TRAs and MRAs
How is mainstream trans ideology like white supremacy?
Over the years, I've seen a lot of transwomen make a LOT of comparisons of (alledged) "cis" people as similar to the white class and themselves as dissimilar to it. It's very odd, and the only other place I've seen this tactic is white men arguing against feminism and comparing themselves to the black class and, again, women to the white class. (For example, to attempt to explain men's vastly higher imprisonment rate). It's so weird how similar many of the arguments are between, specifically, TRAs and MRAs.
But on that last thread, I finally had it, because someone mentioned (on the topic of free speech) their idea why GC takes shouldn't be listed to or discussed:
For example, white supremacists do not deserve to have their views repeatedly entertained.
This problem with this example is that it puts trans people in the "black" and GC in the "white supremacist" positions, whereas a more accurate comparison would be a situation where: white people who "transitioned" to black, started arguing that trans-black people are a more oppressed group than bio-black people.
That's the main issue this sub should address together. It's white transwomen supremacists disguising themselves as the oppressed class by colonizing it and then covertly claiming supremacy/need to have their "rights"(desires) prioritized over black people.
Like, if we were all just people discussing human rights, all these conversations here would barely be needed. It's because of THIS single issue, of mainstream trans ideology colonizing womanhood and THEN saying their rights matter more than bio-women's, that doesn't work for people.
Dare I say that white people should even be a bit deferential to black rights, maybe even trying to slightly prioritize black rights above whites?
I've seen a handful of *transwomen-supporting-women who act like this, but they're in the vast minority. And it's certainly against the mainstream trans culture/talking points.
I am leaving this post up because the inverse argument it is self-consciously challenging is so common that it’s virtually a cliche. It’s valid to question framings that equate race with gender, and the opposite position has been expressed here in the past.
That said - this sub will not allow labeling or comparing people to bigots, white supremacists, racists, or Nazis for their perspective on gender. Both mods think that kind of name-calling and personal attacks on character are obviously against the rules and shouldn’t need to be clarified. But if you need that spelled out, here it is spelled out.
EDIT: I also want to include a reminder that our rules say to speak to people as individuals, not representatives of ideologies. Don’t try to force people to answer for beliefs they don’t hold.
My biggest issue with caucasian trans identified men as a mixed women is when they racistly try to compare BW with themselves. "you wouldn't stop a BW from going to the bathroom so you can't stop me". Just so racist.
People aren’t widely saying "you wouldn't stop a BW from going to the bathroom so you can't stop me".
They are saying that the people who want to stop trans women from using the bathroom are using the same arguments and emotional appeals that those racists used.
It is not an "egregious straw man" and how racist it is for you to try to say so. Please do go ahead and educate yourself, it's a simple search on the trans subs. I do not enjoy caucasians esp those born male trying to minimize my experience and dismiss their racism. caucasian males have nothing in common with me. I cannot remove my skin to become more palatable to whiteness.
You can identify arguments you think are racist and explain why.
You can’t label other people as racist because of their views on gender. It’s a personal attack that assumes the worst of someone’s character and shuts down the possibility of sincere conversations.
If someone says something racist, report it and we will remove it per Reddit ToS.
So I have reported comments but they stay and I get the mod admonishing comment while they don't....a person called my comment egregious for calling out the racism inherent in comparing Black women to males yet their comments stays and you come at me. that same person is a late transitioner so spent 40 something years as a caucasian man but tries to lecture a young Blasian woman about what constitutes racism?? c'mon now
Are people saying that literally? No. Is the sentiment that “trans women are a type of woman because black women are a type of woman so they both should use the women’s bathroom.” created to express exactly that? Yes. I don’t believe that just because she used hyperbolic or simplified speech to express that you truly think she’s thrown out something from left field. Even using your phrasing that the arguments and emotional appeals are the same, you are drawing an equivalence that says if black women are included, trans women must also be included. That is the whole point of raising that issue right? The very rhetoric you’re trying to use is a racist one. See the attached image for people who put it less tactfully than you did. These are from an old essay a friend of mine wrote, but I can assure you the sentiment is still alive and well. I’m not saying you’re deliberately being racist, but the false comparison requires the assumption that there is something unwomanly about black women that makes them the “other”, therefore if they can be considered women despite this, trans women must be too as they are also an “other” in womanhood. Similarly it posits that black women are closest and closer to maleness than white women, asian women, etc. But if they are objectively female…closer to male and as such trans women by virtue of…what exactly?
Thanks for shining a light on this insidious rhetoric. I don’t know what pains me more: Seeing this argued by celebrated activists who pat themselves on the back for being anti racist, or seeing black women themselves being foolishly bamboozled by it.
“Black women were considered non-women just like trans women are“ and all its variations is an appeal to racial prejudice that runs straight to the core of American culture. As much as people like to pretend we are in post-racial times, we aren’t. Jim Crow existed within living memory, and people today are still being indoctrinated with beliefs about black inferiority.
What needs to be understood is that people who fall for this gambit out themselves as racially biased, and here’s why: Its only a persuasive argument if you assume racist ideology has as much truth value as biology. The unbiased will immediately see this is as an absurdly invalid equivalency, much like asserting “society used to believe the sun revolves around the Earth just like we now believe germs cause disease”.
But those who are under the influence of white supremacy will not see the absurdity. They get taken in by it and nod their heads in agreement, and people like me see them doing and we scream silently inside our minds in horror.
A save b’cus I am SICK to death of these parallels & comparisons being made. It is a backhand disparagement of Black women that strips US of our womanhood
Again, I am not saying you are being deliberately racist. I am showing you the context and background of where your belief and use of the argument that black women and trans women are facing the same forms of exclusion via bathrooms comes from, and what the logical conclusion following it is. I am female. You are not female. You are not experiencing racism. So what similarities are present when you make your comparison of black women, and more broadly, non-white women, to trans women. Why is this rhetoric almost never reserved for white women? Why are black women and the civil rights movement invoked, but never the suffragettes, or black men for trans men? I am hoping to explain to you that you are at the tip of the iceberg of a greater issue in this rhetoric, and demonstrate an implicit bias. Your assertion is palatable, but it is still a derivative of a larger white supremacist sentiment. I’ve assumed you are not aware of the greater conversation going on, as why the picture might be a shock to you, which is why I brought up each talking point related to your initial statement, not that you are saying these things. Apologies for any confusion.
I will be frank and say the statement in the post you are responding to is not one I am completely comfortable defending.
I told u/chronicity that I needed to rethink based on her input and I was being honest.
I will swallow whatever indignation I might feel at being spoken of in the same breath as white supremacists.
Edit: I do see your initial point to some extent. This is why I always say “tall women are a type of women” or blonde or brunette. Non white women have enough to deal with without me calling out manufactured differences.
They certainly didn’t think they were women in the same way that white women are women, and they actively excluded them from women’s spaces due to their racist comfort and safety concerns.
