Are feminists getting played?

[Maniak]

It makes me sad that feminists are spending so much time banging on about bathrooms in a world that has women still working for no pay, old women still more likely to be poor, surrogacy, underfunded maternity care, and poor support for carers. And other stuff.

Yes, the trans thing is annoying, but have you noticed how it always fires up before major elections? It's like Afghanistan in the 80s when the US provided just enough weapons to keep the war going so Russia would use all it's energy and get weak.

I feel like feminism is getting distracted with the trans stuff. At most, it should take up 10 percent of our feminist attention. But I rarely see feminism these days that isn't all about trans. Seriously. Do you think we're getting played here? Is trans really such a big deal?

*Men make war. Women want to stop it. How? The only way I can think of is by getting more women into positions of power and influence. I'm not sure how we do that but if we can't define who a woman is how can we even try? If statistics are not sex-based how can we even monitor it?

I know that is a very simplistic explanation but It's where my understanding is at right now.*

You're saying if we don't focus on trans we'll have an even lesser chance of stopping war because we won't be able to get women into power ? That's an interesting theory.

What if we do manage to stop the trans madness and they still refuse to let women into decent positions of power . Stranger things have happened.

Or they let women in, like Thatcher, who don't much like women.

I think a lot of young women are saying the only answer is to stop having babies . Japanese women are already doing this.

Other than that the only other card we have up our sleeves it to completely refuse sex and wifework and to completely separate from men in all social interactions unless the ones that are absolutely necessary for our survival. Feminist separatism I suppose.

I really don't know why women think men are concerned about displacing women. They have always displaced women and will continue to do so whether the trans war is won or not. Like an MRA on mumsnet once said, you can always find a pretext not to hire a woman

Typing it out like this I actually feel sorry for us feminists and I do see why so many women hate feminists and are put off feminism.

The fight is just so futile

At least the trans issue is a fight we can most probably win, so that in itself is a good enough reason to focus on it

So, Sakura, how do we ensure that the category of women as a distinct sex class is sustained if men can declare themselves via law that they are women too?

Other than that the only other card we have up our sleeves it to completely refuse sex and wifework and to completely separate from men in all social interactions unless the ones that are absolutely necessary for our survival. Feminist separatism I suppose.

Don't a lot of radfems already do that? The majority of Love-Island-watching women probably won't want to (I'm already amazed how they put up with these arrogant, misogynistic Essex boy player types).

"Men make war. Women want to stop it. How? The only way I can think of is by getting more women into positions of power and influence. I'm not sure how we do that but if we can't define who a woman is how can we even try? If statistics are not sex-based how can we even monitor it?"

This is a really good question. I've been wondering too what would happen if trans goes mainstream and people being men or women has nothing to do with their biological sex. I think the first consequence would be that gender becomes meaningless - or only meaningful to the extent that categories like "nerd" or "hippie" are meaningful. But still there would be the major biological difference between men and women. Specifically, only half the population could give birth still, and that half would still need fair representation in government. Necessity would force a means for describing that category. So that's why I'm not all that fussed. I like the words women and mother, but fair representation is more important, and I can use whatever word.

I can see how trans women might skew the quota stats etc, but let's be honest, the typical rugby watching, old Etonian type isn't going to want to give much favour to a transwoman as many men are still very bigoted towards them (men like to favour those they see as their proteges etc, hence the continuation of patriarchal structures).

I've been wondering too what would happen if trans goes mainstream and people being men or women has nothing to do with their biological sex. I think the first consequence would be that gender becomes meaningless - or only meaningful to the extent that categories like "nerd" or "hippie" are meaningful. But still there would be the major biological difference between men and women. Specifically, only half the population could give birth still, and that half would still need fair representation in government. Necessity would force a means for describing that category. So that's why I'm not all that fussed. I like the words women and mother, but fair representation is more important, and I can use whatever word.

Gender is a hierarchy of power, is it not? Men, regardless of how they present themselves, assume and express dominance because that is what patriarchy teaches them.

think the first consequence would be that gender becomes meaningless

It won't. Men don't buy into this gender stuff. Many men see transwomen as essentially being 'fags' (not my opinion btw, but what I hear working in a blue collar male dominated sector. I even get the piss taken out if me for wearing a brightly coloured t-shirt - "borrow that off the missus, did you?").

