feminism or transphobia?

[giraffezoo]

Long time lurker of this forum, first time poster.

I have read through many of the threads on here and I have to say there are lots of views that I find quite shocking.

There almost seems to be two sides of the ‘gender critical’ movement on here that I can see.

The first seems quite reasonable. They wish to have protections in place for women and their rights. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree (e.g. trans folk in toilets, transgender prisoners etc) they are stating a view based on safety and women’s rights.

The second bunch are the ones who I find myself disagreeing with, and who post things that I personally consider as transphobic. Some examples of this would be: refusing to use someone’s pronouns or citing being transgender as a mental illness which needs to be cured.

I feel that the first group are genuinely feminists who are concerned with women’s rights, and feel as though they need to speak out on their own concerns. The second group are masquerading under the pretence of feminism to say hateful or controversial things.

I am interested to hear other views on this point (and I’m sure there will be a lot here who don’t agree with me!)

Exactly this.

For me I think it might be transphobia when people object to adults getting privately funded sex change surgery/medication. Honestly I don't care it men want to do hormones/surgery to do that long as us tax payers don't pay for it (and of course they are kept out of all women's spaces, legally remain as men).

Women trying to focus on women's issues tend to get framed as hate because it's not centering trans or ignoring it - then it's also hate when all talks on womens issue decencends into trans debates.

So if trans is ignored - it's hate.
If it's discussed then it's hate and why do all discussion end up as trans debates.

It's women shut up unless talking about others needs - which as women we're supposed to center and make room for. I think many are just sick of it all and want it to fuck off.

You made a pretty big leap in getting to that implication. Again don't assume, just ask. Save the lectures for people who actually disagree with you (personally I don't lecture anyone until I am 100% clear on what their position is)

When you post on a board you know is an established base/meeting place/forum for people with a very particular perspective on an issue ( especially a perspective with which you are in strong disagreement) you will inevitably be overwhelmed, and maybe even intimidated, when people engage with and respond to your posts; especially if those/your posts are intended to be provocative ( make accusations etc) or have an intent to challenge the prevailing position.

it is not that people here are afraid of challenge; indeed most love an opportunity to engage with detailed critical analysis and refutation - but you will inevitably feel bombarded.

That is what your post implied. Do you not agree?

So, anything you have no problem with, but other people do, is hate? Is that correct?

You were the only one who wrote a post accusing me of supporting transmen in women's spaces so no i don't agree that it was implied.

Are people allowed to have an ideological objection to cosmetic surgery? Or to unregulated or barely regulated private prescribers? Just checking so we can know what hate is. We've already established that <checks notes> reading your posts isn't always a clear indication of your position.

Transmen are female.

Your post implied that there might be some occasions in which a trans identified man ( sometimes referred to as a 'transwoman') might be entitled to use women only facilities. That is not the case.

I said it might be transphobia, note the use of the word "might". I do think it is weird to object to what someone does with their body if it has no impact on you. As long as they stay out of women's spaces and are legally men, I don't care if a transwoman wants to dress as a woman. If you are transphobic them staying out of womens spaces may not be enough to make you happy.

Oops, got my words mixed up. I meant to type transwomen of course.

Again you are the only one claiming that. Others seemed to get it just fine.

I agree with you about the two camps on here OP. A lot in the second camp on MN, using feminism as a guise for transphobia. I’m part of the first camp. I think women’s and girls rights should come first, and I don’t believe you can change sex (but neither do the majority of trans people. Most trans women know they are not women, they are men who have had body modifications to feel more like a woman and they ‘identify’ as female but they know they are not actually women in the same way biological women are). However I will respect them as trans women, use their pronouns etc but unfortunately there’s a minority of them - usually the autogenophiliacs (I’m sure I spelled that wrong!) that ruin it for the rest of them and I don’t want to share female only spaces with them. That, unfortunately for them means no trans women should be in any female space because there’s no way of getting inside each and every one of their brains to see what’s actually motivating them to want to ‘become’ a woman.

The state draws the line to protect people. You cannot for example consent to torture or having your testicles nailed to the floor so the perpetrator would be guilty of GBH. We deter people from taking anabolic steroids (BTW testosterone is an anabolic steroids) to bulk up their muscles.

Very well expressed. Thank you.

