Silence of the Lambs etc - are TRAs fighting historic battles?

[UndyingDeathdefying]

I watched this the other night and was pretty shocked by the transphobia......

It made me think about all the TRA posts justifying behaviour by saying “X happens to trans people, therefore they are uniquely vulnerable, therefore those asking questions are wrong”

Looking at old films (Crocodile Dundee was another) it’s clear that society used to have carte Blanche to mock and humiliate transsexuals and to infer criminality.

There is often talk here of the TRAs being led by older men. Well, a man of 50 would have watched both the films I mention above as a teenager. It must have felt degrading and humiliating.

It might explain the sense of “mission” and the clear feeling that the ends justify the means. Just a thought.

Women are shamed all the fucking time- for our bodies, for our sexuality, for not being feminine enough & so on. World over.

We don’t go around violently attacking other groups and removing their legal rights protections.

The whole world is geared up to understanding male violence, why do we need more focus on this?? There is so so much that seeks to understand why men are so violent, most of which is sympathetic and often excuses it. Films/books et overwhelmingly show sympathetic or even attractive portrayals of violent men- see the thread on jk and people showing you who they are. Why do we need to feed into this more? Let men understand why other men do this, let them correct this. Women are victimised at least as much if not much much more than men and we don’t go around abusing others like men do. The only difference is men are socialised to be entitled to our bodies, our spaces etc. That’s the only factor we need to understand. It’s still men’s job to correct that as they are the ones belonging to the class that has all the power.

I had a really abusive childhood. I spent years as a teen reading criminology and psychology books- weird habit for a teen seemingly. Years later in therapy I learned that I had been trying to understand why those who harmed me did so that I could ‘correct’ my behaviour and be at less risk (which is a myth of course, I never had any control over what they did to me). This is a common reaction for kids who are abused, and obviously so many women are at some point of other in some way. Part of healing from that requires stepping away from trying to understand and be empathetic towards the abusers and start showing myself that same empathy, understanding and compassion. Imho I think too many women stay with the role of showing men that empathy at the expense of showing it to themselves. We need to think about that when considering understanding male violence to women and girls. Imho.

Imho I think too many women stay with the role of showing men that empathy at the expense of showing it to themselves. We need to think about that when considering understanding male violence to women and girls.

I agree with this. But I'd point out that frequently, understanding is useful not from an "empathy" point of view but from a "predicting behaviour" point of view. The article I linked above, regardless of the authors' intentions, doesn't make me feel sympathetic towards abusive TRAs. Quite the reverse. It absolutely increases my determination to keep them the hell out of women's spaces, and reinforces for me that compromise is not a solution and that being nice is not an adequate defence, any more than it is in an intimate relationship with a narcissistic abuser.

People are talking on this thread about "understanding a little less and condemning a little more" and vice versa, but IMO the vice doesn't have to be versa. "Understand a little more and condemn a little more" is how it usually works for me with abusive males.

Ah, it's not. What's wrong with deciding to condemn a little more and understand a little less? I may be curious about xyz - you may feel it's a distraction from what you care about

It is perfectly possible to understand a behavioural and motivational pattern, position or set of observances; but to still come to a conclusion which runs counter to it.

People with issues, of all sorts, are often so embedded in those issues that they cannot see the wood for the trees, and can often have tendency for framing the issue as natural, inevitable or out of their own control. The world then becomes a mirror of confirmation - shoring up one's feelings about oneself and/or the situation one finds oneself in.

Historical revisionism, is where by you go back over time and over past events ( or films) and re-create a supporting narrative that justifies, legitimises, or explains your current position or view.

I guess what i'm saying above is that we should distinguish between cognitive and emotional empathy. I'd advocate for women having more cognitive empathy with males, from a self-protective point of view. Especially when it comes to the trans issue. I think it's very valuable to understand the motivations in play if you're involved in this discussion.

But I'd advocate for less emotional empathy, because as women we're socially conditioned to over-empathise emotionally with males and prioritise their feelings.

But I'd advocate for less emotional empathy, because as women we're socially conditioned to over-empathise emotionally with males and prioritise their feelings

A well articulated distinction.

Yes, it is possible to be cognisant of something, yet still disagree with, or run counter to, its 'logical' conclusion.

Empathy and Sympathy are not necessarily the same thing.

Women are getting rape and death threats. Violent imagery is used to threaten women who believe in sex based rights.

Are any of the men involved in the making of Silence getting this? Or is it just women?

glad that the thread has continued in this interesting direction. Don't really have much more to contribute but just wanted to say "aha! yes!" to the post about religious fervour. That's something I do know about because of my family background and yes there must be something in that.

The trans thing in Silence was what piqued my curiosity and started the thread but I'd say the lasting quality thing about "Silence" is Jodie Foster and is only Jodie Foster. Frankly I found the Hannibal Lecter character ridiculous this time round - I've been around too many men who thing a fancy reference to Marcus Aurelius can dress them up into someone clever (all he tells her in the plot is to remember that male killers usually know their female victims - that's his sole contribution). The success of the film was largely based on the audience buying into the exciting mystique of the ultra-violent-man-choosing-his-violence but the lasting quality is Jodie Foster and her character (and the cinematography stuff which I don't really understood but it must be good given that I could instantly see who had copied it since I'm-looking-at-you-Homeland)

.... you could have a modern "Silence" where

1. Jodie gets asked to solve the case
2. Jodie reads "Counting the dead women" materials online
3. Jodie concludes that, as usual, the first victim would have known her killer and gone to the woman's home.
4. Jodie finds the killer.
5. Jodie realises that she had a bit of extra time because intended victim had the nouse to get hold of the killer's dog.

