Anti-FGM campaigner Hibo Wardere comes under attack

[JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown]

Again. I know Hibo has put out more than one video clarifying that her focus is on women and girls and on stopping FGM, but she did another one last night after being piled on and called a hater for not being 'inclusive' in her language.
mobile.twitter.com/HiboWardere/status/1362100744216866825
I am bloody angry about it this morning.
Hibo Wardere is a personal hero of mine for the amazing work she's done.
Attacking her for not focusing on other issues is the lowest of the low. The misogyny is rank.
(Also, if anyone hasn't got her book 'Cut' on their feminist book shelf, I really do recommend it. It's not an easy read but I found her journey incredibly inspiring).

I'm at a loss to understand why detractors of Hibo Wardare's vital and inspirational work are being afforded any sort of attention.

You're quite right, of course R0. I guess sometimes my outrage has to have a more confrontational outlet.

It's either that or drink!

So on your wise advice, and for the time being, 🥂cheers.

@DadJoke

Almost all the signal boosting of the ill-advised transgender people who have commented to or about Wardere comes from GC feminists complaining about it.

So this is this is real purpose of DadJoke's intervention here. To label mumsnet feminist board posters as "GC feminists".

To repeatedly apply that label to women as it is now the slur label du jour.

It has become the replacement for the t**f word.

Everyone has to be labelled. A disallowed "thinking" associated with the label set out. "GC feminists are "transphobic". Its sad to be "GC feminist" as you are "obsessed".

Labelling theory is a theory in sociology which ascribes labelling of people to control and identification of deviant behaviour.

In context of argumentation and debate, labelling a debater or position is often (whether consciously or unconsciously) used as a "red herring" to divert or dismiss the argument, instead of valid argumentation. Often in the form of ad hominem association fallacy aiming at accrediting or discrediting the argument or the debater by associating them with an emotionally charged label.

'Almost all the signal boosting of the ill-advised transgender people who have commented to or about Wardere comes from GC feminists complaining about it.'

And that's bad why?

More people will hear about her work.
More people will think wow these people criticising are areseholes.

I don't get the comment at all.

Trans women aren’t affected by FGM, so including them specifically is pointless.

@DadJoke

Trans women aren’t affected by FGM, so including them specifically is pointless.

Telling us something we already know is pointless. I suggest you go school TRAs on twitter 🤷🏻

@DadJoke

Trans women aren’t affected by FGM, so including them specifically is pointless.

I assume you are currently educating the TRAs on twitter about this?

@PotholeParadies

May I just point out that I bumped this thread to sing the praises give a product review of a t-shirt and to let people know she was going to rerun the campaign in the future?

I didn't really expect the thread to go down this track.

I really hope they make some more!

@DadJoke

Trans women aren’t affected by FGM, so including them specifically is pointless.

I think it would be a good idea for you maybe to go and read the Twitter thread with all the criticism on it, and try and consume it all rather than (as we all do) notice the bits you particularly agree or disagree with.

I did my best to do that, I always do, because even while I don't agree, I at least want to understand what's going on.

If you do that you will see as I did that the vast amount of criticism references trans women. Trans women are women. Some girls have penises etc.

There are a few who suggest things like women and trans men. One suggests she use cis women. These two suggestions don't actually work with the definitions of these terms that I understand them to mean. But anyway.

The vast vast majority of criticism is that using the terms girls/ women, and associating them with female biology (the bits that are cut), denies that trans women are women.

This is in line with what happens in general. Anything which connects the words woman/girl (and increasingly female) with any part of our sexual or reproductive biology is attacked massively.

This is not seen nearly so much with things which connect the words boy/men (male) with male sexual or reproductive biology.

In this case, logically the groups who you could say are excluded are trans men and boys. (And non binary females I assume. Agender females as well. Etc). This is what you have been saying.

If you look at the Twitter thread though that is not what the vast majority of criticism is about.

It would be really interesting if you looked at it and said what you think about that.

You are an individual with your own views- I for one don't see you as a sort of faceless aspect of a homogenous group (that I tend to disagree with).

And good for you for donating a large sum to the orchid project. After this thread and despite all the argy bargy, that's really kind.

@sceptcaltank I am using “gender critical feminist” or “ GC feminist” because it’s an accepted neutral term. The issue isn’t the label, it’s the views. I am more than happy to use any neutral term acceptable to posters here which describes the position of feminists who do not think trans men are men.

Almost all the signal boosting of the ill-advised transgender people who have commented to or about Wardere comes from GC feminists complaining about it.

Always happy to boost that kind of signal. Sunlight.

I'm really not sure what you imagine you've achieved on this thread, Dadjoke. Your intervention is really quite something.

@nicegerbil I’ve read the thread now, I think there were many unpleasant transphobic comments, but I agree with the gist of the criticism.

