Lots said about the importance of using the corect terms - can we stop obfuscating misogyny??

[Itscalledmisogyny]

Just this. I get incredibly frustrated over our use of their terms. Could we stop calling people transactivists, TRAs, genderists, believers in gender ideology etc etc - if what we are seeing is misogyny.

We need to pull back the Overton window and call misogyny misogyny. Not some other term which in effect excuses and conceals misogyny under the label of choice of the misogynist.

Someone who argues that female rape survivors 'need' mixed-sex groups is a misogynist. Someone who removes female provision for toilets so that women have less access to toilets than men is a misogynist. Someone who refuses vulnerable and disabled women the right to female personal care is a misogynist. Someone who insists that male police with 'special' identities should be allowed to strip search women is a misogynist. Someone who supports housing male prisoners in female prisons is a misogynist. etc etc etc.

We need to use the word more. Outside of MN, Twitter and a few other narrow circles, calling someone a TRA or even a MRA will be little understood. And it gives their misogyny an ideological figleaf it does not merit.

Can we all start saying it more, loud and clear.

It's called misogyny. It's misogyny. MISOGYNY.

Maybe?

I don't think anything that isn't good for women is necessarily misogyny, which has to do with the feelings and motivations of individuals.

In fact I think sometimes making the assumption that misogyny is always behind such things makes it difficult to really understand what's creating a particular situation.

So sure, if something is motivated by hatred of women as a group, it's misogyny but I don't see how you can make a blanket statement about what that will include.

No it’s really not.

Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. As the pp pointed out the person arguing for x, must be motivated by a hatred of, contempt for or have a prejudice against women for there to be misogyny involved. In the issues you listed, calling it misogyny on anyone just for disagreeing with you is simply name calling.

Less access to toilets is certainly not misogyny, for example, that’s everyday sexism at worst. If you’re going to use it, use it correctly. Using it more in the way you suggest is just watering misogyny down until it loses its meaning and power.

The problem is that it really does look as though misogyny (and homophobia) are actually fashionable at the moment with this lot.

It's not misogyny to a person who is completely invested in the trans neo-religion. A person can believe that they are supporting women and be completely oblivious to the fact that including males contradicts that.

There's a heck of a lot of misogyny in this issue. There will be many who parrot TWAW while knowing perfectly well that TWAM. These people are misogynists acting with deliberate disdain for women.

What it is really about is power and control, which is similar to misogyny, but also other forms of abuse.
I don't think misogyny is the best word to use as we just get branded men haters and other women come out and state not all men.
We need to be plain speaking to get the message across.
Think of the the two statements below, which gives you more information:

1. A man who says he is a woman should not be in women's single sex spaces.
2. It is misogyny when men who say they are women use women's single sex spaces.

I believe statement one is much clearer. It tells the audience the exact issue. I constantly have to remind myself that most people are blissfully unaware of the issues. They are the people we need to communicate with.

I agree it's misogyny, but I think it's useful to delineate this particular flavour of misogyny from others.

Fair enough. But it's rare to hear the word 'misogyny' - even though it is as well.

I think if you're trying to get most women (and men) onside - people who are not involved in the discussions and basically believe if everyone was nice to each other the problems would go away - labelling misogyny as eg trans rights activism centres trans people in what is actually an issue of WOMEN'S RIGHTS - and turns off all the 'be nice' mainstream, who immediately jump to the conclusions it's mean women being nasty to poor trans people.

To me this is at heart about misogyny. And yes - I absolutely believe it is about misogyny. Hatred of women. It's not an accident we're having endless discussions about the definition of the word 'woman' but not the word 'man', that it's women's toilets which are being taken over as mixed sex, while men get to keep their separate facilities etc. It's misogyny.

If even feminists in FWR refuse to recognise this, I despair.

I disagree. I think the word 'misogyny' is widely used and understood, and I don't think there's a general assumption that people who use it are man-haters.

Ordinary women (and men) need to understand that what is at stake here is that women's rights are threatened.

If even feminists avoid saying this then how are those not involved in the siiuses supposed to guess it's not all about trans rights??

When TRAs call us 'transphobes', for standing up for women's rights, the quickest, pithiest and most easily understood response is to call them 'misogynists'. Because that's what they are.