Hannibal isn't really needed at all....

We do need to understand more. Understand how women's rights need to be defended or they will be marched righted over.

Men didn't decide to give their mothers, sisters and daughters the vote or any other rights. Women had to fight for them. Those women were probably labeled many things too. Men wouldn't and won't miss women rights, irrespective of how they identify. They have men's rights to fall back on.

When James Morris who changed name to Jan Morris 'identified' as a woman, J Morris still stayed at their gentlemen's only 'Travellers' Club' in London. Not quite the full 'woman' experience. Was the now Jan Morris not jumping up and down saying "I can't stay in this men's only club as I am now a woman and women are barred from being members here"? Were they f*ck! Women, or 'ladies', cannot be members still today. But may possibly be tolerated as 'guests' of the gentlemen members.

Women who naturally and biologically just are, don't have men's rights to fall back on. Women's rights are our only lifeboat. We mustn't let it get submerged by those jumping on to sink it.

I’ve found this thread interesting, didn’t understand it at first, but totally got it when you explained you thought process regarding your friend A.

As it’s been pointed out, the Silence of the Lambs character was based on a real person. It’s not a lazy stereotype. Now you know this, how would you discuss it with your friend A? Do you think they would accept that it’s not transphobic? Or would they still argue that it’s a lazy trope that should not be used, even though it’s based on a real person?

When my dd identified as trans, everything revolved around her. Everything we said had to go through a mind filter first to check she wouldn’t find it objectionable. She found a legitimate channel for all her anger and resentment - one that she used freely and often. The world was not centring her. This is where the activism comes from. Everyone has rights though. We all have to live together. Trans rights and ideology has been a shifting sands of demands and ideas.

I don’t think Silence of the Lambs can be blamed for this.

@UndyingDeathdefying

.... you could have a modern "Silence" where

1. Jodie gets asked to solve the case
2. Jodie reads "Counting the dead women" materials online
3. Jodie concludes that, as usual, the first victim would have known her killer and gone to the woman's home.
4. Jodie finds the killer.
5. Jodie realises that she had a bit of extra time because intended victim had the nouse to get hold of the killer's dog.

Hannibal isn't really needed at all....

Yes, but it wouldn't be Silence of the Lambs, though would it? Why can't you enjoy the film for what it is? A damn good thriller.

I'm a historian who hates revisionism.

BTW, have you discussed this with the trans person that you know, OP?

"Now you know this, how would you discuss it with your friend A? Do you think they would accept that it’s not transphobic? Or would they still argue that it’s a lazy trope that should not be used, even though it’s based on a real person?"

Your dd was, I assume, a teenager so that whole mind filter thing was partly age-related.
A and I wouldn't watch "Silence" but we wouldn't talk about it either. A is 50-plus so of an age to just move on quietly, not to debate IYSWIM.

"I'm a historian who hates revisionism."

Fair enough :). That's a complex issue though isn't it, especially if your day job is something else.

War - no, would never dream of raising the issue.

@WarOnWomen

Thank you for your insightful post. Hecates. 👏🏻

👍 two of my faves fairytales & theatre

“People are talking on this thread about "understanding a little less and condemning a little more" and vice versa, but IMO the vice doesn't have to be versa. "Understand a little more and condemn a little more" is how it usually works for me with abusive males.”

That makes sense. I do unfortunately have an abusive man in my life (not intimate relationship thank god). When I told my (male) solicitor that I and my female companion had spent endless hours trying to understand abuser’s POV the solicitor just stared at me and said “why on earth would you do that?”
It was like a window into a different simpler world

I like the sound of your solicitor.

You are not responsible for fixing all the broken men.

You are allowed to chuck them in the bin.

It was like a window into a different simpler world

It often is OP

Thanks.

The hole in the thread seems to be about a reference to an article which I linked on the first page. I don't know why the deletions - apparently for straightforwardly describing the contents of the article?

archive.vn/y2eRP

Since the comment with the actual link wasn't deleted, nor should it be, I'm reposting the link here. The article was written by a transwoman journalist and published by Feministing, a major feminist blog in the 2010s. It seems that the people who hang around here and silently report stuff don't want that article to be read. Hence re-linking it.

I'm also going to re-link Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism, which is highly relevant to OP's intuition that the pathological behaviour of many TRAs is shame-based. I had linked it in my other comment, which was deleted for quoting the insufficiently delicately worded comment. Looks like our observers don't want this read either, so here you go.

annelawrence.com/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf

Please note both linked articles were written by transwomen and published in reputable outlets (one on Feministing, the latter in the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.) And while I'm not sure why the deleted comment was deleted, please note that I have avoided describing the article's contents in any way and am allowing it to stand on its own. And that both articles are extremely relevant to OP's initial post. They should be read.

and reposting that link to make it clicky.

www.archive.vn/y2eRP

The Anne Lawrence article is very interesting.

I know a bit about children and shame - you don’t need to be a social scientist, just to have spent time in a school.

I don’t understand the terminology but it is a powerful argument for treating transsexual people with respect

As I don't think that anyone else has mentioned this, here are two scientific studies:

Prentky et al, 1989, The Presumptive Role of Fantasy in Serial Sexual Homicide, found erotic cross dressing in 25% of serial sexual murderers.

Langevin, 2003, A Study of the Psychosexual Characteristics of Sex Killers: Can we Identify them Before it is Too Late? Found transvestism in 15% and "gender identity problems" in 12%.

Obviously most cross dressers etc are not violent or vicious in any way. Maybe Silence of the Lambs talked about it in the wrong way. But there wasn't nothing behind it.

I think that it's quite possible that the aggression and sadism and hatred (including in the cases of murder) is connected to repressed shame.