Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Does anyone ever wonder how this will end?

609 replies

dyslek · 12/07/2021 21:22

I can see three scenarios.

  1. women lose and we end up living in some nightmarish high tec version of ancient Rome, where woman and children is a sub human resource to be exploited in anyway a man wants at an given moment.
  2. the mass hysteria quietly dies down and every kind of pretents this was never a thing (and in fact it was only those nasty feminists making a fuss that caused all this misunderstanding in the first place).
  3. due to the sheer insanity of gender idology, society slowly starts to listen to women and the horror of the unfairness wakes everyone up to womans humanity and gender stereotypes and finally totally abandoned and we all live happly ever after.
OP posts:
TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 08/08/2021 00:52

I’m not even sure what I’m trying to achieve posting all this. As I’ve said, I don’t think compromise is possible. I don’t think there is “common ground” to be found. I’m not looking to find ways to work with someone like Bluebirds because there’s nothing for either of us to work with.

I think it’s just existential angst about this whole shitshow. The whole how did we get here, what the fuck happened, where did it all go so wrong and how are we ever going to get out of this when it’s all so badly fucked up kind of thing.

How did such a huge, monstrous, irrational, indefensible lie take hold of modern, secular society in the late 20th/early 21st century?

Why was nobody in charge keeping an eye on things and stopping it before it got too mad?

I mean, I kind of know some of the answers.

But it still shocks me. Even though I should be used to this being the way things are by now.

And here we still are, with two doggedly opposed camps, both claiming to represent the vulnerable and the forgotten, both thinking only their way is the way forward.

Only one with a well documented history of violent rhetoric and ultra misogynistic rape and death threats against the other, mind.

Anyway. I guess it’ll all come out in the wash, sooner or later.

In the meantime, here’s some Life of Brian (no, not that bit):

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 08/08/2021 00:53

@FloralBunting

Maintaining women's rights and protections is my current focus.

What's yours?

Thank you for the sanity, Floral
TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 08/08/2021 00:53

And safeguarding children

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 08/08/2021 00:58

If you acknowledge that men as a class are a risk factor to women, it doesn’t seem to be very sensible to massively increase the opportunities for men as a class to prey upon women as a class, does it now.

Unless you really, really don’t give a shit about women and just see them as dispensable cannon fodder in the pursuit of men’s rights to do whatever they bleeding well want at any given moment.

Theoldprospector · 08/08/2021 01:00

‘You can't distinguish the identities of "man" and "woman" social categories built around sex from sex itself.’

Men and women are the sexes in our species. What do you think sex is?

BluebirdsSong · 08/08/2021 01:02

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark
"Only one with a well documented history of violent rhetoric and ultra misogynistic rape and death threats against the other, mind."

There's a well documented history of GC people making outright genocidal statements about trans people.

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1417795260051333123

BluebirdsSong · 08/08/2021 01:08

@Theoldprospector

‘You can't distinguish the identities of "man" and "woman" social categories built around sex from sex itself.’

Men and women are the sexes in our species. What do you think sex is?

Physical characteristics, and nothing else. Labels, social classes, and societal organization established around these physical characteristics are inherently in the realm gender.

This person has a penis/vulva -- observing sex
This person is a man/woman -- assigning a social category, whether or not you base it on sex

BluebirdsSong · 08/08/2021 01:09

*in the realm of gender

Tallwhitepine · 08/08/2021 01:12

Run along dear.
The grownups are talking.

Theoldprospector · 08/08/2021 01:14

‘This person has a penis/vulva -- observing sex
This person is a man/woman -- assigning a social category, whether or not you base it on sex’

Person with a vulva is also a social category though. It is a social category based on sex, but for many people it will also include aspects of gender.

BluebirdsSong · 08/08/2021 01:20

@Tallwhitepine

Run along dear. The grownups are talking.
You know, I could make a few belittling ageist comments about you folks too.
Tallwhitepine · 08/08/2021 01:24

Have you had anything to eat? If not you should probably step away from the screen and have something. Be sure to include some vegetables.

BluebirdsSong · 08/08/2021 01:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Tallwhitepine · 08/08/2021 01:50

Yes, dear.
So no, you haven't eaten?

Helleofabore · 08/08/2021 04:39

Oh. I see ‘lady’ has appeared in FWR again today. What a surprise that it is again from a poster that seeks to shame women who are discussing the impacts of the conflicts of other group’s rights on ours. Another poster framing centring females as being ‘anti-trans’.

I wonder how much longer that term ‘anti-trans’ will last. Because soon they will realize the huge spotlight it focuses on those ‘conflicts’ they say don’t exist. Crack on using it I say! The more this is highlighted the better.

