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.

But this is where the 'near enough is good enough' concept fits. To them, it data and conclusion integrity doesn't matter. They read something and see that the results are 'towards' or sometimes as in the breast scan 'similar' and they look no further, they don't want to. They have enough misinformation to keep them in a happy zone.

Not only data and conclusion integrity though - the impact on tiny vulnerable babies.

Fetish-addled men I expect very little of, but women who, effectively, endorse 'making a baby suck drug-induced, untested secretions from a man's chest to make the man feel nice' (and call it breastfeeding) I am genuinely shocked and sickened by.

"I can see why that narrative is more appealing psychologically, offering as it does the possibility of a future where female biology is just a passing feature and not a fundamental difference that creates inescapable inequality in some things, where equality is a simpler matter of just treating women the same as men rather than a complex negotiation of what extra or different provisions women need to have the same social/political/financial/cultural power and agency as men."

I liked to believe aspects of this when I was younger. It is an idealistic belief. Partly because I falsely believed that 'equality' was close. But I always was uncomfortable with the whole 'girl power' 'we can be sexualised because we want to be' content that I saw coming in.

Then I had a child and I realised just how sexist the world still was for children. My child grew up in the era where this ridiculous colour coded consumerism hit its peak. Now consumer behaviour is my background and I fully understand how and why this happened. And my husband and I fought it very hard. But it was everywhere and then came the sports issues at school - boys did this sport and girls did this sport. And I realised that children were coding themselves based on the very stereotypes that I had fought against and my child was fighting it.

And then I started to think and do just even a modicum of reading studies and papers and I began to unravel the idealism. I began to understand equity vs equality even though I had also studied discrimination at uni too.

I agree that I think for some women it is fair simpler as you say.

most definitely

Any sentences that would be understood with the addition of, "but this isn't really true", would fit the bill of warped language.

• Some men identify as women but this isn't really true.
• Men can breastfeed but this isn't really true.
• Men should have access to women's spaces but this isn't really true.

The thing with 'just close enough' is how medicine in general has developed. For obvious reasons medical research is done mainly with young males because the risks for females are too high. This means drugs are developed for male body systems and then given to women. However women with the SAME conditions have different symptoms and react differently to drugs and we are only just beginning to recognise this. Women were less at risk from Covid - I think the reasoning behind this was something to do with estrogen having something of a protective effect.

So this is how the ENTIRE phamacetical and health care industries actually think as a default. Women are invisible.

And one of the driving forces in why women's health care and outcomes is much poorer than men's. It really drives home the point of why we NEED sex based studies for women's health to increase our knowledge where we can, but with 'inclusion' this is actually becoming harder not easier.

Research into women's health care issues is riddled by some absoluetely appalling male bias as it is. Whilst looking into the research for ELCS I strayed across one world health organisation study which looked into the risks of ELCS versus attempted VBs. The conclusion said that VBs were safer. Then you looked at the actual data in the study. The actual data said COMPLETELY the opposite. They had written that VBs were safer because thats how they wanted women to behave, rather than because thats what their data said and thats what the recommendation they made in guidance - to reduce C-Section Rates. Its a shocking example, but sadly not the only one. This particular attitude and lead by the WHO was looked at by the NHS who took this to try and reduce both EMCS and ELCS and has since been massively discredited by subsequent scandals in maternity where women and babies have died unnecessarily because of these attitudes.

The problem with women's health care is its dominated by men's ideology and desire to control women. Once you see it and you start unpicking methodologies you find it all over the place. Its barely concealed, because these people know that no one ever bothered to check these papers for quality. They just read the conclusion at best.

Its a very sore point of mine and one I'm glad that is STARTING to get noticed. But yes Gender Ideology very much feeds into this ignorance and can't be arsed to actually bother to try to understand the female body, because females are just 'not male' and are all about outward superficial observation of 'sexual characteristics' not actual biology and how women's bodies actually FUNCTION.

And this is the message this thread should amplify more than any other.

Its not about the meaning of words as such. Its about the abuse and denigration of women to be subserviant to the wants and desires of men and to not have the means to challenge this.

My OBSERVATION of this pattern, is why certain posters said certain things yesterday, because they don't like it. Remembering they already wanted to punish me for laughing at their ridiculous error...

Never was the quote "men are afraid women will laugh at them" more clearly illustrated than in that thread

Yes.

Quite.

Add "intersectional" to the list of redefined words. Apparently something can now "intersect" with its opposite.

@ButterflyHatched

Forgive me if you have answered this before, but might you tell me what your thoughts are about using a gender-neutral toilet alongside other people, both men and women?

Are you happy to do so?
What do you think about doing so?

