Article on the Guardian on the rise of the body neutrality movement, and of course it has to also be about trans women, right?

[Salamandermalamander]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/23/the-rise-of-the-body-neutrality-movement-if-youre-fat-you-dont-have-to-hate-yourself

I don't get it, Guardian. A great article on women's bodies, fat acceptance and body positivity and then you reach the point "Yet, as body positivity grew in popularity, women of colour, women with disabilities and transwomen, were pushed from the spotlight by a more conventional beauty ideal.'

And I can't help but wonder:

Does every article about women issues on the Guardian now absolutely has to include transwomen?

Can somebody remind me when natal women were looking at transwomen as role models for body acceptance?

Reminded me a bit of the Guardian article on lesbian sex a few days ago that included a "trans lesbian's" views. Can we ever talk about our own bodies, with their female but not always feminine shapes, and not include people that were born male pretty bloody please?

The Guardian is so open-minded that its brain has fallen out.

why are 'women of colour' cited along with women with disabilities (and transwomen) when it is clear that ads for fashion and beauty wholeheartedly include black and mixed race women. Oh it is the Guardian who have a small grip on reality

Although...

This was good from Oliver Burkman the other day.

But yes it's often rubbish.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/20/things-getting-worse-or-feel-that-way

I’m not sure I can bear to read the article but I find it quite offensive to imply that women of colour and women with disabilities are sort of sub categories of women, alongside trans women.

When actually women of colour and those with disabilities are just women, and trans women are men.

@drearydeardre I wouldn't say that WOC are wholeheartedly included in ads. There's still issues around the acceptable face of black people (light skin and "good" hair)

Great article dinodora, thank you.

Having to surgically and hormonically alter your body is probably the opposite to body acceptance and body positivity!

What I find particularly grating is that transwomen like Bergdorf promote a very porny kind of femininity, with exploding breasts, slim hips and the kind of super tall, strong legs that mostly men have naturally. This is not what women look like! Since when is dysphoria and dysmorphia body positive? It's all very Orwellian...

Consumer capitalism is a theoretical economic and social political condition in which consumer demand is manipulated, in a deliberate and coordinated way, on a very large scale, through mass-marketing techniques, to the advantage of sellers.

This theory is controversial. It suggests manipulation of consumer demand so potent that it has a coercive effect, amounts to a departure from free-market capitalism, and has an adverse effect on society in general. According to one source, the power of such 'manipulation' is not straightforward. It depends upon a new kind of individualism - projective individualism, where persons use consumer capitalism to project the kind of person who they want to be. Wikipedia

Reading the article, noting

women of colour, women with disabilities and transwomen, were pushed from the spotlight by a more conventional beauty ideal.

The body positive movement doesn’t put people with disabilities and other marginalised bodies into the foreground

and looking briefly at the Instagram linked to, this ‘movement’ does seem fatally compromised by consumerism, identity politics and (unwitting) self-objectification; the language betrays the focus on performance.

Some parallels with transactivism there.

Yet, as body positivity grew in popularity, women of colour, women with disabilities and transwomen, were pushed from the spotlight by a more conventional beauty ideal.'

One of these groups of women is not like the others. Can you guess which one? I will give you a hint. It is possible to be a disabled woman and a black woman at the same time, but neither black women nor disable women can be transwomen.
Only males can be transwomen, which is how we know they are men. Refusing to take no for an answer is how we know they are abusive men.

This isn't a coincidence.

I've tried flagging the link up before between the bo-po community and transactivism and don't feel I've been too successful drawing attention to it alas.

Body positivity is a very 'intersectional' movement. There are a few major players in it but one of the biggest is 'Bodyposipanda' on Instagram.

She just hit 1 million followers. The message that it's ok to be you and your worth is about more than how conventionally attractive you are is continually interwoven with the message that women sometimes have penises and you need educating if you think otherwise.

This is highly influential movement. Really people aren't paying enough attention to it. The thrust of the Guardian article only echoes what these Body Positive gurus are saying to their many followers. Megan (Bodyposipanda) is a recovering anorexic and younger girls seem to idolise her. Depressingly she apologises a lot for having a voice, for having any privilege - she constantly has to name check everyone who is supposedly below her so as to be 'inclusive'. It is so demoralising that that is where liberal feminism has ended up. I actually think she is wonderful in lots of ways and I want to get behind her and support her with her essential message of 'value yourself.' But her influence is honestly toxic with how she handles everything. There are some very confused teenage girls who speak up in the comments on Instagram saying they don't understand how men can be women and they are rounded on by Megan's followers. Travis Alabanza seems to be a good friend of hers. And interestingly despite the degree to which Megan has swallowed the kool aid, she still regularly gets criticised by her followers for not being inclusive enough.

I wish so much Megan would come and have a read of MN. She has her heart in the right place.