Gender Critical = fundamentally right wing (according to Vox)

Just saying with no evidence that trans women pose a threat to women in vulnerable situations for example, is not a good faith argument. No! That really isn't how it works. It is up to those who wish to bring about change to do an impact assessment. Women are entiteld to just say no! That and of course, the ever growing number of instances where transwomen have been a direct, and prosecuted, threat to women and girls in single sex spaces - lots of threads about those too - try searching for It never happens!

What I find extreme and bigoted on MN is the fundamental position that this should always be the case. There is no room for the sensitive consideration of trans women because they are at the first instance dismissed as not women and therefore excluded from any woman centric idea or resource. Blame TRAs for this. For decades women put up with transwomen in ladies loos - this is why TRAs often reduce this arguyment to toilets! We noticed, may have flinched, berated ourselves for flinching, maybe gone out of our way to give transwoman a smile but still noticed and had a moment of second thought. Transwoman congratulates herself for having 'passed.

Then came TRAs demanding this as a right, twisting the EA2010 to make all sorts of organisations believe this was a fact; changing the protected characteristics in all sorts of documents, removing the right of any woman to say no; Lobbying for Sex to be removed as a protected characteristic (go look it up, this has been a main objective for Stonewall for quite along time).

So women who noticed that the general unstated acquiescence was now being demanded as a right stood up and said no!

And have been threatened with rape, burning in grease fires, death etc etc ever since.

I understand those saying it would be difficult to collect data from researching directly reporting on "violence from trans women to women in vulnerable settings", but that is a lazy argument. You could look into research for example, estimates of the proportion of transgender people in the general population and further information on breakdown proportions of trans men and women. You could then look at statistics on crime, in the perspective of both perpetrator and victim, and see if there are any trends which shows that trans women are violent in general. Etc. How lazy are you going to be. FWR is FULL of just such information. AND examples of why changing the language, insisting that TWAW has made data collection danerously unreliable. I cannot believe you have just plonked that here. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE WOMEN HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE FOR YEARS baking a fucking cake?

You have aboslutley no idea how transparent you are, do you?

The same way I'm so interested to hear race realists explain scientifically why black people just commit more crime because they're naturally more violent... Don't go there. That is so disingenuous, such a false equivalence it is infuriating! How dare you use racism to shore up your faulty logic!

Checking in on this thread on my lunch break.

I see there's still no explanation of what 'gender identity' is and why it is more important than biological sex.

They're men, Cloudy. Women are at risk from men, which is one of the reasons we have single sex spaces.

And lol at 'no-one is just a bigot'. You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

No one is just a bigot. Everyone has their own moral justification for being racist, sexist, homophobic. It doesn't mean it's okay or not damaging or that having a valid reason somehow negates the bigotry.

I for one am not arguing that all single sex spaces should be automatically forced to include anyone that says they have a right to be there.

What I find extreme and bigoted on MN is the fundamental position that this should always be the case. There is no room for the sensitive consideration of trans women because they are at the first instance dismissed as not women and therefore excluded from any woman centric idea or resource.

Please don't misunderstand this as an emotive plea. I'm simply stating my perspective, as people are asking what is considered transphobic or why their views are considered bigoted. For me the fundamental exclusion of trans women from all female discussion is the bigoted part. It's not that female concerns don't matter, it's that they are being used as a green light to be dismissive and disrespectful to a group of people without taking into account individuality or nuance.

I'm not saying it's an easy discussion either. I just thing there needs to be a more balanced view. Just saying with no evidence that trans women pose a threat to women in vulnerable situations for example, is not a good faith argument.

I've stated a few times for example that statistically it is well know across several countries analysis that the vast majority of violence toward females is committed by males known to the victim, often partners. When bringing that up, I was told that I can't know that is true. In the context of the discussion I can only assume that the poster was trying to say that I can't assume that this violence wasn't commuted by random trans women and not the prevalently held belief that it is in fact committed by familiar males??

I don't see how that bad take can be considered anything other than transphobic. Making sweeping assertions that all research and data pointing to a pretty logical conclusion is wrong and it must be that your fringe view is actually right smacks of ignorance and prejudice to me. Yet this all goes unseen and unchecked by all other posters. I do consider this cherry picking of information and given the lack of any but anecdotal evidence that trans women are actually violent predators is just bananas to me.

I understand those saying it would be difficult to collect data from researching directly reporting on "violence from trans women to women in vulnerable settings", but that is a lazy argument. You could look into research for example, estimates of the proportion of transgender people in the general population and further information on breakdown proportions of trans men and women. You could then look at statistics on crime, in the perspective of both perpetrator and victim, and see if there are any trends which shows that trans women are violent in general. Etc.

I'm just so interested to hear the evidence behind why it is the correct conclusion to draw that trans women pose an inherent risk to other women. The same way I'm so interested to hear race realists explain scientifically why black people just commit more crime because they're naturally more violent...

EdgeOfACoin: Looks as though the writer, Katelyn Burns is transgender

Somewhat!

turnitonagain

For the millionth time I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not slinging mud or whatever. Helpful hint: don’t assume everyone who comes here and disagrees with the majority view has an “agenda.” I’m a working mother who honestly doesn’t think about trans issues much but I saw a few recent topics on American politics, which I do follow, so decided to join. No ulterior motive for gods sake.

All I’m doing is trying to scratch the surface as to what the beliefs you who are active in this topic actually mean in real life politics.

