I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

So, I complained to the BBC about Jenner being included on the 'Power List' and have received this response:

Dear Bore

Thanks for contacting us regarding Radio 4’s ‘Woman’s Hour’ on 1 July.

We note you were unhappy that Caitlyn Jenner featured on the Woman's Hour Power List 2015.

This list featured women involved in a wide range of areas, from politics and fashion to journalism and entertainment. As stated on the Woman’s Hour website, “The aim of this year’s list was to identify a range of women who have an exceptionally large impact on our lives, not just because of their job title but because of their personal ability to influence others.”

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1wsc6xjTph1CvN5jWzLtfzT/womans-hour-2015-power-list-influencers
The list was decided upon by a panel of judges, headed up by journalist and broadcaster Emma Barnett and including human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy QC and Radio 1 DJ Gemma Cairney. They looked at well-known women's personal ability to influence others. You can read more about the judges here:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1YmbsbyVkMDTXgjwgn9P4Ff/the-womans-hour-2015-power-list-influencers
As the following BBC News article on Caitlyn Jenner’s inclusion notes:

“Speaking about Jenner's inclusion in this year's top 10, Daily Mail columnist and judge Sarah Vine acknowledged it was controversial, for several reasons.

"Initially... many of us felt that Kim Kardashian would have to appear somewhere - not because any of us felt any particular admiration for the woman, but simply because her influence on millions of women worldwide is undeniable.

"But then the Caitlyn Jenner story broke and I in particular felt that she trumped all others in the celebrity stakes."

She added: "I understand why someone like Jenner might make people feel uncomfortable; but she is a human being like the rest of us and should not be denied the same rights - or indeed respect - as those who live more conventional lives.

"As to her influence, it can only be to the good if a wider audience can learn to understand her experience."”

Woman's Hour editor Alice Feinstein also gave her thoughts on the list, adding:

“"The way power operates in today's global, interconnected society is not straightforward - brokers of hard power like prime ministers, presidents and CEOs are no longer calling all the shots.

"What I wanted to examine in this year's list of influencers is how women are operating outside traditional power structures to get things done."”

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33344317
We hope this is helpful in explaining the focus of this list, and giving more insight into the judges’ decisions, but we appreciate that you may continue to disagree with Caitlyn Jenner’s inclusion and we appreciate your feedback.

Please know complaints are sent to programme makers and senior management every morning and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.

Kind regards

Stuart Webb

BBC Complaints

Am thinking of including in my response the points Miranda Yardley (referred to upthread) makes.

And I'm not sure about this, but I suspect that psychosexual experts at the time would have agreed with her.

Germaine Greer said that in the 70s. She was wrong.

But it is important to remember that she said it in the context of a society in which it was widely believe that women could not be raped if they kept their legs closed or wore trousers, that wearing a short skirt meant that a woman was asking to be raped and that women could not be raped by their husbands. And that a woman could not have been raped if she did not struggle, or if her vagina produce any lubrication.

Anyway. Apologies for the derailing- but it needed to be said.

What's wrong with Willy? It's a perfectly normal term that millions of people in the uk use.

So we can be told that our vaginas (which as we all know are fairly complex functioning organs) are now to be known as a "front hole" ie nothing more than a void ffs with all function gone except that it can accommodate things, and for gods sake men refer to us as holes enough anyway don't they? And yet the thing to make a fuss about is the use of the word Willy?

Just horrible horrible stuff.

Did she say that? Fucking hell that's awful. I assume she has retracted that since? What a stupid thing to say.

Purdie you can't call them women and trans women because that is not what they want and various countries have laws as well to say they are women. It is in many circles considered offensive to say trans rather than just women, or to suggest that they didn't grow up as girls, (if they believe they have always been female then they literally have been), for feminists this feels like wiping the lived experience of females everywhere out entirely but hey ho.

Greer was very wrong to say that in the 70s

I don't think Greer has ever got the coverage that the kardashians have, and I'm not sure how influential she was compared to many others.

Gender critical is exactly what you have described Sophie - understanding that gender roles are socially constructed and not innate. Trans activist theory holds that gender is an innate quality that can exist in contrast to biological sex and in fact supersedes biological sex as an identifying factor. So the woman with a penis/not all women have vaginas dogma.
A gender critical person may say that a trans woman is a biological male who chooses to adopt socially constructed gender roles assigned to women, but that is construed as hate speech in some circles.

Did you actually use the word willy?

I don't understand the need for the word cis. How about we call people who are born women 'women' and someone who later decides they should have been born one of those women 'trans'.

The Kardashians may well be 'awful, awful' people but they are one of the most influential pack of morons on the planet. I don't think they pose as much of a danger to a generation's thinking as, say, Germaine Greer, who told us that a boy cannot by definition be raped as an erection demonstrates consent.

Then you would be deemed a trans exclusionary rad fem, Sophie, because there has been a fair measure of success in equating those two concepts, as can be seen from Lou's initial insulting post.

Sophie- the cis thing isn't quite that. The narrative is that some people are born as women. Some of them are biologically women from birth- so are cis. Some are not- so are trans. But they are all women. I think that's right.

I struggle with this, despite my unwanted categorisation as a Mumsnet RadFem. I still don't know what I think- it goes against something very visceral in me about being a woman and being part of a centuries old struggle. But my daughter tells me I'm wrong. So I am still thinking......

Back to the OP. I think it boils down to a few things for me;

1. What it is to be female being defined by someone with a penis. That doesn't seem new or radical to me.

1. Feminists being derailed, no-platformed and pushed out by this agenda.

1. Being gender critical has somehow been completely eclipsed by being gender fluid or trans. There is suddenly no issue with the box I'm shoved into, because I can just pick another box. The fucking cis-label!

1. Transpeople being defined by a vacuous media-hungry bunch of awful, awful people (the Jenner/Kardasians). The trans people I know are thoughtful, gender-critical, interesting friends.

(sigh) I posted at 11.28. Now please go and be Head Prefect somewhere else.

I had no idea that was impolite, sorry. I would have thought that someone wishing to hide would be a little more inventive with their new username, perhaps. My mistake

No it's not good form in the slightest.