Article on 'trans moral panic' - Mumsnet gets a mention

[WeeBisom]

Link here: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gj/1/1/article-p78.xml

This is a very long article which, of course, adopts everything Judith Butler says wholeheartedly. It compares the current discourse around transgenderism to section 28. Astonishingly, the author appears to be a lecturer in law.

"Trans" is defined as "any person who does not conform to the sex/gender which they were assigned at birth, including non binary and genderqueer persons." A "cis" person is someone who identities to a self defined extent with the gender they are assigned at birth (so a gender non conforming lesbian, for example, can still be 'cis'). So...trans is someone who doesn't conform to the sex/gender they were 'assigned' at birth, but a gender non conforming person can still be cis. Make it make sense.

"Gender critical" people are not actually critical of gender, but want femaleness and womanhood to be biologically defined. And gender critical people are "anti trans". It turns out that anyone who is against gender self identification is 'anti trans'.

Mumsnet gets a shoutout: "another unlikely home of anti trans sentiment is the parenting site Mumsnet, where the feminist discussion board has been overwhelmed by those wishing to discuss 'gender ideology.'

The overall thesis appears to be that silly women are stooges of the patriarchy who buy into ideas like women and children are vulnerable victims who need protection from the trans/queer 'other'.

This part got an eye roll from me:
"Spaces for women are seen as sacrosanct in the absence of anyone male, or assigned male at birth. With the potential for assigned-male ‘invasion’, ‘[t]oilets, changing rooms, girls’ youth organisations, hostels, and prisons emerge as the dystopic terrain of women’s vulnerability to enduring predatory male behaviour’ (Cooper, 2019: 19). Of course, trans women are not male; they are women. But in the world of the ‘adult human female’, the potential of having to share a presumed private space with anyone in possession of, or ever having been in possession of, a penis, is unthinkable."

So trans women are not male (nor, presumably are they assigned male at birth) - they are women. But they are women with penises. Make it make sense! So the moral of the story is, women are hysterical for thinking there is any problem or danger with males being in their spaces, and should get used to the idea of sharing spaces with male people. Trans women don't pose any threat to women whatsoever.

The article ends on the hopeful note that all moral panics burn out so one day self ID law will be passed in the UK. Presumably when the silly women get over their irrational phobia of males.

The context was a conversation about girls dressing up as boys to support their families under the Taliban. I noticed the kids were quite explicitly referring to girls "becoming" boys, "turning into" boys, what they can do when they "are" boys that they couldn't do when they "were" girls. All direct quotes. It wasn't a slip of the tongue (as if that would really make sense - it sounded so unnatural in the context). When I questioned it, there was some genuinely confused, well-meaning pushback in favour of the phrasing they'd chosen. There was no explicit reference to trans rights etc., but there did appear to be some genuine difficulty understanding: "But she does become a boy!" was one response - a quote, again, at least as I remember - and I really did think about it for a long time afterwards, and discussed it with a trusted few. At the time, I found I actually needed to explain. It felt so weird, having to break it down like that.

I also sensed a collective caution around speaking about gender roles in this way that is now very familiar to all of us in the trans debate - like, a focus on taking care to express ideas the "right" way. "Right" apparently meaning a rather magical transformation being undertaken the moment an Afghan girl cuts her hair...?

I found it very disturbing.

I didn't, however, find it surprising, sadly. I know these kids have at least one female friend who's cut their hair short, hangs with the boys and perceives themselves as "trans". And what makes that girl a boy, in their eyes? It can only be outward appearance, clothes, mannerisms, behaviour etc., along with their say-so and the expectation everyone else act as if believe it, too - with strangers hopefully not even realising their real sex. And that is, of course, exactly the same as what the Afghan girls described in the article were doing.

I think you are right to, @Catiette , and I have enjoyed reading your very erudite posts on this thread. The idea that the horrors of Afghanistan can be parlayed into everyday experience, that's a pretty bleak thought, right there.

This is what happens when you base your identity on a biological inaccuracy: transwomen having periods🙄
Reddit - TIMs and Periods | Mumsnet

It really, really is. It's when you juxtapose that, and this inexorable societal shift in the West towards denying sex-based oppression with tripe like the quote above, that it really hits home hard.

