Stylist magazine deleted my comment on IG

[Mars27]

So, Stylist magazine posted on their Instagram a post earlier today with the "lovely" Charlie Craggs. It's a new weekly campaign from Strong Women UK (oh, the irony).

I can't copy and paste the post from my phone but then that's not really the point. I wrote a comment along the lines of "Hey Stylist, how about interviewing real women to talk about real women's problems such as endometriosis, domestic violence, discrimination at the workplace at the end of your maternity leave, etc?". I started getting abuse and obviously my comment was deleted. The abuse I was getting was from other women and I cannot understand for the life of me how some women cannot see that lived experience as man is different from a woman's, how insulting it is for that person to be taking the space from a female writer and so many issues stemming from that.

I know it's mostly like a generational divide and I feel so sorry for the women of tomorrow as they will be living in a truly horrible world (for them, obviously, as the patriarchy will reign supreme).

This person also loves doxxing people on her own Instagram, absolute nasty piece of work , being super aggressive and all that behaviour that feels completely in line with their "be kind" motto

Well done for having a stab at raising actual women's issues. I agree, women of the future will inherit a very hostile world if the misogyny abounds without challenge.

If you have the stomach for it go to his Instagram and try not to be sick. He posted in the gender reveal baby shower of a relative and when it was revealed it was a boy he turned the camera to and said "It's a boy...for now" with such a nasty face. If I was the poor woman I'd be absolutely disgusted with him using me and my baby shower and showing my actual face to make a sick joke. Honestly, totally sickening

I have a boy and I try to educate him in the sense of what is gender dysphoria, why puberty blocker hormones are dangerous and if a person wants to "change" sex that won't mean they will actually be the opposite sex and this can only be done preferably after puberty and after years and years of counselling. Wearing a dress for kicks outside after a few months wearing one inside does not make you a woman

Stylist is a liberal 'feminist' publication run by simpering, fawning handmaidens who enjoy being told by men what to do. what to call themselves and how to be a woman. Like most mindless dickpandering women they cannot cope with any kind of disagreement and will delete anyone who dares to even gently criticise their mad religion.

Yes, I unfollowed and blocked but before leaving yet another comment saying that deleting comments from women was the quickest way to alienate their readership. It's probably been deleted by now.

It's just so ranking, that person in specific is so horrible and disgusting even by TRA standards

The new kind of feminism is, sadly, often pure #bekind with the clear assumption that women's rights have already been won so can now be relinquished.

The cognitive dissonance inside the heads of those who believe this should they try to think about it must feel like a tornado so they choose not to think about it.

Can both not be true at once? Can Charly not write about her trauma while other traumas still exist? 'Real' women have diverse challenges, I wouldn't write about endometriosis but that does not negate someone else writing about it. I don't full understand this argument.

As a "biological female from birth" I find it very reductive that womanhood is being defined once again by whether I have a uterus, and once again my womanhood and existence is based on my capacity to breed - I thought we fought to get past that? Why are we going backwards?

I don't know Charly but I do know about grenfell and the number of people, including mothers and dahghers (real women), who died there - so I find it a little shamefully that my fellow women, particularly parents, are undermining this tradegy because they perceive it not be real or female enough?

How do you define 'womanhood'?

I define it biologically. What about you?

That's the puzzlement, you can swap body parts, think your x type, but surely as you cannot have all the experiences of being an original x type then at best could it be debated that your an imitation of x type without all the genuine perspectives that they would of got, had they been originally x type when they were born ?

Endometriosis is just one the examples I mentioned, there's a variety of other situations that are particular to biological women. It's sad that lost a friend in a tragic way so did other people. I'd have thought that a women's magazine is there to serve their readership, which are women I'd imagine. If they really wanted it, they could have found a woman writer to talk about the exact same subject. In giving to that person, they're taking work away from a woman writer.

Excuse the typos and bad grammar in the PP, time for bed, methinks

I think womanhood is much more diverse and complex and powerful than being purely about genitalia

I suppose the fundermental difference in stance here is that a welcome anyone who feels like their experience or the way they go through life is as a woman. I think being a woman is about emotions and behaviours and experiences as much as it is about vaginas, so we'll never agree and that's ok.

