The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Swith Witherward]

Not necessarily anti-Feminists, but the crowd here definitely seems more Anti-SJW, which is disappointing.

-snip, unrelated-

Emphasis, mine.


This thread is NOT about SJWs. You are free to go make your own thread about them. Promote them or decry their efforts to your heart's content. Please stop going off topic here.

Transgender topics do at times tie into feminism. You broach the topic in order to blather on about "Cis privilege". We are not the Transgender thread. Take your issues with "Cis privilege" up there. You also have the option of creating a thread specifically dedicated to bathroom equality laws.

As others have stated, your strawman nonsense, AXAY comparisons, and ignorance to the facts were addressed multiple times hence your commentary is swiftly becoming trifling and circular to the point of irritating people. Please, stop already. Read this post again, and take it to heart.

Thanks

[Mattopilos II]

So I assume you view Andrea Dworkin as having been a positive influence on society? People like her are the reason nobody likes radical feminism.

She is one of the sole reasons TERF and SWERF thought has survived so long.

[Philjia]

"Women of the World event drops conversation between rape victim and her attacker"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... r-attacker

[Costa Fierro]

"Women of the World event drops conversation between rape victim and her attacker"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... r-attacker

Hey, there's agendas that gotta be pushed. I find it amusing that they were expecting to drag this guy onstage so that those present could start doing God know's what to him instead of finding out him and his victim have confronted and reconciled.

[Geo-Agorist Territory]

So I assume you view Andrea Dworkin as having been a positive influence on society? People like her are the reason nobody likes radical feminism.

You assume wrongly.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Transgender topics do at times tie into feminism. You broach the topic in order to blather on about "Cis privilege". We are not the Transgender thread. Take your issues with "Cis privilege" up there. You also have the option of creating a thread specifically dedicated to bathroom equality laws.

Wait, wut? Can I have a look at the community discussion and vote where you were granted the power to arbitrarily police the boundaries of what is "relevant"? I'd like to read the story of your legitimacy to proclaim from on high that whether some women are more privileged than others (and might actually be engaged in discrimination against others on gendered grounds) is somehow "off-menu" for discussion.

It may of course be that you're being dismissive because such things being raised here - rather than in a conveniently separated ghetto - might disrupt the clunky and culty patriarchy theory that so many feminists continue to rely upon to constantly presume that gendered oppression is something that's done by men over women, and that any examples of other gendered power relations are false or somehow still ultimately all about the poor widdle oppressed ciswoman instead?

It's very telling that you seem to think that bathroom equality laws are not relevant to feminism. Shows that you don't really have much of a care about either trans folks or those cis folks who have had their right to go to the shitter questioned because they don't fit gendered stereotypes sufficiently.

Feminism: asserting to be a universal ideology against gender inequality but simultaneously trying to shut out any discussion about anything other than the poor downtrodden ciswoman.

Discussion about trans rights? About attempts by women's organizations to obscure the number of male rape and domestic abuse victims? About victims of false rape accusations?

THAT'S NOT ABOUT CISWOMEN! GET IT OUT OF MY FEMINIST THREAD!

[Chessmistress]

Personal opinion: "cis privilege" is nonsense, and I think that when badly applied it's substantially an anti-feminist idea.
Lack of discrimination is lack of discrimination, lack of discrimination isn't "privilege".
Privilege is defined as

an unfair and unearned systemic advantage.

Therefore lack of discrimination isn't "an unfair and unearned systemic advantage", unless you're suggesting that all people should face the same kind of discrimination.
Intersectionalism simply fail to understand the difference between "lack of discrimination" and "privilege" - example:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/130 ... privilege/
Practically this is a list of specifical issues that transpeople have to face.
Labelling those issues as "cis privilege" isn't going to solve it, because it suggest that even so-called "cis" people should have the same issues.
Some points even show plain ignorance:

20. You’re less likely to be misgendered in the workplace.

Nope.
Being "cis" mean it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to be misgendered in the workplace. Not "less likely".

37. You are more likely to see characters of your gender identity and experience portrayed in films, books, television, etc.

So it should be, that's right, it's a feature, not a problem.
Women should be about 50% characters and dialogues within movies and medias because women are 51%.
If you're within a gender identity who is 1% population, then you should see about 1% characters and dialogues within movies and medias being your gender identity.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Personal opinion: "cis privilege" is nonsense, and I think that when badly applied it's substantially an anti-feminist idea.
Lack of discrimination is lack of discrimination, lack of discrimination isn't "privilege".
Privilege is defined as

an unfair and unearned systemic advantage.

