Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

House of Commons event - anyone else going?

356 replies

grandplans · 13/03/2018 22:15

If so, see you there!

Do you think it'll be mobbed by TRAs as the venue's been announced in advance or not because of the security at the HOC?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
hipsterfun · 17/03/2018 08:42

I read the original error on the website too, and yes, they do usually put a note where there’s been a correction.

Patodp · 17/03/2018 08:46

It says right with MP "David Davies"

Shon Faye takes up a lot of bandwidth on that article. "Because the talk happened at all is proof women are not being silenced" don't let them talk again don't let them talk again

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 17/03/2018 09:16

"Because the talk happened at all is proof women are not being silenced ... despite our best efforts"

qumquat · 17/03/2018 09:31

Yes I was confused because there was no mention of a correction having been made. Which I think is telling.

Cwenthryth · 17/03/2018 10:13

Just to show it was there (time stamp on my phone is now as I had the earlier window still open).

I only received an auto response to my complaint. They do have a separate ‘corrections’ section last updated at 9pm last night I expect it will appear on.

If I don’t hear any further I will write again further pressing the point about the nature of the ‘error’.

House of Commons event - anyone else going?
ClareCAIS · 17/03/2018 10:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ereshkigal · 17/03/2018 10:47

The bottom line is for me, I am not wanting to legitimise a wank-culture and I don't want to fucking be a part of that wank-culture. If what I say offends you, tough shit. I'm sick of all this crap.

I agree. SJ has written extensively about how this is a big part of queer theory influenced politics. I very much recommend her work "Unpacking Queer Politics".

53rdWay · 17/03/2018 10:54

Wonder which MP is named in the print version?

Ereshkigal · 17/03/2018 10:55

I've mentioned AGP, and got the "discredited, Blanchard, Julia Serano, bla bla bla" reply. But if you then say, well it's basically cross dressing sexual fetishism, are you denying that exists?" they don't really have any comeback.

OlennasWimple · 17/03/2018 10:58

People who are too squeamish to say the word "sex" (preferring the word "gender") don't want to contemplate AGP

53rdWay · 17/03/2018 11:06

tbh I used to be very uncomfortable with seeing anyone discussing AGP in the context of trans issues - I still thought there was a very clear line between trans people (who were dysphoric transsexuals looking to alleviate misery) and those who crossdressed for sexual kicks. Thought nobody who feel into the second category would be trying to co-opt the terminology and civil rights campaign of the first.

blimey, was that a learning curve...

ArcheryAnnie · 17/03/2018 11:26

If that offends anyone here, then do as I did and take time off this thread to learn.

CisMyArse just to be clear, because I've been one of the ones arguing that it's not useful to use the word "parasite", I am not offended (and I don't need to "learn", thanks) and I am not asking - nor have I ever asked, and nor would I ever ask - anyone to stop talking about AGP. (Though because of the other thread I will probably start calling it "cross gender arousal".)

I can't stop anyone else using the word "parasite", but I won't be using it myself, because I don't want to waste time - or the opportunity to change minds - explaining to people that the word they heard as a racist dogwhistle (and yes, I know, race has nothing at all to do with this issue in this case, but this is how this word is usually used and so this is often how this word is heard, whatever your intentions) has nothing to do with "othering" minorities and in this case is used accurately to describe men comandeering women's identities. You can all use it if you want to, but I won't be. Language is more than dictionary definitions, it has nuance, it has history, it has baggage, and I am getting really fed up of being told I am somehow bowing down to the patriarchy by recognising this.

HairyBallTheorem · 17/03/2018 11:53

Archery is spot on in her analysis. It's about how it plays to the wider audience.

It makes me think of Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment. In context (and I saw the whole clip at the time) she was trying to talk about a small subset of people, not the whole of the Trump voter base. But as soon as I heard it I just had my head in my hands - because whatever she was trying to say was not what people would actually hear - I remember turning to my friend who was watching TV with me and saying "did she learn nothing from watching the Brexit campaign unfold?"

