Women's rights general conversations - Thread 4

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 3.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

AFAICS from the many confused reports, the shooter was female.

Re: calling people "vile" I would say that as long as it is equal-opportunity applied to either sex, it isn't misogynistic in itself. But I do think it's helpful to clarify why they consider the person vile (e.g. what JHB said about Thunberg, or the eleventy-billion things LOJ says about women, etc) otherwise it's not exactly a useful comment... also then sets off a chain of further arguments (c.f. this thread overnight ).

Me personally, I got sick and tired of what I now see as purity-spiralling, in the run-up to the Great Departure. And as all FWR regulars know, there's a never-ending dribbling of "so-and-so associated with Bad People/ reported by Bad Media/ bundles of Bad Beliefs" verbal diarrhoea all over the topic.

If I happen to share the factual understanding that the Earth orbits the Sun, that water is wet, and that humans are a gonochoric species in which sex is immutable with a Bad Person, that is because these things are REAL.

On the subject of Bad Media shining helpful torches on reality: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4772834-more-than-60-of-scotlands-trans-prisoner-began-transition-after-being-sent-to-prison?

It's usually monthly. The next one at the moment is set for Sunday 30 April.

@NotDrowningJustCrowing apologies I hadn't yet seen Venice Allan's announcement about going weekly from now on. You are right.

twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1640460541708623875?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

I wish we could just accept that women are allowed to have any opinions they like. We seem to always have to designate some women as "beyond the pale." Look what that led to with KJK. It's not any different just because it happens to be a woman you dislike this time. The name calling and the monstering is wrong and puts women in danger. Let's stop trying to discredit women we don't like and instead start debating them. E.g. If you don't like JHB's comments on Andrew Tate then take them on, articulate your disagreement and invite discussion. It's bullshit to just say that she's vile because of such comments. Explain why you disagree and what you think would be a better approach. I know JHB is capable of listening to others and changing her mind. We all should strive to be as robust.

This is a related but (at least for me) difficult question, prompted in part by Nashville. And to be clear, I have no idea if the shooter in that case was on cross-sex hormones but the event set off the train of thought.

Are there any other "health care" treatments which correlate with an increase in aggression and criminality other than giving healthy females testosterone? The studies that I have seen show an increase in these behaviours relative to the general female population, but I don't know about any other co-morbidities such as pre-existing mental health conditions. But, as they say, testosterone seems one hell of a drug. Where is the evidence that the therapeutic "benefit" outweighs the harm either on the individual level or the social level? I'm fairly sure that I've seen evidence that rates of attempted suicide do not decrease when cross sex hormones are introduced. I've read a lot about the feelings of euphoria when girls are given testosterone. I'm very aware that I'm not a doctor, a scientist, a therapist etc. but this is all such a mess. Why are we experimenting on children and young women? etc

Another good piece by glosswitch:

Violence against women, but woke | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine

Indeed. She's absolutely right.

We've seen it again and again. No matter what/who, TRSOH eagerly paint anybody who doesn't subscribe to their Bundle of Good Beliefs as tainted: sometimes it's just "bad tone" or "incorrect vocabulary" or "not condemning naughty people enough" but sometimes the faux-reasonable mask falls right off and it's "you've always been evil inside." And once they've comfortably painted the Bad People, then anything can be justified or excused. Sometimes followed by a chickenshit chaser of "Oh it does make me sad, you know, Both Sides..."

Both Sides is the biggest lie since I don't know what.

The reasonable middle between the violent and the victims of violence. “They (the victims) do themselves no favours you know. I absolutely deplore violence of course, but it could all have been avoided if the cold-hearted bitches had been as empathetic as me. I don’t actually find anything specific on which I disagree with them, but they are so unlikeable I feel the need to differentiate myself from them and extend sympathy to the aggressors because I am so much more agreeable”

Since someone told me that a man could become a woman

Absolutely infuriating to me. So weaselly. Afraid to look to closely at the behaviour and beliefs of TRAs because they want to stay in the self-appointed Good People gang, too instinctively, reflexively sexist to listen to women.

Nice one!

Good points.

Surely there's a job waiting for you as leader writer for the Guardian, Winterborne! 😃

This is true even more generally in social media now. People are seen as either all good or all evil, in some intrinsic sense. A bundle of opinions goes with each moral and ethical assessment.

If a person previously judged as good writes something from the 'bad' bundle, then that person must either go through a protracted process of debasement, apology-seeking and abject surrender, or be kicked out into the deep darkness forevermore.

