What do female writers think about males writing from a female POV?

[MillieDynamite]

And Blondie is either a gunslinger or a new wave group.

Blondie is married to Dagwood Bumstead, you silly goose. I am leaving now, off to see the parental units at last.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

In any of these kind of discussions I'd like to look around and see whom I'm standing with. If the great majority of people I'm standing with are bigoted pricks, maybe the point I'm defending is bigoted prickery.

 

[Voboy]

This is the first time I've ever learned that "blonde" and "blond" mean anything different. I've always just assumed that, like "theater/theatre," both were fine.

I spell it blonde. I'll keep doing that, I think, regardless of what gender I'm describing.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Blondie is married to Dagwood Bumstead, you silly goose. I am leaving now, off to see the parental units at last.

Have fun!

 

[Bubo_bubo]

This is the first time I've ever learned that "blonde" and "blond" mean anything different. I've always just assumed that, like "theater/theatre," both were fine.

I spell it blonde. I'll keep doing that, I think, regardless of what gender I'm describing.

In this regard my French leaks into my English and I see blonde as female and blond as male.

 

[ElectricBlue]

In this regard my French leaks into my English and I see blonde as female and blond as male.

That's also the English English convention. I always read and written blonde as female, blond as male (having been blond in my youth, who went out with a number of blondes).

 

[stickygirl]

The name's Bonde, Jane Bonde
I often feel a twinge of stress over which blond spelling to use but continue to embrace my European heritage by use the 'e'. I gather there was quite a stink over how Concord(e) should be spelled but I can't recall how that panned out.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

The name's Bonde, Jane Bonde
I often feel a twinge of stress over which blond spelling to use but continue to embrace my European heritage by use the 'e'. I gather there was quite a stink over how Concord(e) should be spelled but I can't recall how that panned out.

Wikipedia to the rescue!

Reflecting the treaty between the British and French governments that led to Concorde's construction, the name Concorde is from the French word concorde (IPA: [kɔ̃kɔʁd]), which has an English equivalent, concord. Both words mean agreement, harmony, or union. The name was officially changed to Concord by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. At the French roll-out in Toulouse in late 1967,[29] the British Government Minister of Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to Concorde.[30] This created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed "e" represented "Excellence, England, Europe, and Entente (Cordiale)". In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: "[Y]ou talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." Given Scotland's contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, "t was also 'E' for 'Écosse' (the French name for Scotland) – and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation as well!"[31]

Concorde also acquired an unusual nomenclature for an aircraft. In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" without an article, rather than "the Concorde" or "a Concorde".[32][33]

ETA: might add 'e' for 'enculé par les Français'.

 

[lovecraft68]

“In previous centuries, the Church was the great controller, dictating morality, stifling free expression and posing as conservator of all great art and music. Instead we have TV, doing just as good a job at dictating fashions, thoughts, attitudes, objectives as did the Church, using many of the same techniques but doing it so palatably that no one notices. Instead of ‘sins’ to keep people in line, we have fears of being judged unacceptable by our peers (by not wearing the right shoes, not drinking the right kind of beer, or wearing the wrong kind of deodorant). Coupled with that fear is imposed insecurity concerning our own identities. All answers and solutions to these fears come through the television, and only through television. Only through exposure to TV can the new sins of alienation and ostracism be absolved.”

Anton Levay 50+ or so years ago. Replace the part in bold with activism and cancel culture and here we are. If you don't drink the kool aid, you're cancelled.

Guess they forgot where that quote originated from and what the drinkers fate was. No surprise being that suddenly all history, science, and philosophy are now deemed wrong or rewritten because only today's sheeple know the truth, because they didn't have to learn it or earn it, its been told to them.

If we as a society are still around in 10 years(I'd be surprised if we are) its going to be interesting to revisit woke culture which by then will be seen as no more than the fad it is. Pendulum affect went as far in one direction as it could, and if you know where to look-which is where you're told not to-you see it swinging, and unfortunately its going to swing to far the other way and we'll be back in the 1950's because people will get so fed up with the lunatics, they'll let that happen too.

In other words, heed the words of a nihilist, we're fucked and for the most part deserve it.

I need to start my own cult.

