Did feminism cause the current state of transgender politics?

Spikygrasspod · 2020-07-14T15:54:56+00:00

I think feminists have said a lot of things, and some of them were wrong. Other feminists said they were wrong at the time. But it's a very, very broad collection of activists and theorists. It's pretty fucking annoying that I would have to answer for postmodernists and anti-science types when I just want to work toward a more egalitarian society with better outcomes for women. It's also pretty annoying that people who hate the idea of society changing to make things more equal for women comb through feminist theory to find the least defensible proposals, and interpret these in the least charitable way, in order to pretend that feminists in general are mad.

Like point 4. Why don't you read any one of the many, very plausible explanations of patriarchy that don't rely on conspiracy and get to work addressing structural inequalities? We can talk about the finer points of Dworkin's writing and where we disagree with her when you've already demonstrated your commitment to ending men's sexual violence.

valleyoftherogue · 2020-07-14T17:26:58+00:00

Feminism had nothing to do with it. Queer theory, neoliberalism, and porn have given rise to this MEN'S "sexual rights" movement. It is a hate movement against women.

theblackfleet · 2020-07-14T18:09:13+00:00

Julie Bindel has been labelled a transphobe (like anybody who criticizes them at all), but she describes herself as a "political lesbian". Essentially that she became a lesbian by choice even though she is presumably naturally heterosexual. This seems to me like feminists laying the foundations for "transbian" claims later down the road.

Julie is female so how would she lay the 'transbian' foundations? The point is that men cannot be lesbians because they're not female. There are lots of women who are bi or who don't like heterosexuality. Julie Bindel's bisexuality didn't lay any foundation for men to claim they're lesbians.

Feminists infamously were quite antithetical towards empirical knowledge production in academia during the "Science Wars" of the 80's and 90's. Falsification and objectivity were attacked for being oppressive masculine constructs that devalued feminine "other ways of knowing".

There ARE other ways of knowing things. This is why we have all sorts of maxims in English. There is a lot to be said for experience and wisdom. This doesn't mean that men can change sex. Blaming feminism for a bunch of fetishistic men who want to their fantasies to be validated is a stretch.

3: Similar to the above point, lots of postmodern drivel was written back in the day (and still is https://bit.ly/3gUMedS) about how all sorts of words and concepts were offensive to women for very esoteric reasons. Such as the word "history" being problematic because it implies that history is masculine, etc. This sort of symbolic word-policing is the same sort of behaviour as trans people obsessively complaining if an innocuous document fails to acknowledge their existence.

I've noticed that you're claiming that there is this ONE feminism. There are several feminisms. You are speaking of neoliberal feminism, which is an oxymoron to be sure. Feminists rightly saw that women, by the fact they were female, were kept out of mostly everything, especially academia and the sciences. History is written by the victors. I'm sure you've heard that right? Well, it's true. Women and girls were kept out of even contemplating what history is because they were kept out of the very professions that would construct it. This has nothing to do with a bunch of fetishistic males wanting their fantasies validated at the expense of women and girls.

So them saying something like, "some women have penises, so your guide on women's health is offensive because it only mentions vaginas", is categorically the same as declaring that the word history is offensive because it (allegedly) implies history is about men and not women. The allegation here is that you started it.

No, it's not even remotely the same thing. History IS about men, as per the reasons I stated above. Women have their own knowledge, which had to be carefully passed down mother to daughter. There are no books about it. It's mostly all oral. The reason it is such is once again, women were kept out of any arena that would give them access to record it.

4: The concept of patriarchy, as it has been used in practice by many feminists, often appears to be a conspiracy theory. The notion that men are all in on a devious plot to oppress women, rather than women's oppression simply having been the historical product of material forces (including biological differences). The intemperate and intolerant behaviour of the transgenderists towards gender critical women is easily matched by the rhetoric of the likes of the late Dworkin towards men in general.

So you deny that women were forcibly kept out of academia, professions? You do know women couldn't get a patent? Do you realize what keeping women out has done to us? You act as if women were happily participating in the society without a single hitch. And you know what you write isn't true and has absolutely nothing to do with a bunch of men demanding to erase us and take away what little we have gained, like Title IX for example.

