Why do some feminists oppose misogyny but support gender ideology?

[Doodwhatareyou]

I recently ended up in the man hating side of tiktok, which is a place I tend to be in agreement with. I’ve seen several women bravely battle stupid men in the comments who manage to reinforce everything being said.

I’ve seen a pattern though that these women, who seem to be very up on rules of misogyny, and aware of how problematic too many men are, usually have pronouns in their bio, and occasionally will complain about being bullied by terfs.

I’m baffled.

How can they be so up on patriarchal nonsense yet miss the fundamental misogyny in gender ideology. How can they deny the evidence that trans identified men are just as much of a problem for women if not more as they want women’s rights and spaces.

They can make endless videos about how hateful men are because of the way women are treated, and how women have to budge up and make room, yet trans identified men are women, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive bigot. I don’t understand.

I’m not sure what you want from us here. You are here telling us off for using the ‘wrong’ words but have not explained exactly which ones and why you think they are wrong.

Now you are complaining that we don’t talk about anything else but not putting forward any other issues you are concerned with. Why don’t you have a think about what you are interested in and start your own thread?

Pigeon chess, innit

Yes, but why? Why pretend to support something you oppose, when that thing isn’t particularly fashionable?

I can understand someone pretending to care about the environment, for example, when they don’t really give a damn. They want to look good.

But why pretend to care about women’s rights — a stand that won’t win any brownie points for anyone these days, except among genuine feminists?

Depends on the spaces. I take a more nuanced view where exceptions like sport, hospitals, refuges & prisons are legitimately justified. However I believe bathroom exclusion only imposes policing of women's bodies.

Why is it ok to exclude men from women’s sports, hospital wards , refuges and prisons but not toilets? What is the difference in your mind? What about changing rooms?

In terms of definitions there's this thing called a 'prefix' like 'trans' that points to distinctions that only a moron or wilful misunderstanding denies exists.

I don’t deny the word exists but I don’t accept it or find it helpful. ‘Transwomen’ are men. I prefer using the correct words to refer to things. There is nothing correct about using ‘woman’ in relation to men.

But your personal subjective opinion isn't a fact.

I’m sorry to break it to you but the existence of biological sex and the fact that no one can change is not just my opinion. Everything else flies from there.

I must say I’m a bit mystified why you keep coming up with this blatant nonsense. Even the trans person on this thread disagrees with you. Maybe go back to basics. Men are men. Women are women and no one can change that. You can work forward from there.

You are not adding to the conversation. You are not making any actual points, just complaining.

It's not ridiculous at all. We spent literally years making decent, polite arguments, when we still believed that it was a misunderstanding, not a deliberate activist tactic, and just needed discussion and good faith. We got no-platformed, threatened, hounded, lied about and demonised anyway.

I'm still not sure where we are supposed to have NOT made a decent argument, exactly. What is it you have a problem with?

Because I have a huge problem with the nature of the discourse from "the other side" and their allies. Do you castigate them as well, or is it just us who are supposedly "Not making a decent argument" here?

Precisely.

They genuinely believe trans women are literally women. It's bizarre

Do they though? Really?

If this is the case it is an extraordinary failing of our education system.

In a literal sense, the Latin prefix "trans" means "across," "beyond," or "on the other side of". It is frequently used as the direct opposite of the prefix "cis" which means "on the same side as".
The inference is across their natal sex.
Trans women are a sub set women via behavioural associations. Cis women are a subset of women via reproductive associations.

I think we’ve hit a glitch in the matrix - someone’s dug out the nonsense from 2015 and is trying to pretend it makes sense.

This is basically 'let's define sex via some other criteria that isn't sex'.

The reasoning is just laughable

I don’t think that is quite the case. So called ‘transwomen’ are not treated like women by their supporters - they are treated as men with special privileges.

In trans activist circles there is a marked difference in the way women are treated compared to these special men. They know what they are.

Somebody I know actually told me that her “trans” friend is more of a woman than she is. How she continues to hold this view baffles me. And yes she holds left political views as well as protesting male violence. I think it is the friend relative thing which means they have to be kind. I have told her I am insulted and offended,

I’m guessing she’s less bothered about offending you?

It’s that special man treatment again. I feel like it’s similar to the way that some women fawn disproportionately over men doing less common things like childcare for example.

We need a good term to describe this behaviour.

Trans women are a sub set women via behavioural associations.

Can you list some of these "behavioural associations"?

They must be things which apply to all women and men who pretend to be women, but not other men.

Trans women are a sub set women via behavioural associations.

This does look a lot like the concept of ladybrain.

Everyone knows that feelings are subjective. It is not "irrational", though, to suggest that someone's feelings about themselves are not the ultimate determining factor in any situation.

You do your thing, but if it doesn't chime with general reality or common consensus then don't expect any validation for it.

It's exasperating to see so much tone policing of women. But as we all know, we're on this thread because of the relentless and often violent policing of women's words and thoughts. Suppose we shouldn't expect anything different. As Andrea Dworkin pointed out way back in the 70s / 80s:

"Men often react to women's words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women's words with violence. So we lower our voices. Women whisper. Women apologize. Women shut up. Women trivialize what we know. Women shrink. Women pull back."

Not happening any more.

Movements are organic things; they shift and morph according to their conditions and the environment.An organisation or a formal institution is the place for general rules and principles.

Only in your world.....one which the vast majority of humanity either don't recognise or simply reject.

And women just say no.

Men flail around, threatening violence, committing it and hurl insults, abuse, whatever tactic.

It’s still no.

Very true. I must read more - I want to understand the women that police other women on behalf of men a bit better.

Like WTH are they thinking? We see it repeatedly, from the women who fought against the suffragettes to the young ‘Isis brides’ who were reportedly utterly brutal in punishing women not adhering to the terrible rules being imposed on them.

They don’t. Trans people themselves know more than anybody that you can’t change sex. And the handmaids just lie to themselves because otherwise their whole misguided #bekind worldview would come crashing down.

I think they believe that they believe lol

In my experience, that's it, yes, at least at first: you have to believe that you believe, because that's the Right Thing To Do.

And it's very effective: after a while, you do come to honestly believe, except in the more egregious cases. It becomes the baseline, the default. And when you catch yourself not believing, for a specific individual or in some specific circumstance, you blame yourself for thinking wrong.