We need to pull back the Overton window, as I said. Because the real issue is the attack on women's rights.

Let's focus on that. Let's call it what it is.

I'd go for statement 3. Misogynists are attacking women's safe spaces and trying to remove our right to safety and privacy. If you see a man justifying his right to enter women's toilets, changing rooms, rape shelters, prisons etc - he is a misogynist and needs to be stopped.

I think with some things the misogyny comes baked in.

Of course it's still misogyny, even if someone is 'invested in the trans neo-religion'. Do we give a 'religious believer' get-out clause to those who believe in other religions? Do we say there's nothing misogynistic about FGM, just because some think it's a religious practice? Do we hell.

Can't believe women who think of themselves of feminist have swallowed the excuses.

I would argue the newly fashionable misogyny is absolutely 'motivated by a hatred of, contempt for or have a prejudice against women' - wouldn't you? Whether it's conscious or internalised is another matter. It's still motivated by misogyny though.

It's not just an amazing coincidence that women are targeted.

Your argument makes no sense because it is circular. Of course “newly fashionable misogyny” is a type of “misogyny”.

What I’m saying is not everything that adversely affects women is misogynistic (motivated by hatred, contempt or prejudice) and the more you misuse the term through hyperbole, the more you water down the seriousness of misogyny and it then loses its power. The whole toilet access issue for example, you saying that its “misogyny” to debate how to accommodate trans individuals by either having unisex toilets as a 3rd option or to allow MtF in women’s toilets/allow FtM in men’s toilets is just ridiculous. The motivation is how to accommodate while protecting the safety of women. It’s not “we hate women and want them to be attacked in toilets”. Its mud slinging instead of engaging in a discussion on how to resolve the conflict of rights.

It also looks stupid when to just blanket apply “misogyny” to every issue out there thar impacts women because is shows the person very obviously donesnt know the definition of misogyny and so the reaction of eye rolls is deserved.

If we want these conflicts resolved, we need to state clearly what the concerns are and not obfuscate by crying misogyny like a record on repeat. I know your concerns regarding the toilet access issue are the safety of women and girls and that is a valid concern but the fact it is a safety risk to be avoided, mitigated or managed doesn’t make it a risk caused by misogyny. And in fact most people have a desire to both accommodate trans people AND keep women and girls safe. It’s not so us vs them as you think it is.

I’d go for sexism

All men who identify as women are motivated by sexism. Believing that ‘men are like this, women are like that’ is pure sexism

I do believe that many of them are also motivated by a strong dislike or even hatred for women (aka misogyny)

the reason this nonsense just clicks for so many people is sexism. They don’t hate women, but they do believe women should move over and make room for men if they have something men want. They don’t believe women should be allowed to say no to men

that’s sexism, not misogyny

If even feminists in FWR refuse to recognise this, I despair.
…
Can't believe women who think of themselves of feminist have swallowed the excuses.

I knew it wouldn't be more than a handful of posts until FWR learned that we all feminist in the the wrong way here.

I think the word 'misogyny' is widely used and understood, and I don't think there's a general assumption that people who use it are man-haters.

It depends. There is a stereotype that the two are the same and some of that underpins some of the all too frequent comments around, "Feminists wanted equality and now you've got it." There is nuance but there seems to be a general disinclination for it.

I think it is important to use correct terms, transgender used to have a fairly common understanding, it is the broadening of the definition that is causing issues.

Paraphilia’s are not often named in discussions of single sex spaces and transgender people. For many it is actually males with paraphilia’s such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, autogynaephilia, peadphilia etc. as well as INCELS, who women want excluded from single sex spaces. These are the people who are now using the trans umbrella to push for access to single sex spaces.

People who have gender dysphoria, in it’s true sense, as well as people with DSD are sadly being pulled into a toxic debate. Most ant to quietly go about their lives. Clear definitions, preferably in law, are required before you can debate how to balance the rights of both transgender people and women & girls.

I think it's a fair comment to be wary of overusing the word 'misogyny' or it will become as meaningless as 'transphobia'.

It's aggravating to keep explaining what should be obvious, but to get to the people who are on the fence or oblivious, it's useful to say what and why.

Also, who gets to call it out, the victim, the perpetrator or some third party, the courts for example, especially if there isn't a consensus.

