Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Kinsa

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

: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. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 10

Share this post


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 3

Share this post


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

Share this post


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?

 

 

 Sex, unlike marriage, 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 those who are biologically female, no matter how an individual identifies, 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 commenting on my posts. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 11

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just typed this to Sadie?

 

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

 

The meme is that this is the new homophobia.

 

(Even though it's not the proud moms of lebians insisting that same sex attracted people adapt their sexuality to same gender attraction, one of the most homophobic ideas I've ever heard come out of queer theory.)

 

It's just another way of trying to shame leftist women out of discussing language, categories and sex. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 4

Share this post


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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 am quite confident in my lived experience as a non-homophobic woman :) Ignore it. I do.

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 5

Share this post


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 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, it's definitely pro LBG :)

 

#iloveandcareformylesbiankid

 

#iloveandcareformytranskid

 

Love and care don't require ditching critical thought about language categories, and the effects of changing those categories. In fact, I'd go so far as to say love and care requires our best critical thinking. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 10

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   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.

 

lol, you may not know my LBGT kids are mixed race, and I've been living with a brown man for 22 years now. Definitely a white supremacist at heart!

 

I request you stop quoting me, mostly because you are wasting my time, thinking that crying homophobe! racist! is any kind of intelligent response in a discussion about language.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 4

Share this post


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.

 

I can predict the rebuttal.

 

1 - Not all male lesbians!

 

2. But some males are women!

 

3. Women have cis privilege, they don't need exclusionary sex based protections!

 

4. You're mean.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 1

Share this post


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 2

Share this post


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?

 

poppy, fwiw, I think there's a context to this that is being lost because unless you follow a lot of feminist & lesbian activism groups, it's just not prevalent - because as you say, the percentage is so small. The thing is though, that in *those* realms, it's having a huge impact. 

 

There are prominent male to female transgendered people who are now shaming and harassing lesbians because they (the lesbians) don't want to have sex with a man. There are male to female transgendered people who are taking over women's spaces, women's leadership positions, women's health centers, and trying to make it about them and their health issues, which surely are not the same as biological women's issues. 

 

I've found myself pretty much pushed into radfem because I think women are a unique group with unique social needs and injustices and we can actually define ourselves. 

 

What does it mean to be a woman? Can someone just call themselves a woman and take over our spaces, our causes, our issues - and then dilute and undermine them? 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people equate the category 'woman' with the category 'white'. 

 

This is why we can't have nice things. 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Okay lets just pretend that you didn't try to shame her...

 

1. Lesbians are being harrassed as genital fetishists and told to "suck my lady-d*ck"

 

2. What about a trans only support group? Shall I call them out? No, because their specific needs and a specific space to be free to discuss them should be respected. Why shouldn't biological women be afforded the same respect?

 

3. It's not just about bathrooms. It's about women's spaces, like prisons and domestic violence shelters. Women have already been sexually assaulted by trans women in both of those spaces btw. Treating women - 1 in 4 of whom will be sexually assaulted before 18 - as hysterical when we discuss keeping sex-based protections is breathtakingly misogynistic. Do you know the history of creating women's public spaces?

Edited by LMD
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people equate the category 'woman' with the category 'white'. Smh. 

 

This is why we can't have nice things. 

 

 

Well, to be fair (and I am totally on your side of this argument - of course I'm actually wellllllll to the right of you, but that's a different discussion), the equation isn't "woman" with "white," it's "not-transgendered-to-woman 'woman'" with "white."

 

That is to say, it's what leftists might consider a privileged group (non-transgendered people, in this case women), like they consider white people a privileged group.

 

Probably no one would bat an eye at a party for only African-Americans, or only Latinos, or something - but a party for only white people would make them nervous, because (my understanding, anyway, as I don't share this view) white people are a privileged group and therefore it's gauche to exclude other races when you're the dominant race.

 

In the same way, I guess people in the transgender community see non-transgendered women (that is, people who are biologically female, not sure on the correct terms) as privileged in relation to people who identify as women but are not biologically female, and so they think it's unacceptable for the people with the privileged position to exclude them on that basis, I guess.

