Why do some feminists oppose misogyny but support gender ideology?

[Doodwhatareyou]

I recently ended up in the man hating side of tiktok, which is a place I tend to be in agreement with. I’ve seen several women bravely battle stupid men in the comments who manage to reinforce everything being said.

I’ve seen a pattern though that these women, who seem to be very up on rules of misogyny, and aware of how problematic too many men are, usually have pronouns in their bio, and occasionally will complain about being bullied by terfs.

I’m baffled.

How can they be so up on patriarchal nonsense yet miss the fundamental misogyny in gender ideology. How can they deny the evidence that trans identified men are just as much of a problem for women if not more as they want women’s rights and spaces.

They can make endless videos about how hateful men are because of the way women are treated, and how women have to budge up and make room, yet trans identified men are women, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive bigot. I don’t understand.

I think people need to be clear that men cos-playing at feminism, isn't actually feminism. Just saying.

Nice try, but you know full well toilet policing ultimately costs gender non conforming cis women their privacy, safety & security.

It's just another form of patriarchal control over women's bodies. Quite perverse & creepy coming from women.

I mean to be honest, women in the construction trade can be pretty GNC but I don’t understand why female single sex spaces cost them privacy, security and dignity? Even on construction sites, the men are very careful to ensure these are protected for their female colleagues. Are you saying this is wrong? Why are you so invested in the plight of women in the construction industry. Other women are just as worthy of your concern don’t you think?

What you are calling biological essentialism is simply recognising that the human race comes in two sexes. Male and female - and that they have differences.

Nobody is saying that you must dress, present, or engage in certain activities or pass-times purely on the basis of your sex. That would be the true biological essentialism - and seems to be what it is you are preaching.

This 'trans' idea arises from a total disconnection, or a desire ( or fantasy) to be free from the facts of the body and material reality of life on earth - believing instead that we can be whatever we fancy,This fantasy -desire ignores and entirely tramples on the boundaries of female people - in pursuit of a transhumanist dream - which largely centres male people.

@Kingdomofsleep

I totally see how my initial comment could be misunderstood :) No need to apologise.

And yes, I totally agree that there are hard limits to what humanity can achieve with regards to biology. I would know: I'm a transman 😅But a transman who knows only too well that they are, always have been, and always will be, female! That's what the "trans" in "transman" means : that biology cannot be erased when it comes to sex. It's literally written in every cell of my body.

A woman will always be needed to bear a child. This really frustrates certain people.

It really looks like it, doesn't it?

I don't need to try to act, or be, female. I simply am. I speak from long experience. You clearly have no respect for the lives of women and girls. I understand and feel that instinctivley. Most women have come across creepy men who have no respect for them, and simply use them as part of their sexual fantasy. We can recognise it a mile off.

No it doesn’t. It’s just made up twaddle by TRA’s that swathes of women, who look soooo gender non conforming (even up close and personal and when they open their mouths and speak) are now getting abused and accosted in women’s toilets.

Total BS.

The realisation of how the left political parties were so prepared and delighted to remove women's rights is scary and something I can never forget.

Way to demonstrate you neither understand nor care for feminism, if you don't even understand that women need to have words to designate ourselves if we are to fight for our rights. It's the most basic step: to name the thing you want to talk about.

I’ll reserve perverse and creepy for men who pretend to be women going into spaces not for them. And the women (no need for a word to state they aren’t trans) who support this. Ultimate perverseness.

The only side fixated on toilet provision are trans rights activists, because it's the easiest target for them - "we just want to pee"; "how will you police this?"

GC feminism is about keeping prisons single sex, providing single sex intimate care, single sex hospital wards, women only rape and domestic violence refuges, keeping men out of women's sports, allowing lesbians to form their own groups and associations without straight men insisting they belong... And all the rest. It's tiring, expensive and a massive waste of our energies.

If trans identifying men would just stay in their fucking lane instead of trying to colonise everything women have fought for, we could focus on the next battles rather than having to refight for thinks we thought we'd won.

Improving maternity care, better understanding of menopause, research into how women's bodies react to illnesses and treatment - newsflash, not the same way make bodies do - training the police and judiciary to better understand domestic and sexual violence responses and trauma, and basically fighting against the ideal that Default Human is male.

But no. People like Bailey keep undermining our rights and access to women only facilities so we have to battle from square one yet a-bloody-gain.

What I have learnt is that for most people social/ tribal belonging trumps all, and many people’s beliefs are based on tribal belonging.

That’s why you got humanists/ skeptics/ feminists/ safeguarding experts/ etc all jumping on the TWAW bandwagon and forgetting everything their ‘specialist area’ was based on to do so. I found the humanists/skeptics particularly egregious in this, as their whole Schtick was rejecting irrational/ unscientific and ideological beliefs, and they were pretty sneery and mocking of anyone who held them. Now look at them.

