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?

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

But what does this even mean? What is a transwoman? Personally, although I find her odious for other reasons, I'm more likely to 'accept' IW as an honorary woman than I am Lily Madigan, but stonewall are demanding that we accept cross-dressers. Does this mean I am in or out of the GC clique? There are also TW such as Miranda Yardley, who, from a political viewpoint I see more as a 'sister' than some right-wingers in the GC camp who I find as odious as India.

I mean that I don't believe a man can become a woman. I do agree that there are some that I might see as a kind of 'honorary ' woman, but that's a different thing.

Whether or not you don't like GC right wingers or other GC people has no bearing on the fact of whether or not they are actual women or not. It's really ok to disagree with them. But if you think some males can be women you do think TWAW to some extent. That's up to you, it's not a hive mind.

I mean that I don't believe a man can become a woman. I do agree that there are some that I might see as a kind of 'honorary ' woman, but that's a different thing

I don't either. But is that the article of faith required to be part of the GC community? And just because one might believe it then what does it mean or imply on a broader social and political level? What room for agreement or disagreement is there here?

OP - My response to the question you raise is that I think Posie was manipulated (for want of a better word) into the role of aggressor in that debate and India became the victim. I don't agree with the tactic that Posie took, but hell I'd rather have the proverbial root canal surgery than go on National media so who am I to criticise? A better response would have been 'this is not about India, don't set us up - here are my issues'. But that's easy in retrospect.

That's the problem, isn't it? There is an absolute continuum* from '100% manly man' to Karen White (no transition) and Tara Hudson (some surgery but not that sort) and then the likes of IW and on to Jackie Green or the kid from Butterfly.

We are being asked to draw the line somewhere nebulous on this continuum when it comes to sides of a binary divide.

At the moment, official guidance seems to be that the line should be between 'manly man' and Karen White.

Why, when there is a much clearer objective divide between Butterfly Kid and Female?

*Yeah, yeah, it's not quite a continuum because it contains 3.8 billion different male people, but near enough.

I wonder if it's a corollary of female socialization to be nice that we also feel we must 'like' everyone who thinks and believes the same things we do?

I don't either. But is that the article of faith required to be part of the GC community?

Of course not. That's tribalism. But yes other GC people may well disagree and tell you so. That's their prerogative too.

I wonder if it's a corollary of female socialization to be nice that we also feel we must 'like' everyone who thinks and believes the same things we do?

I know some people men who would go to town with the evo psych of that one!

ARosebyAnyOtherNameChange The Butterfly kid is based on (or is) Jackie Green isn't it? I haven't seen the show mind you.

I agree yetanother about the GC stance sometimes descending into point scoring and beating people over the head with "define woman".
When anything becomes a mantra it shuts down discussion. And I do think that saying "if you question the GC position you are agreeing with rapists" is frankly batshit.
I don't like some of the sniggery comments about the way some transwomen REALLY don't pass because it's unessecary and makes us look nasty, and I don't want readers to be distracted from the actual issue.
To me the central problem of "TWAW" is being able to have separate facilities when really needed, actual women benefitting from schemes designed to help them in business or politics, and crimes being recorded accurately.
I'm also very concerned about the huge rise in the treatment of children for bring transgender.
I'm almost certain that some, very few, people, like cupcakes relative (I'm guessing son) have a real and strong feeling they are the opposite sex. I find it hard to "see" Miranda Yardley or Rose of Dawn as male. It feels natural to refer to them as "she".
I feel tremendous compassion for people in that situation. But I'm a pragmatist, and if there's a massive push for women to relax their boundaries, even where it will affect a great many women, even where it will affect safeguarding of children or put women in danger (from men) I have to say "No". Posie might say "no" in a different way to how I would, but it's still "no".
And I don't give a shit if some right wing turd happens to think men are not women. He probably also believes the earth orbits the sun. Doesn't make us pals.

Yes, I think I am with you IfNotNowThenWooOoOoo. Also, I'd like to consider creative ways to put women's items on the agenda (older feminist items such as rights to birth control/abortion, freedom from violence) in ways that centred them and separated them from the TRA's issues. It bothers me that we are waging a defensive campaign.

Agreed arose that is a problem. TWAW stance requires us to treat everyone in that broad continuum as the being the same.

I don't always agree with the predominant GC lines either, like the use of pronouns.
I don't mind using someone's chosen name, or preferred pronouns, if it helps with discussion. I don't have a problem with using female pronouns for transwomen, it doesn't mean I agree they are female.
I don't think many GC/radfems agree with that, is it seen as tacit acknowledgement of the transwoman being on the female spectrum? I don't know, it's just not something I get incensed about.

It reinforces the idea that they are "women". It's not for me to tell you what to say but that's why many GC women don't like it.

Personally I believe that's partly why we're in this mess.

I think it's important to acknowledge that views develop over time too. I was happy at one point to use preferred pronouns, partly because of English politeness, but I won't do it now because I've seen the way it is used as a method of control, and I will pick against that kind of coercion until my dying breath now, I've had too much in my life already.

But I don't 'pick others up' on it - everyone can do as they choose.

