are always cute ) breaking gender norms....

Things like death threats and ranting against femanists, women, gender critical trans women or even very well meaning liberal tv producers are not reported

Its all really one sided

(Do love Miranda Yardley)

[RufusTheReindeer]

It took me so long to type that that shiny beat me to it

Another "tomboy" here which makes for a quite understanding 70 year old father who doesnt get the ....what ever the child plays with defines their gender argument

[Snowshimmer]

I'm not a transvestite. I have some of the same genetics as a woman so I'm transgender. When I see a pair of nice heels, I think: "Yeah, that could work. That could feel kind of fun, kind of sexy

What is this sexist bollocks. How is thinking that heels are fun and sexy = female genes. I'm disappointed Eddie

[Rollinginthevalley]

I'm 57. I wear all sorts of shoes, including heels (a younger person of my acquaintance commented at a party on Friday how much she admires my range of shoes). I choose them a) for a combination of my style & my comfort; b) if they pass the "Can I run for the bus in these shoes?" test; c) Secondary test: Can I walk to work in these shoes; and d) if they flatter my ankles (which are quite nice) calves (long) thighs (er let's not go there, they are muscular & ahem attest to my love of cakes).

My sense of my "sexiness" (er yuk I hate that word) is mine alone, not something I want to broadcast to the world.

[MorrisZapp]

Eddie, why oh why. Face palm.

[shinynewusername]

I can't read the Times (paywall). Please tell me that commentators have picked him up on this gross sexism?

We really have regressed to the 1950s, haven't we?

[Rollinginthevalley]

I've seen so many accounts on here from women (myself included) who say we went through a tomboy phase as a 7,8,9... year-old, some commenting that they grew up to be gay, but many commenting that they grew up to be heterosexual women, who although still being pissed off at the social restrictions placed on them due to their sex

I was having a discussion with a young man (gay Jewish, which is sort of relevant) a couple of weeks ago, who was trying to persuade me to vote Green on Thursday. I said no way after the non-men debacle. We had an extended debate about privilege & intersectionality - he shared his experiences of homophobia (which were awful, poor lad).

And he argued that transwomen's socialised male privilege would diminish as more TW transitioned earlier. I told him about my sister who wanted to be a boy, dressed like a boy, did boy's activities, and loved it if people mistook her for a boy until she was mid-teens. She's a stunningly beautiful woman (afflicted with the mainly women's disease of breast cancer) who's had 2 children. Not at all trans, but for various complicated familial dynamics to do with our brother being born only 13 months after her (after 4 girls) at a time when having a boy was seen as "success" for women - ergh) various people in our family life (nanny, housekeeper) dropped my sister like a stone to fawn over my (lovely nevertheless) brother. This was the early 60s. My poor sister, really. But today, in danger of being seen, not as a "tomboy" or acting out political tensions within the family, but really "a boy in a girl's body" or some bollocks.