The culturally colonialist element is also quite revealing - that claim that "there have always been trans people throughout history!" feels really problematic. No, "trans" is a westernised umbrella term for wide ranging, highly complex and entirely valid aspects of human experience that multiple cultures across time and space have understood in an infinity ways - in some cases through culturally-constructed mechanisms to create a place in society for the individuals concerned, which we're now equating - replacing! - directly with our own "trans".

To impose our word and concept of "trans" retrospectively on historical figures, when it's supposedly founded on self-perception, feels problematic at least - and fairly cynical, when done to "prove" a 21st century political point. But to impose it laterally on other cultures feels really wrong at times - potentially damningly indifferent to a culture's own probably nuanced perspectives and collective understanding of such a complex, nebulous thing. Or, indeed, their lack thereof!

It feels as much like putting words in people's mouthes as it feels like taking words away from women. The women of Afghanistan need their word and I don't know the first thing about trans-men over there - does anyone? (And no, I don't mean the obvious, "Well it wouldn't be allowed there," but rather, "Should we be assuming that a trans man is even a potential - latent - possibility over there? Was it a thing, during the more liberated '70s? Could it ever be, in some ideal future free of the Taliban? Or are we just assuming the existence of innate trans men there, too, because they're perceived as such over here? Worse still, in taking this approach, are we just assuming that we know best and should "educate" those furriners about it all?

It all seems so reductive and... labelly!

I have to say, I always thought my kids would go to university. They now all seem to be opting to do other things - the one who tried it found the other students insufferable.

I can't say I am sad, and I would have been 20 years ago.

I daresay there's a lot of parents who would say the same.

I have talked to a surprising number of people like this who believe the fact that sexual reproduction requires a man and women is inherently unjust and bigoted, and something that needs to be reminded via equality policies, like free access to adoption or reproductive tech for same sex couples.

This woman's ideology is crazy, but I don't think it's coming from nowhere - it seems logical when you accept a lot of the other ideas she probably does already.

If you checked you would see there is already a thread.

And in fact what is sad is that that thread doesn't get anything like the interest that a thread like this does when effectively all we are doing is repeating what we say every time someone who has been captured by the trans agenda (as much to do with the era they grew up in).

So in a sense we are part of that circular discussion.

They say moral panic.

We say pish and tush and repeat the cycle.

Nothing changes.

Created a new username to enable posting on phone (why does it not let me log in?!)

I know there’s a thread - I’m following it, and it’s what prompted me to read the original article & scroll for the others (there are always others 😪). I decided to post on this thread, quite honestly, in the rather forlorn hope the author may find their way to this hotbed of hatred and rethink a little. Unlikely, yes, but infinitely more likely than me being able to persuade the Supreme Leader of the same.

We all do what we can, and choose where to direct our energies. This is the beauty of of feminism - that we can choose when & how to speak out here (although with somewhat more - relative - risk now than just 10 years ago), and it’s also its curse: because, quite frankly, what is feminist writing, if not repeating the same arguments made over many centuries in the ongoing hope that maybe we can bring about more precious incremental change? The disregard for the women of Afghanistan over here starts with attitudes like this student’s.

Huh. Just reposted. Not student, academic. Automatic rushed phone typing. But a telling slip, perhaps. It just felt so… young, & naive, to read…

At least they got the 'enduring male predatory behaviour' right. How can someone so utterly misunderstand what the issue is? It's not a morality thing, it's a biology, safety and loss of rights thing.

I am SO tired of this constant misrepresentation of what "gender critical" views actually are.

That this false assertion is constantly being published and pushed under academic auspices and not being corrected and pointed out for the disinformation it is is tiresome. It is factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

How can it be corrected and pointed out publicly everywhere it appears?

Sorry my post wasn't particularly any criticism of OP but more a recognition that here on FWR and on other parts of the internet women are posting about women's sex based rights and being gender critical.

And often provide real life experience of how women are harmed.

And then there are high profile court cases which has shown that believing in sex as a biological fact is "worthy of respect".

And yet year and after year students (and their lecturers) just carry on with their irrational drivel.

I know for many of them it is about creating a career path. ie write about their being a moral panic. then write about how their isn't a moral panic.

And to the wider world all this goes un-noticed. But because it is happening in universities there is the problem that it is influencing the ideas of other students. Or worse making other students feel they cant speak openly about biological reality.

