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?

Well, as far as things go, this is at least not a derailment, or a moan on another thread that we never talk about what the poster wants to talk about. So, fair enough.

As to the content, I might have been interested in engaging more fully had you not thrown in the accusation of 'transwoman obsession' when you are the one who brought the transwomen into the thread.

For those unclear, this is FWR, currently the section called Feminist Chat. We centre the rights and protections of women and girls here, and our interest in Trans issues only occurs when it intersects with those rights and protections.

Being Feminists, we understand the material sexed body that humans possess is a large factor in the systemic oppression of women. Spannablue, you appear to think the differences between sexed bodies are irrelevant, and you are trying to make the case that by being aware of those differences actually causes systemic oppression of women.

It's a novel approach at least. The 'Pollyanna' method of dealing with oppression is a brave stance to take.

Oh, then I misread that name, and I can‘t understand said tweeter either.

I'm curious about how the OP expected this thread to go. Was the idea that if a quote from a woman was posted most commenters would have to agree?

Look, don't put words in my mouth. I'm against male violence towards women. I'm a survivor of that too. I'm a feminist and a lesbian. I don't hate women.

I'm often told on here that I can't possibly be a female-born woman, or that I can't have the opinions I have independently of a man. But I know loads of female born whomen who agree with me. Last week I was in a GRA strategy meeting and round the table there were:

3 straight AFAB women
3 AFAB lesbians
2 nonbinary AFAB people
2 trans women

Several others sent supportive messages. All AFAB women.

I am here for a reasonable discussion. We are all in echo chambers and that's a problem. Everone I've told about my discussions on here think I'm crazy to run the gauntlet. But I seriously want to try these ideas out. What's the point of (any of us) preaching to the converted all the time?

Sorry, Freudian typo! 'Women', not 'whomen'

I disagree with it

it's due to the lie that this random feature of birth confers & signifies rank, power & domination.

That isn’t a lie. Males DO have rank, power and domination. Penises are a part of it, but the Male physiology as a whole is the key.

Men are on average larger, stronger and more aggressive. The existence of a few women who are large and strong doesn’t make any difference at all. we are talking about people as a class

As a class males are larger, stronger and more aggressive. They do indeed have penises, which can be used aggressively to harm women, who as a class are smaller, weaker and crucially bear the physical dangers associated with reproduction.

So in conclusion I’d say this person was wrong. Very wrong. And there’s a whiff of apologist for Male violence and also a whiff of the usual TRA crap spouted about genitals.

HTH

I don't disagree, spannablue, I'm quite happy to have you here talking. So make your case. Don't expect it not to be answered if it's cobblers, and I'm not sure how the 'all my friends agree with me' and the identity politics self definitions add to things, but you crack on.

A GRA strategy meeting? Interesting.

What strategy exactly? For which organisation/s? From which viewpoint?

...and we were all in our 30s, 40s and 50s. Scientists, historians, sociologists, journalists.

I'm often told on here that I can't possibly be a female-born woman, or that I can't have the opinions I have independently of a man. But I know loads of female born whomen who agree with me. Last week I was in a GRA strategy meeting and round the table there were...

You know, going back to that woman raped to death on that bus in India (and we all know this type of stuff is systematic, not a singular case there): there were quite a few women in India agreeing, that this young, unmarried woman should not have gone to the movies with a man... So I am not sure what your point is about meeting many women who agree with you.

I'll ask again: What do you think did get this woman killed?

A massive, key issue here is the risk of reproduction. Being pregnant and giving birth is a significant source of female mortality and morbidity, even in countries with absolutely top notch medical care. Countless women every year even in the west are maimed by birth injuries, or die during birth. In less developed countries the toll is even higher. It’s truly grim. and it’s due to differences in sexed bodies and reproductive biology.

Women’s sexed bodies and reproductive biology has been used to oppress them since time immemorial. Women have had to shoulder the burden of forced sex, repeated pregnancy and birth. It’s been used as a tool of social and physical domination forever.

Men just come and go, as it were. There’s no physical risk to them from sex.

So the focus on reproductive biology and the sexed body is important.

Why do you think it isn’t, OP?

You haven't explained why 'heteronormativity' (which from your description is what we call gender or sex roles) is a thing in the first place.

It all seems a bit arse about face.

Yanoo, I can't help reading the bit about heteronormativity as 'the world would be a better place if more lesbians liked dick'.

What was the strategy meeting for?

I’d be very sceptical of scientists accepting the TRA line tbh.

What kind of scientists? What was the focus of the meeting? What science was discussed? What was discussed?

spanna could you please respond to the points made about pregnancy?

Yes I'd like to know more about the strategy meeting.

I’d be very sceptical of scientists accepting the TRA line tbh.

Maybe the one 'scientist' was present that told spanna about those XX women with penises. Spanna never provided a link to a paper, but was adamant that was a real thing.

