Are we arguing about the wrong thing?

[DonkeySkin]

Inspired by a Glinner Twitter thread...

In which Graham Linehan stated that Stonewall advisor Alex Drummond was not female, and that anyone who believes otherwise is 'nuts'. He was inundated with people arguing this point, including some accusing him of 'defining women by gender stereotypes'. Someone else tweeted separately in another thread (paraphrasing), 'I had no idea this many people were this crazy.'

But the thing is... they're not crazy, are they? All the people who espouse the ideology of 'gender identity', which that holds that male and female are a feeling-state, rather than a physical fact.

GC feminists often describe such people as 'delusional', but this is ascribing a level of good faith to them that is undeserved. People who are willing to state outright that a male person can be female if he says so aren't delusional. THEY ARE LIARS. They are lying when they say that sex is a social construct, and no one can tell the difference between male and female human beings, and they need to be called on this lie, not indulged with esoteric arguments about linguistics, metaphysics and (inevitably) intersex conditions.

Every single person on that thread arguing with Linehan knows as well as he does that Alex Drummond isn't female. So even arguing the point with them is attributing a weird legitimacy to this lie, by assuming that the people repeating it are making a good-faith argument.

Let me reiterate: nobody actually believes this. Every politician and high-profile person who smugly intones: 'Trans women are women' is perfectly aware that male human beings aren't female human beings. No one is truly confused about the difference between the class of persons who have the potential to impregnate, and the class of persons who have the potential to get pregnant. Nobody has lost their ability to tell the two sexes apart, and there is no way anyone can cognitively trick themselves into perceiving an obviously male-looking person as a woman.

So the disagreement about whether 'trans women are women' isn't a real disagreement. It's a cover for a different argument altogether.

This isn't a dispute between people who believe that male human beings are really female if they say so, and people who don't believe it. Because NOBODY believes that. What we are actually arguing about is whether female human beings should be permitted to define ourselves separately from males.

When people say 'trans women are women', they are not expressing a sincere belief that adult human males can become adult human females. They are asserting men's right to claim membership of the same ontological category as women, on their terms whenever they so wish. Conversely, and just as importantly, they are also denying the right of human females to have a separate ontological category to ourselves.

Feminists should not be reduced to arguing that women and girls exist as a real material thing in the world. Everyone already knows this. We need to stop arguing about whether 'trans women are women' and move the argument onto its true ground, by putting the case that women have the right to define ourselves – in language and in law – separately from males. Female human beings have the right to an ontological category to ourselves, a name to ourselves and the language to define our physical and social reality. And let the trans ideologues and their 'feminist' supporters argue the opposite, in all its stark brazen misogyny, if they wish.

Its Friday... i'm gonna do it... prepare for Godwin.

Hitler and The Big Lie - a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

I think we are there

and apolgises if this brings shit down on our heads

Take Owen Jones. Swears up and down all day long that 'trans women are women', and women who won't go along with this are as bad as racists and homophobes. But if you look at the way he talks to and about self-identified trans women, and the way he talk to and about those he knows to be women, it's clear that he doesn't see us as the same type of person at all.

Precisely. And also how he considered the cunnilingus question to be homophobic. How so, Owen?

don't we have to bring the lie and the willingness to go along with the lie crashing down before we start? How do we do that?

Flourella - The willingness to go along with the lie is grounded in misogyny. It's actually that which we need to expose, not the lie itself – which, as I said, nobody really believes. It's a Sunday truth, as per Bertrand Russell. It would be like wasting our time trying to prove that cold doesn't cause water to boil.

The misogyny is that they are denying female people the right to define ourselves separately from males; to exist as a distinct, named category of persons, with concomitant rights in law. All 'progressives' and 'feminists' who support this extreme misogyny (in the form of parroting 'trans women are women') need to be made to own that position, explicitly. They need to be made to own that they believe that people with vaginas have no right to a name, nor any separate legal standing, or any ontological category at all, as well as no right to any space, anywhere in the world, that is not accessible by people with penises. Instead they are being allowed to hide their misogyny behind a thought-terminating mantra ('trans women are women') that is repeated so often precisely because it is thought terminating.

Hitler and The bog Lie

From Mein Kampf ^"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes"^

The disgusting evil bastard was pretending tot alk about Jewish people, but of course he was projecting and talking about himself.

