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?

On the up side though, we are clearly doing smeth8ng right on FWR, as there are so many more people coming along to tell us that we are doing it all wrong.

Well, this is interesting:

3 straight AFAB women
3 AFAB lesbians
2 nonbinary AFAB people

but then:

2 trans women

Shouldn't that be 'AMAB trans women'

Why are you so keen to mention the sex of the women, but not the transwoman?

What do I think?

I think it's highly wanky, reality denying bullshit, trying to twist an argument in a way that disempowers women. Not shiny.

Smeth8ing ? Smeth8ing ? My typos increase as I get crosser, sorry. Am in bed on iPad with dog wriggling about too, not helping.
And predictive text changes ffs to Ffestiniog, which is amusing me no end.

Agree Knickknack.

Oo, someone said shiny. Can I get my Browncoat out now?

"Fetishize" is an interesting one all right.

You know who almost never have actual fetishes, as in paraphilias?

Women. That's interesting, isn't it?

Yet another OP who shouldn't take up poker

Or farming.

The quotation you gave doesn't provoke in me anything other than mild bafflement, Op. Soz.

Juells and Barracker I was asked to define 'patriarchy' so I used some words.

I am aware that some of the words I used might be a bit niche, but decided to assume ability to read + access to dictionary.com or similar.

Violent penetration can be achieved with things other than penises.

That's true, but strangely men prefer using their dicks to do the raping. Maybe you can ask them why?

spannablue, ok, word discussion aside, let's focus on the substantive points that have been put to you, shall we?

*Heteronormativity also functions to maintain the nuclear family structure as a basic economic unit, crucial to the operation of capitalism. That's why FPFW and AWP are assisted in setting up political meetings by some of the Toriest Tories in parliament (does that not concern anyone?)

So the argument is: if we deconstruct heteronormativity, patriarchy won't have the strategic categories it needs to function.*

You can do all the deconstructing as much as you want and insinuate as much as you want about right wingers, capaitalism and the political system, but it still leaves men with bloody great muscles, superior body strength, the "weapon" to rape and shed loads of testosterone.

I'm a second wave feminist OP who's had skin in this game since the battles of the1960s/1970s, but even I recognise the part that biological power and biological vulnerability plays in all this, irrespective of any political system.

When I see those words I switch off to prevent myself from feeling stupid.

This choice of lingo may well be done for the precise purpose of sounding intelligent, while obfuscating how out of depth they are. Looking at the original sentence:

'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.'

reveals that their entire analysis is blind to the overriding factor that enforces the power and domination of males: the readiness and physical bility of males to enforce their will by brute force. Male violence is totally absent from this analysis.
It isn't you who should feel stupid here, Juells.

Spannablue You clearly, from your posts, have been deeply influenced by postmodernist, post-structuralist ideas. What you need to understand is that, whatever you may think, people in many, many other fields of academic thought do not agree with those ideas. You are very unlikely to find anyone here who shares this fundamental philosophical approach. The idea that "deconstructing" things is the way to set about changing social structures, because underlying reality has nothing to do with social reality, is actually highly questionable.

spanna could you please respond to the pounts made about pregnancy.

I'm also interested in why you explicitly referenced the natal sex assignment of the straight women, lesbians, non binary people but not the trans women.

More interested in how the points made above about impregnation, pregnancy and childbirth fit into your thinking though.

I'm still confused.

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

So what does confer rank power and domination? Heteronormativity? And how do they enforce heteronormativity...?

Can you tell us any more about this GRA strategy meeting you mentioned op? It seems a bit presumptious to be discussing strategy when you don't even know yet if the legislation will change.

*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?*

The author is saying genitals don't actually make a difference...it's all been a massive lie.

...which is why there has historically been equal amounts of patriarch and matriarchal societies throughout history?!

Obviously the author has a good ideal which I admire... But its oblivious to the struggle of women throughout the ages...was it written by a man per chance?

...

Id like to know more about the meeting please

Emphasis on strategy, but I’d also be interested in the science discussed

Also: AFAB? 😂

No one is assigned a sex at birth. It’s observed.

Are you sure there were scientists there? ;)

who presumably shares home, toilet etc with her & their children.

I share a bed with my husband.

I hope we'd all be in agreement that it’d be highly off to expect men to share with any other man?

So we can knock that false analogy on the head I think.

Funnily enough, the only other time I've come across the word 'heteronormativity' was yesterday when the BBC announced its new policy

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3392880-BBC-to-address-heteronormative-culture-with-LGBT-reforms

Coincidence?

Is it just me that sees the acronym AFAB and thinks of Joanna Lumley?

3 straight AFAB women
3 AFAB lesbians
2 nonbinary AFAB people

This version of Ten Green Bottles is shite......

For anyone who's interested, this article explains how a post-modernist like Spannablue is thinking when they use the word "signifies":

postmoderndictionary.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/signifier-vs-signified-creating-meaning-through-a-sign/

Quote: What is interesting here is that what one might think the signifier (word) is less stable, it is in fact, more stable than the signified, because it is a shared concept (word definitions are mutually agreed upon by a group of people). The signified is less stable because it varies for each of us, according to our personal experience.

This is the kind of bizarre stuff that leads people to think that simply destabilising words and concepts can change material reality.