Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

A call to arms

71 replies

IAmSproutycus · 24/03/2018 09:41

Hello folks,

I’ve been thinking all sorts of thoughts about the current situation over the last few weeks/days/hours, and although there isn’t going to be as much coherence to my writing as I’d want, I just wanted to post something rather than nothing.

There are going to be hard times ahead. The biggest hurdle that we face is our fear. That fear is not misplaced. Many of us have been disturbed by the news that our fellow women have had social media accounts closed, been suspended from jobs or prominent positions, or been targeted by police as a direct result of their refusal to remain quiet about their concerns. We know that we are referred to as ‘TERFS’, and that we are exhorted to ‘Die Cis Scum, Die’. Worse still, we are told that one of our sisters was assaulted for no reason other than that she attended a talk (at which trans representatives were also present and part of the presentation and discussions of the evening). This news (and the other innumerable small and larger instances of aggression) inevitably creates a climate of tension and fear. We fear sharing our views both privately and publicly for the very real possibility that there will be repercussions. We fear the repercussions for our continued education, employment, and social standing. And, for many of us, we fear the repercussions where we are most vulnerable as women: we fear the repercussions for our children. We fear not being able to put food on our children’s plates if we lose our jobs. We fear the abuse that they will surely receive if we speak out as this debate continues, and we are called upon to speak up. And as we continue to hear examples of the aggression directed towards us for speaking our truth, we may even fear for their physical safety. I am aware of the risks we face in speaking out. I feel so very scared. But I cannot remain ignorant of the risk we face by remaining silent.

I feel a deep sadness at the rift that this issue may cause between women and our trans sisters. I stand with transwomen (and transmen) in their struggle for recognition of their needs and access to services and will continue to do so. I have provided training to various organisations across the UK on trans issues and needs, and again hope to continue to do so. I have used my relative privilege as a platform to amplify the voices of those with less power. I now face the accusation of transphobia by so-called trans-rights activists when I raise the question that many of us raise: that we need to discuss how to best meet everyone’s needs without eroding the long-recognised needs of women to feel safe. I make no claim to have the answers to that question, but I am chilled at the strength of belief that we do not have the right to ask the question by the refusal to consult, no platforming, and #nodebate.

And so we need to collectively think about how to keep raising that debate, and to show our individual support of the issue. I remain in absolute admiration and awe of the incredibly brave women who have identified themselves in public to speak on our behalves. I owe them, as do many of us, an enormous debt of gratitude. Their ability to speak out despite facing the same barriers, spoken and unspoken threats, and risks faced by us all gives me heart. I am aware that many of us want to contribute, but do not know how to do this safely. (It may be that it is not possible. Possibly this is an issue that will require us to be prepared to lose everything to save something).
And so, in comradeship sisters, I ask that we dig deep. I ask that we spend some time, individually or collectively, thinking about what we can do to speak up whilst staying safe. Again, I have no answers, but a very big list of questions. I've been thinking about the amazing feminist activism of the Garneau Sisterhood (Google it). They managed to achieve so much because they had a clear identity/ 'brand' (e.g. Garneau Sisterhood), and all the activism was done without a single person having to speak up - posters and campaigning was done anonymously by the Garneau Sisterhood.

I think it would help if we had a collective term to define who we are (there’s lots of good reasons for this if we’re trying to make this an issue of public awareness). Yes, we’re ‘women’, and hell yes I’m keeping it, but so are lots of other women who are not yet on board with the cause. We need something other than TERF to show that we are women who are particularly supportive of raising this debate. Whilst we have used the term with humour in the attempt to defuse the power of a word placed on us by trans-activists, we are not TERFS. We are most of us not exclusionary. I want to fight alongside my sincere trans sisters, not with them. I want to find a good solution so that we all feel safe, and I say that it’s the men who need to budge up and make room for us all. We all fear male violence and the risks of losing safe spaces. We cannot allow the power of our righteous fury to be diluted by the same tired old divide and rule strategies of the patriarchy. And so, I propose that we cannot call ourselves TERFS (although, man, there are some BRILLIANT usernames people got out of that 😊).

Anyhow, I’m running out of time here, and I’ve already fed the smallest child all the junk food in the house to buy me time to post. I meant to be so much clearer with my thoughts. I meant, if we can find a way to make our voices both loud and safe, that would be great. Thoughts very much welcomed. Signing off, in comradeship.

OP posts:
Mynewnameforabit · 25/03/2018 08:12

There are nearly 70 million people in this country and the trans are about 1%, of which a tiny minority are violent. The 99% should not let themselves be kept in terror of less than 1%.
They aren't in terror though, the 99% really aren't. This is what I meant when I said 'you don't speak for me' (and was told no one was claiming to). You are now asserting that you know how every person (male and female) in the UK feels!
You are trying to whip up hatred based on your fear, of that less than 1%, based on hypothetical behaviour which could occur. There are violent women also, so the chances of being assaulted in a single sex changing room by them is massively higher. But logic doesn't seem to concern you. I expect a very angry outburst for mentioning facts which don't fit your 'call to arms'.