The fact that a GC feminist doesn't understand how terrorism, war and conflict can be discussed from a feminist perspective really saddens me

I came to where I am now precisely because of terrorism and this led me to having an interest in war (you should see my collection of books on the subject).

That led me to my degree. Which looked at propaganda and everyday use of it as well as its use in war. And the toxic masculinity within that.

When that has clashed with my understanding of issues relating to childbirth and medicine that's how I ended up with the thinking I have

I have a particular fascination for war journalism and was history, not because I want to know the order of battle etc etc but because of the humanity that has come out of it (which leads me to the very concept of rights) and how people cope with the reality of daily ordinary life in war.

I think there is a huge amount of this that comes from the fact I look at it all from the angle of being a woman and a more pacifist angle (though I wouldn't class myself as a pacifist).

So yeah erm. I kind of apply all this to how I think about everything. Not just feminist issues but political thinking in general.

shrugs

Just because you don't explicitly mention war, I don't think it means you aren't in effect talking about the subject.

I think the notion of what war is has changed fundamentally anyway. The head of GCHQ said recently that we are at war atm in terms of it being a technological war. 'Bombing shit' isn't the only facet of war.

Then you have the entire gun lobby in the US, and how gun ownership is related to domestic violence. Is that part of the current culture war? Is that part of the influence of social media interference across international barriers and the rise in nationalism? Is Russia actively trying to stoke this with troll farms? Are we under cyber attacks from various other nation States?

My point here is these things are indivisible from each other, especially when the meaning of words and language are currently under a huge attack to corrupt them.

Feminism is a liberalist concept and this is under threat from both within and without.

I don't think that when you are talking about trans issues, that you aren't talking about war even if you don't realise it.

mumbles and shrugs

It's all the same to me.

So, Sakura, how do we ensure that the category of women as a distinct sex class is sustained if men can declare themselves via law that they are women too?

Women will always be a distinct and separate sex class. Our biological reality is what makes that so.

What men are thrilled about with the trans activism, is that they no longer have to bother humoring the women. That's why men in politics are all in full support of it, even if everyone knows transwomen are just fags, like Lord points out.

So you want to make men see. But why? They already know! And they're just playing us.

"Gender is a hierarchy of power, is it not? Men, regardless of how they present themselves, assume and express dominance because that is what patriarchy teaches them."

Yes, teaches and allows them.

But still there would be the major biological difference between men and women. Specifically, only half the population could give birth still, and that half would still need fair representation in government. Necessity would force a means for describing that category. So that's why I'm not all that fussed. I like the words women and mother, but fair representation is more important, and I can use whatever word.

Changing the current labels does not affect the hierarchy of the power relationship though, does it?

Yes, teaches and allows them.

I think it is more a question of teaches and demands of them, since this is the means by which patriarchy sustains itself. The power and hence privilege that patriarchy invests in men is essential to the survival of patriarchy. At every possible intersection, men are dominant and women are forced into subordination.

If you want to have your minds blown further, the list of female sex offenders included both men identifying as women AND women identifying as fucking men. Our category got hit twice by the stats!

Anyway, on the subject of representation, we won't get it. The ScotGov consultation on equal representation right now proposes 50% gender equality for anyone with a feminine sounding name on their gas bill - with no requirement to even produce the gas bill. The "blue collar" types might not be buying it, but the men who fill the board rooms are falling over themselves to give their very own Pippa Bunce "woman of the year" awards. Even if only a few TW make it onto each board, overall representation of women will probably end up stuck at 40:60 in favour of men. And unlike now we won't even be able to campaign to improve it as the powers that be will insist it is 50:50.

And it gets even worse when you scale up to something important like peace initiatives. I can just imagine everyone scratching their heads trying to figure out why a TW lead peace initiative produced the same results as the male lead ones. Oh well, I guess there's no benefit to putting women in these positions afer all

Men, regardless of how they present themselves, assume and express dominance because that is what patriarchy teaches them."

Or they could be born like that.
Or it could be a mixture of both (what I think).

Women will always be a distinct and separate sex class. Our biological reality is what makes that so.

Transgenderist ideology wants biological sex erased from law to be replaced with the nebulous notion of gender identity. The USA Equality Act that is proposed does exactly this. The sex classes will cease to exist in law. What then?