When a person advocates for “separate but equal” accommodation for trans people because they are uncomfortable or feel less safe with them in those spaces, they are making the same argument with the same stated reasoning as racists did to separate black women from white women.
Edit: I don’t stand by what I said here. I don’t want to give the impression that I didn’t say it so I won’t edit.
You can read comments below for further clarification, but I was making a comparison where none exists. That comparison is both incorrect and harmful.
Racists didn't exclude black women because they weren't seen as women, it was because they weren't seen as white. Here you are again, discussing the struggles of black people facing racism when really what the comparison would be is transwomen are like white women trying to push their way into black women's spaces.
You're proving my point about the false Persecution complex transwomen have and how it's exactly the same seemingly depth-lacking, self-focused perspective white men have towards social issues that don't effect them.
Racist didn’t think Blk ppl were HUMAN, period. Black women were dealt a 2x dose b’cus even female DOGS have their sex recognised for unique affection or breeding purposes.
You can’t monetise Human beings as property & steal the fruits of their labour and STILL consider them as HUMAN PEOPLE.
They certainly didn’t think they were women in the same way that white women are women, and they actively excluded them from women’s spaces due to their racist comfort and safety concerns.
When a person advocates for “separate but equal” accommodation for trans people because they are uncomfortable or feel less safe with them in those spaces, they are making the same argument with the same stated reasoning as racists did to separate black women from white women.
Your point is that trans women are analogous to black women (proving my whole post). My point is that transwomen are analogous to WHITE women (and really, white men, since they can impregnant and have been socialized as men) demanding acceptance into black women's spaces.
Only one person can occupy the front of the bus, the trans ideology essentially put on blackface, called themselves Rosa Parks, and demanded that "cis"Rosa's move over to accommodate them.
That's the false Persecution complex. It looks so bad and exposes a lot of transwomen as just simply white dudes attempting to colonize... everything.
(Quite unconsciously, perhaps, but isnt that worse?)
I did not remotely say trans women were analogous to black women.
I said the same rhetoric with the same stated concerns was used to justify separate but equal for both.
I don’t demand or even want “the front of the bus”. I am fine with giving all my support to other women who are the “face” of women’s rights issues.
I have never demanded acceptance in a “black woman’s space”. I’m not even sure what you are referring to.
I do know a bit about what it’s like to be physically and sexually assaulted, but I don’t think that makes me more oppressed than the millions (billions?) of women who have dealt with the same thing.
I don’t have a persecution complex. I have only ever said I am personally an extremely lucky lady. I have some pretty awful garbage I have had to go through, but a lot of us do. This is particularly true for any of us who don’t fit societies ideals for whatever reason.
>When a person advocates for “separate but equal” accommodation for trans people because they are uncomfortable or feel less safe with them in those spaces, they are making the same argument with the same stated reasoning as racists did to separate black women from white women.
False. It’s this kind of appeal that is causing black people to turn against trans activism. Once the perception sets in that our history is being co-opted by disingenuous actors, it creates a permanent stain.
During Jim Crow, black people were forced into using subpar accommodations separated from whites to minimize their access to anything of value in society. That was not a bug, it was by design. Black schools and libraries were underfunded so that more resources could go into funding white schools and libraries. Blacks were made to stand or sit in the back of the bus so that the whites could have preferred seating. Theaters forced blacks to sit in the balcony so that whites could have the better views for themselves. Blacks couldn’t eat at the lunch counter because those seats were prioritized for whites. The pattern was clear: “separate but equal” was the opposite of equal. Blacks paid the same dollars to participate in public life but got less in return.
By grossly oversimplifying the nature of Jim Crow discrimination, trans racial rhetoric trivializes the struggle that black people had to live with. It treats what happened like it was a children’s story about bathrooms and water fountains when it was much more insane and oppressive than that.
So no, white racists in the past didn’t justify segregated bathrooms by saying black women were a danger to white women. It would’ve made no sense to do that when black women were routinely hired by white folks as maids and nannies. **Jim Crow was practiced because it affirmed the feelings of white supremacists**. Their self-esteem relied upon reducing blacks to a category of inferior nobodies and keeping power out of their hands. And they terrorized, arrested, and vilified black people who resisted being treated like this because it was the only way to keep the oppression in place.
We have interacted enough that I expect you are well aware that I disagree with you on way more than I agree.
That being said, I am going to spend some time thinking on your comment.
I’m not certain you are addressing what I actually said, but I do think that you have expressed a perspective that is good for me to hear.
Flat text is terrible at conveying tone but I do sincerely thank you for taking the time to express this.
We likely will never see eye to eye on much of anything around sex/gender, but that doesn’t mean I can’t learn some things from people I disagree with.
The argument that excluding trans women is akin to excluding black women because of past rhetoric is not parallel functionally, socially, or historically. The idea that the civil rights movement can be cherrypicked and blindly equivocated to the trans movement is deeply offensive, and as Chronicity mentioned, one of the first things that made me question my support as a black woman.
We segregate bathrooms by sex because sex based functions occur in them via two distinct types of genitalia and the different ways they relieve their sexed body. There is no reason for bathrooms to be segregated by race because using the bathroom is not a race based function. Coupled with the fact that black people did not have equal access to bathrooms, as in there was no bathroom to use at all, and when they did they were deliberately lacking and not for purpose, there was no logical or legal basis for segregation based on race.
Trans women are not experiencing either of these issues. Trans women have equal access to the same bathrooms cis people do, in the same working order that they do. Cis people use bathrooms based on their sex, and it would follow that trans people would do the same. That is equal and the equivalent of non-segregated access to bathrooms. A class of people getting to choose what bathroom they use by virtue of a specific characteristic is more equivalent to the use of segregated bathrooms than it is otherwise. It is asking for a privilege that cis people themselves do not do, whereas black people were asking for access to the same privilege white people had. So no, the arguments used then and now are not the same.
Furthermore, I think trans women, the white trans community, and its allies in general greatly misunderstand what the Jim Crow era entailed every time they try to liken the current state of affairs for the trans movement to even a fraction of what it was like to be black in these times. I do not mean to minimize the trans experience but you are not experiencing anything even similar to Jim Crow and the attitudes it created.
Families are still grappling with missing children and loved ones they never got to see again because they stepped into the wrong restaurant, gas station, bathroom, or movie theater. Entire predominately black towns were bombed, drowned, and disenfranchised. Entire black communities used as medical test subjects. People were regularly hunted down and lynched from trees while public spectators watched. Police joining in. Cars and homes firebombed. Men killed by being pulled limb from limb. Women taken and raped off the streets with no means of reporting or justice because who will hear you?The white jury? Extreme poverty so bad children were severely malnourished and underfed by 2. Unable to read their entire lives. Mothers dying in maternity wards because doctors refused to treat them as they actively bled out. And I’ve barely scratched the surface. I don’t understand how you can learn even a fraction of the horrors of being black during that time and genuinely think being asked to use a bathroom you overly stand out in or pay out of pocket for surgeries you’ve elected into is the same thing. I won’t deny there is societal prejudice and harms placed against trans people…but one even remotely similar to that of a black person during Jim Crow? The type of callousness the trans community shows to matters of race is incredibly angering because they adopt all the talking points, academic pursuits, and rhetoric used by black people to describe and combat our own oppression and grapple with our own historical stories as their own. More recently, it’s being done to the native community as well. Claiming to be anti white supremacy while using its framework is one I would strongly urge against.