 

[AlinaX]

The new Supreme Court Justice was asked what is a woman and wouldn't answer the question....

Well, now you're just trolling. But maybe you're right. Maybe with the fall from democracy into fascism, human rights and common decency will be seen as a quaint historical fads.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

I read a lot of people complaining about cancel culture. Which makes me think that cancel culture can't be that effective.

 

[XerXesXu]

I read a lot of people complaining about cancel culture. Which makes me think that cancel culture can't be that effective.

It's the same with mass shootings.

 

[Bramblethorn]

While I think a lot of what Rowling has said on the subject is foul, and while I support abortion rights, there's a very good example of the flux we are in linguistically. Rowling was seriously criticized by many people on the left for saying that 'woman' was a better word then 'people who menstruate'. But later, after the Roe-Wade decision many of the same people were quick to talk about how this was a serious blow to 'woman's rights' and, those on the right who'd been paying attention quickly responded "Don't you mean 'uterous-havers rights'" And, linguistically and logically according to the new concepts they're right, but, of course, the new word doesn't have the same hundred years of history and struggle that women's rights has and thus is less evocative.

They're not even technically right, though. The implications of the Dobbs ruling are complex and far-reaching, and while "woman" isn't a perfect term to sum up all the people whose rights are affected, neither is "uterus-haver". (I'm not aware of a perfect term that fits in the mouth, and I don't think there is one. Some things aren't amenable to simplification.)

There are a bunch of reasons why it's inaccurate. I'm not going to get into most of them, because I don't have time to get into a long discussion this morning. But one of the simpler ones is that you don't actually need a uterus to get pregnant. Someone who's had a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) can still get an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilised egg implants somewhere other than the uterus.

Ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency. If not treated promptly, by surgical or pharmaceutical methods that are generally considered "abortion", they can lead to rupture, hemorrhaging, and death. Dobbs has opened the door to laws that make it harder to get that prompt treatment; even when there's some clause that allows for life-saving treatment, interpretations can be murky enough that doctors aren't willing to operate until the situation has deteriorated to the point where the danger is imminent, increasing risk and trauma.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The new Supreme Court Justice was asked what is a woman and wouldn't answer the question.

That's a person who is going to making critical decisions for the people of this country for the rest of her life.

Her answer to the question is available here. It boils down to: "As we both know, you're asking me these questions because there are court cases in the pipeline related to the rights of transgender people. It's quite likely that I might end up hearing one of those cases. When that happens, both sides will get to present their legal arguments. My job as a judge is to look at those arguments and at the facts of that specific case, and make a judgement about that case. You're effectively asking me to make that decision before I even know what the case is, let alone before everybody's had a fair chance to make their arguments. If I did what you're asking, then I wouldn't be able to do my job as a judge."

It's like if I phoned up my doctor and said "hey I've got a lump on my arm, do you think it's cancer?" They're not going to give a yes/no answer to that. They're going to say "I need to take a look and run some tests." Because they understand that a hasty answer without looking at the facts could be a very bad idea.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that KBJ's not allergic to the word "woman". In her opening statement for those confirmation hearings she acknowledges "Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African American woman to be appointed to the federal bench".

During the hearings, in the middle of that "define a woman" questioning, she states: "I am pleased to be the sixth woman nominated to serve on the United States Supreme Court".

After her confirmation, when her SCOTUS seat is locked in for life (barring a 2/3 Senate majority that's never going to happen), she gave a speech where she mentioned that "It has taken 232 years and 115 prior appointments for a Black woman to be selected to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

Hilarious how the same group of people who don't want to use the term woman are the same ones faking outrage over Roe V Wade. Pure hypocrisy and why no one takes them seriously.

I keep hearing about these "people who don't want to use the term woman" but I'm still not clear on who they're supposed to be. Obviously not KBJ, who still uses the word even after locking in the kind of job security the rest of us can only dream of. Do they have names that any of us would recognise?

 

[TheRedChamber]

They're not even technically right, though. The implications of the Dobbs ruling are complex and far-reaching, and while "woman" isn't a perfect term to sum up all the people whose rights are affected, neither is "uterus-haver". (I'm not aware of a perfect term that fits in the mouth, and I don't think there is one. Some things aren't amenable to simplification.)

