https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/the-new-yorker-what-is-a-woman-the-dispute-between-radical-feminism-and-->-bleeped-<-/#comment-39077

You kind of get the feeling they don't appreciate the transgender
Resonses from a Radfem blog

I read through those responses and it was the second most hateful thing I've seen this week. The first was finding that a link for "medical and Other Resources for Transexual Women" was to a therapist against the DSM V classifications and interested primarily in "autogynophelia". Have any of you actually met one of these unicorns?

What sad people. An  Orwellien bent on feminism. Who can possibly be hurt by such ravings, the rattle of irrational discourse from people who are both sad and inadequate.

I feel so sorry for them.

I'm really confused about the use of the phrase  "I am going to have to say, it's your place to stay out of spaces where male-to-female transgender people go. It's not our job to avoid you."

When I first read the article the other day I assumed that it was a misprint and that it meant to say that male-to-female transgender people must stay out of spaces where cisgendered women go. That it wasn't their job to avoid us.

Given the nature of the article (transwomen being banned from an event supposedly for all women) this seemed a reasonable assumption.
Nowhere can I see evidence of Transwomen barring entry or participation to ciswomen...

It doesn't make any sort of sense either, transwomen want to be seen as the women that they are. Why would they try and prohibit the attendance of ciswomen thus singling them out as "different"?

Quote from: Eris on July 31, 2014, 10:37:46 AM
I'm really confused about the use of the phrase  "I am going to have to say, it's your place to stay out of spaces where male-to-female transgender people go. It's not our job to avoid you."

When I first read the article the other day I assumed that it was a misprint and that it meant to say that male-to-female transgender people must stay out of spaces where cisgendered women go. That it wasn't their job to avoid us.

Given the nature of the article (transwomen being banned from an event supposedly for all women) this seemed a reasonable assumption.
Nowhere can I see evidence of Transwomen barring entry or participation to ciswomen...

It doesn't make any sort of sense either, transwomen want to be seen as the women that they are. Why would they try and prohibit the attendance of ciswomen thus singling them out as "different"?

I think what they're trying to say is that someone being offended by transwomen in women's spaces, then they can just stay out.  They're not talking about ciswomen, they're telling bigots to leave if it bothers them.
Edit: Of course, the targets of this statement didn't read it that way.  Really poor choice of words.

Somehow we have this in two threads, but I can see how.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,170300.msg1485205.html#msg1485205

Wow, just .... wow. So some cis women have actually managed to convince themselves that they're more oppressed than trans women. That's some impressive self-delusion right there.

Quote from: dalebert on July 31, 2014, 11:17:27 AM
Wow, just .... wow. So some cis women have actually managed to convince themselves that they're more oppressed than trans women. That's some impressive self-delusion right there.

yea, it's sad and tragic some of the responses, but it's kind of hilarious too. also I love the language. well maybe not that hilarious, there's a few that are pretty sick

It's yet another case of an old phenomenon: one oppressed group attacks another because it's safer to do that than to attack their actual oppressors. It's a way to feel powerful and in control, and it's sad, because the way to change an oppressive system is for different groups to unite and support each other.

Anyone remember when NOW went to kick out lesbians and identified them as "the lavender menace?" History does repeat itself.

The game of "Who's more oppressed?" is a repulsive and unfortunate one -- we're all in this together.

Oh dear, that was quite an odd read. As always, many of them accuse us of being the disingenuous and delusional ones that reinforce patriarchy despite the fact they're the ones resorting to gross generalisations, they're the ones treating biology as destiny, and they're the ones that privilege masculinity by treating it as somehow un-gendered.

I did find it a wee bit funny that they're overwhelmingly convinced the original piece was biased against them while many trans people are convinced the original piece was biased against us. Of course, I'm not going to claim that criticism from both must mean the piece is neutral since I think that's illogical, I just found the similarity amusing.

Ordinarily, I'd dismiss people like the commenters but many of them have proven that they are outright dangerous to vulnerable people, one in particular is terrifyingly cruel person.

Quote from: Tysilio on July 31, 2014, 11:34:52 AM
The game of "Who's more oppressed?" is a repulsive and unfortunate one -- we're all in this together.

True. I understand it though. The whole point to making a change in the culture or a political change is that there are victims. Unfortunately, that makes victims necessarily a sort of resource for those movements. They're like the fuel. An unfortunate side effect is that a movement can develop a conflict of interest and start nurturing and maximizing victimhood, sacrificing the individual for the collective cause. They need as many people as possible to see themselves as victims and they need victims to not ever recover and be happy. Causes compete for attention, volunteers, funding, etc. It becomes an entity unto itself and stops being about the individuals. The machine must go on no matter how much success it has had. The successes have to be diminished in the public eye and the problems maximized. I think the radical elements of feminism have just gone so far with it that they're finally being called out en masse.

I regularly read that blog, most of it doesn't bother me, its just someone else's opinions.


By the way, I had thought that linking to gt, dirt and similar blogs was not allowed.

Quote from: Jaime R D on July 31, 2014, 03:53:54 PM
I regularly read that blog, most of it doesn't bother me, its just someone else's opinions.


By the way, I had thought that linking to gt, dirt and similar blogs was not allowed.

I just linked it because of the relevancy of the topic. I had know Idea it might of been prohibited, sorry