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...)

I'd argue Turners tweet was in response to a division that already existed. She just made that explicit.

It's the same motivation for this article:
They [a subset of GC people] go beyond condemning the compelled use of “she/her” pronouns for males who identify as women and regard even a voluntary use to justify excoriation and ad hominem attacks (as occurred when, in February 2024, Andrew Doyle and Janice Turner used “she/her” when referring to Debbie Hayton, a trans-identified male, and touched off a firestorm). Those who promote the illiberal view also maintain that males who present as women are engaged in a public display of autogynephilia (AGP), a fetish involving a male being sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female, and, in effect, force the participation of women in this fetish

I am blocked by many trans activists on X (formerly Twitter) because I reject trans-activist belief claims. But I am also blocked by many of those who embrace the illiberal version of the gender-critical approach. Despite the fact that we all reject trans-activist ideology and belief claims, and all that that entails, the fact that I support transgender equality claims and am happy to let people live and look as they choose, or do not criticize people like Doyle and Turner (or Kathleen Stock or Julie Bindel who supported Doyle and Turner), is enough to get me branded as a “trans-activist lite.”

I agree. Have had much the same experience. It's very interesting that even attempting to discuss it involves so much denial and silencing of the people involved rather than engaging with the points they are making.

I think a man with a penis extension who shows it off by wearing clothes that make it visible is being as inappropriate as a woman wearing a packer and making that visible. Not really sure what point you are trying to make.

Anyway this is off topic, although it shows the use of his framework. A lot of the conversations about what people should/shouldn't be allowed to do fall into the "belief claim" part of the framework, rather than the "equality claim" part.

"But most of us accept that, in a liberal, pluralistic society, this is a matter of personal choice in most circumstances......."

I'd say this a pretty big philosophical leap to make.......and Francione here seems to be concurring with Cassie's definition of 'equality' which is one which is purely conceptual and therefore constructed without due attention to normal human affairs and differences.

"I am simply maintaining that a stereotypical presentation that is acceptable for one sex—female or male—should be acceptable for the other and claimed as exclusive by neither"

“I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the term ultras is not derogatory or is not being used in a derogatory way - he uses it as a shorthand for some GC feminists he regards illiberal or authoritarian.”

Agreed.

My criticism of JT is for deploying that term “ultras” as a slur against women who disagreed with her.

There’s a post up thread from a poster stating that they don’t regard JT’s tweet, originally deploying that slur against women, as inflammatory.

It’s easy to see how that slur (and indeed any other slur which seeks to cast women who disagree with you as on a par with racist violent thugs) would be seen as no big deal or warmly embraced by anyone opposed to women’s rights or whose internet hobby is mud-slinging and scolding women.

I was surprised and disappointed at JT deploying that slur in that way.

It was also easy to see how - as we’ve now seen - such slurs would be adopted with enthusiasm by chin-stroking pseudo-intellectuals out to misrepresent and undermine the position of those campaigning for women’s right to the dignity and privacy of single sex spaces. Which is another reason why JT deploying that slur was so disappointing: how it would subsequently be used by others was entirely predictable.

Francione:

"I am an academic. I can say honestly that (outside of gender studies) virtually no one really believes that men who identify as women are women. What is puzzling is that many intelligent progressives have decided to go along with this and brush it off, saying "what does it matter?" But it does matter to women. It does matter to gays/lesbians. And it does matter to children. It mattters a lot"

He seems to argue from the position of a taken for granted pluralistic liberal perspective - which inevitably shapes his argument and the conclusions he reaches.

That's a cracking post Flirts.

Some interesting discussions. Quite surprising to see so much informed debate happening yet no deletions? Most unusual.

"Let's be crystal clear: A man demanding to be recognized as a woman and to access women's spaces, sports, etc. is not demanding equality. He is demanding to be given the power to define "woman" and to decide who can be in the class of "woman." That is a demand for inequality"

if men can identify as women and this is recognized in law and given effect by allowing men to occupy women's private spaces, sports, etc., then women will cease to exist as a category based on their sex and will exist only as a category defined by men. It's that simple"

“I'd argue Turners tweet was in response to a division that already existed. She just made that explicit.”

A difference of opinion may well have existed. That did not justify JT deploying a word used for groups of racist violent thugs when referring to the women whose position she disagreed with. She could have disagreed with their position without slurring them as a group.

