Peak GC Moment?

[CantUnderstandNoThing]

I've namechanged for this because I'm a bit nervous of the vitriol I have seen directed at others with a differing opinion.

I know there's been a few threads with people sharing the moments they hit "peak trans", often citing individuals (Karen, Lily etc) or moments that led them to their GC beliefs.

I've realised I've hit peak GC, or perhaps peak t--f would be more appropriate, and I was wondering if anyone else has? For me, the peaking moment was the interview with India and Posie. I felt very uncomfortable with how offensive and discriminatory Posie's argument was. And really, it just came across as hateful. I realised I didn't want to be aligned with that.

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

Anyone else feel the same? Or starting to feel the same?

When one "rude" feminist is enough for a woman to start supporting rapists.

How dare you. Where have I supported a rapist? If you disagree with me, if you dislike what I've raised, fine but don't you dare put those words into my mouth. Did you see upthread where I mentioned struggling with the invasive treatments I need? That is because of my own past trauma and I find it very difficult to discuss, but I'm not about to be accused of supporting rapists.

Thank you to everyone who has replied. I'm here, I'm reading and I'm digesting, it's a big issue with a lot to take in.

What is so hard about examining the issues and coming to a conclusion about them? Why does the 'identity' become more important than the independent thought?

Labels for things and beliefs are very useful for effective communication, but you really shouldn't be collecting opinions like all or nothing grab bags.

It's variously 'tribalism' or 'identity politics' etc. and I think it's the very worst thing for any sense or reality of progress at all.

If you come to a GC position because you liked some of the people who talked about it, rather than because you investigated and came to your own conclusions, then the reality that people you don't like are also GC is going to give you pause.

I don't agree with Lass on everything - although I think she's absolutely spot on about porn and prostitution - but I really do respect that she really isn't tribal at all.

Seriously, I've been rolling this around this evening and I think a lot of this 'internal conflict' would be lessened for people if we just keep reminding ourselves of why we think and believe the things we do.

If I was GC because of Posie, then Posie's behaviour would be crucial. But I am really not GC because of any of the women who are visible in this - except that they pointed things out that I investigated myself.

Engage brain, stand confidently by well researched conclusions, and stop worrying so much about fitting in.

My post got garbled. It was supposed to say.

It's that sort of hyperbole which puts me off committing to the majority concensus on here. A thread saying essentially "I'm not entirely happy with the radical feminist, gender critical view" somehow makes one a "rapist supporter".

It is a ridiculous and offensive conclusion to make.

Thanks Floral. I was discussing identity politics and tribalism with my son. He is 28 and in his 4th year at university. He finds it as depressing as I do but he absolutely gets that one can find common cause with people over a broad spectrum and that for example "Hitler was a vegetarian" means nothing other than Hitler didn't eat meat.

Yes, we have a joke in our house about grandma, who cannot even conceive that not everyone uses melamine trays with floral patterns on them for carrying coffee mugs, and finds it impossible to get past that when she gets talking to people. She knows it's the right way to do things and she will have conversations with strangers in garden centres about it. My 17 yo pointed out that she's a Bon Marche version of Owen Jones - having a very specific worldview and seeing everyone who doesn't have the same view as not really worth the bother.

I do find it very sad that almost every discourse in modern society is so incredibly narrow and polarised. It makes everyone smaller.

is that the only thing which supposedly caused you to flip positions, was a feminist being "too rude"

I really think that is distorting what I have said. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned I've been clumsy with my words and I entirely agree and have acknowledged that repeatedly in this thread. I haven't expressed myself clearly. I've been reading the links posted, I've been reading every comment, I'm actively trying to learn.

Now I see why mumsnet had to check your history. You appear to be trolling.

That is ridiculous. And to be fair to me, if Mumsnet had indeed believed I was trolling they would not have reinstated the thread.

I think you are in the middle ground somewhere by the sounds of it. It comes across that you believe transwomen who say they are women, but also see the need for a distinction between the gender identifying and the biological sex. Which trans ideology has provided with the trans and cis prefixes.

Does that feel.like it fits your feelings?

I don't think I am GC to the extent that I think nobody feels an innate "gender" (OK I felt the need to use parenthesis so maybe I am!). At least I think transwomen and transmen who come to an informed choice about their own lives should be free to do so. The limit being on being legally recognized as the opposite sex for me... Even with SRS. Perhaps we need a gender category for legal documents for those who seek legal clarification of their status?

