3 ms·

This is a masterclass in trying to sound reasonable while you gently, ever-so-gently introduce your intolerant trans-exclusionary agenda. Victoria Smith's other

This is a masterclass in trying to sound reasonable while you gently, ever-so-gently introduce your intolerant trans-exclusionary agenda. Victoria Smith's other articles are all on a similar theme. She positions herself as standing up for a victimised group - older women - but only in one respect, which is her desire to exclude trans people. I just don't understand why you'd bother except for intolerance - you can literally just listen to a person say "I feel like I'm a woman even though I was assigned male at birth" and say "oh ok" and go about your day.

selfmodruntime 4y ago
> you can literally just listen to a person say "I feel like I'm a woman even though I was assigned male at birth" and say "oh ok" and go about your day. This is a perfectly reasonable take, but only as long as the wish for general acceptance doesn't turn into mindless approval of discrimination of yet in turn another people under the guise of absolute equality. Not all critique is intolerance. On the other hand, stubborn bigotry from parents of older generations is definitely a thing, and every child yearns for the acceptance of their parents. The one thing I agree with the author on is that the threat of cutting people out of one's life is only really valid for self-protection or in the case of the other person sharing extreme fringe ideas. If you use such a threat as a tool to convince people of your agenda, you're not really achieving anything but resentment. They just won't tell you what they really think of a topic anymore.
melonoyio 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that 99% of trans discussions are not having any real implications. Alone due to how many trans people exist. But I do think it's critical from a wording perspective to not mix woman with transwoman in certain topics as they just mean different things and implications. Sports for example, at least on Olympic level. Or if someone creates a woman save space. Or fighting for woman rights. If I say woman rights I mean woman rights like vaginal mutilation, rape etc. That's Linguistically different to transwoman rights like not getting hanged in Iran due to other believes. Unfortunately saying this alone is already terf? (I think terf is if you see a difference between woman and transwoman). Also I'm not a cis man. I'm a man. For most people it's not necessary to do a language exercise in this regard. This has some implications like for woman quotas: the German green party has a transwoman and if a transwoman is using up a quota to get women in Positions they have not had the proper chance, you know don't have a woman quota but a minority quota. All good if that's how the green party want to handle it, it's just a different thing with different implications. For me though I have to admit that I do believe that transwoman in Sport and in original woman quota positions give me the feeling that we undermine woman again and don't think this is helpful. The discussion with woman save space for example got me in a discussion were a transwoman doesn't think it's okay to exclude her from that save space. But yes it is not necessary that a woman is tolerant to a transwoman. And she should be tolerant of course but in my opinion it's a pyramid: people tolerate gay people and than they tolerate trans people. Same issue with transwoman in woman only spaces like a swimming pool.
- foxyv 4y ago
  > I think terf is if you see a difference between woman and transwoman This is incorrect, but an understandable error due to the quality of the discourse on the topic. You can read here about the difference between feminism and trans-exclusionary feminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF Modern feminism sees the problems with gender roles in general which causes problems for both men and women. Transgender people highlight this issue very well. Transgression against gender roles was punished severely with both social and legal complications. Essentially, in modern feminism, the problem isn't just the way society devalues the feminine, but also the way society enforces standards of masculinity and femininity. Whether it's the benign (Drinking coffee black to be more masculine) or the malignant (Assaulting a boy for exhibiting traditionally feminine traits) these problems lead to the devaluing of the feminine. Trans-exclusionary feminists are reactionaries attempting to prop up existing gender roles and stick people back into their assigned places. They often subscribe to old school feminist beliefs where we still have a masculine/feminine gender divide but they want to focus on the value of the feminine. The common refrain is a feigned concern for those who transgress against gender roles while at the same time doing everything they can to enforce them. TERFs are essentially reactionaries in radical clothing.
  - gecrfe 4y ago
    Sorry but this is false, you have this entirely backwards. > Trans-exclusionary feminists are reactionaries attempting to prop up existing gender roles and stick people back into their assigned places. Absolutely not. One of the core tenets of gender critical feminism is that the imposition of gender roles is harmful, particularly as they are used to oppress and disadvantage women and girls. > They often subscribe to old school feminist beliefs where we still have a masculine/feminine gender divide but they want to focus on the value of the feminine. No, they recognise the male-female divide, and how this is the basis of oppression of women and girls. Consider which of the two sexes that FGM, forced marriage, child brides, sex-selective abortions, denial of education to girls in poorer countries, trafficking of girls and women into sexual slavery, etc. is imposed upon. Not the males, that's for sure. > The common refrain is a feigned concern for those who transgress against gender roles while at the same time doing everything they can to enforce them. Gender critical feminists have no problem with transgression of gender roles. Their feminism is fundamentally about rejecting these roles. They believe that there's no right way to be a woman or a girl in terms of presentation or behaviour or belief; being female is the only criterion. I mean, go to any radfem meetup and you'll see so many women there who don't conform to gender roles and gender stereotypes. The key issue that brings this feminism into conflict with transgender ideology is the claim of "transwomen are women", and the downstream effects of this claim: males demanding access to female-only spaces on the basis that they are women. Gender critical feminists naturally reject this, because to be a woman or girl is not a state of identity, or how well someone performs femininity, but is the material existence of being female. Fundamentally, gender critical feminism is not about transgenderism, it is about sex. In particular, about being female, and what that means socially, politically, economically and legally, in societies and cultures emerging from histories of male dominance.
yucky 4y ago
So what do we do with people who simple refuse to pretend that transwomen are women? Is that even a bigoted position in your mind? We still need to make sure transwomen get prostate exams, but we would never instruct women to do so. We still need to check women for ovarian cancer, but we would never instruct transwomen to do so. Yet when someone has a position as reasonable as "you do you, but no I am not going to call a transwoman a real woman" - isn't it in fact intolerant to try and shut that person down by calling them a bigot or a TERF or whatever?

