Why so much trans bashing on MN?

[leighdinglady]

I just don't get it at all.

Why do I see threads every day on MN which spout hatred and fear about the trans community. What's everyone so scared of??? Literally hundreds of posts of people talking like trans women are somehow a threat to biological women.

For a social platform which is meant to be friendly and approachable, this really stinks.

It's a particularly unpleasant example of double speak, Commuter.

TW: I am a woman. My dysphoria means I desperately long for a female body, and reminding me that I don't have one is transphobic and cissexist. As a lesbian I desire women.

TW: Your desire for partners with female bodies is cissexist and transphobic. You may say you're a lesbian but you're not permitted to desire bodies with particular features.

I have to say I'm surprised more lesbians aren't as direct about rejecting TW as gay men are about rejecting TM. OK, you don't want to turn someone down in a secluded setting if you don't know how they may react, but most chat up lines take place in public. Is the social pressure for lesbians so great that they can't just say no, I'm only interested in women?

This also on Twitter:

"i'm nonbinary and i'm dfab and feminine-presenting and i get treated like a girl because of society's inherent cissexism"

What? Isn't that plain old sexism?

Sorry, I think they might be taking the piss:

"of COURSE you privately identifying as nonbinary isn't gonna change how you get treated in the real world, BECAUSE OF TRANSPHOBIA"

It's so hard to tell these days.

Can someone explain what the hell that means?"Non-binary" is not a sex so how can one transition to it from Female?

that translates to 'full of shit but soooo special'

Oh it's all just SUCH a load of old shit 🙄🙄🙄🙄

"The next time a transwomen says they won't sleep with another transwoman because it triggers their gender dysphoria, I think I might tell them to check their dysphoria privilege."
I may just keep that one up my sleeve for later use.

There's me thinking gender dysphoria meant the sufferer was in the wrong body.

Born male then wanted to be female, born female then wanted to be male.

Non-binary seems to be "I don't like what I actually am, but don't fancy the other option either, so I'm ostentatiously opting out until I've decided, I may never decide BUT DON'T ANYONE GET MY GENDER WRONG/ASSIGN ME A GENDER UNTIL I'M READY OR ELSE I'LL GO EVEN MORE BATSHIT THAN I ALREADY AM!"

Is there an actual definition?

"i'm nonbinary and i'm dfab and feminine-presenting and i get treated like a girl because of society's inherent cissexism"

Could this possibly be ironic?

Nonbinary = gender rejecting [like many of us on this board]

dfab = designated female at birth

feminine presenting = looks like a woman

cissexism = calling out the claim that being born "cis" is a position of privilege over being born male

More cissexism or transphbia. Poor Sam! Being misgendered must be awful (though i used to get it all the time.)

I think "non-binary" (plus others like pangender or agender) are basically a concession to enable to trans ideology to cover all bases - avoiding the vast numbers of people who don't fit into male/female stereotypes ruining their narrative.

I was quietly un-friended on facebook by an otherwise lovely woman who's very pro-trans, after sticking my head above the parapet on the trans issue (not on her posts - I ignored them). One of her posts mentioned she identified as non-binary and acknowledged her "priviledge" at being female-presenting meaning she avoided transphobia.

It's just so frustrating, like she's so close to rejecting gender stereotypes but waylaid by trans ideology...

so I'm ostentatiously^ opting out until I've decided, I may never decide^

That's the key here. No one apart from you cares about your unique personality or individual identity crisis. Get a sense of perspective and some self awareness for fucks sake. Sorry, you really are as dull as the rest of us.

Agreed, OP - I hate it. I'm a committed feminist (it's part of my job, ffs) but I generally avoid the feminist boards because they're so anti-trans.

Funny how pointing out blatant misogyny is seen as 'anti trans' ... And by posters who purge and then flounce.

Dinosaurandtea- you're just the sort of person I need to talk to-someone who understands feminism, but also understands trans issues.

