GC: Why is there more focus on trans women than trans men?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]divingrightintowork 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Why would we care what other women do with their selves, or if they don't want to call their selves women anymore? Though if men have issue with women invading their intimate spaces, say women wearing shirts that say things like "three hole faggot," flooding gay bars and complaining about the transmisandry... we will stan for them and support them in keeping their spaces sex segregated and hope they'll do the same for us.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (27 children)

But GC feminists often say men's issues are not feminist issues, talk about how awful AMAB men are and don't defend men. Yet when trans men are "infiltrating" cis men's spaces, suddenly GCs stick up for them. I thought men's issues are not feminist issues? It just shows one of their main goals is to be anti-trans.

[–]divingrightintowork 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Do you understand what allyship is, yes or no? Women can understand and empathize with disregard for personal boundaries on the basis of sex.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Yes I understand what allyship is. Also, members of the marginalized group get to decide if you're an ally to them, not you. This includes trans men.

[–]divingrightintowork 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK? I have no issue not stanning for TMs if they don't want to be included under my feminism. Not really sure what your'e saying / what it has to do with the original response that wasn't addressed already.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Surely the point you're trying to make proves that GC is not anti-trans, since GC concentrates on the males so heavily, & not so much the females. It's almost as if their sex matters more than their trans-status. Most trans people are female, so how can it be argued that GC is anti-trans, when they largely ignore the demographic that comprises the largest segment of trans people?

The biggest problem are the heterosexual male ones i.e. the autogynaephiles. Expunge them. It'd be for everyone's benefit. The criminal element within the movement is practically exclusively autogynaephiles.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

But GC feminists often say men's issues are not feminist issues, talk about how awful AMAB men are and don't defend men.

Yes of course men's issues are not feminist issues, LOL. Feminism is for and about female people.

You also seem to have a very sex stereotypical view of "GC feminists" that makes it impossible for you to see that many of us have all sorts of loving relationships with men (fathers, uncles, brothers, colleagues, allies, neighbors, chums, sex partners, spouses) and a good number of us are mothers of boys & men.

[–]adungitit 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Women do not need to have a loving relationship with their oppressors in order for their views on male oppression of women to have legitimacy.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I never said that "women need to have to have a loving relationship with their oppressors." I said many GC feminists have all sorts of loving relationships with various men in our lives, from fathers, brothers & sons to neighbors & other people we interact with and rely on for all sorts of reasons. I think it's unrealistic, and sexist, to suggest that women can & should go through life without ever having a positive or loving relationship with any male person.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I think it's unrealistic, and sexist, to suggest that women can & should go through life without ever having a positive or loving relationship with any male person.

That's not up to the woman one bit. The vast, vast majority of men are misogynistic and hold male supremacist views. The vast, vast majority of women with said "loving relationships with men" still constantly need to deal with misogyny, double standards and being thought of as lesser. Women not being thought of as subhuman isn't seen as in any way necessary for the majority of male-female relationships, where other things are supposed to make up for that.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Don't you think that's a little dire? I fully acknowledge that many men, perhaps even the majority, are sexist in some way. Does that mean that there are close to zero good men out there? Are those of us who do have positive relationships just fooling ourselves? If I suspected my partner thought of me as subhuman, I'd kick his ass to the curb immediately.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Women convincing themselves that their partners "aren't as bad" tend to fool themselves, yes. The more feminist ones will be open about it at least, but still have to constantly deal with their partners' double standards and misogyny. The ones who "don't need feminism" will make jokes about how shitty living with men and having to wipe their asses is.

Does that mean that there are close to zero good men out there?

Yes. And that is not the fault of women. Women should be discouraged from dealing with men's misogyny until men get their act together.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, based on my personal experiences with men, I can't agree with that. That's not my experience with my partner. It's also not my experience growing up with respect to either my father or grandfather. Maybe they're outliers, but surely their existence proves that there are some non-shitty men out there.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Excuse me if I find it hard to swallow that all those not-my-Nigels men are as enlightened as women wish they were, just as I find it hard to swallow that all the people saying they're "not sexist" really aren't sexist.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (11 children)

But I never see GCs speak out about other men's issues, like men not being taken seriously when they're abused or BPD in men. This is the only men's "issue" they are in solidarity with men.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because that’s not an issue for women or one we can solve. Why would feminism, a movement for female people, focus on solving issues that effect men and are largely caused by men?

Why do you ignore the fact that feminism is not about men’s rights any more than it is about the rights of goddamn chickens.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Then trans men "infiltrating" men's spaces is also not a women's issue or a conceen for feminism.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So we shouldn’t have empathy but we should fight to protect men from other men. Or are we banned from caring about things that aren’t feminism? You realise we are all multi faceted people capable of thinking about more than one thing, right? Do you think we’re a bunch of simpletons who can’t have more than one thought train?

Again, you gonna answer anything else or continue to ignore questions that you find difficult to answer? You’re bizarrely selective about what you will and won’t respond to.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

So we shouldn’t have empathy but we should fight to protect men from other men. Or are we banned from caring about things that aren’t feminism? You realise we are all multi faceted people capable of thinking about more than one thing, right? Do you think we’re a bunch of simpletons who can’t have more than one thought train?

But why is the only men's "issue" GCs seem to care about is trans men "infiltrating" men's spaces, but they don't other men's issues?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Because that’s one issue that’s not caused by other men, it’s one that’s caused by genderist bullshit like saying homosexual men are bigoted oppressors for not being attracted to the vulva.

Answer me. Do you think we’re a bunch of simpletons who can only think about one thing? Why do we need to care about all men’s issues to be able to speak about homophobic women being shitty to gay men?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (3 children)

Because that’s one issue that’s not caused by other men, it’s one that’s caused by genderist bullshit like saying homosexual men are bigoted oppressors for not being attracted to the vulva.

It is caused by other men since trans men are men. Even this response shows GCs are ainly about fighting transgenderism.

Answer me. Do you think we’re a bunch of simpletons who can only think about one thing?

No.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But I never see GCs speak out about other men's issues, like men not being taken seriously when they're abused or BPD in men. This is the only men's "issue" they are in solidarity with men.

Maybe that's a reflection on your choices of whom you see and hang out with.

Many of us older women who are GC did activism and hands-on care for gay men, hemophiliac men and IV drug-using men during the AIDS crisis.

If you look into the history of how public attention came to be brought to issues like child abuse, child sex abuse and autism in the 1970, 80s and 90s, you'll find that many "GC" people fought just as hard for male people as for female people.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correct. Men’s issues arent relevant to feminism. Having empathy for people having heterosexual people trying to convince homosexual people they are wrong about their own sexuality is just being a normal human. It’s not political, and isn’t mutually exclusive to being gc.

Gc people can and do say things that aren’t related to being gc. Seriously, do you want a 101 on feminism from somewhere better than Reddit randoms or garbage opinion pieces from babycenter or whatever other site you regularly reference?

A basic understanding of feminism that isn’t just Twitter slogans would really help you to understand what many of us are talking about.

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Because women don't support men being shit towards them. Being against the patriarchy =/= being against all male rights. Men's "rights" that oppose women's rights are not supported by women (and this goes for male trans rights as well). Your desperation to appeal to anti-feminist male myths in order to make yourself seem better to men is really sad.

It just shows one of their main goals is to be anti-trans.

I though the feminazi are all about hating the poor poor men?