This is good tactical advice for internet interactions, as it’s easy to find online discourse about trans that you can weigh in on, but in real life it’s less useful. In my experience, the only time a discussion about trans comes up is when I’m chatting with a group of acquaintances and one of the women remarks about how the kid of someone she is friends with is trans, and how the friend is dealing with it. Often I feel like injecting GC views is taken as a personal attack on the friend or even the woman who is telling the story. And often if there is a “trans ally” in the group they will quickly insert some form of “it’s not your kid, what business is it of yours?” And then we’re back to your expressing neutral GC opinions being taken as personal attacks, if nothing else you are seen as calling someone’s friend a bad mother. It’s nearly impossible to maintain your objective stance in such situations. In just general interactions with strangers, I have never had the topic come up. In work situations, if you are coming into a new workplace and there is a TIP working there who is accepted by the team and just “one of us proles in the trenches,” and you bring up GC concerns in break room conversations or whatever, it will immediately be taken as you attacking the TIP team member and mean they will see it as you denigrating their work ethic, personality, taste in cubicle tchotchkes, you name it, the coworkers will not fail to make it personal and as you say “about atmosphere.” It’s like, you can’t win. And this the spiral of silence wins.
Thanks for the tips! This is exactly what I was wondering about today--how to discuss the issue with people...with the rare folks who might be able to hold off from swearing for a few minutes.
I really do recommend her videos, if you're so inclined. Not only is she full of information, but I find that she makes me feel more encouraged, which can be hard to find sometimes when it comes to this topic.
So I am back. The way this woman describes it, as "atmosphere" has been described for many decades as "process." In the early days of second wave, there was often a process watcher in meetings, to call attention to one person or a group dominating the discussion. Or watching out for manipulation or any other behaviors that get in the way and are capable of hijacking a discussion completely if unattended to. I think of it as "process vs content." Content is the what, and process is the how.
I have a saying that compresses this into one sentence: "If the process sucks, the content becomes irrelevant." For example, if your group is discussing a new stove for the community house, and Paul over there picks a fight with his neighbor, calling him names, then the moderator steps back from content to deal with process. Because she knows that unless the break in the process is addressed, the content can no longer be discussed in any meaningful way.
How can you tell you need to switch to process immediately? Usually it's because you've been attacked. That's why you feel it in your gut etc.
"Only a cruel bigot would ban “trans girls” from sports."
That's an attack on your character, as you correctly identified, Madfem. This attack must first be stopped. Can you return to content? That depends. Sometimes, a person arguing in good faith may get carried away and use attack words. You'll know, because such a person will stop and clarify. People who are in it for the abuse, will either double down, or retreat momentarily only to attack again later.
How to stop it? First, you must recognize you've been attacked and immediately switch to process.. Then, for example, you can respond to the above by "That sounds like an attack on my character. Is that your intention?" You just shine a light on somethiing that wants to hide in the shadow. The person (who ia no longer arguing in good faith) hopes you will try to continue with the content, while they get to abuse you with impunity.
I like this conception of “process vs content”. Sometimes using slightly different words changes how you understand a concept, and I think that's a helpful set of descriptors.
Personally, I don't necessarily think conceiving of these ideas in any particular way matters too much as long as it works for the individual. That shift you make mention of at the end of your comment itself is where the power lies.
Thanks for sharing. Sorry it took me a moment to get back to you. 🫶
This is a fabulous topic I have been thinking about, also, and I will come back later.
Meanwhile, my recent realization is this:
I think many men who detest women know that if they proclaim themselves transwomen, they will be able to abuse women to their hearts’ content without being confronted with misogyny. DARVO. They are the victims now! It’s a new way to bully and harass women without opprobrium.
QUOTE; MF: Internet Transphile: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN
Transphobic Bitch: Can you define “trans woman” without using the word “woman”? UNQUOTE
Kinda think y'all are tying yourselves up in knots. Like Dawkins' amusing riff on high levels of intentionality:
RD: "Watching Nunopoulos, Rick knew that he was almost certain that Anna felt a passionate contempt for Fiddlingchild's failure to understand her feelings about Fiddlingchild, and she knew too that Nina knew she knew about Nunopoulos's knowledge ... "
Think y'all need to cut to the chase and point out that women are, by definition, "adult human females" -- i.e., ovary-havers-- and that transwomen are clearly "adult human males" -- i.e., testicle-havers. And that it is simply not true that testicle-havers are ovary-havers; to say so is equivalent to saying "2+2=5", to saying that black is white.
Y'all might want to take a gander at Carolina Valencia's post on the matter and my response to her:
I see your point about keeping it simple and quickly hitting facts. There is often also value in challenging someone who is using manipulative language to state a fundamental fact needed for their position. In this case "trans women are women" hinges on a definition of woman. As a tactic it creates an opening to press further - if the manipulator cannot define woman, how can he declare who IS one? It creates little cracks in the dogma.
