What Am I Missing?

[Catiette]

I may not be able to check in on responses to this very much - I hope that isn't hypocritical or rude. I read something that left me feeling a bit unsettled and just wanted to formulate my thoughts on it, really. Any responses - whether to agree with me or to highlight where I'm going wrong - would both be helpful and reassuring whenever I can return!

It relates to the article posted on the "Which Stories Could Change Someone's Mind" thread: https://philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/. I didn't want to derail that discussion, and also really don't want to discourage people from using it as one of the best representations of our position I've seen - so thorough, lucid and convincing... up to a very few paragraphs near the end, which I didn't think reflected the nuanced thought of the whole. It left me wondering what I'd missed?

I'll try not to be too wordy (famous last words...)

https://x.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1753740142156595471

The issue of pronouns is becoming absolutist on BOTH sides. Stonewall demands even bearded rapists be called "she", GC ultras refuse to call any trans woman "she". I reject both positions. I never call male sex offenders she/her. But I will be courteous to those who respect women

Don't see that tweet as particularly inflammatory myself.

Why do you think that certain males are ok to be called she and not others @CassieMaddox?

"Excoriation" refers to the private expression of disapproval, no?
It's not a term used to refer to company policy or legislation.
So Francione is saying male people should be able to wear (to work?) any outfit a femle person would not be disciplined? or criticised? for wearing, with no further consequences.
Does he mean social or formal concequences?
I think he has a rather simplistic view of how easy it is to have a clean application of the abstract principles of classical liberalism in our societies.
Are women (where? at work? on Twitter?) to be forbidden from telling a male person that they think his outfit is an appropriation of womanhood? Or evidence of a fetish? What should the concequences be for them for freely expressing their excoriations?
We muddle along and try to get it right in a pluralistic society but suggesting it's really clear where the lines are to be drawn to be a good, proper, certified liberal is naive.
My other objection to Francione is that he obviously has no experience of the wearing drip drip drip, the constant pushing of boundaries of comfort, the plausible deniability, the "chill out"s, the "why are you worried"s, all the little (but endless) dismissals that we put up with. Trans identified men are not doing anything new in this respect.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, but a couple of things jumped out at me.

I agreed with this comment: @PriOn1 I think your analysis of the women currently being designated ‘Ultras’ as being concerned about the blurring of lines and the resultant reducing of safety (and safeguarding) is a good summary.

Secondly, the idea that a man wearing breasts falls into the same category as wearing stereotypical female clothing or makeup. This is a huge error. A man might like swishy skirts, he might like to totter on high heels, he might like to wear makeup. He can make all those choices as a man just expressing himself. As soon as he puts on breasts he stops simply expressing himself and starts impersonating a woman.

My view is that we just need to be straightforward about the fact that no one can change sex so birth certificates and identity docs and language used should be accurate and sex-based. From that return to reality single sex spaces will be protected again.

I don't really care what people wear provided they're decent,

It's so frustrating that we even have to keep repeating this stuff, I still can't work out how the trans activists persuaded so many people to spout nonsense.

The word “ultras” refers to gangs of football hooligans.

Coincidentally here’s an example of the word in its original use from the BBC news website today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20r7wzke97o

Personally I find the argument that it is not derogatory or unreasonable to compare women standing up for women’s rights to gangs of organised male thugs to be an unpersuasive argument.

I previously had huge respect and admiration for JT. As far as I was aware she wasn’t an individual whose internet hobby is mud-slinging and scolding women. So I was surprised and disappointed at her decision to slur the women disagreeing with her in that way.

She’s an intelligent, politically aware, media savvy woman, whom I would have expected to have been able to predict how her use of that word against women standing up for women’s rights would be adopted and weaponised by those opposed to women’s right to the privacy and dignity of single sex spaces.

I think that GF’s prosthetic breast vs padded bra continues to miss on many aspects. Reconstruction for cancer sufferers, women who wear a padded bra for comfort (after all most ‘t-shirt bras’ have a level of padding), women who have been bullied for having small breasts are just a few reasons where I can see women wearing ‘padded’ bras that are nothing to do with sexual attraction.

The obvious point is that female bodies already have some degree of breast formation. That is fact and it is not ‘stereotype’. The padded bra then becomes a body enhancement like a haircut. Although that is not a great comparison but I am trying to point out that it is merely modifying the appearance of what is already there.

Not an undeveloped male breast, but a female developed breast.

