Jump to content

Menu

Why do I keep seeing the word "women" spelled as "womyn"?


Recommended Posts

It’s not about someone wanting to refer to themselves this way, it’s about the next politically correct term coming out that progessives (maybe not all, but “the powers to beâ€) are going to insist that everyone accept as the new norm.

 

It’s way overthinking the issue, and no one needs to get their feelings hurt because someone says that it’s silly to change a letter in a word, that’s still pronounced the same way, and then think that some amazingly empowering thing just happened.

Feeling empowered comes from within. If this spelling gives someone that feeling then more power to them.

On a personal level I haven't seen anyone use this spelling since the 70's which is why I find it fascinating that there seems to be a resurgence.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This sets me on edge because the term journalist doesn't need a gender disclaimer.

Using the word women has never made me feel as you described above.  it is just a word.  A word that feminists have decided to attach negative connotations to. Using womyn and womxn is nonsensical to

No, it is not an anti-men thing. Nothing sets my feminist roots on edge more then a dismissive comment about feminism and what it means.  Womyn is an acknowledgment that feminizing a male word is not

So, after a bit of etymological research, the bit about woman meaning "of man" is nonsense. Man in Old English was a generic term for humankind, with wer used for adult male humans and wif for adult female humans. At some point wif became wifman--female human. And at a later point wer fell out of favor and was replaced by man for adult males.

 

If we want to change something perhaps we could use werman and wi(f)man.

 

Or we could, yaknow, just use the words we have without twisting ourselves into knots.

Edited by maize
  • Like 26
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not about someone wanting to refer to themselves this way, it’s about the next politically correct term coming out that progessives (maybe not all, but “the powers to beâ€) are going to insist that everyone accept as the new norm.

 

It’s way overthinking the issue, and no one needs to get their feelings hurt because someone says that it’s silly to change a letter in a word, that’s still pronounced the same way, and then think that some amazingly empowering thing just happened.

 

"Something amazingly empowering" -- again with the scorn and disdain.

No one is insisting you use this term, or that' it's the new norm. No one at all. It's not a thing.

 

I'm curious, are there other politically correct terms that you feel that the "the powers that be" have forced you to use ?  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If an individual asked me to use womyn to refer to them, specifically, I would honor that.  I see it no different than someone who's name is X asking to be called Y instead.  For whatever reason, they don't like X.  I'd assume it's just their preference and defer to it.

 

I mainly don't plan to change terms myself for what I use in general nor do I feel the personal need to identify with anything other than woman or female.

 

If culture eventually changes, so be it.  I just don't see it as a hill to die on - or even fight about.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

People who sew are now called "sewists," actually. It was a new term to me when I started quilting several years ago. I think it has been used in other countries more than in the US. Maybe this is how they are getting around the tailor/seamstress question. 

 

 

Oh, thank God they've settled on something. For several years during the transition (seamstress to sewist) I kept seeing people refer to "sewers" online all the time! For example, in a mom's group: "Sewers, can you tell me how to repair this cloth diaper?" 

 

I loathe 'sewists'. It's an ugly word, replacing otherwise functional words. 

 

It is better than sewer. LOL

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen that word in print since I left college 20 years ago.

 

I see it very occasionally on websites run by college kids (men and women).

 

I appreciate the sentiment of not being some kind of "sub-man", but the reality is we have many words which mean things that are not evinced by their etymology. Female may be a derivative of male, and woman may be a derivative of man, etymologically, but biologically, all mammals are "female" first (hence, nipples). If men can put up with nipples I can put up with the word "man" in the name of my gender.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you pronounce ‘womxn’?? It is super awkward and jarring to read.

My first thought is..... female X-Men.

 

As for womYn, the only time I've seen that in print is reading up on Wicca. Of course that doesn't indicate the word's origin, it's just the only time I've personally seen it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen that word in print since I left college 20 years ago.

 

I see it very occasionally on websites run by college kids (men and women).

 

I appreciate the sentiment of not being some kind of "sub-man", but the reality is we have many words which mean things that are not evinced by their etymology. Female may be a derivative of male, and woman may be a derivative of man, etymologically, but biologically, all mammals are "female" first (hence, nipples). If men can put up with nipples I can put up with the word "man" in the name of my gender.

