TWAW

[Madanaa]

I'm pondering. Would it be unreasonable to think that most people and corporations in the public eye who bleat this twaw stuff don't actually believe it and are frightened of the backlash? So then twaw just becomes a bleated mantra and over time is (terrifyingly)accepted as fact?

I apologise for upsetting you, Babdoc, by seeming to tar all religious belief with the same brush. My post was clumsily worded. I stand by the underlying sentiment, though.

I had in mind the sort of extremist cults who do believe contradictory things, and for whom favouring literal interpretations over scripture does seem to be a badge of strength of faith.

I still stand by my analogy though, that the nearest I can come to understanding "TWAW" is by analogy with religious belief - the belief in gendered souls stuck in the wrong body seems to me very much like the belief in immortal souls. (And pretty much all liberal believers I know - my earlier self included - perform some sort of "separate" spheres manoeuvre whereby they divide the world into the material, which science tells us about, and the spiritual, which religion tells us about. The literalists - whether TWAW literalists or for instance conservative young-Earth evangelical Christians in the US - deny this division and the cost of doing this is that they have to re-write science to their own benefit. And in my experience, this sort of literalist is very proud of the fact that they have had to embrace stuff that can only be defended through blind faith and ignoring evidence, because they do wear it as a badge of pride to show how strong their faith is.)

The analogy with religion also gives me (as an old-fashioned liberal of the Mill/ Bentham type, rather than the new fangled so-open-minded-brains-fallen-out variety) an angle on tolerance. Just as I tolerate the religious beliefs of others provided (1) I'm not forced to share them and (2) they don't impinge on the law making of secular society (bans on abortion for instance) that's fine. Likewise, I can happily tolerate someone believing TWAW so long as they don't expect me to believe it too, and they don't impose laws that for instance put be-penised rapists in women's prisons, or male-bodied people into women's sports, or interfere with women's rights to freedom of association.

(As an aside I disagree that religious belief does atheists no harm. Liberal religious belief within a broadly liberal secular society generally speaking does atheists no harm. But in an authoritarian society with theocratic tendencies, it can and does do atheist women plenty of harm - for instance, if they have to cross state boundaries in the US to get an abortion, or even worse, if they have the misfortune to live in a country like Nicaragua where women can be imprisoned for having a miscarriage.)

@Babdoc

Please can we leave the “God bashing” out of the discussion? Belief in God does not harm the rights of atheists, and Christians seek only to help their fellow humans, and offer them God’s love, not invade their spaces, usurp their language, or threaten them with violence or rape for refusing to accept their doctrine. Jesus never reportedly said anything misogynistic or homophobic. I am a gender critical feminist, but also a Christian, and it is horribly inappropriate to see Christ tarred with the same brush as TRAs.

So... no crusades (rape, colonization, indoctrination)? No pedophilia? No hypocrisy? You can believe what you want but the Abrahamic religions love to subjugate and rule over women - it is the basis of their rule. It is no coincidence that the holy trinity is a father, a son, and a holy ghost (non-man but definitely not woman).

What I have experienced/seen is that women are always second to men in the aforementioned religions (in theory, in literature, and in practice).

Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

1 Timothy 2:11-15 "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. "

1 Peter 3:7 "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Misrepresenting the tenets is not on. Women are weak, men rule... same premise really in TRA ideology.

For the record, I hold nothing against religion - I find all religions to be fascinating from a philosophical perspective and show/feel respect for those that believe in God/gods/goddesses/prophets just like I show/feel respect for people in general. If you are someone that embraces religious faith in your life that's great and I hope it gives you peace and everything else you look to gain from it.

But it remains that there is nothing wrong with stating facts. The facts are that religiosity requires the believer to suspend acknowledgement of certain material realities in the name of faith to be pious - not unlike TRA ideology.

if they have to cross state boundaries in the US to get an abortion

Or cross the Irish Sea ...

It’s the fashionable bullshit du jour.
It’s also very easy and requires very little effort. Any organisation can spout TWAW, make out that they’re on the side of the angels, then carry on with business as usual. Anything that requires effort, such as dropping investments in environmentally destructive industries, takes time and money, but transwashing just needs a press release.

I think most haven't given it that much thought and those who consider themselves to be 'liberal/forward thinking/open minded' have accepted it without examining how complex it actually is.

I didn't give it much thought myself and just thought sure trans women are women until I read the JKR essay which kick started my own research and a change in my thinking. It really concerns me the way the conversation is moving and how it is becoming difficult to have a nuanced debate.

I raised the JKR essay with some friends and got a bit of a backlash, but there were point they struggled to counter so they just got angry instead and made me feel like I was prejudiced.

