Page 2 | Men voicing their gender ideology concerns on Twitter tonight

SocialConnection · 2021-09-24T22:55:24+00:00

Over on Twitter, *@WomenReadWomen* has asked a simple question - and crucially she's asked it of 'men who disagree with gender ideology ... what is your main concern?' And men's replies; polite, reasonable, thoughtful; are coming in their several hundreds so far. Please share with the chaps in your life and ask them to join these men who are speaking up. Oddly enough there don't seem to be many bellowing accusations of terfery and transphobia in the comments below their responses.

RoyalCorgi · 25/09/2021 15:18

@NiceGerbil

Had s look through whole bunch at beginning and very very interesting.

Harm to women comes up and children too but it's not the number one for many.

Recurring items were -

Denial of science/ reality
Suppressing of free speech (no debate)
Authoritarianism
Gaslighting /being told to accept lies as truth

I wonder if it's time to start focusing on more stands then the impact on women and girls. That's massive obv but often seen as 'women's issues' and many men tune out. Putting some focus on additional areas which might engage more of an audience might be productive? I mean lots of people don't care much about women anyway sadly. I mean bad things happen to us all the time anyway it's in the news all the time. Nothing changes what can be done.

Thoughts?

I agree. For so long I've seen comments under articles in the Speccie, Mail, Times etc talking about this as a women's issue or blaming feminists saying that their own ideology has come back to bite them. The key thing to get across is that this is an ideology that denies science and compels people to lie. If you believe in science, if you believe that words mean something, if you believe that people should be allowed to speak the truth, then this ideology is massively concerning - more so, in fact, than the anti-vaccination movement.

CreepingDeath · 25/09/2021 16:20

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Should have said you need to get towards the end of the article in the first link for the full details.

Perfect, thanks - will have a read of it now.

lazylinguist · 25/09/2021 16:48

Tbh I can totally understand why denial of science/reality comes first for them. It did for me too, and I'm a woman. However bad the impact on women, it is still the sheer incomprehensible nonsense of the statement TWAW that brings me up short and makes me wail "But it's simply not truuuuue!!! The law shouldn't support things that are blatant falsehoods, no matter whom they are trying to be kind to!

CreepingDeath · 25/09/2021 16:55

Thanks for the read MrsOvertonsWindow - Lucy McDonagh is brilliant.

Also that thread is eye opening, I'm ashamed to say that back in 2018 I had no idea what was really going on, and if asked I probably would have said 'what's the big deal?'

There were so many brave women fighting this even back then, who probably had so little support. Hats off to them.

CreepingDeath · 25/09/2021 17:08

@lazylinguist

Tbh I can totally understand why denial of science/reality comes first for them. It did for me too, and I'm a woman. However bad the impact on women, it is still the sheer incomprehensible nonsense of the statement TWAW that brings me up short and makes me wail "But it's simply not truuuuue!!! The law shouldn't support things that are blatant falsehoods, no matter whom they are trying to be kind to!

Yeah, I agree. The complete unreality of it is mind boggling. I find it so interesting how many politicians spout 'trust the science, listen to the science, believe the science' when it comes to Covid...but when it comes to biology, science is what? Inconvenient?

The other side story that both fascinates and infuriates me is the lack of acknowledgment of any opposing views from the self professed 'liberals' and shouting down and vitriol agains any dissenters.

Plus the nauseating cheers and celebrations when women get cancelled or abused or fired or whatever. Just because the person expresses an opinion they don't like.
Whatever happened to let's agree to disagree? I always think 'what kind of person does that make you to be celebrating someone else downfall'?, and they're the ones urging others to #bekind .

As for the people who don't agree with us, I would love to sit and ask some of them genuinely - what happens when something comes along that the masses believe, but you don't agree with, and are concerned about.
Are you going to stand up and say something? Are you going to be honest, or question it? Or will you be too afraid that the mob will come after you?
Because that's how it works if we allow this to keep happening. I guess they never think they will be on the 'wrong' side of anything.

Hardybloodyhar · 25/09/2021 17:17

@lazylinguist

Tbh I can totally understand why denial of science/reality comes first for them. It did for me too, and I'm a woman. However bad the impact on women, it is still the sheer incomprehensible nonsense of the statement TWAW that brings me up short and makes me wail "But it's simply not truuuuue!!! The law shouldn't support things that are blatant falsehoods, no matter whom they are trying to be kind to!

This. We are forced to say something is true, when it isn't. It's population wide gaslighting.