There are a bunch of reasons why it's inaccurate. I'm not going to get into most of them, because I don't have time to get into a long discussion this morning. But one of the simpler ones is that you don't actually need a uterus to get pregnant. Someone who's had a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) can still get an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilised egg implants somewhere other than the uterus.

Ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency. If not treated promptly, by surgical or pharmaceutical methods that are generally considered "abortion", they can lead to rupture, hemorrhaging, and death. Dobbs has opened the door to laws that make it harder to get that prompt treatment; even when there's some clause that allows for life-saving treatment, interpretations can be murky enough that doctors aren't willing to operate until the situation has deteriorated to the point where the danger is imminent, increasing risk and trauma.

Okay, don't misunderstand, I'm all for life-saving operations.

My point is really that that it shouldn't be so hard to have a perfect term for 'a person who can (may at sometime in their life) get pregnant' because that's the word that's needed to talk about this issue and 'the left' already made it clear that 'woman' was exclusionary during the Rowling controversy (amongst others).

 

[AlinaX]

The fundamental problem is that it's a complex phenomenon and any precise description will not be simple. In a Biblical world where everyone is allocishet, binary and fertile, then 'woman' might very well apply, but such a world is a fantasy.

This is not a problem caused by 'the left'. It's simple observation of reality and human nature. It is the Christian right that demands that we reject complexity and embrace ignorance and prejudice. It is the right that demands that trans people be denied their human rights, that women be denied autonomy, that marriage be strictly between man and woman.

 

[TheRedChamber]

The fundamental problem is that it's a complex phenomenon and any precise description will not be simple. In a Biblical world where everyone is allocishet, binary and fertile, then 'woman' might very well apply, but such a world is a fantasy.

This is not a problem caused by 'the left'. It's simple observation of reality and human nature. It is the Christian right that demands that we reject complexity and embrace ignorance and prejudice. It is the right that demands that trans people be denied their human rights, that women be denied autonomy, that marriage be strictly between man and woman.

I'm a little confused by your first paragraph - are you agreeing with the proposition that abortion shouldn't be described as a matter of 'women's rights'?

Whether or not it's a 'problem' caused by the left, the catalyst for this conversation comes from the push from the left for the more general adoption of language that is more inclusive and thus the onus is on them to explain clearly and consistently the new rules - which I largely think they often struggle to do. The better they do this, the more likely they are to be able to recruit to their cause. The reason why the right is constantly asking the question 'what is a woman?' these days is because they know a lot of people on the left tie themselves in knots trying to give a clear answer to it, and that's always a good way of looking like you're winning a debate.

You're also in danger of over simplifying yourself. It's clearly not just the Christian right - traditional Muslims, athiest China and Trans Exclusionary Feminists also don't agree with 'the lefts' position. Don't misunderstand me, however, I'm in favour of trans rights, autonomy for everyone and same-sex marriage. I do think that a lot of the philosophy and discourse around it at the moment is particularly messy and not always helpful.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Okay, don't misunderstand, I'm all for life-saving operations.

I got that! I didn't think you were arguing that side of the issue at all.

My point is really that that it shouldn't be so hard to have a perfect term for 'a person who can (may at sometime in their life) get pregnant' because that's the word that's needed to talk about this issue and 'the left' already made it clear that 'woman' was exclusionary during the Rowling controversy (amongst others).

In situations where this is the required meaning, one can just say "people who can get pregnant", and I've seen that used. It doesn't trip off the tongue but it's clear.

English does have a single word that roughly expresses that same concept. But that word is "breeder", which most people would consider grossly offensive. Any other single-word solution would likely end up being equally offensive, for the same reason.

It's a principle of linguistics that concepts which get used a lot tend to get short words, and uncommon concepts make do with longer ones or compounds. I think it's okay if the only term for that particular concept is a bit unwieldy, because 99.9% of the time we shouldn't be talking about human beings in terms of their babymaking potential. This here is the other 0.1%.

But in the context of Dobbs, "people who can get pregnant" still isn't quite right.