 

I dunno, to me it looks like the Left eating itself, a la Homage to Catalonia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair (and I am totally on your side of this argument - of course I'm actually wellllllll to the right of you, but that's a different discussion), the equation isn't "woman" with "white," it's "not-transgendered-to-woman 'woman'" with "white."

 

That is to say, it's what leftists might consider a privileged group (non-transgendered people, in this case women), like they consider white people a privileged group.

 

Probably no one would bat an eye at a party for only African-Americans, or only Latinos, or something - but a party for only white people would make them nervous, because (my understanding, anyway, as I don't share this view) white people are a privileged group and therefore it's gauche to exclude other races when you're the dominant race.

 

In the same way, I guess people in the transgender community see non-transgendered women (that is, people who are biologically female, not sure on the correct terms) as privileged in relation to people who identify as women but are not biologically female, and so they think it's unacceptable for the people with the privileged position to exclude them on that basis, I guess.

 

I dunno, to me it looks like the Left eating itself, a la Homage to Catalonia.

 

It's total b/s that the class of born women, socialised as women since birth in a sexist society (I know we disagree here but bear with the leftist lens) have privilege over the class of born men, socialised male since birth in a sexist society. Obviously, there are differences at an individual level, but the left has traditionally been about analysis of class, and material realities. Political definitions are not about individuals and their subjective feelings, but about objectively observable categories. 

 

The bolded is a commonly expressed sentiment on the right, and frankly, it's understandable. The left is no longer grounded in class analysis, and will fall apart on this basis. It's a good time to be a person on the right, imo. Lots of opportunities coming up for social conservatives, anyway. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting conversation but making my head spin... it seems to me to be expected that a transgendered person of either sex has different challenges/needs/desires than that sex in general...  IE, a male to female transgendered person has different challenges than a biological female, although of course some challenges would overlap.  As a woman, I might acknowledge that a transgendered woman might share some of my challenges but might not fully understand others, just as I would not fully understand hers.

 

Is someone saying that's wrong to think that way?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's total b/s that the class of born women, socialised as women since birth in a sexist society (I know we disagree here but bear with the leftist lens) have privilege over the class of born men, socialised male since birth in a sexist society. Obviously, there are differences at an individual level, but the left has traditionally been about analysis of class, and material realities. Political definitions are not about individuals and their subjective feelings, but about categories. 

 

The bolded is a commonly expressed sentiment on the right, and frankly, it's understandable. The left is no longer grounded in class analysis, and will fall apart on this basis. It's a good time to be a person on the right, imo. The right is making far fewer category errors at this point in time.  

 

 

I'm not sure if you've been following electoral politics in the US too closely recently, hah :)

 

The Right is at a point of absolute crisis, and any number of external factors can and will push it into either responsible governance or outright Nazi-ism, with little control by either the individual or, honestly, the ruling elite, as to which tendency wins out (at least for the short term - storms don't last 100 days, etc.)

 

I agree with you about the BS nature of the argument that women are a privileged class in this scenario, but I think it's still the argument that is being made, and since there is so much emphasis (from an outsider's perspective, anyway) on respecting people's own perceptions of their relative privilege or status if they are a member of various identity groups, it's a difficult one to argue.

 

"No, you aren't marginalized in this way, and I'm not privileged" is not an argument that gets very far with the left these days, in my experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay lets just pretend that you didn't try to shame her...

 

1. Lesbians are being harrassed as genital fetishists and told to "suck my lady-d*ck"

 

2. What about a trans only support group? Shall I call them out? No, because their specific needs and a specific space to be free to discuss them should be respected. Why shouldn't biological women be afforded the same respect?

 

3. It's not just about bathrooms. It's about women's spaces, like prisons and domestic violence shelters. Women have already been sexually assaulted by trans women in both of those spaces btw. Treating women - 1 in 4 of whom will be sexually assaulted before 18 - as hysterical when we discuss keeping sex-based protections is breathtakingly misogynistic. Do you know the history of creating women's public spaces?

 

I disagreed with her.   Nowadays that's called "shaming" but I'm not gonna say  I'm being shamed right back with that dismissive SMH.  It's OK to disagree.