Since you mention nipples, it is worth pointing out that female is NOT a derivative of male but rather comes from a proto-Indo-European root meaning "to suckle".

 

Male has a different derivation entirely.

 

Once again highlighting the ridiculousness of getting worked up over perceived slights in the spelling of words.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you mention nipples, it is worth pointing out that female is NOT a derivative of male but rather comes from a proto-Indo-European root meaning "to suckle".

 

Male has a different derivation entirely.

 

Once again highlighting the ridiculousness of getting worked up over perceived slights in the spelling of words.

 

I think that you are right that we shouldn't get worked up.

 

However, I can see that if you believe that women comes from the roots for "wife of man", you could feel it was somewhat demeaning, until you realize how words come to be used as they are. It's not about spelling but about how we describe the world.

 

Thank you for the link. Here's another one:

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

 

Honestly, much of this work is speculative to some extent but I'm going to suffer the undergrads their moment and let them think through it themselves.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If an individual asked me to use womyn to refer to them, specifically, I would honor that.  I see it no different than someone who's name is X asking to be called Y instead.  For whatever reason, they don't like X.  I'd assume it's just their preference and defer to it.

 

I mainly don't plan to change terms myself for what I use in general nor do I feel the personal need to identify with anything other than woman or female.

 

If culture eventually changes, so be it.  I just don't see it as a hill to die on - or even fight about.

 

I don't know - asking for individualization of nouns referring to groups seems a bit ridiculous to me - it kind of makes the whole idea of group designations pointless.  "Here we are in a women's book group, except for Shirley who is a womyn, and Leah and Sarah who are womxn."

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if in a college context womyn is being used to signal a certain - lack of buying in - to current dogma. Seeing as it harks back to rad fem second wave. 

 

Maybe, but another possibility is that it comes out of people getting into choosing their identifiers in general, which seems a big thing now.  

 

I guess we'd have to see who is actually using it.  Or it could just be a young people thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are right that we shouldn't get worked up.

 

However, I can see that if you believe that women comes from the roots for "wife of man", you could feel it was somewhat demeaning, until you realize how words come to be used as they are. It's not about spelling but about how we describe the world.

 

Thank you for the link. Here's another one:

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

 

Honestly, much of this work is speculative to some extent but I'm going to suffer the undergrads their moment and let them think through it themselves.

But woman did not come from "wife of man". Wif meant woman, female--not wife as we now understand it.

 

Our word queen derives from a term that meant wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if in a college context womyn is being used to signal a certain - lack of buying in - to current dogma. Seeing as it harks back to rad fem second wave.

I agree. I also don't assume that second wavers were ignorant about etymology.

I've seen it especially in lesbian separatists communities, and can appreciate their reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But woman did not come from "wife of man". Wif meant woman, female--not wife as we now understand it.

 

Our word queen derives from a term that meant wife.

 

I'm not an etymologist. I'm just linking to the best online source I can find. I'd love to read more about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know - asking for individualization of nouns referring to groups seems a bit ridiculous to me - it kind of makes the whole idea of group designations pointless.  "Here we are in a women's book group, except for Shirley who is a womyn, and Leah and Sarah who are womxn."

 

I'm thinking more in personal terms - like if a student wanted it that way in written correspondence to them.  Your example is a general group - a women's group.  As I stated, I don't plan on changing it there unless culture eventually changes over.  Then I would.  The specific spelling just doesn't bother me one way or another TBH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone explain why the x is more inclusive than the y in the replacement words? 

 

It started with latinx.  Instead of saying 'latinos' (which is the technically the gender-neutral way of describing a group of all male or male and female Latino people), some men and women switched to using 'latinx' as a truly gender neutral term.  Pronounced la-teen-ex.

 

The term "womyn" has sometimes been associated with feminists who do not want anything to do with transgender women.  So the term womxn is sometimes used to be more inclusive.   Trans-friendly radical feminists.  Both pronounced the same as the standard spelling, women.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking more in personal terms - like if a student wanted it that way in written correspondence to them.  Your example is a general group - a women's group.  As I stated, I don't plan on changing it there unless culture eventually changes over.  Then I would.  The specific spelling just doesn't bother me one way or another TBH.

 

The problem I would have with that is trying to remember which people preferred which terms. 