Somebody who is medically incapable of getting pregnant may still be refused important medications, because the pharmacist thinks they might be pregnant, or might be planning to pass those meds on to somebody who is, and they don't want to take the risk of facilitating an abortion. And if a state bans people from going interstate for abortions - something that several lawmakers have floated post-Dobbs - the enforcement of that law isn't just going to touch the people who actually can get pregnant. Anybody who looks like they possibly might be pregnant then risks being detained and subjected to intrusive and humiliating investigations on suspicion. Both of those things are likely to affect women disproportionately - not solely, but far more than men.

(For a long time, it's been generally believed that the 14th Amendment prevents states from banning interstate travel. But then, it was also believed that the 14th Amendment prevented states from banning abortion.)

Going beyond what Dobbs enabled immediately, the decision also signalled that a bunch of other stuff previously considered settled law might be up for grabs; Thomas' opinion on Dobbs encouraged challenges to key precedents like Lawrence, Obergefell, and Griswold, all of which put restrictions on the government's ability to limit personal freedoms. Nobody can predict exactly how all that might turn out, but considering the groups who worked to get Roe overturned, it's not a huge stretch of imagination to think that women's rights in other areas might be under threat.

So while "women's rights" isn't a perfect descriptor of what's under threat there - and probably not the one I'd use myself - it's not necessarily less accurate than "people who can get pregnant" for this particular topic. It's a big complicated thing and no simple language is going to be perfect for describing it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You're also in danger of over simplifying yourself. It's clearly not just the Christian right - traditional Muslims, athiest China and Trans Exclusionary Feminists also don't agree with 'the lefts' position. Don't misunderstand me, however, I'm in favour of trans rights, autonomy for everyone and same-sex marriage. I do think that a lot of the philosophy and discourse around it at the moment is particularly messy and not always helpful.

The left has always had its share of genuine infighting, but on this particular topic there's also a significant amount of astroturfing. It's not merely that the Christian right and the TERFs happened to find something they agreed on. Rather, conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have significantly boosted the TERF movement and shaped it for their own advantage, because they saw the advantages in setting up a superficially "feminist" faction as a divide-and-conquer tactic. At this point the TERFs are not so much "unlikely allies" of the Religious Right as tools.

 

[Voboy]

I mostly just walk through life, trying not to offend people.

Partly, that means trying to use terms that others don't find objectionable. Do I make mistakes? Sure. Am I reliant on people of decency and goodwill to politely tell me when I'm making mistakes? Absolutely. If someone gets impolite about my mistakes and flies off the handle at me, do I lose any sleep over it? Not a wink. Their stridency is understandable, but dealing with it isn't how I want to live my life. I'll probably just avoid those people in the future.

This is a brave new world in many ways. Those of us who care about our fellow human beings are trying hard to navigate it. Others of us aren't bothering, instead choosing to stick with what makes us comfortable even if we know it makes our fellow human beings uncomfortable.

Either way, in whatever context, from whatever side? Yelling at each other isn't helping much.

 

[AlinaX]

I say 'Christian right' because that's a very well funded source of political manipulation and stochastic terrorism at the moment. Our next British PM, assuming it's Liz Truss, is practically owned by them.

And the whole "What is a woman?" thing has being going on for 5+ years now. There is only one good answer, and that is, "Whoever says she is." No one should be allowed to ask that question without first providing their own clear definition.

 

[SimonDoom]

Okay, don't misunderstand, I'm all for life-saving operations.

My point is really that that it shouldn't be so hard to have a perfect term for 'a person who can (may at sometime in their life) get pregnant' because that's the word that's needed to talk about this issue and 'the left' already made it clear that 'woman' was exclusionary during the Rowling controversy (amongst others).

I think "perfection" is an unattainable standard when it comes to language. The process of categorization is imperfect, too. Anytime you attempt to make universal statements, i.e., "A [blank] is someone who [blank]" you probably can come up with exceptions. And that's fine. If 99% of the time people understand what is meant, that's sufficient.

 

[LilyWaters]

I say 'Christian right' because that's a very well funded source of political manipulation and stochastic terrorism at the moment. Our next British PM, assuming it's Liz Truss, is practically owned by them.

And the whole "What is a woman?" thing has being going on for 5+ years now. There is only one good answer, and that is, "Whoever says she is." No one should be allowed to ask that question without first providing their own clear definition.