Therefore lack of discrimination isn't "an unfair and unearned systemic advantage", unless you're suggesting that all people should face the same kind of discrimination.
Intersectionalism simply fail to understand the difference between "lack of discrimination" and "privilege" - example:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/130 ... privilege/
Practically this is a list of specifical issues that transpeople have to face.
Labelling those issues as "cis privilege" isn't going to solve it, because it suggest that even so-called "cis" people should have the same issues.

I'm going to ignore the sections of this that are just CM's trademarked incomprehensible word salad and keep it very simple.

Not being discriminated against is a systemic advantage over those who are discriminated against. That advantage isn't out of merit - unless you believe you have reached some great achievement by not being trans - so you have an unearned advantage over trans people. Ergo, by the very definition you've given...privilege.

B I N G O
I
N
G
O

Some points even show plain ignorance:

20. You’re less likely to be misgendered in the workplace.

Nope.
Being "cis" mean it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to be misgendered in the workplace. Not "less likely".

It's very much less common, but it's not ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Everyday feminism is a stupid website so they've for some reason only mentioned the workplace, but cis people who aren't sufficiently "feminine" or "masculine" do get misgendered, called transphobic slurs, or even assaulted because people think that they're trans.

The very much lower rate of this happening, though, would seem to be an advantage for your lot (unless you fantasize about getting beaten up?!), and not one based on merit --> criteria met.

37. You are more likely to see characters of your gender identity and experience portrayed in films, books, television, etc.

So it should be, that's right, it's a feature, not a problem.
Women should be about 50% characters and dialogues within movies and medias because women are 51%.
If you're within a gender identity who is 1% population, then you should see about 1% characters and dialogues within movies and medias being your gender identity.

Again, everyday feminism is a trash website and I'm not required to defend all their particular examples for the concept to be valid. I actually don't have a problem with there not being many trans characters in media because generally they're written by people who can't be arsed to do proper research and they're crap characters.

I am interested by your idea that 1% of characters and dialogue are trans, though. One in every hundred characters in all of media is trans and one in every hundred lines of dialogue are about trans issues? What planet are you living on? I guess we must be living rent free in your brain

I don't really like the language of privilege in general and I don't use it because its so misused by crappy debaters to try to silence other people's opinions. But cis privilege is absolutely as much of a valid concept as "male privilege" or "white privilege". Sorry, that's just fact.

[Geo-Agorist Territory]

...might disrupt the clunky and culty patriarchy theory that so many feminists continue to rely upon to constantly presume that gendered oppression is something that's done by men over women, and that any examples of other gendered power relations are false or somehow still ultimately all about the poor widdle oppressed ciswoman instead?

I have zero doubt that transwomen have it much worse than the majority of women (I am one, although closeted). For transmen it's not as bad for them as transwomen. Personally I like the word "kyriarchy", it's much less misunderstood than patriarchy and major feminists like Twisty who avoid using kyriarchy and stick with patriarchy still tend to treat them as synonyms. In the case of describing all structural oppression as "patriarchy" you might have a point that that's a stretch, although it's really just bad terminology. It's true patriarchy is much more complex a concept than it might first appear (in particular your description of it is inaccurate) and I can see how misunderstanding it might lead you into denying "patriarchy" exists while still basically conceding the substance of it, but I think the substance is still an accurate descriptor of reality and am puzzled by attempts to deny this.

Feminism: asserting to be a universal ideology against gender inequality but simultaneously trying to shut out any discussion about anything other than the poor downtrodden ciswoman.

There's plenty of intersectional feminists and transfeminists. In fact, they seem to be the majority now.

[Des-Bal]

Wait, wut? Can I have a look at the community discussion and vote where you were granted the power to arbitrarily police the boundaries of what is "relevant"? I'd like to read the story of your legitimacy to proclaim from on high that whether some women are more privileged than others (and might actually be engaged in discrimination against others on gendered grounds) is somehow "off-menu" for discussion.

It may of course be that you're being dismissive because such things being raised here - rather than in a conveniently separated ghetto - might disrupt the clunky and culty patriarchy theory that so many feminists continue to rely upon to constantly presume that gendered oppression is something that's done by men over women, and that any examples of other gendered power relations are false or somehow still ultimately all about the poor widdle oppressed ciswoman instead?

It's very telling that you seem to think that bathroom equality laws are not relevant to feminism. Shows that you don't really have much of a care about either trans folks or those cis folks who have had their right to go to the shitter questioned because they don't fit gendered stereotypes sufficiently.

Feminism: asserting to be a universal ideology against gender inequality but simultaneously trying to shut out any discussion about anything other than the poor downtrodden ciswoman.