Absolutely, you make a good point. But in this particular case, and with regard to what the Francione essay is discussing, men claiming the label of GC gleefully leapt on the new ‘ultra’ label as a way of designating women they disliked/disagreed with as beyond the bounds. They had the chance to tell those bitches they were unreasonable, bigoted shrews and these men felt able claim the moral high ground while doing so because they had the support of women like Turner and, by god, they ran with it.

Some men in the GC ‘camp’ still really dislike women saying no to them.

I find "scolding" to be a misogynistic term used by those who want to shut down conversations from people they disagree with. I've said that multiple times on here yet others continue to use the term because 1) they disagree with me and 2) they find it useful. That's OK- we have freedom of speech.

In my opinion, the term "ultra" is not a slur. There are plenty of GC women proudly calling themselves "ultra". If that term is verboten, perhaps you can suggest another term to capture the group of people that "even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women.".

Otherwise its impossible to discuss the points in the article and explore the differences of opinion. Which seems a shame.

How true - as is seen on these boards and elsewhere.
We really don't use the word NO often enough towards those who attempt to control women. Whether it's our opinions, language, right to free association and the rest.

"Gender Critical" will do nicely thank you.

Gender Critical means Critical of Gender. Critical of the belief that any elements of personality should be gendered.

For avoidance of misunderstanding, that's not to say GC people do not recognise that elements of personality are currently considered gendered within our culture, but rather than they consider this to be a harmful and sexist situation that should be challenged, not a neutral or positive situation that should be supported.

Given this, anyone who endorses or supports a man using woman's language because they believe their personality or dress choices somehow makes them more like a woman than other man is not Gender Critical.

Saying those people are not Gender Critical is not an attack, it's just saying they aren't gender critical. You can't accept a little bit of gender "to be kind" and still claim to be gender critical. It's like claiming to be teetotal but having a little sherry "to be polite". Best of motives, but ultimately undermines the whole thing.

I find it really weird that people who reject gender critical beliefs still want to be called gender critical - seems like it would be better to adopt a term that actually describes their position. Sex Realist maybe?

In fact, going forward I'll use "GC" for, well, GC, and "GC Lite" to refer to those like Cassie who agree with some GC analysis but not all of it. That makes more sense than "GC" for people who are not quite GC and "GU Ultra" for those who actually are.

This.
But more - he is not just creepy, he is not attempting to hide his creepiness, quite the opposite, he is flaunting it and daring anyone to object. Even more so if the clothes are 'sexy' women's clothes.

I went to a public meeting of a discussion on economics. There was a trans woman there. His clothing was not appropriate to the cold hall - we sat in coats and jumpers whilst he had a crop top and bare midriff exposed.
That in itself wouldn't be a problem - anyone is allowed to make themselves unnecessarily cold.
It was the assertiveness/aggression - looking people in the eye with a challenge on his face. It is hard to describe, but as women we know it. We know when a man is being aggressive, even just a tiny little bit aggressive. Women are generally hyper-sensitive to male aggression.

A male wearing overtly-sexualised women's clothing in public is performing an aggressive act. By definition is has to be aggressive - he is saying "look at me, and I DARE you to challenge me."

Because if he didn't want to be intimidating and make people fearful of challenging him, he would opt for the M&S beige skirt and cardi which another poster mentioned, and keep his eyes down - you know, like actual women keep their eyes down or look away.

So yeah, not just creepy and with strange / misogynistic views, but also aggressive.

Gender critical won't "do fine" for me. Because I'm gender critical and don't share those views. And would like to be able to discuss the differences constructively without being told I'm using a slur. I believe that's also the point of the essay.

By those views, I specifically mean the "excoriating trans women because because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women." As per authors definition.

We seem to be trying to divert into a nice clean definition of GC. Which 1) isn't possible and 2) is just going to cause arguments and misunderstandings between factions.

Am I allowed to be offended by you getting to choose terms for me based on your assumptions about what "real GC" is, or is that a privilege only the "ultras" get?

I'm interested in whether people think you can ban creepy men from being creepy?

My understanding is paraphilias often cluster. I'd assume that even if those men were banned from dressing as women, they would still be compelled to act on that fetish in a different way.

In fact in some men (the ones who have a weird submission fetish) I can imagine women refusing to acknowledge their identity is part of the attraction. Isn't that humiliation aspect part of what Grayson Perry talks about?

I wonder if paradoxically the more trans and gender non conforming people there are, the less the fetishists will be able to get a kick from it and so the less attractive it will be.

I think banning men dressing as women/using preferred pronouns etc is treating the cause, not the symptom

I'm sorry, I don't understand. GC Lite isn't a slur, it's just a better description than GC for a position that is only partially GC.