Could we stop calling people transactivists, TRAs, genderists, believers in gender ideology etc etc - if what we are seeing is misogyny.

That makes no sense. We call people TRAs, genderists etc because that's what they are. Some of what they spout is inherently and blatantly misogynist. Much or most of it is no doubt partly motivated by misogyny. Should we point out misogyny when we see it? Absolutely.

I don't think absolutely all genderists are necessarily motivated by hatred of women though. There are probably lots and lots of the #bekind brigade (especially young women) who genuinely believe they are just advocating for everyone to be able to live as they feel comfortable.

Oh give over, the 'all' is from you. I was quoting a specific poster.

You're no more FWR than I am (not new poster, but helpfully told by DM that someone's figured out who I am irl, hence name change). Yes, I disagree with women who frame women's rights issues in terms of 'transphobia'. So shoot me.

I'd argue they did so because of internalised misogyny.

As feminist analysis goes, it's hardly a novel concept.

Excellent post.

My point is it's currently under-used. That we should point it out more.

That by framing and labelling those who attack women's rights as TRAs, genderists, etc, we are implicitly giving weight to and backing up the stated motivations of those who do this.

And I'm arguing that I think feminists should do rather less of this, and rather more of being honest about the genuine motivation, which is an attack on women's rights NOT a genuine support for trans rights or a belief in genderism. So many of those self-professed TRAs have a history of using offensive terms for trans as well as for women. We shouldn't be repeating their excuses.

This is about a patriarchal pushback against women's rights. If we don't acknowledge that, loud and clear, how do we expect the mainstream who don't engage with the debate to realise this?

Fair point, and one I wondered about.

I think either term would do - both misogyny and sexism are widely recognised and make it clear that the issue is the impact on women as a sex class.

In some areas, eg when arguing against feminine boys being 'transed', then the term sexism may work better, as it can apply to males as well as females, and clearly highlight how everyone is disadvantaged by being expected to align with sexist stereotypes.

I argued for misogyny, partly because sexism focuses (to me at least?) more on behaviour and less on intention, and also because sexism seems less hard-hitting, eg you'd talk about 'sexist banter' but not 'misogynist banter'. I think a charge of misogyny carries more weight, legally and morally, and is harder to brush off.

But interested to hear others' views on this.

@Discovereads

If we want these conflicts resolved, we need to state clearly what the concerns are and not obfuscate by crying misogyny like a record on repeat.

Not sure why you think it needs to be one or the other. I'm not suggesting we stop stating clearly what the concerns are. I am suggesting we also label the as misogyny. And yes, do this on repeat, as often as it needs to be said. Until to those listening to the debate from the outside, they realise the issue we're raising is women's rights and has nothing to do with transphobia.

I don't think we make that point effectively by talking about TRAs when we mean misogynists. It just recentres the whole discussion on trans issues again.

Unless you're suggesting that every issue we raise is really about a valid conflict between women's rights and trans rights? Which I don't think is remotely true - if that was the case, we'd be seeing the word 'men' being redefined in everyday usage not just 'women' etc. etc. And with your point re toilets, we'd be seeing men's toilets being repurposed as gender neutral at the same rate as women's toilets and huge campaigns about the rights of transmen to access male toilets - which again isn't the case. I don't really understand why this isn't obvious? It's not 'misusing' the term 'misogyny', or 'hyperbole' to suggest this is motivated by misogyny, this seems pretty basic feminism for newbies to me.

I agree with you in principle that we should call out misogyny as misogyny. Absolutely. I just happen to disagree with you in that I think the word misogyny is already over-used, whereas you think it is under-used. If there is clear and convincing evidence that a particular person or argument is motivated by misogyny, I’m 100% on board with calling it out and not saying oh, it’s a TRA thing.

My caution is that we cannot assume every TRA is misogynistic or that everything that adversely affects women is also misogyny because often people suggest solutions without thinking through the knock on effects on women and girls. It’s more of a blind spot or oops than a deliberate act of hate towards women and girls. And people are generally more open to criticism of their ideas when we’re not calling them misogynists/haters. It’s the flip side of TRAs calling us transphobes when we are not at all, we are just pointing out valid, serious concerns that cannot go unresolved. I just don’t want us to sink to that level I suppose and over-use misogyny.