I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

[TERFCat]

Basically as the title says.

I think gender ideology can be robustly criticized without the need for comments on any individual's appearance or dress sense.

If you go to Twitter, a lot of the GC accounts I follow are currently laughing at Sam Smith for his latest magazine cover. I don't like SS, but I do think that they is free to dress how they want. SS shouldn't be body shamed either as they has a perfectly normal body.

Same goes for India. Don't like them, but I don't think their clothes etc should be mocked.

I know I am going against the grain here. But if I put to one side my fury about SS taking away women’s awards, my offence that he imagines himself to be some kind of female, my irritation about his arrogant pronoun demands and his neediness on social media, I think that he is a better conceptual/performance artist, than he is a musician/songwriter.

I know, I know I sound like a ponce, please hear me out.

This is going to ruffle some feathers, but I would put Madonna into the same category, whereas Lady Gaga I think is a better musician/songwriter than she is performance artist. Bjork, David Bowie, Grace Jones and Boy George I feel are pretty balanced between the two.

Queer theory, postmodernism, existentialism and Cartesian subjectivity, I believe, have no place in policy, politics, medicine, science - in reality basically, but I do think they have a place in art where you can meaningfully explore illusion.

Exploring the difference between what we perceive and what is objectively real, our thoughts and what feels like the accident of our own unique body, understanding our relationship with feelings like embarrassment and disgust, attraction and appeal, approval and disapproval, our sense of self, our sense of ‘other’ - I believe is a rich source for artistic exploration.

Sam Smith seems to be doing that well. The elastic bands around the arms I found really interesting because it did, at first, disgust me - it reminded me about the fear of the ‘muffin top’ - how shameful it seems, to have put on enough weight that straps cut in and bulge. The fact he did it on purpose and was photographed like it, did make me confront certain feelings I had, and then I realised that I didn’t think it looked disgusting after all.

He definitely seems to be influenced by Leigh Bowery.

SS is, I suppose, "exploring the difference between what we perceive and what is objectively real" AKA making shit up.

The reason for doing that is a desperate desire for attention.

I don’t think it is only for attention. I reckon he does have some really difficult feelings he’s trying to work through. Some of it is probably about his own desire for attention. It is a bonus that it is definitely working to raise his profile though.

To quote Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!
I really and truly could not care less if an uppity woman upset a tw on this board with a casual comment.
I'm here about womens rights and protecting kids, the menz are not my concern!

That's fine. My point isn't that the one person you are discussing might get upset. It is that you are reinforcing how important appearance is on how you judge people - and as some people are saying, it seems to affect how valid you think someone's argument is.

Mocking how someone looks instead of engaging with their message/claim/argument is what people do to women all the time. I can't defend it when it's aimed at someone who I don't agree with. It's exactly what IW does - 'those feminists are wrong because they're all old and saggy'.

That’s why there’s a gulf between ‘I’m a woman and I never wear skirts’ and TW’s claims to femininity based on clothes, hair, make up and surgery. They are biologically male so the only way to claim womanhood is superficial or solipsistic. A biological female is a woman whatever she wears.

No - there is a large group of TWAW types who argue exactly the opposite - that your gender identity is a feeling and you don't need to express it outwardly in any way. Any 'typical man' you see might in fact be a woman inside and there is no need to wear any type of clothes or change appearance to communicate this.

They are still wrong.
This is why I think appearance is a red herring. Someone's appearance doesn't change their sex or how valid their argument is.

Again - people are conflating 'feminine' and 'female'. TW can claim to be feminine as much as they like - I'd argue some have some success in this.

And again - how feminine you are or aren't is NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU ARE FEMALE. It's the casual conflation of the two that has got us where we are!

Agreed, Endless Tea. Even the ridicule is quite interesting and an inevitable part of the performance. I think SS can wear whatever he likes, and people are obviously tacitly invited to comment and respond.

Happy to join you on the ponce bench.