selfmodruntime 4y ago

> you can literally just listen to a person say "I feel like I'm a woman even though I was assigned male at birth" and say "oh ok" and go about your day. This is a perfectly reasonable take, but only as long as the wish for general acceptance doesn't turn into mindless approval of discrimination of yet in turn another people under the guise of absolute equality. Not all critique is intolerance. On the other hand, stubborn bigotry from parents of older generations is definitely a thing, and every child yearns for the acceptance of their parents. The one thing I agree with the author on is that the threat of cutting people out of one's life is only really valid for self-protection or in the case of the other person sharing extreme fringe ideas. If you use such a threat as a tool to convince people of your agenda, you're not really achieving anything but resentment. They just won't tell you what they really think of a topic anymore.

melonoyio 4y ago

I'm pretty sure that 99% of trans discussions are not having any real implications. Alone due to how many trans people exist. But I do think it's critical from a wording perspective to not mix woman with transwoman in certain topics as they just mean different things and implications. Sports for example, at least on Olympic level. Or if someone creates a woman save space. Or fighting for woman rights. If I say woman rights I mean woman rights like vaginal mutilation, rape etc. That's Linguistically different to transwoman rights like not getting hanged in Iran due to other believes. Unfortunately saying this alone is already terf? (I think terf is if you see a difference between woman and transwoman). Also I'm not a cis man. I'm a man. For most people it's not necessary to do a language exercise in this regard. This has some implications like for woman quotas: the German green party has a transwoman and if a transwoman is using up a quota to get women in Positions they have not had the proper chance, you know don't have a woman quota but a minority quota. All good if that's how the green party want to handle it, it's just a different thing with different implications. For me though I have to admit that I do believe that transwoman in Sport and in original woman quota positions give me the feeling that we undermine woman again and don't think this is helpful. The discussion with woman save space for example got me in a discussion were a transwoman doesn't think it's okay to exclude her from that save space. But yes it is not necessary that a woman is tolerant to a transwoman. And she should be tolerant of course but in my opinion it's a pyramid: people tolerate gay people and than they tolerate trans people. Same issue with transwoman in woman only spaces like a swimming pool.

foxyv 4y ago
> I think terf is if you see a difference between woman and transwoman This is incorrect, but an understandable error due to the quality of the discourse on the topic. You can read here about the difference between feminism and trans-exclusionary feminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF Modern feminism sees the problems with gender roles in general which causes problems for both men and women. Transgender people highlight this issue very well. Transgression against gender roles was punished severely with both social and legal complications. Essentially, in modern feminism, the problem isn't just the way society devalues the feminine, but also the way society enforces standards of masculinity and femininity. Whether it's the benign (Drinking coffee black to be more masculine) or the malignant (Assaulting a boy for exhibiting traditionally feminine traits) these problems lead to the devaluing of the feminine. Trans-exclusionary feminists are reactionaries attempting to prop up existing gender roles and stick people back into their assigned places. They often subscribe to old school feminist beliefs where we still have a masculine/feminine gender divide but they want to focus on the value of the feminine. The common refrain is a feigned concern for those who transgress against gender roles while at the same time doing everything they can to enforce them. TERFs are essentially reactionaries in radical clothing.
- gecrfe 4y ago
  Sorry but this is false, you have this entirely backwards. > Trans-exclusionary feminists are reactionaries attempting to prop up existing gender roles and stick people back into their assigned places. Absolutely not. One of the core tenets of gender critical feminism is that the imposition of gender roles is harmful, particularly as they are used to oppress and disadvantage women and girls. > They often subscribe to old school feminist beliefs where we still have a masculine/feminine gender divide but they want to focus on the value of the feminine. No, they recognise the male-female divide, and how this is the basis of oppression of women and girls. Consider which of the two sexes that FGM, forced marriage, child brides, sex-selective abortions, denial of education to girls in poorer countries, trafficking of girls and women into sexual slavery, etc. is imposed upon. Not the males, that's for sure. > The common refrain is a feigned concern for those who transgress against gender roles while at the same time doing everything they can to enforce them. Gender critical feminists have no problem with transgression of gender roles. Their feminism is fundamentally about rejecting these roles. They believe that there's no right way to be a woman or a girl in terms of presentation or behaviour or belief; being female is the only criterion. I mean, go to any radfem meetup and you'll see so many women there who don't conform to gender roles and gender stereotypes. The key issue that brings this feminism into conflict with transgender ideology is the claim of "transwomen are women", and the downstream effects of this claim: males demanding access to female-only spaces on the basis that they are women. Gender critical feminists naturally reject this, because to be a woman or girl is not a state of identity, or how well someone performs femininity, but is the material existence of being female. Fundamentally, gender critical feminism is not about transgenderism, it is about sex. In particular, about being female, and what that means socially, politically, economically and legally, in societies and cultures emerging from histories of male dominance.

yucky 4y ago

So what do we do with people who simple refuse to pretend that transwomen are women? Is that even a bigoted position in your mind? We still need to make sure transwomen get prostate exams, but we would never instruct women to do so. We still need to check women for ovarian cancer, but we would never instruct transwomen to do so. Yet when someone has a position as reasonable as "you do you, but no I am not going to call a transwoman a real woman" - isn't it in fact intolerant to try and shut that person down by calling them a bigot or a TERF or whatever?