That it's not just what you say, it's also how much you talk about it.

[NicolaHare]

Surprise, another trans thread! But the dynamics of online spaces fascinates me.

Take MWR. Some stats. Feminism Chat has been active since 2010. At this moment 364 pages of threads have been generated. 144 of those pages contain threads that were created or active since January this year. At the beginning of 2018 a significant portion of threads were trans themed and these threads tended to contain the most posts, and the board has only grown more fixated with the topic since then. You have to go quite a ways back to find a page of threads that isn’t 90-95% to do with trans people.

Nowhere else on the site is so obsessed. For example: on the LGBT themed boards you only have to go back 1 or 2 pages to find threads from 2017 and earlier. There aren’t any trans threads in the 1 and a fraction page of threads from 2018 on the politics board. There are, I think, about 2 in the half dozen pages of threads from this year in the currents affairs and news forum. And in 2018, all the education forums combined have generated about 5 trans threads.

This is weird, right? Why is a general feminism board with an overwhelmingly non trans userbase so fixated on a group of people they don't belong to and the issues surrounding them? It would be weird regardless of what anyone in any thread had to say on the subject.

Not surprising, though. Trans sceptical feminism ironically almost always ends up focusing on the transgender question to the exclusion of all other topics that its proponents believe that trans inclusive feminisms are neglecting, and so neglects them to an even greater degree. Honestly, I’m sceptical that they are being neglected at all: it seems to me that conversations about pregnancy, menstruation ect are happening in public view at far greater volume than ever before, taboos surrounding bodily functions are increasingly discarded by the discourse and pop culture, and that when we talk about erasure we’re actually quibbling about terminology, the trappings of language and not the substance of the conversation. To assign a motivation to the common theme on feminism chat of “We are being silenced elsewhere!” a significant part of it might be the catharsis of imagined persecution. “We are saying the truths THEY don’t want you to hear! We are rebels!”

(This interview with a former gender critical trans woman is worth reading. It’s American and several years old, but it describes the many of the other toxic intellectual cul-de-sacs you can observe in MWR. www.transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm)

But to set aside the discussion of substance. Do you think that the mere volume of trans threads in feminism chat is indicative of a kind of transphobia? If it were a forum of straight people talking about nothing but same sex attracted people, even if what they had to say was positive would we not be inclined to see in it's users a troubling insecurity with regards to queerness. If it were a forum of white people talking about nothing but people of colour in the most effusive terms, would we take this at face value or would we assign sinister motives (as the resonance of Get Out suggests many would)?

God this word salad academic style bullshit is so tedious and dull.

And intellectually stunted.

Its vacuous drivel just kills debate rather than encourages it.

No wonder students brains have melted. They've been bored into submission.

I did earlier, via citation

No, that is a website not a definition. What is YOUR definition of woman?

Nicola I sincerely cannot find a definition of ‚woman‘ in this essay and it does not even read like giving a definition was the essay‘s intention.
If you disagree, could you, please, succinctly state the definition here, to clear up any misunderstanding?

Morning nicola

Why is it cis lesbian and gay man?

Freudian slip?

And i did ask earlier about what exactly the problem is with trans threads ...amount, type etc. And although optimistic im beginning to think you just wanted to tell people on here off rather than resolving any problems

Im still a bit optimistic, its just fading rapidly

And although optimistic im beginning to think you just wanted to tell people on here off rather than resolving any problems.

Actually, it was about talking behind our backs and trying to find women, who are not immersed in the issue, to impress them with some word salad, give them an opportunity to feel woke by nodding along and get them to agree how bloody awful the feminist board is, without really discussing the material issues at stake for women.

Oh yes so it was deep

By the time i got to the thread it was already in feminist chat and i couldn't figure out why the OP was complaining about the about of trans threads

AND THEN POSTING A TRANS THREAD

Thought it was a bit silly...but i suppose its ok if its not on feminist chat and the thread is started by someone bitching about how mean people in feminist chat are and how wonderful they personally are even though they have no idea what individuals actually think about the issues

So I suppose ive had an answer...only positive threads or ones started by people telling off other posters

So thats good, policing it is going to be interesting

I did earlier, via citation

No, that is a website not a definition. What is YOUR definition of woman?

Brilliant example of how this academic rot is melting brains. It's easier to regurgitate something written for you, rather than think about it for yourself and then reword something in your own way.

Academic drivel is deliberately inaccessible and linguistically loaded to be closed to huge numbers of people. It's elitest in the extreme.

The skill of translating difficult concepts into easily accessible language which is truly inclusive is much harder than it looks.

And beyond a lot of people who think they are dead clever.

If you have to resort to citations to make your point, whilst simultaneously prattling on about being inclusive, you well and truly have lost the plot completely.