Specifically, only half the population could give birth still, and that half would still need fair representation in government. Necessity would force a means for describing that category. So that's why I'm not all that fussed.

Hundreds of years of history and the status quo in many countries make it clear that there is no need to recognise that women have the right to be represented in government.

You don't even need to make specific laws that deny women the chance to vote. All you need to do is take away access to birth control (perhaps by privatising health care and restricting access to medical care) and you restrict women's ability to be politically active.

You cannot protect the rights of people you can't define.

Or they could be born like that. Or it could be a mixture of both (what I think).

My belief is that behaviour that dominates and subordinates others is learned.

"Changing the current labels does not affect the hierarchy of the power relationship though, does it?"

It might. In my field, a late transitioning trans woman has taken it upon herself to be the spokesperson for women. She does this by being very vulnerable about her feelings, complaining a lot about men, posting lots of selfies, and talking about her hair. Because that's what middle aged career women do I suppose. Soo she's a woman and we may not question it, but of course the treatment she gets is nothing like a real woman would get if they ever behaved like that. So I feel like she's colonizing all the stereotypes. If enough trans women do that, those stereotypes will stick to them and no longer be associated with actual women. So our associations to sex differences will shift. I'm not sure what effect that will have on power differences, maybe something though.

The other difference will be when we recategorize based on biological sex, I'm not sure if it will be exactly the same because it's always been sex and gender together, so maybe it will be different. Like for example asexual people and people who don't want kids wouldn't necessarily need to join a reproduction-based biological category (? or maybe they would? I have trouble imagining the consequences). But my fantasy is that by finally centering motherhood in feminism. Or going back to centering it (it was centered in 19th century feminism I was reading recently) we will be stronger anyway. Or not. Not sure.

You cannot protect the rights of people you can't define.

I just think we have bigger problems than this. For example I don't think many women know that their husband is more likely to kill them than a random. Only feminists know this.
Women and girls also don't seem to know just how many women are murdered by husbands and boyfriends, it's just not common knowledge

So we need consciousness raising so girls don't pair bond with men, that sort of thing. Or if they do, they go in with open eyes.

And this is where I think you're giving the trans lobby more power than it has. We women on here know we're women. Everybody, in fact, knows who is who and what is what. Like the OP says, semantics actually isn't going to define women out of existence

My belief is that behaviour that dominates and subordinates others is learned.

I think male behavior (violence, penchant for war) is partly learned, partly biological .

I think female behavior ( submissiveness) is unnatural and is the result of male violence. I think women's desire to be with their babies in the early years is natural, not social conditioning

Necessity would force a means for describing that category.

They won't. They'll just pretend we don't exist. See the recent Green Party motion on making misogyny a hate crime. Thanks to a TRA campaign to "not reduce women to their biology" the motion was never even discussed. No one could come up with a definition of "woman" that included TW but excluded other men and TM (because their isn't one) so the whole motion was just dropped.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3608096-Green-Party-Conference-evicts-gender-critical-woman

It's fine to talk about "pregnant people" when you're specifically writing abortion legislation, but when you need to stop referring to us as body parts and write laws that effect us as a class (and thus actually address women's oppression at a class level) you can't do it. Which is the whole fucking point, isn't it. Once feminists recognised that our oppression was based in biology and needed addressing at class level, we started making progress. Now we have a staggeringly popular belief system that in one fell swoop makes it both impossible to acknowledge female biology as relevant to the female experience and makes it impossible to legislate in our favour at a class level. Pretty fucking clever I'd say.

It might. In my field, a late transitioning trans woman has taken it upon herself to be the spokesperson for women. She does this by being very vulnerable about her feelings, complaining a lot about men, posting lots of selfies, and talking about her hair. Because that's what middle aged career women do I suppose. Soo she's a woman and we may not question it, but of course the treatment she gets is nothing like a real woman would get if they ever behaved like that. So I feel like she's colonizing all the stereotypes. If enough trans women do that, those stereotypes will stick to them and no longer be associated with actual women. So our associations to sex differences will shift. I'm not sure what effect that will have on power differences, maybe something though.

It seems you may not know much about AGP men. I recommend you read the two Trans Widows threads in Mumsnet.

Pretty fucking clever I'd say.

I'll give them that. And I hope feminists who are lobbying against trans realize that all men are in on it. Yes including their Nigels. Trans is a men's rights movement.