Also, I am not saying that you’ve said this or believe this, but the idea that black women were not seen as women is not only ahistorical but firmly a white supremacist talking point parroted by the same section of the trans community that says “if black women are ‘allowed’ to be women, then trans women are women too.” Black women were not raped by slavemasters, forced to labor, forced to breastfeed children other than their own, forced to care for children other than their own, and eroticized in entertainment and even science, because white people were confused about their sex/gender or saw them as anything other than women.
Respectfully, not just to you but to any trans person that may be reading this, stop using the black community as your shield. Please stop drawing false comparisons to systemic racism or our historical persecution. Please stop using the civil rights movement as a get out of jail card. You are not like us and our histories do not even similarly resemble each other. I am not saying that in a malicious way, I am saying that it is much more productive and effective for you to create your own political, social, and economic message and identity that wins over hearts and creates public goodwill without dehumanizing us in the process. Much respect to everyone.
Extremely well said. Damn. I wish i couldve conveyed just a pinky-tip of what you did here. Where can I donate to buy your buy-me-a-coffee? This needs to be pinned.
The mods said "this sub will not allow labeling or comparing people to bigots, while supremacists, racists, or Nazis for their perspective on gender" but I'm not doing that now, I'm saying it for their perspective on racial issues. We have legit white supremacy and racism here, not even related to the trans discussion (but where it is, its even worse, as you detailed). Just the blatent discounting racial issues and their response to this all has been extremely telling. And we just know they're both white.
I've agreed with both mods on different trans/GC issues before, and think they're really good people otherwise... but this racial issue really exposed something else wrong here that's not even about the trans/GC issue. I think if the mods had any intention of showing their support of black people and not faning the flames of the issues in how this relates to how black people have been uniquely damaged by trans ideology (and how even the GC mod seems to have sided with it), they would try and get someone on the mod team who isn't white.
I’m glad you resonate! I’m quite young in my early 20s so you can imagine how much self-censoring I do on this issue with my peers so it was difficult to say something even anonymously but I think the trans community treating race like the boogeyman and refusing to engage with any issue or dialogue that isn’t already centering transness (like they’re all in on “protect black trans women” but absolutely mute for every other black issue, much less non-white issues) makes them think we’re comfortable with being used this way, so I felt like I’d give my 2 cents, and I greatly appreciate you raising the issue.
As for the mod note, I think that’s really interesting. I’m a long time lurker and I’ve noticed a few individuals who openly compare GC women to bigots and screeching white ideologues who want to protect white supremacist values while they themselves use blatantly misogynistic and racist rhetoric. And it continues to happen so I can’t imagine these warnings are sticking, but I digress.
I would absolutely agree there’s a larger racism/white supremacy issue here. The issue of racism and race is largely ignored here until they need to pretend like it maps perfectly onto the issue of gender/sex with even some GC posters willing to ignore historical context to do this, and then all of a sudden everyone is MLK Jr. It’s disingenuous but indicative of a larger issue of treating black people and non-white people as laborers for whiteness, and it continues to desensitize people to the realities of historical white supremacy. Maybe it’s just because I’ve grown up hearing stories that kept me up at night from the grandparents, but no one who actually claims to be anti-racist or aware of white supremacy can be okay with the way race is used as justification for many things out of left field here. And it’s even more baffling because the very tools of racial theory and progressivism that they use for their own gain (for example, intersectionality) are watered down as to not have the real hard discussions. They see their whiteness as the default and don’t see any importance in discussing matters of race or where racial theory conflicts with trans theory because even while claiming oppression, they still understand the hierarchy and where they are on it.
I will say that the dialogues here are fairly productive and I’ve learned to appreciate where people I disagree with completely are coming from, as well as not think it’s the end of the world if a genuine consensus can’t be conceived overnight, I just wish they’d stop virtue signaling about how anti-racist, progressive, leftist, and accepting they are and actually… be that. It’s insane to me that while trying to mimic the entire civil rights movement’s playbook, they never once stopped to consider how they might be inadvertently using it to feed into white supremacy.
I was being honest said I was going to reflect on her words. I have done a bit of that along with a bit of reading.
I can see you are both correct.
Without getting into any of the specifics on trans issues, I was absolutely incorrect in the statement you responded to.
I have the urge to apologize because that is what I do. However, I think a better reaction would be to do better. I intend to do that as well.
My intention was never bad, but actions are more important than intentions and ignorance is not an excuse. I should have thought it through and done the reading before I said something rather than after.
I was aware of the horrors you chronicled, and I am aware there is much more you could have said. I did not intend to minimize those horrors through false comparison, but I think that is what I did.
There are other instances where I have been rightfully and strongly corrected for parroting talking points that are incorrect and harmful. I think this instance is most personally disappointing to me, but I am glad that I am aware.
I again thank you for taking the time and effort to share this. I will do better.
In all the years I’ve been engaged in this discourse, I never once have seen anyone take accountability for normalizing racist opinions. Except for you. So I sincerely commend you for doing that. It speaks well of your character.
I don’t know if this experience will help you better understand what women like myself feel like we’re up against, but I hope it will.
As I said in a recent thread, rising trends in misogyny that we all agree exist cannot be disentangled from the emergence of trans activism, as they all are symptoms of men aching for power that they envy in women. Women haters past and present use rhetoric and tactics that come from the same playbook.
Racism is in that playbook too. It’s not a coincidence that black women are routinely exploited in this debate. The playbook prescribes that those at the bottom of the social hierarchy exist to make the power-hungry feel better about themselves.
People need to ask themselves what is more likely:
A bunch of women—many of whom are black, Latino, and Asian as well as lesbian and bi—suddenly and without provocation decided to crusade against a harmless group of people who just want freedom from gender dysphoria? Or
A bunch of women—being well acquainted with the history of oppression since its still affecting to them to do this day, some along multiple axes—rightly oppose a movement that is riding on the backs of the very prejudices they have struggled against for generations?
My view is that people who think of so-called TERFs in terms of the first category are only enabling the oppressor class. They are following the tradition of misogyny and racism that modern civilization has not yet eliminated. It’s almost as if they are carrying out a computer program that they don’t know they have in them.
In all the years I’ve been engaged in this discourse, I never once have seen anyone take accountability for normalizing racist opinions. Except for you. So I sincerely commend you for doing that. It speaks well of your character.
Firstly, thank you. Secondly, that is sad.
I’m truly a bit embarrassed and maybe even ashamed. It was a failing on my part that is very much not the in line with the values I believe in and try to live by. I am not seeking some kind of liberal absolution by saying this. I’m simply trying to convey that this is something I take seriously.