DistantGlimmer · 2020-07-14T20:49:53+00:00

The notion that men are all in on a devious plot to oppress women, rather than women's oppression simply having been the historical product of material forces (including biological differences)

Yes it is an attempt to explain female oppression in a way that doesn't put it down to biological differences and "nature". That doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" It is simply a power structure within society just as racism is. I've never heard anyone say that there are a group of men conspiring to maintain patriarchy knowingly. Most of the men who benefit from it just see it as natural and the way it should be the same as any ruling class.

So them saying something like, "some women have penises, so your guide on women's health is offensive because it only mentions vaginas", is categorically the same as declaring that the word history is offensive because it (allegedly) implies history is about men and not women. The allegation here is that you started it.

No. Suggesting that any male can be a woman and thus "some women have penises" is offensive to women. As I remember it the coining of the word "herstory" was mainly an attempt to make a rhetorical point about the male focus of historical research at that time (which still exists to this day, unfortunately). It was not women literally being offended because the word history has "his" in it. It's just ironic given how male focused most history is.

sensusquaeram · 2020-07-14T20:46:45+00:00

So, feminists of GenderCritical, do you accept the charge that you are the Dr Frankenstein to the monster that is transgenderism?

(GC) I do not, because western feminism is not a monolithic construct. I'll leave it to whoever here can explain the history in much better detail, but -- there was a major bifurcation in feminist thought between the second and third waves, and a heavy adoption of some core tenets of Postmodern Critical Theory and Queer Theory by the group who would come to be called "Liberal Feminists" (TRA-aligned). This is a gross oversimplification, but it's more like a theoretical civil war than a Shelleyan monster-eats-creator.

Accordingly, feminists weaponised postmodernism and now that sort of post-truth politics has been turned against you.

Yes, I was there for that -- I saw it happening firsthand in my home university, and in other institutions we were connected with through academic conferences.

My observations: When I was an undergrad, Postmodernism/Queer Theory were ascendant in Liberal Arts departments, and many new graduates hooked into that culture to build their academic careers. Once in, it was too difficult to unhook from that critical orientation and the general group momentum; they had to keep publishing on that track (whether they continued to believe in it or not) in order to secure tenure.

My bias: My own education was rooted more in research universities than liberal arts colleges, so I was exposed to more classical ciritically-oriented programs. By temperament and training, I'm more Socratic, so I could not (and cannot) align with any critical orientation that discourages empirical evidence. That has always been my main critique of Postmodernism.

(edit for clarity)

cybitch · 2020-07-14T21:59:33+00:00

These points that you've brought out is why a lot of women don't call themselves feminists, myself included. It's funny, I'm about as pro-women's rights as they come, my interests lie in traditionally masculine fields so sexism will be a bigger issue for me in my career than it would be for most women. However, I also can't stand by nonsense like word policing and the denial that women and men have different brains and a different temperament. In fact, I see biological differences as the number one cause of both the patriarchy and whatever it is this sub considers the correct word for the sex changer people. For a woman's offspring to survive in nature, she has to avoid getting into any sort of conflicts, not just in the sense of not harming herself physically, but also because pregnancy is a dangerous time and she will need support from others. Women can't afford to settle things with open conflict like men, so appeasement and using language is all women have. Now it's being used against us and quite frankly I find men being so openly gleeful about it to be a bit sickening. I loathe western feminism as well, but I also see why it is what it is, and it's at least partially the fault of evolution.

