Less Heat

[Brainworm]

The media coverage of the attempted assassination of Trump prompted me to recall a time when a friend of mine worked in the House of Commons in the mid 1990s. Whilst political differences were as significant then as now, MPs from opposite sides of the house were best men at each other's weddings (yes, it was mostly men who were MPs), god parents to each others children etc.

Whilst the 'gender debate' is often described as 'toxic', this is within a climate of it being common place for political views / positioning to being considered something other than 'different conclusions/positions'. Views and opinions are often dismissed or condemned as 'hateful' or 'ignorant', when they simply involve people giving more weight to certain points than others and drawing different conclusions.

I can be, and am, friends with people who claim TWAW. I can be friends with someone who believes there should be single sex spaces yet males with certain thoughts about them should be admitted. The thing that would get in the way of our friendship would be refusal to have reasoned discussions and incorrect accusations of hatred. If I felt that their opinions were based on false premises, I could just say that and still maintain my friendship. I could only maintain a meaningful friendship if they also 'agreed to disagree'.

I have friends who follow all sorts of fad diets and buy 'miracle creams' for cellulite. I have friends who play the national lottery - experiencing a frisson of excitement that this week they really feel it's their lucky week. I am the 'sciencey' friend who 'pisses on their chips'.

I have some friends who are incredibly angry and anxious about climate change. They are also 'TWAW' and want TW to be included in female spaces. I have explained to them that the 'real and present' threat they feel around global warming despite there being little impact of people's current daily life, is similar to the threat some people feel in relation to single sex provision. Since this discussion, they have been far more open to my position and views and we can and do discuss them at times. We also connect and have fun together in lots of other ways and they are lovely, caring people who enrich my life.

I think social media, and what is reported, gives rise to the idea that people with different views are so polarised that they can't have civil discussions, let alone be friends. I'm interested in hearing from FWR posters as to whether this is the case for them?

There are also people who are anti TWAW and are on the far right or fundamentalist Christians. They are certainly not in favour of women's rights. There are also homophobes who disagree with anything to do with LGBTQ rights.

It's a shame that with such entrenched views, some people lose sight of the humanity of all involved.

this is why i have such an issue with the whole black/white argument.

Holding one opinion does not stop them having another. And just because you agree with one thing someone says or believes doesn't mean they won't then come out and say something else you don't agree with. Trump for instance, has proven time and time again to not respect women (at best) yet he's GC.

There are assholes who hold the opinion of TWAW and those who believe GC views.

I never said it did.

"Do you mean that those that are GC are not able to be misogynistic?"

No. I said that those that believe TWAW are misogynistic.
A => B does not mean that not B => not A

Of course some people who hold GC views can be dicks. Just like everybody can be.

Or trying to maintain a relationship with their child/sibling/other relatives/friends.

Ok thanks for clarifying!

I wouldn't agree with the idea that all of those who believe TWAW are misogynistic, because there are many who spend a lot of time campaigning for women's issues. Yes there are some TRA who as you said can be a dick and there will be misogyny behind some of them.

You can't believe TWAW without believing women have no right to female only spaces for the purposes of safety, dignity and solidarity, which is intrinsically misogynistic.

You can't decouple those positions with 'other acts'.

This isn't the Catholic church where you can say a few Hail Marys and be saved.

If only everything was so black and white.

What about a women who believes TWAW but also recognizes the need for single sex spaces? Are they also misogynistic? If people aren't having discussions then how are you to know their views?

FWIW, I've personally received a shed load of misogynistic abuse from 'GC' individuals and next to none from TRA. I'm not willing to give either viewpoint the benefit of assuming they are not misogynistic.

Nor am I. Plenty of crossover between the tradwifer crowd and GC, in so much as they both recognise that water is wet.

But that also doesn't make truly believing TWAW/lobbying for that belief a harmless stance. It damages women. The old fashioned ones. Full stop.

thank you for the acknowledgment - I've had this discussion a few times on other platforms and its just deny deny deny. It's frustrating.

But what about the example i gave? Interested to know your thoughts. I've been told i'm too TRA to be GC and too GC to be TRA.

If TWAW, then there are no single aex spaces. Tw will be in them and tw are, by definition, not members of the female sex class.

It's not that bloody difficult.

What about a women who believes TWAW but also recognizes the need for single sex spaces?

But how do you justify holding both views?

Either woman is not biological and TWAW and therefore entitled to behave exactly like any other women and share our sports & changing rooms & prisons and awards.

OR it's is biological and TW are TW - still valid, still existing, still deserving of tolerance & respect - but do not belong in women only spaces, awards and sports because they are male.

Get off the fence and say what you know to be true.

because as part of your point:

OR it's is biological and TW are TW - still valid, still existing, still deserving of tolerance & respect - but do not belong in women only spaces, awards and sports because they are male.