Discussion about trans rights? About attempts by women's organizations to obscure the number of male rape and domestic abuse victims? About victims of false rape accusations?

THAT'S NOT ABOUT CISWOMEN! GET IT OUT OF MY FEMINIST THREAD!

The problem is that he decided the thread was filled with anti-sjw's, said his primary problem with anti-sjw's was their focus on mild cisphobia, reverse bigotry, gay people acting hypocritically, and the kill all whites attitude espoused by a small minority of people. He then insisted that his detractors justify those specific issues deserving their own movement. No amount of persuasion or gentle guidance has been able to lead him to the actual topic, when I tried to tie it back into opposition to feminism he brushed it off as being beyond the scope of what he was talking about. The problem isn't that he wants to talk about feminism from a different perspective it's that he wants to talk about sjw detractors.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There's plenty of intersectional feminists and transfeminists. In fact, they seem to be the majority now.

The majority of feminists when asked directly will claim not to be transphobic or to have any transphobic assumptions embedded in their theoretical frameworks.

I've debated with a fair few over the years, my mileage varies on the veracity of that particular point. There's a reason I'm an ex-feminist

[New Edom]

There's plenty of intersectional feminists and transfeminists. In fact, they seem to be the majority now.

The majority of feminists when asked directly will claim not to be transphobic or to have any transphobic assumptions embedded in their theoretical frameworks.

I've debated with a fair few over the years, my mileage varies on the veracity of that particular point. There's a reason I'm an ex-feminist

Well let's be perfectly honest: it's weird. That doesn't mean we cannot respect what is weird or even cherish it, but pretending it's normal is ridiculous. You cannot pretend that for instance having a workmate who is parapalegic is normal, but that doesn't mean they cannot contribute valuably. People often seem to mistake liking or normalizing something for being respect, but it isn't. People respect Stephen Hawking because he has a brilliant mind and has persisted in his work in spite of his disease, not because he has the disease.

[New Edom]

"Women of the World event drops conversation between rape victim and her attacker"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... r-attacker

And of course it's still a 'women's issue'--except when it's a man's issue and we're telling men 'not to rape'. Another example of the mainstream's orthodoxy shouting down anyone who brings another viewpoint to the table.

But I think this is what Mr. Plinkett calls "the law of averageness" where average people tend to take something over and want to remain in their comfort zone. Many celebrities, media personalities, activist leaders and teachers of feminism play up to this, just like mainstream movie producers, and if you think about it, why wouldn't they? It's far more profitable on average than taking the risk of being truly thought provoking.

[New Edom]

Personal opinion: "cis privilege" is nonsense, and I think that when badly applied it's substantially an anti-feminist idea.
Lack of discrimination is lack of discrimination, lack of discrimination isn't "privilege".
Privilege is defined as

an unfair and unearned systemic advantage.

Therefore lack of discrimination isn't "an unfair and unearned systemic advantage", unless you're suggesting that all people should face the same kind of discrimination.
Intersectionalism simply fail to understand the difference between "lack of discrimination" and "privilege" - example:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/130 ... privilege/
Practically this is a list of specifical issues that transpeople have to face.
Labelling those issues as "cis privilege" isn't going to solve it, because it suggest that even so-called "cis" people should have the same issues.
Some points even show plain ignorance:

20. You’re less likely to be misgendered in the workplace.

Nope.
Being "cis" mean it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to be misgendered in the workplace. Not "less likely".

37. You are more likely to see characters of your gender identity and experience portrayed in films, books, television, etc.

So it should be, that's right, it's a feature, not a problem.
Women should be about 50% characters and dialogues within movies and medias because women are 51%.
If you're within a gender identity who is 1% population, then you should see about 1% characters and dialogues within movies and medias being your gender identity.

I partly agree here. I agree that just because being a normal heterosexual is more common doesn't make it a 'privilege'. It's a stupidly misused word by the intersexual community, especially shallow actors in it like Everyday Feminism, the Cosmopolitan Magazine of feminism.

On the other hand Chess, I disagree completely that 50% of characters in movies shoujld be female. We don't need a quota. We just need films about good characters that are interesting where there's an overall fair standard. We have that. Some of my favourite movies have 95% female or male characters. Tokenism ruins things. Do we need a female knight for no reason in a movie set in the Middle Ages? Unless there was some historic female knight we're referring to, no we don't. We need instead to be able to talk to kids who ask "why can't women be soldiers" about history and explain how things change. We also don't need token anything, Black, Chinese, whatever.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The majority of feminists when asked directly will claim not to be transphobic or to have any transphobic assumptions embedded in their theoretical frameworks.

