The worrying rise of TERFism in the UK (MOD WARNING IN OP)

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Women have spent the last century or so fighting an inbuilt system which has discriminated against them purely because of their biology. They have, for almost all recorded history, been excessively the victims of discrimination, dismissal, control, exploitation, violence, sexual assault, and murder at the hands of biologically male bodied people.

They are now at a crossroads in history where they are being asked to effectively take someone's word for it that the protections and rights they've had to fight and die for aren't going to be dismissed or appropriated. This isn't an issue of making someone comfortable in society for them, its life and death. And any goodwill which might have been built up has been torched to the ground in recent years by this aggressive "punch a terf" business.

When you have prominent people who are in positions of power and influence in the trans movement like Jess Bradley and Aimee Challenor doing the things they've done, and then after they've been found out to be dangerous liars, continue to attack women, often with the support of other members of the trans movement, that is not going to end well.

Which is why I think it's important to stop for a moment and consider what it is that anyone hopes to achieve right now by continuing to attack women who raise concerns.

Everything in bold I agree with, and in fact I have suffered many of the same injustices as these women. If you think I am not concerned with men falsely IDing and abusing rights then you are dead wrong. I share the same worries when it comes to men abusing the system, rare as the cases may be.

As for the rest, well it's just you cherry picking a few trans women who play into the TERF argument. As has been said, there are extremes on both sides, there is no denying that. But if you think TERFs are not also inciting and engaging in violence you are again wrong.

If you want to see what a discussion involving TERFs looks like, I highly advise you watch the Genderquake debate Channel 4 aired a few months back. It was a disaster, but it really does serve to show what is actually happening.

As for this

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

However I do think you seem to be inserting yourself as a person into an impersonal point, understandably.

"impersonal"?

There is nothing impersonal about it. These things have direct consequences for me, my mental health (anxiety, stress, depression, etc.) and how the world perceives me and people like me. The Terf campaign is an effort to vilify all transwomen as "misogynistic" oppressors who have lived a life full of male privilege. Well, I can say without a doubt I have never once felt the benefit of male privilege nor have I ever sought to oppress anyone. So, yeah, it's personal.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not name calling. Its highlighting the basis of the ideology.

There are parallels to be drawn here, with white supremacists and fundamental religious types in the US. The former, especially, who have painted themselves as victims, with claims that minority rights somehow deeply infringes on their religious rights when in fact the exact opposite is the case. And that is what TERFs and their supporters are attempting to do. Trans rights do not infringe on anyone's rights - if someone breaks the law, they as an individual should be punished regardless of how they ID.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not name calling. Its highlighting the basis of the ideology. The basis behind a lot of trans exclusionary radical feminism is transphobia and hatred of transwomen and violence towards transwomen.

Transphobia is a word applied to anybody who disagrees with trans ideologies. You haven’t supplied examples of hatred or violence, although both exist on the other side.


https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/death-threats-force-feminist-campaigner-out-of-university-debate-8821362.html

Adrian Few Medicine wrote: »

The thing about privilege is, it isn't about how you feel, it's about how you're perceived. It's why people who are part of any minority that 'passes' can receive a type of privilege even if they don't belong to the privileged group.

I've read a few articles from transmen who suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of privilege and how that compares to their life when they were being perceived as female. I think it would be disingenuous to think it doesn't go the other way too.

It's more nuanced because a transwoman likely also feels distress at this perception, but even cis women internalize misogyny based on society's privilege structure. It's so engrained, I don't think you can flat out say no transwomen whom has been the recipient of years of privilege doesn't carry that over through transition.

I agree with you, in certain cases, yes: some transwomen do experience male privilege whilst living as male. Perfect example would be Caitlyn Jenner, who made their fortune whilst competing in a man's sport. She has enjoyed the privilege of wealth and fame - which she accumulated under her previous name. Yes.

On the other hand, and what I made a point of expressing in my previous comment as a personal statement, is that I didn't - and countless others haven't either. What many have experienced is extreme marginilsation, violence, bullying from an early age (for being too effeminate) and toxic societal conditioning which did (and to a lesser, but still dangerous, extent for the kids growing-up trans today, still does) teach us to believe that transpeople are an abomination and that they should be ashamed of being trans - and again, there is always a particular emphasis on shaming transwomen. I mean, do you really think we don't internalize that as misogyny (trans or otherwise)? And though I dislike Jenner intensely for her politics and general awful personality, I can also see how societal conditioning have affected her in her life. It is not a privilege to be told from a very early age that you should be ashamed of who you are, it is quite the opposite.

