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!)

" I am simply stating my opinion that (generally) people who refuse to use preferred pronouns etc are much closer to the idea of transphobia than others are."

Well, no @giraffezoo. You said " 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". Your opener was that 'refusing to use someone's pronouns' was in itself something you consider 'transphobic' not something 'closer to the idea of transphobia', whatever that means.

This also implies a stance or belief. Im meant to be neutral. Im a listener not a judger

Wow @GenderlessVoid . That is really horrific. I hope you are doing okay now.

It's awful the measures people going through abuse need to take to try to escape, even in their own minds.

Closer to the idea of transphobia or considering something transphobic mean the same thing to me

Refusing to use preferred pronouns is much closer to transphobia?? Eh? Really?
It is compelling others to reject what is in front of their very eyes!

And not the old 'women can be paedophiles too' trope. It is overwhelmingly men -however they identify- who commit most sexual offences. Yes women do offend, but not at the same rate.

Don't you just get fed up of the same old 💩on a different day, FWRers?

Catching up now... for now (still travelling!)

You've got a low opinion of other posters here if your assumption is that we can't draw conclusions like this ourselves, M. A key thing that draws many (most? all?!) of us to this board is posters' shared interest in serious debate and digging deep.

I think one central GC concern about trans ideology is that it often seems, to us, to specialise in skimming surfaces: it presents a superficial view of what it means to be a woman, of what it means to be kind, what it is to support trans people, and what trans even means. And this is, honestly, also a concern about many of the posts purporting to defend the ideology. When they rely more on refs to AI than substantive argument, and hyperbole like "bile" and evasion, posters here tend to just dig deeper in response. We're always learning from each other, and often challenge each other. This does mean it can be a scary place to post even as a GC feminist - there's such a range of expertise and interest and personalities that come back at your post - scientists, statisticians, deep thinkers, wide readers, women with a positively scary ability to retain/archive facts (Arabella!), astonishing patience (Helle), deep kindness (Marie) - and such dedication to their own areas of campaigning interest (Toilets - gah, I'm SO sorry to abbreviate you like that, your name's gone but most know who I mean!)

In my own posts, meanwhile, there's no psychoanalysis (that'd be kind of cool!) It's really just analysis. Really, in the one you're referring to, I think it's not even analysis so much as just responding directly to your words with a clear explanation of what could (must, logically, in the absence of further clarification?!?) be understood by them. I do try to address content in my posting, not style... but I also find language fascinating, and am driven time and again to revert to a focus on style, as in my paragraph above, in response to the reliance on it in posts responding to difficult questions. In this respect, I'd say, again, that comments like yours above seem a bit (tellingly? again!) barbed - "psychoanalysis" feels implicitly dismissive, by implying I'm over-intellectualising something that honestly isn't that complex, and seeing things that aren't there when, to me, they're not just there, but positively black and white. I hope you'll tell me why I'm wrong in having read your original post like this, in the posts I'm yet to read. I may well be, but can't yet see it clearly...

What's the point of listening if your not judging what they're saying, how can you form your next question if you're not relating it to what they just said. If you give the conversation a meaningful start you'd have a discussion that will eventually help them.

So sorry @GenderlessVoid That's horrific

The lemongender thing was interesting. I felt a bit of an affinity as I can be quite sour and bitter myself 😯

Well I guess if you have woolly definitions with little basis in reality in one area...

I can’t see the original post I somehow missed this.
yes until today I’d never heard of this condition.

Which is why I think language choices when discussing things that give people pain should be chosen carefully and mindfully. Because you’re saying I’m worse for saying telling someone not to be daft and not to make light of serious conditions? I’m not really sure I follow your line of thinking or how you thought I was worse than others? If you disclosed that and someone said lol I’m a shark in the one saying that’s problematic.

i never said it was inconceivable, ive said i don’t know many people who wake up in severe distress because they can’t become a lemon and I’m sorry for your pain but my attitude standards. I was saying mocking comments are inappropriate when a person discloses pain.

Thank you, BettyBooper. That's very kind. I'm much happier now. I still struggle with C-PTSD and other problems but my life is much better than it was as a child. Living well is the best revenge.

