Q&A thread for New Posters

[CharlieParley]

Welcome to the FWR board and welcome to the debate. If you're new here and have been told your questions might be better on their own thread, but you're not comfortable starting your own, then please feel free to ask your question here.

I'll try my best to answer and some of our other regulars might pop in too.

Wow I've not read all the comments but there are a few that say "I'm not victim blaming but.. "

Young women literally cannot win.

One sector of society tells them they should not even admit they can see the difference between men and women!

But if you get attacked in a train carriage, it will be "didn't you notice you were alone with a man?"

@PothoIeParadies

Young women literally cannot win.

One sector of society tells them they should not even admit they can see the difference between men and women!

But if you get attacked in a train carriage, it will be "didn't you notice you were alone with a man?"

Maybe the person identified as a woman. 🤷 We're not supposed to assume these days.

But yes, we are transphobes if we notice the difference and irresponsible if we don't and fail to adjust our behaviour and movements accordingly.
🙄

Helen - ”To deny that ‘woman’ means more than biologically female is to deny inescapable reality.”

I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that there are no predictable consequences to being female, only that in order to be a woman it is necessary and sufficient to be female.

Your comments about travelling on crowded tube trains suggest a lack of insight into the predictable consequences of being female

@PothoIeParadies

Helen, I would like you to read through this thread about a girl being attacked on the top floor of a bus. Pay attention to the number of people who blame the girl for being irresponsible because she went upstairs on public transport.

www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2303625

I’ve just read through that whole thread. That’s a very shocking incident, and some people have made some pretty stupid comments on it (and rightly been pulled up by others for those comments).

@MoleSmokes

Your comments about travelling on crowded tube trains suggest a lack of insight into the predictable consequences of being female

I obviously can’t claim to have insight into everyone’s experiences of ‘the predictable consequences of being female’, but having been a female for a good few years now, and in that time been on many tubes and buses, and found myself in quite a few gigs, clubs and other places in close proximity with a large variety of other people, you must accept I have some insight into these matters.

@SophocIestheFox

Yes, that’s a good one, let’s look at “you are hostile to trans rights”.

I’m not. I absolutely and unequivocally support the right of trans identified people to live free from harassment and violence, to be able to access healthcare and housing, education and benefits, to pursue relationships, to travel, to live freely in all the ways on offer to every human being in the UK right now. I want them to be able to access any support they need to be able to do this, and feel their voices are heard, and in so far as it doesn’t impact on other people’s rights, to live according to their beliefs.

But (and it’s the crux of it), there are still times and places where women need to be able to assert our rights to male free environments, our rights to words used to describe things that are female, our rights to speak our truth and be respected. And that will mean saying to male born people “no, this is not for you, your needs are different”, or “no, I don’t agree to that”.

It is a tale as old as time that when women say “no”, it is taken as an act of hostility. This is no different.

And if someone says “there is no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” and then in the next breath says “you feminists are hostile to trans rights”, then somethings afoot because both of those things can’t be true.

Brilliant 😊

The ‘social significance’ is attached to the body, not the words though. Women and girls globally are subjugated, denied rights, sold as child brides, genitally mutilated, trafficked, raped because of their female bodies, and they can’t identify out of it. It’s such bullshit western blind privilege to think in terms of the luxury of identity. If I identified as a male tomorrow, would it deter an attacker from attacking me? Would it wash if I declared it? Would it stop the abuse, or would he laugh in my face? And why are you pretending that we can’t accurately sex other humans in 99.9% of cases? Virtually all? It’s an innate skill even very young children can perform instinctively, because it’s been necessary for evolution. Your physiology is the primary declaration of your sex, not the words. The words aren’t the big reveal or announcement, you being in the room is. Words are used to describe the world around us, we need them to have commonly agreed on definitions otherwise they wouldn’t function. To deny reality never helped anyone, this reminds me of people claiming they don’t see colour and thinking they were helping. To linguistically muddy waters or whitewash would not make reality stop being.

So the only way to get to a place where people are truly free from gendered norms and expectations (or at least, free to adopt them or reject them as they wish) is to detach the concepts of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from biological sex and allow people to inhabit them as they wish.

I'd quite like to be truly free from having gendered politics inflicted on me, and my language and sense of identity and own choice of self definition forcibly adapted to fit your personal preferences and sense of superiority of understanding. I'd like to reject that as I wish.

But I suspect your apparent view of freedom and respect for others breaks down at that point.

if someone says “there is no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” and then in the next breath says “you feminists are hostile to trans rights”, then somethings afoot because both of those things can’t be true.

