Why are 'trans' males out of bounds for feminists?

[HopScotchy]

Feminists are very clear that we discuss feminist issues in terms of sex 'classes' not individuals. We are clear that when we discuss 'men' and the problems women experience we mean "not all men". Why are we not allowed to talk about the problems women face from trans males (transwomen) "not all transwomen"? Why is it 'transphobic' 'hate' to point out that transwomen are part of this male class and do indeed despite their 'identity' conform to 'male' patterns which harm women to the same degree as other males? Why should we treat these males differently when it comes to women's spaces? What is the reason? Where is the evidence?

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the direction this thread has taken. Not because I disagree with the premise, I think the OP was a very pertinent question but it feels unfair to police how much Jaycee can post.

The FWR board seems to broadly agree that transwomen with gender critical views or who oppose self ID are welcome here so either Jaycee is or isn't welcome. I don't think we can pick and choose depending on the thread, even if we don't agree with some points raised.

I appreciate that intervention, OvaHere, but I have said what I wanted to say, I think.

So I am happy to bow out and do not want to overdo things.

I don't think this is because I am a 'man' but really just because I am a writer. So I love to write.

But I imagine that will not be everyone's opinion. And that's fine.

I will keep reading the thread though. And thank you for the kind thought. But I am happy to observe and hopefully learn something.

It was JC who said they were not welcome when what they were actually told was that they were derailing, and then complaining when people did not like it.
Still, mission accomplished and JC has other threads to derail.

I can't see anyone saying Jaycee is not welcome to post on FWR?

It was the inference about monopolising and derailing, I know we often get with people who pitch up out of the blue but with Jaycee being a regular poster for some time now it felt a bit off.

By their own admission they can waffle on a bit but I've not generally found it to be derailing. Just my perception though, I appreciate not everyone will share it.

I know when a discussion is not actually a discussion. But a debate on shooting elephants in which the elephants are not welcome to comment because only humans get to do that.

Eh?
I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere. Why is a trans identified male like an elephant? Something something something something. God I wish I was funny.

I pointed out that elephants might have something useful to add to a discussion over the rights or wrongs of what we as humans do to them.

Again I say Eh?? If a woman is a human then a man is like an elephant and she is trying to shoot him but he could convince her not to if she would just listen? I AM SO CONFUSED.

Feminists talking about why they are being stopped from talking about males who claim to be women should have a male around to inform them of how it feels to be a male being talked about by women?

Is this one of those "men are actually the oppressed class" things? I'm trying to make sense of it but if you start from the point that women are an oppressed class and men are the oppressor class (a basic feminist position) NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE.

It's not my term. It's Stonewalls

So? Who the fuck are Stonewall anyway that they get to tell us how to speak?? Why should we accept their authority??

God I wish I was funny.
You're definitely not. Trust us.

I AM SO CONFUSED.
At last we agree.

So? Who the fuck are Stonewall anyway that they get to tell us how to speak?? Why should we accept their authority??

I'm not saying you should. I was saying that it wasn't my term. It came from somewhere else eg. Stonewall.

Bye.

Women feel frustrated when we hear from men how transpeople suffer, because actually many, if not most, of us feel like that , we just don’t talk about it

Well we do talk about it, a bit. We just don't go on and on and on about it.

Lengthy appeals to female socialisation by way of personal anecdotes on feminist forums are just another way of saying put me first. Feminists put women and girls first. That's the point of feminism.

Exactly this.

Lol supermatchgame you are a funny guy. Stupid, but funny. I know it isn't intentional but cmon dude, at least you have something.

My point as the 'OP' is that that transwomen are male. The law allows us to exclude males from female spaces when that is justifible. We are now being told that excluding some males is still allowed but only if they don't self ID as a 'gender' they call 'woman'. These males cannot be excluded. Why?

Because they experienced rejection in the past and it hurt their feelings so now it's really important we don't reject them again.

?

And I see I've had a post deleted as an 'attack' for referring to an anonymous Twitter account as a man. I can't keep up with what's not allowed.

So women just need to suck it? Forget our own feelings?

The way the law is being interpreted is that males can be excluded from female only spaces unless they are one of the males who has received a GRC and changed of sex designation on the birth certificate. At that point they must be treated as though their XY body is actually XX all evidence to the contrary.
There are those who say that was not the intent of the law while others say it is.

Yep basically. I'm not even sure if it's acknowledged that we have feelings.

At best we are mirrors, at worst we are dolls. Humans, never.

This is already causing some serious problems in the medical field.

That's what happens when people try to keep up with the demands of narcissist, it is crazy making.

Reading the transwidows threads is awful. We are props. We are a 'costume' we are a bit player to support those men. We are not real, not human, not people.

It can be quite liberating knowing how they think of is, eventually. Because it means we can stop giving a shit.

Be well HopScotchy. Women know you are real, and we have a much more evolved sense of reality.

I read a few years ago that gender dysphoria was co-morbid with NPD in 80% of dysphoric people. No idea where the study is now but so far personal experience bears it out.

My point as the 'OP' is that that transwomen are male. The law allows us to exclude males from female spaces when that is justifible. We are now being told that excluding some males is still allowed but only if they don't self ID as a 'gender' they call 'woman'. These males cannot be excluded. Why?

Supermatch?

I read a few years ago that gender dysphoria was co-morbid with NPD in 80% of dysphoric people. No idea where the study is now but so far personal experience bears it out.

Mine too. I remember it was an Iranian study.

Mine too (personal experience)

That's what frightens me tbh. It's not the lame threats or the silly poses or the gross fetishes. It's the narcissistic rage just moments away, the knowledge that nothing is too far, too much, too vicious, and it can all be unleashed by just saying No.

Frightening.

I know I'm real. My fantasy me would be very different.

Absolutely, Rosenberg.