I'm only up and posting as the toddler was sick bless her, so not sure that will make a whole bunch of sense!?

OP: how are your feelings, by now, on "Women don't have penises"?

I ask, because you said in your original post, "..but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously)."

Do you still have a problem with the fact that women don't have penises and men cannot be women?*

Quotation/speech marks, not parentheses clearly... I do sometimes know my grammar arse from my grammar elbow!

I'm so sorry, I know people are asking me questions but I feel like whatever I say is getting twisted. I've learnt a lot from this thread, lots of good links to read, lots to process. Thank you to those who understood that I was very clumsily trying to raise some concerns. I'm going to go away and do a lot of thinking!

In fairness, what the OP said was:

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

The word "that" in her post clearly refers to the needed "discussion", and the sentence structure also makes clear that it is the "angle" of arguing that 'women don't have penises' that she thought was unhelpful to that discussion.

Has the OP actually said at any point that she "has a problem with the fact that women don't have penises" (as opposed to having a problem with foregrounding that fact in a televised discussion with a transwoman)? I don't believe so.

This is why it's considered a logical fallacy to "quote mine" (i.e. only quote a selected part of what someone says, out of its context). It leads to people misunderstanding one another's points, and thus isn't conducive to fair and open discussion.

I agree with florals excellent post at 23:38 yesterday

Im very susceptible to a good counter argument and very empathetic

But my fundamental view cant be changed one way or the other just because i dont like someone...or indeed like someone

And there have been comments on here on both sides of the debate that i cringe at and report on occasion, and posters who debate either side that i dont engage with

for me its like some posters on brexit who post that they voted remain but because the EU is being so naughty they would vote leave moving forward....the change in their basic belief , not based on an excellent counter view, confuses me

I hate the tribalism in politics and debates such as this

I dont think there is one side or another...

I've been thinking about FloralBunting's post above:

What is so hard about examining the issues and coming to a conclusion about them? Why does the 'identity' become more important than the independent thought?

The answer, which I think more independently-minded people sometimes either aren't aware of, or forget, is that we are social animals. Identity and fitting in are hugely important to us, because that's how our psychology works. Sure, there is a lot of variation in this trait, from one personality to another, and also according to age and situation: for example, younger people are more likely to be compelled by the need to fit in and establish identity than are older people. Ditto for those with a secure social status vs those without.

A huge amount of social interaction, including gossip, is at least partly about checking and reinforcing where the "acceptable" social boundaries for beliefs and behaviour lie. The entire AIBU board can be viewed in that way, which is one reason why it is so popular.

I've come to be able to take a much more independent and objective view of things as I've grown older, but I understand from my own younger self how difficult it can be.

A related point is the influence of postmodernism for decades now on humanities education, even at A level, with its view that there is no objective reality, everyone's reality is valid, and that the most immoral thing you can do is to "other" someone (i.e. treat them as outsiders). When an important interpretative stance on Dracula is a discussion of how the heroes are "othering" the vampires, you know it's bad.

kesstrel

I agree,

I tend to keep my mouth shut if i dont agree unless its real life and whatever someone has said is beyond the pale and if i DONT say anything they will think i agree

But the statement that women don’t have penises isn’t being made in a vacuum. It’s being made because a small, very vocal group of people who have extraordinary access to public policy leaders are actively saying that not only is the female penis a thing, but that those who point out that this is not true are hateful and should be abused with said penises.

In that context, the simple, factual statement that women do not have penises is not just a measured response, it’s a necessary one.

bowl

Yep

So as much as i may be undecided about who should enter female spaces

I am very very sure that women do not have penises and my mind cant be changed on that fact whether i love or hate the person saying it

So I sympathise with the OP and her being uneasy about some aspects of the debate but you dont have to be on on side or the other, i can disagree with some things a poster says and agree with others

kesstrel, oh yes, I agree, and I know the powerful psychological forces that keep us conforming, especially when we're younger.

My post was more an encouragement to break out of group think than it was confusion about the appeal of being part of the tribe in the first place. I know how difficult it is to stand apart from everyone else on something.

