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?

The pictures we have of my grandfather as a toddler he is in white lacy petticoats. I assume white was easier to wash as you could boil it all together.

Yes, dresses were normal for toddlers of both sexes in the past.

The toddler on the left in the rather fancy dress is Prince Alfred.

Breeching a male child was something of a ceremony, happening usually when they were between four and eight years of age and often depending on their size as well as their age.

Because I was interested by the assertion that the cavalry all wore high heels, I found that I was investigating British Army uniforms of the past couple of centuries.

I have not yet found a single contemporary picture since 1800 in which a mounted cavalryman of the British Army is depicted wearing heels taller than about an inch. Obviously they did wear boots with heels: that is to stop your feet from sliding too far into the stirrups and getting caught. But high heels? Not that i have found so far. They may have existed, but they don't seem to have been painted or, later, photographed. (And the present-day Household Cavalry don't wear them.)

According to an art historian I used to know, the reason for the Virgin Mary being shown in a blue mantle as a general rule is simply that rich dark blue pigment, which is made using lapis lazuli, was difficult to obtain and costly, back when the early iconography was going on. She got the best so that the patrons who'd commissioned the pictures could be shown to be proper wealthy.

The chart breaks up crimes showing non violent & violent if you bother to check it.

The context of this point was another commenter doubting that trans people had safety issues not whether women experienced more safety issues than trans people which as I have already stated upthread is irrelevant to the question of trans safety.

The same JK Rowling whose had a face lift, fillers & botox not to mention revels in feminine 'woman face' aesthetics?

Well given her face belongs to an actual woman, you're being ridiculous now.

The context of this discussion is the OP questioning whether safety was an issue for trans people to which I have provided reported evidence. If you want actual numbers look them up yourself but I would note that reporting is not the same as offending so those numbers aren't accurate like they aren't for sexual violence against women nor do they reflect the chilling effect of trans people restricting their visibility for fear of violence particularly given the widespread media & activist campaigns to demonise & dehumanise them.

That its not obvious that trans people like other members of the LGBTQ community are subject to hate crimes lends to the level of unconscionable denial partisan politics demands. I really don't know how these people live with themselves.

Do tell you don't understand what 'woman face' is with out telling us.

😂

Are you really the best the TRAs have got these days? Standards have dropped even below what was thought to be possible.

You make NO sense. It's painful.

Yes, it is rather 'painful' to accept that GC 'thought' leaders are all 'do as I say not as I do' isn't it?

Point proved. Deflection and waffle all the way.
Enjoy the night shift.

And this kind of response just show cases why there's 'no debate' with GC talking points. Debate requires some modicum of acceptance of facts like their own hypocrisy when it comes to women maintaining sexist stereotypes that these champion denialists can't entertain lest it crashes their world view.

An utterly incoherent ideology.

I'm sorry - make your point about JK Rowling having cosmetic surgery, from scratch. I didn't understand it.

You tell me. You're the one's claiming that's it's the patriarchy imposing 'unnatural' beauty 'upgrades' to a woman's body to please them not me.

No, no I haven't. I haven't said anything close to that.

What I've said is that the clothes and other "upgrades" (?) that are considered feminine are those that, on the whole, appeal to men. That's different to saying that appealing to men is what is in a woman's mind when she "upgrades".

What's your point about JKR? She wants to look more feminine. So what? If you're complaining that she's propagating patriarchal ideas about men and women, then sure, she is. She's allowed to. We're all allowed to.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not "complaining" nor am I suggesting she "isn't allowed to". It's simply inconsistent on one hand to say trans people uphold sexist stereotypes by enjoying feminine attire & on another revel in them your self as a cis woman.

Anyone who wears feminine makeup upholds sexist stereotypes. Women and trans identifying men, alike.

My complaint about trans-identifying men is not that they were upholding sexist stereotypes. My complaint is that they are leveraging sexist stereotypes to persuade others or themselves that they are women.

It's not smashing the patriarchy for a trans-identifying man to wear a face full of "feminine" slap because, patriarchy-wise, it's no different to a woman wearing a face full of "feminine" slap.

If you want to smash the patriarchy with make up you'd want to look something like Ziggy Stardust. Neither particularly feminine nor masculine.

Trans-identifying men don't want to smash the patriarchy when they wear makeup, and they don't generally look like Ziggy Stardust. Allowing that people are individuals, and that there's a range of different behaviour, Jonathan "India" Willoughby, Dylan Mulvaney and Steph what'shisname all want to engage, support, and use patriarchal ideas of what feminine makeup is.

"Anyone who wears feminine makeup upholds sexist stereotypes. Women and trans identifying men, alike."

So you admit that GC thought leaders are hypocrites? That's progress.

My complaint about trans-identifying men is not that they were upholding sexist stereotypes. My complaint is that they are leveraging sexist stereotypes to persuade others or themselves that they are women.

The flawed assumptions here are:

1. That trans people are 'faking' their common inclinations with the opposite sex & as such is not a legitimate identity
2. That these inclinations are purely cultural & not organic &
3. That everybody doesn't 'leverage' their identity to obtain rights

In society and the workplace, asserting one’s identity is often the only way to trigger specific legal protections like anti discrimination.

"It's not smashing the patriarchy for a trans-identifying man to wear a face full of "feminine" slap because, patriarchy-wise, it's no different to a woman wearing a face full of "feminine" slap."

Can you further explain what this means? I don't follow,.

