The problem with people who are now saying the things some women have spent the past decade being vilified for saying is that there's no reason to believe they wouldn't join in another witch hunt for a different reason.
If you are the type of person who can look at endless rape and death threats and tell the targets they're just as bad for stating the things it turns out you believe, too, then why should anyone ever trust you? Why wouldn't you do it again?
If you've sat out and thought "well, those terfs must have done something to deserve it", that's not about "the trans issue". It's about how you respond to other people being attacked.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Principles such as "female bodies matter", "male inner lives aren't more special and important than female ones" and "female perceptions of male power and threat aren't arbitrary and contingent on individual male approval" are not exclusive to any one "debate". >
They are basic feminism. There are women who are giving these principles away wholesale without noticing they're doing it because they tell themselves it's just "the trans debate", but it's not. You give this stuff away, you give it to *all* male people. >
"Your bathroom at home is gender-neutral" or "you can't tell who is male" or "females wanting to win at sports are selfish" aren't self-contained arguments relating to gender identity. They're wholesale dismissals of female people & their perceptions mattering in their own right>
Women: <get hounded out of jobs, face death threats, deal with constant smears, require protection just to speak>
Man: "well, you got to speak, didn't you? Jeez, don't know what you're complaining about" theguardian.com/education/2023…
It's like an abusive partner telling you you're not being bullied or controlled because he can still "hear you whining".
There's no accounting of all the things women don't say, and all the women who don't speak, because the cost is too high. You just hear one and it's "see? Women are able to speak out on this"
Thanks, but I think people are capable of reading the words I've actually written without my supposedly hidden intentions being "revealed". I am so sick of "what she really means is ..."
This is why women get told we just need to write or speak more reasonably or politely or compassionately. Because we do it already, only it gets presented as having a hidden, unreasonable meaning.
I have been around abusive men who constantly primed people who might otherwise listen to me with stories of "when she says this, what you've got to understand is..." This feels the same, the same effort to empty the words *I* chose of meaning lest they reach anyone else.
The gender-neutral language masks the fact that the first "people" refers to males, whose needs are pitched as universal (ability to feel like they belong). The second "people" refers to females, whose needs are pitched as trivial and mean (winning and losing).
Maybe female athletes want to feel like they belong rather than be edged out because the category isn't theirs any more. But that's just mean of them. Belonging is a human - male default - need. What would the non-males know about it?
The way in which some needs are dismissed as trivial (phobias, pearl-clutching, selfish boundary policing) whereas other ones are utterly essential (right to exist) so often seems to suggest only one half of the human race has an inner life (and it's always the same half)
Men shouting at women to shut up - blocking passageways, banging on windows, throwing eggs, waving banners threatening decapitation - is exactly what it looks like. It has been happening in plain sight for years, at universities, at feminist gattherings, at party conferences.
The women who've talked about it have been vilified themselves on the basis that those on the right side of history wouldn't do this unless their targets were really evil and actually, it's quite prissy to care about a bit of shouting in the face of pure evil.
I am so angry about this. It is so, so obvious, such a clear replication of the kind of dynamics seen in witch hunts and in the excusing of domestic violence, and we have said this, again and again, for so long, and been told "but they wouldn't do it if you didn't provoke"
So many people see "nice" men abusing women and think not "perhaps these men aren't so nice", but "how terrible must these women be? And if these women are so terrible, maybe I should join in the abuse"
Or "that proves these women are as bad as I thought and I am safe, because I'm not bad".
One of my formative experiences as a feminist was hearing a relative describe a local woman who'd been murdered by her husband as "a nag". We didn't know her. She just must have been, otherwise it would make no sense.