So, what, you've read articles about transmen suddenly being on the end of male privilege. Okay, well, I've read countless articles of transwomen killing themselves because they could never come out or were continued to perceived by society as male after doing so. Is that part of what your idea of male privilege is, too?

And since we are on the subject of "passing". I pass. Having that "passing privilege" provides a whole other set of problems. You are seen as being in on the joke, so when someone is making blatant transphobic statements in a group and the perception is everyone involved is cis, then you have to evaluate whether or not you're safe speaking up for yourself. This has happened to me countless times. It makes you feel uncomfortable, unsafe and unaccepted in society. It is far from a privilege.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The forum charter explicitly forbids any rebuttal or discussion of what you posted, unless that is to agree with it.

Good. As it should be.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I agree with you, in certain cases, yes: some transwomen do experience male privilege whilst living as male. Perfect example would be Caitlyn Jenner, who made their fortune whilst competing in a man's sport. She has enjoyed the privilege of wealth and fame - which she accumulated under her previous name. Yes.

On the other hand, and what I made a point of expressing in my previous comment as a personal statement, is that I didn't - and countless others haven't either. What many have experienced is extreme marginilsation, violence, bullying from an early age (for being too effeminate) and toxic societal conditioning which did (and to a lesser, but still dangerous, extent for the kids growing-up trans today, still does) teach us to believe that transpeople are an abomination and that they should be ashamed of being trans - and again, there is always a particular emphasis on shaming transwomen. I mean, do you really think we don't internalize that as misogyny (trans or otherwise)? And though I dislike Jenner intensely for her politics and general awful personality, I can also see how societal conditioning have affected her in her life. It is not a privilege to be told from a very early age that you should be ashamed of who you are, it is quite the opposite.

So, what, you've read articles about transmen suddenly being on the end of male privilege. Okay, well, I've read countless articles of transwomen killing themselves because they could never come out or were continued to perceived by society as male after doing so. Is that part of what your idea of male privilege is, too?

And since we are on the subject of "passing". I pass. Having that "passing privilege" provides a whole other set of problems. You are seen as being in on the joke, so when someone is making blatant transphobic statements in a group and the perception is everyone involved is cis, then you have to evaluate whether or not you're safe speaking up for yourself. This has happened to me countless times. It makes you feel uncomfortable, unsafe and unaccepted in society. It is far from a privilege.

I think you're conflating different types of privilege.

Acknowledging someone benefits or benefitted from one kind doesn't mean they stop being oppressed in other areas. I do not have straight privilege or male privilege but I do have white privilege and cis privilege. The whole point of intersectional feminism is working together at these intersects to reduce oppression for everyone. People who transition from one side to the other have huge benefit in highlighting how privilege really affects our lives but we have to be willing to acknowledge it.

Bisexual people face a whole host of unique problems as well, but they also experience the difference in being in an opposite-sex vs same-sex relationships. Recognising how others treat the relationship highlights straight privilege. It doesn't make the bisexual person straight. It just acknowledges that when they are perceived that way they receive a certain set of benefits from outside society. Privilege doesn't go deeper than that perception, despite how deep into psyches it can reach.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Fair enough.

Interesting that you are not even attempting to excuse or justify the hate filled stickers and how they literally reduce people to nothing other than genitals.

To be honest, the reason I posted that story was for the hyperbolic reaction from TERFs to the "Uppity trans women throw the first brick" sticker. A clear reference to Stonewall and also, as far as I am concerned, a justified expression of anger. For that to be twisted by TERFs into a call to violence against women ("male violence" as they so transphobicaly put it -because according to TERF science women are obviously incapable of becoming angry and violent :rolleyes: ) is ridiculous.

As for the penis stickers, well, it speaks to the level of the TERF mindset and argument really.

Adrian Few Medicine wrote: »

Again, your perception of the world means nothing in terms of privilege. It's how people perceive you.

I was perceived by society as "that weird f@ggot that looks like a girl" most my life. Still am to too many.

Adrian Few Medicine wrote: »

Honestly at this point if you don't understand I'm speaking to people as a whole and not you directly, I'm done.

I even addressed this actual point in my reply.

So you are admitting you are speaking in generalisations about the whole trans community.

