Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Peak TERF

170 replies

MiraWard77 · 14/06/2020 11:31

Like many women I've been through a 'peak trans' moment sometime in the last few years.

We hear a lot about online radicalisation. I've heard GC feminism described as "a cult" and have wondered if I've been radicalised as much as the ROGD teens have been.

So if people have been radicalised to a 'peak trans' point, can the reverse happen?

Has anyone started off from a fully informed gender critical point and instead reached 'peak TERF' and embraced the flags and TWAW etc?

If the TRA narrative is valid, 'peak TERF' should be happening at an equal rate as 'peak trans'? Right?

Or does it depend on which "cult" you fall in to first as to which path you follow in learning about the whole field?

OP posts:
MiraWard77 · 14/06/2020 12:19

🤦‍♀️ dyspeptic should be dysphoria obviously. Maybe Apple are transphobic? 🤔

OP posts:
DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 14/06/2020 12:20

And it has the potential to create a peak moment.

Sure, but not a peak terf moment because it’s not teRadicalFeminist.

Miriel · 14/06/2020 12:21

Do you think there's anything that would convince you to agree with TRAs and self-ID etc?

No. I don't think this shows some kind of lack of critical thinking. It's because at the very heart of the debate is the question 'what is a woman'? There's the GC argument, based in material reality, that a woman is an adult human female. Then there's the TRA argument, that it's some sort of essence or internal feeling, which some male-bodied people have.

I don't believe in souls, so the 'born in the wrong body' argument doesn't hold up. I myself don't have some kind of womanly gender identity - I've experienced gender as oppressive and limiting - so to accept the TRA position would be to say that I am not a woman. I do think that if I were 14 years old right now, I might be swayed by that argument. I'd think that I was somehow wrong and unwomanly, instead of realising that the stereotypes were wrong and women can have any personality traits and any interests.

The most persuasive argument is probably the one that we know transwomen aren't women, but we shouldn't mention it because being kind is more important than being truthful. I want to be kind, especially to people genuinely suffering with dysphoria. But this standpoint isn't good enough for the TRAs any longer. They demand that we literally believe it all - and that shift in the narrative proves to me that ultimately, kindness can't be valued over truth.

MiraWard77 · 14/06/2020 12:26

If women are expected to share their spaces and give up their definitions to transwomen, why are men not expected to do the same?

As far as I'm aware most women are happy for transmen to share women's spaces/definitions? Correct me if I'm wrong. Thus it not being 'trans' that is the issue.

OP posts:
MiraWard77 · 14/06/2020 12:33

@Miriel " I do think that if I were 14 years old right now, I might be swayed by that argument."

I am acutely aware that were this happening when I was a teen I would definitely identify as trans. In fact, much of the nebulous definitions fit me now. Certainly that definition of gender dysphoria does.

However I have the advantage of a youth without the internet and some life experience to know that the problem is external.

So, we're agreed so far that it would be difficult to go from being gender critical to blind support of the trans narrative.

So why are the critical thinkers and experienced humans in positions of power apparently unable to follow the logic? Is it because of structural and internalised misogyny that women are expected to put up and shut up? That if it doesn't impact the men in charge the women should just (as a PP said) be kind and quietly give over their spaces?

And any strong women in a position of power is acutely aware that she only holds that position because of the grace and favour of the patriarchy and therefore can't dissent and must continue to play the part of a Good Woman?

OP posts:
123th · 14/06/2020 12:34

Think I've hit peak activism if that's a thing. Starting to not give a shit about anything at all other than Gin Wink

Ninkanink · 14/06/2020 12:38

@BobbieDraper

Nothing will change my mind about allowing pre-op trans women into female only spaces. However, I'm not longer sure about the blanket "no transwomen in female only spaces". Once they've had surgery, they are at risk of the same sexual assault that biological women are. But how do you police that? There isnt anyway for them to prove they should be allowed (without having all their dignity taken away).

Its confusing and nuanced. Transwomen who generally look feminine and dress like it wouldn't be safe in male spaces. But women shouldn't lose their space to make up for that.

But trans people dont seem to want a separate gender neutral space; they want our space. That's my main problem; they can be given their own space but they want to remove ours.

Even things like "chest feeder" and "menstruator". Why cant organisations say "breast feeders and chest feeders" and "woman and menstruators".
If we must be inclusive of trans, then why does that follow that we must exclude biological women. Why cant we use both acceptable terms to include everyone?
But trans people dont seem happy with that. They want to erase any words which elude to a separate biological womanhood.

Why cant be include both? I really dont understand.

