For the Attention of Posters in the "bloody terf" thread

(707 Posts)
PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:05:00

So we can stop disrupting the OP's thread, and continue the discussion here.

OP’s posts: |
PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:07:32

Now, if man is a social category, I want to learn what that category is.

What does man encompass?

OP’s posts: |
AlfonsoTheUnrepetant Sun 24-Oct-21 18:08:31

Well, that depends. Are you referring to Earth or a planet from an universe?

WiseUpJanetWeiss Sun 24-Oct-21 18:08:37

Sorry, yes, you’re absolutely right. Also here for getting back to basic definitions.

PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:10:13

AlfonsoTheUnrepetant

Well, that depends. Are you referring to Earth or a planet from an universe?

I'm the Angel Gabriel alien, thank you. You're the third shepherd an Earthling.

So there.

OP’s posts: |
TheWeeDonkey Sun 24-Oct-21 18:11:17

Yes sorry. I did say I'd stop doing it and then I kept doing it.

PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:12:39

I am also completely guilty of the same, Donkey.

OP’s posts: |

Advertisement

TheWeeDonkey Sun 24-Oct-21 18:16:09

But if its a social category I guess you could say everything. What men want men get one way or another. Looking at the disruptors posts about woman as a social category I can't help but think about women in Afghanistan and how deeply their lives have changed based purely on the whims of men.

To say that is an identity that you can just chose feels so obnoxious to me. I can't help but get riled up.

Deliriumoftheendless Sun 24-Oct-21 18:26:50

You know full well that disruption of the thread is the intention of Some Posters.

Of course I may be wrong and Some Posters may impart their wisdom on this thread but...

PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:29:15

@Sillystrings423

I just saw you say Sex-based segregation is gender, and upholding sex-based segregation is the opposite of "abolishing gender".

So presumably you're against separation by gender, then, and you would like hospital wards to be mixed sex and mixed gender, and for there never to be separate provision for trans people?

OP’s posts: |
Blibbyblobby Sun 24-Oct-21 18:35:13

Phew, I caught this just before posting a literal essay. I do hope @SillyStrings423** comes over as the debate has actually ended up a lot more promising than it started out.

@SillyStrings423**

Then, as the child grows up, they may realize they feel uncomfortable with the gender identity they had been assigned based on their genitals, because it is at odds with what they know they'd feel more comfortable with. That feeling persists in transgender people, no different than repressed homosexual feelings persist in gay people.

So there's a few things to unpack here.

There is the body's physical sex - fixed at conception and binary in humans (in rare cases the physical expression is unusual due to a DSD, but every human is either male or female). (A)

There are the stereotypes and expectations our society attaches to the physical sex of the body - what you call the "social categories" and Gender Critical people call "Gender". (B)

There is the Gender Identity, which Genderists believe to be an innate sense of - something - that makes one akin to others of the same gender and different to those who are not. (I'm not a genderist so I may have this wrong. Please feel free to clarify). (C)

I agree with you in today's society, historic sexism means that Man and Woman are social categories (B) as well as simple body types. (A)

If I understand properly, both Genderists (those who believe in an innate gender identity) and Gender Critical people (those who believe Gender is always a social construct) think it's wrong that A and B are linked together. Both agree that while your body sex (A) exists, it should not force you into a particular social category/gender (B).

So far, so the same. The difference is in how each group thinks this should be resolved.

Gender critical people either do not believe that (C) exists, or believe it exists but is a personal thing that should not be a basis for laws that overrule sex. (Please be very clear here that believing (C) does not exist is not the same as believing trans people themselves do not exist! As an analogy, I believe nuns exist and are genuine people whose faith is honestly held and makes a real difference in the world, but I do not share their beliefs about the source and purpose of their, or my, existence.)

So the gender critical position simply is that we should get rid of (B), leaving Man and Woman as names for certain body types, (A), with no social element. For GC people, (A) is fixed and so has to be dealt with, (B) is a social construct that only serves to limit people and we would all be better off and freer without it, and (C) is simply an individual aspect of someone's personality.