Having another 90s flashback- I remember watching George Michael's first interview since The Toilet Incident. He came across so well, along the lines of l well I've made a right tit of myself, haven't I?! Pop stars used to be able to laugh at themselves! It all seems so SERIOUS these days.

Happy to join you on the ponce bench.

Fantastic! Happy to have you 😀

☕️🫖🍰

The ponce bench is lovely and fancy. It has drinks holders. And special cushions.

<bounces>

Nicer'n the bigot bench, I think. And much improved on the blasted folding chair.

IW's views seem to align with those of many misogynistic men, women should always wear make up, dresses, high heels, and be hair free from the eyes down. Funny that.

I fully agree that 'I do think some of the claims by trans women mean that their appearance is a subject that has to be addressed.'. And I agree with the rest of your post!

I would argue that those claims should be debated in context (I'm trying really hard not to 'tell grown women what to do' but just voice my opinion about what makes a better discussion). If someone has specifically made a claim that no-one can tell they're male it's up to them to defend that. I do believe that no-one can tell who is trans by looking - not because many people pass as the opposite sex but because 'trans' is so many things it's basically an invisible undefinable feeling. I can't tell if an obviously male person in the female toilets is trans or a man trying it on, or both, and why linking trans to appearance is a bit of a red herring.

(Actually I find it really interesting, this aspect of 'TW are trying to look female' alongside the claim 'having a female body has nothing to do with whether you are a woman'. So 'woman' is a feeling and it's just sheer coincidence that many transwomen get breasts, which are a biologically female body part? It's like an explicit admission that a female body has at least something to do with being a woman, while deny, deny denying it out loud).

I think a lot of my position on this has come from seeing many casual snipes about people's looks over the years, purely because they are on the 'other side' and not because 'that is what is being discussed'. I even remember someone linking to a picture of a female head of an organisation with the comment 'oh it's run by a TW' with no evidence to back that up, just because the woman didn't look sufficiently feminine. It leaves a bad taste. As I've said before, I'm not just talking about taking the piss out of SS's clothes.

It's relevant to comment on Willouby's apperance, because Willoughby sets so much store by the male idea of what a woman should look like.

I actually disagree. I think if someone is saying "women must look feminine" - the appearance of the person saying it doesn't at all change whether that is true or not. If IW looked 100% female it wouldn't matter - it would still be a wrong thing to say.

Enjoying the ponce chat, Endless!

(Full disclosure for those who think the validity of someone's argument is affected by their appearance: I am wearing a fleece that could feasibly be described as 'frumpy' right now).

Let's leave our potential frumpiness or otherwise out of this.

<covers frumpiness with a cloak of invisibility>

India is a spiteful individual that often goes straight for the appearance of anyone that dares to disagree.
I can't bring myself to give a shit about that hideous misogynistic idiot.

I genuinely couldn't care less if someone on another platform is laughing at Sam Smith except that it gives him the publicity he's so desperate for, totally ignoring him would be better imo. I don't know why you're specifically singling out a group of women to chastise when everyone is doing it which makes me curious as to whether you've been on any other forums or is it just the mean mummies who have to be shamed for what goes on somewhere else?

As for Willoughby, I think that given the way they abuse women for not matching up to the bizarre way they expect us to look and behave, a reminder about themself is a very fair response.

Not RTFT but SS and IW are selling products. For SS, costume, props and setting are about creating an image, brand, for his music. It is designed specifically to create a response; ideally to buy the product but otherwise to at least remember it. If you present something designed to invoke a response then you cannot complain when you get one.

The same is true of IW. IW ‘product’ is themselves and the idea that men can become women. What IW wears to appear on TV is specifically chosen to portray that message. When people sell something on mainstream media then you are allowed to criticise it.

The same is true of IW. IW ‘product’ is themselves and the idea that men can become women. What IW wears to appear on TV is specifically chosen to portray that message. When people sell something on mainstream media then you are allowed to criticise it.

