[Tom4784]

The crimes listed should be considered crimes and they are for the most part but I think the umbrella term it comes under is wrong, it's sexual harassment and assault and it should simply be called that, in an age where sexual attacks against men are high profile and being talked about, I'm not sure if it's the right move to class sexual crimes as misogyny since some people will take it as that it only affects women, which, undoubtedly they are the main victims but potentially making it out to be a problem that only affects women could affect male victims willingness to come forward.

I think it would just be a better move to simply put more resources into preventing and solving sexual crimes as a whole.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The crimes listed should be considered crimes and they are for the most part but I think the umbrella term it comes under is wrong, it's sexual harassment and assault and it should simply be called that, in an age where sexual attacks against men are high profile and being talked about, I'm not sure if it's the right move to class sexual crimes as misogyny since some people will take it as that it only affects women.

I think it would just be a better move to simply put more resources into preventing and solving sexual crimes as a whole.

[Livia]

Misogyny is a hate crime. Like racism. When there's a discussion about someone being the victim of racist abuse, I never see anyone arguing that white people get abused too so we should all be lumped in together, black, white, brown.... But mention misogyny and you'll see men using that same strange argument over and over again.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Biological works just fine for me tbh. You have biological women, transwomen, biological men and trans men.

Though tbh, the only way to actually be a man, rather than a transman, or a woman rather than a transwoman is biologically.

Cis is almost always used in a sneery/negative way. It also assumes that you identify with all of the stereotypes forced onto you because of your sex. Plus, I have been told many times that I am 'just cis' when this is not actually the case at all given I do not have a 'gender' at all and do not follow that religious type thinking of gendered souls and whatnot. But when I state I am not actually cis, I am told I am wrong

hey why aren't you allowed to know your gender?

But yes Biological now you mention it is what it should be. Like if you're adopted you have a mother who isn't your biological mother but she's still your mother, wouldn't that be the same?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Livia

Misogyny is a hate crime. Like racism. When there's a discussion about someone being the victim of racist abuse, I never see anyone arguing that white people get abused too so we should all be lumped in together, black, white, brown.... But mention misogyny and you'll see men using that same strange argument over and over again.

Exactly. There is always some excuse to attempt to undermine misogyny and as such treat it differently. I think some men are uncomfortable with its meaning and may be able to identify with it to some degree but refuse to acknowledge it. If it has no name it doesn’t exist.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Biological works just fine for me tbh. You have biological women, transwomen, biological men and trans men.

Though tbh, the only way to actually be a man, rather than a transman, or a woman rather than a transwoman is biologically.

Cis is almost always used in a sneery/negative way. It also assumes that you identify with all of the stereotypes forced onto you because of your sex. Plus, I have been told many times that I am 'just cis' when this is not actually the case at all given I do not have a 'gender' at all and do not follow that religious type thinking of gendered souls and whatnot. But when I state I am not actually cis, I am told I am wrong

There does seem to be a link with cis to sister. Out of interest a sister company is described as “less important or supplementary to”.

Just a thought but I wonder if transgenders want to see themselves as more relevant in some way in the modern world - special because they see their situation as more difficult, perhaps feel they have had more to endure (bearing in mind the word was thought up by the LGBT community apparently) and this is their own little way of feeling like real women by allocating the word cis to biological women. Like some kind of silent protest.

I agree biological is the word - it is factual and to the point - not some made-up word in the minds of those with their own situation in mind.

[Vicky.]

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

Transgender is such a useless term tbh, people think it means transsexual but it does not. I have no issue accepting transsexual people. But I refuse to call transvetites and such women, they are not women. Even transsexual women are not actually women but I will call them that if it helps them deal with dysphoria. I still do acknowledge that they are male though, and so do they, on the whole.

