What can we do?

My daughter, son, son-in-law, aged 30, 35, 33, all get it and are 100% GC. My daughter says many of her friends are, too.

Good post CharleyParley.

It seems to me that breaking the link between physical sex and gender role/behaviour is a necessary and important first step in dismantling it.

That's not what the doctrine of gender identity does. On the contrary, it reinforces sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes by claiming that membership of a sex class depends on an individual's preference for one set of stereotypes over the other and not on that individual's actual sex.

And that the fracturing of gender roles into 100 different genders or whatever only further weakens an oppresive gender binary, not least because it is no longer a binary.

It doesn't do that either, because most of these identities are unknown and unknowable to the vast majority of people, thanks in part to their ever expanding number and endlessly changing nature. In order to address and remedy the oppressive nature of sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes, society needs far more than trendy identity creation based on mere personality traits. Especially since the genesis of those identities arises for the most part and rather firmly from those very stereotypes.

Does that mean in the future people will not still face oppression because of sex at birth, or even that more feminine type people will not face oppression from more masculine type people - I don't know, but I think it's worth a try.

We've danced this dance before, jj1968 and I understand that although sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes have harmed both of us, your experience and mine are profoundly different. I do also understand why you put so much faith in this doctrine and what you hope it might achieve for those males who do not conform to the stereotypes associated with their sex.

Like many others, I have been disadvantaged and discriminated against on the basis of various characteristics - my parents' socio-economic status, my nationality and immigration status and my sex. I have been able to escape or mitigate the effects of the others, but most of the inequality I have suffered on the basis of my sex remains inescapable. Even though I did not comply with the stereotypes imposed on my sex from early childhood and have actively resisted them since teen age, the specific issues that arise from my sex being female cannot be resolved by my gender-non-compliance. Because stereotypes are not the root cause of those issues. My sex is.

When we say that sex is the root of our oppression and gender the tool, that doesn't mean that we can end that oppression by destroying the tool. It's a way to say that in a male-dominated world the stereotypes associated with the female sex serve a specific function that the stereotypes associated with the male sex do not. Can we improve the lives of female people by eliminating stereotypes? Absolutely. Can we eliminate our oppression by eliminating stereotypes? No.

So no, it's not "feminine type people" who are oppressed by "masculine type people". If that was the case we could all just identify out of being oppressed by adopting masculine stereotypes. Believe me, I've tried. That is an axis of discrimination specific to males who do not conform to the stereotypes associated with the male sex. The same axis exists for us, of course, but it isn't the main one.

I've come to understand that no matter how much they may have suffered themselves and no matter how empathetic they are to our suffering and how willing they may therefore be to fight for my rights, no male person can ever truly comprehend what it is like to be born female in a male-dominated world. And that stereotypes are only part of the problem we need to overcome. So I certainly don't expect you to accept or even understand why transgender ideology and legislation is something that I find it necessary to resist as yet another expression of the patriarchy that harms all female people. But I would like you to consider whether those you seek to protect really will benefit from destroying women's sex-based rights.

(And a side note on "oppression". That word has a specific meaning - systematic abuse, exploitation and injustice - which is in my view applicable only to inequality suffered on the basis of race, sex and class. So I do not accept that when feminine males are discriminated against this amounts to oppression.)

I don't think any (or many) trans people argue that, I think it's a complete strawman.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument. A large number of both activists, trans rights organisations and others however have adopted a position that argues either that sex is socially constructed and not material reality (this is indeed an argument that sex does not exist) and therefore inferior to an innate gender identity which is not socially constructed or one that argues outright that there is no such thing as male or female people, biologically female bodies etc. It's not us misrepresenting the argument. There are countless examples, many discussed on previous threads here on FWR.

Most importantly, the aim of much of the activism in support of the doctrine of gender identity is to erase protection on the basis of sex from all legislation, policies and practice worldwide. Not the addition of new protections on the basis of gender identity in addition to sex. Erasure of sex. Complete removal. We do not have to argue whether campaigner A, B and C or organisations X, Y and Z are really denying that sex exists when their policy aim is to completely erase sex as the basis of any protection in law.

I wonder how else we can explain it in a way that might make it clear to people who are not women, but women are discriminated against because of our biology.