AngryAttackKittens · 25/03/2018 08:47

I'm a dyed in the wool lefty so I'd be fine with "comrades" for some transwomen, but "sisters"? No. It's not true, it's not honest, and it feels like either a patronizing pat on the head or a concession forced by fear of the repercussions of not making it. Neither of those is a good basis for any sort of productive political alliance. I'm happy to work with trans people to help them gain their own spaces, but male people cannot have women's spaces.

AngryAttackKittens · 25/03/2018 08:51

I honestly think the only way out of the mess is to provide an escape route to allow men who have transitioned to properly accept that they are and always will be men, and for them to come to terms with that.

Agreed. Any "solution" by which feminine men pretend to be women, even if it's the best option for them as individuals in the short term, is at best a bandaid covering up a whole host of sociopolitical issues. The long term solution has to be for it to be OK for men not to be masculine and women not to be feminine and for there to be a place in society for those people that doesn't deny who they actually are. And that's before we even get to the harm it does to women as a group to pretend that some men are really sort of kind of women in some metaphysical sense.

Prancinganddancing · 25/03/2018 08:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spanneroo · 25/03/2018 09:21

Some really good points in this thread.

Just wanted to add something I've thought for quite some time about the term TERF, which is that it doesn't describe what we're standing up for here because we aren't trans exclusionary. We are men exclusionary. I have no problem with a biological woman - identifying as trans or not - using or having access to women only spaces. A trans man can still get pregnant, have periods, was raised as female etc etc.

AngryAttackKittens · 25/03/2018 09:25

Yeah, if we must have an acronym I'm a MERF. TIFs are women and belong in women's spaces. Them I'll call sister, and I'll continue to hold that space for them even if they don't want it at the moment in case there comes a time when they want to detransition.

LangCleg · 25/03/2018 09:33

I also think the genie is out of the bottle and we will now never be able to go back to the days when women's good graces absorbed a tiny (fewer than 10k out of 35m) number of post-SRS transsexuals into their spaces.

Even though every main party currently supports transactivism's demands, it won't last. The ideology is built on nothing but faith and is not, whatever the TRAs like to say, accepted by anything other than a minority of the general public. Once the full implications become clear, there will be a backlash. And it will be right wing and very, very unpleasant, catching up anti-feminist and homophobic elements as it grows.

So the battle is intra-left if you want a progressive solution - one that would involve rights and services and spaces for trans as trans and women as women.

Sadly, I think the intra-left battle is lost. So what we'll get is the right wing backlash.

AngryAttackKittens · 25/03/2018 09:38

Which is part of why we need it on record that some feminists vehemently opposed this, but they can and will try to blame this on us.

LangCleg · 25/03/2018 09:43

Which is part of why we need it on record that some feminists vehemently opposed this, but they can and will try to blame this on us.

Yes. I keep thinking to myself that we've probably lost a generation to either right wing nationalism or the brain rot of postmodernism and we are most likely talking to the generation after that. One day, they will need to read this.

mach924 · 25/03/2018 09:59

I think it would help if we had a collective term to define who we are

‘Real women’ ?

mach924 · 25/03/2018 10:17

Just to clarify, i'm suggesting that the 'collective term' might include
the expression 'real women'. As langcleg points out, there is no single 'real woman' attitude to transwomen.

LangCleg · 25/03/2018 10:19

We have a collective term to define who we are - women. Trans have a collective word to define who they are - trans. End of.

grandplans · 25/03/2018 10:20

We could do a new word for what they are trying to identify with.

Transwomen IMO are not trying to be real women - you don't usually hear of middle aged men becoming trans and suddenly wanting to take on more of the childcare, housework and "wifework" (not that these should be "women's work, of course, but the reality is most of this still falls to us).

No, instead they are concerned with performing feminitity in public.

They are trying to identify with society & the media's false construct of feminity. A fetishised, often pornified idea of women that's not real - the same idea of women that girls are told to aspire to by mainstream patriarchial culture.

It's why TW think they can be "better" women than us - they're not really trying to be us. They're trying to be this constructed image of women.

If we had a word for that, then they could happily have it IMO. I don't want it!

Triliteration · 25/03/2018 10:25

Suffragette was a derogatory term which they managed to reclaim.

I’ve seen Terfragette used occasionally. We could reclaim Terf and also give a nod to the history of the women’s movement if we adopted that for ourselves.