From that perspective, a trans identity becomes unimportant not because gender is fixed, but because there is no difference between men and women other than those which are consequences of the bodies we have. The trans person was always valid and does not have to change anything to be seen as who they are.

However, because male and female bodies have different capabilities, and because female-bodied people suffer from society's sexist history, Gender Critical people also accept that even if we reduce to (A) there will still be times we need to retain sex-specific rights or protections. The important thing to understand is that from a GC perspective, when we distinguish between men and women it is nothing to do with any individual's personality or self-image, just a practical distinction based on the sex of the body for times when the sex of the body matters.

This is a longstanding Feminist view that predates the current trans movement by many decades.

The Genderist view is, I think, that we should keep (B) and (C) but get rid of (A). Everyone becomes free to choose a social sex category (B) that suits them best based on their gender identity (C). For Genderists, body sex (A) is irrelevant because they do not believe it gives rise to significant social or physical consequences and therefore it can be ignored outside some medical settings. Female people do not need any social, political and legal protections.

However gender identity (C) does have significant consequences and mean for some things humans need to be separated by gender. (I'm not sure why, nor why those "things" happen to be exactly the same things that were historically based on sex. Would be great to have that explained.)

So the clash is not about one side wanting to keep stereotypes based on sex and the other wanting to lose them. Both sides want to lose them. The clash is about the best way to do that.

So, to get back to our uncomfortable child...

Genderists would say their discomfort is because the child was "assigned" the wrong gender (B) based on an incorrect link between sex and gender (A) and (B). To be fully comfortable the child needs to assert their true gender (C). (For some reason this also often involves changing cosmetic aspects of physical sex, which I don't understand since it's the assigned gender that is supposedly wrong rather than the body sex - I wish someone would explain that...)

Gender critical people (those who do not believe in gender identity) think it's because the child is reacting against the social limitations imposed on them through sex stereotypes (again B, but this time from a gender-critical perspective). To be fully comfortable, the child needs society to ditch the social category aspect of sex (B) completely.

I can see why Genderism is attractive. It's the easy option. An individual only needs to worry about their own transition, not the wider picture. It gives the illusion of progressiveness and acceptance without having to force society to ever properly break down those social categories. As feminists can tell you we've been trying to smash them for decades and the beggars are tough!

But it's the Gender Critical position that is genuinely progressive.

TheWeeDonkey Sun 24-Oct-21 18:40:30

Deliriumoftheendless

You know full well that disruption of the thread is the intention of Some Posters.

Of course I may be wrong and Some Posters may impart their wisdom on this thread but...


True. Distract from the purpose of the thread, regardless of the torment the OP may be feeling. Or even to exacerbate the torment OP may be feeling. Its a game to them

PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:40:32

I really liked this post from @Nellodee

All the aliens i know reproduce via parthenogenesis. Would you mind please explaining the social categories of man and woman to them, please, as they have no notion of social roles signed to sex at all (they do understand sex, but no sentient beings on their planet are dimorphic, only dumb beasts).

OP’s posts: |
Nellodee Sun 24-Oct-21 18:43:52

Sorry, I will await any possible answers on this thread now!

BloodinGutters Sun 24-Oct-21 18:49:31

Oh my! Is this the alien place? Have I finally transcended?

You may now all basque in the otherworldly glow of my inner green essence.

(I am otherworldly. You of course are merely cisworldly)

PickAChew Sun 24-Oct-21 18:49:33

Placemarking so I can benefit from more silly strings.

DialSquare Sun 24-Oct-21 18:50:42

I would join in but I'm too busy laughing at earthlings peeling and mashing potatoes.

PurgatoryOfPotholes Sun 24-Oct-21 18:52:00

I hope your wish is granted.

I did not expect any of this <points incoherently at both threads> to ensue from a simple question.

I thought Sillystrings would just, y'know, answer it and we'd be on something else by now.

OP’s posts: |
Blibbyblobby Sun 24-Oct-21 18:53:03

@SillyStrings423

From your post on the other thread:

Sex-based segregation, in and of itself, is a social construct. Categorizing humans into "men" and "women", and deciding which spaces they should be sorted into, is assigning social significance to sex. And there's a word for that: Gender.