I've debated with a fair few over the years, my mileage varies on the veracity of that particular point. There's a reason I'm an ex-feminist

Well let's be perfectly honest: it's weird. That doesn't mean we cannot respect what is weird or even cherish it, but pretending it's normal is ridiculous. You cannot pretend that for instance having a workmate who is parapalegic is normal, but that doesn't mean they cannot contribute valuably. People often seem to mistake liking or normalizing something for being respect, but it isn't. People respect Stephen Hawking because he has a brilliant mind and has persisted in his work in spite of his disease, not because he has the disease.

Not going to dispute that, but then again I've not come across many feminists arguing that being paraplegic doesn't "really" exist, that all disability is "drag", that it's just "throwing on a different wheelchair", and that it'll disappear when they've finished their job of abolishing limb roles

[Chestaan]

You assume wrongly.

Then why did you go out of your way earlier to point out that she was not TERF? You, as a self-described radfem, have pointed to her as a good example of radfems.

[Chessmistress]

Not being discriminated against is a systemic advantage over those who are discriminated against.

Nope, not being discriminated isn't an advantage.
It's A RIGHT.
A RIGHT is the opposite of a privilege

That advantage not being discriminated isn't out of merit

Fixed.
And the answer is: not being discriminated isn't my merit, it's my RIGHT.

It's your right, too.

But since you keep defining "not being discriminated" as a "privilege" then you have two options:

First: try to take away such "privilege" from other people, "cis" people. Hardly it can work.

Second: don't try to get a privilege, it would be unfair.

- unless you believe you have reached some great achievement by not being trans - so you have an unearned advantage over trans people. Ergo, by the very definition you've given...privilege.

We both have the right to vote.
People in some countries haven't such right, due dictatorships.
Would you say that both me and you have the "privilege" of voting?
It would be a very slippery slope, defining voting as a "privilege"...don't you agree?

[Galloism]

Not being discriminated against is a systemic advantage over those who are discriminated against.

Nope, not being discriminated isn't an advantage.
It's A RIGHT.
A RIGHT is the opposite of a privilege

Oh good. There's no such thing as male privilege then.

Glad we can throw that nonsense out for good.

[Chessmistress]

I partly agree here. I agree that just because being a normal heterosexual is more common doesn't make it a 'privilege'. It's a stupidly misused word by the intersexual community, especially shallow actors in it like Everyday Feminism, the Cosmopolitan Magazine of feminism.

Being "cis" isn't about being heterosexual: there are plenty bisexual and lesbian women who are "cis".

Do we need a female knight for no reason in a movie set in the Middle Ages? Unless there was some historic female knight we're referring to, no we don't.

I agree, we don't need to make historical movies being inaccurate.
Indeed the Bechdel test isn't about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

The Bechdel test (/ˈbɛkdəl/ BEK-dəl) asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women or girls who talk to each other about something other than a man or boy. The requirement that the two women or girls must be named is sometimes added.

About half of all films meet these requirements, according to user-edited databases and the media industry press. The test is used as an indicator for the active presence of women in films and other fiction, and to call attention to gender inequality in fiction.

[New Edom]

Well let's be perfectly honest: it's weird. That doesn't mean we cannot respect what is weird or even cherish it, but pretending it's normal is ridiculous. You cannot pretend that for instance having a workmate who is parapalegic is normal, but that doesn't mean they cannot contribute valuably. People often seem to mistake liking or normalizing something for being respect, but it isn't. People respect Stephen Hawking because he has a brilliant mind and has persisted in his work in spite of his disease, not because he has the disease.

Not going to dispute that, but then again I've not come across many feminists arguing that being paraplegic doesn't "really" exist and that it'll disappear when they've finished their job of abolishing limb roles

Heh.

Oddly, this small percentage of troubled people, some of whom are very unhappy and feel very threatened, are causing as much controvery within feminism as among the mainstream population. But I can see why. Who is a woman is a fundamental question in feminism.

For example I'd say that the majority of feminists I've met, listened to and read anything by see women as separate but equal; they shouldn't be treated exactly as men have been historically treated but they should have all the rights that successful and effective men have had. They just differ in how they want to go about that. Some want to level the playing field with new policies, others want to let women sink or swim on their own merits, etc. But even so, nearly all of them agree on separate but equal. Violence, place in relationships, who gets to be offended and so on are key to these issues. Well, transmen and transwomen throw all that off.

[Chessmistress]

Nope, not being discriminated isn't an advantage.
It's A RIGHT.
A RIGHT is the opposite of a privilege

Oh good. There's no such thing as male privilege then.

Glad we can throw that nonsense out for good.

