Is this woman a transphobe?

[Edie]

You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted. Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.

But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me.

Edit: I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.

Maybe the objectification of women is something that’s passed you by as a man. I can assure you it’s not just by ‘the occasional sociopath’. That’s a considerable misunderstanding of the oppression of women. An oppression that occurs because of our biological sex, not because of how we identify.

Oh ffs I give up. The ignorance and misogyny on the left is just insurmountable.

 

[8ball]

Maybe the objectification of women is something that’s passed you by as a man. I can assure you it’s not just by ‘the occasional sociopath’. That’s a considerable misunderstanding of the oppression of women. An oppression that occurs because of our biological sex, not because of how we identify.

Oh ffs I give up. The ignorance and misogyny on the left is just insurmountable.

I wasn’t talking about general misogyny. I was reacting to your specific post in the context of this forum ie. I was talking how people see you here.
We’ve been discussing some difficult topics for a while on here and I’d hope you know we don’t see you as a “body”.

 

[8ball]

If it is the word bodies that is causing offence then surely that equally dehumanising to trans men and non binary people with vaginas too? I suspect there would have been just as much outrage if it had said people with a vagina.

I think “people with” as opposed to “bodies with” is different. Soz if I failed to understand your post properly, though.

 

[smokedout]

I think “people with” as opposed to “bodies with” is different. Soz if I failed to understand your post properly, though.

I agree, but much of the twitter outrage seems to be about them not using the word women, rather than using the word bodies.

 

[Edie]

Outrage is the new hysteria I note

 

[smokedout]

Anyway it's probably best read in context, this is the sentence the quote appears in: "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria."

I have no idea why they chose that part to put on the front page, although it is an article about the Vagina Museum whose whole thing is de-stigmatising talking about vaginas so it was probably a clumsy attempt to deliberately use the word to reinforce that.

 

[Athos]

Outrage is the new hysteria I note

Quite. Also, it's a bit of a strawman for people to engage with the assumed objections of non-specific Twitterers, rather than the posts made here.

 

[smokedout]

Outrage is the new hysteria I note

I don't think that's fair, it's quite common for someone to say they are outraged by something whereas it would be rare for someone to describe themselves as hysterical.

 

[8ball]

I agree, but much of the twitter outrage seems to be about them not using the word women, rather than using the word bodies.

Ok, I’m not on Twitter so can’t comment.

 

[Athos]

Anyway it's probably best read in context, this is the sentence the quote appears in: "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria."

I have no idea why they chose that part to put on the front page, although it is an article about the Vagina Museum whose whole thing is de-stigmatising talking about vaginas so it was probably a clumsy attempt to deliberately use the word to reinforce that.

That's one context. Another is as a standalone line on the front cover. Really poor judgement on the editors' part.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Ok, I’m not on Twitter so can’t comment.

Just had a quick look. It's a fucking horrible pile-on, I can only imagine how the author and interviewee must feel. They'll know better than to try and promote an exhibition on women's health in future that's for sure.

 

[smokedout]

Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.

Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:

 

[SpookyFrank]

Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.

Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:

It's important that this tireless focus on the real big boss villains of global patriarchy is maintained at all costs.

 

[Sue]

Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.

Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:

All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.

Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. .)

Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well everything....

 

[smokedout]

All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.

Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. .)

Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well everything....

The vibe I'm getting is look at this horrifying example of how trans people are destroying women and society based on something which appears to have nothing to do with trans people at all.

 

[Sue]

The vibe I'm getting is look at this horrifying example of how trans people are destroying women and society based on something which appears to have nothing to do with trans people at all.

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Lancet cover thing is problematic. How some men on here are talking to women about this is problematic. I don't see how trans people are destroying anything?

 

[8ball]

Just had a quick look. It's a fucking horrible pile-on, I can only imagine how the author and interviewee must feel. They'll know better than to try and promote an exhibition on women's health in future that's for sure.

I won’t be popping in to take a look.

 

[smokedout]

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Lancet cover thing is problematic. How some men on here are talking to women about this is problematic. I don't see how trans people are destroying anything?

This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.

 

[8ball]

This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.

Isn’t it a thread about whether a particular woman is a transphobe?

 

[SpookyFrank]

All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.

Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. .)

Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well everything....

I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong but I'd like some specifics about anything I've said which could be construed as telling women they're being women wrong.

 

[Sue]

This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.

The thread seems to be about transphobia and presumably debate around that so posting this stuff doesn't seem that much of a stretch as a contribution to the debate?

And really you're not the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be discussed in this thread anyway. (I don't mean that to sound mean but the debate on here generally kind of goes where it goes.)

 

[Sue]

I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong but I'd like some specifics about anything I've said which could be construed as telling women they're being women wrong.

Oh SpookyFrank, you do make me laugh!

Eta You are joking, yes? And if not, I suggest you re-read your posts and have a bit of a think on them. And i mean that in the nicest possible way because really if you're not getting it, you really kinda should be.

 

[smokedout]

The thread seems to be about transphobia and presumably debate around that so posting this stuff doesn't seem that much of a stretch as a contribution to the debate?

And really you're not the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be discussed in this thread anyway. (I don't mean that to sound mean but the debate on here generally kind of goes where it goes.)

But this doesn't appear to have anything to do with trans people or transphobia or even in this case trans inclusive language, it's just another thing the gender critical movement has leapt on to try and demonise trans people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Oh SpookyFrank, you do make me laugh!

That's a no on specifics then I take it. I'd like to say I'm surprised but I feel that I've probably leant too heavily on sarcasm already.

 

[Sue]

But this doesn't appear to have anything to do with trans people or transphobia or even in this case trans inclusive language, it's just another thing the gender critical movement has leapt on to try and demonise trans people.

I didn't post the original stuff and i would never demonise trans people.

 

[Sue]

That's a no on specifics then I take it. I'd like to say I'm surprised but I feel that I've probably leant too heavily on sarcasm already.

Ah, quoted before my edit. But jeezo, maybe you need to be a bit less sure that you're right and maybe listen a little bit more to other people?

 

[spanglechick]

What pisses me off quite a lot, is when trans-inclusive feminist women like me post on the thread, and both sides ignore me so they can continue to represent this as a GC women vs misogynistic men debate.

And since I’m expressing irritation, I’ve definitely seen GC people, both on urban and elsewhere, talk about “penis havers/owners/people”, when trying to address the physiology shared by cis men and trans women.

 

[krtek a houby]

I have a problem with the whole 'phobic' thing, I don't like Right wing extremists but nobody would call me right wing extemeist-phobic
It seems to be a shorthand for 'you're not allowed to dislike (insert something you're supposed to like) so Im calling you names

What I, trying to say is if someone doesnt like homosexuals then that's their problem (or quality depending on your view), calling them phobic is nonsense, it might be better called hatred something which is a basic human attribute, not a nice one but its there.

I have no hatred for any sexual preference btw I just can't handle the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to
be recognised as such

Reckon calling homophobes homophobes is accurate enough. They have an irrational fear of us, which is a phobia.

As for the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to be recognised as such, who do you mean here? Hetero/religious people?

 

[Raheem]

Ah, quoted before my edit. But jeezo, maybe you need to be a bit less sure that you're right and maybe listen a little bit more to other people?

If you don't feel you're being listened to, though, maybe try a different approach to "If you don't know I can't help you"?

 

[Sue]

I'm not even sure I know what's meant by GC. If it means 'against gender stereotyping', I'm absolutely in and can't really see what reasonable person wouldn't be.

Beyond that, I must admit i don't really know what it actually means or what people think it means. And I suspect I'm not alone in that?