Biological makes the most sense. And everyone understands what it means too. There are so many negative aspects of 'cis'..as I said it assumes that you believe in gendered souls and that you 'identify' with feminine stereotypes or whatever. And it is generally used as a term of abuse, from what I have seen. Not on here, but elsewhere. Its never really used as a 'neutral' type term, its loaded. And its just nonsense. Biological women, transwomen, biological men, transmen makes sense to me and I don't understand how this could possibly be offensive as is claimed.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Exactly. There is always some excuse to attempt to undermine misogyny and as such treat it differently. I think some men are uncomfortable with its meaning and may be able to identify with it to some degree but refuse to acknowledge it. If it has no name it doesn’t exist.

yes! & the toxic masculinity in our society is probably a factor in why the men that do identify with it to some degree refuse to acknowledge it

sad how supporting women isn't an expectation in the male community

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

Transgender is such a useless term tbh, people think it means transsexual but it does not. I have no issue accepting transsexual people. But I refuse to call transvetites and such women, they are not women. Even transsexual women are not actually women but I will call them that if it helps them deal with dysphoria. I still do acknowledge that they are male though, and so do they, on the whole.

Biological makes the most sense. And everyone understands what it means too. There are so many negative aspects of 'cis'..as I said it assumes that you believe in gendered souls and that you 'identify' with feminine stereotypes or whatever. And it is generally used as a term of abuse, from what I have seen. Not on here, but elsewhere. Its never really used as a 'neutral' type term, its loaded. And its just nonsense. Biological women, transwomen, biological men, transmen makes sense to me and I don't understand how this could possibly be offensive as is claimed.

yep agree with that, to me gender and sex are the same thing (unless you're talking about stereotypes - gender roles and that sort of thing which is just plain sexist)

[Vicky.]

I'm not a cis woman, I'm a female dysphoric person who has been saved by single-sex spaces and services, I liked that they don't care how I identify but rather my experiences in this body which deserves at least as much consideration as my dysphoria. I don't mind others believing in innate gender identity, but I certainly don't - I think gender is what is applied to me by society - and I have found the pressure to view it as innate has really not helped me cope with being dysphoric. I liked when we could just female/male to discuss sex-based issues but now even those get treated as identities these days.

Ihatemyclients Please stop comparing sexuality to being trans. I don't require medication to live a full life as a bisexual, I have required therapy for my dysphoria and transitioning does generally require medical interventions. Also, straight doesn't mean "not gay", it means someone attracted only to those of the other sex, so those are not very comparable. The reason T is part of LGBT is because same sex attraction used to be considered part of being trans, even part of the diagnostic criteria in many places, it isn't so much anymore.

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Quite a few dysphoric people like me think it is very insulting to erase that. It's caused me years of problems I'd love to be able to "identify" out of but I can't. Do you think it's mentally healthy to want to cut parts of one's body and to get upset if people recognize me as my sex? What about having a mental illness/disability, which I've heard will affect a quarter of people at some point in our lives, is so bad that you think it shouldn't be recognized? The move to erase that is only going to make it harder for dysphoric people, trans or otherwise, to get the care we need. I want better mental health care, it will make living with dysphoria far easier than any of the things currently being proposed in wider society.

How would you recommend a dysphoric person who does not identify as trans be labelled? According to multiple studies, the vast majority - over 80% - of dysphoric people are not trans. We can't be cis, it would be pretty gross to say we are "on the same side" of what is causing us distress, but it would be equally wrong to say we're trans (even though people do try) when we're very clear that's not how we identify.

That's the issue with having a term that are 'everyone else but'. Like neurotypical, there are dozens and more ways that makes a person not be neurotypical. Just not being autistic does not make one neurotypical, obviously. It's useful in some settings, like education, to discuss certain things but it catches several issues in broader settings. Just being not depressed does not make one mentally well. Just not identifying as trans should not make one cis - there are many many ways people are not on the same side of a gender. Dysphoria, sex role nonconforming, politically... labelling everyone who not trans as cis erases people.

It's weird that there are so many labels under the trans umbrella now, many of which don't want to be together and seems to include almost everyone, but the other side just gets cis.

