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.

@Discovereads - fair enough. I suppose I do want to 'sink to that level' as you put it - while in an ideal reality, we'd have nice long discussions full of nuance, where everyone listens to all the points made and thinks throgh them intelligently, I don't think that's the world we live in. People are time-poor, especially on social media, and one word or acronym summaries eg 'transphobia' or 'TWAW' are what people take away, not any of the nuance. So yes, I do think it's important and necessary to make the argument about how certain actions are hurting women equally succinctly and clearly - and 'misogyny' does that I think.

Unlike you, I do think that misogyny lies at the heart of 'forgetting' that women are people and have rights too. It may be unconscious or internalised misogyny, but that doesn't mean it's not misogyny or shouldn't be labelled as such.

I think we've seen how successful accusations of 'transphobia' have been at getting people to change their behaviour. There is a battle of rights here, and I don't think we do women any favours by 'being nice' and refusing to point this out equally bluntly. While you may be right that some people may reach badly to being called misogynists/haters, I suspect it will make more people (those who currently are pro-trans rights because they think it's important to 'be kind') think twice about their attitudes to women and maybe change their behaviour if they realise that ignoring women's rights is also hateful.

We all contribute to reality. So how ideal it is or not is the sum of everyones contributions. Which is why I try to not sink to that level myself. If enough of us take the high road and discuss the issues respectfully, then reality shifts closer to the ideal. Which you have been doing here, I have to say, discussing things very respectfully and really listening to me which I do appreciate from the bottom of my heart.

Unlike you, I do think that misogyny lies at the heart of 'forgetting' that women are people and have rights too.
No I do think that too. I think I wasn’t clear. I think people can think up new policies and solutions to accommodate trans women and have an honest blind spot when it comes to knock on effects on women and girls. As in the whole trans athlete debate, people honestly thought if a persons current hormone levels were within the female parameters that it would be an equal playing field for women and trans women. These people just sucked at science and human biology. They honestly did not know about the permanent advantages of male puberty on muscle mass and bone density. They’re not forgetting women are people too and have rights. Now I do agree if say a person you are discussing this with once educated by you in the facts of human biology decides you’re a big fat liar and science is just “your opinion” then yes I’m with you they are being misogynistic and have given clear evidence of their true contempt of women.

Yes, I agree ignoring womens rights is hateful. And some misogynists do ignore our rights. But all too often the disagreement is really in the details of how to protect and exercise our rights, not whether they exist.

And when you accuse people in these kinds of scenarios of being motivated by hatred of women, they know it isn't true. They know they are concerned with, say, the violence they think is likely against transwomen. They may be factually mistaken, they may not be connecting the dots as to effects, they may not be clear thinkers. But if you accuse them of acting out of hatred of women your whole argument loses it's force.

We've all seen the same thing with accusations of transphobia.

@Discovereads

Erm, you don't need to thank me for discussing things very respectfully! Like why would I not do that? To note, I'm not new to FWR, I'm a long-term poster (since 2004 on MN, and counting), with a recent namechange. Being treated like this is my first ever thread on FWR is a bit tiresome. But maybe I should have made the namechange clear in my OP? But thanks, I guess? :)

I agree with you I wouldn't call someone who was unaware of the science re the effect of hormones in sport a misogynist. Though I would probably be less tolerant than you of the lack of critical thinking that made someone forget to consider why we bothered to have separate categories by sex at all, which has a certain whiff of misogyny to it.

Sure, lack of critical thinking isn't in itself misogynist, but making public pronouncements on things that affect women's rights without considering ...women's rights does seem somewhat misogynist. So anyone pontificating on this on social media without having bothered to do the reading and thinking - yes, I think misogyny is a fair charge. Albeit unconscious misogyny in some cases. I still think it's important to point this out. As a pp pointed out this is about power, ultimately. And even where those who stand with the powerful against the less powerful may not be aware they're doing this, if feminists don't point this out, how are they going to come to that conclusion unaided?

As I said in my OP I don't think we should obfuscate. Or 'be nice' in other words.

@MangyInseam

Interesting point. But actually, what we've seen is the huge success that the label of 'transphobia' has had. So I disagree with your conclusion. I think we need to overtly make the opposing point - that removing women's rights is misogyny. And no, I don't think it's just tit for tat. I think the difference is that in the case of women's rights, we actually do face losing them and having the definition of women and the sex class of women erased.

So the fact that the patriarchy has successfully weaponised the accusation of 'transphobia' as a textbook case of DARVO, is not a reason not to point out the very real misogyny we are experiencing and the very real impact this is having on women's rights. In fact the opposite.

Tl;dr: I don't understand why we would not correctly state misogyny just because some misogynists are falsely claiming transphobia.

It makes no sense.

One problem is that transactivists have taken the word misogyny by saying transmisogyny. So it seems we have lots of words to reclaim. Transactivist in its current form is sexist and is woman hating. British cycling used the term transfemale when referring to Emily Bridges which is just ridiculous. It seems they will just keep taking and taking our words it is so frustrating.

Because it's not correct. As several people have pointed out to you. Misogyny has a specific meaning, and the fact that something might not have a great effect on women, or even the fact that it is wrong, does not make it misogyny. You are attempting to use the same manipulation of language many of us are so frustrated with in gender activism.

There are plenty of other examples of this technique, for example the claim that anyone who is against surrogacy must be homophobic, as it negativly affects the ability of gay men to have children. Also a spurious claim but it depends on the exact same technique of assuming a negative effect on one group means the person advocating the idea - no matter what their reasons or logic - must be motivated by hatred and fear of gay men.

It's a toxic technique from identity politics and attempts to bring that approach into feminism have already discredited it in the minds of many people.

I don't think your analysis is wrong OP. Whenever you unpick, really unpick, this stuff it takes you back to sexism, patriarchy and yes, misogyny.

But.

Many sexist/misogynistic men genuinely believe they are being kind. Some even call themselves feminists. So I think the effect of calling them misogynists will be that they will just think "this doesn't apply to me".

Personally, I think we would be better served by trying to co-opt the be kind bros. I'm quite fond of asking questions.