The contexts in which we are allowed to talk about men and women and the contexts we're not

[Doyoumind]

I know this has been covered before but Twitter has got me angry.

So many services and organisations seem to have given in and use, for example, 'pregnant people', 'people who menstruate' so as not to offend the tiny proportion of trans men or non binaries who might become pregnant, whilst offending a huge number of women. There has been a push for this denial of biology from activists, as we know.

And yet, why aren't the manufacturers and retailers being told not to categorise clothes, jewellery, skincare and even magazines by what is 'for women' and 'for men'? They are nonsense categories anyway as anyone should be able to wear what they want. I don't think we should lose this categorisation, by the way. As it stands, does make it easier for most people to find what they want but these are constructed and subjective categories, which we are allowed to acknowledge, whilst we can't acknowledge immutable biological categories. The ideologists can't get rid of these categories because they need them. I wish the allies would think about this sensibly and see how regressive it all is.

Stuff that is immutable ie sex is not to be mentioned. The TRAs don’t want us to remember that only females have periods etc so there is blurring around this and an attempt to change language. Resist this at all costs.
Stuff that can be identified into (gender eg clothing, toys etc) is celebrated because it is validating. TRAs/AGPs are happy this stuff exists because without it they would be fucked.

And yet we do need some of the categorisation. It's not all driven by sex-stereotypes. For example, I do need clothes to be organised by sex in shops - in order to find garments designed to fit my female body. Not in order to find gender-affirming garments.

I believe I can help:
References to the specific 3.8 billion humans who belong to the category: born with ovaries/denied the vote/child brides/genitally mutilated/sex trafficked/reproductively legislated/ underrepresented in power/ die in childbearing/underpaid in workplace/at greater risk of being raped/suffer gynaecological diseases etc?
References to those people as a group are forbidden.

References to "women" are allowable, encouraged even, if they refer to makeup, heels, porn and of course, penises.

The rules are quite simple.
Never give the impression that half of humanity exists as the oppressed sex, certainly never speak of this group as if they matter.

In every available circumstance, make discussion of what a woman is serve the needs of the penis.

Applauds Barracker

Applauds all the above posts.
Between you I think that pretty much covers everything relevant to the OP.

Its the cognitive dissonance that throws me

Poor Rowan is on another thread about the Femicide Census, pleading to please can we all support ending violence against women without mentioning the sex/gender/oh God half the HQ staff are hiding under the table we hate this so much/ please for the love of Mike don't bring that up issue.

The answer is no, it's not possible when the whole fundamental roots of what that issue stands on is under attack. It's not possible to nicely talk about women's issues and pretend that isn't happening, and keep fighting for women's rights as a dirty little secret on the side, confined to the FWR board and fraught with endless harassment. With a passing mention of how very much harassment and heat HQ have received for not allowing people to call women here 'cis'. Which says it all really.

But no. I can't play nicely about some women's issues and ignore others as if everything is fine. It isn't. I know it's not appreciated to mention it; good girls pretend this stuff doesn't matter and isn't happening anyway.

Every day it is hammered home to me how the tyranny of “be nice” and female socialisation in general must be fought hard

I will be kind when men start forcing other men to be kind. Off on a tangent here but I thought the same on the femicide post...

Perhaps we could replace 'Be Kind' with

'That which is hateful to you, do not do to others.'

?

Michelle it's crazy isnt it! The statement from Nia posted in that thread by @MNHQ talks about the importance of using the correct language to put the blame for violence where it belongs, and recognising a wider pattern of sex based discrimination.

But you cant actually point out what a woman actually is without risking deletion or a ban.

I have thoughts about #BeKind.

I am much more taken with #BeFair

And given that women seem to be consistently forced to play with loaded dice, I think fairness includes rather a lot of pushback from us to level the playing field before I will even consider my 'kindness' as a paramount virtue in the face of men having significant advantage over women.

Be fair is better.

I try to practise kindness (I think it's in actions, rather than a state of being), but I wouldn't be pushing other people to do it, or telling them how to - apart from anything else it seems an imposition of my own moral code on others.

Femi I did point out on that thread that it was expecting women to behave rather like that Carry On film where they're having a very polite and gracious dinner party under heavy fire from outside, and pretending nothing is happening while walls get blown in, bombs drop and they're picking bits of ceiling out of their hair and the soup.

But I felt too sorry for Rowan and asked them to delete it.

Arhg that thread..... just pointing out here, quietly, I have no patience whatever for MNetters who are 'bored to death' with a debate that is about fighting to retain their rights as females. The luxury of being bored to death with that...….

Not to mention the cognitive dissonance of wanting women to talk about the Nia campaign and its issues while at the same time expecting those women to be bored to death with the lost legal definition of what women and men even are. Cognitive dissonance in the extreme.

So we can only speak truthfully about specific instances of male violence against women and girls once a conviction has taken place

Karen Ingala Smith is on for a webchat soon. Apparently we'll be able to ask her questions...

Not to mention the cognitive dissonance of wanting women to talk about the Nia campaign and its issueswhile at the same timeexpecting those women to be bored to death with the lost legal definition of what women and men even are

Yeah, I'm going to stop trying to point out the hypocrisy in posting a statement that contains a paragraph on the need for correct language to be used when talking about VaWG, and the censorship we face when using the correct language to talk about VaWG. I may as well bang my head against a brick wall

For some light relief...though obviously not for the poor victim.

The Mail tying itself into knots over pronouns and male/female anatomy. Mail reader comments can either be a guilty pleasure, or quite frightening. These, reflecting the linguistic confusion, are funny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8042679/Two-Harley-Street-doctors-suspended-vagina-removal.html

That article. I can't see a doctor mistakenly removing a penis and only getting some sort of short suspension rather than getting struck off. That poor patient. But why was a penis specialist even performing surgery on a uterus and vagina? All kinds of wrong, never mind the pronouns.

Yes, it’s very odd. And as you say, wrong on so many levels, that it is difficult to unpick.