 

Honestly, I have better things to think about than whether every woman I know wants to be referred to as a woman, a womyn, or a womxn. I am sure I would mess it up at some point and end up offending everyone. I guess I'd just have to start calling everyone, "ladies," although I'm sure someone would find that offensive as well. 

 

Of course, I say this as someone who hasn't seen the term "womyn" since the early 80's when I took a women's studies course in college. I thought the term was ridiculous and unnecessary at the time, and it doesn't sound any better to me now. I'm certainly not anti-feminism, but I don't see any particular value in referring to myself as anything other than a woman. If other women want to use the term, I don't particularly care either way, but I don't think it makes them better or more effective feminists than anyone else who uses the standard term.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It started with latinx.  Instead of saying 'latinos' (which is the technically the gender-neutral way of describing a group of all male or male and female Latino people), some men and women switched to using 'latinx' as a truly gender neutral term.  Pronounced la-teen-ex.

 

The term "womyn" has sometimes been associated with feminists who do not want anything to do with transgender women.  So the term womxn is sometimes used to be more inclusive.   Trans-friendly radical feminists.  Both pronounced the same as the standard spelling, women.

 

This is the first time I have seen the term, "latinx."   I'm not crazy about that term, either, although I'm not of that descent, so I'm not in a position to tell them what to call themselves. 

 

I am apparently way behind the times because some of the current gender-neutral stuff seems entirely unnecessary to me.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you pronounce "womyn" and "womxn"?

 

And are these terms plural? If so, what is the singular?

 

And as a comment, if this really has been around since the 1970's and this is the first I've heard of it - and I happen to be a woman myself - then I'm guessing this bandwagon hasn't got many passengers.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, to describe something NEW.  Women already exist.

 

So did Negros.

 

 

 

I don't know why this riles people up so much.    It doesn't affect you at all!    

 

I keep thinking of how people get all irritated if they are judged for referring to people as "illegals" instead of "undocumented immigrants".    Is it like that?

 

Or is it more like, you feel like someone is standing over you in judgement saying the term "women" is bad / wrong / stupid.  Is that it? 

 

That is most definitely how my mom felt when I didn't change my name when I got married, lol.  "Just do it, you'll feel ridiculous afterwards for making a fuss".  (She came around later....)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that your first source suggests that the word "woman" is derived indeed from wifman, derived from woman-man. Which is the objection of some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actress is a special case.  For many years actress was used as a euphemism for sex worker.  I'm not sure that it is perceived like that now, so I'm not sure that it's crucial to change the usage, but it's worth considering.

 

Both my mother and my grandmother were actresses.

 

 

Ahhh.... must be the same as masseuse/masseur in this country.  I faced that a lot when I became a massage therapist (preferred term du jour) back in the early 90s. 

 

We used to say the easiest way to tell if she's a massage therapist or sex worker is to look at her nails.  A real massage therapist will always have extremely short nails. 

Edited by umsami
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that your first source suggests that the word "woman" is derived indeed from wifman, derived from woman-man. Which is the objection of some.

Old English man though did not mean male, it meant human.

 

If they want to object to something they could object that the meaning of man shifted to become the new word for male human, thus making it less useful as a generic term.

 

Then they could (as I suggested upthread) start a renaming effort aimed at the male sex.

 

It could be argued, based on etymology, that removing man from the term woman is insulting in that it removes the "human" designator in the name, suggesting that women cannot claim full humanity :tongue_smilie:

Edited by maize
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the word "lady" not used?  Is there something offensive about it?

 

I once heard (I can't remember where so maybe it is inaccurate) that the word "woman" came from "woe to man".

 

I do know that "husband" comes from "husbandry" which means ownership.  Why are so few offended by this?  I know some people use "partner" or something else but not many.

 

Why do we still find it okay to identify people by their gender, especially in a world that is becoming complex in terms of gender identity?  We have done away with identifying people by their ethnicity, race and religion unless it is relevant to what we are talking about.  For example, if a woman who happens to be of Asian descent is organizing a sporting event for children, a newspaper article will not refer to her as an "Asian" or "Asian woman" because today we would consider that wrong but the article will call her a woman.  We do not use the word "person" or "people" much in this context even though her gender might be completely irrelevant to the event and what she is doing.  

