Review "Six Conversations we're Scared to have"

[Igneococcus]

I hope this sharetoken works, my laptop has died a lonely death while I was away and I'm doing this from the phone.
Sarah Ditum review if Guilty Feminist book:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/325fffb2-2c93-4dc8-908f-8b9bf22f331a?shareToken

Every single trans identifying female on Reddit addresses everyone as “dude” or “bro”. So I think “social man” is something to do with making sure you talk like a character in Point Break.

They're also very anxious, as if worried that the Supreme Court is determined to turn their excellent adventure into a bogus journey.

https://open.substack.com/pub/itsmyroom/p/send-in-the-clowns

Great article here on the Triggernometry interview

That's really good.

And yes, I know that, like Katherine Ryan and Ash Sarkar, she’s picked up that “no debate” is going out of a fashion in favour of “pretend to debate” or “pretend to care about debate” in elitist lefty media circuits.

Ash Sarkar also has a book to sell, and is doing the rounds of the podcasts saying that all her cringe ideas from circa 2019 are still as correct as ever, but maybe they could have been presented better.

Meanwhile, Ash's colleague Aaron Bastani was up in Runcorn for the by-election doing vox pops. I've never much rated Aaron as a political thinker or polemicist, but he's really good at vox pops. He's got a natural ability to approach people on the street, strike up a rapport with them and have a conversation. He even listens to what they're saying!

Aaron in broadcast mode still isn't great - Novara Media has never really grown out of being Wayne's World without the jokes - but he can do conversation mode as well. DFW could learn from him.

I’ve always wanted to know what is meant by the phrase “living as a woman”. As you clearly understand it, can you clarify it, please?

Oh no! All those horsey girls and women in their polo shirts are going to be mistaken for men. What a travesty!

@Onetimeonlyftw on the off chance you're still reading this. I think you need to accept that if you cannot provide a coherent definition of the social category of woman, then it is not practical to use it for determining who can enter spaces intended to keep women safe and private, who is eligible to be considered for awards intended to boost women in areas they're under represented, etc.

it is quite easy to define the biological category of woman, so only sensible to continue to use that unless and until you and those who share your views can provide something better.

What Bernard said.

What the SC judgement has done is bring a whole new group of people to FWR. And amongst these new posters we are seeing all the old emotionally manipulative and based on flawed logic or misinformation arguments as to why some male people should have special treatment.

What it shows to me though, is that there really are too many people who simply regurgitate thought terminating concepts without any interrogation of that concept for themselves. It then amounts to fuckwittery, not just whataboutery.

It is really concerning the amount of people who will grab onto soundbites or an argument that they think must be coherent because so many people are repeating it, or who find it plausible or convincing because they only look at it through a 'being inclusive' lens that prioritises only one group. It is even more concerning when it is the many feminist posters who come to admonish women or to 'educate' us.

Surely it is only common sense, if you cannot clearly articulate your position which requires you to define a concept you expect people to accept, then your concept has a high likelihood of being inherently flawed. And if you are defending a flawed concept, then you are hardly in any position of integrity.

Thanks Arabella.
This article is fantastic.
Absolutely spot on. (I actually managed to sit through the whole 2 hour plus episode😬)

Wanted to quote a section- but would have ended up selecting the whole thing!

LOL! I think the risk goes the other way around: trans men in their polo shirts are going to be mistaken for horsey girl or women :P

I think the "must think whatever I'm told to think to be a good person, I'm not a mean old bigot!" effect is extremely powerful.

People just know that what they've been told must be true (trans people are the most marginalised and oppressed minority in the world, no one would ever pretend to be trans for an ulterior motive, you can just "be" the opposite sex in some indefinable way that no one is allowed to question) - because to dare to have any questions would mean they're a bigot or "right-wing" and their number 1 priority is to defend themselves from that accusation and cling to the moral high ground.

That doesn't allow enough mental space to consider that all these dogmas have come from the same lobby that you are now being asked to make special allowances for and give priority to. It doesn't allow the thought processes that allow you to think "but this doesn't really make sense". If you catch yourself thinking of a TW as a man, that's a you problem and you must try harder. Only "inclusiveness" and "diversity" matters and you can conveniently block out that there are multiple situations in society where there are biological categories for safety and fairness and people are excluded from them all the time, on the basis of not belonging to them.