lairacunda · 2020-07-15T04:45:49+00:00

Julie Bindel's position, "I am a lesbian because I say I am", is laughable and controversial among real lesbians who don't recall ever choosing anything. But I don't think that's where trans got the idea, though they may use it to validate themselves.
Meh, some non-sciencey academics wanted more funding for their own departments. Predominantly male science, math and engineering departments would get a lot of funding. Meanwhile women (some also feminist) in the sciences were struggling to be taken seriously and get real jobs. The "facts and science" that trans use to validate their social agenda is usually pretty sketchy. Many academics, scientists and medical and psych professionals collude with trans and thereby legitimate the movement. They have very deep pockets. They buy academics and politicians and take over non-profit organizations and charities.
The difference is that "word policing" never made it past a few feminist publications and the subculture. (I have never seen words like herstory or wombmoon anywhere in the mainstream.) Some usage really needed to change, like the ubiquitous use of "man" to indicate humanity. I don't think the reason why was particularly esoteric either.
A classic publication to emerge from that era was Our Bodies, Ourselves, a women's self-help health guide. It contained no denial of biology but was firmly grounded in reality. It's a better indicator of what the 2nd Wave accomplished for women than any right-wing critique of feminism. I don't see how you can compare "some women have penises" to "women are also humanity" and keep a straight face. The point was and continues to be that sexism is embedded in the language, not that you can change your sex. Language usage changes gradually and organically over time, the way man to indicate humanity is falling into disuse, not through widespread propaganda, bullying and social engineering to get everyone to comply. I don't recall feminism ever attempting to pull that off. It's really a very male approach if you think about it. When TRAs have the force of law behind them, they will resort to decreeing, right now they are still limiting themselves to bullying.
I find the idea of a natural and organicly ocurring patriarchy somewhat ludicrous. The concept sounds more like circular reinforcement. I don't know what ecological or human disaster happened in antiquity or the late pleistocene (end of the last ice-age) to cause the hierarchical, class structure that installed men as the nucleus of the family unit and as the rulers of societies. What is clear to me is that they are ill-equipped to be in charge of families, societies or the world.
Have you ever actually read Dworkin? If not, this is a good place to start: http://www.mediafire.com/file/j02f3fdwcofey2h/Right-wing_Women.zip/file You can find more of her work here: http://radfem.org/dworkin/ Future historians will have their investigative work cut out for them when they try to determine what caused this mass delusion. In the meantime, before you blame feminists for inventing concepts that have been distorted and hijacked, you might consider the following: Trans as a political and cultural trend develops at a time when: 1) society is making some real strides in breaking down gender stereotypes. Gay Liberation has made it possible for many to step out of obligatory and rigid sex-roles that do not fit them and which they find oppressive. 2) feminism has also won many gains for women, not the least among them the possibility of earning a living outside the home, living outside of a male-ruled family unit, some political representation, real sports teams, widespread access to higher education, career options, fewer restrictions on travel, credit, finances, etc., etc. So no Mister, feminism did not create this monster. This monster IS the patriarchy (whose existence you so doubt) morphing to regain control over the women who are lost to it, the ones who got away. Every demand that trans makes is a demand that undermines women and girls. Trans males win awards and fill quotas set aside exclusively for women, they take high-end jobs and get counted as women. On the poorer end of the scale, they are allowed to invade shelters and previously sex-segregated prisons lording it over women refugees and inmates. They have forced their way into all-female institutions that had been around for 100 years. Trans, along with their incel allies, demand sex from women who are no longer obligated to service them through coerced relationships and institutions. They actively brainwash children into doubting their own reality and destroy the integrity of future LGB (and straight) adults. As difficult as it may be to grasp, trans are the *shock-troops** of the patriarchy. The fact that they are getting away with it is *proof of its existence.

DogeWalker · 2020-07-14T17:28:02+00:00

tomandmigg · 2020-07-15T07:19:55+00:00

Why wouldn't you describe yourself as a feminist when you believe equal rights for women is a good thing?

I think your post exposes an ignorance of the women's movement in general, and you should tell your conservative friends that they've got it all twisted.

Women identifying as "political lesbians" because of their personal convictions is obviously different from women being put under pressure to change their sexual orientation by others.
I don't know much about feminist academia but I do know that in the 80s and 90s, social science got really into writing a load of shit in general. Doesn't mean that all social science from that time period was a waste of time. I don't know how it's just the feminist academic works that are responsible for this uptick in anti-science post-modern truthy crap.
If your friends think feminists have the patent on "but what about the women?" then there's a singular lack of awareness of what happens whenever males are not centred in something.
The concept of patriarchy is as much a conspiracy theory as the concept of capitalism or the concept of white supremacy. That is to say, yes, there is a conspiracy to disenfranchise the majority for the benefit of a minority. No, not a literal conspiracy as in a cabal of elite planning sexism from the top down. No, you don't need to be twiddling a mustache and literally plotting the unfair allocation of resources to benefit from how they are allocated. Many men do not benefit very much from the patriarchy but just enough to keep it going for the benefit of those who do see a higher return.

