From now on, I was in an LGBTQ+ family’: my husband came out as trans while I was on maternity leave

[Defaultname]

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/02/from-now-on-i-was-in-an-lgbtq-family-my-husband-came-out-as-trans-while-i-was-on-maternity-leave

[quote squeaver]@HecatesCats Ah, no worries! Just funny when a name you remember pops up.[/quote]
😊👍

I see she's been flogging her book to The Times too.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-almost-heard-my-world-crack-in-two-bpk00bqxv

The Guardian article omitted the snobbish comment about Kim Kardashian but does have more wittering about how she and her husband were never like other ordinary, boring people.

Although she was still in a lonely predicament — “It is a dark day when Kris Kardashian seems relatable to you”, she observes

“I don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes. D wasn’t hoovering under my feet. But there was a sense of collaborativeness we had as a married couple that I didn’t see reflected in even the most progressive marriages

all I can say is, at least she got out

I don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes. D wasn’t hoovering under my feet. But there was a sense of collaborativeness we had as a married couple that I didn’t see reflected in even the most progressive marriages

Wow.
Talk about patronising.

'Progressive marriage?
Fuck off.

And ironic that she writes that considering the lack of respect her husband had for her.

@zanahoria I don't think she got out. Not really. Now her whole identity and writing is framed by her husband's story.

But women who are trying to protect their children or hold a family together often go to extreme lengths, be it excusing the inexcusable, forming unhealthy alliances and even throwing other women under the bus.

I agree. Apart from the trans aspect, in many ways it is a familiar story. A woman trying hard to have an 'amicable' divorce for the sake of the dc, which really means doing what the father wants.

Apart from the trans aspect, in many ways it is a familiar story. A woman trying hard to have an 'amicable' divorce for the sake of the dc, which really means doing what the father wants.

That's it. Well-expressed.

"Progressive marriage". She's preening about this before they had a child which is grimly amusing because for many couples, they're "progressive" right up to that point. A man's true character is often revealed then, with the domestic laziness and selfishness kicking off when the kids appear. You only have to look at the Relationships board. But this husband has really outdone himself hasn't he? Poor woman, it's like the Stepford Wives or the final scene of Rosemary's Baby or something

It isn’t Kris Kardashian, she goes by Kris Jenner. So she’s both being unpleasant about KJ, who has experienced the same thing and incorrectly naming her. Yet you can imagine the fumes if anyone misgenders or deadnames her former husband.

Two things made me really angry in those excerpts. The male magistrate ruling that a woman imagined her assault because she was pregnant.
And the self-flagellation at the end about having perpetuated that "woman" was white, straight, able-bodied, cis, etc. Either that's true, and the author was therefore fairly recently stupid, blind, racist, homophobic and had never thought to examine these ideas, in which case anything she said on the matter while labouring under these beliefs should be deemed irrelevant, and in fact her confronting these beliefs and how she came to realise that Black women are women too might have been the more obvious piece to write...

Or it's made up as a sop to insincerely apologise for, as a deflection from the real "problematic" beliefs she is burying.

Or it's made up as a sop to insincerely apologise for, as a deflection from the real "problematic" beliefs she is burying.

I thought the whole article seemed to be an apology to her woke 'friends' for having such problematic beliefs that she had to leave her husband. Even in her reasons for leaving her spouse she says it's because she believes TWAW and she's not a lesbian.

I also thought the bit about her so-called progressive marriage and how equal she and her then husband were was only there to show how far away she is from those terrible T**Fs and their love for gender stereotypes (which is what genderist believers seem to think is driving those of us who don't believe that people can change sex - because they've never bothered to find out what we actually think).

I also thought the bit about her so-called progressive marriage and how equal she and her then husband were was only there to show how far away she is from those terrible T--Fs and their love for gender stereotypes (which is what genderist believers seem to think is driving those of us who don't believe that people can change sex - because they've never bothered to find out what we actually think).

Yes, I've seen this before too. Someone on Twitter explained that she wasn't a TRA because she didn't believe someone could change sex, but that she thought gender critical feminists were also bad because gender critical feminists want to keep everyone in their stereotypical roles. She thought there ought to be a 'middle ground', and proceeded to put forward the GC point of view.

I was astounded, but I don't have a Twitter account so couldn't comment.

@EdgeOfACoin

I also thought the bit about her so-called progressive marriage and how equal she and her then husband were was only there to show how far away she is from those terrible T--Fs and their love for gender stereotypes (which is what genderist believers seem to think is driving those of us who don't believe that people can change sex - because they've never bothered to find out what we actually think).

Yes, I've seen this before too. Someone on Twitter explained that she wasn't a TRA because she didn't believe someone could change sex, but that she thought gender critical feminists were also bad because gender critical feminists want to keep everyone in their stereotypical roles. She thought there ought to be a 'middle ground', and proceeded to put forward the GC point of view.

I was astounded, but I don't have a Twitter account so couldn't comment.

Yeah, I can get it that some people might read it as being critical of people stepping over societal norms for male/female behaviour. 'Critical' always sound like a negative, preachy word in this context.

I'd rather it was taken as "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, etc." rather than "expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements."

Though it sounds pushy, I quite like 'gender-rational' myself. 'Critical; in our sense sounds quite Frankfurt School !

Maybe 'gender questioning' feminists would be better?

Oh, do people think that? I suppose it would be possible to make that (pretty gigantic) error if you never took ten seconds to check before deciding a movement was beyond the pale.