 

1.  That's not OK.     Does not = queer people are anti-women.

 

2.  So here is a parallel.  My religion has a longtime, beloved campaign called Standing on the Side of Love for fighting injustice (immigration issues, racial justice, LGBT) and we had a long debate where some disabled activist said the word "Standing" was exclusionary because not everyone can stand.  Lots of people agree, lots other rolled their eyes. Obviously standing is just a metaphor in this context!! But also, obviously, it upset some people.

 

In the end they renamed it Side With Love, and a whole lot of t-shirts and banners now need to be replaced. Making space for someone with the same agenda, but a different perspective, isn't always easy.

 

3.  Trans women are, from my limited understanding, exceptionally vulnerable to sexual assault. I do think there need to be sex-based protections, but I don't get the narrative that trans women are threatening and likely to be rapists.   We need to fight rape culture period.

 

I am  no trans activist, I just see such a logical blind spot here, and it's too bad.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I make space for a male bodied person when I'm discussing my female-bodied concerns? Why do their feelings trump mine?

 

Not all trans folk are like this, thank goodness some are lovely and respectful. They also get called TERFs and no platformed.

Edited by LMD
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting conversation but making my head spin... it seems to me to be expected that a transgendered person of either sex has different challenges/needs/desires than that sex in general...  IE, a male to female transgendered person has different challenges than a biological female, although of course some challenges would overlap.  As a woman, I might acknowledge that a transgendered woman might share some of my challenges but might not fully understand others, just as I would not fully understand hers.

 

Is someone saying that's wrong to think that way?

 

Oh yes. 

 

Lots of people. 'Cos transwomen are women. Or, to bring it back to the focus of the discussion, the category 'woman' now includes male bodied persons who are not to be seen as distinguishable from natal women, because to distinguish is transphobic. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I make space for a male bodied person when I'm discussing my female-bodied concerns? Why do their feelings trump mine?

 

Not all trans folk are like this, thank goodness some are lovely and respectful. They also get called TERFs and no platformed.

 

Duh, because you're the cis oppressor. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh, because you're the cis oppressor.

Lol

I hate 'cis' on a visceral level... talk about dehumanising and erasure.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you've been following electoral politics in the US too closely recently, hah :)

 

The Right is at a point of absolute crisis, and any number of external factors can and will push it into either responsible governance or outright Nazi-ism, with little control by either the individual or, honestly, the ruling elite, as to which tendency wins out (at least for the short term - storms don't last 100 days, etc.)

 

I agree with you about the BS nature of the argument that women are a privileged class in this scenario, but I think it's still the argument that is being made, and since there is so much emphasis (from an outsider's perspective, anyway) on respecting people's own perceptions of their relative privilege or status if they are a member of various identity groups, it's a difficult one to argue.

 

"No, you aren't marginalized in this way, and I'm not privileged" is not an argument that gets very far with the left these days, in my experience.

 

Correct, because the left has abandoned the idea of class analysis. The left no longer has any coherent theoretical framework. 

 

As to what wins out on the right...social conservatives have the benefit of a coherent framework. I may disagree with most elements of it, but it coheres. Its language is comprehensible. I wouldn't bet against the right long term. 

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I make space for a male bodied person when I'm discussing my female-bodied concerns? Why do their feelings trump mine?

 

Not all trans folk are like this, thank goodness some are lovely and respectful. They also get called TERFs and no platformed.

 

TRUMP being the operative word. No one groups' needs are supposed to be paramount,  when intersectionality is done well. It's often a mess and not done well.   That's true. But the alternative is definitely not better.

 

* Nothing to do with Donald Trump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh, because you're the cis oppressor. 

 

Ohhhhhh, I get it, this isn't a conversation, it's a set of eye rolls.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhhhh, I get it, this isn't a conversation, it's a set of eye rolls.

 

Given you called my political position racist and homophobic, when it is no such thing, and continued to quote me when you've been requested not to, yep, eye rolls seemed appropriate. I agree it was childish and unhelpful.

 

I've heard all your arguments a million times, and they are no less convincing for having heard them again. Yes, I am tired. It is tiring. I care for the one trans person who is my actual responsibility - my kid. Strangers on the internet don't need to lecture me on inclusivity where it really matters.