Arguably you’ve got a low opinion of other posters if you think you need to say it.
i have a very direct communication style. If I think something I say it. If people were to say do you think x and let me say no I mean y without jumping on me I think I’d be less defensive but some of the accusations are downright silly

Good! So everyone is now more than clear that you are personally happy to use pronouns. Is there anything else you would like to discuss on the isue of trans ideology, or is pronoun use your main/only point?

You are very much welcome!

This forum allows GC perspectives (and many others) so you won't be deleyed or banned for saying trans women should not be in women's spaces. Incidentally neither will you be deleted for saying they should.

But that doesn't mean there is a single GC voice. You will still be challenged if people disagree with you.

If you are used to online spaces with a mandatory TWAW view enforced by banning it's bracing, shocking even, to be in an environment where being accused of being "unkind" isn't an automatic blocker, and you have to look past that to justify your position or beliefs from first principles.

FWIW many of us here did take your perspective at one point, but in trying to clarify where a reasonable line might be, we gradually realised there simply is no reasonable line whereby some men are legitimately, or even just socially, a bit more like women that doesn't ultimately mean reducing actual women to stereotypes.

I hope you stay, and that you come to find it worthwhile and rewarding to have to properly examine and fully own your beliefs so you can stand by them with confidence, whether they are views I agree with or not.

There are people who post here who are also involved with psychotherapy. I, myself, have past training in psychodynamic counselling and also have experience with Jungian analysis. But this is a discussion forum, not a counselling session. We are here to discuss ideas, concepts, issues and to test them out via reasoned analysis.

You seem to be very much focused on perceiving people with trans identities as victims in severe pain and distress, and you appear to think any discussion of their assumed identity, or the reasons for that identity, is to mock them. Correct?

Your posts seemed more flippant than the lemon ones I saw. Disregard my feedback if you want but several of your posts seemed to be mocking the possibility that anyone might identify as a shark or a lemon. You don't seem to take the possibility seriously.

You also seem to have missed the question of how identifying as a woman when one is a man is different than identifying as an animal or inanimate object. Why is it ok for men to identify as women?

How is that different? Why is one a joke but the other to be taken seriously?

Not all but some and I’ve literally said what I think is probematic. I’m not going to argue why I think posting things on a board teenagers might read is problematic because there are far worse things out there to worry about that what I see here but every time I post I do think who could see this?

There is a difference between mocking a clearly suffering individual to their face and using an analogy in an online discussion that might be read as mocking by someone feeling particularly sensitive about the issue for some reason.

What does disturb me is that you are offering some sort of counselling to trans-identified individuals that involves you instigating discussion of their trans-identity. Many of these people have serious psychiatric problems, as evidenced in the recent Finnish study. I hope you are a highly qualified, experienced, registered psychologist or psychiatrist who has managed to avoid being Stonewalled. Otherwise you are in danger of doing more harm than good.

Though "transphobic" means nothing much to anyone here. It is simply a term used to close down any discussion, any critique, and any rejection of transgender ideology. Simply repeating "transphobia" is pointless and achieves nothing.

Personally I would take both seriously if disclosed and mock neither.
my earlier points was saying I found comparing it to other things in a lol way was mocking. It’s getting a bit old that people are extrapolating so much from what I’m saying. It feels like I’m a politician

Agreed and I appreciate the difficulty.

My point is that this question could be very easily be interpreted by the man as agreement with the man's perception. I'm not saying that I think you do agree with it.

But if a man enters therapy with the goal of being affirmed, he would get it from a session with questions like this.

I appreciate also that some people walk away if they feel at all judged. But this smacks again of 'no debate'.

I can’t and won’t disclose my line of work but nice try

Well, people who come to this board tend to know beforehand that this is what they will find. In fact, this is its main purpose and has been so for a number of years. I don't think anyone stumbles onto this sub forum. They seek it out. I shouldn't imagine there are many teenagers....Mumsnet is hardly their scene, is it?

But many people who post here also tend to post for the benefit of non participating observers, which is why you tend to finds a lot of care and attention is given to thorough explanation and illustration; along with evidence and links. It is important for people who are caught up in trans ideology to be exposed to critiques of it.

See luckily that’s not my job to either give therapy or affirm gender snd luckily not something I have to think about as I don’t give therapy to trans people

Why not, out of interest? Why so coy?