Can I ask you to genuflect more?
There’s a Twitter account called MeTooSTEM. I think of MeToo as a feminist movement, a movement for women who face sexual abuse on the job. I guess I turn out to be wrong about that.
Open and safe for all? So, including men who sexually abuse women on the job?
I have no idea what the RTs were, because of course they’re gone.
A later tweet is…not so welcoming.
How can they know that no trans woman is a threat to women? How can they know that there are no trans women who fake it in order to intrude on women?
They don’t say, of course. At any rate, any women who don’t believe the trans dogma and thought MeTooSTEM was for them now know otherwise. MeTooSTEM considers them “TERFs” and thus enemies.
Whoops there’s a volunteer disappearing under the wheels.
But even that wasn’t enough – there is now yet more groveling and apologizing. Please don’t hit us! Please! We’re sorry!
It’s never enough though. Grovel harder!
Updating to add: I found the Offending retweets after all.
Thank god we have vigilant women combing Twitter for evil women who think women get to have some spaces that are just for women.
And still they present the argument that transwomen suffer from greater harassment without any actual evidence of same. Oh, wait, I forgot. It is so hateful, so harassing, to say “women” in the context of “women’s health” “women’s issues” “women’s sports”. If you accept women being called women, and men being called men as harassment, I suppose that probably does lead to transwomen being harassed at a greater rate than any other group. My bad.
If the basis of women’s oppression is not their biology, then what is it, specifically?
1.) the way they behave
2.) the way they think
3.) the clothes they wear
4.) their mannerisms
5.) all the above
6.) none of the above
Explain.
No, it’s none of that. It’s just the label “woman.” Which, of course, makes “sense.”
Is this: “MeTooSTEM intends to be an open, safe space for all, no matter gender” intended to explicitly include men?
I wonder how common sexual harassment and abuse of men is in STEM fields.
The rhetorical sloppiness of the TRA cult brings infinite yuks. Maybe they should have said “no matter sex?”
iknklast:
And asking for evidence of said greater harassment is in and of itself transphobic.
Ultimately, it’s the same rhetorical legerdemain that religion pulls. To demand evidence for or be at all doubtful about the truth of revelation is sinful, if not evil. It happens with party affiliation, too. If you question the wisdom of the party, you’re a traitor. It even happens with respect to race. If you don’t blindly accept all claims and accusations of racism and discrimination, you are being racist, you racist. Stop being racist.
*Sigh* Here we go again…
That’s like asking someone to “explicitly recognize” that clubs for hitting baseballs, like flying mammals, are “bats”. We have one definition of “bats” that makes the sentence “clubs for hitting baseballs are bats” true, and we have one definition that makes the sentence “flying mammals are bats” true. But the former definition makes the latter sentence false and vice versa.
Likewise we have one definition of “women” that makes the sentence “cis women are women” true while making the sentence “trans women are women” false, and we have one definition* that makes the sentence “trans women are women” true while making the sentence “cis women are women” false, or at the very least unjustified. You cannot have it both ways. To quote Daniel Dennett in a different context “It’s just a bad pun”. In fact if You know enough to detect a pun when You hear it, You know everything You need to know to expose all of gender ideology.
* Or would have if not for the fact that the genderspeak definitions of “women” are all circular.
And the problem can be exposed if you restructure the statement to: “Clubs for hitting baseballs are flying mammals”. It quickly becomes obvious that you are not talking about the same thing, though they are both bats
Though frankly, I don’t think there really is a legitimate definition of women that makes the statement “transwomen are women” true. I think there is a definition provided by trans activists that makes that statement true, but only by rendering the word “women” meaningless. This doesn’t happen with the two different definitions of bats; both are bats. But transwomen are not women if the word women actually has any recognizable meaning. Or at least any recognizable meaning which includes those of us who are, you know, actually women.
I’m surprised no one seems to notice the parallels with liberation movements of the past being exploited by opportunistic monsters. There was a time when NAMBLA made a serious attempt to ride the coattails of gay rights movements. They had prominent public supporters and at least tried to show up in Pride parades.
And in France, there is a reckoning for the soixante-huitards whose notion of sexual liberty included the right of powerful men to access underage boys and girls:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/10/matzneff-scandal-france-consent-literary-establishment
In both instances, there were ‘right thinking’ progressives who were willing to see children crushed to serve the whims of men.
They are both called “bats”, yet there isn’t a specific kind of thing called a “bat” that clubs for hitting baseballs and flying mammals are both different versions of. “Bats” as in “clubs for hitting baseballs” and “bats” as in “flying mammals” are homonyms, which means they’re really two separate words that just happens to be written and spoken the same way in English (unlike, say, their translations in my native language that neither look nor sound the same at all).
I agree that we don’t as a matter of fact have such a definition since all we ever get are circular definitions (A woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as etc. etc. ad infinitum) and tautologies (“trans women are whatever trans women happen to be”). We could in principle have such a definition (after all words don’t mean anything in themselves, but get their meanings from us), but that would require them to specify precisely how a person is required to think or feel* in order to qualify as a “woman”, which would presumably make it obvious that few if any of the “cis” women qualify, and that “cis women” and “trans woman” are not as a matter of fact different versions of the same kind of person any more than clubs for hitting baseballs and flying mammals are different versions of the same kind of stuff.
* Or in case Sastra wants to play Devil’s Advocate: Specify precisely how their brains have to differ from the brains of “non-women”.
JohntD at 8 – another example is anarchists during (and possibly before) the Spanish Civil War who came up with a rule (irony duly noted) that all requests for sex had to be granted. I think I have mentioned that one at least once. Some soixante-huitards revived it.
I recently read that there does not appear to be any definition of woman that:
includes males
is not circular
does not rely on sexist stereotypes
You can have two of the three, but not all three.
Another reason they tend to stick to the circular crap. Any attempt to provide a real definition inevitably gives the lie to the claim that their idea of “women” has nothing to do with the old gender stereotypes (as if the idea that children who fail to conform to said stereotypes must actually be trans hadn’t done that already).
TRA: “Transwomen are women. No argument, no discussion, no doubt. Just fact. Transwomen are not a different ‘type’ of woman, they are women and simply want to be accepted as women, nothing more, nothing less.”
Sign at a health centre: Welcome to Ourtown Women’s Health Unit.
TRA: “Change your fucking name and issue a fulsome apology NOW! It’s transphobic. If you don’t centre transwomen in everything you are denying the existence of transwomen. Stop erasing transwomen, you TERF bigots.”
Health Centre spokesperson: “But you said that transwomen just want to be acc…”
TRA: “Doubling down, TERF scum? Shut up! Apologise. Fulsomely.”
Repeat ad infinitum until the entire world affirms that transwomen are women, nothing more or less. Not a different ‘type’ of woman, just women who want nothing more than to be called women. Oh, and also centres transwomen in everything and speaks only of transwomen, because ‘woman’ is exclusionary language and denies transwomen – who are just women like any other woman and don’t want to be categorized or labelled as anything other than women – the right to exist.
Yeah, I really can’t see why anybody would be confused. In fact, if anybody is claiming confusion then clearly they are being wilfully obtuse because they want to eradicate transwomen, who only want to be accepted as women, remember.
Fuck! Their arguments are way beyond merely circular, they’re eight-dimensional hyper-spheroid.
AoS, the thing is, they can use the women’s center sign to pretend that they give a damn about trans men, too. After all, a “man” may need those services. A “man” may need a gynecologist. A “man” may get pregnant. Oh, and of course, a “woman” may need her testicles waxed.
Gaslighty, isn’t it, AoS.