"What makes a women" NY Times article

It's a coincidence that the only people who think abortion isn't a women's issue, are MRA's and transactivists, isn't it?

And of course your definition of feminism, removes the agent of female oppression.

Natch.

Um. Abortion is a women's rights issue because men can't have abortions. It's not about who cares about abortions, it's about who has them (and who needs those rights protected).

"but can't help but feel that the ultimate aim of feminism should be for all people to define themselves largely as adult humans and to be able to drop the gender bit."

How about you go away and work on that aim and leave feminists to carry on working on their aim, which is liberation from male supremacy? If you work on ensuring that women can function as adult humans and we work on liberating ourselves from male supremacy, we might one day not only define ourselves as adult humans but be treated as and accepted as adult humans. Even by men.

"abortion isn't really a women's rights issue."

Eh?

I don't disagree that roughly equal numbers of men and women support The availability of abortion. That doesn't stop abortion from being a women's rights issue, any more than it stops prostate cancer being a men's health issue no matter how many guys I sponsor in Movember.

Slut shaming, the Irish laundries etc etc are cultural reactions to biological realities. At no point did I say they were evolutionary psychology.

If you don't think sexism throughout the past 2000+ years has its roots in the differing biologies (macro - uterus or testes, not gene expression), what do you think it is rooted in?

Yonic

Genes are not a set of rules, they are a set of processes. These processes interact, conflict and co-operate within our bodies, interact with the genes of those around us through a variety of information pathways (e.g. language) and with society as a whole. They are altered by our experiences, and their expression depends upon the context in which they are placed. The human brain is by several magnitudes of order the most complex and sophisticated system we have ever known and our socially sensitive genes are much more recent and often more powerful than our most of our other genes.

To simply say that women have the babies and men slut-shame them because of the differences in genetic reproductive advantage is a huge over-simplification of human behaviour. It is also a hypothesis that (as far as I know) has no empirical support - evolutionary psychology is not a proper science. I would say it's an example of the appeal to nature dressed up in the clothes of science en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature - that is, male sexual violence is "normal" because it is "natural" and that non-violent males are somehow an exception to basic male behaviour, are "unnatural", and could revert to their "natural" state of violence at any moment. The same principle of "natural" racially determined behavioural traits was used to justify enslaving black people.

In fact, almost no aspect of our current human behaviour has been untouched by the last few tens of millenia. Our eating habits, our sexual habits, our family structures, our technology, our means of communicating, our means of getting around - all these are cultural creations which we have adapted to. I'd suggest that the act of inventing civilization was like an Extinction Event for humanity, leading to a sudden evolutionary surge that is possibly still ongoing. Many of our genes are very recent developments www.newscientist.com/article/dn8483-civilisation-has-left-its-mark-on-our-genes.html#.VXiZZvlViko . Our genes are intrinsically tied into our societies because they evolved in a complex social environment and so nature and nurture cannot be separated out. For us there is no such thing as biological human behaviour, all human behaviour has a social aspect.

So, cultural context. If this model of human behaviour is correct, male human sexual violence is not an example of men simply following their genetic destinies, but is an outcome of the way society conditions different genetic systems. Boys grow up looking for a model of how to behave towards women and many currently grow up thinking sexual violence is normal and the sexual objectification of women as something to aspire to. Sexual violence is not the result of a lack of socialization, but is a direct outcome of socialization. By this logic, the assertion (made by some feminists) that men are naturally sexually violent actually adds to the socialization of men as potential sex offenders. It instills in young minds the model of "normal" male sexual behaviour being that of violent behaviour.

Instead, we should take the approach that there is no natural state for either boys and girls. Gender-neutralizing early childhood experiences is not about overcoming genetic pre-programming, but is about preventing stereotypes being programmed into the genes in the first place. The possession of a penis is irrelevant to success in physics, and the possession of a womb is irrelevant to success in parenting. The possession of any particular set of genes is irrelevant when it comes to our basic human rights. To be a boy is to primarily be a person and so it is with being a girl. Anything that draws a significant distinction between men and women encourages gender stereotyping, and that includes attitudes towards rape and abortion. In other words, actively ignoring gender differences by not highlighting the gender aspects of a particular social issue actually does make it more likely sexism will disappear in a puff of smoke. Abortion is certainly a gender-neutral right in my mind and derives entirely from our human right to self-determination. Interestingly, Google gave me this. www.norc.org/pdfs/gss%20reports/trends%20in%20attitudes%20about%20abortion_final.pdf

While abortion is often characterized as a women’s rights issue, there is little difference between men and women in their attitudes toward abortions and men are actually slightly more supportive of legalization [...]

I'd certainly say that women make up the majority of the most vocal advocates of abortion, but I think the statistics suggest that abortion isn't really a women's rights issue.

Thanks Yonic, that was what I was looking at. I wonder how it go in?

