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

Is “Stefonknee” a 6 year old girl though? @Onetimeonlyftw

I'd prefer Rose West to Fred West.

I think you can judge from her response to me whether you’re likely to get a useful answer.

“Rose West was a women - are all women like her? Would you have wanted to share a prison cell with her?”

This is a completely irrelevant comparison.

Rose West was a woman. No female prisoner should have the expectation not to share a cell with her based on having privacy away from her.

Whereas there ARE male people who say they are both female and children. Just because they may be a small %, doesn’t mean they can be dismissed as you are trying to do.

Because the point is valid. If one of their identities are to be considered legitimate, why would the other one not be considered legitimate?

You don’t seem to answer questions that are relevant to your points. Do you ever wonder why?

That would hold even if Fred discovered a sense of inner womanliness and became Freda, btw.

If someone’s discussion needs so much deflection, so much emotional manipulation that people have to accept a group because it is kind and they are vulnerable, it is a sign that there is nothing but an emotional argument being used to convince people to accept something that is not materially real.

You don’t seem to answer questions that are relevant to your points. Do you ever wonder why?

Um… doing my kids’ bedtime and outnumbered - it’s hard to keep up!

Look, I’m clearly no feminist studies professor, but I’ve been polite and engaged. Many of you are really horrible about trans women and some of you come across as thinking their whole identity is contrived to cause you problems and undermine women’s rights.

I have been called sexist, misogynist and homophobic - and I’ve been a feminist since I was at secondary school.

Over the past 20 years, I have opted to study feminist univeristy modules, worked professionally to end sex trafficking, campaigned for women’s equal rights at work, supported the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign, worked to educate women on their reproductive rights, organised IWD events, and I’ve raised thousands for women’s charities as a volunteer fundraiser and events organiser. But in this thread, none of that counts because I support trans women…

The internet can be a bit bruising - I get that @Onetimeonlyftw . I think it would really help me to understand your point of view if you could describe how you decide if some one fits into the social category of 'woman'.

for example if I meet a new person I determine if I think they are a man or a woman by looking at their physical characteristics - do they have breasts, do they have a visible adam's apple, how big are their hands and feet, how tall are they, do they walk like someone with a female pelvis (are they pregnant!), etc etc.

presumably you also make similar determinations, but based on different criteria?

Those things do count as feminism. It’s just that “trans rights” activism is probably the furthest thing from feminism there is.

It’s particularly pernicious because it makes a DARVO claim to be “feminist” in a way that more traditional men’s rights activism does not.

“But in this thread, none of that counts because I support trans women…”

And this is another part of the emotional manipulation. You may have worked on all those projects and activism campaigns. Why is that relevant to the answers to the questions asked? Should we list ours?

Or will you answer the questions that are relevant to the points that you support.

The point is not whether you are ‘feminist’ enough or at all. It is a self applied label.

The question is why is one group of male people to be treated as if they were female people based on their belief ?

In what way are they ‘socially’ women as you describe?

Why is one identity, that of being a woman, to be treated as real by you but not that of being a child?

Why should one group of male people have access to additional privileges that no other group of just as vulnerable male people have access to?

I think you need to ask yourself why you’re not able to answer the questions you’re being asked without deflecting or evading @Onetimeonlyftw- you can ask me anything, however tricky. I will answer you in good faith and be as open as I can without outing myself.

I think part of the issue is that some of us are responding to the incoherency and the inconsistency of the arguments being used to support this concept around why any male person should be considered 'woman'?

To recap. Some posters find the analogy constructed by DFW around the word 'mother' as being convincing. Despite the word being in wide use traditionally in the English language to describe not just the person who has given birth to someone, but a nurturing societal role.

This is a very weak analogy for the purpose that the author of this book has attempted to use it. Despite her doubling down on how clever she sees it. It is not comparative to the word 'woman', which until some male people tried to destabilise the meaning of the word, had a very well established and understood meaning and was used in law only ever in the definition around biological sex for a female person.

Next has come the claim that some male people can be socially 'women'. It is mentioned multiple times, but never described fully and addressed. For such a significant demand, you would think that there would be more than the overly-simplistic reasons given.