This is good tactical advice for internet interactions, as it’s easy to find online discourse about trans that you can weigh in on, but in real life it’s less useful. In my experience, the only time a discussion about trans comes up is when I’m chatting with a group of acquaintances and one of the women remarks about how the kid of someone she is friends with is trans, and how the friend is dealing with it. Often I feel like injecting GC views is taken as a personal attack on the friend or even the woman who is telling the story. And often if there is a “trans ally” in the group they will quickly insert some form of “it’s not your kid, what business is it of yours?” And then we’re back to your expressing neutral GC opinions being taken as personal attacks, if nothing else you are seen as calling someone’s friend a bad mother. It’s nearly impossible to maintain your objective stance in such situations. In just general interactions with strangers, I have never had the topic come up. In work situations, if you are coming into a new workplace and there is a TIP working there who is accepted by the team and just “one of us proles in the trenches,” and you bring up GC concerns in break room conversations or whatever, it will immediately be taken as you attacking the TIP team member and mean they will see it as you denigrating their work ethic, personality, taste in cubicle tchotchkes, you name it, the coworkers will not fail to make it personal and as you say “about atmosphere.” It’s like, you can’t win. And this the spiral of silence wins.
Thanks for the tips! This is exactly what I was wondering about today--how to discuss the issue with people...with the rare folks who might be able to hold off from swearing for a few minutes.
Anytime! I hope it helps!
I really do recommend her videos, if you're so inclined. Not only is she full of information, but I find that she makes me feel more encouraged, which can be hard to find sometimes when it comes to this topic.
So I am back. The way this woman describes it, as "atmosphere" has been described for many decades as "process." In the early days of second wave, there was often a process watcher in meetings, to call attention to one person or a group dominating the discussion. Or watching out for manipulation or any other behaviors that get in the way and are capable of hijacking a discussion completely if unattended to. I think of it as "process vs content." Content is the what, and process is the how.
I have a saying that compresses this into one sentence: "If the process sucks, the content becomes irrelevant." For example, if your group is discussing a new stove for the community house, and Paul over there picks a fight with his neighbor, calling him names, then the moderator steps back from content to deal with process. Because she knows that unless the break in the process is addressed, the content can no longer be discussed in any meaningful way.
How can you tell you need to switch to process immediately? Usually it's because you've been attacked. That's why you feel it in your gut etc.
"Only a cruel bigot would ban “trans girls” from sports."
That's an attack on your character, as you correctly identified, Madfem. This attack must first be stopped. Can you return to content? That depends. Sometimes, a person arguing in good faith may get carried away and use attack words. You'll know, because such a person will stop and clarify. People who are in it for the abuse, will either double down, or retreat momentarily only to attack again later.
How to stop it? First, you must recognize you've been attacked and immediately switch to process.. Then, for example, you can respond to the above by "That sounds like an attack on my character. Is that your intention?" You just shine a light on somethiing that wants to hide in the shadow. The person (who ia no longer arguing in good faith) hopes you will try to continue with the content, while they get to abuse you with impunity.
Once you know that game, everything shifts. :-)
I like this conception of “process vs content”. Sometimes using slightly different words changes how you understand a concept, and I think that's a helpful set of descriptors.
Personally, I don't necessarily think conceiving of these ideas in any particular way matters too much as long as it works for the individual. That shift you make mention of at the end of your comment itself is where the power lies.
Thanks for sharing. Sorry it took me a moment to get back to you. 🫶
Have you seen this yet? Excellent.
https://maryjanemurphy2.substack.com/p/how-to-talk-to-someone-who-is-still
This is a fabulous topic I have been thinking about, also, and I will come back later.
Meanwhile, my recent realization is this:
I think many men who detest women know that if they proclaim themselves transwomen, they will be able to abuse women to their hearts’ content without being confronted with misogyny. DARVO. They are the victims now! It’s a new way to bully and harass women without opprobrium.
QUOTE; MF: Internet Transphile: TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN
Transphobic Bitch: Can you define “trans woman” without using the word “woman”? UNQUOTE
Kinda think y'all are tying yourselves up in knots. Like Dawkins' amusing riff on high levels of intentionality:
RD: "Watching Nunopoulos, Rick knew that he was almost certain that Anna felt a passionate contempt for Fiddlingchild's failure to understand her feelings about Fiddlingchild, and she knew too that Nina knew she knew about Nunopoulos's knowledge ... "
Think y'all need to cut to the chase and point out that women are, by definition, "adult human females" -- i.e., ovary-havers-- and that transwomen are clearly "adult human males" -- i.e., testicle-havers. And that it is simply not true that testicle-havers are ovary-havers; to say so is equivalent to saying "2+2=5", to saying that black is white.
Y'all might want to take a gander at Carolina Valencia's post on the matter and my response to her:
https://redfollowsred.substack.com/p/the-harms-of-the-trans-lexicon/comment/294170690
I see your point about keeping it simple and quickly hitting facts. There is often also value in challenging someone who is using manipulative language to state a fundamental fact needed for their position. In this case "trans women are women" hinges on a definition of woman. As a tactic it creates an opening to press further - if the manipulator cannot define woman, how can he declare who IS one? It creates little cracks in the dogma.