You can see why someone on the outside might be confused or alarmed at any connection between feminism and right wing politics

Right, so you're just speaking for yourself and haven't thought about trans issues much, but everyone who posts here is supposed to be a monolith that hypothetically votes the same way in a hypothetical US election scenario? You don't have ulterior motives, but assume we do?

Why is it easier to think that we're just bigots, instead of realising that we are individuals with our own thoughts and circumstances? You act as if we have never considered your scenarios before, like we haven't discussed all of them, at length, argued about them, right here on this board. I note that you don't actually give your answers, just scold everyone else for having the audacity to be painted (by very biased individuals) as on The Wrong Side.

If someone on the outside becomes alarmed, they are free to assume that feminists haven't suddenly abandoned everything they fought for, investigate further and actually listen to us

Oh the shame of being Perceived as ‘right wing’, believing in capitalism, conservatism, equality of opportunity...is that really the worst insult?

It's an interesting psychological tendency, isn't it, BatShite?

You disagree, therefore you must be othered. To those for whom the idea of being left-wing, progressive, and on the right side of history is innately entwined with their sense of identity, the Other must be characterised as right-wing, regressive, and wrong.

Cf posters on racism threads assuming that anyone who disagrees with a particular ideology must be white.

The lack of nuance is depressing, but a commonly repeated feature of being human.

Amazing how I have been assigned a right wing identity despite being a lifelnog leftie, because I believe women are a real thing and desrve rights! How dare they label me in such a way, invalidation, etc etc. I am hanging my head in shame for ever thinking women are real people who deserve rights seperate from men in some areas of life.

It's a well-known tactic of a certain kind of transactivist and it's absolute juvenile nonsense.

Because as explained to you many times, the feminist view of gender is at odds with conservative views of gender.

I don't hold the same beliefs on gender, as a feminist from the left, as does a non-feminist from the socially conservative right.

Cloudy

Can you also please explain to me if I am fighting for sex based employment rights such as (as I referred to many posts ago)

• stronger and actually enforceable sex discrimination rights to protect women from being passed over or not employed due to 'being pregnancy age'.
• the retention of roles set aside for females to ensure adequate representation of females where needed on boards, panels, or for where females are required (eg, female prison guards). Some of these provisions are there to counter the benefits of the opportunities afforded to males and to counter past sexism (ie. positive discrimination).

These are just two provisions are still needed (or don't you believe so). How do you propose that female's retain access to these and others?

Sports have also been mentioned? Any thoughts?

So mote it be!

Women supporting the protection of women’s rights (those pertaining to females where we need them) come from all walks of life and all political parties. Why is this even an issue?

Precisely. But since we are dealing with the Manichean world of niche intersectionalists, the main aim here is to denounce feminists for the crime of adjacency. Adjacency in this case is a belief in external reality, biological sex and freedom of speech. These are the deliberate tactics of the # no debate faction. Sit down. Shut up. Chant the slogans. Or you are a bigot. That is explicit on this thread. And unsurprisingly, these tactics are being rejected by more and more people. It isn't a remotely 'radical' position to believe biological sex matters. The 'radical' position is to believe in some mystical concept of gender; which is like a soul; supersedes everything and women should meekly submit to its dominance. That isn't a political belief. It is a religious movement.

No. It's one of the Ever Invisible Questions!

Has anyone taken the time to tell us exactly what is meant by "transphobic views"?

No?

Cloudy I think you'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out the breadth and depth of knowledge, political views and life experience of the people behind posts on FWR. I think it helps you to pigeonhole them collectively as transphobic & right-wing bigots so that you can cling on to your world view. It's easier to demonise, to create a bogey(wo)man (so unnatural, so unkind), than to grapple with the concept that there are many, many rational people of all political stripes who are critical of gender ideology.

gender is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology

religious affiliation is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology

political viewpoint is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology

Our beliefs, ideologies, and psychological world views and hence coping strategies for dealing with an uncertain, chaotic world are almost infinite in their variety.

So what?

they share all views is like saying all people who hold a certain view must hold all these other views.

That should be ‘ they share all views that you mention, is like saying all people who hold a certain view must hold all the same views on that issue. And it seems you have extrapolated it to other issues as well. Are we all one homogeneous group on the left and the right then?

I understand that GC feminism asserts that there is no definition of womanhood beyond female biology. I refute that through the position that gender is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology.

Are you talking about gender identity when you say gender? If so, that might be where you are mistaking what ‘gender critical’ means to people here.

gender is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology

But what is gender? Genuinely, I do not understand it or how one can identify as or with a gender. I do not experience any sense or feeling of an internal identity of womanhood that does not directly result from my biology as an adult human female. You have mentioned believing in and experiencing gender and gender identity - would you be able to describe what that means to you? I really want to understand, because I think you have a different idea of what gender is than I do.

Thanks.

If some feminists are also holding transphobic views, then the logic follows that they share those views.

Again. What is transphobic by your definition?

And again, the premise that if feminists hold ‘transphobic’ views that by your logic that means they share all views is like saying all people who hold a certain view must hold all these other views.

So, please. Clarify what you believe are the transphobic views of feminists who do not include males in their feminism.

This isn't debatable surely. If some feminists are also holding transphobic views, then the logic follows that they share those views. I think that might be a total red herring!

a) define transphobic
b) many feminists hold views I don't. No mater what the definition of transphobic is some women will indeed hold that view
c) but that doesn't mean I agree with them, in that or many of their other views

You seem to have said that if I agree with someone that Monday follows Sunday then I agree with all else they believe!

Again, intersection, not total alignment. I think you have made a global assumption that just doesn't hold true!

So true @CuriousaboutSamphire