The words that have been pulled over your eyes

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

I initially wrote this as a reply to a thread in relationships, but rather than derail the thread I decided to post it in FWR as a thread in its own right about a common accusation made against gender critical feminists.

It is a response to the claim that the only people who object to the word "cis" are people who deny the existence of trans women, and that such people are transphobes.

"Transphobe", like "trans woman" and indeed "cis woman", are just the words trans activists use to hide what is really going on.

These words exist to hide one simple truth: Trans women are not, in any objective, real way, in any way outside their own heads, in any way that is real to anyone else, any closer to being a woman than any other man is.

"Trans women" in reality are just men who for some reason feel compelled (or sometimes just really want ) to adopt a cross-sex persona playing out whatever their idea of what a woman is.

The words exist to make it sound like a reasonable thing when such men demand that their wives, children, friends and family, colleagues, officials, all of society pretend they are women, let them enter private spaces for women, let them touch or counsel women in roles reserved for women, let them take prizes for women, let them speak for women.

Because we'd never accept that as ok from men. But it's ok for trans women, and if it's not ok that's transphobia.

And we'd never say women in general are more privileged and powerful than men, but call the men trans women and the women cis women and suddenly everyone nods along. And if they don't it's transphobia.

But I don't believe the thing that makes men and women different is our minds. And without that belief, the whole thing falls apart.

Schrödinger's bogs, innit.

Because transmen are no threat to men as they are usually physically smaller and weaker what with them being biological women so men have nothing to fear from them being in their spaces. Is it so hard to understand?

Of course, the final nail in the misogyny coffin, was men opining that the toilets are genocidal, or absolutely fine, depending on which man is speaking - when the actual conversation, articles and commentary was about voyeurism and women's safety.

Fuck all to do with them in the first place.

Your post was deleted @viques before I had a chance to agree that being labelled as a cis woman or even cisgender is downright insulting. We are women plain and simple and anyone who says 'what does it matter'or 'how petty' shows such a disregard towards us.

First they shoehorned men into the definition of Women. Next they came for Female and where would it stop. We would be confined to nothing more than cisgender beings if we didn't fight back. So yes correct Language is essential and respect works both ways. Your post was unfairly deleted as you were clearly pointing out how harmful using derogatory labels can be.

I am not sure why my post has been deleted. Yes, I used terms which are used to describe a transwoman , terms which are in my opinion , offensive ,demeaning and derogatory ( and my opinion was made very clear in the post). I used these terms as a counterpoint to explain why imo using the term cis , as in cis gender or cis woman is also offensive to most women as it is widely seen to be offensive , demeaning and derogatory . I asked whether a poster would be comfortable having offensive, demeaning and derogatory terms used about them. At no time did I use those terms to describe a poster on this board either specifically or generally , nor would I.

I am not asking for my post to be reinstated, but I am explaining why I posted it.

Agree. But this is an echo chamber. It isn't the real world. And just like Section 28 was a dark day for gay people, so is the current moment.

Stands to reason overturning the biggest social monolith (sex and gender) wouldn't happen without a huge backlash.

Age-wise I'm one of the dinosaurs (hopefully not attitude wise), but I'm sad that I won't be around to see the sun rise over the current storm.

Are you saying that sex (male and female) is a social construct?

You can't "overturn" millions of years of mammalian evolution and abolish biological sex, FFS.

Could you expand on your utopian vision if possible. I'm interested in how a world with no structure in terms of sex and gender works. How does safeguarding of children and vulnerable fit in with your vision?

Of course you can.

Didn't you know every time you say sex is real a fairy dies?

It's a dark day that men can't access women's spaces?

Some people might say so. I suppose.

I don't know which parts of "Europe" they are talking about, but I live in France, and yesterday I flew from France to Germany and have spent the last 24 hours mostly on the autobahn, visiting several service stations and various construction sites.

All the toilets I have used have been single sex.

Can you explain what this "the biggest social monolith (sex and gender)" means, why it needs to be overturned and what is different in the world after that has happened?

Will couples be able to change which of them gets pregnant?

Will no one be able to guess who.was born male and who was born female?

Will it stop the people born male talking over and belittling the people born female?

Will it mean it doesn't occur to the people born male to rape the people born female?

Will the people born male feel more willingly to financially support the people they impregnate and the people they create?

I mean, i think that society recognising gender is a constraining, oppressive construction is good thing, but that is pretty much the baseline of gender critical thought whereas you are apparently very pro gender.

And I think challenging society's structural sexism and structural and cultural exploitation of women is a good thing, but I think that means understanding that these things are done to one sex to the advantage of the other, whereas you apparently believe that sex can be ignored or even "overturned".

And you seem to think that recognising that female people exist and have our own challenges, needs and history that make people do not regardless of their gender is somehow akin to Section 28.

So I would really love to understand what you think "overturning the sex/gender monolith" looks like for female people.

This movement has unleashed stupidly of a degree I've never seen before in my life

Oh my goodness I’ve just been in a meeting, and have returned to the ‘echo chamber’ to discover, that according to @Slightyamusedandsilly VAWG has ended!! Is that correct? Because the only way that the ‘biggest social monolith (sex and gender)’ has been overturned is for men to stop attacking, raping and killing women. That surely is what they mean isn’t it?

Hardly an echo chamber, given that posters with opposing opinions are able to post and put their views forward.

Mumsnet is the biggest pro-women website, the biggest website that allows posters to discuss women's rights and how transgenderism affects them, the biggest website that allows posters to discuss the rights of vulnerable people of all ages and both sexes and how transgenderism affects them; all these are certainly true. The fact that these result in some posters reading things they disagree with doesn't make Mumsnet an echo chamber.

but it's hard to have a discussion on the subject otherwise.
Yes, because a perfectly clear word has been twisted out of shape by men desperate to claim that they are women.

The word should be 'woman', plural 'women'.

I look forward to the day when I can once again say 'woman' and be pretty sure that everyone knows what I mean. Adult natal female. XX.

I used to think that some feminists were a bit bonkers when they claimed that 'men don't let women have anything for ourselves' but I now think they have a point, since we can't even have the word 'woman' any longer.

Cheers.

They do know it means biological woman. Every single person.

That is different to actually respecting that and the implications to women.

Don't confuse the two concepts.

You were born through sexual reproduction taking place...or are you simply a social construct?

It's not about their genitalia it's about our rights and protections, hth.

I thought it was a kitten.

Oh, sure they do. It's just another way of pissing us off and insulting us.

But I have had to explain to a friend that 'woman' doesn't always mean what she thinks it means ay longer, it can include a subset of men. She was baffled.
'But they say it's for women, Edith!'
'So they do, but within 'women' they include blokes who claim to be women.'
'Wut?'

When I wrote ragingly to the LibDems some years ago, I had to specify what I meant by 'woman' so that they couldn't claim not to understand what I was saying.

It really, really, REALLY pisses me off.

Nooooooooooooooooo! Not kittens. 😿
I am happy to sacrifice all the faries, but one kitten is too much.

That was especially patronising.

You are still trying to present a 'women vs trans' conflict. Most feminists don't hold virulently anti-trans views and obfuscatory laundering of the labels doesn't change the harm they cause.