Several times we have the claim, but nothing that explains how this works or even a relevant reason as to why these male people should be considered socially female..

Onetimeonlyftw · Yesterday 05:44
'Trans women are not “fake” women. They are people asking to be considered as women under an entirely social category of women.'

Onetimeonlyftw · Today 06:48
'But I also believe in standing with all marginalised people, including trans women, who face high levels of discrimination and violence.'

Onetimeonlyftw · Today 19:07
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.

Onetimeonlyftw · Today 19:23
I differentiate between female (biological) and ‘woman’ (social) - as explained above. And not all women’s spaces need to be female only.

I don't believe I have missed any relevant references to this 'social' women discussion, but this is what I found that I thought might be relevant to that discussion. If you genuinely believe that this is adequate as an explanation of the concept of why we should accept that some male are 'social' women, then I think you believe you have written more in your posts than you have.

Instead we have deflections such as: Margaret Attwood and Rose West and other 'whataboutery'.

So, please explain exactly why any group of male people should be treated as female people and receive additional privileges over other groups of vulnerable male people, and exactly which situations that those male people should be treated as if they are female people.

I would still like to understand why this group of male people receive this privilege of changing into an oppressed characteristic when no one else can legitimately. Or to use the example given even, why should one person who does not materially belong in a protected category be accepted over another person who does not materially belong in a protected category but says they do? eg. declaring they have a disability when they do not. The reply about 'hidden disabilities' was irrelevant to the question and was just evading answering.

Just to be clear, a male person has never experienced the negative sexist discrimination that female people are likely to experience from birth. Every single interaction that male person has with society is as a male person with a male body, even if that body has undergone extreme modifications to very loosely resemble a female body. It is a male body. All the stimuli that a male person may use to assess which sex their body is and what 'gender' means to them, is only ever based on that male body and their own reactions to the world based on that body.

That those male people label their experience as 'woman' is based only ever on their personal conceptualisation of what woman means. That meaning could be the meaning to any concept within the world. They don't have any fucking concept of what it means to be female. Yet, some people believe that because a male persons has stated 'my experience is as a woman', that this can mean that they are a woman in any way,

Whereas, the very act of allowing any male person to redefine the words that female people need to use to protect themselves from negative sexist discrimination and more, should be considered misogynistic.

If someone cannot articulate why some male people should be considered socially 'women', and other questions, even if it is to answer multiple people asking the same thing, the question has to be asked why those questions cannot be answered with clarity. Is it just this poster (who may not have the time) or is it an inherent weakness in the arguments presented?

I am keen to hear reasoned and coherent answers.
.

I would also like to explain again why I think it's sexist to think that men can be "socially women", and ask how it can be anything other than sexist.

The whole idea of being a woman "socially" means that you think there is a social role or set of behaviours or interests or social "place" for women. That is sexist. The whole point of feminism is to say no, being in this particular biological category doesn't man we have to enact a particular social role. Women should be able to be and do anything without being trapped by "social" roles.

For a man to decide he's a woman, and for anyone else to accept that, they must be agreeing that he fits this sexist "social" concept of womanhood, that such a thing exists, and that it's a better indicator of womanhood than biology is.

He also has to have supreme arrogance to think he can possibly know what it's like to be a woman. He cannot possibly have the slightest clue what it's like, he can only have his male imaginings and assumptions. Which might explain why so many transwomen have either an overtly over-sexualised stereotype or a simpering, weak stereotype as their model of "being" a woman. - classically male perceptions of what being a woman is about (essentially serving and being inferior to men ).

And what does this say about women who are not "socially" women? Who are gender non-conforming. Who perhaps have questioned the patriarchal pressures on women to "be kind" and would rather say no to men in their spaces, for example? Or who don't give a shit about enacting femininity as they have better things to do? Are they men? Do you think they ought to become trans men as they are not "socially" women?

I think it might be enlightening if you realised that pandering to men who say they are women, when that is not possible, and rewriting the definition of women to accommodate them, and prioritising being kind to men above women's safety, is actually a result of patriarchal conditioning. It's just another way to condition you to put men first and it's genius as it's actually convinced you that they are not men and don't act like men - contrary to all the evidence.