 

Do you understand what I'm saying?  Why don't we use the word "person" more often?  Why is it okay to use "man" or "woman" to describe people when it is not relevant?  Can this not lead to greater discrimination?  Do you think we will start using "person" more in the future?  These are just things I'm wondering.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I once heard (I can't remember where so maybe it is inaccurate) that the word "woman" came from "woe to man".

 

I do know that "husband" comes from "husbandry" which means ownership.  Why are so few offended by this?  I know some people use "partner" or something else but not many.

 

On the contrary, husbandry derives from husband. 

 

 

 

c. 1300, "management of a household;" late 14c. as "farm management;" from husband (n.) in a now-obsolete sense of "peasant farmer" (early 13c.) + -ery.

 

I've added the derivation of husband as well.

 

 

 

Old English husbonda "male head of a household, master of a house, householder," probably from Old Norse husbondi "master of the house," literally "house-dweller," from hus "house" (see house (n.)) + bondi "householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant," from buandi, present participle of bua "to dwell" (from PIE root *bheue- "to be, exist, grow," and compare bond (adj.)). Beginning late 13c. it replaced Old English wer as "married man (in relation to his wife)" and became the companion word of wife, a sad loss for English poetry. 

 

The "woe to man" is a folk etymology btw. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking more in personal terms - like if a student wanted it that way in written correspondence to them.  Your example is a general group - a women's group.  As I stated, I don't plan on changing it there unless culture eventually changes over.  Then I would.  The specific spelling just doesn't bother me one way or another TBH.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but the word women, even for an individual, is fundamentally a category word.  If Creekland is a woman, we're saying she is part of a group of people with something in common.  

 

So to me, to individualize that kind of word (which would be a bit different than trying to convince everyone to change words) is in a sense erasing the universal designation.  You'd then almost need to introduce a new word to describe whatever the original word was talking about, or lose the ability to express that idea in language.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any danger of womyn taking over general usage, as has been stated this is more of an old thing, I've not really seen it in ages.

 

I don't feel the need to identify as such but I can understand and appreciate the reasoning and don't find it threatening. 

 

I found the etymology information very interesting, sometimes we don't get the facts straight.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're getting at, but the word women, even for an individual, is fundamentally a category word.  If Creekland is a woman, we're saying she is part of a group of people with something in common.  

 

So to me, to individualize that kind of word (which would be a bit different than trying to convince everyone to change words) is in a sense erasing the universal designation.  You'd then almost need to introduce a new word to describe whatever the original word was talking about, or lose the ability to express that idea in language.

 

I don't think so.  I don't see it any different than a student at school spelling their name as Nicole, Nichole, or Nikole - then add Nikki, Nik and any other variation you can think of (all of which I've had with real students).  I can learn each and use them accordingly.  I can even start calling Nicole "Susie" if she prefers it.  I still have to use Nicole on anything "group" wise (like official grades) or whatever.  All of this I'm fully willing and able to do.  It doesn't confuse my mind a bit TBH.

 

Like the PP, I don't really see womyn or womxn taking hold overall.  Personally, I'm losing no sleep over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I once heard (I can't remember where so maybe it is inaccurate) that the word "woman" came from "woe to man".

 

Nonsense. The root -man at that time meant "person". A woman is a wife-man, a female person. (A male person would be a wer-man.) Due to the principle of Q-based narrowing, the word "wer" fell out of use except in the delightful term "werewolf", and "man" came to mean just "a male adult human". And you could have looked this up in any dictionary. You did not have to rely on hearsay.

 

(As a note, human is completely unrelated.)

 

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so.  I don't see it any different than a student at school spelling their name as Nicole, Nichole, or Nikole - then add Nikki, Nik and any other variation you can think of (all of which I've had with real students).  I can learn each and use them accordingly.  I can even start calling Nicole "Susie" if she prefers it.  I still have to use Nicole on anything "group" wise (like official grades) or whatever.  All of this I'm fully willing and able to do.  It doesn't confuse my mind a bit TBH.

 

Like the PP, I don't really see womyn or womxn taking hold overall.  Personally, I'm losing no sleep over it.

 

It doesn't consume my mind either, but I do think that it's important to have a logical basis for how we treat language.  Often i has implications in other areas as well.