You would have thought given the number of "wins" or acknowledgement of sex based rights that university culture would have admitted this.

Although for those who have been captured, part of this is to virtue signal to others the depth of your belief that TWAW.

And to the wider world all this goes un-noticed. But because it is happening in universities there is the problem that it is influencing the ideas of other students. Or worse making other students feel they cant speak openly about biological reality.

You would have thought given the number of "wins" or acknowledgement of sex based rights that university culture would have admitted this.

Yep. It's all rather demoralising at times... I do know, though, even with all the distress of seeing what's happening and arguing against it, that I've been reassured to see that I really can defend my beliefs (and am willing to do so!) I don't think I'm relying on misrepresenting the opposing "side" to the point of fabrication - and that so many counter-arguments seem to rely on doing this has really only solidified my views.

When I hear people say, "Oh, I wouldn't have been racist/homophobic etc. when it was the unquestioned norm," I'm usually careful to say, or at least to think, But how does anyone know? If the established authorities and majority of voices are telling you that something is Right and Good and Necessary, and those who think differently are silenced and ridiculed and demonised, it's really unusual to feel able to resist! How do you know you would?

But now I think I actually do have some reason to think that I'm one of those who could. Not as loudly or bravely as I'd sometimes like to, but I probably would, and I definitely do right now to a degree, and I do it honestly - without needing to play strawman dominoes!

Yay for us, then, even if do we feel like we're (I'd say screaming, but it's really more like stoically debating) into a void sometimes. Lil drops making the ocean, and all that... The women - and men - speaking up very publicly, I find absolutely remarkable. S/heroes.

Have been pondering some things that this thread made me think.

First off, @Catiette, I hope in real life that you are a writer of some sort, because the level of erudition that you display really should not be hidden away in the FWR section of MN. Seriously, you both enlighten, and put into words things I have been unsuccessfully trying to articulate, so thank you.

Second: the thing about the handmaidens. The women who say, “But of course TWAW, and I’m not afraid of TW - or men at all! I’m not a victim!”

I know there is a strand of right-wing conservatism that says “well, all you feminists, banging on about equality, you brought this on yourselves you know!” And I hate that, it really aggravates me.

But.

Someone on Twix said something that kind of made me think. She said, when she was growing up, her TV was full not just of strong women but uber strong women - Buffy, and Xena; going a bit farther back there was Wonder Woman and Charlie’s Angels. These women were portrayed not as equals to men, but — critically here — as physically stronger than men. So, ok, they were super women — but that must mean that average women could potentially be at least as strong as men, maybe?

And growing up, my world was full of feminist mantras like girls can do anything boys can do. Which was intended to get people not to overlook girls and women in favour of men. But, technically it’s…not true. Sure, we don’t have feeble little women brains that will be injured by reading Difficult Things. But we are physically weaker than men. We actually can’t do everything they can do.

But we have had so many years of cultural advertising telling us we are no different from men, that there are in fact women who think that we are no different from men in any way, including physical. There are videos aplenty of girls saying if they trained they could totally fight (random male boxer) in a fair fight. There are currently a bunch of trending videos of women being shocked because they can’t pick up a pitchfork from the non-fork end, while all the men around them can. So of course these women will be offended if someone suggests that they should be afraid if a man is in the toilets with them. Because that suggests that (points out that) they are not, in every way, the same as men.

So yeah, being a feminist, I don’t think it’s “all the feminist’s fault”. But I do think that somewhere along the line the mainstream feminist message got…warped? Broken? Disconnected from reality?

@TwoLoonsAndASprout, thank you for such a lovely comment. Sadly, not a writer, but would absolutely love to be... I've also learnt a huge amount from your posts, so thank you for that, too!

And yes, speaking of that, the above makes so much sense.

I actually think I went through this phase myself at uni, with a reassuring delusion of strength I didn't have. I was well aware of the differential, but a very short course of self-defence classes left me convinced I was thoroughly Buffyfied.

I think this idea that we can use their strength against them, if only we get the training, is a difficult one. Yes, to a degree. And to have some "moves" under your belt is potentially helpful, of course. But to have anything meaningfully effective besides the common-sense go-for-the-eyes etc. would require years of training - and even then, even Olympian brilliance must come with a crystal-clear understanding of how terrifyingly limited you still really are; that you'd be exceptionally lucky to be able to use it effectively anyway, and that shouting, running and hiding will always come first.