Atheists are harmed, globally speaking, by the religious.Blasphemy laws certainly impact on the rights of people to not believe! Perhaps the claim otherwise needed clarification - moderate and progressive Christianity in the UK tends not to impact on the rights of atheists.

The TWAW people I know believe that woman is different to female, and refers to a gender identity. If I point out that I, a woman, do not share this feminine gender identity, they suggest that means I'm not a woman, but an agender female.

That goes down about as well as you'd imagine, especially when it's my son mansplaining this to me.

In certain segments (young, progressive) woman has been severed from female.

I don't think ppl like my son realise it, but by thinking of me as 'agender female', there's an implication I'm just breeding stock (or ex breeding stock). Just a mum-body.

Incredibly sexist and dehumanising, especially as there is no call to cast men out of their sex class.

I have no doubt people have myriad reasons for saying TWAW. Some are fiercely trying to fight inequality, some are loving being able to feel more correct than someone else, some love propping up the patriarchy.

But I've definitely noticed its use as a kind of 'badge' to show you're on the 'right' side, even when they literally go on to state opinions that clearly show they do not actually believe trans women are actually women. Once you notice it you can't stop seeing it, even/particularly on here. The more they talk the more they treat TW and women as separate classes of people. They talk about gay people as being attracted to biological sex not gender expression.

They refuse to engage when you ask them to reconcile seemingly contradictory ideas. "I've said TWAW therefore I'm not a transphobe and don't need to be interrogated".

What’s the expression about feeding the crocodile so that it eats you last?

It’s that 🐊

This is how the phenomenon was explained to me.
"It’s called “pluralistic ignorance”. In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it."

@CatandtheFiddle

I think a lot of men recite the mantra "Transwomen are women" without

a) realising the effect that this has on actual women
b) ever thinking - or it even crossing their brain - that they would date, have sex with, marry, or raise a family with a transwoman

They have no skin in the game, so it costs them nothing.

Except gay men. Bu oh, guess what? I've never seen a gay man being told that he's transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with a vulva and vagina. Fancy that!

In fact, Little Owen Jones responded to questions on Twitter about how he'd feel about cunnilingus (ie sex with a transman) with a "Piss off, you homophobes!"

I have had a couple of chats with gay men on twitter who have said they’ve been accused of transphobia for this actually. One said he even tried to watch some trans Male porn to see if it was something he could get into because he didn’t want to be not accepting but he couldn’t get into it at all. He was very nice about it but not happy with feeling shamed for not being into it.

@ContentiousOne

I don't think ppl like my son realise it, but by thinking of me as 'agender female', there's an implication I'm just breeding stock (or ex breeding stock). Just a mum-body.

Incredibly sexist and dehumanising, especially as there is no call to cast men out of their sex class.

I don't know what age your son is ConteniousOne but if mine did that I would be withdrawing from the day to day tedious mum tasks.

I had a younger motherless friend that effectively cast me in maternal role towards her, which I was fine to do but her TWAW beliefs made me stop and rethink and decide I was doing that because female socialisation and to be kind and if she really believed TWAW she could go find a TW to keep an eye on her

ContentiousOne my suggestion of stopping some of the looking after I'm sure you do is not meant to be goady, I genuinely think they have forfeited the right to benefit from our female socialisation and gender roles if they believe TWAW

@ListeningQuietly

Should Transwomen be denied prostate cancer screening? because women are not offered it

Do you think they are?

@ContentiousOne

I don't think ppl like my son realise it, but by thinking of me as 'agender female', there's an implication I'm just breeding stock (or ex breeding stock). Just a mum-body.

Incredibly sexist and dehumanising, especially as there is no call to cast men out of their sex class.

That’s interesting isn’t it. I don’t really understand what gender is, other than stereotypes, but on the face of it describing me as an agender female would be accurate.

I wear “women’s” clothes because “men’s” clothes are too big or don’t fit over my female hips. Sometimes I wear dresses, mostly I wear jeans and T shirts and outdoor gear, only wear make up if I’m “dressing up as a woman”. My hair is mid length, similar to one of my BILs. I tend towards STEM and geekiness, overuse the phrase “but that’s not logical”, have been told I “think like a man” (not usually a compliment). DH is way more emotionally intelligent than I am.

Yet here we both are, being offended by the term “agender” because it dehumanises us. Presumably your DS doesn’t mean it as an insult because all parts of the gender spectrum are equally valid in his eyes (or are they...?). And we don’t actually believe gender is a thing, so adult female (agender or not) = woman.

I have not raised this with my adult DS. I’m afraid to.