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)?

"Is the gender critical movement really so self-righteous it sees no need for self-reflection?"

In my e

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

It isn't about satifsying anyone. It is about you giving a definition* of 'woman' that is compatible with your own world view. Otherwise there is no way for anyone to understand what you are talking about.

*To be a definition, it needs to be noncircular and objectifyable.

Why is it cis lesbian and gay man?

It's a post on an internet forum, tossed off quickly. I didn't give much thought to the wording. I guess I don't always feel the need to qualify whether a person is cis or trans. As we were talking about trans lesbians, the qualifier seemed necessary, as we were not talking about gay trans men, the qualifier didn't in that case. What do you hope to gain nit-picking specific wording like this.

Though I'm sure you'll tell me my unconscious word choice is actually evidence of transphobia according to some nonsense overly broad caricature version that no trans person or trans ally actually uses.

Is this the new way of communicating now, here’s a web sight/ramble from some homophobe/Pomo bullshit theory that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny? Yeah, not sure that’s gonna impress any grown ups in the real world. That’s not even gonna fly in GCSE. I’ll give you a tip OP, if you’re going to post quasi intellectual bollocks, at least try to understand and rationalise the content first. It helps to at least give the impression that you have the faintest clue what you’re on about, otherwise, you know, we’ll just laugh.

Oh, fab, you can see me, OP!

The question about Aoife was the question I cared least about - as quentin said, it was more of a twitter spat than a philosophical parting of the ways, and I couldn't give a marmalade sandwich for it to be honest. How about my other questions, please?

“A masterplan not to dismantle gender as ideology and material affect, but to deny “transition” or self-determination as crimes against the ministry of truth.”

I know it’s tough isn’t it. Similarly I can’t drive without a license, get a buss pass before I am 60, get a blue badge without a qualifying disability, or work as a doctor without the correct qualifications. Objective reality keeps getting in the way.

It’s like when I tell the shop owner that all property is theft and I’m identifying as the owner of the iPhone they just come up with some nonsense about not having paid for the phone and I keep providing essay links but they just won’t read them.

Is the gender critical movement really so self-righteous it sees no need for self-reflection?

Self reflection starts and ends with reflecting on whether we can actually define the words we use. - Germaine Bunburry

RTB has nailed it. The word salad drives all the students who are naturally inclined to critical thinking off into STEM or somewhere, while everybody else is paralysed by the meaning vacuum at the heart of what is being said.

I've seen a similar approach to language taken on government websites for professionals following unpopular 'reforms'. It's designed to paralyse.

I haven't seen any examples of gender-critical self-reflection.

However, it's crucial to understand that, especially this year in the UK, the GC movement has been fighting a massive war against legal self-ID - which is an appalling, outrageous idea (and I say that as someone who unlike many people on this board doesn't have much of an issue with the original GRA). I don't imagine the suffragettes were terribly reflective either.

There is certainly a space for more reflective, wide-ranging discussion of trans issues (and I rather enjoyed Andrea's piece) but it isn't MN, for many reasons.

Though I'm sure you'll tell me my unconscious word choice is actually evidence of transphobia according to some nonsense overly broad caricature version that no trans person or trans ally actually uses.

It's evidence of sexism. 'Cis lesbians' is a phrase heard all the damn time. 'Cis gay man' is so rare a phrase I have to take a moment to think what it means. And I'm fairly fluent.

Self reflection starts and ends with reflecting on whether we can actually define the words we use.

Also correct medical treatment.

my unconscious word choice is actually evidence of transphobia , no I'd say it is vastly more likely to be a result of unacknowledged
and internalised homophobia and misogyny, to be honest. Why would it be transphobic?

hough I'm sure you'll tell me my unconscious word choice is actually evidence of transphobia according to some nonsense overly broad caricature version that no trans person or trans ally actually uses

You dont know me

So dont talk about me like you do

I know this is a difficult concept to get your head around but the concept of what a woman is, isn't set by someone pontificating in lecture theatre 2.

Its about what working class women without an education self define it as too.

This doesn't change because someone thinks they are cleverer and thinks they can intimidate others by sounding important

It must be tough being cleverer than everyone else on the thread. Pearls before swine OP, at least you can say you tried.

I didn't give much thought to the wording.

That is what happens once you abdicate your responsibility to use words as terms with defined meanings. The endgame is Dadaist poetry, I suppose.

Normally i would thank someone for answering a question

Not gonna happen today

Also, there are some excellent threads on non-trans issues currently on FWR - e.g. about niceness and one's inner Beryl (brilliant thread), whether girls and boys learn differently and women giving birth alone in prisons.

no I'd say it is vastly more likely to be a result of unacknowledged
and internalised homophobia and misogyny, to be honest. Why would it be transphobic?

Quite. I thought that was bizarre too.

whether a person is cis or trans. As we were talking about trans lesbians, the qualifier seemed necessary, as we were not talking about gay trans men, the qualifier didn't in that case. What do you hope to gain nit-picking specific wording like this.

nit-picking?

nit-picking?

nit-picking?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANS LESBIAN.

The word 'cis' is meaningless to all but the truly woke, and insulting as fuck when attached to the word 'woman'. I started out as a girl, now I'm a woman, and at no point did I need another word to define my womanhood. I never even had to think about in my life so far, until I encountered this insulting watering down of the word 'woman' to mean "anyone who thinks they're one".

Self reflection is also a very pomo problem-solving approach which is only effective wrt internal problems (i.e. those that relate to ones own feelings / identity). It's no solution to material problems like the physical presence of rapists in women's prisons.

What do you hope to gain nit-picking specific wording like this

I missed this...unfortunately guidelines stop me from saying what i want to

You fucked up your wording, i was curious as to whether it was a mistake or whether you had a reason for it

If you hadnt tried to hide the fact that youd fucked up your wording and said 'oops i meant cis lesbian and cis gay' or ' sorry brain belch' then it wouldn't have gone on for so long

I thought you were good with the words, i thought all the really long words were important to you

Well guess what.....people using the right words in their posts so they can get their message across is important to just about everyone else

Why is 2018 defined by simple concepts being over intellectualism to the point of gobbledegook whilst difficult and complex issues are reduced to one line slogans?

It's farcical.

You're spot on, rufus.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANS LESBIAN.

Indeed there is not.

It's a heterosexual bloke claiming to be something he is not in order to coerce lesbians (who suffer enough fucking oppression without this pile of crap) into having sex with him.