 

A personal name is meant to describe one individual. A collective noun isn't.  If we really want to individualize those, it would make as much sense not to use them at all.  We wouldn't have women, only Susies and Jusys and Johns and Andrews. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

:iagree:

 

Mess with the collective noun, and you find yourself unable to discuss the collective.

 

For example, data on Susie and zir/zem's health issues is pointless except to Susie, especially if Susie is encouraged to document zemselves by gender, and not by sex, and writes down 'equigender' on zem's intake form, instead of correctly identifying zemself as male/female (or, for a vanishingly tiny % of people, intersex).

 

Data on women's health issues, otoh...helpful to all in the class of 'woman'. Prison stats, domestic violence stats, pay stats....a collective noun, a nameable and logical class designation....it matters. 

 

And for that, nothing changes in my world.  When it comes to groups of any sorts, I'm sticking with woman unless the majority changes the language, sort of like it has with the meaning of gay.  I no longer use the word gay to mean happy unless it's within the lyrics of an old song being sung, etc.  For the majority of English speakers (at least in the US), that word no longer has a dominant meaning of happy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:iagree:

 

Mess with the collective noun, and you find yourself unable to discuss the collective.

 

For example, data on Susie and zir/zem's health issues is pointless except to Susie, especially if Susie is encouraged to document zemselves by gender, and not by sex, and writes down 'equigender' on zem's intake form, instead of correctly identifying zemself as male/female (or, for a vanishingly tiny % of people, intersex).

 

Data on women's health issues, otoh...helpful to all in the class of 'woman'. Prison stats, domestic violence stats, pay stats....a collective noun, a nameable and logical class designation....it matters. 

 

I think this also gets into all kinds of questions about the possibility of language at all, or how thought functions.  Both depend on the ability to express ideas beyond particular, singular, concrete designations, despite the fact that people and things we encounter are in a fact all particular, discrete, and unique.

 

I mean, this is the basis of the most fundamental philosophical questions about knowing, going all the way back to ancient Greece.  How do we know what a tree is when all trees are different, how do we know they belong to the category of tree.

 

We can in everyday situations accommodate odd people out of politeness of course, in part because most people do't ask for that.  But the principle that individuals can each create their own categories and collective designations - I don't quite see how that is a logically consistent principle - everything would be a category of one.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the problem is, the more we err on kindly co-operating with highly individualised language ( or, in the case of Canada, the more we are compelled), the more those group names are undermined culturally. 

 

For example, in the UK, one of the major political parties previously reserved some places for women, in acknowledgement that women are under-represented in government and this is a way to redress that balance. Obviously, not everyone agrees with quotas.

 

However, now the word 'woman' has lost its meaning...it no longer means 'of the ova producing class, female'...it literally means (for youth positions in the party) 'anyone who self identifies as a woman'. In theory, this means all youth positions previously kept for women, can now be filled with people sexed male. Indeed, one women's officer positon is now filled by a 19 year old male who has about a year's worth of 'living like a woman' behind him, whatever that means. He has neither a GNC nor has he had any form of surgery at all. If you don't believe in quotas, you won't care...but if you do ? Bad luck. Teen boys can represent the non-defined category of 'woman' as much as anyone, apparently.

 

This isn't liberation. It's regressive. 

 

Most of us want to be kind. Personally, unless I am compelled by law - in which case, I will assert my liberty of speech - I would show politeness and call any  person 'he' or 'she' or even 'they', based on the manner of their presentation. But there are deeper issues than kindness to any one individual, when we mess with language.

 

Womyn is on the mild end of this scale. I understand why it has been used historically, and sympathise. But there are reasons to assert the accepted collective noun. 

 

Man, this is bringing back all those "now that marriage doesn't mean a man and a woman" anymore memories.  

 

  Is the  approximately .5% of the population that is trans really so threatening that we can say "the word WOMAN has lost its meaning" unless they are excluded?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us want to be kind. Personally, unless I am compelled by law - in which case, I will assert my liberty of speech - I would show politeness and call any  person 'he' or 'she' or even 'they', based on the manner of their presentation. But there are deeper issues than kindness to any one individual, when we mess with language. 

 

Which is why I said if someone wanted me to, I would use that spelling with them individually (assuming it came up and was needed), but I have no intention of changing what I write in general unless/until the majority decides to do it.  Then I'm not going to be the holdback just as I'm not with the word gay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, this is bringing back all those "now that marriage doesn't mean a man and a woman" anymore memories.

