[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)

[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.

.

[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.

[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.

[Niamh.]

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. 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.

Perfectly put.

[GiRTh]

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. 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.

Excellent post.

[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'

[montblanc]

misogyny is ingrained in society

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Truscum (transsexuals) and cisscum (biological women)

It took me a while to realize that was a consolidated version of scum?... or is -cum actually a new "new wave" feminist suffix now? (Seriously asking)

I just made the joke in another thread I welcome my new title as cis cum queen from my new overlords... but don't want my new title to get confused with some cheesy pre-existing term.

I think folk in these movements are probably trying to attempt to create a new English dialect. It makes sense. If they shift the language in such a way that people will popularize their narratives and is particularly social justice-aware... then it can go farther than just creating new terms, it can literally shape how we think about ourselves (and others) and how we choose to express ourselves as individuals..

Yes, if those folk are on the net and have enough reach, they can create all sorts of new-fangled words/grammar/verbs/adjectives/etc on the fly... though tbf, it seems to me the gaffe words are the ones that tend to catch on quicker... like i.e. covfefe/deplorables, the more "amusing" SJW-esk terms out there... the ones that people tend to take and weaponize.

But, most average folk are not going to pick up a term that has been highly stigmatized and bring it into an everyday conversation. People are very sensitive to this... they know when a term is loaded and so folk generally lean towards more neutral terms... unless it's particularly trendy, in which case, it's "socially accepted".

Originally Posted by montblanc

misogyny is ingrained in society

Misandry too, sadly. We aren't exactly a tolerant species by design. Let me tell ya...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

It took me a while to realize that was a consolidated version of scum?... or is -cum actually a new "new wave" feminist suffix now? (Seriously asking)

I just made the joke in another thread I welcome my new title as cis cum queen from my new overlords... but don't want my new title to get confused with some cheesy pre-existing term.

I think folk in these movements are probably trying to attempt to create a new English dialect. It makes sense. If they shift the language in such a way that people will popularize their narratives and is particularly social justice-aware... then it can go farther than just creating new terms, it can literally shape how we think about ourselves (and others) and how we choose to express ourselves as individuals..

Yes, if those folk are on the net and have enough reach, they can create all sorts of new-fangled words/grammar/verbs/adjectives/etc on the fly... though tbf, it seems to me the gaffe words are the ones that tend to catch on quicker... like i.e. covfefe/deplorables, the more "amusing" SJW-esk terms out there... the ones that people tend to take and weaponize.

But, most average folk are not going to pick up a term that has been highly stigmatized and bring it into an everyday conversation. People are very sensitive to this... they know when a term is loaded and so folk generally lean towards more neutral terms... unless it's particularly trendy, in which case, it's "socially accepted".



Misandry too, sadly. We aren't exactly a tolerant species by design. Let me tell ya...

Like SJW... That's a weaponised term isn't it?

Who would ever deny that this should be a hate crime too?... Not that globally it's on the same scale or would ever be tolerated to the extent that misogyny is.

[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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

Oh I’m sure women could come up with some ideas on how to campaign against this everyday oppression from ordinary men such as better education for boys and less tolerance of these attitudes in general, tbh this site would sometimes be a good example of some of the examples I gave, but they have been there before and Little changes. As another poster said sexism is too ingrained - and often ignored and treated as less important than other isms - all this self-identified crap being a good example of that.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Oh I’m sure women could come up with some ideas on how to campaign against this everyday oppression from ordinary men such as better education for boys and less tolerance of these attitudes in general, tbh this site would sometimes be a good example of some of the examples I gave, but they have been there before and Little changes. As another poster said sexism is too ingrained - and often ignored and treated as less important than other isms - all this self-identified crap being a good example of that.

But "better education" is an idea that's been floating around for a while, e.g. Mandatory lectures for males at University to teach them that sexual assault is wrong. This is based on the frankly insane premise that abusers are abusive because they aren't aware that what they're doing is wrong or immoral. In almost all cases, they are aware. Telling them "that it's wrong" isn't going to stop them, because they don't care. The fact that there are people in the world who are violent, manipulative and abusive is awful... It's unfair, and it's wrong but those people will always exist. It's unhelpful and unhealthy for the majority of people - who would never dream of being violent or abusive - to be tarred with a wide brush... Especially when doing so doesn't actually do anything to improve the situation.