 

If you wanted a conversation, you could have engaged with my ideas. Or maybe ignored me and engaged with Bluegoat's ideas. Or hornblowers. Or considered LMD's questions thoughtfully.

 

Please stop quoting me. At this point it is wasting your time too. I am sorry I rolled my eyes at you. Please accept my apology for reacting instead of discussing, as I've expected from you.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRUMP being the operative word. No one groups' needs are supposed to be paramount, when intersectionality is done well. It's often a mess and not done well. That's true. But the alternative is definitely not better.

 

* Nothing to do with Donald Trump.

I don't understand what you mean here.

I didn't say the needs are paramount, I said they are different. It's just, irrelevant, to have everyone included in everything!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you mean here.

I didn't say the needs are paramount, I said they are different. It's just, irrelevant, to have everyone included in everything!

 

I slightly disagree, in that sometimes the needs of a natal woman should be of more concern than someone else's need to be affirmed in their gender identity - in very restricted situations, such as rape counselling, domestic violence shelters and non-emergency gynecological care, especially but not only for women with a history of abuse, women should have a right to natal women only spaces. 

 

Otherwise, yes...different, not more or less important.

 

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes. 

 

Lots of people. 'Cos transwomen are women. Or, to bring it back to the focus of the discussion, the category 'woman' now includes male bodied persons who are not to be seen as distinguishable from natal women, because to distinguish is transphobic. 

 

I didn't even know that was out there.  It has to be a very small percentage though, doesn't it? I haven't come across it in reading.  Seems like most trans people are just trying to be accepted in GENERAL and you know, not beat up or killed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 women should have a right to natal women only spaces. 

 

 

 

So just curious, if you don't like "cis" how is "natal" different?  Aren't both words describing the same thing?  I've always thought it was just descriptive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important part of feminist history is the ability to organise and speak freely, to name their experience and oppression.

The right to do so has been hard won over a century.

When we are then told to rename ourselves (not women, cis-women) and redefine our experiences (black lesbians are now cis-oppressors of straight, white males!), we might have something to say about that. When our meetings to discuss this are met with violent protests, we might lose our patience with 'making space'

Edited by LMD
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know that was out there.  It has to be a very small percentage though, doesn't it? I haven't come across it in reading.  Seems like most trans people are just trying to be accepted in GENERAL and you know, not beat up or killed. 

 

Well, women are being harassed, bullied, reported and expelled from a major policial party in the UK for making points similar to yours, so I'm not sure how tiny of a % it is. 

 

Fwiw, yes, I believe most transsexual people are just trying to live their lives, which gender dysphoria makes incredibly difficult. Many of those people would agree with your point. They are not really the people engaged in queer theory and transactivism.

 

Just a note on the bolded: reliable statistics suggest that most trans individuals in the West are not at heightened risk of either, except if they are black, and/or working in the sex trade. Male racists, pimps and buyers of sex are way more of a danger to trans people than feminists discussing language on the net. Which makes it ironic that libfems and other allies don't take the fight the up there, but instead spend their time policing other women's political views.

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just curious, if you don't like "cis" how is "natal" different?  Aren't both words describing the same thing?  I've always thought it was just descriptive.

 

Cis is imposed, and comes from queer theory. So I reject it. 

 

Natal simply means born as female sexed. It offends me less, because it's an accurate descriptor that doesn't denote 'oppressor'. It's used to stop the circular reasoning of 'but they are women!' about women's spaces that exclude male sexed persons identifying as women.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadie:

 

I never called you racist. I used examples to show your arguments are similar to past arguments we now consider racist. I do not think you are racist.

 

I never called you homophobic . I did say your arguments were not arguments an ally of LGBT would make.

 

I did not see a request to not quote you. I wouldn’t have if I had. I apologize.

 

I did thoughtfully reply to LMD, as best I could . Clearly you’ve heard all this before so don’t .... care? But I think I was fairly thoughtful. No one replied to anything I said with anything but contempt but I’ve been trying ....

 

I haven’t gotten to Bluegoat or Hornblower yet. I’ve about given up because this isn’t my room, apparently .

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadie:

 

I never called you racist. I used examples to show your arguments are similar to past arguments we now consider racist. I do not think you are racist.

 

I never called you homophobic . I did say your arguments were not arguments an ally of LGBT would make.