I do find that the term 'gender critical feminist' seems a tautology. All feminism is 'gender critical', isn't it?

Yeah, I can get it that some people might read it as being critical of people stepping over societal norms for male/female behaviour.

Interesting that they'd interpret it this way, when it means the opposite.

'Critical' always sound like a negative, preachy word in this context.

I thought it was meant to be negative - critical of the concept of gender.

All feminism is 'gender critical', isn't it?

You would think, but apparently not.

I think most people know it's 'critical of the concept of gender' and the associated power imbalances.
However as a belief in gender identity is seen as the be-all-and-end-all by so many people it's seen as critical of them.

Of course there are numerous self-.described feminists who belive that pumpkins can become coaches, and boy mices can transform into girl-mises.
Case in point, Joyo Moyes, who provided one of the pre-release enthusiastic endorsements on Amazon of the book we're discusing.
Granted she describes herself as "A stupid feminist". twitter.com/jojomoyes

It's an old problem with English that newspaper critics etc. are meant to review and examine, sometimes even praise, but we end up by saying "the critics liked it" which sounds like a paradox !

Oops. Girl mices. I think I was half typing 'girl misse'!

However as a belief in gender identity is seen as the be-all-and-end-all by so many people it's seen as critical of them.

Ahhhh, yes, I suppose so. I forget that there are some people who are very keen on upholding and enforcing 'gender' stereotyping. That if one doesn't conform to stereotypes one must be not just a different gender but a different sex. It's all so blooming silly, I'm sorry, but it really is. Boys like dresses and fairies, must be girls, must have bodies altered to suit. Madness.

@DeaconBoo

I think most people know it's 'critical of the concept of gender' and the associated power imbalances. However as a belief in gender identity is seen as the be-all-and-end-all by so many people it's seen as critical of them.

I am also critical of them. Because anyone who reinforces gender stereotypes by way of a belief in gender identity is either misguided or a misogynist.

@Floisme

I've read it twice now. Not only had she just given birth, she had experienced multiple miscarriage, failed rounds of IVF, a sexual assault while pregnant, a hazardous labour and then struggled to breastfeed. Imagine going through all that and then have your husband announce, 'I'm a woman too.' I feel so angry on her behalf.

I'm with you @Floisme It beggars belief

@BuntingEllacott

The stuff about how she viewed women before - when I used to speak about “the average woman”, it was a lazy, self-reflective assumption: we bled, we fed, we bred. I would sit happily discussing the books I had written, all the while perpetuating the idea of “woman” as white, fertile, able-bodied, straight, cis.' - this is a confession of sin. It's not really relevant whether she was actually a racist homophobe who despised disabled women.

The point is to self-flagellate for two reasons - one is to paint women who disagree in the worst possible light, and the other is to get the psychological pay off of publically saying "and I was like these wretches until I repented of my sins!"

I've said so many times, don't underestimate the psychological reward for women who comply and enforce the conditioning. When you ask why they do it, that's nearly always the answer. We all do what we do for some reward. For some women, there is one for being an enforcer.

This was spot on, in my eyes. It absolutely is the confession of sin.

But if you think about it, it is rubbish that she didn't think black women and disabled women weren't women. That's an utterly monstrous thing to confess to and few people would freely admit to being that despicable a human being (other than in very rare situations like with Megan Phelps Roper who left the Wesboro Baptist Church which is genuinely actively homophobic). So her act goes beyond 'confessing sin' into also wanting to shame others into realising they were sinning. She is hoping other people scrutinise their own souls for black spots and be able to admit, 'gosh I never really thought about it but my feminism doesn't really consider the experiences of disabled women.' It helps convert others to the righteous path - getting woke cookies from saying 'I was once wretched,' is actually only one part of the goal. It's how she's openly able to say something so awful, I think. If she were a friend of mine and I didn't feel able to confront her, I'd at least say, what the heck have you just written - you were never that terrible a person and there is no need to pretend you were to indoctrinate others. Go about it another way if it matter that much to you.

I feel very much for this writer's traumas - it's shocking reading. I also think it's hard to like someone who is displaying internalised misogyny so openly. Lots of people have had really difficult experiences and find some courage in terms of moving forward.

@ArabellaScott

Oh, do people think that? I suppose it would be possible to make that (pretty gigantic) error if you never took ten seconds to check before deciding a movement was beyond the pale.

I do find that the term 'gender critical feminist' seems a tautology. All feminism is 'gender critical', isn't it?

I can only assume that that the person writing the Tweet I saw had only heard the TRA perspective. The writer had enough presence of mind to think 'no, that's not right' when hearing the ideology, but unfortunately didn't look into it and accepted the TRAs premise that GC feminists want to enforce stereotypes. I think there's also a tendency for people to want to say 'look, both sides have a point and here's the middle road: look how sensible and rational I am'.

The idea that GC feminists want to enforce stereotypes also may explain why I came across an article somewhere explaining how 'trans-families' adhere less to stereotypes than others.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that for a second. A quick glimpse at Bristow's Twitter feed and listening to Susie Green's TED talk shows straight away how important dolls and sparkly nail polish are to the 'gender identity' concept. I also think the coyness to define 'gender identity' is because it would be immediately evident that gender identity is to do with stereotypes.

I agree with you, Arabella that 'gender critical feminism' ought to be tautology. Unfortunately, I don't think it is.