Except that women are actually discriminated: wage gap, new attacks against abortion, lack of female politicians and female CEOs, double work (job and home chores) for those who have a male partner.
This is a lack of RIGHTS, indeed:
Women have the right to be paid the same of a man for doing the same work.
Women have (should have) reproductive rights and full bodily autonomy.
Women have the right to be represented in the government.
Women have the right to fully participate to economy.
Women have the right to have the same amount of free time as men have.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Not being discriminated against is a systemic advantage over those who are discriminated against.

Nope, not being discriminated isn't an advantage.
It's A RIGHT.
A RIGHT is the opposite of a privilege

That advantage not being discriminated isn't out of merit

Fixed.
And the answer is: not being discriminated isn't my merit, it's my RIGHT.

It's your right, too.

But since you keep defining "not being discriminated" as a "privilege" then you have two options:

First: try to take away such "privilege" from other people, "cis" people. Hardly it can work.

Second: don't try to get a privilege, it would be unfair.

- unless you believe you have reached some great achievement by not being trans - so you have an unearned advantage over trans people. Ergo, by the very definition you've given...privilege.

We both have the right to vote.
People in some countries haven't such right, due dictatorships.
Would you say that both me and you have the "privilege" of voting?
It would be a very slippery slope, defining voting as a "privilege"...don't you agree?

Your right to not be discriminated against in the particular ways that trans people are in society is already being granted. YAY!

Trans people's right not to be discriminated against in those ways is not. BOO!

That your are being treated right while some others aren't is situational good luck and an advantage that you didn't work for, therefore you've lucked into a position of greater privilege. The way to overcome that is for these advantages to be extended to trans people, and then neither is privileged over the other.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh good. There's no such thing as male privilege then.

Glad we can throw that nonsense out for good.

Except that women are actually discriminated: wage gap, new attacks against abortion, lack of female politicians and female CEOs, double work (job and home chores) for those who have a male partner.
This is a lack of RIGHTS, indeed:
Women have the right to be paid the same of a man for doing the same work.
Women have (should have) reproductive rights and full bodily autonomy.
Women have the right to be represented in the government.
Women have the right to fully participate to economy.
Women have the right to have the same amount of free time as men have.

So you want women to no longer face these discriminations? You want them to enjoy the same elevated position that men do? That's exactly what trans people want with regards to your social advantages.

It's literally exactly the fucking same.

[Chessmistress]

Nope, not being discriminated isn't an advantage.
It's A RIGHT.
A RIGHT is the opposite of a privilege



Fixed.
And the answer is: not being discriminated isn't my merit, it's my RIGHT.

It's your right, too.

But since you keep defining "not being discriminated" as a "privilege" then you have two options:

First: try to take away such "privilege" from other people, "cis" people. Hardly it can work.

Second: don't try to get a privilege, it would be unfair.



We both have the right to vote.
People in some countries haven't such right, due dictatorships.
Would you say that both me and you have the "privilege" of voting?
It would be a very slippery slope, defining voting as a "privilege"...don't you agree?

Your right to not be discriminated against in the particular ways that trans people are in society is already being granted. YAY!

Trans people's right not to be discriminated against in those ways is not. BOO!

If you think that transpeople have the right to not being discriminated, why are you calling "not being discriminated" a "privilege"?
Either "not being discriminated" is a right or is a privilege, it cannot be both, since rights and privileges are the opposite.

That's your are being treated right while some others aren't is situational good luck and an advantage that you didn't work for, therefore you've lucked into a position of greater privilege. The way to overcome that is for this privilege to be extended to trans people.

Privilege is defined as an unfair advantage, given the definition it should be eliminated, not extended.
That's the problem I have with the wrong definition of "cis privilege".

[Dumb Ideologies]

Your right to not be discriminated against in the particular ways that trans people are in society is already being granted. YAY!

Trans people's right not to be discriminated against in those ways is not. BOO!

If you think that transpeople have the right to not being discriminated, why are you calling "not being discriminated" a "privilege"?
Either "not being discriminated" is a right or is a privilege, it cannot be both, since rights and privileges are the opposite.

That's your are being treated right while some others aren't is situational good luck and an advantage that you didn't work for, therefore you've lucked into a position of greater privilege. The way to overcome that is for this privilege to be extended to trans people.

Privilege is defined as an unfair advantage, given the definition it should be eliminated, not extended.
That's the problem I have with the wrong definition of "cis privilege".

You eliminate the privilege by removing the discrimination and therefore eroding the systematic advantage. It is still exactly the same, as amusing as it is to see you try to wriggle out of it.

Literally all the flaws you're finding with cis privilege apply equally to other forms of privilege. If cis privilege doesn't exist, female privilege doesn't exist. Deal with it.