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!)

You can only say something "isn't working" if you have an alternative model to compare it to. Most models are idealistic in nature and don't take into account human nature and aspiration. All of the communist countries have embraced capitalism - which whilst not 'perfect' by any means it has certainly lifted many people out of absolute poverty, and enabled technology and 'progress'.

Just reading Alexei Navalny's biography in which he talks about the state planned economy and society of the USSR when he was growing up......and how that "didn't work", either. Theories and ideals are all well and good - but if they end up crashing against pragmatic and human realities they will never be realised.

I think that in the West, particularly, we are at a late stage of American consumer culture combined with the American cult of the individual and 'living one's best life' etc....predated on by big pharmaceutical and billionnaire dollars that fantasise about transhumanism.

"Not Working" implies there is a way things are supposed to be that does "work".

We are animals. Nature. Nature doesn't have morality or plans. Animals and plants can and do eat and kill each other, or overpopulate themselves into famine or extinction.

There isn't a great plan we were supposed to follow but have somehow failed to implement properly. There are only the choices we make and the outcomes they lead to.

Most of us (humans) hope we (humanity as a whole) will keep finding ways to make life better for ourselves and others we care about, whether the latter is limited to ourselves, our immediate family or the entire human race, but simply wanting this to be true is not a guarantee there actually is always a way that is "better".

As a Feminist I believe Feminism will make things "better" for a significant number of humans without making things "worse" for the rest. But I don't think it's part of an inevitable progression to a society that "works", I think it's a conscious choice that society may or may not make, and the most important thing is not the far off vision but the day to day choices we make that impact each other.

Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty, capitalism is what under pins the modern world and it is working for most of the world. The problems it might be causing such as corruption are endemic to most of the world, which happen before and will continue to happen even if there were no capitalism. Capitalism is not the problem, culture's are the problem, if you think a world with a population of nearly 9 Billion can go back to some sort of barter system then you're fruit loop squared.

I may not see someone as a woman but they feel they are, its not for me to go around correcting people on how they feel

But that's exactly what you are doing. It's simply that the political and cultural consensus, until recently, has only given legitimacy to the feelings of one demographic of the two in conflict (transwomen and women).

In calling a TW "she" and "woman", you're correcting how I feel. You're taking from me the only words I have to describe myself, and replacing them with words that mean something entirely different. This leaves me with no words to describe "how I feel", and instead forces me to describe and identify myself in line with the TW's "feelings" (about what a "woman" is, and what "she" signifies).

And in so doing, you're upholding and normalising a societal standard that means that the articles I previously valued about "women"'s firsts no longer apply to me in the way they did before. That the research and statistics I read about "women"'s realities may be partially corrupted by male bodies/behaviours. That whenever I refer to myself as a woman, there's at least some chance that the listener will understand something entirely different to what I do by this and assume I have feelings, beliefs and values I don't have.

None of the above is incompatible with believing transpeople "exist" (dear goodness, there it is again) and are deserving of empathy (obviously!)

BUT I'd argue that the "trans people have always existed" trope is itself in danger of correcting people on how they feel. I'd rephrase this as: "the diverse range of people currently gathered under the expansive trans umbrella have always existed, and different societies have perceived and accommodated them in different ways across space and time". Otherwise, in applying the very recent and decidedly westernised term "trans" to these groups, we risk doing them, like women a severe injustice, by arrogantly imposing on them, in their absence, our own society's feelings, beliefs and values.

Some posters may remember I listed some AI "tells" yesterday to explain how clearly a particular post was my own? I mentioned alliterative "lists of three" as a particularly distinctive feature. Just to follow up on this, to help those of us wary of AI in future, there are some spot-on examples of this here (I know they can be very tempting to use, as they do create such a satisfying rhythm!)

you need a system of beliefs that makes that control feel natural, moral, even inevitable. So cultures begin attaching meanings to women: that they’re more “pure,” more “domestic,” more “emotional,” less suited to public or
economic power, etc...

...legitimizing why women are controlled, why they stay in certain roles, and why men hold property and authority

Another plopper, so late in the thread, or have I missed previous pearls of wisdom from this one.

Opps, and then he was gone.

For a fabulous vision of a dystopian society that seeks to eliminate difference, read the short story "Harrison Bergeron" (or similar) by Kurt Vonnegut. Like so much 20th-century "sci-fi", it's alarmingly prescient.

It's a lot more coherent that some of this posters comments, also a dead give away. They're being to sound like a lecturer in some 'studies' course, which would explain the unhinged blah, blah, blah that's coming out now.

We'd best all shut up and not say a word then. 🤔🤐🙄

God forbid more than one woman is allowed to respond without it being framed as somehow unfair and unreasonable.

On the feminist board.

Oh dear! I'd just assumed that she had gone for a walk and had a sarnie before re-posting. Ah well.