APPLAUSE.

 

[LilyWaters]

But can you realistically write a scene where your wife is going down on another woman, while she's being fucked from behind? Or a scene where you have two women going down on you, while your wife is being gangbanged on the other side of the room? How do you accurately describe either of those unless you've "been there, done that"?

The thing about writing fiction is that you're not technically going for ultimate realism, you're going for verisimilitude, the appearance of reality.

And, when it comes to sex, sensations and responses to the same positions, acts, stimulations are not universal either. I'll believe what you tell me about your character's experience if it comes from a place of truth. I know that the way I experience sex is not identical to other women, so why would I expect a character's experience to be absolutely identical to mine?

I'll go a long way with an author to understand their characters. If the character stops feeling like they come from a place of truth or if they endlessly contradict themselves, then you have a problem - otherwise, just have fun with it. The reader will go along.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm going to clarify my above comments by saying that if it came across I'm denigrating trans people or others, I'm not. If you have dysphoria or feel you're not who you should be or meant to be, then of course you do whatever you feel you need to be who you want to be and I support everyone trying to be themselves in this world.

But it goes south in two ways beyond the person and how they're living.

First-this need and notion that the rest of the world needs to bend the knee to everything down to rewriting the language and demonizing straight people or attacking existing genders.

Next is the wanting to be understood accepted included, be like everyone else...but then spend 24/7 telling everyone how special you are, and responding to any question with pure unbridled hate and calling people ists and phobes. I have seen countless examples, online, in real life and here where a person comes right and says they don't understand, and they don't get an explanation they get hate. Because of course 70 year old person who grew up in a very different time is supposed to inherently know and understand transgenderism.

But there is no attempt at education, just intolerance and judgement while crying they're victims of such

But the worst is the legit situations and issues are then picked up by woke and it becomes a trend and a joke. Gender is now a game. Instances all over the net of sick fuck parents 'regendering' their five year old children and posting it all on Tiktok to get cheers from equally sick people. That's abuse in the real world, but say that and oh, guess we're all phobes.

My grand daughter wants to be a shark, any recommendations for doctors that can put fins and a tail on her? I mean at 5 she clearly knows what she wants to be.

A straight-or I suppose even 'just gay'-man or women walks into second grade class room and starts talking about their genitals and who they're attracted to? That's an issue and will be treated that way. The person says "Oh I'm teaching transgenderism" and its oh, cool, teach my 8 year old who spends all night thinking about fortnight and their toys all about sex! Yay! Progressives!!!

Now referring to Pedophiles as "minor attracted people' and acting like they're okay to be that way. California is passing laws to make it easier to molest minors, but I guess anyone against that is an evil conservative or fill in the blank name.

Like anything else do what you do but keep it to doing it to you. You want to preach, you want to judge, you want to take your tiny percentage of like minded people and try to tell 98% of the world they're wrong, and we have to think its all awesome or be attacked and name called by hate filled lunch mob of jackals? Then don't expect the understanding you pretend you want. Because you don't want inclusion you want oh, woe is me, martyr points

Recent thread some dipstick used the term slut in an unflattering way, and got an earful for it. But here comes someone squealing "cis men have no right...."

Let's review that shall we, class? A person expressing outrage over someone using a slur, then name calls that person in the same derogatory way because THEY'RE way is okay. Its cool to hate straight-sorry cis-men, right? Gotta go with the trends.

The irony of it being cool to hate anyone Christian because they judge and condemn and control people by the far left who wants to judge spew hate and force their juvenile no one can tell them know mentality is just rich.

End of the day these people are miserable, full of hate and self loathing and need to project it onto everyone else.

If the people in this thread don't feel they fall under anything I said, good for you, you're a sane minority in an insane out of control majority.

Call me the names, judge me hate me, its all good. I speak my mind because its mine, and I'm a person not an ass kissing fake persona. To few are willing to do that these days in fear of judgement from whatever faction they piss off. I know me, the people close to me in my real life know me, and they are all who matters. In no other time has being popular meant that you're the one who's wrong more than it does now. If you're popular today, you're a member of someone's cult.