The weaponization of trauma and abuse?

[slownova]

I see this repeatedly from TRA's that women are weaponizing their trauma and victimhood against trans rights, its been used against JKR suggesting that she inappropriately used her own experience of domestic abuse to push her "hateful anti-trans agenda".

Its also said frequently in trans spaces online that women use both their own experience of male violence, abuse and rape as well as actual figures which show just how much of a risk women and girls face from men as a reason to exclude trans identifying males from female single sex spaces. For some reason this is deemed inappropriate and hateful, its as if they believe that these are not real concerns and fears women have but something we ruthlessly use just to try and exclude males like them from our spaces.

However when these males use their own fears of potential violence from men it is somehow ok and justified? Why is it ok for them to weaponize threats of suicide, or that they will no longer be able to exist or that they will be raped when ifs hateful if women do that?

I saw a post on reddit recently where people were shocked about the website terfisaslur where women have gathered evidence at the threats of rape, violence and murder from TRA's. On this reddit thread they were not aghast at the awful threats from trans identified males and their supporters towards women but at how hateful it was that women had gathered this evidence and made if public and preserved it long after the guilty men had erased their posts and tweets. I just don't get it, why can these people so easily look past these threats of male violence, the evidence of sexual violence from trans identifying males in female spaces and still this women are the ones in the wrong?

I saw this excellent article from Victoria Smith which no doubt many of you have read which touched on this Wicked women and the weaponization of abuse which does a good job of tackling this question. I just wondered what other here thought of this question, why is it wrong for women to talk about the threats and dangers they face from all men including those with a trans identity and yet its fine for TRA's to weaponize their fears and trauma?

Because they’re men and it’s imperative that their wants and feelings are centred at all times

It's one aspect of the transgender... 'phenomenon' - can't think of a better word - which shows how irrational, illogical, biased, amoral, unethical, insensitive, and narcissistic it can be.

Anything at all can be twisted and used against women. They seem to have moved on from using words like 'literal violence' 'genocide' 'most marginalised' 'wrong body' to using words that GC women have used in challenging TRAs excesses e.g. 'Safety', 'trauma', 'cognitive dissonance' and so on.

It's very easy to get drawn in to their vocabulary and their version of reality, but I think trying to focus not on what they are saying - we know what they are saying, and it's anti-women - but on how they are saying it, i.e. the latest stylistic trick to make them seem like the most marginalised group in society, everrrrrr, despite the obvious facts to the contrary.

They don't call us Gender Critical for nothing - so let's keep doing a critique of how the TWAW argument has developed over the years, the shifts in emphasis, the borrowed vocabulary, because it's style over substance. There is no factual basis for the substance of transgenderism, because human sex being binary and immutable. So lots of shifts in attitude and presentation and style are needed to cover up that basic flaw.

Exactly what @MarieDeGournay said. It’s a narcissistic pattern of behaviour.

Ah so something like DARVO then?

Exactly.

Here’s a recent reverse that I’ve noticed:

Dr U said that not all trans people take hormones or have surgery, and that is their choice and it doesn’t make them any less trans, and it is transphobic to think otherwise. In the NHS audit I’ve seen similar sentiments presented in policy documents.

But when it comes to gender confused children, it is apparently imperative that they immediately get puberty blockers, followed as quickly as possible by cross-sex hormones and surgeries.

I mean, no one here needs me to flag the incongruity, but really?

'weaponised' - you're mentioning things that might make people question our programming of them to do what we say.

That's it. That's all.

This is not the language of the balanced or functional. Women are not 'people' in this narrative. People seeing women's side of the experience or thinking about their feelings is very dangerous to the agenda.

Because men are used to getting their own way.

'Weaponised trauma'

This is a way of saying your trauma and abuse is not legitimate or worthy of consideration.

Think about what they are saying:

I want to do something and I don't give a shit about how this affects you so I'm going to punish you for mentioning it because this makes me look bad.

My pronouns are 'Me' and 'I'.

It's a variation of Rule 10 of Misogyny
The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

They want everything we have including our trauma and 'victimhood', our terminology that we use to express our concern's about what we face, the things we need to protect ourselves from. Everything has to be copied so they can show they're women too.

There seems to be a total lack of normal human sympathy, which is part of it. So when TRAs go for the 'I feel sorry for you, being so terrified of men, it's pathetic' kind of approach, I find it a bit chilling. I personally am not actually scared most of the time, but I can understand why some women genuinely would be: so so many women have been assaulted by males (as indeed have I). The minimising of that lived experience is actually a bit...odd. Part of mental illness? Male entitlement? Cleaving to 'victim culture'? Pure misogyny and hatred? A clever PR exercise? A mix of all those probably.

@TheOtherRaven Ah like Victoria Smith says in her article

"The philosopher Kate Manne argues that “feminine-coded goods and services include simple respect, love, acceptance, nurturing, safety, security, and safe haven.” Women and girls, Manne argues, are expected to offer, not take, such things. In disclosing her abuse within a debate which asks women to centre the needs and emotions of others, Rowling committed the sin of demanding that which she was supposed to be giving: compassion, empathy, space. She is not the first and certainly won’t be the last woman to make such a mistake. Women are asked to perform passivity, but to ask for empathy is out of bounds. In this way the casting of women who give accounts of their pain as aggressors is profoundly gender normative. Far from liberating anyone, it seeks to push them back into the same old boxes."

We're just supposed to be supportive and not ask questions I guess?

@TheywontletmehavethenameIwant I have noticed that and how even though they say they need access to our spaces out of fear of other men they also frequently claim to feel validation and euphoria when they are harassed and objectified in the way that women are, again very telling.

I suppose when we juxtapose the real abuse, rape, violence, oppression women experience at the hands of men and patriarchal society it rather undermines them especially when they frequently fetishize those things.