Addressing the first paragraph.

Even if there was a way for that individual to prove that they should be allowed without having all their dignity taken away, they still should not be eligible to enter women’s spaces. Men are men, and will always be men with male bodies. Women will always be women, with female bodies.

I’m reposting here a selection of my comments on the issue from various threads over the past few days:

Firstly Flowers to you and the person you care about [transgender individual]. You’re speaking from a very personal perspective with a weighty emotional burden on behalf of your loved one and of course that will inform the words you use and the arguments you make for your position. I am speaking from my lived experiences and the weighty emotional burden of generations of women who have gone before and will come after, including my mother, myself and my daughters. My very personal perspective is no less powerful a motivation, nor any less valid, than yours. And sadly, there will always be some tension between the two positions, and between the rights of various groups and individuals existing within them. That is how rights and protections work: It is a balancing act.

I obviously do not agree with nor endorse any of those threatening, violent and abusive actions. I can’t comment on the specifics of each case because I wasn’t there and don’t know the context, and I wouldn’t wish to pronounce on something that isn’t in my direct experience. I also can’t make any in depth comment on the overall factors that might have played into it because I don’t know the sex or the chosen gender of that person, which does also have some bearing on where I would go in the broader discussion. But let me just say straight out that of course no one should face abuse or violence or intimidation simply by virtue of how they choose to present.

Secondly, going back to the original discussion, women as a class come at life, from each individual experience right up to their cumulative life experience, from an extremely precarious position, far more dangerous to them than that of men as a class, and for that reason if they feel it necessary to protect their own interests with firm, angry, challenging voices and actions, that must always be okay. Whether that is in higher level discussion, or right down in the grassroots of life, where, yes, those words and actions might potentially be hurtful to individuals.

I’m sure you understand that there are many cases where it is right and valid for women and girls to be able to challenge who is in their space and why they are there. I’m sure that might painful for those who mean no harm. But women have a right to be safe. And since women are by far the most vulnerable class which is most often subjected to violence and rape, I will always argue for their right to be vocal and open about perceived threat, with an absolute right to challenge it.

No one has claimed that no individual women are ever abusive, violent or otherwise, that is clearly a ridiculous thing to say. [Instances are vanishingly rare, and not in any way comparable to instances of nor degree of violence or abuse by males] But as we are having this discussion on feminist issues here and the class of men vs. the class of women in this specific arena it absolutely is not right to make the assertion you did. I do not appreciate my position in this discussion being likened to, and in fact straight out stated to be the literal and moral equivalent of the violent, abusive and dangerous agenda which I am against and which I challenge on behalf of women and vulnerable people of both sexes and gender identities on a daily basis. It is extremely offensive to the women here, who are not the women who said and did those things. Do not set me up as being for something which I am not in any way supportive of nor in any way implicated in simply by virtue of being a woman who is a feminist. We are not a hive mind, we do not all automatically stand together.

Again, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I always come into this discussion with the utmost compassion for anyone who is on the other side who is legitimately suffering. That pain absolutely is acknowledged.
But I must address the comment you’ve made above as sensitively as possible, whilst still trying to be succinct.

They simply cannot expect, and should not expect, for many wholly valid reasons, access to existing sex segregated spaces. There is a very good reason (many, in fact) that we must be allowed to preserve our status as biologically female based on biological fact, and our hard-won safe spaces that women fought and died for, and all associated legal rights and protections. Regardless of how painful it is, and how difficult it is to accept that fact when you genuinely mean no harm, that is how it has to stay.

That does not in any way take away from their own rights to safe spaces, acceptance as individuals and protection from harm. Nor their own need for tailored help and support.

Transgender individuals’ rights to peacefully exist without fear of harm are just as important as women’s (and in fact all humans’) rights to those things, but they cannot be gained by appropriating women’s spaces.

Let’s also address the elephant in the room, because sadly, it needs to be said...

‘Your average transgender individual’ is no longer your average transgender individual. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the vast majority are necessarily of the type that just wants to exist peacefully and go about their own business.

There is hatred and vitriol overwhelmingly from one side of this ‘debate’ here (hint: it’s not actually a debate). Please don’t try to claim that there is any kind of equivalence, because there isn’t. If you can’t see that you need to do a lot more reading. If any of you who are new to this discussion want to know what current trans ideology looks like, perhaps read up on what behaviours apparently fall under this umbrella.

There is a reason why women are having to push back so forcefully on this.

Women did not cause this. Women are not to blame for this.