Only a lazy thinker who sees all feminists as a monolith could have such a sloppy viewpoint as "feminists created this monster". Second wave feminism gave birth both to radical and liberal feminism. First wave feminism gave birth to second wave. Enlightenment thinking gave birth to first wave feminism. You might as well blame Voltaire and Rousseau while we're here, if that's how it works.

emptiedriver · 2020-07-21T15:56:46+00:00

The notion that men are all in on a devious plot to oppress women, rather than women's oppression simply having been the historical product of material forces (including biological differences)

You seem to have missed classic feminism (Wollstonecraft, de Beauvoir, etc). The "patriarchy" is not some conspiracy theory, it's the natural result of biological difference and power balance. Might makes right, and pregnancy is a vulnerability, on top of there being a clear physical dominance of one sex to start with. This is reinforced through cultural norms over years until it becomes accepted that women have no purpose beyond creating heirs or sexually pleasing males. It is not a necessary outcome, but it is naturally easy, and the benefits to males make it very appealing to reinforce. Whereas women become increasingly unaware of other options and believe that this must be the natural state of things, much as people come to accept a "monarchy" as a god-given order of things...

So feminism is not demanding men no longer do science (which I'm sure you're misrepresenting, but..) it's simply saying, wait, we don't need to live in a world where men run things. Women may be physically weaker and more vulnerable in order to birth new people, but that doesn't impact mental capacity or leadership qualities. Male dominance has been a very real state of society. Women in the US have only been legally allowed to vote for one lifespan. They are still not taken seriously as leaders or true partners in the leadership of the country (which could have serious consequences: https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/#560578013dec ) and it's importance to change it.

As for the other examples you give - language changes, science rhetoric, and political lesbians - I think these were small fights within a much larger battle, and that you are exaggerating the claims that were set forth.

Language does make a difference and people did point out ways that it was dominated by the male experience, mostly by how default examples were always the generic male/masculine pronoun, but in other places too. That wasn't the key issue and some people got carried away but being aware of how people speak makes a difference.

Bisexual women can choose not to have relationships with men, and may have been advocated especially at a time when men were completely uninterested in taking seriously what women were saying (it's possible bisexuality is more common among women).

As for the science rhetoric thing, I don't think it's specifically a feminist issue - much more generally a humanist/scientistic disagreement about the way truth is explored, though some people frame it as influenced by male vs female voices. Still, that isn't the purpose of feminism, nor is feminism the only place where that argument is raised.

I do think transgenderism has been given a path by a lot of more postmodern nonmaterial approaches to thinking, and while schools of feminism took part in those explorations, they were not the origin or the strongest proponents, and I think only really lost their way at the same time as transgenderism started to become a force within the academy (eg, fights over whether the Women's study group should be exclusively for women - to me, that seemed like the whole point, but there was a movement that it should be inclusive for anyone who wanted to be supportive to women...)

tuesday · 2020-07-17T17:54:32+00:00

4: The concept of patriarchy, The notion that men are all in on a devious plot to oppress women,

I take it you've never visited any of the MRA (men's rights activism) or incel (involuntary celibate) websites? or the many "pick up artists" sites (men bragging about and teaching other men how they can manipulate and coerce women into sex)? Or the 6,000 year long church (any of them) program to convince women that we're nothing but "helpmeet" and assistants to men for their benefit? Or the government's refusal to grant women the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to contraception, the right to our own bank account, the right not to be raped by our husbands? the pay gap, the refusal to allow us an education? the refusal to take rape seriously? hostile environment after hostile environment? Those things are not a LONG STANDING PATTERN of a concentrated effort to oppress women?

the rules say i'm not allowed to swear at any poster. btw. no matter how much they deserve it.

I will just say that 6,000 years is a long fucking time buddy, to dismiss as "not a pattern", "not deliberate".

GCdebatesQT

MODERATORS