Aggressive Feminism Boards

[PerverseConverse]

I've been on this board for a while now and long enough to understand the issues and why women are so vocal about them and angry that our rights are threatened.
I'm frustrated reading on other threads, or on social media that this board is aggressive, shoots down discussion, and calls people names if their views don't match the majority. I can't say that I've seen that myself. All I see is intelligent discussion and persuasive arguments. Any goadiness is appropriately dealt with from what I've read as are any views that don't match reality. Maybe that's what upsets people: that their delusions are challenged with indisputable reality.
I'm still new to feminism and learning daily but I see women fighting for other women and prepared to get flak for that. I see some women who have been well and truly brainwashed by the trans movement and by men and the patriarchy in general. And that's the other criticism: that we are too focused on the trans issue. That makes me angry. The trans issue is the major one affecting women and girls at the moment and it's right that we are focused on it.
These complaints are coming from women who are calling themselves feminists and it baffles me completely that feminists can't understand the biggest threat to women and girls.
Now, I'm aware these so called feminists may well be trolls but I don't think they all are. How can some feminists be so opposed to other feminists passionately protecting their rights? Rights that are for ALL women.

Wander yes! On THIS thread. Not in previous ones. That’s the point I was making.

Bowl please, for the love of god RTFT.

XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix. One would expect to find some or all of these features in a female human body. A body that has none of these features can not be considered a female body.

So if you only have 1 of these? What does that make you?

It’s not assertiveness to tell me I’m not the right sort of feminist or I’m speaking on behalf of men, or I’m a handmaiden etc etc. I’m sorry but it’s not

Yep, aggressiveness and piling on with name calling/belittling and dismissing of others opinions not aggressiveness, just downright bullying.

Earlywalker

I am curious as to what you think "denotes" (not "denotes to be") means in this context? Because it seems your increasingly odd argument hinges on this?

Who is saying self ID is fine? Show me proof of where anyone here has said that self ID is fine?

Please answer this.

Where has anyone said they agree with self ID?

Uh the govt is promoting self ID. All the parties seem to be signed up. The establishment thinks it’s cool. Women aren’t happy. What’s your point ?

@waterlego

The problem with your definition is that there may well be women, born with no vagina, uterus, ovaries, cervix but only XX chromosomes.

According to you then they are not female. So what would you define them as?

BrownPaperTeddy 'If self ID were one sided then you have a point, but it isn't.' - What point do you think I'm making? I was answering some posters' questions of 'Who said anything about self-id' and explaining why I thought someone had brought it up. I do think that as men are far more of a threat to women than women are to men, and that because I am a feminist and interested in women primarily, it is an issue that has more importance for women than for men.

TeddyIsaHe 'It’s not assertiveness to tell me I’m not the right sort of feminist or I’m speaking on behalf of men, or I’m a handmaiden etc etc. I’m sorry but it’s not.' - I think it's actually okay for women to assert their own views. If someone sees your views as patriarchal, I think it's okay for them to say so. Just my opinion, as we're all allowed to have one of those on this board.

Why are definitions so important? As I said earlier, the definition of marriage was A man and A woman, I can envisage homophobic people constantly throwing that in the face of those fighting for gay rights too. So those fighting for the definition of a woman, what are your thoughts on that?

Say we chuck the adult female human thing in the bin and say "OK, we're ready for a new definition of the word woman. What is a woman?"

This for me is where things break down. A woman is someone who feels like a woman (except we don't know what a woman is because we've thrown the definition in the bin). A woman is someone who is feminine or likes to dress or act in certain ways.

I have yet to see an alternative definition of woman that isn't either (a) circular (a woman is someone who is, or believes that they are, a woman) or (b) based on restrictive and stereotyped gender roles.

Thanks for posting a link above to my other thread on this topic. I'd like to hear from some alternative voices on there if anyone wants to join.

It's not just about the trans issue, either. Try posting as a woman for example on a thread (out on the main boards not on here before somebody says why do you come on here, you don't have to) etc on one such as keeping your name after marriage.
Say you're happy taking your husband's name, you agree with marriage and see how long it takes for you to get called a fucking handmaiden or naive and innocent because you've been slurping the patriarchy kool aid and it's not your fault you don't know any better.

Brownpaperteddy. You are right that many laws are based on opinion not fact, or they are based on social convention which was later written in to law. They reflect social attitudes of the time they were written.

