Foreign Office advertising for Gender Advisers

*REdshoes the problem is that we have had the word "gender", as a useful theoretical tool in the social sciences, used to describe the way in which different cultures use stereotypes to oppress people of the female sex, stolen from us by a group of men who want to use it to describe some amorphous internal feeling of pink fluffy femininity.

It's not the fault of feminists that this useful word has been stolen and bastardised to mean something else, to the point where it becomes meaningless.

I totally agree that it is vital that we have some sort of word to describe what the social sciences used to mean by gender. And personally, I don't think it's any accident that a group of incredibly, toxically misogynistic men have chosen this word, of all words, to steal, thus robbing us of the theoretical and explanatory framework in which to make sense of the means by which men (biological category) oppress women (biological category) using culturally and socially constructed ideologies about how women are "supposed" to be.*

This 100%

In the early days the UN used sex more often as per the UK, then I think as the USA etc and social sciences got involved it moved to the word gender talking about sex-based issues.

But gender should never have been uncoupled from sex or given legitimacy as a feeling or identity. It tries to drive a fucking sledge hammer through everything women have been working towards.

First they came for gender, then they came for woman, now they have come for female

This is a red herring. reddressblueshoes and museumofinnocence are correct - the word "gender" has a different history in international development organisations than in the current UK debate. Both words, sex and gender, are used, depending on which is the right word. It's in no way denying that it is girls, not boys, who are victims of FGM, quite the reverse. I understand why people react strongly to the word because we are getting collectively traumatised by the loss of female words/safe spaces etc in the UK. But it is different, and there is no more reason to change the word 'gender' than there is to to change the word 'sex' in the context of this sort of role. And yes, the UK etc are major donors to aid - but to say that other countries will automatically adopt a UK-centric approach to the transgender debate just doesn't reflect the fact that countries are (a) sovereign (b) are complex and (c) have vocal human rights and women's groups whom we should be empowering to speak. Currently it wouldn't be a priority for the UK's global engagement - a long way after things like tackling violence against women, increasing access to family planning, girls education, which are already in the UK's global strategies. Which isn't to say it might not appear in the future and I am keeping a little eye on that in my non-existent lunchbreak. Whether or not that was a negative would depend on the content of the policy. A human rights approach which respected both trans people's rights to safety and dignity and the rights of women to single sex spaces, all-women shortlists, the right to describe their own experience, sexual autonomy etc would be fine - wouldn't it? But right now the struggle to avoid the erosion of those rights of women is in the UK.

FGM is an atrocity carried out against girls (old school cunty ones) due to prevailing beliefs and social norms in the cultures it is carried out around girls, women, men, sex, marriage, duty, adultery, and so on. The latter part is gender, in the traditional sense. In the sense that feminists use it and the WHO still use it. Misogyny is the theory, gender is the practice, as someone much more clever and famous than me once said.

The problem is that:

1. FGM has already been idenitifed as a transphobic label, as it links the word female to vulvas / clitorises etc
2. Charities using these types of terms & more espeically around periods have been attacked on social media and many have capitulated
3. Gender in many countries that donate to / run a lot of international dev efforts (and there are many conversations around that!) are putting internal gender iD into law and down the line removing sex, this WILL impact funding bids and ability to spend money on cunty people

The erosion of language is non trivial.

OP would (presumably) not support a charity using the wording in teh job ad as she would understand it to mean it helps people under the stonewall trans umbrella, not women and girls (original cunty style ones)

And so on.

So would you say FGM is sex-based or gender-based? I mean, obviously it's both

What the actual fuck? FGM is SEX-BASED. In no way shape or form is it gender-based FFS. Seriously get your definitions corrected. I don't see swathes of boys from Somalian communities being removed to have their clitorises removed. Maybe you do....

This just goes to show the awful consequences of changing words to mean something completely different. We end up fighting amongst ourselves about words and who lose: the most vulnerable in the world.

And no, with that I do not mean white middle class guys who like to play dress up.

"Can you think of ways that 'gender' can be restored to its true meaning?"

Good question.

Apologies for getting angry.

reddress I'm sure you do a great job and I'm sorry for shouting.

Good to see useful perspctives coming from people who have used the word 'gender' in its ? historical ? context, particularly in relations to different cultures. Thank you!

Can you think of ways that 'gender' can be restored to its true meaning?

Argentina (just googling)

• development

UK
USA
Canada
Australia
Ireland

English speaking first.
The USA is quite a big country and economy >> non trivial.

I don't know how this is going in Europe > I believe there have been protests in France.

Different issues in other countries HOWEVER the theory is VERY appealing to men in power & anyone who wants to halt or reverse womens progress so it's naive to say it won't be picked up as a "progressive" cause all over the place.

Culturally-determined sex role?

The word 'gender' itself is now rather ironically being used as a tool for removing resources from female people for reallocation to males. I'll eat my hat if it doesn't come to bite International Relations on the arse sooner or later.

Where does the money come from, for international development work?
It comes from governments who are removing SEX based protections and rights and replacing them with GENDER based ones.

What will this mean for the orgs and govt departments when they put their bids in? And are asked how they are ensuring GENDER equality, when that means not male / female but how you ID???

It will be signiificant. This will spread. It is not a niche thing for one corner of the world.

But @FermatsTheorem as @MuseumofInnocence and I have said, as people who work in this sector, the word is still used properly by the development sector. Has been since the Beijing conference about 30 years ago. Is in this job advert, and is in the work we both do.