Yes, we need to talk about AGP. Yes, we have to expose it to the light of day. But we need to be careful how we do it. Saying "Stonewall have messed up by lumping together genuine transsexuals who suffer from extreme discomfort about their sexed bodies with a group of people who aren't really trans at all, but have a sexual fetish for cross dressing" gets the point across. Using dog-whistle words like "parasite" (yes, I know that the word actually used was "parasitic", but no-one is going to remember that 6 months from now, I can guarantee it) means people leap to conclusions about your motives and completely misunderstand and misrepresent what you're trying to say, and switch off from listening to you.

The other advice I'd give is "describe what people do, but don't try to ascribe motives to them." Showing photos of the body suits gets the point across perfectly - incontestable facts. Most people will recoil from this. Start to impute motives ("they're doing this because they're perverts who want to co-opt womanhood"), and you allow the whole discussion to be derailed into a "perhaps that's not why they're actually doing it, AGP isn't a thing" side-road.

Simply saying "I don't want to be naked in a changing room with people who behave like this" is a much more powerful message.

(In a way it reminds me of the arguments about DV - someone will come on here, and because they've had years of being gaslit, they will think the important thing is to get to the bottom of why their partner is behaving this way. What they actually need is a reality check which says "the why is irrelevant, all that matters is that he is doing it - behaving like that is unacceptable and you need out of that relationship.)

hipsterfun · 17/03/2018 11:56

AA, I agree with what you say about wasting opportunities to change minds.

Accepting the label cis would be to bow down; choosing not to use loaded language about others, for strategic reasons, is not.

Ereshkigal · 17/03/2018 12:03

I don't think there is any point beating ourselves and other women up about it. We are occasionally going to say something that seems fairly uncontroversial to us but is pounced on by our opponents. We do have to point out that it is unfair for women to have to be above reproach.

hipsterfun · 17/03/2018 12:04

AA and HBT, both excellent posts, btw.

ArcheryAnnie · 17/03/2018 12:21

Ereshkigal that's a fair point - and whatever we do we will be held to a higher standard, and punished for perceived transgressions, anyway, as women always are.

HairyBallTheorem · 17/03/2018 12:51

Erish maybe the response should be " the phrasing was unfortunate - but the point remains: are you happy with the way Stonewall are lumping together genuine transsexuals who need our support and fetishistic cross dressers?"

transcendentphobic · 17/03/2018 16:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CisMyArse · 17/03/2018 16:23

My post at 08:30 is overly similar to what Datun said so apologies for the repetition. I'm catching up in small chunks of spare fine and I've just read Datun's response to 'parasitic'.

CisMyArse · 17/03/2018 16:35

Catching up some more - Archery my rant earlier wasn't directed at you, although reading the whole thread in completion instead of in the grabbed moments between doing Mum/Daughter/Wife/Housekeeper stuff, I can see why you would think that .

I think I'm venting towards all those virtue-signallers that pander to TRA's; those women that follow the TRA's around like obedient puppies (Speakers corner springs to mind), not women like you who are seeing the big picture and planning the long-game.

Apologies for making you feel fed-up. Not my intention. Peaking constantly at the moment and it's exhausting.

Doesn't help that my dear lesbian friend of 10 years has just had her windows put through by a bunch of idiots who've labelled her transphobe.

therealposieparker · 17/03/2018 16:38

My shirt was from Oxfam... I walked past and it waved at me. Grin

HairyBallTheorem · 17/03/2018 17:04

Cis Shock Your poor friend. That is absolutely horrifying.

BertrandRussell · 17/03/2018 17:08

“We are occasionally going to say something that seems fairly uncontroversial to us but is pounced on by our opponents.”

This is something that has been happening to feminists since feminists were invented. With it’s sister issue- one feminist saying something controversial once and it being used relentlessly to beat all feminist with for the next 50 years. Valerie Solanas, anyone?

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 17/03/2018 18:19

Here are the little darlings wearing their lovely women:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meet-creator-bizarre-rubber-female-3808454

Some great lines in the piece by the Mirror.

One rubber woman suit customer says "My motivation for doing this is a mystery to everyone, including me."

He can be a woman though, Jeremy Corbyn said so.