Floral

I've been mulling over this part of your earlier post:

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.

But I think what you're not considering here is the effect on an OP of having a number of different posters misrepresenting what she says, putting words in her mouth she never said, etc. When a bunch of people do that all at once, the effect is to take away your ability to make further points or elaborate on what you have actually said, because you are constantly being forced into the position of saying "but I didn't say that" over and over. And that was definitely happening on this thread, quite a lot. There's a reason why straw manning is a logical fallacy, and why philosophers believe that using it runs counter to having a serious and productive discussion.

I just don't like to see that happening, and I believe it is counterproductive as well, in that it is intimidating and to a lurker will come across as unfair. We want as many women as possible to be reading this board, surely.

Completely agree with Floral re pronouns.

But I think what you're not considering here is the effect on an OP of having a number of different posters misrepresenting what she says, putting words in her mouth she never said, etc. When a bunch of people do that all at once, the effect is to take away your ability to make further points or elaborate on what you have actually said, because you are constantly being forced into the position of saying "but I didn't say that" over and over. And that was definitely happening on this thread, quite a lot. There's a reason why straw manning is a logical fallacy, and why philosophers believe that using it runs counter to having a serious and productive discussion

Well said. I do see that happening here sometimes more generally.

Yes, strawmanning is frustrating, undoubtedly. I thought OP did a reasonable job earlier in the thread when an opportunist AWA tried to misrepresent a GC comparison and OP corrected them - tbh, it made me less suspicious of OPs intent with the thread.

We all get misunderstood, misquoted etc. It's annoying for a number of reasons, but my point was that you don't get blocked before you have opportunity to come back and correct where you have been misrepresented and clarify what you actually mean. I've been on forums where I have been totally rip quoted and strawmanned, and while I've been composing a response, the thread has been locked and no right of reply given.

Look, I get that we are all fallible and no one debates perfectly all the time. I understand the various pressures and pitfalls. We lose our patience, we misconstrue a post, we get a bit too carried away with tension releasing humour.

But my point still stands, I think - for all the frustration at some modding policies here, this is still a remarkably free neutral venue for discussion, the only thing you really need to be able to make your case is plenty of patience, a working knowledge of English and an internet connection.

OP, I don't think it's hard to understand that a lot of reaction is dependent upon one's own experience of trans people, or transgenderism.

Broadly most gender critical people will agree on the reality of facts. It's just largely about how you tackle the discussion.

And that's obviously going to be different, depending upon your experience. A lot of women have been horribly targeted and threatened and will give no quarter whatsoever, as a result.

Someone else might have a troubled and miserable family member who is trans, and have a completely different outlook, whilst still being able to be gender critical.

I personally see a framework of control around the whole issue. And subscribe to the line in the sand that refutes the ideology, every step of the way.

And it's fascinating to me to see exactly how uncomfortable it can make people when women are unashamedly outspoken about it. Like Posie. Some people will view her as rude and possibly hurtful, whilst others would admire her determination to not be bound by her socialisation.

I watched that segment and quite clearly could see that some people would not support Posie. Because they didn't have the background. They didn't realise that her refusal to give any quarter is the current leg of a long journey.

And anyone who has spent time watching India Willoughby, will realise exactly how she manipulated that interview. It was obvious.

But you don't know what you don't know. And we can't all absorb the experience of everyone else.

Whether or not you don't like GC right wingers

But there are probably hardly any gender critical right wingers. Most people from the right are coming at this from a gender essentialist perspective. Why do they keep being referred to as gender critical?

Is it really surprising that people like the OP get cold feet when gender criticism gets talked about as if it incorporates the views of people like Donald Trump, David Davies and Rod Liddle? They can be our allies on this one issue, but they do not share a worldview with us and they are not gender critical.

I get the argument behind accurate rather than preferred pronouns put by Eresh & Floral.
I think why I don't comply with that in general is that I'm happy to use the preferred pronouns of trans people I know, so why wouldn't I apply that to all transgender people who state a preference. Plus it automatically seems to bypass any chance of discussion and go straight to polarised arguments.
If anyone ever actually asks me my chosen gender identity and preferred pronouns (I doubt it will happen, I'm in quite a rural & traditional location & job) I plan to respond with 'agender' and 'it'. Making a point for the sake of it I guess, but having discussed the idea with a couple of people who were aghast at the thought of having to refer to me as 'it', I just kind of realised I'm not that arsed about pronouns at all. Not saying that it is the right attitude in any way!

That's it, NotDavidTennant.
I do not agree with Trump's views on anything gender, nor the idea that gender is a binary and should be enforced in law.
Sex is a different matter.
It's that confusion/conflation of sex and gender again, gets me every time.

ihaventgottimeforthis, honestly, I would likely use preferred pronouns in a face to face setting on a pure courtesy basis, but I rarely would see the need as you only use pronouns in f2f when the person is present, surely? Mostly I would use someone's name anyway.

It's only in written discourse that this is an issue for me, and as sadly most of the people I have encountered online who are snippy about pronouns are doing it because they are narcissistic power trippers, I am not inclined to acquiesce to their demands.