I've been on the fwr for years now, but one of the things that dissuaded me from joining in was discussions using words like heteronormativity, nuclear family structure, hegemony, capitalism, capitalist unit, and yes, even patriarchy.

I understand what these words mean, and I know they are useful to those who wish to discuss ideas at this level, so more power to your elbow and all that.

But being a bear of very little brain, I have to pause and translate such sentences before they divulge their meaning, and that level of concentration is not always something I have ready and primed.

So for me, having read the op, I've settled on this: the author is mixing up stuff she shouldn't.

"The problem with patriarchy is not due to men having penises"
actually, that is very much PART of the problem. Those penises, and the blokes they are attached to, are used to hurt and control women and girls. Those penises can impregnate. The men they are attached too are immensely physically strong compared to women

"it's due to the lie that this random feature of birth confers & signifies rank, power & domination."
well yes, the chromosome allocation was random, but the fact that the power and dominance came with it was not random. Men are physically stronger, and bullies gonna bully.

"We must not collude in that by fetishising sex difference & aggrandizing genitals that happen to be on the outside."
yeah, this bit is bullshit. The words 'fetishising' and 'aggrandising' are so out of place and inappropriate. She's talking to feminists. Noone is doing that.

Oh my gosh, that bear just bit off your head with its huge teeth!
"Now then, you're fetishising and aggrandising its random dental body parts, which just happen to be random and irrelevant, that's collusion that is. Let's focus on WHY society has conferred dominance and aggression on the bear as a random act of assignment of power. Not the lie that a random accident of huge pointy teeth and their proximity to a massive hairy mountainous beast are the point, at all"

Datun

Yet another OP who shouldn't take up poker, in my opinion.

😂

I'd like to hear more about this GRA strategy meeting too, op, especially as the GRA consultation hasn't even closed yet.

Barracker

You've elucidated my thoughts completely.

It's reminiscent of claiming that lesbians 'fetishise' vaginas, because they're not attracted to penises.

It's using the wrong words to manipulate perception.

It's irritating. And certainly makes me, personally, view the proponents as prats.

Agree Baracker.
Have also been reading that twitter thread ref’d earlier. Obtuse at best, lots 9f focus on why women say they don’t want to share space with a penis, as though the poor harmless penis is just sitting there, all alone. The problem with the penis is that is comes attached to a man. Men rape, kill and sexually abuse children and women with predicable regularity. It is the raping and killing we have a problem with, yet we are portrayed as someone being overly focused on one anatomical feature ?

On the twitter thread a woman has responded with some of the other things that happen in female loos, the nurturing of other women. The op there has then responded that there are women’s centres etc, for woman nurturing. ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT that if you start miscarrying at work, or out shopping, if you have a man behaving badly towards you in a nightclub, if you have bled through your white trousers, then you go to the nearest Ladies. You don’t wait a week and visit that supposed women’s centre. Ffs .

Barracker, I agree. I'm trying to use language like "sexist" rather than "patriarchy" more and more.

The quote in the OP muddles up the ordinary English meanings of "is" and "ought".

What it really comes down to, in plain English, is this:

Men as a group, throughout history, have bossed women as a group around. This is a matter of historical fact.

Men as a group have been able to do this because they are physically larger and stronger. This is a matter of biological fact.

They ought not to have done this. That's a matter of moral judgement (and one on which I suspect I, the quoted author and even Spanna in her garbled, muddled way, agree).

However the author of the original quote seems to think that the only way we can point out that men are wrong to have done this, that they ought not to have done this, is to somehow deny that the reason they were able to do this (even though it was wrong) was because they are bigger and stronger (and don't get pregnant which further adds to the vulnerability of being smaller and less strong).

That's what I don't get about this crap - it's as if these deluded fools think that accepting actual real world physical differences exist is the same as thinking it's okay to use these differences to be violent towards and limit the lives of women. (And yet, bizarrely, the one "difference" they do buy into is the very one which has no real-world basis at all, and which has been used over and over again to justify limiting women's opportunities and keeping them in a box, namely the belief in "lady brains.")

Yes, the current use of 'fetishize' is an interesting one. One the one hand, anyone with a sexual fetish of any weird kind must be celebrated, or they are being 'kink shamed'.
On the other, anyone expressing concern about something like a man raping a woman more easily, or a particular innate orientation like being a lesbian, is accused of fetishizing a particular body part.

So fetishes are both good and praiseworthy, and also bad and exclusionary. (Is this another paradox to add to the list Turph?)

Barracker Sat 13-Oct-18 10:57:06

I've been on the fwr for years now, but one of the things that dissuaded me from joining in was discussions using words like heteronormativity, nuclear family structure, hegemony, capitalism, capitalist unit, and yes, even patriarchy.

^^This. When I see those words I switch off to prevent myself from feeling stupid. Nobody wants to feel stupid. The reason I like MN FWR is because normal women speak in normal words that I don't have to google to understand. Once things become too intellectual I'm frightened off.