Thank you

Other words that have been 'repurposed':
'Science' - any paper published in a science journal, no matter how contrary to the scientific method, biased and shoddy it might be
'Literature review' - a document produced produced by a bunch of people who have strong views on a topic, relying on papers that support their position and on cherry-picked data from other sources
'Cruel' - any behaviour that gives me hurt feelz

This all started some years ago. I recall arguing with someone well pre-Covid who claimed that a video showed a policeman 'beating' a woman. He obviously wasn't, he was trying to restrain her and remove her from a location, but 'beating' came around again and again and again.

I am reminded from watching Wesley Winter's latest video that apparently 'biological sex' still requires definition by law. Yet, I was under the impression from legal experts that Corbett v Corbett (1971) provided a definition.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.

See 15.33 on.

This male person being interviewed is saying that we need it defined in law. Perhaps they did not read the different legal analyses. Perhaps they are rather entrenched and dismiss the legal experts who have said that Corbett v Corbett has already provided a precedent definition.

What is interesting is that Wesley asked this male person whether breasts and clothes make a woman. Well Wesley Winter's said:

"Do you believe that makes a woman, you know, having a pair of boobs and dressing like a woman. Does that make a woman?"

The reply was:

"It think it's one aspect of womanhood. It is one aspect of being a female-bodied person. You can't just kind of pin it down to an easy simply sound bit. And they have in fact, actively avoided giving a definition of biological sex because they know it's really complicated."

"There was a letter that was signed recently by an enormous number of uh, biologists who are just saying this is completely ridiculous. You cannot define biological sex in such a reductionist fashion because in the real world, reality is much more complex than that."

Said by a male person who really doesn't 'pass' as a female person. To my ears and my eyes, this person doesn't pass. Not in the face or voice. This seems to be someone who needs philosophical theory to support the destabilising of the words 'woman' and 'biological sex' to allow a near enough is good enough definition. But is happy to use breasts and presentation as part of the signalling of who is female and who is male.

And is telling Wesley that in the UK, biological sex has not been defined for use in the EA. Plus that a group of academics who take a philosophical approach to defining sex, not one that is based on material reality for the very purpose of why the two sexes of human exist, reproduction, should be considered the experts in defining what biological sex is.

So saying that presentation is a part of what a woman is not reductionist? I thought presentation is reductionist so I must be confused.

So, I guess 'biological sex' needs to go on the list even though I thought we've had a good legal definition for decades.

So bored with these idiots saying biological sex hasn't been defined in law.

We only need to define things in law when there is some ambiguity or where their legal meaning is in some way different to their regular meaning.

Biological sex means biological sex. It means the same thing in humans as it does in all other mammals. The people saying it needs to be defined are the same people who don't want it to be defined because they don't like the answer.

As I say, they will push back on EVERY thing defined in law and argue black is white to get what that they want.

They aren't interested in definitions or the law or anything else, because nothing is good enough unless it's exactly what they demand because it's abusive behaviour.

They will push and push boundaries because they can. Thats the point.

The only way to react to that is to not allow this to be framed as anything other than the level a toddler tantrum that is to be taken as seriously as that too.

By the way, the age restriction on the video is because of male breast exposure discussion. Wesley Winter's has blurred out bared male breasts. Well on the ones that were on male people with transgender identities. I think there was a male 'ally' who was bare chested and not blurred out.

God those men.

The guy that recommends people touch grass because he just wants to get laid.

And the guy that says it's all about breasts and clothes??

Those young girls couldn't have been more of a contrast.

And that Baker man clearly rather gutted that he wasn't arrested for indecent exposure. I'm assuming because bare chested man isn't an offence

Yeah, the guy getting out his phone to show the young girls an explanation of DSDs.

I'm not sure those girls were fully up to speed with all the ridiculous transactivist arguments. Because she just waved in the general direction of them and said well are you telling me those men have XX chromosomes?

Which is a fairly normal rebuttal of the argument what about DSDs.

I know we all say it, all the damn time, but I'll never understand how people this stupid manage to persuade people who aren't in the least bit stupid.

It is startling to see how their minds work. Even the male person who had a very long discussion with Wesley was all rather 'it is because I believe it is'. And said things like 'I was always transgender' even though it was something like 12 years ago that they started therapy for being a transvestite. And then the therapist suggested trying the woman label on.

And rolled out plenty of the narratives that we see on MN.

But really really concerning is the constant repetition that male people who have transgender identities are ALL perfectly harmless to female people.

And the woman who was non-binary. Told Wesley that he too could be non binary if he wanted, he just needed to examine his sexuality and gender.

I'd love to see that laid out in any kind of logical fashion.

I think the thing is that everybody who (a) believes the assertion that gender identy is a real thing, (b) isn't suffering from body dysphoria themselves and (c) isn't particularly sexist could probably claim a nonbinary gender identity. It's just that most people are too busy getting on with life to do the necessary navel-gazing to come to this conclusion.

Queer can mean anything these days too. Heterosexual couples use it to sound interesting.