Interesting reading - what do you make of this?

[NiceGerbil]

Hello

The Pullman thread sent me down a Twitter rabbit hole that stalled when I got to this

mobile.twitter.com/alisonphipps/status/1411387723034902531

Some extracts from their book are there- have a read (not sure how to put the text here!).

I found the extracts totally fascinating. If I knew nothing about this topic, I'd think well. IMO clear, succinct. Persuasive in the confidence of the points/ arguments.

Thing is it's... I suppose maybe true for an American USA context for the religious right who I would imagine fit what's written more or less.

Of course it's referring to all women who think sex is a thing that matters.

Would love to discuss if anyone wants?

I think, NG, that if it does happen, it will happen in exactly the way that you describe. And I think that "reactionary feminism" does sound like a useful term for those to use who wish to misrepresent radfem beliefs and wants.

I'm struck by a couple of things though, which is firstly that if hoff sommers couldn't make this term stick almost 30 years ago then there's little chance of it getting picked up now, especially as she's not popular with the right side of history. Secondly, as previous posters have said, phipps has thrown everything plus the kitchen sink as an accusation against evil witches who simply understand how farming works, in language that is typically obfuscatory and inaccessible. I can't see this specifically making any headway further than the rest of the crap that already gets thrown at us.

I wish I had your optimism!

I don't know anything about HS but the term sounds very handy indeed.

I predict it will gain traction soon...

She criticizes women for "political whiteness" by "acting as gatekeepers who withhold the designation 'woman' from others," specifically, especially from males who want to identify as male. If it is political whiteness for an oppressed group not to recognize members of the outsider group who has historically oppressed them as their own kind, does that mean that people of color are guilty of political whiteness if they don't welcome Rachel Dolezal as a member of their community?

@PrincessNutella

She criticizes women for "political whiteness" by "acting as gatekeepers who withhold the designation 'woman' from others," specifically, especially from males who want to identify as male. If it is political whiteness for an oppressed group not to recognize members of the outsider group who has historically oppressed them as their own kind, does that mean that people of color are guilty of political whiteness if they don't welcome Rachel Dolezal as a member of their community?

No but after she was heavily criticised over the Southall Black Sisters thing she did go on a bit of a rant about how Black people can be politically white (SBS have their name as they are politically black).

What worries me about this version of feminism is that it leaves us with very little to go other than sitting down and shutting up. I score pretty highly on the marginalised women score (daft as that is) but I am an evil oppressor for report my husband to the police.

Her version of anticarceral feminism marginalises vulnerable women further. Those who propose this have an exceptionally poor grasp of coercive control and talk about how restorative justice can help women stay with their abusive partners because that is what they want and they will be so sad if they went to jail. I did not want my ex to go to jail. I have a non molestation order against him and his fear of prison keeps me snd my child safe. Most abusers don’t go to jail but there is a benefit in this sort of arrangement as it does give you legal protection from someone who could kill you.

She does have some valid points about how more privileged white women are centred in some forms of feminism such as the lean in stuff and most of what Emma Watson comes out with.

@irresistibleoverwhelm

suggestions my experience is the total opposite of yours. Most GC women I know are straight, bi, lesbian, but often women who came out as lesbian after marriages or relationships with men - I hear nothing IRL that “polices” whether lesbians have to have a specific pedigree (whereas I do see that constantly among libfems and young people online). Many of the original GC lesbian feminist theorists started off married to men!

Aha but as you deal with that very quickly, and move on to, “as it happens”, much longer points about efforts to stop trans women identifying as lesbians as gatekeeping as well. To a lot of people this is perfectly reasonable and logical but I personally still view it as gatekeeping and an unnecessary attempt to police the category.

— I see that this is actually the kind of “gatekeeping” you mean.

Do lesbians, a word which means a woman sexually attracted to women, ever have penises?

I’m guessing you say yes, and that saying no is “gatekeeping”. Whereas I say it’s nonsensical. It’s like saying some reptiles are mammals if they identify as such and it’s “gatekeeping” the term to say that’s nonsense.

So you and I are never going to agree. I think your position is nonsensical and specious; and you think mine is terribly mean because it hurts the feelings of men who wish they weren’t men.