I get your point about murder. Murder wasn't treated seriously in the early development of english common law. There were more serious sanctions against theft. Murder was only taken seriously (according to the code anyway) a bit later . These things are constantly shifting, slow or fast.

The thing with this discussion of 'woman' is that there hasn't been a legal definition of woman. Like others have pointed out everyone knew who was a woman well enough to know who to treat differently to men under the law, without having a legal blurb to describe a woman. It was a well established convention which had pretty much universal consent as far as I can tell.

We are living through a moment when this may be shifting. The legal changes we are looking at create a definition for the first time. I am not convinced at all that the proposed definition (anyone who believes they have a gender identity 'woman' ) has won wide consent. The fact that initially those who campaigned for it were doing so behind the scenes suggests they knew that.
I appreciate you (and others) talking about this.

This is literally what the whole debate is about. Women are completely against the idea of being able to self identify yourself as a woman and men are saying tough bigot you can't have any say in it.

that was to an actual AIBU one a while back.

So if you only have 1 of these? What does that make you?

Well you wouldn't be male, so unless you think there is a third sex, you would be female.

As I said, humans are classed as a bipedal species meaning they walk on two legs. Being born with no legs does not mean you are 'not human' it means you are a human with no legs.

I have read it. You're saying that we are all awful meanies who pile on anyone who doesn’t agree and toe the line and that this happened to you and we are all awful. To support this you say you were called a handmaiden etc.

I’m just wondering what the context of you being called that was since you are apparently in agreement with what you say we are being awful for arguing for.

Why were you called a handmaiden?

If you dont like radical feminism there is plenty of internet space that doesn’t deal with it. Almost all the internet in fact.

What’s the nuance in the argument? I don’t see any.

According to you then they are not female.

That's not how I'd read the definition. XX is female.

According to you then they are not female

No Teddy. This is poor sophistry. You said you didn't think there was a third sex just for infertile people, right?

Why were you called a handmaiden?

Just given an example upthread of one instance for me anyway.

Earlywalker

I am curious as to what you think "denotes" (not "denotes to be") means in this context? Because it seems your increasingly odd argument hinges on this?

Not my full argument, the argument on the definition of a woman. As that rests on the definition of a female. The definition of a female in summary says ‘someone who is or denotes to be of the sex class that can produce children.

The OR denotes signifies that they do not have to be the sex class that produces children but they can appear to be, show signs of etc.. dictionary example a fever denotes an infection, meaning it usually has this but not always. As is the case with woman who cannot bear children. A transwoman will full surgery that possess a vagina, would appear to be of the childbearing sex.

Therefore the definition of a woman does not necessarily exclude trans woman. So why this is thrown out on every thread to prove your trans women aren’t women agenda, I do not understand.

VerbeenaBeeks We all understand that you don't like the responses to your posts and many of us sympathise. I don't know what you want me to do about it. You can ask all the posters on this board to tone it down, some may listen some may not.

I do think that as men are far more of a threat to women than women are to men,

Physically you are probably right. But I can see other opportunities where I could turn self IDing as a man to my advantage and illustrate the point of how stupid this whole thing is.

So eg my local hospital runs mens lusts and womens lists for some invasive procedures. Think things like colonoscopies, gastroscopies etc (needed by both sexes). As there is only 1 recovery room they do one sex in the morning and the other in the afternoon and alternate every day. Say you need a scope but you are female and it's the men first day. Self ID as a man and they will have to include you on the am list.

That is ridiculous but how will they stop it from happening?

Bowl I haven’t actually said any of those things. I’ve put my point across and had some good debates, you’re now trying to belittle me with infantile language. But that’s fine! Crack on and prove my point some more.

When I first started noticing about trans issues on these boards I didn’t agree, I had trans friends and was horrified at some of the views I saw on here. But at that point I didn’t have enough info to make such snap judgements. So I posted my piece anyway. And that was it, fire to touch paper. It’s taken me a long long time to be able to come back with enough confidence to actully stand my ground and say what I think. It was horrendous, for me. And I continually see it on here, on other boards on other threads.

Another example.

I have a familial risk of abdominal aneurysms. My local screening programme only scans men.

Therefore if I self ID as a man can I be screened?

*say any of those things in that manner. Typing too fast to make sense!