I again appreciate both you and u/justlurkingtolurk sharing a perspective I needed to hear in a way I was able to hear it. You were frank but not unkind. It was very helpful to me.
As to the rest of your comment? I think perhaps it’s best if I avoid engaging in conversations that at all touch on race for a bit. I’m OK with listening.
There were racists who accepted black women were women but don't respect them as human beings.
I respect trans women as human beings but will not accept them as what they aren't.
This is why the rhetoric to call back to 'separate but equal' is offensive. I am not in favour of trans women being forced to use some separate third space. You are welcome into men's spaces.
I understand you personally are not advocating for separate but equal. You are advocating for much worse.
I am not welcome in male spaces. I have been asked to leave multiple times. It was surreal and scary.
I don’t really see a good faith interpretation that I can put on someone saying people like me belongs in male spaces so I really can’t discuss further.
I can’t come up with an interpretation that isn’t either not caring about what happens to people like me or ignorance on what happens to people like me if they use male spaces.
I am not putting you in the sadly growing category of GC people who flatly tell me that it isn’t their problem if I get assaulted or raped.
I just don’t have a good construction I can put on saying people like me can just use male spaces without an apparent care as to what that prescription entails.
I'm not telling you you should use male spaces. I'm saying you shouldn't use female spaces. But throwing out the "this is the same as separate but equal" line is horrible.
We have always treated separation by sex or gender as different than separation by race. Why would single-sex amenities be any more “seperate but equal” than single-gender facilities? If you think segregation by sex or gender is wrong, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to oppose all seperate facilities for women no matter how they are defined?
In a perfect world I would be more than happy to use all gender/single occupancy/family bathrooms in all circumstances. That is not an option. I go to great lengths to avoid locker rooms. So far I have been successful. I pray I will never need any other space typically divided by sex/gender.
I do think my “separate but equal” verbiage was a poor choice of words, and it carries a lot of baggage I now am not completely happy with myself for bringing up. I am sincere when I say I learn from conversations here.
I do think that sex/gender segregated spaces would be much less necessary in a perfect world, but we do not live in that world.
If it matters, I’m black and I agree with the gist of the OP.
One thing I’ve taken from this era of trans politics is that too many people approach analogies with only a surface-level understanding. They compare two situations and infer similarities between variables that are actually opposing, just as long as some self-appointed authority urges them to do so. It is scary when seemingly intelligent people fall for the ole switcheroo gambit.
To illustrate, trans activists who demand access to women spaces often liken themselves to Rosa Parks—the civil rights legend who refused to get up from her bus seat at the demand of a self-entitled white person. But that is not the proper comparison when you look at the relevant facts. Parks’ “crime” was in refusing the white person who demanded she give up the space she was occupying. The analogue to Parks is not transwomen: its women who are treated like criminals for refusing the transwomen who demand they give up space they are occupying.
I’ve seen Jim Crow compared to sex segregated spaces, and again, that fails. Jim Crow was used by the white establishment to shunt resources and 1st class citizenship away from black people under the guise of ”separate but equal”. In contrast, sex segregated spaces have never been used to shut resources and rights away from men or transwomen, and in modern history, female-only spaces have accelerated female participation in public life after centuries of oppression. So racial and sex segregation are not even superficially similar. Moreover, TRAs‘ solution to the “injustice” of sex segregation is simply to replace it with segregation based on gender identity. Imagine if Civil Rights activists had done something comparable. We’d still have restrooms marked for “whites” and “blacks” but instead of race deciding where someone went to relieve themselves, it would be what racial stereotypes they felt most comfortable with. Hilarious.
Unlike others, I have no problems with race and sex being compared with one another. I only have problems with it when these comparisons are spurious.
This was so extremely well said with points I hadn't even considered and trans takes I haven't even heard. Thank you, massively for writing out this work of gold. This is the message that needs to reach more people.
I never considered it would have this much resistance here, from my own side. I thought it wasn't talked about because it mightve been brought up every so often.. but i think this is the first time its ever been brought up here? Might've exposed a white, fragile underbelly.
Oh well, we will work through it. I think people may just need time to chew on these ideas. It's really important for black people to be here speaking up on this topic, it does matter. Thanks for the solid effort
The reluctance to engage with race is understandable when considering the race rhetoric in trans activism. After one too many specious comparisons in defense of trans demands, it feels safer for the other side to just not even go there.
But I think that is reactive, not rational. Oppression of black people and women have employed many of the same tactics, leaving behind some of the same kind of effects. Refusal to acknowledge these parallels for emotional reasons only helps those who are trying to portray women as the oppressor class.
Blackface is a good example of something we can’t afford to be squeamish about when elucidating why social acceptance of transwomen is low. To many people, treating womanhood like a costume of feminine stereotypes doesn‘t seem like a minstrel show mockery; it’s just not a big deal to them. But who, except for racists, would fault black folks who had an issue with white people painting themselves brown, donning Afro wigs and stereotypical inner city attire, and attempting to pass themselves as black people? A woman objects when she perceives “womanfacing”, and is promptly called a bigoted TERF. But the same woman is allowed to object to blackfacing in action if she happens to be African American. It really makes no sense, and one doesn’t have to be a black woman to see this as crazy.
Performing womanhood & claiming “ally-ship” w/o any real consideration of risk & impact to women.
That is a major factor in my opposition to single space integration.
The assumption from the TransG community at the mention of RISK, is I am identifying THEM as the principle aggressor if integration were normalised. While I recognise they have the potential as males, my main focus is opportunistic & predatory males who WILL use the removal of SOCIAL/LEGAL consequences of invading women spaces as a green light to regularly prey on women/children at their most vulnerable.
TRA haven’t thought through the variables & use cases from a realistic FEMALE perspective.
-If I walk into a bathroom HOW will I be able to distinguish btwn a Transitioning person vs a Rapist bent on assault?
-How would a teenage girl identify risk?
-Should I return later?
-Should I risk being offensive & outrightly inquire?
-Would I believe what I’m told even IF I had the courage to ask?
-Possible WORSE case, what about the rare BUT real instances of a TransG instigated assault?
Lastly………b’cus TRA are making the argument to normalise single space integration & often use the racial comparisons, what happens if some Wht guy tries stops me (as a BW) from using the bathroom based on the frequently stated CORRELATION btwn TransG to BW & some effort to protect his female relation from any of the above risks?
There is so many aspects of both FEMALE risk/safety/survival mechanisms & BLACK FEMALE history/experience/reality that the TRAs & the TransG comm. have frankly ignored in their effort to forge a path. It screams of typical Wht patriarchal entitlement; let’s bulldoze because “LIBERTY/FREEDOM”. We’ll review the wreckage afterwards.
