Francesca R
Girl
This is the book I mentioned Down Girl--The Logic of Misogyny, Kate Manne
Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Poor logic. "She's female, therefore any criticism of her is misogynist'.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I am not really sure how transgender translates into 'misogyny'.
I notice on Twitter that at a Pride demonstration today a group of TERF* lesbians were asked to leave by the police. I managed to work out that the dispute revolved around their objecting to 'men with penises' (transgenders) wanting to date lesbians.
Just as one polar extreme of gay men hate women, likewise the polar extreme of gay women hate men.
Nothing new. Nothing to see here.
*Transgender exclusionary radical feminists.
Francesca R
Girl
Rape threats are a tad misogynist methinks.
Oh please, this has been done to death in this thread. Do you know how irritating it is to read posts that have been throughly debated ages ago?
Do you realise that a subset of intact transwomen insist on the right to have sex with lesbians, and if lesbians refuse this wonderful offer they are transphobes?
This always seems like silly word games to me. When somebody receives thousands of such messages, they are mostly just people saying what they think the target will find shocking. When some 14 year old who gets beaten on Fortnite tells the person who beat them that he ****** their mother.... he isn't making a statutory rape allegation. Trolls say nasty trollish things. Clearly there is occasionally a needle in the haystack, but there always seems like there is this tendency to pretend that the people who send such messages mean them literally, and that they are somehow a reflection of the mind of the sender, rather than of what the sender thinks the recipients will react to. If you throw yourself in to a controversial subject you are going to get hate mail.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Tell trolls that certain words are taboo, and those will be the exact words they use, to troll for maximum effect.
Rape threats because the threateners are saying whatever that they think the recipient will likely react strongly to are a tad misogynist methinks.
For anyone to think otherwise is puzzling.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
In summary: Transsexual accommodations in public policy come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers.
This would be, perhaps, tolerable if there were any sound medical basis for these accommodations, or any coherent moral reasoning behind them.
But no such medical basis, no such coherent reasoning. So it's just anti-women.
Yes, but everybody with a functioning brain cell knows this. If people actually thought these were real threats they would be in a safe house while police investigated tens of thousand of credible international rape conspiracies. I take it you've seen the Sargon of Akkad, Jess Phillips (UK member of parliament) thing? He made the same point a few years back. You can bet the inbox of any social media he may have is full of people saying all sorts of poisonous, threatening things. She was playing this game of pretending people were actually sending her real threats for victim points and it was because she was a woman and men didn't have to go through this and this misogyny kept women out of public life etc. He said that she would claim anything was a rape threat, even if it was exactly the opposite.... hence his "I wouldn't even rape you". She pretended it was something he had said for no reason and was a veiled rape threat.
She had YouTube take down the video where he said it and he was investigated by police for the rape threat. Because the video was taken down, you then had Jess Phillips description of it going unchallenged in the MSM.
Here is the BBC pretending to misunderstand what he'd said, partly because they would anyway, but partly because he was a candidate for a political party they didn't like.
Pretending that troll comments are sincere and real is a game for all the family. Play it for fun and profit.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's objectively misogynistic, in the sense Orwell meant. It normalizes misogyny in speech and action. It enables the actual misogynists.
Last edited:
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Whether Rowling’s letter has substance or not has nothing to do with you citing specific examples of what you were criticizing her letter about.
It’s a pretty important principle that claims need to be supported, but you are dodging that for your claims about Rowling’s letter. While not dispositive, it doesn’t speak well for your position about Rowling.
Maybe this is what you mean, or maybe it is just me being pedantic. That reads to me as if the intention is to harm women. Is that what you mean to say? If it is, I would be interested in you briefly unpacking it. I kind of feel like there are a bunch of motivations going on at the same time, I can kind of see how some of them could be described as intentionally harming women.... at least in the sense of undermining their protected status, undermining their position in the privilege hierarchy etc.
This seems like a very expansive meaning of misogynistic. Effectively, misogyny is associative. Are we then saying that anything that normalises any form of trolling is also misogynistic? We could keep going...
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Not to me. I've been using it consistently in this context, with no pushback, for a long time now. I won't debate it here. Start a new thread if you want to make your case.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
As if people have no control over who they date.
I'm sure you haven't, and I won't push you on it. Really though, as I said in (or added to) my previous post. Effectively, misogyny is associative. Are we then saying that anything that normalises any form of trolling is also misogynistic? We could keep going and find everything is misogynistic.
This process of broadening definitions has been happening with a lot of words. Racism is the classic example, but there is a bunch of them. You have a word with a really strong specific meaning. There is a lot of power behind it and pretty much everybody agrees it's bad. It partly has all this power because almost nobody does the bad thing, hence we can all agree to ostracise the people who do it. Then people start pushing on the scope of the word or invent a totally new definition that applies broadly, because it is a powerful word and naturally they want to use that power.
Do you remember the definition of "deepity" invented by Daniel Dennett about the statements of Deepak Chopra? They are statements that have two meanings, the first meaning is profound if true, but is false, and the second is true, but trivial and unimportant. It's a type of Motte and Bailey.
Misogyny had this clear meaning. If you look it up, the OED comes up with "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." Webster has "hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women". The problem is that that applies to so few things. I don't doubt that your definition either has, or will, start to show up in there, just as the "social studies" redefinition of racism has.
The thing is that it is now almost impossible to tell from context what you mean when you say misogyny. Do you mean the one that the man in the street is familiar with and assumes you mean? The one that there is overwhelming consensus is bad, but rarely applies? Or do you mean this trivial social studies definition that there isn't consensus about, but can be applied to almost anything?
Racism gets redefined, misogyny gets redefined, woman gets redefined. It's the same game. Orwellian, as you mentioned earlier.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
You may want to check on your dates here. Rowling cannot be expected to predict Forstater's stance some years or months in advance.
Last edited:
- Status