When you say that you think a lot of people in these boards don’t have actual experience, I think you are the person gatekeeping others’ experiences and voices: - no matter, because we all know that gender ideologues complain about how some people’s experiences should be “validated” and respected, whilst simultaneously invalidating others’. How old are you? Have you seen what’s happened to lesbian dating for middle-aged lesbian women? Have you seen the daily threats and abuse posted to women on social media who dare not to agree with the trans orthodoxy? Women generally aren’t hysterically saying “oh they are going to rape us.” Women are saying “I assert my right to have sex with only people I choose”. And that - which should be a basic right for anyone - is being portrayed as hysteria? We all know why both men and women like to portray women’s concerns around sexual autonomy as “hysterical”, and it ain’t to support women.

In any case, the idea that women are being “hysterical” when literally all over social media TRAs are threatening women with violence and rape is incredulous. Are the threats of pipe bombs, machetes, “I punch/kill terfs”, “die terf scum”, being hit, threatened, doxxed or reported to the police for wrongthink etc. all just charming little metaphors that we are silly billies for taking for real threats of violence?

Seems to me that this Phipps rubbish you’ve bought II to wants to claim that women are evil and oppressive beings and that their opinions are literally “violence”, but that also women are hysterical, and when constant threats are made against them they are silly because these are somehow not actual violence, and they are making it all up that trans women are somehow a threat.

Tails I win heads you lose. It’s DARVO. And you must know it is.

I think at my age I would probably count as a middle aged lesbian, and I'm dating and on the apps and sure, you see the odd profile that is trans lesbian, usually very explicit about the fact. You see a few straight men as well and a few couples looking for girls to join them. None of that makes any odds to me, I swipe left and right how I see fit, and I can't see why anyone would feel any obligation to swipe in any way they didn't see fit, or wouldn't decline to converse with anyone they weren't interested in. It's certainly not come up as an issue for any of my friends.

I have no problems with the logic, logic and metaphysics was part of my degree. I simply consider that the constant wrangling and the emphasis and focus on definitions is misplaced. I don't particularly care if it's nonsensical, I'm more concerned about the marginalisation and exclusion of vulnerable people and their ability to access friendship groups and have some social support in the spaces they feel are right for them.

And I've no doubt there are social media wars and I'm quite confident individuals from both sides are as bad and abusive as each other. It's very easy for a few voices to dominate or become salient in the conversation and for there to be a subsequent mischaracterisation of a group as a whole. That's poor logic, isn't it? To consider that the behaviour of a few is representative of the many. And it's not what is happening on the ground, away from computer screens.

I'm quite confident individuals from both sides are as bad and abusive as each other.

You're wrong, however "confident" you are. Unless you think one or two examples where violence is suggested on one side somehow cancel out tens of thousands of death and rape threats and wishes on the other. Nice that you're so sure when you admit you don't really have a clue what you're talking about though.

I'm more concerned about the marginalisation and exclusion of vulnerable people and their ability to access friendship groups and have some social support in the spaces they feel are right for them.

So am I. The difference is that I am supporting people who should have a claim to these spaces and groups, who are pushed out of them due to your posturing.

Suggestions I understand that the words/ definitions side isn't interesting to everyone.

How do you feel about the material harm to women side? Prisons etc. The changed definition of words leads to males in the female estate. Because TWAW. And so on.

@suggestionsplease1

the marginalisation and exclusion of vulnerable people and their ability to access friendship groups and have some social support in the spaces they feel are right for them.

Can you tell me exactly how trans women are vulnerable?

I mean there are differences between feeling vulnerable and being vulnerable. Sometimes these things are the same. Sometimes they are not.

I feel vulnerable when I go to a party full of people I don’t know, or when I stand up to do some public speaking. But you don’t hear of many injuries or deaths caused by social embarrassment. In those situations my pride or self-esteem might be vulnerable; but I myself am not.

A young black teenager walks through a dangerous bit of central London at night. He might not feel vulnerable; but we know that statistically he’s far more likely to come to actual harm or death than I am at my party where I don’t feel “socially supported”.

Genuine vulnerability does not always correlate with who feels most vulnerable.

Can you be clear, then, about the kind of vulnerabilities you’re talking about? Because to my mind, the “ability to access friendship groups” and “have some social support in the spaces they feel are right for them” is not really a vulnerability on a par with a naked woman or a small girl feeling physically and sexually unsafe in a changing room next to a larger, more physically powerful naked man. A trans woman, true, might feel mentally vulnerable. A little girl feels physically and mentally vulnerable. Who should come first? Why does the bigger, adult, male-bodied person get first consideration? (Doesn’t sound very “intersectional” to me, for a start.)