Please tell me- are there ever any circumstances at all where I am OK to question a person who says they are a woman?

See I'm starting to avoid the threads too - but because no matter how many posters write thoughtful, fact full arguments and complex discussion SOMEONE always comes in at the end and accuses everyone of being anti - trans, having clearly not read the full thread. It's extremely frustrating. And if you HAVE read it and still don't understand then take each point bit by bit and refute it properly. Don't come in at the end of a discussion, make a vague, general statement then leave.

Yes please answer Bertrand's question, oh and all the other billions points raised over the last EIGHTEEN pages.

How can somebody be a commited femminist then watch women and feminisim itself be erased by men?

dinosaurandtea can I ask what you mean by feminism? It wasn't clear to me until fairly recently that the liberal, intersectional feminism of today is a parallel universe in comparison to the feminism of my youth. I thought that we were all talking about the same thing.

What used to be bog standard feminism (biology is the determining factor in women's oppression; gender = sex role stereotypes) is now known as radical. I don't see anything radical about defending women's rights, protections and spaces TBH. There is still a great need for it. But apparently it is no longer acceptable for women to make this their top priority. As a committed feminist, why do you think this has happened?

I see a lot of concern here about how trans rights conflict with women's rights. And frustration, anger. But most of those who are concerned are pro women, not anti-trans.

intersectional feminism

Professor Crenshaw must be shouting at the screen that centering men in feminism is not what intersectionality means.

Transwomen seem to use it like a street intersection - ie. where transwomen meet women, rather than a mathematical intersection - ie where tranwomen and women overlap (which they don't).

It's about being inclusive of people who are women and therefore belong in feminism, but were being excluded and sidelined not about including non-women in feminism.

Thanks very much for the clarification Choc. Did not know this.

I had a long break from real feminist involvement (whilst preoccupied with raising small children, ironically, but still casually interested). Feel like I've woken up in a parallel universe and am still getting to grips with the landscape.

It's about being inclusive of people who are women and therefore belong in feminism, but were being excluded and sidelined not about including non-women in feminism.

Which brings us back to the definition of 'woman' as the core of the issue.

It's biology that causes the oppression and so biology should be the marker for who feminism is fighting for.

It's biology that causes the oppression and so biology should be the marker for who feminism is fighting for.

Such a simple sentance yet nails it

I agree Flossy

I agree too flossy. It's about female biology and the way it is used to oppress women.

These long, complicated arguments about the definition of biology/womanhood seems to have swayed a lot of people into believing that there are so many component parts to it that actually it's meaningless.

The only time I see libfems coming round to the more radfem point of view is not because they are using logical, rational analysis, but because they are finally 'exhausted' by being constantly forced to centre men. The maleness of it all pushes them over the edge.

They only then start to tentatively explore more radical feminism. It's all back to front.

I can understand it if you don't identify with feminism at all, but calling yourself a feminist in the first place should surely be, at least partly, conditional on some form of analysis.

I've gone and re-read, and I've put a different spin on it all - it's more of a sum of parts is greater than the whole deal than inclusivity.

ie. the experience of a poor, black woman is going to be very different from that of a middle class, white woman - and their feminisms are going to need to address different things, but that also, you should consider the whole, not just narrowly look at everything as though being a woman was the only important thing, but that being a black woman, being a poor woman, all these things play into it.

What is still required of course, if this is feminism, is that it's a woman you're talking about - yet another circumstance where the semantic difference between trans woman and transwoman makes all the difference.

stickle my sister described it as walking into the middle of an argument in another language. Which it seems it is. I think a lot of people aren't aware of the issue, not just older feminists who have been out of the loop. The discussions are happening online and so away from the main, more traditional media.

I'm hoping the recent calls on businesses like Google to tackle "fake news" will have a knock on effect to this area of discussion and help to correct stats used (made up) by some trans to support their arguments (e.g. abuse of trans).