Are we a cult?

[CyclingSam]

I keep reading that sex realists, of which I am one, are a cult. Perhaps a genderist could be so kind as to explain what a cult is, and why we qualify. Sometimes one of us calls them a cult too. Who has a better case, hmmm?

The Supreme Court did not try to define the beliefs of gender critical feminists and then decide whether they agree or not. They looked at the law and made a judgement on what is practical, acknowledging that sex can only be recognised in law if it can be defined.

If you genuinely want to help trans people, you would be more effective if you devoted your energies to ensuring that they have provision within what is possible in the law.

No amount of arguing that JK Rowling and or gender critical feminists are wrong/bad/mad* will change the fact that humans cannot change sex and sex is sometime relevant.

*And if you follow the discourse within GC circles, plenty of GC feminists are making this argument about each other, so you aren't really adding anything to the debate.

Thanks for bringing this one up again - it made my jaw drop. The relationship between misogyny and "feminine expression" is so damn complex, but if anything it seems infinitely likelier that "feminine expression" is a product of misogyny than its target.

99.9% of women in human history have been hairy, muddy, muscled creatures, slogging away, blood, guts and all. Where does "feminine expression" come from, if not a male-dominated culture? Don't tell me it's long-awaited female liberation that ties us to (to quote another recent visitor) "satin negligees" (or whatever it was), cupcakes and ballet etc. Especially when we're but a stones-throw from medieval Madonnas, Victorian angels and '50s housewives.

And what is a gender identity?
Please describe without resorting to sexist stereotypes.

One has to wonder, has Henge actually read any children's literature of the type that inspired Harry Potter?

I mean, this "disgust" of some bodies she feels she has insightfully detected in JKR was just de rigeour for kids books and comics through most the the 19th and 20th centuries!

I'm not saying it's right, it was definitely not right, but when I see these TRA types pointing their quivery fingers at JKR's goblins or pig tails or whatever, I just think "dear God, do they not even read?"

FWIW I don't really rate the Potter books (I do like the films) exactly because they are so derivative of other children's literature. But dear god. Accuse JKR of being derivative by all means, but body disgust? You'll need to wear a truss for the strain that reach produces!

As I said in my first post it's just so cringingly obvious they are looking for anything they think.that can make stick. It's not "JKR is bad because she did X", it's "JKR is bad, now let's look for reasons why".

Ooooh. Now I know such a thing exists my life is complete 😋

Woah!!

It doesn’t have to be ‘typical’. It is within the range of ‘male behaviours’. Seriously, howse that argument of feminine and masculine working out? Seems very much like reinforcing sexism to me.

One thing that has always been unclear to me ...

What is it that all women are supposed to have in common with so called 'transwomen' but not any other men?

What are the characteristics that unite us that means it make sense to group us together?

Becayse I can't think of a single one.

Which means that the group of 'women plus transwomen' lacks any coherency or legitimacy as a group.

Its like creating a group that consists of 'women plus pineapples'. Baffling and pointless.

I believe you, but it's a very niche, Western conception of self. Certainly less of a common experience than being, for example, Buddhist. But we don't split humanity into Buddhist and non-Buddhist simply because some people find their experience of being Buddhist meamingful.

Have you missed all the posts explaining why the last thing she intended to do was shame him?

Anyway here is Kimberlé Crenshaw in 2017

Some people look to intersectionality as a grand theory of everything, but that’s not my intention. If someone is trying to think about how to explain to the courts why they should not dismiss a case made by black women, just because the employer did hire blacks who were men and women who were white, well, that's what the tool was designed to do. If it works, great. If it doesn’t work, it’s not like you have to use this concept.

The other issue is that intersectionality can get used as a blanket term to mean, “Well, it’s complicated.” Sometimes, “It’s complicated” is an excuse not to do anything. At AAPF and the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies, we want to move beyond that idea.

Unfortunately Intersectional feminism tends to mean both 'it's complicated' and 'it's mean to leave out the white men'.

She has a literature BA & MA so I promise she’s read a book except Harry Potter!

Exactly, HP is absolutely in line with the norms of kids books of its time

That is lovely for you. Enjoy your cis privilege!

Plenty of women don't experience that.

Unfortunately it's an anonymous forum, so we can only judge what you post.

Well yes. That’s why I think it’s helpful to find ways to describe the full range of experiences that people have.

Of course!

It is a very specifically British children's lit tradition that we are talking about here.

It is more than possible that people who grew up in other countries would not have that context (for example). Or people who didn't read much as children.

I don’t think that actually plays out. It’s much worse for body shaming than e.g northern lights trilogy or something like that. I think HP was actually bad ‘for its time’, at the time.

So can you see that while 'cis' might be relevant to you, you can't assume that it is relevant to anyone else, particularly if you are trying to determine sex?

I gave an example upthread that the way trans women are often sexualised in the media but trans men aren’t is a phenomenon that transphobia alone doesn’t explain.

I tried to post a link to a resource with quite a few example but couldn’t for some reason.

That’s fine. I’m happy for you just to elaborate in your own words.

Why would I want to read a load of bollocks justifying why we have to put up with men in inappropriate overly sexualised clothing can not be challenged as being potentially AGP, very much male, having a history of behaviour which demonstrates anti-women feeling and is given creditability and a platform to further try and silence women for defending their existing rights???!!!

Why can't we just come to the conclusion that Wallace is a misognist and hides behind an identity to do this?

The tweet

https://x.com/i/status/2076026917996634454

"Sadly, Fred's refusing to debate me. To prove I have no hard feelings, and that Fred does engage with some lucky women, here's a picture of him debating @HJoyceGender. I hear he left an indelible impression on the audience. And the chair."

There’s an example there in my own words. I think you understand what I mean… are you setting me some kind of comprehension test for some reason?

I think whether you AGREE trans misogyny exists or not, both of us understand it as a concept, or we understand what the people who use it are getting at.

Lots of people have called me an idiot but I don’t think you are an idiot - I am able to see that you understand something but have reached a different conclusion to me… are you able to give me that grace?

That is, how would any male person become a victim of misogyny?

And how does this differ from a man who experiences discrimination because he is camp? Where do drag queens fit into this analysis?