LobsterNapkin · 26/09/2021 02:37

@lazylinguist

Tbh I can totally understand why denial of science/reality comes first for them. It did for me too, and I'm a woman. However bad the impact on women, it is still the sheer incomprehensible nonsense of the statement TWAW that brings me up short and makes me wail "But it's simply not truuuuue!!! The law shouldn't support things that are blatant falsehoods, no matter whom they are trying to be kind to!

Well it's logically prior, after all. It's bad for women because it's not true, and you are just always going to get poor results when you begin from untrue statements.

And the suppression of speech, shitting down of academic life - these are the necessary conditions of any democratic political life. Including women talking about their thoughts and needs.

There is no way to just address the gender ideology element, the whole thing has to be taken down to the foundations.

NiceGerbil · 26/09/2021 03:30

The thing that really makes me freak out is and always has been the utter inconsistency, lack of logic with this.

I've got that sort of way of thinking and it just makes me twitch.

Things like-
TWAW people and orgs using menstruators sometimes. And women other times, meaning sex.
The fact that terms like menstruators being touted as more accurate and medically correct. Are the opposite as they totally ignore the reality of our biology in real life.
The fact that it's obvious that anyone reading menstruators will translate in their head to women. An extra step. One not needed. Not more accurate. Pointless and ridiculous. The fact that people are supposed to somehow know whether parts they can't see are present and they do that by knowing what sex they are. Nonsensical.
The fact that when asked. There is no explanation as to why women and girls who have had things happen to them, esp overseas, are called women and girls meaning sex and that's perfectly fine.

Yes it makes me twitch and get really quite angry.

The point is though it's not about science or logic at all. It's about a set of beliefs. And getting them into general use needs to be gradual. Hence murdered women are never murdered people with vaginas. It would rightly cause outrage. And that would be a setback.

CourageCallsToMe · 26/09/2021 11:34

Maybe the question journalists ask should be along the lines of:
Are you a science denier?
Do you believe someone can change sex from that observed at birth?

CreepingDeath · 26/09/2021 13:55

@CourageCallsToMe

Maybe the question journalists ask should be along the lines of: Are you a science denier? Do you believe someone can change sex from that observed at birth?

Unfortunately, part of the whole problem is that true journalism has taken a nosedive in the last few years. The arse has fallen out of it as a career and there is not much money to be made.

Newspapers are scrambling around trying to retain revenue. Young people aren't buying physical newspapers, so they have to attract subscribers. They can't afford to pay many investigative journalists and rely on clickbait nonsense.

Which has led to lots of commentary and not much news. People being fed a steady diet of what they want to hear.

politics4me · 26/09/2021 14:48

I have posted on MN with another username and have been sympathetic to women.
After reading about that Spa 'incident' I think about how horrified my Mother or Sister or Daughter or Wife would have been at a similar confrontation.
As well as the logic, denial of science and free speech aspects you refer to it brings out the 'protector' of our family in us. We still have it although we are more subtle and sophisticated now. Anyone exposing themselves to one of the above or following them into the lavatory would be challenged and vigorously if necessary by me.

LobsterNapkin · 27/09/2021 02:09

@CourageCallsToMe

Maybe the question journalists ask should be along the lines of: Are you a science denier? Do you believe someone can change sex from that observed at birth?

They do need to question people robustly on this, and even more they need to have people with credibility in the scientific world publicly talk about it in a clear way.

"Science denier" is a loaded term though because it's often used against people who question scientific ideas, or political use of scientific ideas, in a perfectly reasonable, and indeed scientific, way.

Fifteentoes · 27/09/2021 16:08

@lazylinguist

Tbh I can totally understand why denial of science/reality comes first for them. It did for me too, and I'm a woman. However bad the impact on women, it is still the sheer incomprehensible nonsense of the statement TWAW that brings me up short and makes me wail "But it's simply not truuuuue!!! The law shouldn't support things that are blatant falsehoods, no matter whom they are trying to be kind to!

I'm a man but not on Twitter so can't contribute there. This is very much it for me - I'm a fully paid up member of the wokeratie on most issues, but I can't think of any other topic where we're asked to accept such incoherent anti-scientific nonsense, and accused of bigotry if we don't. F* that.

Which is not to say that the practical effect on women and girls is not important to me. But I'm aware that it's not, directly speaking, my fight. I've always been a bit suspicious of people with privilege (of whatever variety) indulging in battles of the underprivileged so they can congratulate themselves on being down with the struggle. I'll make my position clear, face conflict and do whatever I can when the fight comes up, but I'm not going to claim ownership of it.