It's really UK centric to say that because it's not used properly in the U.K. anymore it can't be used by a large global sector with a lot of active feminists from the global south who would not agree the term no longer has meaning.

If and when these approaches get embedded here they WILL spread to the rest of the world and then where will women and girls be? FUCKED is where, with no way of measuring sex based oppression any more.

This is already happening.

DO NOT BLAME FEMINISTS FFS.

"Ol, I'll ask again @NothingOnTellyAgain - what is the word that helps me make the distinction between biological sexual differences and the culturally acquired assumptions around that? "

GO AND ASK THE TRANS RIGHTS ACTIVISTS WHO HAVE REDFINED THIS WORD FROM UNDER US.

I have NO ARGUMENT with your definition of it as that is WHAT IIT MEANS or used to
Like it or not, it does NOT any more.

Don't argue that with feminsits FFS go and tell of the TRAs and see how far you get.

This redefinition of the word has had SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for example in thre recording of crime stats in the UK and the placing of men convicted of rape in women's prisons, as one of the more extreme examples.

This is NOT the work of FEMINISTS FFS.

REdshoes the problem is that we have had the word "gender", as a useful theoretical tool in the social sciences, used to describe the way in which different cultures use stereotypes to oppress people of the female sex, stolen from us by a group of men who want to use it to describe some amorphous internal feeling of pink fluffy femininity.

It's not the fault of feminists that this useful word has been stolen and bastardised to mean something else, to the point where it becomes meaningless.

I totally agree that it is vital that we have some sort of word to describe what the social sciences used to mean by gender. And personally, I don't think it's any accident that a group of incredibly, toxically misogynistic men have chosen this word, of all words, to steal, thus robbing us of the theoretical and explanatory framework in which to make sense of the means by which men (biological category) oppress women (biological category) using culturally and socially constructed ideologies about how women are "supposed" to be.

Sorry, that should be is bolleaux!

I work in international development, and here I think it is a proper use of the word gender. At least as it is commonly used in the sector. Gender expectations are imposed by men, because of sex, on women all across the world, and in that regards, there isn't anything particularly creepy about the use of the word gender.

I'm relatively new to all this but this:

So would you say FGM is sex-based or gender-based? I mean, obviously it's both

isn't bolleaux, surely? Female Genital Multilation is practised on females — you know, people with vaginas and clitorises and labia.

Do you think I'm not a feminist? Seriously? I've run gender workshops, I've worked with victims of domestic violence, I don't currently live in the U.K. and I accept the trans issue might be the most important battle facing feminism in that context but I'm telling you that globally, the women who will be reached by the projects these roles are likely to work on, will most likely never have heard of the context. They will be dealing with cultural practices and norms and laws that are a million miles away from the fights people are having on twitter about pronouns.

And I'm not saying those arguments aren't important, I'm saying why the hell do a small group of western activists get to stop people using a concept like gender. It might be tainted in the U.K.: it's not being used that way amongst people working in international development/aid, at least not so far. So why don't those women get to have that difference, if it will mean interventions are better tailored for them?

Ol, I'll ask again @NothingOnTellyAgain - what is the word that helps me make the distinction between biological sexual differences and the culturally acquired assumptions around that? Because feminists like me have been cheerily using gender to explain sex based discrimination for decades. Do you honestly think there's no distinction between how these perceptions play out country by country? Or do you just not care?

Of course women face discrimination, violence, abuse because they're women. But there's an actual distinction between the cause of that violence that is useful, otherwise how do you hope to address it? Talk to women in developing countries and understand their perspective: people have been fighting cultural perceptions and practices for years and making snide comments about how if they just said they were male it would go away is just showing your ignorance about what the world is like
outside the island you live in. Ive worked with women who have set up shelters for those fleeing domestic violence in countries where marital rape is still legal and even approved of: gender was a concept championed by feminists as an explanatory tool for decades. Just because it's been misappropriated doesn't mean you get to decide it no longer has explanatory power for those of us still using its original meaning.

Do universities still offer gender studies degrees?

Does they attract so much bile as well?

I think ^reddressblueshoes* is absolutely correct, esoecialky looking at the department in which these advisers will be based.

If you are accusing FEMINISTS over the AGES of not understanding what SEX ROLE is and why it is THE tool by which girls and women are oppressed all over the world BECAUSE of their sex

Then I don't know what else to say really.

Those second wavers were thick as fucking shit weren't they.

And you CANNOT remove the gender role from the sex on which is is based.

Talking about gender role with no reference to sex is what certain activists are trying to do.

They say that oppression of women and girls is NOT sex based but baed on their "feminine" (enforced sex role) behaviours. This is arse about face, entirely.

reddressblueshoes

IT IS NOT FEMINISTS WHO HAVE FUCKED UP WHAT GENDER MEANS. FEMINSITS ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE WORKED ON GENDER (SEX ROLE) FOR DECADES AND IDENTIFIED IT AS THE TOOL BY WHICH WOMEN AND GIRLS (AND MEN AND BOYS) ARE OPPRESSED.

GO AND TELL OFF THE TRANS ACTIVISTS.

Fuxake talk about telling your grandmother how to suck eggs.

IT IS NOT US YOU NEED TO ARGUE WITH. IT'S THE TRANS ACTIVISTS. GET ON TWITTER AND SEE WHAT RESPONSE THEY GIVE YOU.