It’s also why anti-racists are now largely silent on the murder of Jews happening again in the West. They certainly aren’t marching and making a noise about it like they would be for any other ethnic group.

The ( depressing) take away from this is that you should never believe what someone says about themselves, look at what they do instead. The other depressing take away is that you don’t even need to torture someone to get them to abandon their principles. You just need them to believe there will be some personal cost to them of maintaining their beliefs, losing some friends or popularity for example, and they’ll drop their principles like they are a hot stone.

Most people’s beliefs, it turns out, are more about making them feel good about themselves, than about the cause. Being unpopular for holding those beliefs won’t make them feel good about themselves, so they won’t maintain the belief in that circumstance.

Some attacking posts below but you’re right men don’t have female bodies. It might make some angry but the male sex class will have to work out what to do for themselves.

So did everyone just ignore the bit where I posted that there are different types of feminism and feminists with different beliefs and values around how to achieve equality?

And you'd all rather argue about what type of feminism you subscribe to?

No matter how much you argue, you will all still be different types of feminists in the end.

I don't think I could eyeroll harder at 'single sex provision harms GNC women'

Of course it bloody doesn't. Ask some GNC women - the most that happens is someone says 'I think you're in the wrong toilet' and she turns round and they both laugh and the intervenor apologises. We all know this, this is how it's always been.

Haha yes. Bailey’s seeming rather more irrationally angry at women today. Maybe it’s the heat.

Pervasive pornography and exploitative social media are also major contemporary problem areas for women and girls - both of which are utilised in the abuse of female people. As but one example, the recent revelations about the sheer number of men, from all walks of life, involved the the drugging and rape of non consenting women - who meeet and organise on-line.

One of the major differnces between males and females lies in the operation and tendencies of the sex drive.....which is a hugely motivating factor for many men, in the way it simply isn't for women.Men are, clearly, far more prone to deviant and/or criminal sexual behaviours. This is also a big issue for children too, irrespective of their sex.

You’re sounding very angry about what we’re doing.

What are you doing to help women?

Tell you what, division of labour is more effective so why don’t you do your thing and we’ll do ours? You seem to spend a lot of time advocating against women being a sex class separate from men and having our own spaces, words and legal protections.

We are not advocating against any women, just asking that some women don’t place men’s rights ahead of ours in their advocacy.

I can tell you for free that nothing you do to support women will be fully effective if men can also be counted as women.

Hun. Seriously. Are you ok? Really? You seem slightly erm… unhinged. Why is women fighting for sex based rights not feminist. What material benefit does allowing males in female space's give to women? Why is believing men can be women more feminist than saying no they can’t?

Quick question.

Why do you hang out with us so much if you think so badly of us? Do you just like telling us off?

“Biological essentialism” 🤣

Men commit rape with an essential part of their biological body- their penis. They don’t do it with their minds.

What are these “cis” women of which you speak? You mean women.

No, I didn't ignore your post. I found it quite interesting. I just didn't have anything intelligent to say about it...

Nice try, but you know full well toilet policing ultimately costs gender non conforming cis women their privacy, safety & security.

I just re-read that - surely if they're gender-non-conforming, they are by (GI) definition not 'cis'

Or is the plan to justify it by further splitting 'gender' in to 'gender presentation', 'gender identity' and 'gender stereotypes' so that you can say that her presentation and stereotypes don't matter, only her gender identity matters in order to make her 'cis'?

In which case the argument is literally that we can't tell a woman's a woman if she's into more masculine looking fashion, since a gender identity is purely in someone's head (no-one owes you femininity etc.). I can re-assure you, we've been ok with women in hoodies/jeans/short hair in the ladies since women first fought for the right to wear them.

ie. it's all nonsense still.

What are you doing to help women?

I'm not a movement. My critique is of the feckless direction of GC movement as a whole.

Tell you what, division of labour is more effective so why don’t you do your thing and we’ll do ours?

No dice. The GC movement is effectively scuttling women's advocacy for other more important causes on behalf of the patriarchy so its a feminist duty to expose & resist this sabotage.

I can tell you for free that nothing you do to support women will be fully effective if men can also be counted as women.

Solidarity with other groups who are harmed by the patriarchy is more effective against them…& they know this that's why they actively encourage gender critical estrangement from the rest of feminism.

They, would very much like us to cease talking about systemic barriers to women's freedom & equality & are weaponising the gender critical movement to do that for them. Why else is it do you think they 'suddenly' care about 'women's rights'? Wake the fuck up.