Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

An analogy

45 replies

FloraFox · 16/07/2020 17:48

A woman (AM) adopts a young child. She joins a new mothers' group where she is welcomed. One woman makes a comment about AM not being a real mother. A lot of other women scold her and say AM is a real mother and she should be ashamed of herself for saying this. They think it is true that AM isn’t the mother of her child in the way they are but it’s needlessly cruel to bring it up so they ask the woman to leave the group. AM asks all the women in the group to acknowledge that she is the real mother of her child. They do. New joiners are asked to confirm they agree AM is the real mother of her child. They all agree because, as AM says, her validity as a mother makes absolutely no difference to them as mothers.

AM feels a bit sad listening to stories about pregnancy, delivery or breastfeeding because she didn’t have those experiences. Some other mothers can see this and decide not ta talk about these things when AM is there. When they want to discuss some issues they are having physically as a result of childbirth, they have a separate chat so they can discuss their issues.

AM finds out about these separate chats and says she feels excluded and would like to be included in every chat. The other mothers agree but she is clearly sad when physical issues relating to motherhood are raised. Some mothers stop talking about their physical issues in those groups and some leave for another group where they can talk about all their issues with motherhood without feeling they’re making someone else feel uncomfortable. AM finds out about this other group and tells all the mothers in the original group that the members of the new group hate her and deny that she is a real mother. They agree.

Some women carry on talking about their physical issues. AM gets annoyed and says these discussions are making her feel excluded. She says the mothers should not discuss physical issues arising from childbirth in a mothers’ group because it’s not associated with being a mother. After all, everyone has agreed she is a real mother and she hasn’t had those issues so they are not issues relating to motherhood.

Some women say they are only talking about “biological” aspects of motherhood. AM says there aren’t any biological aspects of motherhood which she says is obvious because she is a mother and hasn’t had them. Those are the experience of gestators which is nothing to do with motherhood, that AM’s child’s gestator is not her mother because AM is her real mother, everyone has already agreed this.

AM also says that adoptive mothers have the hardest time of all the mothers because other people don’t believe they are real mothers and that makes some adoptive mothers want to kill themselves. AM says any other viewpoint is only based on hatred of her and denial of the fact that she is a real mother so anyone who disagrees or wants to discuss this hates her and denies her motherhood.

The other women are puzzled and don’t fully agree but they want to make sure AM feels good so they go along with it. Some women are struggling with incontinence, episiotomies, scar tissue and some have had vaginal mesh implants but they don’t want to make AM feel bad. The group agrees that any talk about physical consequences of childbearing is banned within the group as this is exclusionary to AM. Some of them are angry at the other mothers who had been their friends but now they are making AM feel sad and they can’t understand why they would be so cruel.

Meanwhile, AM has been lobbying for her doctor to be required to register the child as her biological child and to use her family history on the child’s medical records. She lobbies for her child’s certificate of adoption to be replaced with a birth certificate showing AM as the mother of the child from birth. She says you would only refuse this if you hate her and deny the validity of her motherhood.

Some women decide to set up a new group for gestators. They make it clear the group is for gestators to talk about the physical effects of motherhood. AM hears about this and complains that these women hate her and are trying to deny the reality of her motherhood. She says they have reduced everything about being a mother to just biology. She gets a group of people to tell the gestator group that they are hateful for denying AM’s motherhood. They decide the gestators shouldn’t be able to have meetings that exclude AM so they lobby the venues to stop the meeting going ahead. They stand outside and shout at the women going inside and call them names. They assault some of the women and set off flare guns and bang the windows. They find people in the gestators group and complain to their employers that they should be sacked for saying that being a gestator is part of motherhood and that they should be able to meet to talk about these things. After one firing, a judge declares that the belief that gestating a child is part of motherhood is a belief not worthy of respect in society.

OP posts:
FloraFox · 16/07/2020 19:24

AskDan. Flora - I need to be careful how I phrase this. But women are socialised to defer or "be kind" to men.

Confused

That's rather the point.

I think an issue with this analogy is that it comes across as not being very kind

Also, rather the point.

Socialised kindness is the point and the way women are expected to police other women's kindness and how that can go wrong.

OP posts:
Al1Langdownthecleghole · 16/07/2020 19:26

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate flora but it doesn't work for me.