Yes. Also, I've seen people actually describe the phrase 'women's rights' as 'dogwhistle transphobia'. That should spell things out pretty clearly.

Yes. Also, I've seen people actually describe the phrase 'women's rights' as 'dogwhistle transphobia'. That should spell things out pretty clearly.

Yes, it does.

@Edenember

The ‘social significance’ is attached to the body, not the words though. Women and girls globally are subjugated, denied rights, sold as child brides, genitally mutilated, trafficked, raped because of their female bodies, and they can’t identify out of it. It’s such bullshit western blind privilege to think in terms of the luxury of identity. If I identified as a male tomorrow, would it deter an attacker from attacking me? Would it wash if I declared it? Would it stop the abuse, or would he laugh in my face? And why are you pretending that we can’t accurately sex other humans in 99.9% of cases? Virtually all? It’s an innate skill even very young children can perform instinctively, because it’s been necessary for evolution. Your physiology is the primary declaration of your sex, not the words. The words aren’t the big reveal or announcement, you being in the room is. Words are used to describe the world around us, we need them to have commonly agreed on definitions otherwise they wouldn’t function. To deny reality never helped anyone, this reminds me of people claiming they don’t see colour and thinking they were helping. To linguistically muddy waters or whitewash would not make reality stop being.

Maybe if everyone stopped banging on about how men and women are profoundly different, stopped declaring babies’ sex before they’re even born so they can buy them the socially expected clothing and gifts, stopped unnecessarily dividing up children in primary school into boys’ and girls’ teams, changing rooms etc, then we would see how that changes things. You clearly don’t think it would make much of a difference. I disagree

@Helen8220 if you are of the opinion that pretending everyone is the same despite reality as a way to plaster over problems (‘I don’t see colour’), then I can’t help you. Is it not better to not deny the reality that we all see, but treat people with the same dignity regardless of the differences? Nobody has to buy ‘gendered’ clothing or toys for children. We can’t linguistically obfuscate some very real world problems and facts away. Male violence is a thing. Sex is the single most reliable determiner we have of likelihood of being a victim or perpetrator of sexual assault. Denial of the significance of sex in a sexist world is dangerous for women and girls. Your way is not an experiment I’m willing to undertake with women and girls as collateral I’m afraid, and I justifiably don’t trust the male sex to self declare. Males don’t have to like the no, but they’re going to have to accept it, it really is that simple.

Maybe if everyone stopped banging on about how men and women are profoundly different, stopped declaring babies’ sex before they’re even born so they can buy them the socially expected clothing and gifts, stopped unnecessarily dividing up children in primary school into boys’ and girls’ teams, changing rooms etc, then we would see how that changes things. You clearly don’t think it would make much of a difference. I disagree

But we are profoundly different - that isn’t a bad thing - just a fact.

Removing ‘socially expected’ clothing or ‘girl’ ‘boy’ labels will make absolutely zero difference to that situation. Everyone will still know who the females are when they want babies grown or to not employ them be a they might get pregnant or pay them less.

Taking away the means of identifying us a group with a broadly common set of needs just makes it harder for us to advocate for ourselves.

Maybe if everyone stopped banging on about how men and women are profoundly different

We are different though.

Maybe if everyone stopped banging on about how men and women are profoundly different, stopped declaring babies’ sex before they’re even born so they can buy them the socially expected clothing and gifts, stopped unnecessarily dividing up children in primary school into boys’ and girls’ teams, changing rooms etc, then we would see how that changes things. You clearly don’t think it would make much of a difference. I disagree

You're conflating two completely separate things here: sex and gender.

banging on about how men and women are profoundly different

This is sex. Chromosomes, reproductive systems etc. Men and women have different types of bodies.

stopped declaring babies’ sex before they’re even born so they can buy them the socially expected clothing and gifts

This is gender. The 'socially expected' bit gives you a clue here. I agree with you that it would be better if everything wasn't so 'gendered' from birth.

stopped unnecessarily dividing up children in primary school into boys’ and girls’ teams, changing rooms etc

Sex again. Boys and girls have different types of bodies (those chromosomes and reproductive systems again). Even before puberty, the two sexes are not totally equal in terms of sporting ability (although I'll admit here that I'm not sure how great the difference is, so it might not matter too much, particularly for the youngest children).

As for changing rooms, many girls start puberty whilst at primary school. It must be difficult enough for them already if they are one of the first to have their body show changes, without having to expose themselves to the boys as well.

You clearly don’t think it would make much of a difference. I disagree

I'm with you all the way as far as gender is concerned, but it's absurd to pretend that sex differences don't exist.