Wearing a pair of prosthetic breasts, is like wearing a tail to work. A human body is not meant to have a tail. Is a tail, which could be attached to a butt plug, suitable attire for the majority of work places? I mean, how would you know if it is part of someone’s identity or fetish? Should they be able to wear it?

What GF attempted was, in my opinion, to normalise male bodies having fully developed breast tissue when that is a sign of ill health, or it is an extreme body modification and part of that reason is for that person’s self sexual gratification.

I don’t believe that any women dons on a padded bra for self sexual gratification at work. The two are not symmetrical.

If a female person wore attire that was centred on their self sexual gratification, then no, that person should not be wearing that to most work places.

It's not extreme to say that men aren't women.

Now that I think about it, Gary’s
essay lacked feminist perspective. Which is fine as that is not his speciality so I don’t expect to find it in the essay.

So, perhaps it is more correct to say that the finer points of these issues are not ones he has full grasp of yet. And maybe he never will.

Hence his mischaracterisation of the use of ‘ultra’ and the lack of understanding in the use of padded bras vs prosthetic breasts as an analogy.

Because I believe in freedom of speech and think if someone (like Janice Turner) chooses to use preferred pronouns thats their business.

That's not actually what I asked, is it.

Why is it a reasonable thing to say, in your view? Where is the logic for which male gets to be she'd and her'd and which ones do not?

To excoriate a person or organization means to criticize them severely, usually in public.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/excoriate#excoriate__1

He is saying there is a strand of thinking in the GC movement that believes one should very harshly criticise anyone presenting as the opposite gender "because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women".

It's helpful because it provides a very clear statement to agree or disagree with.

I disagree because I support his previous position happy for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in. A trans woman doesn't deserve "excoriating" or harsh public criticism just for making the choice to be trans, in my opinion.

Sorry, I'm a bit unclear. You appear to want to dig into my personal opinions when all I did was link JT's tweet and said it sounds reasonable.

It's reasonable for JT to be able to choose to call some people by preferred pronouns in response to her perceiving them to be courteous. I support her right to do that.

I don't think that Janice Turner comment has aged well. She wrote in in a fit of pique after interviewing Debbie Hayton.

Since then we've moved on yet again.....and Janice was writing, only recently, about the case of Imane Khelif and how it was wrong for males to be comepeting in women's categories. This was suggestive of her thinking of Khelif as male, in spite of the birth certificate recording female - due to the DSD. She didn't think to be " polite" or refuse to point out the facts of biological maleness - even in such a circumstance.

I'm going to go back to the chicken fillets. What is the difference with a woman using those, or having breast enhancements? Is she not similarly "stopping expressing herself" and instead complying with feminine stereotypes? Why is it acceptable for a woman to do that and not a man?

I'm a gender abolitionist. Sex is important, not gender. It's of no interest to me if a man wants to wear breast enhancements. I'll exercise my right to stay well out of his way, as I do with a number of creepy men.

I agree. It is inconsistent. And that is fine to have that inconsistent view, but it is not fine to then create a divisive term to denigrate those pointing out that I consistency.

It is posssible to strongly critique an ideology or a practice, without having to direct that critique towards the individual who represents it in an obviously personal way. You can easily move from the personal to the general when engaging in such critique

I reckon she now privately regrets that - it was written in the heat of a moment.

If he wore 'breast enhancements' whilst teaching in a school, or working as a nurse then the issue would become rather more acute, I suggest.

Fetishists get pleasure from public display - and because of the over liberalism of trans ideology - they often think that social dress codes or conduct do not apply to them; hence turning up to work in inappropriate clothing.

Look at Eddie Izzard. No woman his age would dress the way he does; or they certainly would not get away with it without severe public disapproval and negative comment.

So do you believe then that its appropriate to apply different rules and policies to males and females at work?

I'm sure she doesn't. It was a completely reasonable tweet about her own personal views and the fact that people still complain about it and about the fact she pointed out a "clique" in the movement and gave it a name only proves her point.

Might as well complain about how being called "gender critical" or a "radical feminist" is divisive really.

A Woman wearing chicken fillets is a victim of male imposed sexism which objectifies big breasts.

A man wearing chicken fillets is the one doing the objectifying.

(See Debbie Hayton's often ridiculed assertion that women with big breasts have a high social status among other women.)

Janice Turner has always been gender critical and is one of the people we owe a lot to for moving this issue into the mainstream and making it a public talking point. Her position on Khelif is entirely consistent with her general position over the years.

I find the criticism of her for using preferred pronouns so unfair given what she's done. It's the worst kind of feminist infighting

Yes.

So do you believe then that its appropriate to apply different rules and policies to males and females at work?