This from one of the links someone posted earlier.

blackvulva.tumblr.com/post/120232038553/imagine-this-white-people-who-claim-that-they-are

Here is a good link:

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/308050/The_Workplace_Guide_Nov_2013.pdf

Absolutely, the Emperor's new clothes comes to mind whenever I read phrases like "This is a step towards unlearning that penises equates to maleness", or similar!

Can I ask, how did this legal situation arise so that now anyone identifying is female is considered female. I mean do they need to pass a test, an exam, something, anything? Could a woman in prison have a male put in her room if the male says they are female? Etc?

I don't read the newspapers but I read the internet a lot and of course have seen this all since it became law but when and how did it become law! Is it part of the 2010 Gender equality act?

Thanks.

'TERF' is slightly more cunning though because the average right on lefty liberal is horrified at the idea that they aren't open minded and inclusive of everybody and everything. They will throw girls and women under the bus in order to fall over themselves to declare the Emperor's nakedness a marvelous set of trendy progressive post-modernist clothes.

I love this, Beachcomber.

Also loving WETs

That is a very powerful blog, Beachcomber. Thanks for linking.

There is a list here of transwomen who are gender critical on the fantastic 'The New Backlash' blog (please everyone read it and link to it where you can as it is a very very good summary and analysis of where we are at with transpolitics).

I love the quote from Susan Hawthorne in the introduction.

Language has its political uses and obscure language is always helpful to those with power. Orwell named this in his novels 1984 and Animal Farm, referring to the need to confuse others either by applying contradictory terminology or by using terms that are so vague as to be rendered meaningless. Politicians and bureaucrats revel in obscurantism and one of the powerful challenges to this is sheer clarity of language. Obscurantism leads to political passivity and social fatalism. Feminists need always to be awake to such strategies and the use of clear, context specific and direct language is the first step in truly transforming society.

Good article OP

I read you piece in the New Statesman about female only spaces. It is really well written and I am just so sorry this happens to anyone.

The article mentioned some Trangender people who support the issues around women only spaces, I wonder where we could read about things from them? Does anyone know?

I saw this on Twitter this morning and want to add it to our MN arsenal of very good graphics.

That's a really interesting article - is that an accurate representation of the trans movement in terms of fighting to change language around women and our bodies?? Or a more extreme end of the scale?
I find the language attacks very frightening - I found as a teen that my own body was a bit of a mystery thanks to a Catholic upbringing and it took me a lot of time plus a few library books to feel confident that I knew what my bodily labels were. In fact, I knew horrid slang before I knew true names as slang words are used so, so frequently (as insult as well as description). To have another set of words pushed onto my body has genuinely upset me.

The mainstream representation of trans women doesn't reflect any of this issue as far as I have noticed (although safe to say I could simply have just missed it) - in those, anyone who doesn't agree is coded as bigot and either has a revelation or gets their comeuppance (thinking hollyoaks recent storyline for example). How is it that respected women aren't being allowed to debate this and being pushed into the same box as racists with hate speech?

Quest

On the whole, feminists prefer to dismantle gender ( nail polish is for girls/trucks are for boys type nonsense)

However, much fundamental sexism comes from the different biology of the sexes. Women can bear children and men might not know who fathered those children. Hence slut shaming, feelings of ownership around one's girlfriend and Madonna/whore type notions. Women can bear children so need access to safe Abortion. Women are typically physically weaker and, often because of above feelings of ownership, are more vulnerable to physical or sexual attack by a male partner.

Of course we are all people but that definition doesn't make issues of sexism, racism, ageism, ableism go up in a puff of smoke.

The fact that Caitlyn Jenner could declare that being a woman is about 'mindset and lifestyle' makes it absolutely clear that she has no fucking clue what it means to be a woman.

I'm not sure what your point is?

TheCowThatLaughs

As a man raised in a misogynistic society by a feminist mother, I've spent a long time learning to define myself not as a adult human man, but just as an adult human. I know I'm very lucky to be able to do this, as being a man doesn't place many limitations on my life these days, but can't help but feel that the ultimate aim of feminism should be for all people to define themselves largely as adult humans and to be able to drop the gender bit.

The only definition of a woman is an adult human female. No other "definition" is accurate, Caitlin can "define" "herself" in any way "she" chooses, but she can't become a woman. That's the problem.

Interesting piece. I've not been on any of the 'trans' threads and haven't been aware of the issues up till now so this has been very helpful.

I think women's situation is already well defined internationally as being a lived experience from childhood of gender inequality by those whose biological sex is female.

All women's rights commitments are framed in that way, as far as I'm aware.

I don't see that the female or male brain/mind/essence/soul has much to do with that.

To quote: "But I also want her to remember: Nail polish does not a woman make."

Help out a dumb male here. Is the problem that Caitlyn Jenners does such a poor, oversimplified, job of defining herself as a woman, or is it that she feels the need to define herself so explicitly as a woman in the first place? Not sure if the point of the article is that women are being defined in the wrong way by the wrong people, or that women shouldn't actually be defined at all.