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

Margaret Atwood does not believe TWAW. It is impossible for Margaret Atwood to believe TWAW. Atwood's feminism is overwhelmingly rooted in the physical reality of female bodies and female reproductive capacity.

Atwood, as a good Canadian liberal, knows that TWAW is the kind of thing you're supposed to say. And she's got a taste of the backlash that happens when it's suspected you don't really believe it.

None of which means men can be women. I mean I hate to say this, but Atwood is not a prophet giving us revelations that disprove everything we know about biology.

Anyone who supports the misogynistic homophobic "trans" cult is by definition a sexist. It does jar when she can be so perceptive about men oppressing women yet has a blind spot when the men doing the oppression dress up as women.

Don’t you mean straw woman argument?

Have you read Juno Dawson’s book The Gender Games? Or listened to middle-aged transwomen recounting their origin stories?

I know lots of transwomen who freely accept that their feelings around gender were very strongly influenced by the sex stereotyping messages they received in childhood, so it seems odd to me that you have not only never heard a transwoman describe this feeling they experienced, but that you’re so certain as to what every transwoman thinks that you can confidently assert that “no-one is saying that” - I can assure you that many of them are saying that.

Could you to explain your thinking here, please?

It’s not because of “prejudice” that most women don’t want “trans women” in female only spaces. It’s because they are men, and female only spaces are for women. HTH.

She has famously signed an open letter stating “we believe that trans women are women”

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/10/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-neil-gaiman-trans-transgender-rights-open-letter/

I mean, MA is by no means god, but she is still undeniably a (trans-inclusive) feminist.

Neil Gaiman!

That aged well.

😶

Did the time she got attacked for saying something trans rights activists didn’t like completely pass you by?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/qbbtba/margaret_atwood_shares_terf_article_talking_about/?rdt=35511

her previous virtue signalling didn’t count for much then.

😬😬😬 please tell me more about his inclusive feminism.

Thank you for explaining.

If Margaret Attwood believes that male people can be female people, then I would call her sexist too. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the group you need to protect from negative sexist discrimination, then how do you protect that group?

And why do you think pointing to a woman and saying ‘Whatabout her?’ is an articulate answer to my post? Are you able to discuss the issues I brought up, or is pointing to Margaret Attwood and saying ‘Whatabout her?’ your only reaction?

Neil is very keen to include barely legal goth girls, as long as they sign an NDA first.

I suspect his main interest in the trans community is that some ostentatious white knighting might distract us from the other things he's been up to.

And it offers the chance to abuse and other some nasty women, of course. Don't underestimate the attraction of that for a certain type of male.

Well, obviously that. Isn't it great that lefty men have found a socially acceptable outlet for screaming at women?

And it's much cheaper than spending years in therapy complaining about how their mother wouldn't give them cutted up pear.

@Helleofabore

So, I ask again and I hope that you might answer: What other protected characteristic groups have been told that they need to allow the oppressor class access to their provisions? What other groups are you, an equality activist, directing who should and shouldn't be included in their characteristic?

This only makes sense if you believe trans women are men, which I don’t.

Trans women are not female (biological), but they are women (social/political).

Oppression isn’t a single, flat experience. Trans women face both misogyny and transphobia—a unique and often more dangerous combination. Including them in women’s spaces acknowledges this layered experience, rather than erasing it.

I am a lifelong feminist. And I feel justified in having this opinion as a cis-woman. But I wouldn’t get involved in arguments about forms of oppression that don’t affect me personally.

I think there may be times to use the provisions in the Equality Act (as existed even before the Supreme Court ruling) to prevent trans women having access to some women’s spaces sometimes, subject to a risk assessment. But I think banning trans women from all women’s spaces is cruel and unnecessary.

Which spaces do we get to keep? Which ones do we have to allow males into?

And is any male who says he's a transwoman free to use them, or are you favouring a process, GRC, etc, first?

“This only makes sense if you believe trans women are men, which I don’t.”

”Trans women are not female (biological), but they are women (social/political).”

They are male. And you didn’t answer the question, you evaded it.

What other protected characteristic groups have been told that they need to allow the oppressor class access to their provisions? What other groups are you, an equality activist, directing who should and shouldn't be included in their characteristic?

For instance, if someone says they have a disability that they don’t have, should they access the provisions for people who are disabled?

Trans people and those who support their human rights are not a cult.
Nor are we misogynists or homophobes.

I am a bisexual, trans-inclusive feminist and I’m allowed to have feminism that is different from yours.

You know the signs that say “Not all disabilities are visible”?

Disability is the perfect example because disabilities are socially defined.

For a long time, those with invisible disabilities were not considered allowed to use disabled facilities. They were considered able - or in your analogy, the oppressors. But now they are accepted as disabled and able to access facilites and are allowed to self determine whether their eligibility.

Gender identity ideology and trans rights activism is based in misogyny and antiquated sex role stereotypes. I don’t acknowledge anything that puts men’s interests first as “feminism” in any sense.

“Oppression isn’t a single, flat experience. Trans women face both misogyny and transphobia—a unique and often more dangerous combination. Including them in women’s spaces acknowledges this layered experience, rather than erasing it.”

How do male people with a belief they are female face ‘misogyny’?

Transphobia is not a sex based oppression.

In what way does a male person who experiences life with their male body, have the same experience that any female person has with their female body? Every interaction with society has been interpreted from that male bodied perspective. Never from a female bodied perspective.

Female single sex spaces are not needed to ‘acknowledge anyone’s layered experience.’ They are needed for safety and privacy always from male people of any gender.

If you think there are any circumstances when “trans women” should be excluded from women only spaces, you’re acknowledging that they aren’t actually women. Which of course they are not.

So again, you are evading the question.

Have you wondered why you cannot answer the question?

@Helleofabore I differentiate between female (biological) and ‘woman’ (social) - as explained above. And not all women’s spaces need to be female only.

That makes zero sense. In what way is a man a “social woman”?