I am going to stick this here because I think that since I brought in the concept of additional privileges, I should explain my thoughts.

This is long and rambling, but maybe it will help..

The UK has provisions that mean that organisations and people can legitimately discriminate against a group of people based on a protected characteristic needing to be protected. ie Sex discrimination is separated into legitimate vs illegitimate discrimination.

Through the falsehood that somehow a male person with a belief that they are female, extreme activists sought to by pass the legitimate discrimination clauses that allowed female people to have single sex provisions (ie. spaces, opportunities including sport). Remember, being a 'female person' when you are a male person is only a belief, sincerely held or not. There is nothing about that belief that is based in material reality.

Illegitimate discrimination is still protected against in the EA as was mentioned in the judgement. This means that a transgender person should not be prevented from employment, housing, etc because they are transgender. The activist groups over reached and told organisations and individuals that this also included not being able to have single sex provisions if someone had or planned to get a legal certificate that was a legal fiction about their sex.

Some people think any discrimination is bad. But it is the very basis of safeguarding principles that are used to protect people in the UK. It can be argued that it is, in fact, discriminatory that one group of male people get special treatment in getting access to female sex based provisions. This is where it needs to be recognised that there has been additional privileges created for this group.

For instance, the human right for accessing a safe toilet should be based on 'what society views as reasonable'. Society understands that absolutely no spaces are 100% safe.

This is another fallacious argument that we see. The tactic goes 'because you cannot be 100% safe if this law is enacted, why bother? Bad people will still do bad things.' It is just bonkers when you start to unpick that, and again, what law is ever expected to deliver 100% safety? None. But still we see it rolled out.

So, the human right is that everyone should have access to a safe toilet.

And society has to balance out how to do this. They can only get the safety up to a reasonable level. This might shock some people. But it is considered acceptable risk that people of the same sex as the sex that the space is for, use that space.

No male person has a human right to expect privacy and dignity from other male people in a single sex space for instance. The category that is considered for those human rights decisions, is the sex category, is that they are male.

This is based on male strength and power, unique male needs, and male patterns of criminality.

Conversely, it is considered reasonable effort to put female people in with other female people. We shouldn't expect privacy from other female people in those spaces and there is considered acceptable risk that an average female person will be able to defend themselves from and / or run away from other female people.

Ie. If someone was put in a cell with Rose West, it would be because no other female prisoner has the right to privacy away from other female prisoners. And that Rose West was also considered reasonably safe to be in the general prison female population - so no other female prisoner who is categorised as being placed in that same section. Hugely different to male prisoners being in female prisons. And Rose West is another irrelevant deflection.

When people start to claim that it is a human rights issue, they don't seem to understand the basis of the human rights they are claiming. And they are attempting to leverage a sub group of male people into the female sex based category. Because to them, personally and probably ideologically, it is 'kind' and 'respectful'.

Remember, those male people are only female based on their 'belief' which they believe is how a female person feels. Evidence shows that hormones and surgery do not change male patterns of criminality. A male person who has lost their penis due to disease or injury is just as male as one who has opted to have their penis removed due to their belief.

It seems to be all based on this misinformation that somehow this group should be given additional privileges above everyone else because of their belief?

And what other belief in UK society gets this special treatment- to bypass their body's category to get access to provisions that they should not be accessing when the category is vital for the needs within that category? Age? Disability? Is there any?

Therefore, a group of male people want to have:

Access to their single sex space
Access to unisex spaces
Access to the opposite sex space.

So, not only access to their single sex spaces, which we know other male people with transgender identities use without issues, but they get additional privileges of access to female single sex spaces and also they can use mixed sex 'gender neutral' spaces as well.

This means this expectation to use female single sex spaces is a privilege that requires female people to accept higher risk than male people. Because, remember there is no evidence that these male people, at any stage of transition, have any lower risk of committing male pattern crime than any other male in the UK.

Why should any group of male prisoners have access to the female prison estate? No other vulnerable male prisoners get that privilege. They are housed in the vulnerable male section at a male prison.

And why should any male person be given a role that should be for female people to progress female people (ie a woman's officer in the university's student union) when that male person has no fucking idea what it actually means to be a female person at that university. Just labelling themselves as a female student is not actually being a female student.