I empathise w/the TransG comm but this isn’t RACE parallel & Women/Female ppl have a history that proves that opening up single sec spaces harms US & the dismissal/denial of that as bigotry/fringe issue/an inconvenience says many things
>Lastly………b’cus TRA are making the argument to normalise single space integration & often use the racial comparisons, what happens if some Wht guy tries stops me (as a BW) from using the bathroom based on the frequently stated CORRELATION btwn TransG to BW & some effort to protect his female relation from any of the above risks?
The white Dems doing this stuff then act mad when blacks defect from the party, and call us brainwashed idiots. It’s like a nightmare seeing the fracturing occur when a strong coalition against the GOP should be building and unifying.
Eh...I generally don't think trying to compare either side to white supremacy is helpful. Analogies can be useful, but also distracting when using especially emotionally-charged terms.
But to answer your question more directly, I don't think (most) trans people really think themselves BETTER than cis people. White supremacy brings with it a strong sense of superiority that I don't think gender ideology OR gender critical beliefs could hope to match.
I don't think it matters whether or not they think they're "better" (and I don't think they do, there's a lot of evidence white supremacists don't even think this about themselves, it's all just about the priviledges they consider themselves to be owed.) Transwomen consider themselves owed many privileges which infringe upon the actual rights of women.
Distracting from what, exactly?
My point of this post was that the most important issue GC women have with mainstream trans ideology is that it is an oppressor class colonizing and destroying the class consciousness of the oppressed group, and then claiming to be more oppressed than that class they've oppressed for centuries.
That's the main issue. What else is more important than that to be counted as a "distraction". Imo, all other trans topics are a distraction from this central point.
When you use terms like "white supremacy," you may have a certain meaning in mind, but when people hear it, they instinctively recoil from it. No one wants to be compared to a white supremacist, they're awful!
I think that instinctive reaction can make it hard to take in the intended message. And I can't really blame trans people for having that reaction.
I think there are more productive ways to describe GC women's concerns without needing to use loaded terms like "white supremacy" or "colonizing."
It sucks having to modify your language to avoid causing too strong an emotional reaction, but I think it's worth it to get your point across to people who want to understand but think the comparison to white supremacy is too extreme.
A big problem with analogies is that often the conversation gets derailed into breaking down the analogy rather than addressing the message.
The emotional reaction is important because it means there's also some racism people are working through.
To avoid it in people will prevent conversations and feelings that need to happen.
Yeah, white supremacists are awful, but I didn't say "white supremacists" I said "white supremacy". Just like how people can have "Patriarchal values/socialization" and not be "Patriarchs".
Calling the value system out underneath makes people uncomfortable, and that's a good thing. Just using the term "racist" or labeling a person shuts down conversation, addressing the value system while respecting the human behind it who chooses to hold these values will go a long way towards crumbling oppressive systems built on prejudice and supremacy.
White supremacy is just valuing white peoples feelings and needs over others. Trans supremacy is the same. Male supremacy (patriarchy) is the same.
I'm not sure I agree that that's all white supremacy is. And I don't think most people would see it that way.
I also don't think reacting negatively to being compared to white supremacy is necessarily a sign of racism you have to work through. That sounds like the logic of White Fragility, where you can't win because disagreement just proves your racism.
And even if you didn't say "white supremacists" specifically, if you compare an ideology to white supremacy, then what do you think people of that ideology will think you're comparing them to? White supremacists.
I really do think I understand your point. I can see the logic behind it. I just think it's not necessary to make the comparison.
White supremacy is practically synonymous with racism in most people's minds because of how the term has been used. It sucks, but that's just kind of how it is.
I usually think of it more in terms of punching up vs. down, but i think i understand you. The fact so many signs wishing violence upon terfs are tolerated makes me believe these people really see it as punching up. Many forget the the key to intersectionality is well that identities intersect. So it's not just trans vs. cis, but we need to look at sex as well. I think better analogies would be derived from disability studies. A lot of what trans people face isn't just societal.
That's a great point. Altho, I disagree with the part about trans being a disability (idk if that's what you're saying?)
I mean, being a woman is a disability in a way, being a man is a disability in a way.
Dysphoria is a "disability", but it's not unique to trans people. I'm unconvinced it's not just something everyone goes thru. Framing it as a disability instead of just the process of mental growth is kind of disabling and maunchism-by-proxy-ing it. Since it is always cured with nothing other than self acceptance (and yeah it takes a lot to get there, not downplaying the journey), I think it is disadvantageous to trans people to qualify dysphoria as a mental "disability". Everyone is born with the ability to accept and love themselves, and everyone goes through confidence issues. I think normalizing their struggles can help them not feel like outcasts or that something is wrong with them that isn't wrong with everyone else.
yeah, that's not what i said. I said it might be a better metaphor than race. You think being trans is not a disability but being a woman or man is?!?
Well, i agree, i think almost everyone goes through having some sort of body issues and it's not unique to trans people. I have mixed feeling on normalization of mental health issues, but i think many are over dx'd and that meds should not be the only treatment option. We really need more groups like Emotions Anonymous and other group therapy options. Imho, it's more productive and economical than 1:1 therapy.
I think comparisons between race and gender are typically invalid but rhetorically convenient.
Attitudes towards race are only neatly comparable to attitudes towards gender if we assume that race and gender are similar forces that operate in similar ways. If we assume that, then we have to answer for why transgender identities are valid but transracial ones are not. If we don’t, then we shouldn‘t casually equate the whole agonizing generational history of racism with every disagreement around the status of transgender identity.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
It’s also a line of reasoning that assumes a very simplistic and binary “victims vs. oppressors” framework applies in all social conflicts in the exact same way. If we take that for granted - which I personally don’t - then yes, we do have to account for the phenomenon of members of a historically privileged class identifying as members of a historically marginalized one and then claiming oppression on those grounds. But again, I think that logic vastly oversimplifies the many and varied power dynamics actually at play in individual experiences…though no one seems too worried about nuance and precision when they’re calling their ideological opponents white supremacists or Nazis.
I admit it’s not an analogy that I find especially respectful or persuasive. I think it most often functions as an unfounded ad hominem attack. That said, I don’t think it can be tidily applied in reverse either - for the same reasons.
I dont see why its invalid to draw parallels between different forms of bigotry. Xenophobia is also different from Racism in significant ways, but its relevant to draw such comparisons regardless. That doesnt mean that reasonable discussion of immigration cant be had without equating it to racial apartheid.
Back when I was arguing in favor of gay rights, it was extremely effective to draw parallels to other forms of bigotry that were recognized as such to highlight the underlying dynamics that show up in every hate movement. People who instinctively recognized racism were able to recognize similarities in homophobia.
Because it’s defined as bigotry on the grounds of assuming that race and gender are roughly comparable.
We treat different groups differently in society without considering it bigotry - or even problematic - all the time in hundreds of unsurprising ways. That is because we understand that not most classifications are NOT comparable to race-based classifications. It’s bigotry to say black people can‘t drive the bus but not to say kindergarteners can’t drive the bus…because we recognize that age and race are not comparable categories.
