Can we talk about literal violence?

[CircleSquareCircleSquare]

It’s getting to the point where I am so sick of the phrase “literal violence”.
I am so sick of people quoting the dictionary or being blunt about scientific facts and then being accused of “literal violence”.

I want to talk about actual violence, you know literal violence. Violence at the hands of men.

How do we talk about it here without some creep getting their rocks off or someone accusing us of having some kind of competition?

I have noted down in my phone all of the times (that I haven’t blocked out) I have been subjected to literal violence. It started at the age of 5 and goes up to the age of 33. They include physical attacks, sexual assaults and rape.

By the way I’m not suggesting anyone share anything they are uncomfortable with but I do think it important the phrase “literal violence” is somehow dealt with.
I spoke to my counsellor about it at length recently and she was astounded to hear the phrase thrown around so carelessly.
Most women I know have dealt with violence that has been aimed at them because of their sex, I struggle deeply with that being compared to someone screenshooting the dictionary definition of the word “woman”.

This TRA tactic is gaslighting. It's emotional abuse. It's coercive control.

They want us to shut up. We won't.

There’s a thread called “Being wary of men because of your experience of male violence” which is discussing the effects of this exact thing. TRAs need a screenshot of the dictionary defined of the word “literal”.

Definition

It’s staggering that the word ‘literal’ has been appropriated like this.

It’s standard procedure for the more hysterical TRAs - if you have no cogent argument you just ramp the language up to 11 and cry foul.

literal violence is punching a woman to the floor at speakers corner. For example.

I honestly don't know where I would begin in detailing all the acts of literal violence (ie where someone's hand or body part or weapon has made physical contact with me, and hurt me) that has happened in my life.

I have seen a screenshot from an MRA group in which they were saying that the incident at Hyde Park was just a "scuffle" but the WPUK meeting that took place later was "literal violence" to transpeople.

Really? This is horrifying.

Why are we not afforded the same language?

Why are we not afforded the same language?

Because TRAs want to control language, as through controlling language they control the narrative, and therefore get to be the victims whilst nasty cunty women get to be the aggressors.

I'm glad you started this thread, OP, it's something I was pondering recently. I had an argument with someone, and something that was said impacted me very and unexpectedly hard - it was really like someone had hit me in the gut. I am guessing that when someone is trying really really hard to convince themselves that, say, they are a woman when everyone really knows that they are a man, someone actually saying "but you are a woman!" can have the same effect on them - a real, visceral response.

Of course it's not "literal violence", but perhaps it could be described as "literally hurtful" or similar?

the incident at Hyde Park was just a "scuffle" but the WPUK meeting that took place later was "literal violence" to transpeople.

'Literal' has been redefined as 'not actually'.

I can understand that, yes. It can be hurtful not to have your feelings validated. If you feel you are a woman but people won’t accept that then it must hurt feelings.
Hurt feelings though can in no way be compared to real violence and it seems so disingenuous for people to use the phrase “literal violence” to related to hurt feelings.

If I list every time someone hurts my feelings, especially as a child or young person, then I’d have stacks of A4 of “literal violence” to carry around with me.

"Literal" seems to function mostly as a modifier now, like "extremely" but for arseholes.

It's more similar to the concept of "narcissistic injury", when people fail to centre a narcissist.

Redefining words as "violence" allows the speaker to justify real violence. They're on a par, after all.

"I punched her because she said something hurtful to me" is how MRAs have been attempting to justify DV and claim that women initiate it more often than men do for years. So CATT's not wrong to say she read something from an MRA group when it was actually a TRA group. Six of one, half dozen of the other, in most cases.

How Misgendering = literal violence started out is through use of dodgy statistics that claim 49% or whatever of people who are Transgender go on to commit suicide unless they are completely affirmed by everyone around.

So by not accepting people as their chosen gender you are causing them to go off and kill themselves therefore it is literal violence committed by you.

It is to terrorise people into accepting Transgender ideology.

Hmmm kind of how abusive men emotionally blackmail you into staying with them by threatening suicide. Interesting!

Hmmm hmm kind of how abusive men emotionally blackmail you into staying with them by threatening suicide. Interesting!

Exactly, it’s manipulative as fuck. Held over a barrel.

I've also come across people using "literally" as a synonym for "virtually" when they haven't really understood the difference

Hence "My arm was so sore, it was literally hanging off" and "I was literally about to murder him for saying that!"

Olennas I think there was a rise in the 00s onward for the word “literally” being used as some kind of dramatic emphasis.
“Not having Diet Coke is literally the worst thing ever.”

Perhaps this has added to this use of language? However I do truly believe so many of the people using the phrase “literal violence” believe that a statement of biological fact is literally violent or they believe using the phrase gives them some kind of sway.

Please forgive me because I am really not as coherent as the majority of posters on this board but I find this a very interesting topic. I said in another thread yesterday how I am seeing a counsellor for PTSD and at my last session we were talking about some of the times I have been under actual threat for my safety. I also watched a YouTube video shared on here recently. It was a young woman from Canada who got in trouble with her university for showing her undergraduate group a clip of a debate with a man called Jordan peters...I imagine most of you will know what I mean? It was discussing "preferred pronouns" and I believe a university rep in her meeting said that it was violent against trans people - sorry if I am wrong about this, but that's a background to my thoughts anyway.

"Literally" is often used in the wrong way, more like for emphasis. This has been happening for a few years now and I think it's use in this way has kind of been accepted - literally! But when people talk about how words are literal violence, I have seen them attempt to justify this as in the words create an atmosphere that makes the affected group feel unwelcome and dehumanised and has the effect of making them "other" - leading to actual violence against them increasing. I think this can be the case in some situations. For example, casual jokes and perjorative language against prostituted women could add to them being seen as "other" and then result in real physical violence against them being tolerated in a way it would not against another victim, so maybe words can add to a culture of violence in a sense. However, I still disagree that the words themselves are actually violent.

Also I don't think stating facts is comparable to insults or disparaging remarks. I do not think facts create a culture where violence is acceptable in the same way as in the example I used of language which denigrates prostituted women.

I was thinking about obesity as another example. An obese person may not like to hear some facts about obesity but I do not think many (any?) obese people would regard the facts as violent, and I think most would understand the difference between stating a fact and being rude or insulting.

Sorry very rambling post there.