Changing rooms for girls and women are not spaces for “making friends” and “getting social support”. They are there for female people to have privacy when changing clothes. The strange idea that some kind of sisterly support and bonding is happening in the loos and changing rooms and that trans women are entitled to have access to these places in order to feel “supported” makes me really surprised to hear you are in fact a middle aged lesbian, because I cannot imagine many middle-aged woman having such a fantastical and odd idea!

Female spaces for privacy are not like a sewing bee out of Steel Magnolias. Trans women will not be getting “ social support” in them. In order to assuage some kind of perceived “social” vulnerability, they cause others to feel vulnerable and uncomfortable in return. Does this create social solidarity and support in return? Doesn’t it rather create fear and resentment and destroy goodwill?

It may be that this movement creates its own undoing through this. A lot of women who are happy in the abstract with all this, because they believe transwomen are all post-op are not going to be so happy when they have the “penis out next to preteen daughter in gym changing rooms” experience.

And what happens then? What social support do vulnerable trans women get when mums are hurrying their children away and making complaints? Will it end up a Pyrrhic victory with the trans woman sitting alone in a space from which all the women have exited? Wouldn’t it be better to seek some kind of compromise that doesn’t leave women feeling taken advantage of and used?

And

'
the marginalisation and exclusion of vulnerable people and their ability to access friendship groups and have some social support in the spaces they feel are right for them.'

Friendship is a TWO WAY deal.

You don't 'access friendship groups' you simply make friends with people. Maybe you meet them at work or the pub or they live near you or you go to running club with them.

I find the phrasing there very strange and would be interested to know if it's just a phrasing slip, and what was meant by it.

I also dispute that any vulnerable person should have the right to access ANY group that they feel is 'right for them'.

Say you are vulnerable in some way or other. And that's very woolly. Does it mean a member of a minority group? Things like MH? Vulnerable to what? Not sure what's meant there either.

It is not right to access any group for support, socialising or anything that is NOT FOR YOU.

always just makes me think of Helena Bonham carter at the testicular cancer support group in fight club

Sick to death with this ridiculous argument.

Yes transwomen are at risk from men.

Yes women by sex are at risk from men and to exactly the same crime rate, they are equally at risk from transwomen.

Only an utter moron would argue that women should just swallow that risk posed by including biological males in their spaces.

Pretending not to see it because it suits your agenda is pathetic and cruel.

Pretentious, self promoting bullshit.

In this thread, and because of the content of the first link posted which described gatekeeping of the definition lesbian, I have been focused on that. I was struck by the apparent parallels made between historic attempts to demonize black men and current trends in demonizing trans women / trans lesbians.

To my mind there is a very strong parallel between that old scaremongering tactic "black men are going to rape white women" and what is currently happening on these boards "trans lesbians are demanding sex from other lesbians". Of course the point has been made that demanding sex from other people is the same as rape.

The two assertions are pretty much equivalent. To my mind they are both utterly unfounded, and are both born from a fear mindset that seeks to demonize the other. A myth repeated often enough becomes the truth in minds receptive to it.

And of course they both lead to the same outcomes, increased derision and hostility towards ethnic groups / gender identities, justifications for further measures taken to protect against anticipated illusory harm.

Of course there are broader questions about self ID, womens spaces but I don't have all the time in the world to address all of that, and it was this area of interest for me (as a lesbian frequently out on the social scene) that I focused on, because I consider it extremely harmful, and my perception is, and the studies show that trans people, lesbian or otherwise face more discrimination, have poorer mental and physical health, are more socially isolated, drop out of education more etc etc than women, on average.

Like FlyPassed the first I had heard of "Reactionary Feminism" was the Triggernometry interview with Mary Harrington, who describes herself as a "reactionary feminist".

Good interview and well worth watching for a perspective from the "inside" rather than commentary from the "outside":

"I Don't Believe In Progress" - Mary Harrington
14 July 2021

Mary Harrington's articles for UnHerd:

unherd.com/author/mary-harrington/

trans lesbians are demanding sex from other lesbians

Literally no one has said that, because male people aren't lesbians. Some males are using coercive behaviour to guilt lesbians into sex with them. You can deny it all you like, but there is plenty of evidence.

A myth repeated often enough becomes the truth in minds receptive to it.

Like the existence of "trans lesbians"?

my perception is, and the studies show that trans people, lesbian or otherwise face more discrimination

In what sense? I can believe that they have poorer mental and physical health, but how are they more discriminated against than women? Can you cite one of these "studies"?