I know companies who hesitate to employ too many newly married late-20 something women because of the likelihood that they will get pregnant and need maternity leave. It is not legal to discriminate against them for that reason but it happens because in small companies, having half of one team off on maternity leave creates a problem.

Transgender people might get discriminated against illegally in employment but it could not be for that reason.

Women have babies and that takes them out of the workplace for a period of time which in general sets their career progression back and they often never regain lost ground.

Representation of women in politics or STEM is still low, largely because there is still an unconscious socialisation that tells girls they are rubbish at maths/science etc. Unobservant boys may not be aware of this. One way of combating this is to put in place quotas or targets to ensure that companies encourage women into these areas.
A number of high profile politicians have said that they would find it acceptable if all the quota places to encourage women were taken up by transwomen who will have had a completely different experience growing up to the women and will have faced none of the barriers to participation constantly experienced by girls.

They may have faced their own challenges but these will be different challenges and will generally need to be addressed in different ways.

There are many late transitioners that have spent many years benefiting from male socialisation and career progression. What life experiences could these people possibly have had that equates in any way to women's lives? How can these people, some of whom are already taking up reserved spaces for women have any real understanding of the issues facing women and several have openly confirmed that they have no interest in the issues facing women, they are using their position to further trans issues.

There is much talk from some quarters about how feminists are stronger when they team with the trans feminists (for want of a better term) but I am yet to see any action whatsoever from trans activists that benefit women. I have seen some high profile transgender people who acknowledge their situation and birth sex and respect women's spaces and are getting more vocal about that, that is to our benefit but they are few in number.

She does not, however, go so far as to actually deny that the two sexes exist.

I don't think any (or many) trans people argue that, I think it's a complete strawman. Believe me trans people are well aware physical sex exists. The arguments are more that sex isn't quite as neatly defined as XX/XY, that elements of physical sex can be changed, that our internal sense of ourselves is also relevent as is how we live our lives and how we are treated by others in a hierarchical society in which gender and all the social expectations and internal ingrained processes that come from it is very firmly based on how our bodies are, and how are bodies are perceived by others. And most importantly that we should be transcending this because patriarchy is not a 'natural' or inevitable state. I think that leans closer to Dworkin's ideas than a lot of the rigid gender critical ideology - and I do not believe that under patriarchy you can reinforce sex without reinforcing gender. They won't let us, which is why patriarchal institutions are quite happily supporting gender critical ideas - because they are confident they can use any victories to reinforce the status quo and strengthen traditional gender roles based on sex at birth. And sadly I suspect they are right.

It seems to me that breaking the link between physical sex and gender role/behaviour is a necessary and important first step in dismantling it. And that the fracturing of gender roles into 100 different genders or whatever only further weakens an oppresive gender binary, not least because it is no longer a binary. Does that mean in the future people will not still face oppression because of sex at birth, or even that more feminine type people will not face oppression from more masculine type people - I don't know, but I think it's worth a try. Perhaps the strangest thing about this conflict is that the more politicised groups on both sides want to smash patriarchy and the system of gender and it;s really just an argument about how to get there.

I understand why you might not agree with any of this. My objection is really to people who assert that anyone who doesn't support gender critical thought is automatically misogynist, or stupid, or brainwashed or too young to understand. A lot of people, who regard themselves as feminists, have thought very deeply about these things and just drawn different conclusions - possibly because of how the nature of gender roles have changed and so younger generations have different experiences and priorities.

Correction to my previous. This sentence should read:

Dworkin argues that the existence of people with DSDs proves that there is really no such thing as only male or female

Feminists from Firestone to Dworkin to Wittig to Butler have written widely about how under patriarchy a woman is a socially constructed role as well as a physical reality. A huge amount of feminist literature discusses the nature of what a woman is, even going as far as in Dworkin and Firestone's case calling for the category of woman to be destroyed.

In Woman Hating, published in 1974, Dworkin does indeed call for the category of woman to be destroyed. Because she is deeply pessimistic about women ever being allowed to be truly equal to men, she imagines a world of androgynous humans, both male and female in one body, where women cannot be oppressed on the basis of their sex anymore, because the traditional human hierarchy that allows the male to oppress the female cannot exist without separate, mutually exclusive and distinct sex classes.