I think that is a good point @Shelefttheweb . Would you say the same about a female dressed the same (that this represents a statement of what women should look like)? Presumably not, because as you say, IW is there partly/mainly/solely because of IW's biological sex and the fact that they have broadcast their views very loudly.

I guess to what extent should/do we treat IW as a TR activist where everything they do is perceived making a statement (usually a rubbish one) about TW, or can a person be separated from that? With IW, appearance is SO MUCH of what they find important about being female it's quite hard. It doesn't help that IW is so terribly poor at articulating an actual argument that they have produced a sort of scattergun splattering of racism and misogyny around them.

I would feel uneasy as a feminist having my clothes/makeup be perceived as a statement about what women/feminists should be like, but is this countered by the fact I bang on about appearance not mattering all the time?! Does it make my position less credible if I wear makeup or heels? Should that matter?! I'm rambling but I do find this hard to navigate.

Oh no! You've covered your frumpiness with your Cloak of Frumpiness! Wrong cloak @ArabellaScott

AmuseBish:
Let's agree to disagree then.

No, I am right. I've a Law and Classics degree and know how ad hominem is used in an argument. And you are wrong
(Ladies, this is a classic male dodge to avoid admitting he is wrong, as he goes down the hierarchy to beta male. Worse if he loses to a woman)

You'd have a bloody field day "being witty and nasty" if you saw a picture of me, I'm sure.

I wish I had been louder, witty and nasty in my Lesbian group to the transwomen, the men, that invaded it and got my sisters to drive them out. Perhaps today there would be young Lesbians who hadn't cut off their breasts and ruined their health with male hormones.

We women need to be tough and strong and relentless in our mockery and efforts to save all the young girls and boys from this terrible medical experimentation!

I think the correct phrase would be they are free. Anyway I'm fed up of everyone criticising Sam's Brits outfit. I read an article about the guy who made it. Sam is not the first person to wear something like that and their new album is really good.

Shit!

<covers Cloak of Invisible Frumpiness with Cloak of Dog Hair and Beer-Goggles>

Hmm, I've got a rugby top of dog hair on. No beer goggles, I may alter that tonight.

Again we are being told "you mean women, stop being mean!" Even very specifically GC women. This is just SO weary-making. SS is free to dress as he wants. And the public can comment as they please.

Or are we aiming for a world where SS dresses this way and nobody comments. Or some comment, but only gushing praise (for surely you should keep quiet if you have nothing nice to say). What, exactly, is the plan OP? Is a bland purity of speech, carefully edited to weed out all offence or possible offence, your vision of sunlit uplands?

Even more sinister than "stop being mean you meanies" is "stop having an opinion". That's where this kind of purity leads us. SS was provoking a response with those outfits. He would cry into his pillow if it had not worked and we all chatted about something else.

No - there is a large group of TWAW types who argue exactly the opposite - that your gender identity is a feeling and you don't need to express it outwardly in any way. Any 'typical man' you see might in fact be a woman inside and there is no need to wear any type of clothes or change appearance to communicate this.

That would be the solipsistic claim to womanhood. It’s just about how I feel. Nothing else.

I agree that it’s all wrong and that sex I’d just biological sex whatever you feel or how you dress.

I agree that people can dress however they like, but frankly, that doesn't mean other people can't have a laugh or joke about them if they think they are idiotic or unpleasant individuals. Willoughby is a particularly unpleasant and racist individual who talks nonsense (all that stuff about having a cervix). Smith is a mediocre popstar who says some silly things and takes himself a little too seriously - 'fiisherthem' being a classic example (surely it would be fisherperson at the very least). We should be able to have a giggle at that.

You say that you have been warned for misgendering. Well Britney, oops you did it again "laughing at Sam Smith for his latest magazine cover." His? I think you should probably report yourself to MNHQ.

@EfingNora

Yes, I find it hard to type a sentence that goes against how I want to naturally word it. I hope Mumsnet can appreciate that I put the effort in though, and did they/them SS correctly 90% of the time.