Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

[Pyjamatimenow]

Friend of mine has posted on her social media ( a very long detailed post) that basically trans rights are women’s rights and that what she sees as transphobia is akin to people who ‘punish’ women who don’t fit into gender stereotypes, don’t get married, don’t look ‘feminine’, don’t have children…Says she’s a feminist and defends the rights of trans women to live safely etc …whatever that means. Cis women mentioned several times. I don’t normally comment on these kinds of things on FB but struggling with this particular post! If I were to say something what would you say?

But there has been a refusal to class misogyny as a hate crime. I'm sure most of the women on this board could give you dozens of examples of 'hate crimes' they have experienced, and if we are allowed to count words we don't like to hear that will because 100s.

Transwomen don’t really believe they are biowomen, and transmen don’t really believe they are biomen they are forced to assert this public identity and concept of gender (which was always about performative roles and never biology) so that their living and dressing as the opposite sex is seen as socially acceptable.

These are exactly the same semantics that feminist women had to use centuries ago to justify why they were cross dressing and living as if they were men.

(Excluding fancy dress up cross dressing as jokes of course.)

What do you think defines stereotypical behaviours? Do you think they are in any way related to people's perceptions of typical behaviours?

There is disagreement because it goes beyond a love for the colour pink if a man (which in some cultures is masculine) and the colour blue if a woman (which in some cultures is feminine), but in our culture it is pink for females and blue for males because blue was the colour that protects from evil spirits and boy children were precious so the boys got blue stuff and the girls nothing so that any evil that came would kill the useless girl child instead.

I digress,

Transpeople want more than a colour, they want the whole nine yards of living like they are the opposite sex. This isn’t about men wearing pink shirts or women who have a pixie hair cut.

Gender realists object to anyone getting hormones, GCS, and dressing very stereotypically for the opposite sex. You can’t say gender realists only object to the the concept of someone wanting to be socially treated as if they were a woman or man despite being the opposite sex. The objections run much deeper.

It highlights just how unequal men and women were. There is alot of concern that transwomen will appropriate special concessions that were designed to bring about women’s’ equality. There is concern too that single sex spaces which have historically been patriarchal tools of oppression will disappear as they are now weirdly seen as spaces of safety and refuge (although no criminal has ever respected these invisible boundaries nor will they ever)

Safely can be quantified, but authentically is purely subjective and therefore cannot be quantified.

I’m a bit confused by this, women’s rights are the rights men have always had and still have that we deserve as well. When we, women and men, all have the same rights not just in law books but in all of life, then we will be equal.

So of course men are included in that they possess the benchmark of rights we are fighting to get too.

I don't know what you mean by 'gender realists', but the only clothes sex realists objects to are sexualised play clothes, exhibitionist costume, bondage gear etc worn other than in privacy. By people of either sex.

Gender isn't real. Sex is real. Sex acts (including clothing display) should be between consenting adults in private.

Every armed forces Calvary unit from 1500-1920 when we stopped using horses.

High heels were literally invented for Calvary soldiers.
Women copied them as part of a fashion craze that saw them add military detailing to their dresses to show support for certain wars and it has endured since then.

the only clothes sex realists objects to are sexualised play clothes, exhibitionist costume, bondage gear etc worn other than in privacy. By people of either sex.

This is not entirely true. The leaders commonly criticise any kind of full body cross dressing.

This is such cobblers. Pink for girls and blue for boys started to be a thing in 1950s America, taken up by the advertising industry, always keen to make an extra buck.

I very much doubt anyone in 1950s America (or anyone else) thought "that blue [was] for males because blue was the colour that protects from evil spirits".

Who do you imagine to be 'the leaders'? I don't have a leader. Name the names, and quote where and when they made these common criticisms.

What do you think that diagram shows?

It says that 7% of hate crimes related to the category 'transgender' were categorised as 'violence against the person with injury'. It doesn't say anything about the total number of offences for that category (or any other). The figures may be buried in the report, but since you have read it perhaps you could just post them on here.

You are saying the number of men who identify as women who are murdered are so low as to be insignificant? They are certainly low at only a few hundred globally but sufficient to identify significant differences when compared to a global homicide rate of 9.3 per 100.000 males.

What leaders are those?

And what is “full body cross dressing”?

Gender realists object to anyone getting hormones, GCS, and dressing very stereotypically for the opposite sex.

Not true.

I don’t care how anyone dresses, and adults can do what they please to their bodies. I don’t think it’s a priority for the public purse to pay for adults to do whatever they want to their bodies but that’s a different question.

Women need rights and services that men don't e.g. single sex sport, maternity leave, maternity care. Lack of access to contraception is far more consequential for women than it is for men.

I think it's already been mentioned but 'Invisible Women' is a book that details how women experience discrimination when it is assumed that they are just like men.

I don't want to alarm any female contributors to this thread, but I fear that it is likely that they are wearing trousers RIGHT NOW.

My trousers came from the women's section. My socks, however . . . .

Actually, I'm confused - I thought gender realists believed in affirmation only care and were pro hormones?

And have males been forced to wear high heels to be employed in more recent times or is is just women?

I interpreted realists as the cue. Anyone who is realistic about any of this subject is necessarily “gender critical” to use common parlance.

I don't think you're going to "convert" her to the gender critical side. Have you considered if mentioned friends are actual friends? One option to consider is simply unfriending them with a couple of clicks.

No it’s much older than 1950s USA.
But then you do tend to not be aware of any human existence earlier than 1950 in all your posts.

You clearly missed the images from1623 and 1918 I posted yesterday.

Please cite a reputable source for your unique view of the history of the sex-related associations of blue and pink.