Sex-based segregation is gender, and upholding sex-based segregation is the opposite of "abolishing gender".

Yes, you are right. But you are missing the big picture. These segregated spaces exist because of male behaviour. They are not the result of a random whimsical social decision back in the day to separate females from males, they were created specifically in response to male violence and encroachment on female people.

So while I agree with you that this male behaviour is gender rather than innate - at least, I really hope it is, I would hate to think it's built into male people - it's not as simple as "get rid of the female spaces and it will all be wonderful". While it is wrong that we should need protection, we do need protection, and we will need it until the male gendered behaviour has gone away.

So what of trans women? Unfortunately, outside the adoption (by some) of stereotypical gender presentation, there is no evidence that trans women as a group align to female gendered behaviour norms rather than male, and in some very critical areas like sexual assault the evidence is that trans women still offend at the same rate as other males. That is in no way to reject their gender identity, simply a recognition that in the current climate, it is not fair and safe to treat trans women as female. We have to see evidence there is no risk before we dismantle protections even if the ideal long term goal is not to need them.

If you really want a gender-free world, it has to start by solving the problem of male behaviour.

sanluca Sun 24-Oct-21 19:02:11

In addition to Blibblyblobby, even if males behaved themselves, even then the categories of sex matter.

Toilets are designed diffferently based on sex, because female bodies have different needs and work differently than male bodies.

Changing rooms are segregated by sex because most people don't want to strip naked in front of members of the opposite sex they don't know. For the human right of dignity, changing rooms should stay single sex.

Sports. To give women a chance of winning, sports needs to stay segregated by sex. You can devise a different way of calculating advantages and disadvantages like with the paralympic classifications, but it would be a lot of work whilst segregation based on sex is fairly simple for most people.

Healthcare, womens bodies have different symptoms, different reactions, different illnesses, different treatments. Yes, you could say everyone should get tailored experience, but everybody knows that that is just not feasible. I mean, they don't even test new medication on women half the time.

And so on and so on. So segregating humans on sex needs to stay. And we need names for those classifications. And those classification will never put male transwomen in with female humans. It just does not work that way.

prudencepuffin Sun 24-Oct-21 19:03:22

*Sex based segregation doesnt happen in nature".
Sorry for introducing a note of frivolity, but I just had a vision of a long line of rabbits queueing up to go into the "Ladies".

Nobody can explain coherently why womanhood is just a feeling - Ive entirely given up on waiting for that one and all the sex stereotyping which gender enthusiasts seem to go in for just appears entirely retrogressive.

SillyStrings423 Sun 24-Oct-21 19:08:27

@Blibbyblobby
"These segregated spaces exist because of male behaviour. They are not the result of a random whimsical social decision back in the day to separate females from males, they were created specifically in response to male violence and encroachment on female people."

That's weird, because as far I can tell, the segregation is a product of patriarchal gender norms, and the notion that women are fragile delicate flowers in need of constant sheltering from the brutal society is a part of those gender norms.

That's actually part of the reason why for a long time women were expected not to leave home without a male escort.

BloodinGutters Sun 24-Oct-21 19:10:09

DialSquare

I would join in but I'm too busy laughing at earthlings peeling and mashing potatoes.

I was about to ask why you were peeing in the mash

BloodinGutters Sun 24-Oct-21 19:12:12

PurgatoryOfPotholes

I hope your wish is granted.

I did not expect any of this <points incoherently at both threads> to ensue from a simple question.

I thought Sillystrings would just, y'know, answer it and we'd be on something else by now.

Answers are hard for people who are transillogical.

You’re showing your cislogic privilege there.

SillyStrings423 Sun 24-Oct-21 19:13:31

@Blibbyblobby
"But it's the Gender Critical position that is genuinely progressive."

Do you seriously not wonder why it's being backed by people like Boris Johnson, Matt Walsh, or Andy Ngo? Why the entirety of the reactionary right-wing movement seems to be backing the GC view on trans issues?

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in