It’s not about those men who aren’t being ‘arseholes’ as you put it (I would say who aren’t predatory, rapists, killers). It never is.

Tens of thousands of women and girls in this country are harmed in some way by men every year. Millions and millions throughout the world. Those men should not be allowed into women’s spaces, regardless of how they identify, what they feel like, what they want, how they look or choose to dress, or what title they have thought of to describe themselves, or misappropriated.

As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Even if there was a way to sort and define and establish that all the relevant men were good, decent, kind men, they still should not be allowed to enter women’s spaces, because a male presence, however benign, is very directly harmful to a certain number of women. A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.

It makes no difference what the individual thinks or feels or wishes to be true.

It does not make it true. It does not negate biological fact, nor material reality.

It does not matter how they dress, what they look like, whether they have taken hormones, had surgery (very few do, in fact) or whatever else the case may be.

Sex matters. Biology matters.

Women do NOT have to have suffered sexual abuse, predatory behaviour, violence, rape or in fact any harm at all, in order to be entitled to protection from potentially suffering those things. It is enough to say no, I am not okay with this. I do not consent. My daughters do not consent. My sisters, my mother, my friends, women I don’t know and will never meet, do not consent. NO.

Women do not want men in their spaces.

The vast majority of men do not want to be in women’s spaces.

That does not take away from the rights of transgender individuals. They have every right to live peacefully without fear from harm. But they cannot gain that end by appropriating spaces that are sex-segregated in order to protect women’s dignity, privacy and safety.

I must stress that even if you no longer have a penis, you are biologically still a man.

That truth might be painful, but we all have to deal with many painful truths.

You are entitled to a safe space; you have a right to peaceful existence without harm or fear of harm.

But you are not entitled to my safe space, nor that of my daughters, nor that of any other woman.

DameHannahRelf · 14/06/2020 12:39

I think tra's spout so much nonsense, it's hard for people to take them seriously when they eventually hear something, and think "but no, that's not right eg men with functioning penises having "periods". The more they defend and stick by all the nonsense, the more people research, and see how riddiculous it all is, only the consequences can be very dangerous (men with functioning penises, in prison cells with women, children being steralised etc).

I think the gender critical radical feminist arguments are very fact and evidence based, logical, and a majority are based on the opinions, discussions and conclusions, of actual women. Common sense is hard to argue with. If I put a pink bow on a male chick, did I just make it female?

growinggreyer · 14/06/2020 12:40

Once they've had surgery, they are at risk of the same sexual assault that biological women are.

Really? Does anyone have any proof of that? Or are we arguing that men as a class can't spot their own sex at close range and that they would rape anything wearing a dress. Surely, once you get near enough to get your hands onto someone intending to rape them and they shove you back with male strength you would catch a clue.

Miriel · 14/06/2020 12:41

I think it's partly tribalism. 'TWAW' is seen as the position of the progressive left. If you agree with them on all other issues, you might not question this one. You might accept, uncritically, that the opposite of TWAW is right-wing bigotry - and you aren't a right-wing bigot, so why would you care what they have to say?

The ex-Labour, politically homeless women here can probably say more about this than I can. I just know that as someone who has some traditionally 'left' and some 'right' political opinions, I've been met with surprise (and worse) by people on both sides who assumed that because I agreed with them on one thing, I should agree with them about everything.

And, you're right, there's probably internalised misogyny at work too, in some cases.

TheSingingKettle49 · 14/06/2020 12:41

Women in power and privileged women don’t have the same experiences as the majority of women. Theresa May will never have her bra fitted in an M&S changing room on her own, Emma Watson will never have to go to a domestic violence refuge, Daniel Radcliffe’s another will never be dismissed as making a fuss if someone gropes her on the tube.

Money and power gives you protection and a circle of people who treat you as important. In short, they matter in a way the average woman on the street doesn’t.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 14/06/2020 12:42

Getting cosmetic surgery on your genitals doesn’t shrink you to female proportions ¯\(ツ)

FWRLurker · 14/06/2020 12:43

I think most women would not be happy to share with fully passing trans men (because they would be mistaken for male) but would be happy to share with fully passing trans women (Because they would be mistaken for female). This was how things were prior to the madness.

Now however because Danielle moscato is claiming the right to use women’s facilities, the old way can’t work. Women are now reasonably wary of anyone who looks male in their private spaces. This unfortunately has led to problems for GNC woman and trans men who might want to use female spaces. Of course trans men who don’t pass (mostly young teens and twenties) are more than welcome into female spaces.

