The term "men in dresses"

[AuntMsVanillaRose]

Trans-excluders like to say that they're absolutely fine with boys who don't fit in with gender stereotypes. And I, not one of you, am fine with children not fitting gender stereotypes. But I don't think that is true of all of you. Why is "man in a dress" used as an insult by so many of you?

I think the OP's was entirely civil and non-provocative.

A well-known (now disgraced) pastor with strong views on women in leadership used to refer to female vicars as 'vicars in skirts'. It was obvious what he was doing but he got away with it because strictly speaking he was being factual.

Disingenuous bullshit.

Female vicars are actually vicars.

Just ask Geraldine!

Yes I realise that. But leaving out the word would have been rather confusing, don't you think? Well done for missing the point though. I would never have guessed what you were up to.

Just don't ask her what she had for breakfast.

I think the OP's was entirely civil and non-provocative.

Do you speak for all the feminist-excluders, nonplussed? Or just yourself and the OP?

(That's an accurate, civil and non-provocative term to use about you, right?)

And Bernice.

Being female doesn’t make a vicar any less able to be a vicar, so ‘vicars in skirts’ is purely undermining and sexist.

Male privilege and socialisation means that biological males will never actually understand what it means to be a woman. The idea that a biological male can claim to be a woman and tall over natal woman on that basis is offensive in the extreme, particularly when ‘speaking for women’ basically means telling women to STFU.

If the vicar had claimed to be a bishop in bishops robes, the response "you are a vicar in a skirt" would be a factual correction.
A false claim made would need to be refuted.

If no false claim is made, no such refutation is required.

A vicar is a vicar
A skirt is a skirt
A man is a man
A dress is a dress

None require much comment unless there is some sort of false claim being made?

^What Barracker said, innit.

Also I’m a little confused as to what point I’m supposed to have missed.

Genuine question: in cultures where men wear garments that are what we would call skirts or dresses or other non-trouser type garments, what do they wear when they identify as trans?

This is an interesting thought experiment. That, say, in Saudi Arabia they'd choose to wear a burqa.

Just because someone has a long history of posting does not mean that they are not also a goady fucker and I found the OP fucking goady.

Im finding this bit very interesting

Ive been here a while and im usually polite but does this mean i can do a really goady lets piss people off thread and its fine?

Not that i would obviously...but i do get bored sometimes

And yeah it was goady ' trans excluders' 'all of you' 'many of you' 'man in a dress'

I would love threads to be ignored, but i cant resist a bit of banter and food talk

So now i will be deleted? Are the FWR only 3 strikes and out thing still in force

I pride myself on my low amount of deletions but its taking the piss if we are now on breakfast cereals as well as bless and yawn (im teasing...a bit )

I have an old friend who is a priest. I refer to him donning the robes of his office as frocking up.

So he is not only a blue me in a frock but a vicar in a skirt. Although I believe he wears trousers underneath so that must make him non-binary?

Bloke in a frock. Not blue whatever. I think autocorrect is actually sentient and taking the piss.

It is an insult.

It's using a very small proportion of people who identify as trans and who perpetuate violence against women to dismiss, reduce, and show disdain for all trans women.

I note trans men are never subjected to the same disdain...

@MiniTheMinx not all trans women even wear dresses! Being trans is about how you feel internally- whether you are wearing a top hat and tails or a miniskirt.

Saying that being trans is as simple as putting on a dress is wilfully ignorant of the difficult journey many have to take to be recognised externally for who they are internally.

People wouldn't risk violence, bullying, limited career options, murder, antagonism, social exclusion, family exclusion, mental health illness, and even suicide just because they woke up one day and wanted to don a pretty frock!

@TerfsUp

What about trans women who wear trousers and a shirt? Are they still men in dresses?

I note trans men are never subjected to the same disdain...

Trans men aren't males trying to abolish female only spaces...

Grump, have you read the thread? You seemed to have missed that women here don't generally use that phrase.

People wouldn't risk violence, bullying, limited career options, murder, antagonism, social exclusion, family exclusion, mental health illness, and even suicide just because they woke up one day and wanted to don a pretty frock!

Why are you assuming that they have to run the gamut of that.

Philip Bunce doesn't. Grayson Perry doesn't. Transvestites, cross dressers, drag queens.

"People wouldn't risk violence, bullying, limited career options, murder, antagonism, social exclusion, family exclusion, mental health illness, and even suicide just because they woke up one day and wanted to don a pretty frock!"

Let's unpick this a bit. First of all can you give some links to press reports of transpeople being subjected to violence and murdered please? Then some examples of transpeople having their careers limited. Thank you.

I think the OP's was entirely civil and non-provocative.

Oh, what rot. OP used the term trans excluders and then spoke to FWR in the second person. The very definition of goady fucker. And not even accurate goady fuckery. Like I say, the women of FWR, over millions of posts, have discussed men in dresses only 34 times.

Humpty Dumpty language only actually works in woketopian circles, y'see. The rest of us, what with remaining in touch with material reality an' all, can still discern the actual meaning of words when we read them.

It’s about time that the transwomen who identify with women, the ones who just want to get on quietly with their lives and have no intention of trampling over women’s rights, started to speak up. If they keep quiet and let this happen, then they are complicit. It’s about time women got some bloody support.

The OP was offensive and goady.

MNHQ have derailed this thread more than anyone talking about avocado on toast.

that is not really what is happening here. The OP has a fairly long record with us, so we are content to let the thread continue as is

Just because the OP has been around for a bit doesn’t mean they’re not a goady fucker though does it MNHQ. Shit like this makes me remember who I spend months away from MN.

Humpty Dumpty language only actually works in woketopian circles, y'see. The rest of us, what with remaining in touch with material reality an' all, can still discern the actual meaning of words when we read them.

Excellent

And these sorts of threads are very good at highlighting the lies and deceit that the mangling of language tries to obscure.