poprock wrote:

Nicely and clearly explained, Crayon. What that build down to is that there are some who don’t accept trans people for what they are. Which is basic-level bigotry.

If trans women (for example) are women, then your older feminists have no argument. Women are oppressed by men. These are women. They can join the fight for equality.

If you don’t believe they’re women, then you’re disputing their identity beliefs. You’re being a bigot. Stop it.

Wrap that bigotry in as many ideological knots as you like, it remains hideous and ugly. Stop it.

Right, so lets take the example of a woman who has been the victim of sustained male violence, say from an abusive partner. I’d argue that in that situation, it’s fairly normal to be distrustful and scared of men. Should we tell that person that they’re being a bigot or an arsehole for feeling concerned about sharing a female only space with a trans woman?

GooberTheHat wrote:

If you're invested in the discussion I think there is absolutely a need for specific language and naming conventions to held describe the nuances in the movement, but it should be expected (and accepted) that those not invested are going to find the whirlwind of new terminology impenetrable and confusing.

Yes, exactly. It’s jargon.

Technical language to describe nuances which are important internally, but can impede communication when talking to a layman.

I don’t find things that black and white, to be honest, in large part because I don’t feel comfortable telling women who feel that way that they shouldn’t.

Personally I probably wouldn't date a transperson because it seems like they have a pretty high rate of crippling mental illnesses. No causation link implied. It's pretty sad.

I wouldn't try to isolate why it's a trend I've noticed, just that I've noticed it. I hope it's just a case of my data set being too narrow.

I do want to say that I have no clear views on any of this, I’m just trying to get my head around the arguments.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I dunno. "You absolute TEF" works.

I joined the Trans Exclusionary Feminist Locals only Network, but I couldn't stick to it.

Yossarian wrote:

Another piece shared by Glinner on the Twitter: https://medium.com/@tan.ith9/an-open-letter-to-my-friend-who-thinks-transwomen-are-women-491659de2efb

Fuck me, does not surprise me in the least he shared that.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

I dunno. "You absolute TEF" works.

I joined the Trans Exclusionary Feminist Locals only Network, but I couldn't stick to it.

Does seem like this has all happened at lightning pace. It’s not really possible to eg hold racist views without having heard alternative arguments, seen the harm it causes and so on. In that case condemnation of those views is pretty clear cut.

The trans awakening or whatever it’s called seems to have happened in a few years and been limited to a smallish sphere in a few social networks. Then people are encountering this for the first time, coming in with pre-conceived notions and being hounded by a more woke sect for ignorance and prejudice. It ultimately may be counter-productive to take such a militant attitude towards people who might be sympathetic if given the opportunity of having a bit of a primer.

I agree with Brooks.

Linehan appears to have gone full off the deep end at the moment. People supporting trans rights are now part of some gamergate psy-op or something.

After he tweeted a list of people to follow that included an aggressively TERF type who had called Trans people “blackface actors who get a sexual kick out of pretending to be women.”

One of the good youtube folk I follow who has been instrumental in outlining a calm and comprehensive manner with which to debunk AltRight and miso bullshit online -Shaun - called him on it.

Glinner then stated Shaun had no compassion for real women, that he only viewed the situation through the eyes of radicals, men who are demanding rational human beingd to treat them as lesbians.

I can’t quite process how fucking diabolical this is, to have such a huge platform and us it so aggressively.

mistercrayon wrote:

Twitter is designed around conflict though.

It is? In what way?

He hasn't half gone off the deep end.  I think he has cancer, so dunno if it's sent him loopy.

Yossarian wrote:

Twitter is designed around conflict though.

It is? In what way?

People will keep talking if they think they are gonna come out on top. Twitter needs people to keep talking. 

Look how many people just want to...debate.

Also: the promise of a jackpot of being seen by a hero or millions of people is a great recipe for a selfperpetuating tinderbox.

I’m never sure it’s right to blame the medium when it really comes down to people being shits. Maybe blame the medium for encouraging them, I dunno.