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)?

Defined meanings of words are the very basis of Language and consequently any meaningful discourse. And the TWAW crazies can‘t define ‚woman‘.

Honey, you do understand that as long as you can‘t define the words you use, all you do is blabber and there is no point discussing with you, because you can‘t really know what you are actually saying, yes?

Trans woman v transwomen is a distinction you only make when communicating via text, when you say them aloud both come out as the same thing.

I don't use either OP. I consciously stopped doing this because I know how important controlling the language is to controlling the narrative.

OP can you link us to your other research into online spaces...No, but I’ve already posted a links to someone else's

But you said YOU were interested, so surely this isn't YOUR first foray into the analysis?

Take the menstruaters controversy. The words is a bit clunky, I agree, but from a certain perspective it’s also less euphemistic than a lot of the more standardised language on the subject What saying 'women'? Give over.

So my view is that fears of the erasure of women in language is overblown What is the definition of women you are using here?

I'm not sure why you keep posting Contrapoints videos. You're clearly very impressed with them, but I'll pass.

Yeah, merrymouse, I've always wanted to hear about the limits that avoiding made-up pomo terms places on STEM scholarship.

'Oh, demanding that words have meanings is so limiting!'

Take the menstruaters controversy. The words is a bit clunky, I agree, but from a certain perspective it’s also less euphemistic than a lot of the more standardised language on the subject.

Why do we need euphemisms for women not men?

So my view is that fears of the erasure of women in language is overblown

Again, why do we need euphemisms for women but not men? Why is it only happening to female words?

In your middle class opinion that is.

Euphemisms like 'cervix haver' have implications for less educated women or women who don't speak much English. Health care providers have spent years (and lots of money) simplifying the language in health care communications such as leaflets, to make them have as wide as accessibility as possible for health care reasons and for reasons of consent.

This is being undone, by a bunch of people with privilege who are offended by the word 'woman'. Often for health conditions they couldn’t possibly have because they own / owned a cock. Or because they couldn't possibly handle being reminded that they don't, even if their life depends on it.

It's not simply a blanket erase of women, but also the marginalisation and exclusion of certain particularly vulnerable groups of women that language creates. Women who should be the priority over someone who is being sensitive of words rather than someone who can't understand certain words.

Your lack of understanding of the power of words and your privilege over the control and use of words is glaring.

And once again I shall add, why is this targeted and centred on female words only?

Why is it women shouldn't be able to describe themselves with the language they want to use? Why are they not allowed to self identify on their own terms?

You don't have the authority to dictate what words women can and can not use. Your opinion only goes as far as that. An opinion in which women can tell you to fuck off with to the far side of beyond.

What is the definition of women you are using here?

Please. We all know OP can't define 'woman' in any way. The 'cis' gave it away.

It's Orwellian bullshit.

How many fingers am I holding up?

One.
The middle one.

Red 🍷

From the Andrea Long Chu interview NicolaHare:

"Today lesbian is kind of almost an anachronistic term because everyone is, like, queer. Lesbian sounds sort of old fashioned, and kind of dowdy… like you’re middle aged and you hike a lot—that kind of thing."

I'm not really sure what to make of your link to the essay - are you trolling? You think the essay is good?

You’ve had a nice run in the enclave of the universities. Good luck with the rest of the world. I think I can safely say that rising inequality and continued deteriorating economic conditions for the vast majority spells postmodernism’s demise and a return to politics based in material reality.

This. And if we could hurry up about it and avoid the otherwise inevitable far right backlash, I would be most grateful.

So my view is that fears of the erasure of women in language is overblown.

Well, bully for you. I disagree with you entirely.

But if we grant them, surely we must give weight to concerns surrounding the limits Mumsnet has place on terminology used by and about trans people, which absolutely stifle discussions of contemporary writing, scholarship and medical documentation on the subject. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Could you expand on this, please. What limits has MN placed on terminology and how does that stifle discussions in the areas you listed?

People on this very thread have told you why they feel the word "queer" is offensive and inane and excludes them as lesbians while allowing straight people to appropriate LGB culture, OP.

I think she means they're oppressed by not being able to label women as the c word and the t word.

Love it that the OP came back and told us off for not doing the reading homework they'd left for us to do.

Here's the thing, OP - we've all read more words on this subject than we care to mention and we're not being instructed by people who think calling us fucking "menstruaters" is acceptable lest it hurt some blokes' feelings.

“clunky”??

Wow.

Do you have any idea how tone deaf that comment is, OP?

She! Sorry OP I assumed your gender. You could quite easily be "any gender".

I'm not really sure what to make of your link to the essay - are you trolling? You think the essay is good?

Andrea is a provocateur. I think she talks as much shit for every good point she makes. I brought her up because she's the kind of trans viewpoint I haven't seen engaged with much on this forum.

"Today lesbian is kind of almost an anachronistic term because everyone is, like, queer. Lesbian sounds sort of old fashioned, and kind of dowdy… like you’re middle aged and you hike a lot—that kind of thing."

Oh look, more homophobia. It gets everywhere doesn't it?

I think I can safely say that rising inequality and continued deteriorating economic conditions for the vast majority spells postmodernism’s demise and a return to politics based in material reality.

And all this drama, including a generation of academics lost to pointless bullshit studies, just because a couple of dudes wanted to fuck kids and tried to justify it using some fancy sophistry.

Oh I forgot to rant about the process of dehumanisation and how that has political effect on the status of women compared to men too.

Dehumanisation of groups in society via language has a rather crappy history. It involves lots of justifying of deaths. Often in the name of dubious progress.

Not that the OP gives a fuck about any woman's opinion. Cos they are just stupid mothers whose brains fell out when they gave birth.

Homophobic AND ageist, empress!

We were only missing a bit of ableism and we’d have had the holy trinity of thoughtless prejudice that seems to be standard issue for a trans activist.

I brought her up because she's the kind of trans viewpoint I haven't seen engaged with much on this forum.

Oh gosh, the feminist chat didn't center the male view point. How could we allow this to happen?!? I can already see the thread going down the 'Foucault was the first feminist' road.

I think she talks as much shit for every good point she makes

You have time to wade through excrement looking for a single point you like?

Wow.

Why not use language effectively to communicate good ideas? Rather than word salad and bombarding an unrefined brain fart.