Even with this issue, look, if you genuinely don't hold a GC view, own it, back it up, come and articulate why. For all the accusations of echo chamber here, the only reason the prevailing view here is what it is, is because no one seems to put forward any coherent counter view.

No one is shouted down, it's not possible in this medium, there's no blocking or heavy moderation. You may well be massively disagreed with, but that's not the same thing. Personally, I would love to read a cogent response to GC thinking because I think it's only through the cut and thrust of interaction that you see the weaknesses in your own thinking. #NoDebate has clearly been hugely detrimental to the quality of ideas in Genderist circles. I wouldn't like to see it here.

Genuine plea to Genderists. Post. Set out your thinking. Be honest enough to examine the criticism. If you think the GC arguments are wrong, say why. If you think the manner of delivery isn't working, say why, and please, hold yourself to the same standard.

I'm not always terribly polite when I post - having a dog in the fight can make me terse at times, but don't mistake passion and investment for being unthinking and uncontrolled.

Big girl pants on, this is Mumsnet, we're famously caustic, but if you've got more than being evasive about biscuits to bring to the table, bring it.

In that context, the simple, factual statement that women do not have penises is not just a measured response, it’s a necessary one.

I do think it's necessary because the reason women and girls need sex segregation is often lost when tra start talking about their needs.

It's very easy to see how vulnerable transpeople are and, to protect them, remove sex segregation and replace with spaces for vulnerable people.

It is important to say male transpeople have male bodies so we remain focused on why women and girls need sex segregated spaces.

for example "Hitler was a vegetarian" means nothing other than Hitler didn't eat meat.

This is untrue. Hitler loved meat - particularly sausage, not surprising for an Austrian - but had digestive problems. To tackle this, his doctor prescribed a vegetarian diet. Like many patients, H was not always compliant.

kesstrel I think that’s really insightful. Especially about AIBU.
It also explains why it’s easier for older women to call out this bs. My 12 yo DD ties herself in knots about who thinks what about whom and I remember exactly the same stress and pressure. Somehow magically in the 38 years since I was 12, all that has fallen away and I couldn’t give a shit. I really don’t care all that much who likes me and who doesn’t - outside of my trusted circle. My critical thinking is entirely different in quality now because I’m not trying to establish myself in a group or make sure I’m within acceptable social bounds. I just think. And say what I think.

I've never been good at groupthink and have said from the start on here (some two years now) that I don't easily fall into the radical feminist camp. I also get itchy feet when I hear RFs and GC fems use the same sort of jingoistic slogans as TRAs and genderists, especially when repeating these means you are 'in the club' and critiquing them (even from a friendly position) means you are 'foe'. This is so resonant of the left that I backed away from in the 80s. I have thought at times that the GC position is very much at risk of lapsing into the same kind of restrictive group think politics as the genderists.I also get bored when the debate lapses into sophistry and rhetoric (endless repeating of 'define woman', etc. This seems to be more about point-scoring than real debate designed to drive the GC position forward. And it's often like that in minority politics - where a position is so marginal and so fragile in the broader sphere internal debate is often stifled out of fear. Unfortunately, I've never been good at keeping my mouth shut.

Having said that, I thought that the debate that the OP refers to was set up on some awful premises and Posie was put into a fairly awkward position with words put into her mouth (caveat - I can't get much past the mainsplainer at the start).

but had digestive problems

He had dreadful wind...

kestrel you're right -our underlying human psychology as social animals is often ignored or forgotten in this and other debates, but I think it's a big reason things have become so polarised. A lot of people have a deep seated need to feel they belong to a 'tribe' -it's linked to survival.

This need for a tribe is likely to be greater in times of stress or when we feel threatened -populism exploits this to great effect.

It takes a degree of confidence and awareness to step back and look at an issue in a more nuanced manner- something that definitely gets easier with age.

This is a very emotive debate and it can take its toll on all of us. If you are feeling conflicted, OP try to step back from the individual arguments and look at the basic facts. Either you believe TW=W or you don't. Personally I don't believe that, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything said by everyone on that side of the fence. It is only through discussion that we will ever move past that disagreement and find a solution that is fair and safe for everyone.

It's the nature of debate that some people will say things that we disagree with or that upsets us at times- it's important to step back sometimes if you need to take a breather.

The debate must continue though, or an equitable solution cannot be found.