As an adoptee, my adopted mother still raised me, she didn't go through pregnancy and childbirth due to infertility, but she wasn't a fake mother, a pretend mother or someone who "identified as" a mother. She did the hard yards.

She didn't colonise the spaces of other mothers. She didn't get seek any validation of being a mother other than a bunch of flowers on Mothering Sunday. It wasn't any kind of fetish and she didn't need anyone to share her fantasy of being a mother because she was too busy doing the job.

Do you really think a snidey thread about adoption is a good look on a feminist board or a parenting site?

FloraFox · 16/07/2020 19:36

I don't think it's snidey. I know mothers who have adopted, including in my family, women who have been adopted in my family, and mothers who have been forced to give their children up for adoption, also in my own family.

The analogy is intended to take a situation which is unthinkable and compare it to a situation which should be unthinkable but is actually happening.

OP posts:
CharlieParley · 16/07/2020 19:42

Do you really think a snidey thread about adoption is a good look on a feminist board or a parenting site?

It's a shame that you read this as implying a judgement on adopting parents as a whole. Because that's not in the OP at all.

And the (implied) judgement here isn't even about an adoptive mother per se, but about an adoptive mother who decrees that her experience of motherhood takes precedence over any other and demands absolute compliance with her view.

It's a fiction. An analogy attempting to make sense of not only the belief that men can claim womanhood, but also how their campaign has developed. The ever shifting goal posts. The kindness from the other women that motivates them to compromise their own position, even when this is detrimental to their own needs. How we can get sucked into compliance. And spat out for non-compliance.

I do think it's a scenario that can illustrate the mechanisms in play. Of course it's unlikely - the protesters calling me a fascist, a TERF and a cunt, screaming their rage at my audacity to attend a women's rights meeting into my face were all male.

But I might still use this analogy to explain how screwed up the current situation is, because it may work for some people.

msgloria · 16/07/2020 19:45

So would you be comfortable explaining this analogy to your family members who have adopted? I wouldn't - I'd expect them to find it upsetting hearing you use the circumstances of their real, lived situation to make a clever point.

msgloria · 16/07/2020 19:45

So would you be comfortable explaining this analogy to your family members who have adopted? I wouldn't - I'd expect them to find it upsetting hearing you use the circumstances of their real, lived situation to make a clever point.

FloraFox · 16/07/2020 20:08

Charlie thank you! That is exactly the point. Making it about only women was intended to draw out a response that we wouldn’t accept this from other women.

msgloria yes because they understand it’s not about them.

OP posts:
notyourhandmaid · 16/07/2020 20:15

It's a modern fable! Yes. That is it.

(And agree, it is not at all a comment on adoptive parents - who would not pull this kind of shit because it is so patently ridiculous. But because so many people have swallowed the ridiculous, only a slanted take will work.)

Al1Langdownthecleghole · 16/07/2020 20:35

It might not have been intended as a sleight against adoptive parents, but, and I admit it's an area I'm very sensitive about, I found it a difficult read.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the suicide analogy. I have no idea what percentage of women with fertility issues have suicidal thoughts, but the mental health toll is significant.

CharlieParley · 16/07/2020 20:55

So would you be comfortable explaining this analogy to your family members who have adopted?

My parents have adopted, and yes, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Especially because their journey involved issues rarely, if ever, faced by biological parents.

Durgasarrow · 17/07/2020 04:36

The thing is, an adoptive mother is still a real mother. Legally and morally, her position as the child's guardian is the same. Parents have custodial responsibility for their children and that is what makes them different from step-parents, aunts and uncles, or any other kind of relationship. They are the decision makers and authorities regarding those children. But is there any specific action trans people can take (such as taking responsibility for a child) that can show whether they have successfully achieved the goal of becoming a member of the opposite sex?

cheeseismydownfall · 17/07/2020 06:49

I think there are some elements of the analogy that work really well - the drip drip drip of being expected to accept more and more ludicrous positions.

Other aspects are more problematic as PPs have pointed out.

Like another PP said it would be interesting to see it reworked with a male parent in the position of AM, who has decided that they prefer the term 'mother' to 'father' because it more accurately represents their role as a SAHP - thus nicely demonstrating how the whole house of cards starts with, and ends up reinforcing, a regressive stereotype of what it means to be a mother.