This is why we see the discussions repeating the extreme activist soundbites because those soundbites appeal to people's wish to be kind, to be righteous and to their lack of understanding about what makes a person transgender.
Those soundbites about 'only a few' are false when you consider the negative impact one male person can have on many female people.

And this is why discussion about 'genuine' transgender people is one we also see very regularly. But the real question should be, why do this group of male people get additional privileges that no one else gets?

The whole idea of being a woman "socially" means that you think there is a social role or set of behaviours or interests or social "place" for women.

I don't think it is that, not entirely. Some accept the idea of a man being a social woman, even if they aren't performing femininity.

It's more that woman becomes a movement? A bit like people saying they are left or right wing even though they are not really defined.

The difference is that women are forced to be members of the movement.

The difference is that women are forced to be members of the movement.

Well, exactly. It's not a category one can opt in or out of. That was in fact the whole point of aiming for equity! Sex discrimination applies to all women - its discrimination based on how one is born.

I'd say that's exactly the difference. Most social categories are elastic enough to allow people from outside to join them. Like joining a religion or getting citizenship in your adopted country. Sometimes the process is easy (joining a dance class) and sometimes it's hard (converting to Judaism).

It's perfectly possible to say woman is a social category as well as a biological one, but in that case it's an unusual social category because biology is the sole basis for membership. And it's not as if there's a committee that gives out membership cards and can approve honorary membership for men who'd really like to be part of the group.

Though if that were the case, the committee would be able to take away the cards of honorary members who turned out to have dodgy intentions. And we know transactivism wouldn't tolerate such a thing, because men's desires come first.

I think this imbalance between the sexes when it comes to the notion of ‘living as a woman’/social womanhood is really important - as you say, the fact that other people can join the group from elsewhere, but women can never leave it demonstrates that “living as a woman” cannot possibly be the same type of thing as being an actual woman, since one is apparently optional and the other a mere fact of life.

I think more arguments around “living as a woman”, including the whole premise of the GRA which depends on this concept, should be challenged on this basis - even if we accept that embracing sexist stereotypes might make it possible to ‘live as a woman’, how is it fair in a democratic society to have a legal mechanism which purports to permit other people to join the class of ‘woman’ when the people already in that class have no equivalent mechanism to leave that class?

Even if one argues that women could get a GRC, we know this doesn’t change the fundamental laws of nature or the role of biology in our lives, so it is completely unjust to permit men into a room (where they can come and go as they please) where women are already held permanently captive inside that same room against their will. This metaphor becomes literal if we permit holders of a GRC to access women’s spaces.

Aside from the injustice point, using the argument that there is even such a thing as “living as a woman” (in the GRA or elsewhere) creates an offensive environment for women, as it makes a mockery of our biology and of the sex-based oppression we suffer as a result of it.

Similar thing applies to trans-identified girls and young women. I have no idea what "living as a man" would constitute, even in terms of stereotypes. It seems to have something to do with lumberjack shirts...

I would argue that even when women 'live as a man' most people are still able to correctly perceive their sex, with all the risk that brings to them, as in this sad case of a trans identifying woman who was raped

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-41614755

therefore the theory above that men can opt into the social category of 'woman' but women may never leave it seems to hold water/

No: lesbians, infamously, wear men's checked or plaid shirts. I'm a lesbian, I have several. It's homophobic of you to appropriate the checked shirt for transmen. Although given the number of lesbians who have transitioned, some confusion is understandable.

I'm posting half in jest (and I'm a lesbian and the owner of several plaid shirts, so I'm allowed to say these things) and half in earnest. This idea that you put on an iconic item of clothing and bingo, you're 'living as' is nonsense.

Just read the BBC article. Seriously hope that 'Scott' Wilson falls into the hands of understanding professionals and her local lesbian community who can encourage her to drop any thoughts of transitioning. She is so clearly female: what happened to her is tragic. I hope she gets the help she needs to find a way through this before she goes any further.

I love plaid flannelette shirts. And I am not a lesbian.😁. I am all for appreciating others who wear them with pride.

In my experience, it's polo shirts :D