So you’re saying that threatening women with rape is ok? Really? That’s the look you're going for? And we’re the “evil” ones? Sure buddy. Sure.

How are men who identify as women the most marginalised?

I am so bored of this thoughtless sexism.

Calling the well reasoned arguments of women who object to this"bile" and "hatred"? Really?

I am so bored of the ongoing accusations of "bile" and "hate" leveled at women simply for saying our language is significant by people who won't think any further than that and somehow think this failure to think any further than "being kind" in the moment makes them morally better than people who do.

Making it socially acceptable to refer to men as if they were female as some sort of courtesy to acknowledge their self image as "a woman" is incredibly reductive and demeaning of actual women.

Our lives, needs and physical sexed bodies have nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with whatever these men are seeing in themselves and labelling "womanhood", so why on earth should it be seen as an acceptable social nicety to pretend it does?

It's like saying it's socially desirable to pretend white western anime-obsessed teens who have never set foot in Japan, speak no Japanese and know nothing about the culture beyond their anime fandom are just as Japanese as people who were born and live there, then accusing people who actually are Japanese of hate and bile for objecting.

It's just so tedious and lazy.

Where is the deeper thought? Where is the engagement with the implications for women when you do this thing that demeans us all to be nice to men?

I'm sure someone else has said this, but this is a really revealing post.

Women here are protesting that males appropriating the noun that was previously used to name female people "reduces" them. That it's making our conception of ourselves as a distinct group "illegitimate". That it's utterly offensive for "women" to be told that who and what they are is a matter of appearance/surgery/hormones.

One poster uses a range of analogies to make this point, including the metaphor of a lemon and vitamin C. It's as good a metaphor as any to make the point that reducing women to one arbitrary physical detail is hugely offensive. It's all about how women are being subjected to "hard line" @mattala sees above. Women are! We're the lemon. And it's bloody distressing to experience this.

Yet all that poster sees the above is offence to trans individuals.

That, mattalla, is what we find so disturbing about this ideology. It disappears us. In this way, tour post, frankly, reflects a far more damaging prejudice than most (all?) posts here. We acknowledge and name trans women - we just won't give them our name. Our approach leaves both groups with an identity and a name.

You don't even seem to even recognise that the group who haven't yet had the vote for a hundred years retain any claim at all to a collective political identity or word of their own.

A swift reminder that the recent spate of ploppers, "you're all transphobes", and similar threads from new usernames is to stop us from talking about

the Finnish study

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5513703-finnish-study-on-transition-and-psychiatric-outcomes-in-sex-and-gender-shows-increased-psychiatric-morbidity

Because the response is an aggressive and hostile pile-on. So what tends to happen is that the non GC dart in and dart out because that is what happens in bullying situations.

I don't know but I think for some people their objections go beyond just harm. I think there are people who would object to men going outside dressed as women (even without hormones/surgery) simply because of transphobia. Obviously not all, but I do think it is a motivation for some.

Bloody fantastic post 👏👏👏👏

I’m fully on board with your description of the first type of ‘feminist’, however I feel that my support for stopping Violence against Women and Girls must bleed into your second category. They can’t be seen as two separate things.

i truly believe that there are ‘genuine’ trans women. I feel genuine sympathy for them. I would support their pronouns. I think anyone who has surgery has genuine intentions (even if I may feel they are misguided).

But I also believe that there is a significant category of other men with fetishes, AGP and predatory motives, that are jumping on the bandwagon to gain access to women and girls (and maybe even boys). To affirm their pronouns is giving them the confidence (and sometimes a sexual thrill) to insert themselves into women’s spaces and the possibility of VAWG.

So I guess I would only use she/her pronouns for trans women I knew well (and beloved to be ‘genuine’) or those that I genuinely think are women in that they pass so well.

I’m of an age and live in an area where trans people rarely cross my path. When I was younger they were known as cross dressers and their original sex was usually pretty obvious.

I agree that this viewpoint is pretty shit for all the genuine trans women out there, but my rationale is that this makes things safer for 51% of the population at the expense of a very small number of men. I have far less problems using pronouns etc for transmen. They are generally not a threat to women, and as far as I know there’s been no cries from the men that they feel threatened by them.

"as women"?

How exactly does one dress as half the human race?

This is a serious question. What does this "as women" that men can be actually mean to you?