For me the important thing is that women should be supported in challenging male people in their spaces. Further facility owners should have protected in law Their right to keep spaces single sex (not single “gender identity”). This then gets into the conflation of gender and sex.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 14/06/2020 12:48

I will never support any compromises that would put transmen (female people) into the male prison estate.

Yet that is what the end point is for trans rights activists.

Toilets are neither here nor there really. They could just make the gents unisex (and keep the ladies female only) or keep both and add extra single user facilities for those that won’t/can’t use the ones for their birth sex (like disabled toilets but in addition to disabled facilities and they don’t need to be as big).

Gotoworkdontgotowork · 14/06/2020 12:50

Most trans people don’t seem to be interested in self ID. Jane Fae was on LBC this morning saying this. It’s mostly irrelevant to trans people except to people on Twitter.

Ninkanink · 14/06/2020 12:51

Male people (in fact males that are rapists) have already been housed in female prisons. And gone on to rape/commit assaults.

BobbieDraper · 14/06/2020 12:52

@growinggreyer
Trans people can be and are victims of sexual assault. That's a fact.
You can disagree with trans people all day long if you want, but you shouldnt dismiss facts just because you dont like them (because isnt that what we accuse them of doing?).

@Ninkanink

That was always my position. Female spaces for biological females regardless of how you dress, but we do need to accept that transwomen in male toilets are at risk of abuse, even if it is just verbal. I'm interested in a way around that, but the teams community seem to only want to take women's spaces instead of work with us to get their own.

I always thought, why wont they accept their own space? Why do they need to take ours. But if you ask that on Twitter or something, you end up with a stream of sexually violent threats.

How are we meant to work with them and help them, because they should have a safe space too, when they wont accept their own space separate from biological woman and wont even enter into a discussion about it.

I dont want to be horrible to people, especially because I understand their plight. They need a safe space. But how can the conversation ever love forward if they want discuss it? That's what I find hard about it all. It's like "we're women so you need to get out the way" and anything else, which remains inclusive of biological women, is considered hate speech.

How do we fight that?

(You can probably tell I'm new to this type of discussion; I stayed out of it before which I now bitterly regret because we're in the position of fighting from a losing position. Maybe if more of us had joined earlier, we wouldn't have been pushed so far aside)

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 14/06/2020 12:53

Fae isn’t bothered because anyone can change their driving license with no documentation and a passport only needs a letter from a GP saying that the change in sex market is likely to be permanent.

GRC only becomes important if you want to get married in your new legal sex or if you want to try and change the law regarding your kiddies birth certificates al a Freddy McConnell.

Ninkanink · 14/06/2020 12:53

There are huge implications on many, many levels. The toilet issue is just a very practical, completely ubiquitous and entirely concrete example.

Binterested · 14/06/2020 12:54

Why wouldn’t Theresa May try on bras in M&S? Or John Lewis if you want to go posher?

She’s just as likely to have been subject to sexual assault in her life as any of us and although she wouldn’t need to use a refuge because she has money, she can still be subject to male violence. Being a billionaire didn’t stop anyone threatening JKR on the basis of her womanhood. And the former WEP leader - Sophie Walker - has recently suffered a shocking campaign of stalking and abuse and threats of violence. Guess what the CPS did ....

CIS privilege my female arse.

Gotoworkdontgotowork · 14/06/2020 12:55

Once they've had surgery, they are at risk of the same sexual assault that biological women are.

Really? Does anyone have any proof of that? Or are we arguing that men as a class can't spot their own sex at close range and that they would rape anything wearing a dress. Surely, once you get near enough to get your hands onto someone intending to rape them and they shove you back with male strength you would catch a clue.

This is fucking disgusting.

It’s abusive towards any trans woman that has been physically attacked or raped by a man and was not able to fight off her attacker. You think trans women after years of medical transition stand a decent chance of fighting off a man? Or are you suggesting it’s her fault if she didn’t?

Ninkanink · 14/06/2020 12:55

The reason why they’re against it is because most of the individuals who come under the trans ‘umbrella’ now are not old-school transsexuals.

A large cohort want to use women to directly validate their sexual appetites.

Ninkanink · 14/06/2020 12:57

It is not on to dismiss the experiences of those transgender individuals who have been violated, raped or beaten.

Kit19 · 14/06/2020 12:57

I think Jane fae is talking nonsense. Stonewall have backed self ID to the hilt and beyond. To suddenly go “oh no none of us really care about self ID it’s just a few twitter extremists” is disingenuous in the extreme to say the least

Is it perhaps more that they realise it’s never going to happen and are back pedalling?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.