(And to be clear you emboldened the word you when addressing me)

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yep - The stickers are not the only ones being placed around. They have lots of different ones. They are disgusting because they basically reduce trans women to nothing but a penis. Not a person. Not a human. Not a woman. Not a trans woman. Merely a penis. These stickers are explicitly whipping up hate and there are numerous reports of razor blades being placed under them in order to harm people that remove them.

You might as well say that feminism in general is obsessed by the penis. Bindel is particularly anti male. Or anti male supremacy as she would put it.

( But also anti male. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/02/whyihatemen )

It’s a general claim of feminism that having a penis (a biological fact) leads to general privileges and gender advantages, these advantages are primarily constructed and not primarily biological

Biology is accepted though, in most cases. Very few feminists deny that men are on average stronger than women. And many argue that (cis)women have it biologically worse too. Menses, childbirth etc.

Transphillia drives a horse and coaches through this argument by saying that Caitlyn Jenner’s life as a man didn’t matter; something internal managed to overcome the social construction or biological fact that she was a gendered and biological male for most of her life.

This means that if caitlyn is truely a female that neither the biological reality of ciswomen nor the social construction imposed on them by having a vagina matters. There is a biological essentialism here but it only applies to trans people.

For a feminist to believe that she has to believe that the unique experience of being a lived in biological woman and the social construction that society imposed on that person with a vagina are mere frippery, which means abandoning most feminism as it was taught until a few years ago. TERF feminism isn’t a reaction to trans ideologies. It’s teaching what has always been taught, saying what has always been said, and believing what has always been believed.

Adrian Few Medicine wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, "I'm not trying to make an assumption on the entire community, I'm saying we all need to acknowledge where we held or hold privilege in order to fight it."

Not the trans community. The whole feminist community.

And you keep refusing to accept that many transwomen have never experienced this so called male privilege.

Do you want me to start making stuff up to make you feel better about that?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

And you keep refusing to accept that many transwomen have never experienced this so called male privilege.

Do you want me to start making stuff up to make you feel better about that?

Just so you can't keep trying to misconstrue what I say, let me be very clear: I absolutely accept that some transwomen have never benefited from male privilege because they've always been perceived as being outwardly different just like some gay people have never been perceived as being straight because of outward characteristics. For a lot of people, those two perceptions probably overlap because people jump to a perception of sexuality before a perception of gender when it comes to being 'othered'.

However, SOME people are perceived to be outwardly cis and straight for their whole lives and simply being trans is not an indicator if one has or not benefitted from privilege extending from this. It boils down to how an individual has been perceived and discussions on this are worth having to see how we fight it.

ELM327 wrote: »

Fact finding (devils advocate) question: As someone who is an LGBTQ ally, and opposed to radical feminism, can I ask why feminism is suddenly ok to label as "wrong" when it excludes someone based on their criteria?

This isn't just an issue with trans advocacies and trans exclusionary feminism, there's a huge shift going on from what is called white feminism towards intersectional feminism which seeks to represent women at all intersects of race, sexuality, gender etc. It's an overall rejection of feminism that isn't inclusive and seeks to highlight issues where all of these identities intersect instead of women as one homogenous group (which often only sought to further white women in the process)

Adrian Few Medicine wrote: »

Just so you can't keep trying to misconstrue what I say, let me be very clear: I absolutely accept that some transwomen have never benefited from male privilege because they've always been perceived as being outwardly different just like some gay people have never been perceived as being straight because of outward characteristics. For a lot of people, those two perceptions probably overlap because people jump to a perception of sexuality before a perception of gender when it comes to being 'othered'.

However, SOME people are perceived to be outwardly cis and straight for their whole lives and simply being trans is not an indicator if one has or not benefitted from privilege extending from this. It boils down to how an individual has been perceived and discussions on this are worth having to see how we fight it.

And I agreed with you on this point. But many will take the example of those, like Jenner, who have undoubtedly experienced a male privilege and extrapolate to mean "all transwomen" must have the same experience. I wanted to be absolutely adamant that is far from the truth.

I do apologise for crossed-wires and will concede that was not your meaning.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most cases means what it says. There are very few claims that biology is totally irrelevant.

Oh, I could think of a few... but we would be veering of in wild philosophical tangents

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I was actually debating whether to put in the piece about biological realities affecting most women because this isn’t very relevant to the feminist ideology about social construction.

Agreed

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The term is imposed on these feminists not by them.

The term came to being because their ideology of trans exclusion

There would be no need for the term White Supremacist if there were no people of colour either.