That's such difficult pill to swallow - and, as you say, it's actively obscured by an entertainment engine that hypocritically claims to empower us through the ass-kicking female fighter... all the while creating a narrative that's blinding girls to risk and knowing damn well she's a titillating, sexualised trope anyway!

GAH! Can't win, can we?

Yes, I have tried this type of approach frequently on Twitter and the answer is that they procrastinate about responding, twist any and all words you may have used in your question, try to shame you, sometimes become abusive and then they block you.

This approach may work with someone who is as most of us once were (mostly thinking the trans movement was simply the next civil rights movement, but haven’t given it a lot of thought and open to discussion) but it won’t work on anyone who has committed to the trans cause. They have already shoved their cognitive dissonance down so hard that this kind of questioning simply drives them to block you, then move onto the next argument with someone who doesn’t ask such difficult questions.

What is a moral panic?
A moral panic is a period of increased and widespread societal concern over a particular group or issue, where the public reaction is disproportionate to the actual threat.

The problem here is that in allowing the word sex to be replaced with the word gender, you are not creating a moral panic because the reaction to this change isn't a disproportionate one.

It removes legal protections for lesbians completely and it removes the effectiveness of voyeurism laws. Worse it can criminalises women for reporting being victims of voyeurism without recourse - the mere act of reporting is criminal. It removes educational and sporting opportunities for women - to a degree which is disproportionate to the number of transwomen in sport, because women simply can't compete physically. It places women at elevated risk of harm in sports, particularly contact sports - risks that have been known about and recognised for years and been a reason for sport to be separated for the safety of women. It puts women in relationships at risk of emotional abuse and they are further restricted from leaving because of the stigma and risk to them. It places vulnerable children and young adults at risk medically - the evidence isn't there for transition. Indeed the evidence points to issues relating to trauma and sexual abuse, being gay or autistic being ignored with a magic bullet promise. These risks are not 'disproportionate' if your own child or family members is going through it - it's actually happening. We know that rates of autism and being gay are huge and is a correlation which would raise red flags in any other situation. We know that data is deliberately being withheld or destroyed even from independent investigations with a remit to be unbiased - which raises legitimate further questions. We have numerous incidents that otherwise simply wouldn't have happened in the prison system, because they couldn't - no males would be present. Then there's the harms to trans people themselves from issues over their sex leading to medical incidents. Again completely avoidable - but unfortunately sex doesn't go away just because you want it to.

And then there's the fundamental problem that one single male can have an impact on literally hundreds of women. So actually even if there's a numbers issue, the numbers don't necessarily work the way people make out. 'oh but there's only a tiny number of trans people' hmm yes but that still has a massive impact.

The whole thing is a smear to try and pretend that women are 'hysterical'.

Unfortunately we aren't. Our rights and protections depend on the word sex having meaning. Change that word and everything falls apart.

This is a really good point. Fun as it is for the entertainment industry to hone in on ass-kicking women, it's fantasy, not reality.

Unfortunately, many women don't fully understand how much stronger men are until they experience it for themselves.

Yes. It is in fact probably a 'dog whistle' (quickly hands the judge in the UCU case two paracetamol and a double scotch)

The person who wrote this has a blog where she calls herself gender queer and also has the advantage of being cis presenting - I guess a change of pronouns does little to a person’s appearance. Personally I don’t think for one moment she would wander into a changing room full of males and feel no discomfort but basically that is what she is advocating for.

Thing is, she can't ever see herself in that position. She's a privileged women who would always have other options.

She's expecting other women to cash the cheque she's writing. She won't have to.

So she can sit there, blissfully virtue signalling her superiority over those very same women. Win, win for her. 🫠

@PriOn1 I can well imagine this !
I suppose I had a fantasy of some academic/educational environment where name calling etc would be out of order and if nothing else undecided observers would think
oh, hey, yeah, that doesn't really make sense does it after all

Dammit, Royal, I’m still waiting for the Moscow gold and Peking gold I apparently earned in the 1970s. I hope the US evangelists are better at paying up.