A post from a dysphoric female. In a large thread about the word cis

( https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...msgid=76522737 )

I wonder if all this cis stuff should be put into another thread tbh..but splitting threads make threads not make any sense Mind this whole trans debate fits in pretty well in a thread about misogyny and female rights I guess.

[Brillopad]

Truscum (transsexuals) and cisscum (biological women) are words apparently used by men who consider themselves biological women - so anyone that doesn’t agree with them gets called ‘scum’ - and this the group of people we are supposed to be bending over backwards for to accommodate their feelings.

“The second cohort - men who claim they are biological women, because sex is determined by your brain, not your body, therefore their penis is a female organ, and lesbians are transphobic for not including them in their dating pool”.

Never have I heard a stronger example of men wanting it all. They verbally abuse men who consider themselves transsexuals, women for being biological women and lesbians for not considering them women and refusing to have sex with them. Self, self, self in my opinion .

Done with it all it’s ridiculous and taking the pi**. No once is telling me to consider the feelings of people who clearly don’t consider the feelings of anyone else.

[Vicky.]

Yeah truscum is very common. It basically means, anyone transsexual. And its those classing themselves as 'transgender' who have issues with transsexuals. Anyone who thinks that sex dysphoria is necessary to be trans in the first place (if you do not have dysphoria, exactly HOW are you trans?) is a transphobic bigot, even transsexual people themselves

[Northern Monkey]

Well i think CIS should be banned now as hate speech.It has negative connotations.It’s been used to oppress biological males and females in sentences such as ‘die cis scum’.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Well i think CIS should be banned now as hate speech.It has negative connotations.It’s been used to oppress biological males and females in sentences such as ‘die cis scum’.

it shouldn't be classified as 'hate speech'

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

The thing is, I think perhaps more weight is put on this than is actually needed or necessary... There's been a lot of social research done that shows pretty conclusively that out experiences of life / what we have in common are far more liked to "class / wealth" than ANY other factor. So for example... A working class woman has FAR more in common, both in terms of interest and experience, with a working class man than she does with an upper-middle class woman.

This extends all the way to the top and what is all too often overlooked in feminism and causes a lot of the confusion. There's a lot of feminist rhetoric about "the patriarchy"; that women have been historically oppressed by men. Well, no. Women have been oppressed by WEALTHY, POWERFUL men and the oppression is far more linked to the wealth than the gender of the oppressor. Generalising it out even more; it basically comes down to the fact that everyone has been oppressed by a very small number of powerful, privileged individuals who happen to mostly have been white men. This message has gotten confused somewhere, and now there's this idea that "all men are oppressors", "all white people are oppressors". It's just a totally inaccurate view of society. The vast majority of men, and white folks, past and present, have never had a sniff of that sort of power or wealth.

But then, that's what all of these squabbles are still about. Socially engineered "battles" because in the wake of the last recession, people started looking around, and noticed those people, and got angry about it, and we ALMOST managed to focus briefly on where the real oppression is and always has been... But, they have the means and ability to distract us back to ground level petty squabbles and so that's what happened. Black Lives Matter happened, the celebrity nudes leak happened, Brexit, Trump, school shootings, historic sex scandals were outed, men and women went to war, feminist movements and trans movements went to war... We forgot about "the 0.01%", that's yesterday's news... And the real oppressors rubbed their hands together and walked away.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The thing is, I think perhaps more weight is put on this than is actually needed or necessary... There's been a lot of social research done that shows pretty conclusively that out experiences of life / what we have in common are far more liked to "class / wealth" than ANY other factor. So for example... A working class woman has FAR more in common, both in terms of interest and experience, with a working class man than she does with an upper-middle class woman.