To my mind there is a very strong parallel between that old scaremongering tactic "black men are going to rape white women" and what is currently happening on these boards "trans lesbians are demanding sex from other lesbians". Of course the point has been made that demanding sex from other people is the same as rape.

Except that that doesn’t in fact get said all over these boards. However, what does get said is that women have the right to refuse sex with anyone, no matter who it is. Including lesbians. And that’s not the same.

And there is plenty of stuff all over the internet where anyone can experience first had being told that lesbians who won’t sleep with trans women are evil bigots: I’m on tumblr and discord and I literally see young women being told “genital preferences are transphobic” and “terf rhetoric” and they need to “examine themselves for causing harm” every day.

I see with my own eyes women getting threats of coercive rape and “choke on my dick” and other threatened violence for being “bigots” and “terfs” every day on Twitter. Anyone can find examples within minutes.

So why are you saying women are being hysterical and comparing this to racism? Every day we can see ugly threats of violence being directed at women; why is it considered hysterical to say this? Seems like the age old evasion of blaming women for taking seriously what men do.

Or is it a case of, when TRAs threaten machetes and sexual violence and forcible rape of “terfs”, we’re all supposed to nod and say “oh they’re just metaphors”? That when women take these threats seriously they’re hysterical and overreacting?

(Women’s words are literal violence, of course, we don’t forget: women’s words “cause harm”; men’s words are just colourful metaphors not to be taken seriously.)

Haha, I'm on form today! I had a feeling that post from @Clymene might get taken down and mine with it if I quoted, so I copied my message so I could repost in such an eventuality.
_

Lol, I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to come along and give a concrete example of gatekeeping and the attempts to police others identities.

You must surely all remember the trans lesbian threads?

eg. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4229401-Trans-lesbian

You can see from the sheer number of posts that mumsnet deleted the amount of hostility towards trans issues and contravention of mumsnet guidelines that occurred. I don't report the transphobic posts because I think it's important to see them, and I actually suspect it is less aggressive GC feminists that are reporting them because they are aware that their presence in those threads undermines their cause.

Do people not think that exactly the same arguments have occurred in the past? That maybe there were a few accurate accounts of black men raping white women - (but as we all know, a drop in the ocean compared to the number of white men raping black women.) I am sure now there are a very small number of accurate accounts of trans lesbians pressurising other lesbians (in my experience lesbians don't need to be trans to attempt to coerce each other unfortunately).

It is how these individual anecdotes are used, repeated, embellished to demonise an entire grouping that is problematic. I am also concerned that fabricated scenarios are doing the rounds in order to corral anti-trans sentiment, as was almost certainly done in attempts to demonize black men.

So then, of course, is the fight back. The ethnic or gender identity groups on the receiving end of the demonisation protest and resist, and that can sometimes take aggressive forms because of the extent of the hurt and anger felt at the demonisation received. And then this justifies the next step from the oppressing group -the 'you see, we told you so, this lot are a violent bunch aren't they?'

And of course those sorts of processes are happening on both sides of the gender identity debate as each side vies for ultimate victimhood status.

There is no actual evidence that black men are likely to rape women. Never has been.

There is no evidence transwomen are less likely to rape women than any other type of penis owner.

Women cannot rape.

This effort to divert this into the frankly insulting analogy that anyone who doesn't want women in prison with males convicted of rape is a massive and obvious attempt to wind up and divert.

This thread is not about that anyway.

It's about words, how ideas propagate and what may be coming next/ the actual strategised end point.

Let's keep on track eh and not rise to obvious bollocks like that.

'
Of course there are broader questions about self ID, womens spaces but I don't have all the time in the world to address all of that, and it was this area of interest for me (as a lesbian frequently out on the social scene) that I focused on, because I consider it extremely harmful, and my perception is, and the studies show that trans people, lesbian or otherwise face more discrimination, have poorer mental and physical health, are more socially isolated, drop out of education more etc etc than women, on average'

Start another thread then please rather than co opting this one into a different topic. You obviously have s lot to say about it so it would be best all round.

'Haha, I'm on form today! I had a feeling that post from @Clymene might get taken down and mine with it if I quoted, so I copied my message so I could repost in such an eventuality.'

Haha! Gotcha!

This is not a game to me.

I would appreciate it if we could return to topic and ignore totally off topic points