Helleofabore · 08/08/2021 04:50

Just don't be surprised once the "biological reality" argument zeroes in on its original targets, which was gay people.

Looking forward to an explanation of this.

gay men are already being accused of misogyny on spurious grounds.

And what ‘spurious’ grounds are they? Are you saying gay men are not and can never be misogynists? (Because I have plenty of real life experience that disproves this)

Or that people are just randomly making things up? And who are you accusing of doing this?

DaisiesandButtercups · 08/08/2021 05:49

“Well, to make things easier to determine which side is conservative and which side is progressive -- only one side is being praised and backed up by conservative figures and media outlets like Tucker Carlson, The Federalist, The Spectator, etc.”

And only one side is backed by graphic threats of brutal violence, rape and murder as well as the full force of the majority of psychopathic capitalist corporations and big business.

The economic and social policies traditionally associated with left and right are coming unstuck. They never really went that well together in the first place.

Rampant capitalism destroys strong families and communities and is the antithesis of most traditional moral teachings rooted in religion which many on the right value.

Identity politics destroys the sense of everyone is equal, holding resources common and society before individual which are the core values of socialism.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 08/08/2021 07:36

[quote BluebirdsSong]@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark
"Only one with a well documented history of violent rhetoric and ultra misogynistic rape and death threats against the other, mind."

There's a well documented history of GC people making outright genocidal statements about trans people.

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1417795260051333123[/quote]
That's an interesting interpretation of "well documented."

I would hope that the screenshotted person would accept that that is not the best self to which she aspires and that she would withdraw such statements.

I don't understand why that legitimises some of KM's own non-sequiturs and generalisations building off that.

The bottom line is that there are people who are suffering for some reason, and rather than offering them help, GC uses their pain as a tool to drum up hatred against trans people

However, I also see that there are people questioning the provenance of the account within KM's own timeline so it is certainly confusing and emphasises our different standards for "well documented". I have some sympathy for KM's followers who are expressing reservations:

twitter.com/ianc14/status/1417797137480433668?s=20

twitter.com/KStarlight21/status/1417798023455858690?s=20

Aparallaxia · 08/08/2021 07:47

I really don't understand the TRA line about us GC folks being absolutely obsessed with genitals. Of course, this is the criticism that some lesbians-with-penises make about lesbians who don't want to sleep with them because they, you know, have a penis and testicles:

www.allure.com/story/guide-to-sex-with-trans-women-for-cis-women

But let that pass. So, in terms of what we want society to look like, we would actually like there to be far less attention paid to genitals, and/or to chromosomes, and/or to reproductive role, except insofar as it's unavoidable. Unavoidable because of (a) babies and (b) safety of women, whose weaker physique and reproductive role makes them much more vulnerable to violence, including of the sexual type, and thus more easily led by threats of violence.

They also earn less, are more likely to be economically dependent on men than vice versa, and so on. Now this sort of economic disadvantage has nothing at all to do with women's innate inferiority or some such garbage, and everything to do with gender rôles. In a perfect world, women's physical weakness and their reproductive rôle wouldn't matter, because everyone would be nice to everyone else, and people's abilities would be recognized and fostered, and there would be love and laughter and peace ever after and so on.

Now this is not, as you may have noticed, a perfect world. Also, it never will be. Incremental improvement is the most we can hope and work for, and sometimes even that seems a tad optimistic. So, we recognize that women's weakness and reproductive rôle are not going to cease to matter any time soon. Even hardened TRAs can't think that, as of this minute, there are people without uteruses having babies. Maybe, one day, scientists will have so fucked around with the human body that men can have babies, and if so they will probably secure seven years' paid maternity leave and a career freeze and a chauffeured limosine to take them to their post-partum yoga classes. But this is now, and now is a bad time to be a woman all over the world, as it always has been.

So I think we are, to coin a phrase, divided by a common language. TRAs think 'woman' is (only) gendered: it has the intension and extension it has only thanks to social rôles assigned to certain human beings by other human beings. This sort of gendering floats free of everything but society.

And so we GCs ask: look, how is it that 'woman' got to have the gendered meaning that it has, according to you? Is it just an accident that all over the fucking world from time immemorial women have been and still are overwhelmingly the objects of male violence and exploitation, not the other way round, and that this isn't anyone's fantasy—except for some other males? Our answer is obvious. We use 'woman' as we do because there are irreducible facts about biology that our language must recognize or, to be frank, we are going to starve, every last one of us. Not only do we have sex, in part to make babies, so do other animals. And many plants have sex. Don't forget plants. Sex has proved a hugely successful way of furthering evolution's aimless aim.