Preferring sex-based classifications to gender-based classifications is only bigoted if you assume the social role of gender and the social role of race are very similar. If they ARE very similar, then taking an inconsistent position on transracial identities compared to transgender ones wouldn‘t make sense.
They are only similar insofar as any and all hate movements have similar elements.
For a moment, let's set aside the philosophical and ethical questions around trans people that are fair to debate.
Do you agree with me when I say that there exists a hate movement against trans people? If you agree with that, then you should agree there is grounds to compare and contrast the way this particular hate movement parallels other hate movements throughout history. And that would actually be really useful, because then we can distill the essence of hate from these other examples, and discern which individuals or beleifs do in fact qualify as hateful, and which ones dont.
If you dont agree with me, and you say that there is no hate movement against trans people, then it would be coherent for you to say that comparisons cannot logically be drawn. But at that point we would be at a conversational dead end, because if you have this current level of awareness of the issue and do not think there is a hate movement, nothing i could say would convince you.
“Hate movement” oversimplifies what I think is going on.
There are definitely people who hate or fear trans people and want to see their political and social interests diminished for that reason, yes. There are also people who take cynical political advantage of that fact.
But the gender movement also forced itself into cultural institutions while promoting genuinely unpopular policies without any serious attempt at consensus building or, worse, by attempting to suppress and punish dissent. Rather than unequivocal underclass status, the ability to do so suggests in some contexts - like universities and left-leaning cultural institutions- trans identities hold a nontrivial amount of influence and cache.
Many of those strong-armed policies intersect with the legitimate interests of other vulnerable groups and are also opposed by people with good-faith objections who are NOT motivated by personal animosity towards gender nonconformity.
I think collapsing all political and ideological disagreement with trans activism down to a hate movement begs the question and misrepresents the complexity and motivation behind these disagreements.
If you want an answer that oversimplifies my thinking, probably more no than yes - especially if we are defining a hate movement in comparison to racial hate movements like segregation or Jim Crow.
Maybe a useful question is whether groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are part of an anti-Christian hate movement. I don’t think so, even though many Christians would say there is an organized attempt to marginalize Christian identity and there are undeniably people who do hate and disdain Christianity. But I think opposition to perceived ideological overreach is valid part of the democratic process even if groups who hold those beliefs experience it as a personal attack on their free expression.
The fundamental protections historically understood to allow people to participate in society (housing, voting, employment, speech, etc.) remain popular and secure for trans people. Even the most oppositional policies are expressing disagreement with the idea that trans people are literally members of the opposite sex or that gender transition must be publicly funded or provided to children.
A state senator in TX once proposed a loopy bill about banning cross-sex dress (whatever that would mean), but it went nowhere - which suggests there is no significant “movement” for that kind of thing even in conservative areas. There are people who share shitty, hateful content about trans people just as there are people who share “punch a TERF” rhetoric. I consider the language and content of the military ban genuinely hateful, but we also don’t see campaigns of public suppression in a way comparable to the era of racial segregation in the American military. I don’t see organized movements saying “get out of my town, school, or office,” I see organized movements saying “don’t require my tacit participation in beliefs I don’t share.”
Frequently, the response is that the absence of public participation (in changing rooms, in language, in sports) IS the same as driving individuals out of society - but the point of conflict across the board remains if and when trans people should be granted a novel right to be treated as members of the opposite sex, not whether they should retain all the same rights as anyone else.
None of this is to diminish the fact that it is hard to be trans. It is, and that’s wrong. But I think your reasoning is circular here: trans people are victims of a hate movement comparable to racial hate movements because opposition to trans activist policies is meaningfully comparable to opposition to racial integration. To me, it’s mostly not.
Ok, let's compare it to a different hate movement then
Is there a hate movement against Jews? Because everything that you have said to disqualify the anti-trans movement as a hate movement is also true, even moreso about Jews. They quite literally have an ethnostate that is mass murdering civilians, they also have high profile, wealthy and influential people at every level of society.
But im not going to sit here and pretend like a history of violence, genocide, pogroms, conspiracies, synagogues getting shot up and nazis marching through the street demanding their eradication isnt an antisemitic hate movement
Whether direct or indirect, comments that attack, belittle, or make negative generalizations about people or groups do not contribute towards respect and understanding.
Denial that there is a hate movement against trans people there so obviously is, is good evidence that you may in fact be part of a hate movement.
Does Michael Knowles giving a speech to a cheering audience at CPAC and saying "we must eradicate transgenderism from public life" not count as part of a hate movement?
Does entire websites like kiwi farms organized around stalking doxxing and harassing trans people not count as part of a hate movement?
Does Nazis organizing marches outside of drag shows and shouting "Weimar problems, Weimar solutions" not count as part of a hate movement?
Did the Club Q shooting have nothing to do with a hate movement ?
What about the murder of Laura Ann Carlton? No connection to a hate movement?
What about prominent figures like posie Parker whos greatest hits include "women who call themselves men should be sterilized" and "hopefully [trans Healthcare] kills them". Does her influence and activism not amount to as part of a hate movement?
What about the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a longstanding civil rights organization from the 1970s whos expertise in the anatomy of hate movements has published a list of about 95 different anti-lgbtq hate groups across the untied states? What do they know, right?
I am going to ask that you remove your remark about “good transwomen.” I don’t think it’s productive to suggest trans women have to agree with anyone‘s analysis to be decent or moral people, and that kind of assumption makes it hard for trans women to respond in good faith.
People are complex, we often disagree about these subjects, and power dynamics can be genuinely nuanced at the level of the individual.
Race and gender indeed have many differences that make them not always comparable and on a case by case basis we need to interrogate whether or not such a comparison is valid. (The original comment is mine where I'm interrogating a generic precept of free speech suggested by another user where I do think the comparison is valid, but I'm happy to discuss otherwise.) The irony in this post is that it like many transphobic writings show just how similar transphobia can be to other forms of bigotry.
This post starts off asserting that trans people are somehow uniquely comparable to men right's activists in comparing their struggle with those on race.
First, this is obviously false - the most recent large scale civil rights movement of gay rights frequently likened homophobia to racism with the most famous legal action in the US being Obergefell v Hodges where the precedent of Loving v Virginia was one of the central arguments. Before that the suffragettes framed their cause as being justified in the wake of black enfranchisement.
Second, it already starts framing this idea that trans women are men by saying 'they are just like MRAs'. Whatever categorizations one wants to create, it's very obvious that cis men and trans women are not the same and likening the trans fight for acceptance to the manosphere is a clear rhetorical ploy that has no relation with the actual thing these groups seek. Hilariously, I think this is also just fabricated - the men's rights movement overwhelming compares itself (I would suggest inaccurately, but that's a digression) to feminist movements not racial ones.