If I’d seen it at the time I would have commented. Trans women are women, but this issue cannot affect them and this distracts from and confuses the message.

Thanks for the kind words, BTW.

'I am more than happy to use any neutral term acceptable to posters here which describes the position of feminists who do not think trans men are men.'

But most of the population of the world doesn't believe it. And most of the population of the world are not feminists.

Most men don't believe it. Left wing right wing religious athiest whatever.

Do you not know that?

Also, any thoughts on my post?

So this is the thing DadJoke.

You agree in general with the criticism on this thread of the attack on the fgm activist.

So maybe you understand there was a reason to be pissed off, and it wasn't driven by bigotry?

And that things like that happen too often and a lot of women have just had it.

Tried to understand.
Tried to be kind.
Etc.

But this sort of thing keeps happening. And it's almost always women who get these attacks. And it's almost always because of something related to our biology. Rarely rarely men's.

And when you notice that you think. That doesn't make sense. Something else is going on here.

Even you on here. Do you go on sites for gay men and find a discussion about trans men and sex (I'm sure they must exist) and join in?

If you don't, please think why you are here telling us off when actually most people do not believe TMAM or TWAW and you can find this all over the net I'm sure.

[quote DadJoke]@sceptcaltank I am using “gender critical feminist” or “ GC feminist” because it’s an accepted neutral term. The issue isn’t the label, it’s the views. I am more than happy to use any neutral term acceptable to posters here which describes the position of feminists who do not think trans men are men.[/quote]
You don't use the term neutrally. You use it as a value judgement. You slur people who you assign that label to as transphobic. You believe the word transphobic applies to anyone who doesn't assign the same definitions to words as you do or apply your preferred words when you want them applied.

You are now asking for another term or label to affix to people who "think" thoughts you dislike.

Why are you so insistent on labelling, and of assigning deviant thinking to those you want labelled?

Your motivation appears to be a need to categorise in bad or good groups?

Trans women are women

Within your personal ideology. Many women, on this thread and in the wider world, do not agree, and would say the definition of women is not for male people to decide.

As an activist (sort of) for social justice issues that do not directly affect you, do you normally expect to stride in and tell oppressed groups that you don't belong to what they should be advocating for and how they should define themselves?

[quote DadJoke]@nicegerbil I’ve read the thread now, I think there were many unpleasant transphobic comments, but I agree with the gist of the criticism.

If I’d seen it at the time I would have commented. Trans women are women, but this issue cannot affect them and this distracts from and confuses the message.

Thanks for the kind words, BTW.[/quote]
“Trans women are women, but this issue cannot affect them”

Because they aren’t biologically female.
Because they are TRANSwomen.

How can TWAW be so vehemently asserted on the one hand, and then the fundamental difference between “females” and “transwomen” be so bluntly stated? How can you believe the first whilst acknowledging the second?

You don't use the term neutrally. You use it as a value judgement. You slur people who you assign that label to as transphobic. You believe the word transphobic applies to anyone who doesn't assign the same definitions to words as you do or apply your preferred words when you want them applied

Excellent post sceptical

The faithful can never let the recusants and the apostates alone.

I’m being neutral when I call you a heretic.

For the thousandth, millionth time, the definition of woman is an adult human female. A transwoman is not an adult human female, therefore cannot fall under the definition of woman.

If there is another definition of 'woman' that covers what all women and transwomen exclusively have in common, go ahead DadJoke - please provide it.

Until then, I am working to the currently accepted definition of 'woman'. Perhaps it is 'exclusionary' but has the advantage of being based in material reality.

@sceptcaltank I am using “gender critical feminist” or “ GC feminist” because it’s an accepted neutral term. The issue isn’t the label, it’s the views. I am more than happy to use any neutral term acceptable to posters here which describes the position of feminists who do not think trans men are men

I'm not sure that everyone here would even identify with the label 'feminist'. It is not a label I naturally attach to myself, for example; although I would say I am 'woman focused' on many issues. I do have fellow feeling for other females in many of life's circumstances. Females from all backgrounds; cultures; even species.

To be critical of repressive gender expectations which one feels do not naturally fit is not exclusive to any one particular political view point. I would perhaps just simply call it 'Gender Critical'.

Men and trans people are not at risk of FGM. Why is this an issue?

I know that’s been answered repeatedly btw, I’m not expecting anyone to reanswer it. I just can’t wrap my head around the why, aside from trans people wanting their egos stroked again.

I am more than happy to use any neutral term acceptable to posters here which describes the position of feminists who do not think trans men are men

Also think that the onus is on you, as a minority view, not on everyone else to be labelled, anyway. Most people, the world over, know the difference between the sexes, and the myriad implications of being either male or female. Transgenderism really is a minority paradigm.

Even those who on the surface voice support, often secretly think or know differently.