Thank you for taking the time to write it OP.

FloraFox · 17/07/2020 07:38

I'm not saying anything about adoptive mothers not being real mothers.

The reason for using an adoptive mother in the analogy is because it's easy to empathise with AM at the beginning of the story (and also because there are social and biological aspects of being a mother which is a useful analogy). I think most people would agree with the decision to ask the first woman to leave the group and for the group to agree it's not on to bring this up to AM. It's about someone who starts out seeming to be reasonable and sympathetic but who incrementally changes the nature and the dynamic of the group and the discourse. If the story started with someone who was obviously acting in bad faith, it wouldn't work. If it was a male parent, it would be too easy to see the problems.

When issues are raised about TW in women's spaces, TRAs say TWAW so it's more useful to compare with a situation where everyone is a woman to see how the comparisons line up (and how they don't) and to recognise the disparity between an all-female group and a women's group with a man in it.

No two situations can be perfectly compared with each other. The TWAW mantra is absurd but we are at the point where women's charities are saying there is no such thing as a biological female (ActionAid) and that biology has nothing to do with being a woman. Reddit boards for women with PCOS and other women's medical issues are being closed down because they are exclusionary.

It's also relevant that woman are socialised to put other people / men first. So women suffering from very serious medical issues would be willing to downplay those issues to avoid making someone else feel uncomfortable or excluded.

How did we get here? The answer is in large part that well-meaning people wanted to be kind and not make life more difficult for people who already have difficulties while some of those people were quietly lobbying behind the scenes for a position they did not make clear to the well-meaning people. We can see from the YouGov poll that people are becoming less accepting of TWAW as more comes to light about what TRAs mean by this and what they have been doing behind the scenes.

It's not long ago that people (including on FWR) were saying "no-one is saying biological sex is not real". Women are still saying it makes no difference to them if TWAW. There are still lots of women who think TWAM but that it's kinder to say TWAW and that there are no consequences to women of saying so. We are bombarded with people saying "TERFs are just saying the same things homophobes said in the past" and I have put forward an analogy to show that they are not the same at all.

OP posts:
ContentiousOne · 17/07/2020 07:41

I see your point, but it's not an analogy I'd use in mixed (bio parent/adoptive parent) company.

ContentiousOne · 17/07/2020 07:43

As to how we got here, I think it makes a lot of sense, but it's not just socialisation of women to be kind. There's real top down power driving this. And many people seem capable of tolerating a degree of cognitive dissonance I find astounding.

FloraFox · 17/07/2020 07:58

On your first point, I don't see that there's any effective analogy that would work if you think that being compared with TW is so offensive even when it's clear you are talking about an individual and not "all adoptive parents".

There is definitely top down power but this has taken advantage of women's socialisation to achieve the ends. Cognitive dissonance runs through this whole issue like letters through rock.

OP posts:
ContentiousOne · 17/07/2020 08:03

The cog dis is the hardest thing for me to understand. The way people can believe TWAW at the same time as knowing TWANW.

Al1Langdownthecleghole · 17/07/2020 12:20

I think it is relevant that the TWAW mantra has built on the movement for equality for gay people (and colonised Stonewall).

I'm old enough to remember when there was a lot of open homophobia and discrimination towards gay people. As a society we are [mostly] much more accepting of same-sex relationships, have legalised gay marriage and made discrimination illegal.

As attitudes have softened over the decades, we - general we - have come to think of ourselves as more accepting of difference and I think it is this acceptance that has opened the door for TWAW rather than female socialisation to be kind.

Obviously gay people were never asking society to accept a biological untruth, and TWAW/TMAM is not the next logical step along a continuum.

Jeeeez · 17/07/2020 13:02

@ Al1Langdownthecleghole

I personally think it's a combination of at least female socialisation plus riding on the coat tails of the LGB movement.

andyoldlabour · 17/07/2020 13:43

FloraFox,

I thought it was an excellent analogy and immediately made me think of the current situation, where women are expected to give up their spaces, to change their behaviour, be nice etc. whilst experiencing more and more narcissistic behaviour from "he who will never be satisfied".

New posts on this thread. Refresh page