This isn't going to go away just because we think it sucks that women can be raped and get pregnant and trafficked and abused and that they need a Magnum [not the ice cream] to really equalize the situation vis-à-vis any man. The societal roles forced on us really are gendered... but they don't just happen to be divided up the way they are. There are good reasons why women get handed the fuzzy end of the lollipop, time after time, good, solid reasons that come from chromosomes and genitals and muscle mass and bone length and all that biological stuff. Nature is a honey-badger and it don't care. We can't make it go away by changing how we use 'woman', say to mean "a human being who has such-and-such a gender-rôle" and to refer to each such human, because that's to ignore something ineluctable about gender rôles: that it's not an accident that over and over again the people with XX chromosomes, the ones who produce large gametes, etc., are also the ones end up at the bottom of the societal heap.

This is happening as we argue this stuff, in just about every current society around the globe. Most women learn this sulla propria pelle, as the Italians say—'on their own skin'. We should count ourselves lucky that we have the leisure and the opportunity to argue with each other, instead of learning it the other, painful way.

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 08/08/2021 08:41
TheABC · 08/08/2021 09:13

^^^
@Aparallaxia, that was a tour de force.
Star

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 08/08/2021 14:13

And so we GCs ask: look, how is it that 'woman' got to have the gendered meaning that it has, according to you? Is it just an accident that all over the fucking world from time immemorial women have been and still are overwhelmingly the objects of male violence and exploitation, not the other way round, and that this isn't anyone's fantasy—except for some other males?

Absolutely. This unmooring of women’s sexed bodies as the root cause of our disadvantage/vulnerability, and indeed of men's sexed bodies as the root cause of their advantage/ability to dominate and pose a threat, can only work against those of us who are already vulnerable/disadvantaged/oppressed as a direct result of being biologically female.

As has been said on here so many times, remove the ability to name women as a sex class and you remove the ability to accurately recognise and name sexism and misogyny. And thus the ability to challenge and organise against them. You directly harm the oppressed sex class to the benefit of the oppressor sex class.

The issue still remains for me as to how we advance our cause, for want of a better word.

We have ALL the evidence on our side. We have ALL the moral justification. All the rationality, the being based in actual material reality - both the physical reality of the two sexes and the sociological/historical reality of males’ oppression of females.

Just look at the quality of the “debate” coming from the “other side”. All the tired old lies about how we want to reduce women to their genitals/reproductive capacity, how we want to enforce gender roles, how we want to literally deny trans people their right to exist, how sex is a spectrum, and nobody really knows where they lie on that “spectrum”, clownfish, mushrooms, a certain type of algae that has three sexes, which, according to a recent feature in Pink News, proves that sex in human beings is not binary or immutable.

Look at the offerings on this very thread.

There's a well documented history of GC people making outright genocidal statements about trans people.

The tweet attached proves it to be neither well documented, nor a history, nor genocidal, unless the meaning of genocidal has been fundamentally changed as much as the meaning of the word woman.

And yet that person truly believes what they’re saying. They actually believe they scored a gotcha there. They believe their own propaganda, and no amount of reason will dissuade them.

If this was about who has the most convincing arguments, about what was truly just and equitable, the “trans rights” movement would never have even got off the ground, let alone made the extraordinary gains it has. Nothing about it is tethered to reality. Nothing about it is about protecting the truly most vulnerable. Nothing about is is about creating a better world for us all to live in.

It is all based on one fundamental premise, the premise that a man who says he’s a woman actually is a woman. Despite the fact it flies in the face of both reason and genuine social justice, given the enormous power imbalance between men and women in the world we live in; despite the fact this premise is based entirely on the quasi-religious ideology of gender identity, and that as democratic, secular societies we supposedly claim we don’t impose any one ideology on our populations as a whole; despite that, this premise has been given the status of an absolute truth in the minds of millions of people, and crucially, their governments. A “truth” that it is hateful even to question.

Indeed, questioning this “truth” is met with a reaction reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition or the leaders of North Korea when their “truths” were/are questioned. Obviously without the torture or killings (although there are many that are actively trying to see us criminalised even for questioning, as Marion Millar well knows); but in terms of the vehement, visceral outrage that we should even think of challenging this premise, the sense that it is utterly verboten even to question - the only parallels can be with the most nightmarish authoritarian regimes.

So. On the one side, well argued, well reasoned observations of material reality and appeals to the collective social conscience. On the other side, an authoritarian, oppressive house of cards built on one premise that is dubious to the point of absurdity and yet about which (because of which) #nodebate will be brooked.