The art of Hitler's propaganda was to repeat the lie over and over again so that it would be taken to be self evidently true as such a big lie must have some truth to it... surely? And to make other small lies easier to swallow, and for smaller evils to go unnoticed.

I am not saying transpeople are evil or like Hitler. I am saying that their is a technique that can sway people and saying that transwomen are women (and quite possibly female), is a huge lie by all known standards of biology and science.

And that Emperor's New Clothes saying came from somewhere - I would be interested to know what RL event prompted it.

They are treated as women sometimes treat drunken men who might kick off at any moment, or overtired toddlers who need to be kept from a full-blown tantrum.

Time for that great extract from Vaclav Havel's "Power of the Powerless" (once more... and apologies for the length, but it is worth a read).

{4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

{5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

{6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

{7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

DonkeySkin I know that. But when that "thought-terminating mantra" is chanted as high up as NHS policy makers, the prison service and the government itself, I can't see a way forward without dismantling this way of thinking. I guess I'm just less hopeful that pragmatism can win out here.

What an excellent post Fermats. So true.

I am not saying transpeople are evil or like Hitler. I am saying that their is a technique that can sway people and saying that transwomen are women (and quite possibly female), is a huge lie by all known standards of biology and science.

And yes.

Sorry, I posted that before I'd finished editing, so that last sentence isn't right. Pragmatism is the only thing that can win out, but I don't see how it is possible without showing what the other side is saying for the nonsense it is. As soon as we say what makes a female, they'll opt into it. Who or what is going to stop them? Whether transactivists and allies really believe it or not, their view of how things are with regard to sex and gender is supported by lawmakers.

Thank you fermats that is excellent.

People just going along for the ride, unconsciously telling themselves small lies, rationalisations and denials to defend their ego and position within the system.

I also think that if you have direct experience of male violence and manipulation, as I have, and/ or coercive control then this behaviour stands out starkly, and makes the lie far harder to believe. It also means that the stand against trans activism comes at a cost to many of us, it pricks all our fear senses. I have even found that the mumsnet stance of policing womens’ conversations on this , kind, decent women who have fought for equality, comes at a cost at times to my emotional well-being . So many of us have experienced tip-toeing around angry men, after all most women will need to do that at some point in society, that to be censored and policed on a forum for women is particularly damaging to us as individuals and collectively . We do need to be able to have conversations that are only for and about women’s needs, and we do need to set our own parameters.
This is a very good thread op. Thank you.

Then they have to reconcile their belief that they are an honest / intelligent / independent thinker with their knowledge that they've been going around saying that men can be women. Doubling down on TWAW becomes the least costly way of resolving the dissonance.

This is an important point, Talullah, which highlights another reason why the whole 'trans women are women' argument is a dead end. Because once someone has repeated it, their instinct, as you say, is to double down on it, probably because they know at some level that it's intellectually indefensible. If we charge in going, 'No they're not, what are you daft?', or 'Prove it' they just get defensive, and that's when they usually start a) preening about how much nicer and kinder they are than you, you heartless bitch; or b) babbling about intersex and clownfish. (I am talking here of well-meaning people repeating TRA slogans, not TRAs themselves, who are a whole 'nother level of gaslighting).

Instead of challenging people who say 'trans women are women', we need instead to talk about the reality of sexed bodies, and the needs and rights of people with female-sexed bodies, and make them acknowledge out loud that 'TWAW' means that people with vaginas have no right to a separate legal and ontological existence at all.

but I don't see how it is possible without showing what the other side is saying for the nonsense it is.

I agree with you, though I think Donkey has called it right.

need instead to talk about the reality of sexed bodies, and the needs and rights of people with female-sexed bodies, and make them acknowledge out loud that 'TWAW' means that people with vaginas have no right to a separate legal and ontological existence at all.

Agree with this though.

The whole essay is worth a read -edited version here
history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html

There's a really chilling bit at the end where he says "what would happen if one day the greengrocer just didn't go along with it?"

"The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children's access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

{16}Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety. . . . "

But I think it's here where the FTMs come in as their secret weapon. Women are getting shafted from both sides, men from neither. I think this is mostly calculated.