Posters such as *Onetimeonlyftw *cannot successfully argue their points on the basis of reason, logic or clarity, They have been asked multiple times to explain how a man can be a woman "socially", or how it's not OK to identify into other protected categories, either, or how you can tell a TW from an impostor when self-ID is the only evidence someone is trans. But they cling doggedly to their beliefs, not because they make sense, but, IMO, because the idea that they would be a "bad person" or "not a proper (i.e. man-prioritising) feminist" if they didn't toe the line is too strong.

Ultimately it's a selfish (but understandable) motive, needing to jostle up the greasy pole of righteousness by denouncing others and proclaiming dogma. And that need is being brilliantly exploited by a very harmful movement whose claims have no evidence behind them.

Yes, fantastic article: really hones in on the damage done by libfems and their sloppy thinking.

DFW ended up sounding like every plopper who is convinced they’re introducing us to new ideas solely because they’re new to them.

How can anyone be so discourteous as to parade their nakedness in new to them emperor’s clothes? And be that ensnared in their immersive fiction that they proffer innovative takes that they don’t even bother to sense check, never mind look for counter factual evidence?

I’m still here… it’s just, do people really not believe that transgender identity exists?

And do people really, truly, actually believe that trans women are a threat to them?

As I understand it, the research shows time and time again that trans women face far more violence than they perpetrate…

Cis men are the problem.

I've been assaulted by a transwoman. I'm not the only one.

“As I understand it, the research shows time and time again that trans women face far more violence than they perpetrate…”

Why is this relevant?

Genuinely. Why is this relevant?

Because to be included in female single sex spaces, shouldn’t the comparator be female people, and the rate of offending shows this js not the case.

It can also be said that there are many other vulnerable male groups who are subject to more violence than they perpetuate. As we have pointed out to you. So why don’t those vulnerable male people get the additional privileges that that vulnerable group of male people get?

I have been abused also by male people with transgender identities,

You have also not been able to define your concept of 'social' women. Nor been able to articulate why one group of male people should be considered 'socially' women over any other group.

Does your own lack of ability to articulate this beyond 'these are vulnerable people and we need to be kind' bother you?

Please link to your statistics for how much violence they perpetrate. Because I’ve never seen those.

@Onetimeonlyftw men are the threat and the problem. Not “cis men”. All men.

The question, I think, is..."what exactly is a transgender identity?'". It is not a question about whether the concept or 'identity' exists or not. We all know it exists as a concept.

Some take it as a given, without question, to mean that someone is literally the opposite sex to that which they were born - whereas others, myself, for example...see it as a contemporary ( post modernistic) framing device that is utilised to describe someone who doesn't feel comfortable with the stereotypes associated with their sex and wants to express their individuality.

The problem with this, as a I see it, is that it becomes a fixed identity rather than as one way to express one's full range of personality or potential. Identity is not fixed in stone. It evolves as one grows and experiences life.

Transwomen are men. Female only spaces exist to protect the dignity and privacy of one's sex...not everything is about the fear of assault. It doesn't matter how 'lovely' your trans identified friend is...if he is male he does not belong in a female only space.

Indeed.

And this is where the sleight of hand language demands of 'they are not men anymore' tries to obscure the continued risk factor. They are male people and retain the male pattern of crime and aggression.

The attempt to detach them from the male category of human through this philosophical language change is dishonest. This group of male people are still men because they are adult male and human. Imbuing the word 'man' with gender identity is purely philosophical theory and based only on sex stereotypes. It denies that there are so many ways to be a man, all that you have to be is a male person over a certain age.

Men with trans identities tend to experience violence from other men - often because they are involved in risky sexual behaviour such a prostitution, or because they are in a volatile sexual relationship with another man.

"it’s just, do people really not believe that transgender identity exists?"

I'm trans, so obviously I believe in it.

"And do people really, truly, actually believe that trans women are a threat to them?"

The statistics show that trans women are just as dangerous as men.

"As I understand it, the research shows time and time again that trans women face far more violence than they perpetrate…"

That's something for men to solve, since they are the ones perpetrating that violence. So why ask women to solve it? It's not fair.