I think that's a bit harsh. It's a difficult balance to get. Posts like this can act as a counter-balance to different, equally valid and more dominant approaches to the discussion (dammit, a list of three there!) - and the post above is careful not to shut those other approaches down. A melting-pot of styles and voices, including in responses to surprisingly persistent (and interesting) challengers, is a strength that sets FWR apart from the more zombified ideologically "virtuous" boards. It's hard to know how to respond to posters like M, sometimes - you're never quite sure what their background is and needs may be - but that some thought goes into this, and different conclusions reached, is a good thing about posters here.

I don't think it's harsh. Women are constantly told to be quiet and tone policed.

This wouldn't happen elsewhere.

I also recognise that behind Red's post is the awareness that "pile on" is almost as popular as "bile"-on as a get-out evading difficult questions, and how infuriating this can be.

Ultimately, a poster can choose to just shut down the laptop, after all.

(Having said that... here I am, back again hours after my semi-dignified exit following lemongate yesterday! 😁)

Yeah, cross-posted, in a sense - see my last.

It ain't easy, and it's maddening that we have to reflect on this as well as all the other issues we'd like to explore.

I mentioned in an earlier post how often discussions are driven back to style over substance as an active (although it's unclear sometimes how conscious) ploy to evade more meaningful debate.

But then, I guess awareness of these issues surrounding style are also a feminist discussion point?

Gah. Feel like a Cat(tiette) chasing my own tail in the above... 🤔

I completely agree that gender stereotyping is harmful to everyone. It does prevent everyone from reaching their full potential as adults.

Regarding gender policing, I believe that non-trans people are far more invested in preserving stereotypes than trans people are. I don't know if I agree that attraction and/or adherence to stereotypes are a primary driver behind transition. Having been through transition myself and seen dozens of others attempt and fail or succeed in transition, trans people are not cheered on to transition. No one wants a trans family member. Not to mention many adult trans people will never fit within stereotypes enough to reify those stereotypes regardless of whatever surgeries they have.

Gender is comprehensive enough that it can be attacked from many directions, as it has been forever. Gender adapts and changes. It constricts and expands as cultures progress. I believe individuals can subvert gender. We can absolutely opt-out and/or fight expectations and limitations in various ways. But I believe we will always have gender (as a cultural system, I don't believe it's an identity) because humans will always be social in addition to sexual. This is the main difference between us and other animals. Maybe until another species invents gender?

And accused of saying things we didn’t say.

Also American English.

I think my feeling after all these years is I don't owe anyone and I don't think it's appropriate to just shut up. If we'd shut up we would have been steam rolled over.

If people can't cope with what's said here, honestly it's not my problem to solve. I think it's massively important to highlight the nonsense, to challenge and to keep saying what we are.

We are constantly told it's us who must compromise. Except compromise involves others giving ground.

And the reality is there is no middle ground. There is reality and there is fantasy. There isn't anything else.

I agree Red. The accusation of “pile ons” is often a DARVO. Have people actually read all that poster’s posts? Of course people will push back when goaded.

They are posting stuff designed to get a reaction and then squawk when they get a reaction.

I am not joining the subsequent pity party for getting what was desired in the first place.

Ultimately don't come here on your high horse and expect to get respect by lecturing well educated women in their 30s and beyond because you will get the response you deserve for the lack of respect given to us.

Certainly, my own thoughts on this have hardened over time. You can probably trace it in my posting style. But that's why I also value counterpoints and perspectives, to make sure it's a conscious evolution with which I'm happy, if that makes sense.

It's an invidious Hobson's choice, really, because we're even now still working within and constrained by the gendered standards people are discussing above. If we can't beat 'em [gendered standards of discourse, immediately and in their entirety - which we know we can't], then to what extent do we join 'em [to exploit them in support of our own interests, eg. to get others "onside"]? And to what extent is doing this capitulation or strategy, subversive... or weak-willed? It can be interpreted as any of these, admired or dismissed accordingly. (And we all know it's more likely to be dismissed - arguably, that it has, itself, contributed to the bind in which we now find ourselves.... But the same can be said for a more direct style - this is used against us time and again, too, in astonishing double-standards 😡).

I'm conscious I'm influenced here by my own journey - it was the controlled reason but also the tone of the GC arguments and perspectives that drew me to them. When I was unsure, one thing was clear to me: I could see a real capacity for empathy on one side of the debate, and a total absence of this on the other. As has been the case in this thread.

Maybe "golden bridges" work as a good metaphor here? They're bloody difficult to tolerate building, given the history and strength of feeling and past hurt... but you can't build a bridge full-stop if you're not prepared to meet the other "side" (opponent or river!) halfway. And the other side ain't going to shift in its landed view that women arguing for their rights should "be kind" to some extent at least any time soon.

Anyway, I'm not really arguing for one or the other, so much as for a continuation of debate on this issue as all else, so that there's something for every (new)comer to see and think, "Yeah, I can agree with that and join in."

Differently-inclined hearts and minds!

Why did you post that @MarieDeGournay? Was it for Mattala, or was it because you find the interactions stressful? This is a genuine, well-meant question.

Just to add - the above is written with a focus on lurkers. Re: this poster's approach to "debate"? I agree with much of the above. It's been an interesting and entertaining ride, to be sure.