Can you explain why you feel justified in imposing the term "Ultra" for GC feminists like me who do not accept preferred pronouns or believe a man dressing "as a woman" can ever be a non-misogynist act even though I reject the term as a fair resentation of my position, yet also justified in rejecting a term I impose on you because you reject the term as a fair resentation of my position?

Seems a little - unequal?

I'm very happy to discuss the differences - there's a post from me earlier (replying to you as it happens) that seems to have slipped your notice. But I'm not going to accept your label of Ultra to do so.

So if you really genuinely do want to have that conversation, please either adopt my suggested terminology of "GC" and "GC lite" - you did, after all, ask what the people you have been calling Ultra want to be called - or come up with a term that you would prefer for your position.

As a compromise, perhaps qualifying both sides would be fair - "Full GC" and "Soft GC", to indicate one position fully aligns with GC analysis and one side softens it somewhat?

I suggest you go back to find my earlier post that did exactly this, which you seem to have ignored.

And if you didn't want to get diverted in a discussion of "what is GC", you should not have brought the "Ultra" thing into it. You could very easily have just focussed on the content without having to apply prejudiced (in the original sense of "pre-judging") labels to it.

Handy tip for life - if you genuinely want people to engage with you, don't start by drawing a box round them then getting sniffy that their first reaction is to argue with you about the box you just put them into :)

I haven't imposed the term "ultra". I've 1) talked about an article where the author used it and 2) posted the original tweet where it was used as I felt a PP misrepresented Turner.

I don't care about what term we use, my observation based on this and clavinists thread is that no term will be acceptable. You are suggesting that people with my views and the authors aren't "really GC". I'm pointing out that's the exact same issue that you are objecting to - you are labelling other people on the basis of what you believe is GC. If I could be arsed I could probably scrape together some kind of argument as to why "lite" is a slur. I can not be arsed as clearly that's not how you intend it and I'm not that sensitive. By saying I'm "GC lite" you are also referring to the fact there are clearly two camps. Why can't we discuss that and what it means? Why does it have to revert to "ultra is a slur" and accusations of scolding?

CassieMaddox

I find "scolding" to be a misogynistic term used by those who want to shut down conversations from people they disagree with. I've said that multiple times on here yet others continue to use the term because 1) they disagree with me and 2) they find it useful. That's OK- we have freedom of speech.
How very dare anyone defy your ruling! "Scold" applies to and is used for men as well as women, you will find.

In my opinion, the term "ultra" is not a slur.
But you say you consider "scolding" to be a misogynistic term. So if the poster did not mean it misogynistically, that would be fine, yes? Unless you mean that you personally decide what words mean?

It's not up to each individual to decide what a word means unless they invented it. "Ultra" existed before JT or Francione used it and it already had a meaning and connotations. Are "illiberal" and "authoritarian" also words which do not have negative connotations for you? Even if he was talking about ultra gardeners, the connotation of extremism still remains. That's my first question - why is it "extreme or immoderate" (Collins online dictionary) to criticise blatant misogyny and the public display of a fetish?

There are plenty of GC women proudly calling themselves "ultra".
Ultra has been claimed by some women in the way that terf has. It doesn't make it any more accurate than "terf".

perhaps you can suggest another term to capture the group of people "even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women."
But why do we need a special pejorative word for this? Especially, as I believe the OP said, as it's not that clear a distinction.

Do you believe that when males present in this way, it does not represent an expression of contempt for or mockery of women? Or is it that whether it is or not, it is extreme or immoderate to criticise them - privately or publicly? You obviously disapprove of the people you are calling ultras, despite claiming it's not a derogatory term.

I think banning men dressing as women/using preferred pronouns etc is treating the cause, not the symptom

Don't you think it's worth doing both?

Sure, if you have a magic wand that will fix the cause immediately there's no need to do anything about the symptoms because they'll stop as well.

But given Feminism has been fighting various types of male toxicity, entitlement and social enabling for decades and we ae not there yet, I suspect magic wands to fix the causes of cross-sex male misogyny are short in supply.

So the rational approach is to treat the symptoms now because these cause harm to women now, and also work on fixing the cause to stop it happening in future. Bonus - fixing the cause will probably be good for men as well.

Oh Cassie, you really missed my point didn't you?

I thought it would be obvious that I suggested GC and GC Lite exactly to demonstrate why it's not ok for you to impose Ultra. Thank you for showing such clear understanding.

(Plesae don't do the wide-eyed thing. This article is not the first time you have come across the term Ultra. You embraced it then and you have seized on this article as an excuse to double down.)