I believe that TWAW in that, i am happy to use someone's preferred pronouns. I still think there are situations where we do need single sex spaces. The problem is many who are GC don't give any tolerance or respect in regards to areas outside of single sex spaces. So I'm accused of being a TRA for using someone's preferred pronouns and not immediately going NO YOU'RE A MAN IN A DRESS!!!!!

My question, if single sex spaces are single sex from now on, Would you then start using peoples preferred pronouns? If the answer is no, then what tolerance and respect are you giving to Trans people?

My two best friends are 'be kind' types. They aren't on twitter and they don't read long articles online. They don't rationally think that trans women have turned into actual women, and they don't know any trans people. They know my views but honestly, I suspect they think there's a middle ground which involves everyone just being nice.

I don't want to be the hectoring friend so I only discuss it if it comes up. I was massively hectored during the Scottish indy ref and I hated it so I'm not on a mission to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

I don't think you can demand pronouns and you certainly shouldn't punish people for using the "wrong " one. Compelled speech is abhorrent. It's not even easy to change pronouns especially if you are talking in a second language or have brain fog! It is really cognitively difficult. I don't think it is true that you can't be respectful or polite while speaking naturally.

You appear to repeating a catechism without thinking what it means. Like some stooge who has been given a placard calling for jihad at a Saturday rally.

One can play the pronoun game if one so wishes without believing TWAW. One can be respectful to TW and offer various accommodations without thinking they AW. You can achieve that with TWATW or even TWAM.

But TWAW has a meaning that has been defined by TRAs and politicians of various stripes. It means AW without exception. Or at the very least that female individuals are obliged to make concessions. To give ground. To 'be kind'.

You can't redefine the meaning to suit some warm fuzzy set of beliefs you have. Beliefs I may even find somewhat agreeable. Terms have meaning. Sadly, your values may not have so catchy a slogan.

Fwiw, I save my kindness for women. Let the men sort out how to 'be kind' to their fellows by way of making their own concessions.

One can play the pronoun game if one so wishes without believing TWAW. One can be respectful to TW and offer various accommodations without thinking they AW. You can achieve that with TWAW or even TWAM.

agreed, which is why i asked if people would then give that respect to Trans people.

Clearly by the replies, nothing would ever be ok with some GCs. They can claim to want trans people t be respected and such but don't want to do it themselves.

I've had my answer so thanks :)

What has Glinner ever said that is misogynistic?

You sound like a TRA.

i fail to see how this reply is at all in the interests of helping women. instead he’s mainsplaining something that isn’t to do with the original tweet.

Do you think it's respectful to police women's language?

I'm more than happy to make some social interaction concessions for a TW. There's no need to make someone feel trauma/stigma in 99% of interactions. I just won't internalise a belief they are the same as me. Nor will I be chipper if they have access to the same changing rooms as my daughter or if they are leading her Girl Guides unit. One can be respectful to an individual but still have boundaries.

I have over 200 students that I teach. I can't always remember people's pronouns especially (as happened recently) if they haven't changed appearance at all.

For me it’s highlighted how little these friends think of women. It means I hold them in less regard as professionals (social workers, teachers etc) and I now understand why they think I must be non binary following a double mastectomy 🤪 one couple I know raged against JKR until I asked if they’d actually read her blog post - no - they just knew she was wrong. Conversation then drifts onto one of the couple’s sister who has always had mental health issues and has just had a donor sperm baby - and it comes out that the eldest brother had sexually abused her when they were children and they all think she was most unreasonable for going NC after birth. Her brother in the couple is a social worker 🙈So if you move the conversation into safeguarding (the destruction of which is central to TWAW mantra ) it becomes apparent to me that being kind is only ever about being kind to men. That’s when I start to move away from being friends in quite the same way. Not blocking or arguing etc just a dawning realisation how deep their complete disregard for women goes. Makes me not want to share anything with me so friendship will naturally atrophy.

One can be respectful to an individual but still have boundaries.

agreed.

That person has pronouns in their bio, how can ANYBODY take what they are saying seriously?

Graham's comment isn't misogynistic - are you just on here to try and trash his name because he's lost more than anyone in this fight and deserves some respect.

pronouns are just a part of language. your reaction to pronouns is just a tad over the top, do people forget that pronouns exist outside of trans people?

i take people seriously by their actions - the original user speaks about a lot of issues facing women. besides talking about trans people what actions has Glinner done to improve women’s lives? except to deflect a conversation about domestic violence committed by straight men against their wives and girlfriends by talking about a fucking pronoun.

nice to know you discredit women by crawling up a man’s arse. his wife leaving him isn’t a loss - she’s perfectly entitled to leave him. good for her.