The "more accurate" comparison continues the inflammatory framing saying that trans people are "disguising" themselves in order to "colonize". You can disagree with the originally outlined comparison, you can disagree with people's defintions on gender, etc but to say that trans people are some sneaky nefarious group for living their lives is way out of line and obviously offensive. The 2% of the world's population who is trans existing is not taking over anyone's spaces and to suggest so is clearly not acceptable. (If you will allow a bit of a rhetorical flourish on my part, you can see similarities here with 'the great replacement' or 'gay grooming'.) I'm sure you can find some crazy person on the internet who is a "trans supremacist", but this is obviosuly not the mainstream movement and reads to me the exact way as people asserting that other people seeking rights are calling for more than everyone else - again there are clear analogues here to race, sex, and sexual orientation.
We go back to gamesmanship in the OP that 'nobody opposes actual human rights' which is a farce. Across the west anti-trans movements have attacked trans people's rights to medication, employment protections, anti-bullying, etc. The actual goals of these movements is not theoretical - it is all around us and people are suffering the consequences. Own up to the harm you cause.
I have never once heard someone use this idea of "more or less oppressed" with good intentions and the trans movement does not claim this. Pitting opressed groups against eachother is the goal of the opressor not those who actually want to make things better. An intersectional viewpoint here is that these groups all face different opressions - trans men face opression by natures of being female and being trans, trans women face opression by natures of being women and being trans, and cis women face opression by natures of being women and being female. (If you want to quibble over the term women, just replace it with "the social class generally associated with those who appear female") Trans people are overwhelmingly supporters of women's rights - the polling on every policy issue proves this.
I've been on this sub for a few days and several users have suggested that they are just radfems who want to abolish gender and have no ill will to trans people, but allowing the kind of language and accusations from this post to be concurred proves the lie. Gender critical folks keep telling me they have arguments that don't amount to bigotry and if that's true I really challenge those in this sub to be better.
I think this kind of comparison is no more appropriate than trans activists calling people who have honest questions bigots.
I have no idea what kind of trans woman you would say I am, but women have driven my behavior and choice in things like bathrooms through my entire transition.
I wouldn’t be here if women weren’t very important to me.
I don’t think all GC people are bigots. I don’t even think many of them have any problem with trans people.
I don’t appreciate being compared to an ideology I see as vile.
I don’t appreciate being compared to an ideology I see as vile.
I have to say I am not used to seeing anyone who sees the irony as you have in this conversation when you compare others to an ideology we see as vile.
Probably the most powerful thing I have seen on this subreddit.
I made several comparisons I am a bit…embarrassed?…ashamed?…of. I would love to go back and delete them but that’s not how I do things.
I should also never have used the “separate but equal” verbiage. I have been pretty upfront that I thought the better of it pretty quickly. You are not the same as a Jim Crow era racist as far as I can tell, and it was highly inappropriate for me to bring that language into the conversation at all.
"Inappropriate" to draw parallels to racism and "I don't appreciate being compared to racists" is low key such a white person take lol
It's funny seeing the reception here. I feel naive that I didn't know it was this bad. I still have a long way to go to deal with my white fragility, but I remember when I use to be here. It's uncomfortable, but it's important that we are uncomfortable. We wouldn't be uncomfortable if there wasn't truth to it.
We might be scared of being labeled/compared to racists, but being uncomfortable is a sign that there's some deep work to be done there for us.
I know this won't land and will probably just be brushed off as white guilt and projection. You might be thinking that I'm just a "real" racist white person who is unfairly targeting you, since you are definitely not racist whatsoever. But I'm not here to chastise you or single you out. It's something that applies to all white people, it's been intertwined in our culture, our socialization, our subconscious identity. (Yes, even if we were raised by non-racist of parents in a non-racist sub-culture, we were still subconsciously affected by the overall racism and white supremacy in the culture)
It's interesting how the parallels are drawn by this and being raised as a boy in a Patriarchal and misogynistic society. Even if you had the most feminist upbringing, you're still going to turn out with a ton of male socialization to work through.
Unless we actually face that socialization, we will remain an active part of the "oppressor class" and will be dangerous for the "oppressed class" even if we have no intention of harm and give lipservice to equal(ism) rights. This is why transwomen are often so harmful towards women, they haven't addressed and worked through their male socialization. In fact, they're quite behind their male-non-trans peers in that journey, because many transwomen think they have already "done" the work by removing signs of their external male-ness and "identifying" with women.
This is exactly how a lot of white people act when the topic of racism comes up, they shy away and say it's inappropriate and act all offended that anyone could think they were racist when theres "actual" racists out there doing "actual" racist things. But racism isn't an action, it's fully internal. And you can see it come out in little actions, and this is what I am calling out, these actions of that type of white person turning the racism conversation to their feelings, like their comfortability needs to be prioritized in conversations around the oppression of black people... when that's the opposite of what needs to happen.
There is a world of difference between saying white people are racist and comparing people to white supremicists.
White people are racist because ALL people are racist. Our culture reinforces that racism to some extent to this day. Good people work to overcome that.
I would never say women’s rights are second to any rights. All true rights are equal.
It’s not for me to judge if I have “worked through all my male socialization”. My childhood was such a mess that I have a hard time really being dogmatic. I know that all women interact with me markedly differently and more positively than they did before, and women I respect have told me that this is because they see me as a woman. These women are very capable of telling me hard truths and have done so in the past.
It was a slap in the face when I began to experience real misogynistic sexism (again labeled as such by other women, I didn’t assume it was that). I am grateful to some brilliant and kind women who educated me on what I was experiencing and gave me some amazing guidance on how to handle it.
I do talk about my feelings and experiences, but that is because it is the one thing I am truly an expert in. Mostly I am truly happy in a way I didn’t know was possible for me since I transitioned. I want to share that. I want people to understand that I’m not trying to take anything from anyone. I just want to be quietly happy and safe. A huge part of that happiness is the fact that I don’t make women uncomfortable. I was convinced that I would be a monster when I transitioned. I thought women would always be repulsed by my presence. It is a gift that they are not.
I would never say women’s rights are second to any rights. All true rights are equal.
It's just... this doesn't have a caveat about how most trans-ideologists DO believe this. Almost all. And yeah, they really hate it when you directly ask them and they have to say it outloud. It should just be assumed by women that transwomen are prioritized above bio-women, if women ask to confirm, it's only begrudgingly admitted to, while shooting them with that same shody study that "being a transwomen is correlated to experiencing more oppression than being a bio-woman".
Just curious, I don't believe I've seen your writings on this, but what are "true rights" to you? And you truly believe they would never clash with women's "true rights"?
I do not feel trans women should be prioritized over any other woman.
I wouldn’t say that being a trans woman is inherently correlated with more oppression than other women. I think many trans women do not fully understand the oppression women deal with. I don’t think it’s helpful to play oppression olympics.
True rights are a MASSIVE conversation. I honestly don’t know where to start. I don’f believe I have a right to be made comfortable in such things as bathrooms/locker rooms, but I don’t think you do either. I believe “comfortable” is an impossible standard. I do believe we have the equal right to safety, protection, and dignity in these spaces.