[Vicky.]

In all honesty, I struggle a bit with 'hate crimes' to start with. Surely they are just crimes. A crime tends to require hate to be committed in the first place! I wouldn't say an assault for example was 'worse' because it was committed against a minority, than it was if it was committed against someone who is not a minority.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

In all honesty, I struggle a bit with 'hate crimes' to start with. Surely they are just crimes. A crime tends to require hate to be committed in the first place! I wouldn't say an assault for example was 'worse' because it was committed against a minority, than it was if it was committed against someone who is not a minority.

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

Ah I guess. Its not something I have really given too much thought to tbh but I have always found it a little strange that some crimes are deemed worse than others, regardless of the outcome, because the victims are a certain group of people.

But while we have this kind of two tier system, of course its right for crimes based on sex to be considered just as bad as others.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

To be fair though I still think it's different... my understanding of a hate crime is exactly as you say but what makes it a hate crime is that hatred of the group is the motivation for the crime... like there is literally no other reason for the attack than "I just hate Muslims" or whatever.

Attacks on women by men are different. They would usually have either a personal motivation or be a sexual assault... and it's not that they aren't driven by misogyny - it's just that misogyny is what makes the attack "psychologically permissible" to them (i.e. they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim... hating women allows them to feel like they "deserved it" etc.) but the motivation in itself is very rarely "I just randomly attack women because I hate women."... and groups of men aren't attacking women "because they hate women". They may well hate women of course, but their motivations tend to be "other".

I guess for that reason I find it slightly dangerous to start labelling them "hate crimes". Understanding the motivation behind crime is important to tackling it, and it seems that when asking "why did this happen", the answer "Oh he just hates women is all" would be falling well short of the mark there. Whereas with other actual hate crimes it literally can be as simple as "she hates black people" / "he hates gay people" etc.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair though I still think it's different... my understanding of a hate crime is exactly as you say but what makes it a hate crime is that hatred of the group is the motivation for the crime... like there is literally no other reason for the attack than "I just hate Muslims" or whatever.

Attacks on women by men are different. They would usually have either a personal motivation or be a sexual assault... and it's not that they aren't driven by misogyny - it's just that misogyny is what makes the attack "psychologically permissible" to them (i.e. they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim... hating women allows them to feel like they "deserved it" etc.) but the motivation in itself is very rarely "I just randomly attack women because I hate women."... and groups of men aren't attacking women "because they hate women". They may well hate women of course, but their motivations tend to be "other".

I guess for that reason I find it slightly dangerous to start labelling them "hate crimes". Understanding the motivation behind crime is important to tackling it, and it seems that when asking "why did this happen", the answer "Oh he just hates women is all" would be falling well short of the mark there. Whereas with other actual hate crimes it literally can be as simple as "she hates black people" / "he hates gay people" etc.

How about, he has no respect for women and thinks they're worth less? Especially if that male is from another culture, because there are plenty of cultures where women are worthless.

I honestly don't see how "he hates women" is any less believable than "he hates gays".

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

How about, he has no respect for women and thinks they're worth less? Especially if that male is from another culture, because there are plenty of cultures where women are worthless.

I honestly don't see how "he hates women" is any less believable than "he hates gays".

Yes I think the former probably is what ALLOWS the person in their head to justufy the crime - but again, self-justification is different from motivation. e.g. many sexual predators justify their crimes by dehumanising women and seeing them as lesser, but the REASON for attacking is different. With religious minorities / homosexuals etc. hate crimes occur when people specifically set out to hurt someone, specifically because they think what that person is is "wrong".

As for cultures where women are devalued... to make a really crass comparison... is it not more like the men in those cultures consider women to be like possessions or livestock? A farmer doesn't "hate" his animals... he just believes that he owns them and they are "his". Again I'm not saying this is permissible or a good thing - and it's not that one is worse than the other - but I still think that, for example, a sexually-motivated crime committed by someone who devalues women is not psychologically the same thing as a purely hate-motivated crime.