The cognitive dissonance from 'TWAW' women

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

I've seen a few things today on social media which got me thinking: How do "liberal" feminists square up the argument that being a women is a feeling vs the experience we all know?

1. The awful disappearance of Sarah Everard has led to an outpouring on twitter of women highlighting how they are essentially bound by a curfew all the time (and not just when the police "helpfully suggest" it) and feel the fear of being followed/harassed/assaulted by men in public constantly.

2. Kamala Harris posted a video on Instagram about the 2.5million women how have left the workforce in the US (similar stats on Guardian about the UK) and it's driven by women being in lower paid work and not having access to childcare when schools close.

3. This scene from Fleabag appeared on my Facebook feed where Kristin Scott Thomas gives a powerful speech about how women are constantly affected by their bodies through the start of menstruation to menopause. Lots of positive articles from the time it aired:
   www.refinery29.com/en-gb/fleabag-season-2-episode-3

And yet these same women would call others bigots for saying biology matters and instead that feelings are more important to being a woman than anything else?
That to dislike finding myself in an enclosed public space with someone visibly male is phobic, and that our reproductively system has a huge impact in our lives and why women are still discriminated against?

Argh. I'm just sick of being the only one in my friends group that seems to see the hypocrisy.
They say JKR is a nasty transphobe but equally complain about the patriarchy and how childcare costs put women put of work

sorry nauticant.

Jo Bartosch wins the internet.

I have noticed for ages that there's particular kind of academic self-identifying as a fierce feminist who is especially vociferous about men/toxic men etc and will happily tweet 'please can you just not' etc about men at conferences - and who are also massively into the TWAW business. It's never made sense, it's just more jarring now.

It's like - men are all awful, until the point at which they say they're women, and then they are irreproachable.

Yes, it's an utterly bizarre level of cognitive dissonance.

@RootyT00t

The one the op describes in her op.

[quote Okbussitout]@RootyT00t

The one the op describes in her op.[/quote]
I personally don't think the two are comparable.

I can think TWAW but still see the appalling issues in relation to Sarah Everard.

Can you really and yet only 24 hors ago you posted this totally* false *assertion?
Transwomen are just as at risk as biological women in these types of cases.

I read Okbussitout's comment as asking CheeryTreeBlossom if they want to understand the TWAW mindset or just moan about it. Apologies if I've got that wrong. Personally, I will never understand it. Same as I will never understand that the earth is flat and the sun is cold.

@334bu

Can you really and yet only 24 hors ago you posted this totally* false *assertion? *Transwomen are just as at risk as biological women in these types of cases.*

I posted that in the heat of the moment in that trans women are yet again being dragged into this argument which has nothing to do with them. I was a bit strong, perhaps. But I don't think the fact they are less at risk when we speak pedanticallu means it's OK to imply we just shouldn't care about them, only biological women.

How the murder of a woman in broad daylight has been dragged into trans I just don't understand.

Here's what I struggle with.

Trans is the only issue I can think of where we say ah but they're not that, so they can't feel that. Transwomen don't count on this because they aren't biological women. We need to discard them from our protection of women because who cares. We wouldn't do that about anything else.

Incidentally, il bet my bottom dollar that I'd I was to ask you what we are doing with the transmen, you'd say they are allowed out? Because they are biologically female?

So once again, only males are the ones segregated here.

I appreciate I've derailed with that example bit the point I'm making is that for as long as we shoehorn trans into every single issue ever, we achieve nothing.

@DialSquare

I read Okbussitout's comment as asking CheeryTreeBlossom if they want to understand the TWAW mindset or just moan about it. Apologies if I've got that wrong. Personally, I will never understand it. Same as I will never understand that the earth is flat and the sun is cold.

Ah sorry I thought she meant because of derailed.

I can accept that, Dial. I just think differently, and that really is OK.

It's an emotive issue, and at this point we are back at civil discussion, and then regular posters decide I'm on the wind up or self indulged or whatever else, it happens on every thread.

I can be inconsistent because it's a grey area. But in some ways I hold many of the same views, I just don't agree when it comes to trans. But given I'm not trans, I have no agenda.

Searing tweet by Kathleen Stock which is directed at women like the ones described in the OP:

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1369775992542277632?s=20

I think we can discuss this phenomenon on a general level, it's not about one person and what they personally think.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I think we can discuss this phenomenon on a general level, it's not about one person and what they personally think.

Yes, I know. But , and this is where you got me wrong, I'm genuinely just not as educated or researched as you are.

So my I think is not a self indulgent tactic, it's just how I speak. I read every link you post.

Not my original thought but a good analysis:

TRAs have created a priest class. Now, as a (lapsed) Catholic I have met a lot of priests. Not one behaved in a predatory manner. All were decent enough to interact with individually. But because a small number are dangerous predators who used the priesthood as an opportunity to prey on the vulnerable, they are rightly subject these days to safeguarding measures and protocols. So that we never say "he must be ok because he's a priest". Or a situation where a priest is automatically believed because he is a priest. And anyone who criticises him is evil.
TRAs have created a class of people that we are not allowed to criticise and we must automatically trust on THEIR say so. It astonishes me still that people can't see how that creates an opportunity for bad guys to exploit. A priest class.