I'm not lead in thought by anyone, and I don't know who "GC thought leaders" that you have in mind are. If you want me critically to examine what someone else has said for hypocrisy, tell me who and point to the offending statements. I'm not shy.

The flawed assumptions here are:

1. That trans people are 'faking' their common inclinations with the opposite sex & as such is not a legitimate identity
2. That these inclinations are purely cultural & not organic &
3. That everybody doesn't 'leverage' their identity to obtain rights

This is nonsense. Who cares if trans-identifying people are faking their inclinations or feel them very genuinely. It's irrelevant. Common inclinations don't mean anything in respect of identity. Both I and my dog have an inclination to drink water in hot weather. It doesn't make me a dog nor her human.

On leveraging identity to obtain rights, and men wearing makeup to leverage female identies: People are welcome to the rights that belong to their own identities. But for trans-identifying men it's not their own identities that they're leveraging. They are leveraging an identity that they don't hold and to which they are not entitled.

and I don't know who "GC thought leaders" that you have in mind are. If you want me critically to examine what someone else has said for hypocrisy, tell me who and point to the offending statements. I'm not shy.

I have clarified who & what on this thread repeatedly. Either you haven’t bothered to read it or you re being disingenuous.

This is nonsense. Who cares if trans-identifying people are faking their inclinations or feel them very genuinely. It's irrelevant. Common inclinations don't mean anything in respect of identity.

The problem with this opinion is that group categorisations rely on commonalities.

Both I and my dog have an inclination to drink water in hot weather. It doesn't make me a dog nor her human.

But it does make you associated to the class of Ingestive Hydration Mammals or 'drinker mammals' as common gendered personality inclinations are associated to one sex more than the other.

On leveraging identity to obtain rights, and men wearing makeup to leverage female identies: People are welcome to the rights that belong to their own identities. But for trans-identifying men it's not their own identities that they're leveraging. They are leveraging an identity that they don't hold and to which they are not entitled.

Biology begs to differ given gendered personality traits are shared by the sexes but more common to one sex than the other.

I'm not going to search this thread for you. I'm not aware of any particular hypocrisy on this matter, and if you want me to examine and acknowledge some you'll pay me the respect of bringing it directly to my attention.

The problem with this opinion is that group categorisations rely on commonalities.

We don't accord rights to groups that rely on commonalities.

But it does make you associated to the class of Ingestive Hydration Mammals or 'drinker mammals' as common gendered personality inclinations are associated to one sex more than the other.

We don't ascribe rights to "Ingestive hydration mammals." We ascribe rights to people and not to dogs. A dog that drinks water doesn't get some of the rights of people. It has all of the rights of dogs. And none of the rights reserved to people.

Biology begs to differ given gendered personality traits are shared by the sexes but more common to one sex than the other.

The sexes aren't determined by personality traits. A dog isn't defined by the fact that it barks. When I bark, I don't become a dog. If my dog didn't bark but could talk, it would be a talking dog, not a person. And we still wouldn't let it vote.

"I'm not going to search this thread for you. I'm not aware of any particular hypocrisy on this matter, and if you want me to examine and acknowledge some you'll pay me the respect of bringing it directly to my attention."

Basic courtesy/respect dictates if one wants to insert themselves into an already active conversation on a thread they bother to make an effort to read it to save repetition & bumbling about. But since you clearly can't 'cope' with this simple social convention here's the conversation that starts page 10 with:

"Ahhh the curious case of Germaine Greer's 'metamorphosis' from gender non conforming dungaree wearing, unruly hair sans make up to feminine coifed stylised dyed hair, make up, jewellery, glasses & pretty dresses in her eighties?What 'dark cultural forces' could possibly have 'brain washed' someone who already knew & lived better about feminine stereotypes for much of their younger adult life?
The same 'dark forces' that 'brain washed' elite GC's JK Rowling, Helen Joyce & Maya Forstater into a blind worship for injected made up faces, long dyed hair & dresses but somehow bizarrely just like Greer wax lyrical about trans people single handedly maintaining feminine stereotypes?
Or maybe they like what the like because of their personal sensibilities?
We are to believe that they 'know' but yet 'don't know' about misogynistic sex stereotypes that 'caricature' women? The incoherence i breathtaking."

We don't accord rights to groups that rely on commonalities.

Yeah we do like anti discrimination laws based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion etc.

"We don't ascribe rights to "Ingestive hydration mammals." We ascribe rights to people and not to dogs. A dog that drinks water doesn't get some of the rights of people. It has all of the rights of dogs. And none of the rights reserved to people."

That's an example of how categorisations are made not rights made because you didn't seem to know how. Dogs aren't human so they don't get human rights. Beliefs get protection like religion. Gender identity is no different from this.

The sexes aren't determined by personality traits. A dog isn't defined by the fact that it barks. When I bark, I don't become a dog. If my dog didn't bark but could talk, it would be a talking dog, not a person. And we still wouldn't let it vote.

No one is suggesting the sexes are determined by personality traits. But they are distinguished on a group level by behavioural differences.

@Baileyonice

I remember that post of yours about Greer et. al. I read it three times and didn't understand it. I still don't - I'm not clever enough. I have nothing else to say about it, sorry.

Beliefs get protection like religion. Gender identity is no different from this.

We accord rights to people who believe in Gender Identiy. That's not in question. We just don't accord rights according to the beliefs of Gender Identity.