@gardenbird48 precisely this. The rank hypocrisy of Benjamin Cohen is a prime example... spending an inordinate amount of time telling women they exist only as a state of mind... and then somehow knowing exactly who to ask when he wants a biological function performed that only women can. No amount of linguistic coercion changes male entitlement to female bodies, whether that’s for sexual availability or reproductive labour.

I had seen speculation as to whether the endgame was 'to detach the concepts of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from biological sex' and, to be honest, had wondered if that was a little bit far fetched, so very interesting to read such an unabashed confirmation on here.

@Helen8220 , you seem to be confused about what we’re saying. People can express themselves however they like. Progressive - men and boys can wear dresses, girls can be tomboys. Or indeed wear / be interested in whatever they like, irrespective of their immutable sex. This is gender non-conformity. We support this.

Regressive - a man wearing a dress makes him less of a man, or indeed a woman. A girl wearing less frills or looking more ‘masculine’ makes her less of a girl, or indeed a boy. This is absolute gender-conformity taken to new levels of absurdity.

Saying that a girl who doesn’t perform societies gendered expectations of her sex, who doesn’t perform femininity to an acceptable degree, makes her a man... is the most gender conforming thing you can do. It is reinforcing those stereotypes, not smashing them, by attempting to move her from one rigid set of gendered expectations to another. There is no wrong way to be a woman. There is no wrong way to be a man. Saying that not performing masculinity or femininity to an appropriate degree makes you less a member of your sex is to suggest that you believe that there is a wrong way to be a man and a wrong way to be a woman. Take Alex Drummond - if they’d said they were ‘expanding the bandwidth of what it means to be a man’, I would’ve been applauding them.

‘You’re no man’ ‘im more of a man than you’ll ever be’ etc directed at effeminate men is the language and rhetoric of playground bullies of my childhood. This ideology is saying exactly the same thing. It is not progress.

I know that changing terminology or concepts wouldn’t stop sexism overnight, but I also think a blurring of the boundaries between ‘man’ and ‘woman’ over time will help to erode sexist stereotypes

It clearly doesn't. That experiment is already here.

Men and women everywhere are saying they're the opposite sex. Or no sex at all. They are getting it set in legal stone. And ensuring that no-one can say otherwise.

The sexism has got worse.

Because now you've entirely lost the language to describe it.

Show me all the ways that the exact thing you advocate for, detaching the words man and women from biology, has helped eliminate sexism.

It's happening all over the western world and women are being silenced, restricted, bullied, threatened and intimidated in a mammoth display of sexism.

How has the very thing you endorse helped reduce sexism???

detach the concepts of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from biological sex and allow people to inhabit them as they wish.

I am another who actually wants to know what this means in material reality. Throughout this thread you have conflated gender and sex.

However, what does this mean? That when people want to have a surrogate to gestate their child, that that person will be described as female? Or incubator? Because, it does seem that everyone knows who to go to for that service.

A poster asked up thread about attacks on women. A transman was attacked and kept saying they were a man, grimly, the person attacking simply kept on. This is the reality, no female can identify out of being the sex that is the target of VAWAGs.

Just like I have had several members of my family experience rape, and because of it, I am hyper vigilant. I too am someone who would leave a train carriage if I was there alone with a male of any presentation or sit in the view of the bus driver on a bus.

The reality is, the words 'woman and man' have a long history where the meaning is attached to sex, and that some people wish to change these words to reflect their perception of reality. A reality that is actually in no way the reality of the over riding majority.

Also I grew up without the colour pink, wearing mostly boys clothes and haircut, doing things that were free of gender expectations (in fact, revolved around manual labour). It did not stop me experiencing sexist discrimination at all.

Why on earth would anyone think that it would?

@datun exactly this. It’s also an extremely morally questionable ‘solution’... ‘the best way you can expect equity is if you deny reality / pretend you’re something you’re not / dilute what you are. It’s the best we can hope for.’ Nah. You would demand better than this for any other immutable characteristic.

Basically, acceptance based on a pretence or denial of reality is not acceptance, is it.

A great place to start really is working out exactly how forcibly changing the term Female Genital Mutilation to Forced Genital Mutilation is useful for the victims and activists to fight to eliminate this horrific act.

Exactly how does a female identify out of being a target for the act to happen?
Exactly how does changing the words to remove the focus of this act needing to remain on females assist in law, in culture, in real effect?
Exactly how does dehumanising the term in removing just who it effects help those already feeling dehumanised because of it?

Or, by using the term Forced Genital Mutilation, does it allow people to deny it is as bad as it actually is?