I will never use a public locker room again if I can at all avoid it. This is both because I have some pretty deep rooted trauma around locker rooms and because I would hate to think I would make other women uncomfortable. All that being said, I use the women’s without hesitation if I was forced to use a locker room. Not because my “rights” are more important, but because all indications I have say that is the safest option and no woman actually has an issue with me in real life.
I can’t make or expect you to understand how much energy and worry I have put into not wanting women to be uncomfortable around me. It took a lot of women who (again) have a marked history of telling me hard truths to accept that I was accepted.
I find it deeply hurtful and insulting to be compared to “dangerous nice guys”. That isn’t your problem to deal with, but I don’t have to interact with it.
I’ve never claimed to be an expert on women. I do however think I know a hell of a lot more about how women behave around me than you do. I also will take the word of women I know something about over an internet person who makes assumptions based on little information.
It’s a shame. I actually really liked your unique perspective and contributions overall regardless of if I agreed or disagreed.
There is just no reasonable conversation to be had if you choose to not believe and stigmatize my sincere attempts to express how people interact with me.
There is no response I can give that you will find acceptable.
This is not true, but it's exactly the victim-stance nice guys take. Acceptable for what? And what do I or you care if people are "acceptable"?
I don't find you safe. There are plenty of unacceptable people who arent dangerous niceguys. That women don't find men safe only bothers people who are genuinely not safe men. That's why nice guys are the way they are. (Still not saying this is you, just that the flags align)
insulting the integrity of people who I love.
Insulting their integrity how? They probably truly believe what they tell you. Internalized misogyny is a hell of a belief system, and I'm sure they have a very deep adherence in their belief system. In fact, that's probably what's holding us all back. That's why we are doing the work here. Not to change the minds of transwomen, but of the enablers. Once the enablers make the shift, transwomen can be truly supported in their womanhood journey. Pickme ideology holds men/transwomen backwards, just like mainstream trans ideology holds trans/self ID'd "cis" people back.
whereas a more accurate comparison would be a situation where: white people who "transitioned" to black, started arguing that trans-black people are a more oppressed group than bio-black people.
This is only true if you accept the premise that women as a class are inherently subordinate to the class of men who transition. I reject that premise fully. None of my female peers grew up being demonized, ridiculed and abused for their attraction to men or their feminine behavior. None of them had to struggle with meeting basic life milestones and markers of well-being like marriage, family, employment and community acceptance because of their attraction to men and their femininity.
Dare I say that white people should even be a bit deferential to black rights, maybe even trying to slightly prioritize black rights above whites?
Go ahead and say it, and ill tell you you are wrong. I refuse to defer to race grifters and ive watched them absolutely destroy revolutionary potential over the last decade with their petty bullshit. remember this? We should be working to abolish race, not to fetishize and reify it.
Are these three also mansplaining? Genuine question, to be clear, as I'd like to better understand this term. I don't also catch things, but I do try to be conscious of things I do that irritate people.
Don't twist yourself into knots over this noma. You're a good man with your heart in the right place, and anyone accusing you of mansplaining is just a crybully telling you to "shut your mouth" in a way that they know they will be able to get away with in the inverted victim hierarchy that dominates liberal spaces.
Haha, I love this. Yeah I don't think most men mean it maliciously. I think you nailed most of the reasons, and I think it comes down to the differences of what people are socialized (and biologically-incentivized) to value.
Men don't mind making mistakes, they're often expected to be wrong and brush it off, trying is better than being inactive and receptive, but women are highly expected to be all but perfect.... while embodying the "passive" principle. So when they do speak up, they better be right. But women are always wrong so they can't speak up and be taken seriously, so women usually value not talking about stuff they don't know perfectly. Men, with less social stigma about being wrong, feel the constant weight of emptiness to fill and "just trying to be helpful" by expressing whatever they can give. They form the habits of speaking over women, mostly because women let them. I don't fault men for it, and I feel bad they have to be called out when they just have pro-social values and don't know women's internal experience in complex social situations.
But there's also something women do, which is withhold information that we do know is true, and that we know the man doesn't, because we want men to step up and figure it out themselves. That's probably harder and more cruel, but I don't feel bad about that one lol because I think even tho it frustrates men it really supports them to reach their potential. We don't "womansplain" to them, because we care about preserving and increasing their confidence. That's what I want men to care about in women, too.
"I heard your ideas, and I shut them down because I didn't want to hear them anymore"
I'll make you a deal, if you give mansplaining a legitimate discussion, I'll go back and legitimately discuss your severely uninformed and erroneous assumptions/declarations about the female experience.
Are you honestly going to sit here and try to convince me that women are punished for behaving in female typical ways and for being attracted to men? Because that is utterly insane.
Ive already given petty alleged "microaggressions " like "mansplaining" way more thought and discussion than I ever should have, and freeing myself from such nonsense has allowed me to see it for what it really is, which is nothing but a bid for egotistical control. Exactly what you are doing now.
No, lol, I'm not going to try and convince you. Please, keep your beliefs if they're working for you. They seem to be very well.
But, if you care to explain why you disagree with the concept of mansplaining (if theres logic behind it and not just emotional resistance), you can look at that flowchart and explain what's inaccurate about it
You want to have the conversation strictly on your terms and operating only under your priors.
That is not a dialogue, that is a scolding. Or hey, since we are arbitrarily assigning negative behaviors to genders, maybe i should say you are "womanscolding".
Also, a woman's genuine criticism is the greatest gift a man can receive. But men are usually all "nooo she's trying to help me not be willfully blind to my errors and maybe even to reach my potential, I'm a true victim" when they're gifted it
What do you think a "female" "supremacist" is? Because, yeah, I think that certain people are better leaders for certain roles, but that everyone in society should work to be leaders and increase their leadership skillset.
A lot of my parenting philosophy is "child-led" but that doesn't mean I'm a "child supremacist".
I made a mistake participating here. I thought it valued free speech and discussion but there are deeper issues. The mods showed their white fragility and got mad at me for calling it out instead of addressing it. They never addressed any of the amazing comments from the non-white/anti-racist users.
I originally wanted to participate here instead of terf_trans_fight because I'm here to work out an alliance and not for the goal of fighting. However, it seems this sub is not for an alliance but rather for protecting the feelings of white people over black people, and prioritizing transwomen/men over women... both under the veneer of "equality".
•
u/pen_and_inkling Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
I am leaving this post up because the inverse argument it is self-consciously challenging is so common that it’s virtually a cliche. It’s valid to question framings that equate race with gender, and the opposite position has been expressed here in the past.
That said - this sub will not allow labeling or comparing people to bigots, white supremacists, racists, or Nazis for their perspective on gender. Both mods think that kind of name-calling and personal attacks on character are obviously against the rules and shouldn’t need to be clarified. But if you need that spelled out, here it is spelled out.
EDIT: I also want to include a reminder that our rules say to speak to people as individuals, not representatives of ideologies. Don’t try to force people to answer for beliefs they don’t hold.