I can see your point, in the same way teachers are investigated even though we are not all terrible humans etc etc.

Gender is a more delicate topic though isn't it.

And the award for cognitive dissonance goes to the Green Party who are calling for a curfew of men at 6pm in the same week as voting against women's rights.

Apparently men who ID as women are not a risk.

mobile.twitter.com/TheGreenParty/status/1370430900186578945

Yes I agree the many TWAW women in the Green Party are prime examples.

[quote lifeturnsonadime]And the award for cognitive dissonance goes to the Green Party who are calling for a curfew of men at 6pm in the same week as voting against women's rights.

Apparently men who ID as women are not a risk.

mobile.twitter.com/TheGreenParty/status/1370430900186578945[/quote]

Curfew for men except for men who pop on a dress and heels!!!

😂

TRAs have created a class of people that we are not allowed to criticise and we must automatically trust on THEIR say so.

Yes exactly, a sacred caste, as dear departed Lang would have said.

Can yous really not see , regardless of our beliefs, why she couldn't say anything else than that in regards to trans?

hi R00Ty - this is a more general comment but I think I can see where you are coming from.

I think some of the cognitive dissonance is in the words that we use. The use of the word transwoman tends to put the type of people we are referring to in the 'safe' group. By safe, I think I am referring to that deep seated and probably ancient evolutionary brain (I might be talking about the sub cortex - I wish I knew more about this but this seems to be the thing I am meaning (below).

The use of the word 'woman' in relation to a person speaks to the deep instinctive feeling that they present no risk to us. I think when these privileged women like Ash Sarkar and Jameela Jamil are thinking about this (apart from having a high level of safety and stability in their lives due to money and profile) they instinctively think 'safe' person and that is as far as it goes.

They haven't got the imagination or capacity to override that - partly because it doesn't suit them, they don't need to and they like to feel like Lady Bountiful, being gracious and generous to all the poor unfortunate souls that are beneath them socially.

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Trans people have their own difficulties in life, those difficulties are not ours.

medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-subcortex-ancient-brain.html

[quote gardenbird48]hi R00Ty - this is a more general comment but I think I can see where you are coming from.

I think some of the cognitive dissonance is in the words that we use. The use of the word transwoman tends to put the type of people we are referring to in the 'safe' group. By safe, I think I am referring to that deep seated and probably ancient evolutionary brain (I might be talking about the sub cortex - I wish I knew more about this but this seems to be the thing I am meaning (below).

The use of the word 'woman' in relation to a person speaks to the deep instinctive feeling that they present no risk to us. I think when these privileged women like Ash Sarkar and Jameela Jamil are thinking about this (apart from having a high level of safety and stability in their lives due to money and profile) they instinctively think 'safe' person and that is as far as it goes.

They haven't got the imagination or capacity to override that - partly because it doesn't suit them, they don't need to and they like to feel like Lady Bountiful, being gracious and generous to all the poor unfortunate souls that are beneath them socially.

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Trans people have their own difficulties in life, those difficulties are not ours.

medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-subcortex-ancient-brain.html[/quote]
I have to say, despite what people may think, I don't actually know any transwomen, only transmen. I have said my bit on the way I think the 'other side' operate , but I'd be interested to see the views of transwomen (and not nutters on twitter).

Interesting about the word and it's resonance. I have said before, I have had a better relationship with male caregivers than female, so in all honesty I tend to trust men more. Maybe I'm lucky that way.

The difficulty we have is that reality does not match that gilded perception of the world. Male people (regardless of how they identify) are not all in the 'safe' category. Many are not a danger to us but we have no way of knowing which are the dangerous ones so have to be cautious around all and maintain safe spaces for when we are more vulnerable.

It can be really really hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys - we hear accounts of extremely abusive relationships that started with 'the perfect man' - he was charming and attentive and it was a very gradual process that ended in a coercive relationship that has sometimes ended in murder. We just can't tell by looking at them.

The thing that has struck me most in this whole situation is that I have observed absolutely no 'typically female' behaviour from transwomen (even with the broadest definition of typically female behaviour). Even the civilised conversations on here with transwomen demonstrates that they do not behave in a way that is typical of any female that I know. They are not female and it is unfair to expect women to consider them in that way and treat them like they share our challenges in life.

Great post. It really isn't personal that I don't want to share female spaces with male people. Any male people. It's not meant as an insult. It doesn't mean I don't like male people as a sex class. I have a male DP, male family members, colleagues and friends. I just need female only spaces in certain circumstances for my privacy, dignity, safety and comfort.

oops, cross post with above - it took me so long to write mine - I got distracted by finding out about sub cortexes.

Curfew for men except for men who pop on a dress and heels!!!

This is an excellent point - I wonder how many pennies would drop if the proposal was that men had to have a 6pm curfew unless they felt that they were women?

I'm sure il get flamed for this, but men are more likely to be victims of random street violence. Women are far more likely to be murdered or abused in their own home by someone they know. So if we take the narrative that we trust our partner and husband's, why is it that we fear men and transwomen ?