 

I did not see a request to not quote you. I wouldn’t have if I had. I apologize.

 

I did thoughtfully reply to LMD, as best I could . Clearly you’ve heard all this before so don’t .... care? But I think I was fairly thoughtful. No one replied to anything I said with anything but contempt but I’ve been trying ....

 

I haven’t gotten to Bluegoat or Hornblower yet. I’ve about given up because this isn’t my room, apparently .

 

For the argument to be racist, you need to accept that women as a class are oppressors of trans identified males, in the same way white people have historically oppressed black people. If you do accept that, that's fine and your perogative, but it isn't a feminist argument. 

 

I am an ally of LBG people, and stand with lesbian women who are same sex attracted, and don't believe they should be shamed or called transphobic for not being same gender attracted. I find that particular view - that lesbians should learn to like 'ladyd*ck' incredibly homophobic and akin to conversion. This is a claim that arises directly from queer theory, which posits that bio sex is socially constructed. 

 

Fair enough if you didn't see the quote.

 

It's not that I don't care...it's that it's really tiring hearing the same arguments. That's not your fault. You're not a mind reader. 

 

I apologise for the contempt. I think bluegoat and LMD have been engaging in good faith with you. It's just as much your room as mine. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know that was out there.  It has to be a very small percentage though, doesn't it? I haven't come across it in reading.  Seems like most trans people are just trying to be accepted in GENERAL and you know, not beat up or killed. 

The UK Labour party is in a huge row over this issue. Long standing feminists and lesbians are being pushed out or quitting over harassment for insisting that being a woman means something. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-officials-quit-in-transgender-row-06qtj2b3r

 

In Quebec, a trans person is head of a provincial woman's organization. I think things like this are going to tear these groups apart http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-president-of-quebec-womens-group-faces-backlash-from-feminists

 

A male to female dominatrix is scheduled as one of the headline speakers at Vancouver Women's March. We already had a schism around sex exploitation/pornography/prostitution and now this. We are being shoved out of our own movement. 

 

 

Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current has been talking about this topic for some time but it's really heating up lately.  Expect to hear about it more in the months to come. 

 

As Murphy says "If 'woman' is a thing individuals can opt in or out of, women's oppression is chosen. If women's oppression is due only to an internal 'feeling', and not due to being born female, we no longer need rights & protections as a group. Our oppression no longer exists."

 

 

Here's a recent post she wrote about this topic: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/01/04/thanks-trans-activism-2017-saw-return-old-school-sexist-dismissals-women-womens-rights/

Edited by hornblower
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...I don't think you have to believe the person "is not a woman" or that it's as simple as "a lifestyle choice" to acknowledge that the life experience will be pretty drastically different.  I don't think it's hateful to say that person may not have the same understanding as a person who was born female.  Just like a born female will not have the same understanding of a trans person's experience. 

 

And yes, there will be certain situations where that understanding is wanted or needed.     

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think so wouldn't you goldberry...

I've had a trans woman (btw - the space between the words is very important apparently, there was a big stink about it) try to tell me that taking estrogen causes cells to differentiate so that they become female cells, I've been told that even gynaecologists can't tell the difference post surgery, I have been told that they had phantom menstruation through their male puberty (cramps once a month), I've read that they know all about the feelings of getting pregnant because one day they'll get a uterus transplant - that last one was from the 19 year old women's officer for UK labour.

Trans women are women, have always been women, that's the party line.

 

There are some rational and respectful trans women out there - they also get harassed and no platformed and called TERFs.

Edited by LMD
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important part of feminist history is the ability to organise and speak freely, to name their experience and oppression.

The right to do so has been hard won over a century.

When we are then told to rename ourselves (not women, cis-women) and redefine our experiences (black lesbians are now cis-oppressors of straight, white males!), we might have something to say about that. When our meetings to discuss this are met with violent protests, we might lose our patience with 'making space'

 

Linda Bellos is now a case in point - not only is she black and lesbian, she's Jewish too.  But queer logic posits her as an oppressor. 

 

Transsexuals who don't deny their biology get called truscum by transactivists and their allies.

 

I don't trust any movement that hates on Jews, and calls transsexuals scum. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...