AngryAttackKittens · 25/03/2018 10:37

I'm tempted to call us "brain havers" or "reality enabled people" at this point.

mach924 · 25/03/2018 11:17

‘We have a collective term to define who we are - women. Trans have a collective word to define who they are - trans. End of.’ (Langcleg)

That’s true. But trans people and their supporters also routinely misappropriate the term ‘women’ (as in the mantra ‘Transwomen are women’). Adopting a clear, unambiguous, uncompromising, honest, challenging label like ‘real women’ might be more effective in a ‘call to arms’.

loveyouradvice · 25/03/2018 11:57

I don't know enough about their ideology but I love the slogan WomanMeansSomething which is being used in the US..... I'll definitely sign up for CASID... but I think we need something more appealing and "social media catchy" in this day and age if we are to engage all women.....something it's easy for everyone to say Yes to, without having to do too much thinking....Something as powerful and simple as Transwomen are Women.... yup, there's one clear reason why it's caught on so fast is that it is so simple and expresses exactly what they want it to express

BarrackerBarmer · 25/03/2018 12:20

Don't underestimate the power of collective consciousness.
Woman still means female - in everybody's understanding.

If someone says "that woman over there" or "women in France today" or "women in medicine", EVERYONE instantly conjures the correct meaning.

It takes an artificial and contrived effort to shoehorn men into that. Easy enough to do when you are concentrating, and the topic at hand IS men who want to be called women.
But almost impossible in general speech and understanding.
There are billions of women, and we will always ALWAYS understand and default to the accurate meaning.

It isn't possible to sustain this level of cognitive dissonance in a population. It will never come naturally, simply because there truly is and always will be an enormous chasm separating the biology of male and female.

And there remains an enormous chasm between how we fare in society.

Woman will always default back to meaning female, in everyone's head. Because the subject is what we recognise. Regardless of the label, you can't unsee sex. And you can't undo generations of language usage that refers to a universally understood distinction. It may seem discombobulating right now, but trying to eliminate the language of sex will always fail ultimately.

So this period in history of trying to redefine it will be shortlived. We may rewrite laws, and we may contrive to ignore it, but you can no more ignore sex than you can deny gravity.

Women are women. Keep reinforcing this

Hold the line.

loveyouradvice · 25/03/2018 12:23

or indeed... SexMatters... to pick up on someone's fabulous Mumsnet name.....

This is at the root of it....

hacipaleva · 25/03/2018 12:30

This reply has been deleted

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

DonkeySkin · 25/03/2018 12:42

mach924, 'real women' is oxymoronic and counterproductive IMO.

First because being a woman is a matter of material reality, so the 'real' is redundant.

Second because the term itself is associated with sexist policing of women's behaviour, as well as denigration of whole groups of women. For centuries women who couldn't or wouldn't perform femininity correctly were accused of not being 'real women' because they failed to display the characteristics and behaviours that were considered appropriate to their sex.

Lesbians were (and are) the group with the longest history of being told they aren't 'real women', because the essence of womanhood under patriarchy is being sexually available to men and bearing children. Black women too have had the authenticity of their womanhood regularly called into question (the ongoing taunting of Serena Williams as being man-like because she is a powerful black female athlete; the weird meme that was going around a few years ago that Michelle Obama is actually a man).

It was white patriarchy that created this metaphysical split in the concept of what a woman is: the false belief that there is some essence of being a woman that is separate to having a female body. The notion of 'real women' therefore actually reinforces the logic of transgenderism, which grew out of this older patriarchal logic.

IMO 'real women' is a damaging concept with a long history of sexism, racism and lesbophobia, and is of no use to feminists, as we already have the word women, no qualifiers needed. That men are misappropriating it is obvious, but this doesn't mean that we should shift to a new term, thereby implicitly ceding ground. In any case, it won't work. There is no ground on which we can stand that they won't try to colonise. I've said before that we could start calling ourselves snarflblarts and if enough women did it, then TIMs would immediately abandon the word 'woman' and start declaring themselves transsnarflblarts instead. Whatever word we use for ourselves is the one they will want, because this is not about the word as such but about men wanting to colonise female reality.

Biddlyboo · 25/03/2018 12:50

What about turning women into an acronym?
Something like
Women
Objecting to
Male
Entitlement and
Narcissism

Biddlyboo · 25/03/2018 12:52

Or Women
Objecting to
Misappropriation of
Equality and
Natal
Sex

Badbilly · 25/03/2018 13:18

I think one of the main problems with the whole Trans argument is that the "spokespeople" for their movement have very cleverly got them hitched onto the LGBT acronym, and so an "attack" on them may be seen as an attack on all-a bit like NATO. I don't know the answer, because like with other things mentioned, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

What about turning women into an acronym?
Something like
Women
Objecting to
Male
Entitlement and
Narcissism

I think that would only succeed in alienating many Men, and like it or not, they are needed as allies in this "fight".

Also, Narcissism is recognised by Psychologists as a proper disorder, suffered by about 1% of the population, and so terms like this should not be used willy-nilly (no pun intended Smile)

MsMcWoodle · 25/03/2018 13:25

I think it's really important for us not to change the meaning of words. Or add qualifiers like 'real'. This is exactly what the other side wants. As soon as we do this we are lost.
Woman = adult human female.

Swipe left for the next trending thread