The problem is in that focus on people innately either good or bad, in the lack of all nuance, and in the assumption that it's not necessary to go through the 'good' and 'bad' bundles of opinions to see if they might be more complicated and not necessarily always inherently good or bad in themselves.

The worse outcomes, to me, is that we are losing sight of economic deprivation, poverty and the suffering it causes, the lack of resources for the vast masses and the tiny minority which actually owns most of the world. We are also losing sight of how women end up economically stripped, due to other truly material issues having to do with who it is who reproduces the next generation etc.

When everything is just about Right Speech or Right Thoughts, the most unscrupulous will take over. Because most of us are both bad and good, most of us are driven by incentives which could be changed, and most of us respond best to respectful dialogue, and we are not getting that.

Wonderful discussion on this Nepeta and Kutchitam (growth in society of good and bad splitting/projecting evil onto others) in this podcast. Amy Gallagher (psychotherapist) has a current case against the NHS (Tavistick- not GIDS) re discrimination against belief (she is a Christian and objected to some critical race theory training).
They discuss how the psychotherapy profession is moving towards 'educating' clients and focussing on group identity and perfection seeking, rather than working with people as imperfect, complex, and unique individuals.
Wide ranging and deeply thoughtful discussion that goes well beyond Amy's case situation.
Highly recommend this! (The whole series is good. She talks to James Esses as well)

I’ll have a listen to that. I remember seeing her interviewed before and finding her thought provoking, but it was some time ago and I’ve forgotten the details. I also follow Stephanie Winn on Twitter but haven’t got round to listening to her show yet.

Women are allowed to have opinions and sometimes those opinions, or a pretence of opinions are intended to make people angry or to get a negative response because it's all about a certain type of clickbait. I'm not convinced that JHB would be up for quiet discussion because that's not what her public persona is. She may well agree with you but she won't change her persona because that's what brings her income. I think she's deeply unpleasant and I'm happy to stand with that. I don't interact with her or read much of what she has to say because I know the model of it now and it's not worth wasting valuable energy on someone so unworthy of my attention. I've written here because people have been told that it's misogynist to call her vile. My question was why? To all intents and purposes she fits that description. I don't use that word for her, mostly because she's not worth it in the same way that, as previously used as an example, Rod Liddle isn't worth it, or Owen Jones, or ... This is not a woman thing, it is a columnist with a certain style which is all about hate, hate, hate and playing the man or woman, not the ball. It's not about monstering, it's about real dislike and that's fine.

KJK is a totally different person and the attacks on her are totally different. Clearly, she is not like any of the above people. She may have views that I don't agree with, but she also has plenty I do agree with, she is not hateful, she is not setting out to demonise people or to spread hate, and she's not trying to make money through hate clickbait. Comparing her to JHB in any way is so wide of the mark. The only thing that they have in common is that they're women. KJK may or may not be right wing, so maybe they have that in common, but that's all.

So, yes, we need to learn to engage with people we disagree with but we also need to acknowledge that some people won't engage with us or at the very least won't engage with us in good judgement.

I see that I got a post deleted and can only assume it was for misgendering but given that the media were, by TRA standards, misgendering then I ... well I don't know.

I'm interested in why the media are going with the shooter's sex and not doing the usual regendering. I get that it's a very serious crime but so is rape and no one was allowed to call Isla Bryson Adam Graham.

I suspect that ‘transition’ was very minimal - perhaps online only?

Everyone interviewed in the press (police, neighbours, family friends) have used female name and pronouns.

JHB isn't a columnist and she isn't all about hate hate hate. She doesn't play the player, either - she talks about issues and ideas.

You clearly don't know anything about her @NotDrowningJustCrowing You're entitled to your opinion but it's obviously not based on anything except prejudice. It's a shame that you are not prepared to do more than keep entrenching yourself in your existing beliefs. JHB is very good at debating ideas and you could learn a lot from her.

Also, I'm not saying JHB and KJK are similar (I think they are, in many ways, but that's not my point.) What I'm saying is that you are treating JHB the way people treat KJK - as though her ordinary ideas are beyond the pale, her opinions are hateful, that she has nothing of substance to say, that she is far right, etc etc. It's not true of KJK and it's not true of JHB.

I'm so sick of this monstering of women and yes of course it's misogynistic.

If she's all about hate hate hate where's the evidence? There isn't any, because this is just a monstering.

Anyone running a book on which women will be next week's target for slurs and put downs? who haven't they targeted for a while?

It's really good Winterborne.
She is a fantastic interviewer- employs her therapist listening skills to draw out the interviewee exquisitely.