Women's Hour features interviews with Professor Alex Sharpe and Professor Rosa Freedman as part of 'Sex & Gender' series **Thread title edited at OP's request**

[kesstrel]

The topic is "The law on sex and gender".

Alex says cis-sexual means you are content with your sex and cis-gender means you are content with the gender expectations associated with your sex.

So if I live in Afghanistan and am unhappy that I can't go to school because I am female, which category do I fit?

One that doesn’t countenance that gender expectations are harmful, preventing you from naming and fighting the problem!

both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women.

Very good point.

So can one be transsexual but cisgender?

Just to say KnickKnack, I in no way meant to imply that women who do capitulate to all this for the headpats shouldn't be judged for their choices. I know that where I used to be, as a vocal anti-feminist, there were powerful incentives to conform and I know how hard it was to break through that. I was entirely wrong, and I offer no excuses for it - I should certainly be judged harshly for some of the things I said at that time, which is why I went back and deleted/disavowed it when I saw what a prat I had been.

I guess my post was more of a cookie crumb trail for women who tread the path I did so they know that there is a way out of that mindset. It certainly wasn't a plea for a get out of judgement pass, and I share your anger.

And if I was transsexual but cisgender, would I be a man or a woman?

According to the batshit logic I mean

Debbie Hayton was called cis on twitter the other day when they explained that they knew they weren't actually a woman in their body. I don't really know how to follow trails on twitter so I doubt I could find it again easily, but it was a response from a transactivist who was angry with Debbie for straying off message.

I don't know whether that meant cissexual or distended, though.

Distended = cisgender.

My autocorrect isn't quite up to speed

According to Alex's theory, both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women.

Wait a minute. That can't be right. If we apply some logic to this, if TW who like their penises are women, then GC feminists would have to be men, even though we don't identify as trans.

But since GC feminists are women and identify as women, then TW who like their penises are men.

Or is Alex suggesting that if you are cis-sexual but not cis-gender you can choose whether to identify as male or female?

Who does this language benefit?

FloralBunting I just read your post on another thread and think its relevent here too. Hope you won't mind me quoting you:

"Important to remember how language is used by cultists. It's not meant to make things clearer. In fact, the only thing it is meant to communicate is who is in, and who is not.

The different labels that collected like Pokemon by adherents of Genderism aren't really meant to tell you anything definable about the adherent. It's meant to keep you off balance so that you either capitulate or be marked clearly as an outsider who needs to be worked on more, or labelled as a heretic."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3435531-Another-pregnant-man-and-the-LGBs-having-none-of-it-see-comments?msgid=82932873#82932873

Or is Alex suggesting that if you are cis-sexual but not cis-gender you can choose whether to identify as male or female?

Yes, I think Alex and others are suggesting via trans, non-binary, cis ness etc that some people can choose.

#project 'Smash the Binary!'

Yes, I think Alex and others are suggesting via trans, non-binary, cis ness etc that some people can choose.

Only some people, or everyone? Who decides who gets to choose?

It doesn't really matter how many though. Once the binary is smashed, sex based descriptions, spaces , policies etc are all mixed sex.

both GC feminists and TW who like their penises are cis-sexual but not cis-gender and are women

I agree that this is a highly unwelcome change of tack.

Who does this language benefit?

Those non-female cissexual women.

I agree that this is a highly unwelcome change of tack.

They will never stop pushing. Nothing is ever going to be enough.

They will never stop pushing. Nothing is ever going to be enough.

Yes. That's something the establishment need to get their heads around. The people leading this movement often demonstrate they are not looking for specific goals to meet specific needs; much of it is driven by the need for conflict, for control, to have emotional needs met, to not have to take responsibility for themselves, their behaviour or to recognise other people's needs, and the whole anarchist thing of smash the norms and other people's sense of stability and security. There's a lot of angry toddler type expression of wanting to create the chaos and feelings in others that are in themselves, and reality/goals are frequently driven by the emotion of the moment with only a passing relationship with reality, truth and facts.

Even the more sane members of the movement such as SW are demonstrating some highly emotional agendas and pathology in their thinking, which is why the movement focuses on removing rights from and colonising/hostile taking over and rebranding women rather than a proud identity of its own alongside.

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life' because it's the conflict and fighting and demanding and ranting that is in itself meeting needs.

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life'

Another reason this isnt like the gay rights movement.

There will never be a point of 'we have everything we want, it's done, lets go back to normal life' because it's the conflict and fighting and demanding and ranting that is in itself meeting needs.

I've seen TRAs actually admit this. "When I'm feeling down, I want to go and argue with some TFs".

Brilliant post knicknack

Dr. Jane Clare Jones
‏*@janeclarejones*
OKAY PEOPLES. IMPORTANT THING. PLEASE RT.

We need to raise some support for Woman's Hour for their recent coverage. Can you please send an email with your thoughts, especially the good work they are doing to address the previous imbalance in the debate, and to rectify the >
reputational damage they were suffering from for not giving space to women to express their concerns.

[email protected]

Jane Clare Jones (aka @LadyPrincesexual ) is asking people to contact Woman's Hour to support them

We need to raise some support for Woman's Hour for their recent coverage. Can you please send an email with your thoughts, especially the good work they are doing to address the previous imbalance in the debate, and to rectify the > reputational damage they were suffering from for not giving space to women to express their concerns. [She gives the email address]

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1068120084168744960

Had already emailed them last week. Have happily done so again.

Thank you arran. And thanks to all you amazing women for everything you do here...

To veer slightly off topic here, I just want to say how much respect I have for the intelligence and research and passion you have all brought to this. I'm not a mother myself (because I'm the kind of philosopher who can't get out of my dressing gown and frequently forget to feed myself), but a lot of my philosophical work is about the importance of the figure of the mother, and the erasure of that figure in Western thought, and about the practices of care, and what it should teach us about ethics, and how we should relate to each other, and politics. When our opponents wheel out the old misogynist denigration of mothers and mothering in relations to what you do here, it in some way confirms everything about why I am opposing them. Because people who have no respect for people who make other people with their bodies and their love should not be in charge of anything, and if we ran the world using what Care Ethics calls 'maternal thinking', the world would be a damn sight less messed-upped place.

The point upthread about what is going on with the TRAs emotionally is bang frickin on. The are incapable of recognising other people's needs, they are incapable of negotiating the boundary between themselves and others. It is sheer utter narcissism of the kind that would not be tolerated in a 5 year old, for good reason. Because no human being was ever ultimately helped by not learning how to recognise the existence and needs of other people (everything, including 'denying our right to exist' is pure projection) - as all good mothers know.

Respect and solidarity to you all sisters xx

princess