YY Fermats. But I think the reason that the TRAs can weaponise the conditions and the system here is structural misogyny.

“Women are getting shafted from both sides, men from neither “ yes yes this.

There seems to be a lot of lying about at the moment. We can see that with Trump, clearly, most recently, obviously, with the Helsinki press conference. His whole use of the concept of fake news, as part of his campaign and his presidency. Which also uses darvo. And also with Assad and Putin,

Obviously, many politicians use lying as their modus operandi, but these days it's taken to a whole new level. And with the advent of social media etc it's easy to propagate.

As soon as we say what makes a female, they'll opt into it. Who or what is going to stop them? Whether transactivists and allies really believe it or not, their view of how things are with regard to sex and gender is supported by lawmakers.

Let's not let TRAs dictate the language we use, or worry too much about their endless misappropriations. Instead, let's focus on making our own language as clear as possible, by continually dragging the conversation back to the reality of sexed bodies. (I notice Nic Williams is doing that a lot these days by dropping in 'penis', 'male bodies' etc when she talks about this issue. Very clever.)

When challenging the institution of this stuff at the legal and policy level, we need to remind lawmakers and policy makers of the importance of sexed bodies, because the TRA hijack of language has certainly confused things, which is what is allowing this doublethink prevail. Ultimately, politicians need to be challenged on the absurdity of extinguishing a material category ('sex') and replacing it with a subjective belief ('gender identity').

Trans ideology denies that the sexed body has any social significance; all that matters is one's internal sense of one's 'gender'. In fact all the language of the 'gender identity' movement is intent on erasing the reality of the sexed body. Hence 'gender' instead of sex; AFAB/AMAB instead of male and female; even 'unisex' has had to become 'gender neutral'. They can't even bear to name genitalia or breasts for the purposes of the surgery they demand, instead vaguely gesturing at the region of the body they are in ('top surgery', 'bottom surgery'). It is this that we need to challenge, because it's this denial of the reality and social significance of sexed bodies that is at the heart of the matter.

This denial of the reality and social significance of sexed bodies that is at the heart of the matter.
Absolutely agree. Sorry not sure how to put your quote in bold.
IMs really shattered and going to bed but will return to this tomorrow as it is expressing so beautifully so many things I’ve been flailing around trying to put into clear language.

As soon as we say what makes a female, they'll opt into it.

But they can't, because it's a biological term. It's a sexed body word. I don't think the ones who try it are aiding their cause, rather the opposite.

continually dragging the conversation back to the reality of sexed bodies

I don't think it's any coincidence that we're having this discussion on a parenting website. The reality of sexed bodies is an inescapable part of it.

Instead of challenging people who say 'trans women are women', we need instead to talk about the reality of sexed bodies

Yes absolutely this, I couldn't agree more. If we engage on the level of terminology and definition then we are fighting on ground they have chosen and fortified and lending credibility to their incredible arguments by treating them as worthy of debate in the first place.

You are right: we don't need to convince anyone that a man is not a woman. We need to convince people that it is indefensible to wave away material reality and its consequences for political purposes.

We need to convince people that it is indefensible to wave away material reality and its consequences for political purposes.

So much this.

Trans ideology denies that the sexed body has any social significance; all that matters is one's internal sense of one's 'gender'. In fact all the language of the 'gender identity' movement is intent on erasing the reality of the sexed body

I was planning on saying pretty much exactly this in my previous post that I sent way too early. I don't disagree with anything you are saying; I'm just on a bit of a downer about the whole issue at the minute.

When challenging the institution of this stuff at the legal and policy level, we need to remind lawmakers and policy makers of the importance of sexed bodies

One NHS Trust, in which I have a personal interest, currently has no policy on the treatment of trans patients but is hoping to have something ratified soon. From the tone of a recent meeting (whose content I found online) their policy will almost certainly involve treating trans people as the gender with which they identify, regardless of what alterations they have or have not made to their bodies. These are policies that are being drawn up right now, so what can we say to convince policymakers to go back on them in the near future? If the NHS doesn't already know the significance of our sexed bodies, what hope do we have? I fear there's nothing we can say at this point and it will take an absolute scandal, likely of a criminal nature, to put the brakes on this.

But, like I said, I am being negative about things and I'm sorry for saying nothing constructive.