This extends all the way to the top and what is all too often overlooked in feminism and causes a lot of the confusion. There's a lot of feminist rhetoric about "the patriarchy"; that women have been historically oppressed by men. Well, no. Women have been oppressed by WEALTHY, POWERFUL men and the oppression is far more linked to the wealth than the gender of the oppressor. Generalising it out even more; it basically comes down to the fact that everyone has been oppressed by a very small number of powerful, privileged individuals who happen to mostly have been white men. This message has gotten confused somewhere, and now there's this idea that "all men are oppressors", "all white people are oppressors". It's just a totally inaccurate view of society. The vast majority of men, and white folks, past and present, have never had a sniff of that sort of power or wealth.

But then, that's what all of these squabbles are still about. Socially engineered "battles" because in the wake of the last recession, people started looking around, and noticed those people, and got angry about it, and we ALMOST managed to focus briefly on where the real oppression is and always has been... But, they have the means and ability to distract us back to ground level petty squabbles and so that's what happened. Black Lives Matter happened, the celebrity nudes leak happened, Brexit, Trump, school shootings, historic sex scandals were outed, men and women went to war, feminist movements and trans movements went to war... We forgot about "the 0.01%", that's yesterday's news... And the real oppressors rubbed their hands together and walked away.

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression. Women from time in memorial have often been belittled, put in their place and their opinions dismissecd by ordinary working-class men around them.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe so and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.

.

[montblanc]

misogyny is ingrained in society

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe so and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.

Yup, exactly. Nothing else to add really.

[user104658]

The thing is though, domestic abuse and assault are a completely different thing to economic or legislative oppression. The latter can be addressed politically and so requires one type of campaigning... The others are already illegal, so what legislative change can actually be made to address the issue? Abusers know they are breaking the law... and continue to abuse... So what political or legislative change can actually address that problem? What is being campaigned for?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yup, exactly. Nothing else to add really.

You could add that women walking home could just as well be assaulted by other women..like that poor girl who lost her life after 6 girls jumped her...
Or that a lesbian relationship has just as much chance of having one partner attack the other as a male n female relationship has.....


Just playing devils advocate on this one.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

You could add that women walking home could just as well be assaulted by other women..like that poor girl ejo lost her life after 6 girls jumped her...
Or that a lesbian relationship has just as much chance of having one partner attack the other as a male n female relationship has.....


Just playing devils advocate on this one.

Well yes, women can be attacked by other women, I did not deny that? Its just very very rare compared to attacks by men.

The part about a person in a lesbian relationship having just as much chance of being attacked as a male and female relationship is just entirely false. There is a small risk yes, but again nowhere near the risk of heterosexual relationships. And the 2 women who are actually killed by their partners per week are almost always killed by men, not other women.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well yes, women can be attacked by other women, I did not deny that? Its just very very rare compared to attacks by men.

The part about a person in a lesbian relationship having just as much chance of being attacked as a male and female relationship is just entirely false. There is a small risk yes, but again nowhere near the risk of heterosexual relationships. And the 2 women who are actually killed by their partners per week are almost always killed by men, not other women.

I would like to see the stats on the percentages of male n female relationship abuse compared to lesbian ones...2 people a week....but if you compare that with the amount of relationships that there are featuring male and female to female n female it is obviously going to be higher.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I would like to see the stats on the percentages of male n female relationship abuse compared to lesbian ones...2 people a week....but if you compare that with the amount of relationships that there are featuring male and female to female n female it is obviously going to be higher.

Sorry it seems you might be right on that one actually.

Domestic abuse in the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community is a serious issue. About 25% of LGBT people suffer through violent or threatening relationships with partners or ex-partners which is about the same rates as in as domestic abuse against heterosexual women. As in opposite-gendered couples, the problem is underreported. Those involved in same-gender abuse are often afraid of revealing their sexual orientation or the nature of their relationship.

http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/

But that does include gay men in relationships too.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Sorry it seems you might be right on that one actually.



http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/

But that does include gay men in relationships too.

Thanks for digging that up vicky..i would imagine its pretty even across the board....apart from female to male violence in a relationship..
I think its fair to say that even though it happens it will be far far less than any of the others.