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?

I'm also glad you mentioned transmen @Stonehenger as, as I think someone touched on above, the creation of the term 'transmisogyny' to describe the supposed intersection between transphobia and misogyny in relation to transwomen, leaves us with nothing to adequately describe intersecting disadvantages faced by transmen. Transmisogyny would be a perfect word to describe the intersection between the treatment they receive due to their sexed body and the treatment they receive due to their trans status. But nope, the men have already bagged that one. Unless you would also apply it to transmen. Would you?

You don’t think the comment about leaving an indelible impression on the chair is about shaming, or making someone’s body out as disgusting? It’s a horrible post.

Nah you can't just compare it to one other series, which was pretty cerebral and not really focused on actual day to day depictions of children.

So she said something not particularly nice about a man?

I mean, it's not the crime of the century now is it?

Question.
Why do we have to be nice to someone who is horrible to women?

Are we going to say "Be nice to Andrew Tate fans"?

Why do women have to always be nice in the face of horrible comments directed at them?

She's taking the piss out of him. You thought it a horrible post. I thought it a funny post.

Either way, it's a post about a horrible man, a man who happens to like to provoke women and make them uncomfortable, so I can't find it in me to be outraged on behalf of all men to be honest.

ETA: it was also a post I had not known about the existence of until you brought it up, so cheers for that.

And I think it could be a case of him crossing his legs in that manner because he possesses a penis and testicles. Many men sit with legs across like that to allow for their anatomy. But who knows his motivation? We can only react to his presentation and what he says.

It's definitely got 'won't somebody think of the flasher!!' vibes.

(Edited to add, not JKR's post but the spirited defence of AGP flashers by the scolders on this thread)

Thinking about it, I've seen far more men in a skirt and fishnets over the years than I have women.

Do you mean this?

the way trans women are often sexualised in the media but trans men aren’t

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When other areas of discrimination intersect we can also see how an individual who possesses two or more characteristics can suffer discrimination separately in relation to them. A Black woman can suffer racism or misogyny. A Jewish woman can be subject to antisemitism or misogyny, A lesbian can be subject to homophobia or misogyny. They can also be subject to intersecting discrimination by virtue of being a Black, Jewish or gay woman.

Now you could argue - and I believe Julie Bindel has - that a transwoman who is genuinely mistaken for a biological woman could suffer misogyny. And a transwoman could suffer transphobia. However, transmisogyny, in the sense of an intersection between the two, would rely on the transwoman being simultaneously mistaken for a woman and recognised as trans. In the same way as a Jewish woman is simultaneously Jewish and a woman, for example. A transwoman can't be though. They are either 'mistaken for a woman' or recognised as trans. There is no intersection. Transmen on the other hand...

And that tells its own story

It’s an interesting question. I wouldn’t use the term to refer to a trans man unless they used it, because I’d respect what they told me about their identity / wouldn’t choose to misgender a trans man by saying ‘but you are a woman so you’re experience misogyny’. But if a trans man felt it was a helpful way for them to express their experience - eg because people were still treating them as a woman but also discriminating against them for being trans - then I’d absolutely accept that.

JKR went on to say: Fred was at a public event that was filmed with all participants’ knowledge. Fred chose the fishnets and miniskirt. Fred boasted on stage about what he does with his female penis. You may feel squeamish about this picture, but Fred is a paraphilic exhibitionist who was having the time of his life.

Seems fair enough to me, but we are not going to get agreement on this thread so I'm not sure that there is much more to say.

Edit to say that my comment is directed at the thread in general rather than at any particular poster

This is an interesting response because it highlights the contradiction at the heart of the TRA position.

You are focused on how people see themselves (lens of their 'identity') where as misogyny is entirely about how the world sees them (their material reality).

So as the vast, vast majority of 'transwomen' are perceived by others as men, not women, misogyny could never apply to them. Vice versa with 'transmen'.

both of us understand it as a concept, or we understand what the people who use it are getting at.

I don't think I do, and I would be grateful if you could explain.

I agree that there is general prejudice against things that are perceived as feminine, (e.g. 'over feminisation of society' is cited as a reason for schools failing boys) but I think your reference to trans men suggests that you might not be understanding that people are just reacting to men as men and women as women.

From a man's point of view any effeminate man disrupts the male hierarchy and so is threatening. From a woman's point of view men can be threatening, eg. if they turn up drunk in clothes that might enable flashing.

I understand that it is preferable for trans identifying men to believe that people are reacting to them as women, but that can't be assumed.

On the other hand trans men are not threatening to women and they just don't register on the male radar.

Ah right - and now, having a similar background, I see where you are coming from.

You will of course be very familar with the insight that just because the reader reads a text a certain way, it does not follow that the author intended it that way? After all, part of the joy of textual analysis is in finding those new readings.

And also, I'm sure, its corollory, the death of the author? Where the reader's understanding of the text based on their own unique intersection of influences creates meaning with as much or more validity and authority as whatever the author may have intended?

Got to say though, if that is your background, I find this over-indexing on JKR's supposed hidden meanings in this superficial and de-contextuslised way even more perplexing. It's kind of GCSE, no?

Cultural anxiety often targets "effeminate" boys though (trans or not), because women & femininity are devalued. So I suppose if you think that’s misogyny (and I think it’s definitely related to patriarchy isn’t it?) and it could impact a male there, then we do have examples we can understand quite easily of boys experiencing misogyny?

Obvs I’m in a starting different position to you without that though, because I’m ok with the idea that trans women are women.

You say hidden meanings, I say textual evidence 🤷‍♀️

Yes, I’m familiar with ‘death of the author’ and reader response theory etc. But I didn’t have to do much to create meaning from ‘Dudley is fat, so it’s a funny joke if he gets a pigs tail’.

That was the reason why Hilary Clinton was so lambasted when she replied honestly that she didn’t bake when asked that question during the 2016 presidential election. Woman are not allowed to be agentic. That’s not playing to our appointed social roles. Being home makers. Baking. Of always being kind and nice. Including to men like Andrew Tate or Wallace.

Funnily enough Trump was never asked about his baking and Clinton’s polling dropped after she made that comment, which was repeated across media.

And people wonder why we might be critical of gender ascribed roles? Or see them as regressive. And people and some posters fail to see how men wearing a dress and makeup (or a short skirt, fishnet tights and thigh length boots) to declare his womanhood is offensive and regressive to women. Which oddly also somehow gets twisted into claiming sex realists oppose femininity.

Trans men get in the news for...having babies.

Woman are not allowed to be agentic. That’s not playing to our appointed social roles. Being home makers. Baking. Of always being kind and nice. Including to men like Andrew Tate or Wallace.

Yet following the theory that people just hate femininity, she should have ditched all her voice lessons and hair cuts and leaned into being more masculine.

💯

It's just all more misogyny isn't it. Women have to earn the right to be treated well by showing they selflessly out everyone else first.

"We'll only allow you to matter once we are confident you'll never actually act on that"

Obvs I’m in a starting different position to you without that though, because I’m ok with the idea that trans women are women.

To confirm and be sure that I’ve understood correctly @Stonehenger, you are prepared to accept, perhaps believe is too strong, that any man who says he’s a woman (a trans woman) is a woman in your eyes?

And that’s the crux of it. Your assertion, and that of others, that some creepy men are in fact women protects them from scrutiny. Any attempt to flag their behaviour is shut down. You turn accusations of misogyny back onto women to do the work of sleazy men. Well done you.

Are you suprised I’m not gender critical? I would have thought my views were fairly clear before this point tbh!