Obsession with transwomen fetishises sex difference

[spannablue]

Just read on Twitter:

'The problem with patriarchy is not due to men having penises, it's due to the lie that this random feature of birth confers & signifies rank, power & domination. We must not collude in that by fetishising sex difference & aggrandizing genitals that happen to be on the outside.'

What do you think?

Yeah, Spanna just said this on another thread.

Shows where they are coming from

Yes spanna, I only have one point of view on my consent and I'm not going to accept men deciding on my consent for me. Are you trying to negotiate with women on behalf of men to get us to drop our consent requirements?

The problem with spannas is they don't realise is that all the words they speak or write don't ever count as my consent.

You forget that Foucault rejects the concept of consent in the case of sexual relationships. Maybe that rejection also extends to female spaces ?

Page 103, second paragraph
books.google.at/books?id=mMZTnqmLyckC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Foucault+children+consent&source=bl&ots=4ilF7CZxo8&sig=GcfqCRzjVzX3NAEcxwGUvsyQAdE&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj02bmTrojeAhXw-ioKHUsdDhIQ6AEwCHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Foucault%20children%20consent&f=false

Yeah, Spanna just said this on another thread.

Of course, if an OP started the thread topic 'is the Earth round or flat', said OP might also, disappointingly for him/her, end up with pretty much 'only one point of view'.

The problem with spannas is they don't realise is that all the words they speak or write don't ever count as my consent. They never will. You can't transfer my consent to you.

This.

Deepwatersolo

I've read fuck all Foucault.

Materialism

Foucault was influenced by Marxism. The Matrix was influenced by Foucault - it's the ultimate Panopticon (interestingly one of the directors is trans)

Spanna - your question was not neutral although you pretended it was. Elsewhere you have made it clear you are not GC and that you are opposed to the majority position you find here. I think you need to be more upfront re this.

Oh my god that linki deepwatersolo

Children cannot always articulate their desires in a form that can be represented as legal consent

well how about you only have sex with people who CAN articulate their desires in a form that can be represented as legal consent then?

or it your (general rapey you) desire to have sex with who ever you like much more important than other peoples right to control over their own body

fuck me (or rather, don't, unless you can be sure I've consented)

Deepwater if you continue onto page 104, first paragraph, you find that it does!

"they [the panelists on a French TV show - Foucault, Hocquenghem, and I forget the third] bemoan the fact that feminists' agitation around rape has reinforced the power of the state around sexuality. Foucault expressed the concern that "sexuality will become a threat in all social relations..."; that is, that sex will always be seen as a potential danger, which will then authorize the state to constitute "dangerous individuals" and "vulnerable populations" and to enforce massive policies of oversight and intervention."

Hmm, kind of brings us full-circle to our old friends Action on Trans Health and their "free all trans prisoners now" attitude and attacks on what they call "carceral feminism."

The Matrix is based on Plato, Buddhism and gnosticism. The main character is called Thomas, like the gnostic gospel writer. Reeves’ character’s name literally means Thomas, son of man, like the Gnostics. There are verse numbers for specific gnostic texts on the ship.

So, I think part of what you're saying about post modernism Spannablue is that it encourages people to question established self evident truths.

but I think the follow on from that is that it's OK to accept some truths as self evident if you know why you're accepting them.

So the evidence to support the statement

Men as a class much more likely to perpetrate violent or sexual offenses against women and children than women as a class are

is very easy to back up with impartial evidence

So I know why I'm accepting that as self evident truth, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to build public policy based on that fact

The Matrix is also a bit shit!

I came out of it at the time thinking "quite entertaining, a solid 7 out of 10, but if an undergraduate wrote an essay like that for me, I'd be thinking '2.2'."

There are too many guns and not enough spoon bending.

Oh, and both of the directors of the Matrix are trans - hence it is now featured in sci-fi commentaries as "the first film trilogy to be directed by women", which rather ignores the fact that if the Wachowskis had tried to pitch the first movie (hard sci fi with a side order of up-itself metaphysics) to Hollywood while presenting as women, they would have been laughed out the door. A pair of women could not have got funding for that movie. (Well, maybe Bigelow once she was really well established in her career - but the Wachowskis made the Matrix as their second film - I repeat, no way in hell would Hollywood have funded a woman to make this as their second film).

the main thing I came away with from the Matrix 2 (I think), when they had that giant rave in babylon was 'who's babysitting? they're never going to be able to get the kids to stay asleep with all that bloody noise'

I may have watched it straight after DS1 was born and been obsessed with babies fucking sleeping

If "well The Matrix supports me!" is the best evidence you have then, much like the film, your position may be a bit rubbish.

(I mean, good job on hiring those Hong Kong action directors and all, but really, if you want cool fight scenes Tsui Hark does it better. The philosophical part, meanwhile, is utter codswallop.)

Indeed, Fermat! You are right, talk about coming full-circle.

fuck me (or rather, don't, unless you can be sure I've consented)

Foucault, the voice of feminism, my arse.

There is no spoon is oft said here. Is that postmodernism? Who knows! All this is pointless waffle imho and I quoted Heidegger in the past so I’m guessing this is, in general, academic overthinking to make social sciences look better

I never knew sprouts grew on a big stalk until my late 20s, I assumed they grew in the ground like little cabbages.

So in this case, I am trying to take a nuanced, thoughtful approach which neither disadvantages women nor disadvantages trans people.

What would that look like? In practical terms? Remember that there are no rights that people in general have that trans people lack.

I think the point being made up thread, that men's facilities aren't inferior to women's facilities is important

no one is being discriminated against

and no it's not like 'separate but equal' before some genius jumps in with that, unless you think women have achieved equality with men?

So in this case, I am trying to take a nuanced, thoughtful approach which neither disadvantages women nor disadvantages trans people

and if sharing facilities with men doesn't disadvantage you, then that's great. but it does demonstrably disadvantage large groups of other women

The problem with the ‘nuanced’ approach is that it seems to mean accepting a large, deleterious change for women, and accepting some crumbs that are thrown out way like floor to ceiling cubicles, just-call-a-copper-If-you’re-scared (although of course transwomen cant do that from the men’s..)

It’s not a nuanced approach it’s usually very damaging to women. If you genuinely have a nuanced approach that doesn’t disadvantage women or children we’d all like to hear it

Taking up the thinking of Foucault, whom spanna values so much: Foucault warns against constructing categories of 'vulnerable groups' versus 'perpetrator groups'. This thinking is also espoused in the Tweet that started this whole thread.

Considering this, why are spanna & Co so dead set on constructing this category of vulnerable transpeople, instead of looking at them as individuals with very different needs, privileges, powers...? Shouldn't they rather take on 'the lie that presenting in gendernonconforming ways and taking hormones signify oppression'? Surely they would not want to 'collude by aggrandizing some gender non conforming preferences that happen to be entirely superficial and do not change anything of substance'?