They miss the good old days
Ah – reducing ‘females’ to their anatomy. What stellar feminist thinking. 😍 Really top notch. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a cluster account of ‘femaleness’ can include cis and trans people, but also exclude both. It doesn’t make sense. Much like the GC agenda.
Who is it that he’s setting straight with such authority?
Boodleoops – you know, an actual philosopher.
The only “gender identity” I have is knowledge that my body is female, and an awareness of what that body means for how I am treated by others. If you don’t have a female body, then you and I don’t share any gender identity, and therefore we can’t both be women. Sorry.
Family Planning @FPNewZealand· Aug 26
Everyone has a gender identity—a feeling or sense of being male, female or somewhere in between. Sometimes people’s gender identity matches their bodies, and sometimes it doesn’t. https://youtu.be/i83VQIaDlQw
I honest to god think one huge reason trans ideology is so popular with guys like Liam is because it gives them (what they think is) an excuse to sneer at and correct and lecture women this way, very much including women who are more intelligent and more educated than they are. I certainly think that applies to the ineffable Morgane Oger, telling us over and over and over that women have no right to say that men are not women.
What the actual fuck.
Like many New Zealanders, as a youth Family Planning was my first step for sexual health and contraception advice. It was free, impartial, very health and individual focused and totally free from any connection back to family.
I can’t believe they’ve branched out into this kind of shit. FP should of course be providing sexual health support to everyone, regardless of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. What it should not be doing is engaging in this kind of muddled social wokeness.
There are some good responses. I liked this one.
https://twitter.com/NikkiFildes/status/1166345983598501889
Yes I liked that one too.
The thing that always struck me about the “reducing women to their genitals” argument is that if you tell me you’re trans (or AMAB or whatever), you’re perforce telling me something about your genitals. I suppose that’s not true for enbies, but it’s usually easy enough to tell.
There seems to be some confusion between defining the biological concept of woman in terms of genitalia and chromosomes on the one hand, and reducing individual women to their genitalia and chromosomes.
But there’s not actually any confusion at all is there. TRA’s actively claim what they claim to cloud the central issue that they are (1) taking an unfair advantage over women and girls in sport; (2) intruding into women only spaces where men, male appearing ‘women’ and male behaving ‘women’ are not only unwanted but disruptive by there very presence; and (3) placing male sexual predators and abusers claiming to be women into women only spaces with vulnerable women and girls.
Given that women also use trans ideology as license to lecture and correct women (and men), I’d be inclined to say that there might be a more general effect in play. Like, being possessed of special knowledge feels great. It feels extra great when that knowledge has a moral component. It feels extra extra great when you can correct experts. It’s like the adrenaline rush of righteousness that religious zealots experience.
Not saying that the misogynistic impulse isn’t also there, but it doesn’t seem like it has to be the only factor.
@Nullius – you’re right that the tone is the condescension of the newly enlightened. You’d get a Marxist explaining to you how any phenomenon is a matter of economic relations in the same kind of tone.
It feels extra great when you can scream at experts, you mean.
You mean like Bernie Sanders? Who insists racism would disappear if we had economic equality? And that women’s issues are a distraction?
I didn’t say it was the only factor, I said it was a huge factor.
But the reality is there is FAR more yelling at and about “TERFs” (pretty generally understood as women) than there is at any male equivalent. There isn’t even an equivalent label. This is especially ironic because of course most violence directed at trans people comes from…men.
@Ophelia:
Fair enough. I often forget that you’re much more deliberate with your wording than most people on the interwebs. It’s hard to recalibrate.
Might there be more yelling at and about women than men because it is women whom this stuff directly harms, and thus are more likely to push back? And that despite the typical feminine socialization toward accommodation.
@iknklast:
Well, yes. I suspect that’s partially due to the moral component. A morally righteous crusade is a whole lot more exhilarating than a merely logically righteous one, eh? Adding misogyny on top intensifies the effect even more.
Maybe it’s too many years in college or something, but I’ve never managed to learn how to write in a way that doesn’t sound snarky. So please don’t read snark into the following.
For the first claim, I can find nothing aside from ridiculously reductive hit pieces. Saying that the problems racial minorities face are largely economic is quite obviously not the same as saying that economics eliminates racism.
For the second, the most I can find is where Bernie called the way the media covers Trump a distraction from major issues. (Which it often is. It wasn’t long ago that I saw a front page where Trump’s “go back home” nonsense got pride of place over the horror at the border facilities.) Then the Clinton campaign—and media outlets friendly to it—characterized that as calling women’s issues are a distraction.
Actually, Nullius, I heard him say that about women. I didn’t myself hear him say that about the racism, but I did hear with my own two ears where he said women’s issues were a distraction. Now, he may not have meant it in a broad way, but…when a white man says things like that, it rarely matters how he says it, it comes off as entitled and smug. It sounded that way to me.