It's also just a person talking about the loss of a friend, and no one else can tell that story so she isn't 'taking away' from someone else, it's her story. There are plenty of issues of stylist to talk about all sorts of other stuff, and you also get writers of all genders in stylist (women don't only care about fashion!)

But biologically born women all have SUCH different experiences, I don't know if there is X perspective you get only from being born a biological woman?

'Emotions and behaviours'?

So stereotypes of womanhood?

No, not "emotionAL" - I'm saying I think being a woman is much more interesting and messy and multi facited than having certain genitalia. We've for years tried to move past biological determinism and all the suppression that came with being seen only as baby makers - just feels like we are taking a step back in that direction now.

Me too. Sadly, until society decides to treat us the same as those who have a scrotum, there will always be a divide. We're not asking to be lumbered with childcare and emotional labour, paid lower, do more housework or have our health issues dismissed more frequently by the health profession, sexually harassed more than those with a scrotum, raped at a higher rate and killed by our partners at a higher rate either. We'd LOVE to be treated equally.

Sadly, though, somehow society differentiates us based on something.

So you can pretend that it's women who are being unfair all you like, but we'd actually like to be treated fairly ourselves.

Is this really how we are supposed to talk about other women we disagree with?

'mindless dickpandering women'

Do you hope to convince people you're the right side of this incessant culture war with that type of comment?

I absolutely agree, but that's all good reason NOT to then feed into further divide? If we want to be treated equally, be more than procreators, not have to be subject to harassment and violence based on our sex (which is also very much the case for trans women) - how does (a) reinforcing how important our uterus, and therefore our child bearing capacity is to our identity and (b) treating other people who identity as women as unequal and deluded - remotely help balance the scales?

I don't think women are being unfair, I think some women are being unfair, but also short sighted. Putting aside how trans women deserve more dignity than we are allowing, I do not think the way some women are approaching the trans "issue" is good for biological women's progress either.

I smell a rat OP…went to Charlie’s IG page and your OP is featured on there.

Stealth marketing by Charlie here??

I do not think the way some women are approaching the trans "issue" is good for biological women's progress either.

I'm struggling to understand how you think promoting a man's right to wear womanhood as a costume will advance the rights of women. Women are discriminated against because of their biology not their fashion choices. The difference between the sexes are a material objective reality, feminists do not think that should limit a woman's choices in life.

It's amazing how Iranian police know who to kill for not wearing the hijab and how the men now in power in Afghanistan know who to deny an education.

Sorry, but I think that’s the most accurate way to describe women who center men at the expense of women’s safety and rights. They are absolute traitors to their own sex.

I suppose the fundermental difference in stance here is that a welcome anyone who feels like their experience or the way they go through life is as a woman. I think being a woman is about emotions and behaviours and experiences as much as it is about vaginas, so we'll never agree and that's ok.

I find reducing womanhood to "emotions and behaviour" incredibly insulting. Not because I think my biology is some mysterious wonderful feminine essence, but because an "emotions and behaviour" construct denies the real.world consequences of being female in a sexist society.

But my own feelings aside, let's explore this 'emotions and behaviours" concept of sex.

If the difference between men and women is merely "emotions and behaviour", why is it necessary to collect bundles of emotions and behaviour together and call them Womanhood or Manhood in the first place? Why should "emotions and behaviour" be considered useful way to classify humans for the purposes of nudity, or sport, or political representation, or educational or career opportunities and disadvantages?

Why should "emotions and behaviour" be cnsidered significant, while sex, which manifestly does impact on all these things, is not?

This is not to say that "emotions and behaviour" have no significance to women's oppression. In a mostly civil society such as ours, we understand that women are disadvantaged by their own and others' socialised behaviour as well as by their reproductive role and by outright acts of violence against their bodies. But the root of those emotional and behavioural differences is the different expectations society places on men and women because of their bodies. The emotional and behavioural differences are a function of society's constructions around sex differences in a sexist environment.

That is an unfeminist approach to other women and you will lose the argument by being deliberately alienating and offensive.