And yet… here we are with not just angst ridden teenagers but responsible, elected politicians in their droves supporting and pushing this ideology, here and across the western world. National broadcasting companies issuing blatant propaganda. The leaders of healthcare institutions putting female patients at risk with their indefensible policies and neglecting, even endangering the physical/mental health of minors. Prominent figures in the creative world positively rushing to lend their support to the insanity and refusing to publicly condemn the ongoing avalanche of vile abuse and threats made against one woman writer who dared to stand up against it all.

And on and on and on and on.

Before Maya’s latter judgment, we even had a judge saying that believing there are two sexes and that sometimes sex matters was a belief not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

I mean, if we recover from this - and I say if because who knows how much further this can go, given how far it’s got already - if we recover from this, people really will one day be looking back in bewilderment, in disbelief that it could all ever have happened. If they’re sensible, people will take it as an object lesson in how totalitarian thought can take over a liberal democracy, a whole series of liberal democracies; how easily people can be persuaded to base their laws and moral codes on outright lies and denial of reality; how easily people can be conned into thinking that helping those who already have more power to have even more power is actually a socially just and virtuous thing to do.

If they’re sensible, these people of the future, including any of us who are still around by then, will learn from it all and use it to build better safeguards in society, to try and protect themselves from something similar happening again.

But in the meantime, we’re still stuck in this thankless struggle to wake people up to the fact that reality exists, and will continue to exist regardless of how many people turn themselves over to the fantastical domains of Queer Theory.

I suppose that’s the reality we have to grasp. That people really are willing to believe, and even base their whole lives and worldview on, something which to us is an obvious, outright lie; base their worldview on something which is at best an strongly contested ideological position that is sorely lacking in any kind of evidentiary basis, this idea that a man who says he’s a woman actually is a woman.

We know people will also act as if this strongly contested ideological position that is sorely lacking in any evidentiary basis is an actual, indisputable fact. There’s that doctor from the IOC who recently said “Everyone agrees that trans women are women.” So not just putting forward a false, unsubstantiated claim as a truth, but also falsely claiming that everyone subscribes to this belief! Is that what you could call a meta lie?

We know that people will believe that something which furthers the oppression of the most consistently oppressed group in the history of humanity is actually a civil rights movement.

Which leads me to the conclusion that people will believe almost anything if they have a strong enough motivation for doing so.

That’s what we’re dealing with. That’s the scale of the delusion we’re taking on, the scale of the forces ranged against us.

It still makes my head explode. I still struggle to reconcile this reality with the world I thought I knew, the world I thought I lived in, before I was aware of all this. But this is how it is.

And if it hadn’t been for us pesky women of FWR, it would have been a whole lot worse by now, in the UK at least! It was a real high point for me in the webinar with Helen Joyce when she credited us with having been instrumental in creating a viable resistance to the relentless march of genderist ideology. (My paraphrasing.)

I take heart from that. We have pushed back. We have shown that in the face of overwhelming odds, in the face of horrifying levels of institutional capture, in the face of endemic levels of misogynistic bullying, demonisation and vilification, we have stood firm and held the line against what we perceive to be - what we know to be - a most grave and monstrous injustice and source of harm to women and children.

We have spoken, despite being told, rather forcefully at times, that our words are literal violence. We have written to our MPs, the BBC, our children’s schools and anyone else pushing this ideology. We have crowdfunded en masse for the host of legal actions that some exceptionally brave women (and a few brave men) have brought/are bringing to challenge it all and try to restore some rule of law and reason. We have attended meetings, connected with each other, found solace and support with like minded women and a few supportive men. Not just the women of FWR of course, but we do need to acknowledge the importance of the role we’ve played. A whole new grassroots feminist movement has sprung up, and we’ve been a big part of that.

No wonder those who oppose us are so keen to shut us down.

I still don’t know how or when this will ultimately resolve. But I know we’re not backing down, not giving up, not changing course now. We’ll just have to keep on doing what we’re doing, sticking to the facts and to our feminist/woman-centred principles, and refusing to be intimidated or silenced by misogynistic bullies.

And hopefully there will eventually come a time when the onus is on those who deny reality to come up with a way of dealing with the real world they live in, not on us to try to find a way to make people acknowledge that reality.

Mulletsaremisunderstood · 09/08/2021 17:39

Please don't step in the Bluebirdshit people, it will just get everywhere Grin.

Jaysmith71 · 09/08/2021 17:52

"It is all based on one fundamental premise, the premise that a man who says he’s a woman actually is a woman."

You could call it "Trans-substantiation."

alkanet · 09/08/2021 17:57

Blimey Talkingtolangcleg,

I'm standing up & raising a very large Jamesons in your general direction.

👏👏👏👏👏💐