It's not deep. It's dumb as fuck.

By the time i got to the thread it was already in feminist chat and i couldn't figure out why the OP was complaining about the about of trans threads

Me too Rufus. I only worked out what had happened and that the thread had originally been started in AIBU when I got to the post just before Hebe's.

You know that Aoife rowed back on pretty much everything Aoife had ever said, right? Changed their name, distanced themself from gender apostates entirely and disavowed the whole lot as being nonsense. What did you make of the nun fetish? Very feminine? (I have never heard of a woman who enjoys dressing up as a nun).

Loving that Jane Clare Jones piece

I'm still wondering what the word for a former menstruator is, by the way. And I have an additional question: if two lesbians with penises are having sex, and they give each other oral sex, does that mean that a 69 with two penises is a lesbian act? We have an equation for it: 2D+69=L. Do you agree? If not, why not? If it helps, we can see if floralbunting is around today, and she can ask it? (you seem to like responding to her - and she is great, so I can see why )

I took one for the team and read the interview in the OP. Or rather, I started reading it and found it was pomo word salad rather that an account of how trans women are isolated. Here's one of my favourite "insights".
“Gender critical” never took off, as such. Didn’t have the right linguistic freestyle flavoring of moral absolutism and radical intransigence.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that Aoife was involved in some sort of Twitter spat/fall out with a load of other TRAs. I'm not too sure of the details because it doesn't concern me.

Oh xpost with sophocles

Earlier I asked if for someone to recommend me writing from gender critical feminists that critique the gender critical movement. You complain about me assigning homework and ignore that I've requested some in return. I've tried to post content created by trans people that that turn a critical eye towards their own side. Is the gender critical movement really so self-righteous it sees no need for self-reflection?

eresh

Im glad i spotted it before my first post!

Actually, it was about talking behind our backs and trying to find women, who are not immersed in the issue, to impress them with some word salad, give them an opportunity to feel woke by nodding along and get them to agree how bloody awful the feminist board is, without really discussing the material issues at stake for women.

I can't even read feminist theory, despite being interested in the subject, because my brain gives up and wanders off somewhere. So word salad about how women shouldn't be mean is never going to hold my attention

The problem with the TRA cause is that it can't be explained simply. When it's explained simply (stripping out all 'don't be mean' provisos) the bullshitting factor becomes obvious, so only people who have a high tolerance for bullshit join the ranks of believers.

Ah Deepwater - I was wondering what the Op thought she was going to achieve. That's exactly it.
The only thing is, that when threads like these end up on other parts of the site they just peak trans even more people.
I think the Op thought that she was too bright for this to happen to HER.
Wrong.
Love it when people underestimate Mumsnet.

I’m not sure what trans inclusive definition of woman or manhood I could give that would satisfy you.

Perhaps that's because there isn't one?

Ooooh ooooh ooooh

Why cis lesbian

Was it just a mistake?

asking people to find articles you cant be arsed to look for IS STILL GIVING US HOMEWORK

You know that Aoife rowed back on pretty much everything Aoife had ever said, right? Changed their name, distanced themself from gender apostates entirely and disavowed the whole lot as being nonsense.

Yes, that's what the interview was about :/

Have you read my link that I posted last night OP? If not, come on, chop chop, you haven't engaged with it!

Earlier I asked if for someone to recommend me writing from gender critical feminists that critique the gender critical movement.

Oh it has to be written by an academic personality or what someone says isn't valid?

I see.

That's smart.

If you aren't fluent in word salad, it's not important or relevant.

Good fucking god.

FEED ME SCREENSHOTS I'M SO HUNGRY.

Nah.

NicolaHare, this isn't a seminar. No one is obliged to do as you say.

And as RedToothBrush says, I'm not very interested in you just plopping links and getting upset when people don't read them. I'm interested in your interpretation of those links.

What do you think?

I read your citation on the definition of woman. I think it says that a female person is what I would understand as woman, i.e. a person with a body of the female sex, and a woman is a person who has a feminine gender.

So to my question earlier, you would answer that what Theresa May and Jane Fae have in common is that they share a feminine gender, but Bernard Manning does not.

Does this accurately summarise your position?

If so, could you elucidate? What are the defining characteristics of a feminine gender? How can I look at someone and know if they have a feminine or masculine gender?

Thanks.

If ever there were an argument for making Posie Parker compulsory reading (viewing) at uni when it comes to feminist studies then this thread is it.

It doesn't matter if you like her or agree with her, at least she has the capacity to make grey matter take a work out and get outside the elitest bubble.

I’m not sure what trans inclusive definition of woman or manhood I could give that would satisfy you.

No shit?

But instead of worrying about satisfying gc feminists, why not give us your definition just to, you know, show you have one.