 

Is the approximately .5% of the population that is trans really so threatening that we can say "the word WOMAN has lost its meaning" unless they are excluded?

 

You just typed this to Sadie?

 

Yes, I will exclude people who aren't by definition included.

 

Eta- does it make more sense to classify as a man or woman, in medical statistics, a trans man with cervical cancer? Do you believe there are instances where it is sensible to use correctly aligned with sex (not gender identity) designations?

Edited by LMD
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage IS a social construct. Sex is a biological, material reality that exists independently of society. So no, not comparable.

 

'Woman' as a collective noun does lose its meaning when it is defined so loosely as to include people sexed male.  And yes, there are consequences, and not just for 'cis' women. For example, under the NHS in the UK, transmen with intact breasts and/or cervixes  are missing out on pap smears and breast cancer screenings, because their gender is being used to direct their healthcare, rather than their sex. I would much prefer woman to mean anyone biologically female, no matter how they present socially, so that these trans identified females can get the health care they need. Biological definitions matter, even to queer people. 

 

I'm pretty immune to libfem shame tactics on this one, sorry, so you're probably wasting your time replying to me on this one. Unless you want to talk language categories. In which case, go ahead.

 

I can't exactly tell what you mean by transman, but, I don't really think that health care service is an unsolvable problem?  Unless we legislate to make it one.

 

Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. I'm sure you know this.     Saying biology tells us to keep a firm separation is just anti-miscegenation arguments all over again.   Not saying this to shame you, because -- whatever.  Most people on this board don't even know about the whole TERF 'debate'.  I don't have a dog in this fight, it just doesn't seem logical to me to be a feminist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My jaw dropped to read poppy trying to shame you as like-homophobic. You. Of everyone on this board. Smh.

 

I don't know Sadie's "cred" on this topic but so far in this conversation she has said:

 

  • If anyone was in doubt that queer ideologies are anti women and regressive, that should have been a wake up call.

 

  • Because it was a women's music festival. Excluding persons sexed male, regardless of how they 'identify'.

    Until the transactivist community shut it down. Because nothing says 'progressive' like attacking women, and women's spaces.

 

  • However, now the word 'woman' has lost its meaning...it no longer means 'of the ova producing class, female'...it literally means (for youth positions in the party) 'anyone who self identifies as a woman'....Teen boys can represent the non-defined category of 'woman' as much as anyone, apparently.

 

I'm not saying homophobic buuuut.... does this actually strike anyone as pro-LGBT?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me as rational. Do you have any rebuttals to those points, or just shame tactics?

 

Point 1 - did you read what this related to? Have you heard about the cotton ceiling?

 

Point 2 - Don't you think that a private community of women has a right to hold their own event on their own private property and exclude whoever they want?

 

Point 3 - it might not bother you, but self identity laws erase the objective meaning of terms and remove sex based protections that feminists fought bloody hard for.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me as rational. Do you have any rebuttals to those points, or just shame tactics?

 

Point 1 - did you read what this related to? Have you heard about the cotton ceiling?

 

Point 2 - Don't you think that a private community of women has a right to hold their own event on their own private property and exclude whoever they want?

 

Point 3 - it might not bother you, but self identity laws erase the objective meaning of terms and remove sex based protections that feminists fought bloody hard for.

 

Quoting someone is shaming them....OK?

 

1- Nope I don't know the context, but I do not think queer ideologies are anti-women.    I haven't heard of the cotton ceiling , googled it, couldn't understand the first two links haha, then I read: "The cotton ceiling is a theory proposed by trans porn star and activist Drew DeVeaux to explain the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, it means that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners....The theory of the cotton ceiling is useful in identifying the dynamic trans women are experiencing, and is meant to open up conversation around desirability’s intersections with transmisogyny and transphobia."    I don't get why this is an awful thing?  You're attracted to whoever you are attracted to, but, there definitely are cultural assumptions at play and it's not a terrible injustice to be asked to think about that.

 

 

2 - They absolutely do, but, if you hold a whites only party, you  might get called out on it.

 

3- One person's "we need to work out the kinks in these laws" is another person's "we can't have gender neutral bathroom or it will lead to a lot of rapes".  Gotta find that line.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...