Her writing and reasoning in chapters 8 "Androgyny: The Mythological Model" and 9 "Androgyny: Androgyny, Fucking and Community" reflect much of the scientific knowledge of the time about people with Differences in Sex Development (DSDs) - an outdated view nonetheless prevalent in much of the arguments made by proponents of transgender ideology today. Dworkin argues that the existence of people with DSDs proves that there is really no such thing as male and female and therefore, so goes her thinking, there ought not to be any patriarchy and thus there ought not to be any oppression of the female sex. Dworkin even goes so far as to claim that our species started out as hermaphrodites, only splitting into the two sexes much later in its history. (She also posits that in her brave new world of hermaphrodites transsexual people would either not exist or be so thoroughly assimilated into the hermaphrodite masses as to be non-existent. But that is by the by.)

She does not, however, go so far as to actually deny that the two sexes exist.

I should also add, of course, that it would have been counterproductive for Dworkin to do so as the other 80% of the book are about how Eastern and Western civilisations have not only been built on oppressing women on a foundational level but have also demonised women to such an extent that they turned woman hating into an art form. And that, she grounds entirely in our oppression being rooted in our sex.

invading events for trans children and refusing to leave to the point the police had to be called to remove them.

Where of course the activists in question have been absolutely respectful of female people's rights to things like female health groups or lesbian groups and permitted that space? Have allowed female groups to meet and discuss the law and women's rights?

I think there's been kettling involved, kicking on windows, screaming, threats, the punching of a sixty year old, calling the police and getting them arrested (for quietly handing out leaflets), bomb threats and things let off by the Grenfell Tower for fucks sake -

lead by frigging example if you believe that invading other people's spaces is wrong.

For info DD is 10 (but am certain could understand at 6).

Apologies for that btw, I don't know where I got six from, I thought thats what you said.

Gender critical activists are just one of many hurdles trans people have to navigate to try and achieve lives with some kind of fulfillment.

If gender ideology activism didn't stamp all over female people and their rights, spaces, language et al, there wouldn't need to be a place or groups for women to be able to defend and stand up for the rights under attack from that ideology.

That's like blaming someone for complaining that you're trampling on them. Stop attacking women's rights and they won't need to stand up for them.

But that doesn't stop gender critical activists turning up on them, just like it doesn't stop gender critical activists turning up at events like Pride and the Anarchist Bookfair which are explicitly trans welcoming,

Anti woman

or invading events for trans children and refusing to leave to the point the police had to be called to remove them.

Defending and explaining about women's rights and the way the activism/agenda damages them. Again, the blame that women won't just shut up and accept males doing what they want without protest. You couldn't really make it clearer that they're some kind of subspecies to you.

Mumsnet have been quite clear this forum is open to trans people and they welcome the debate. They run this website and set the rules, not you.

You've totally missed the point of the post you were responding to.

For info DD is 10 (but am certain could understand at 6).

I'll add weight to this and say mine's seven and grasps the basics. She didn't at six, because she hadn't really fallen foul of her peers' expectations then, but then in year two there was the "they're not boys' shoes, they're mine" saga, followed by the great "can girls like Pokemon?" playground debate in year three.

Guessing jj has limited knowledge of child development; it's around seven they really start noticing the gendered crap and policing one another.

Being trans is about your sense of self and where you fit in a rigidly gendered and complex environment.

Well, then being trans has nothing to do with being a woman.

Regardless of my sense of self and regardless of what environment I find myself in, I remain a woman. I was born female and as I am over 18, I will die a woman. If, for some reason, I lose my sense of self (let's pretend I have a brain injury, dementia, severe mental illness where I believe I'm a teapot), I am still a woman because it is my physical reality.

Don't be ridiculous, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp that being a girl does not equal having to like lipstick, nail polish and dresses.

And you'd be hard pushed to find a trans person who disagrees. Being trans is about your sense of self and where you fit in a rigidly gendered and complex environment.

If you said to your daughter (probably when she's a bit older), well what about someone born male but who now has a vagina, and breasts, and estrogen not testosterone regulating their body - someone who is treated as a woman and faces much if not all of the oppression women face, is that a woman? Is it a man? Is it something else? Is someone like Castor Semanya a man, as many here state? Does that mean she has male privilege and has never faced oppression based on being perceived as a woman? Why would we prioritise chromosones over genitalia, or reproductive ability over how someone is seen and treated by others, or indeed sees themself? What happens to the people who don't fit? What happens to the people who live in the opposite gender to their birth sex, and who in some cases no-one may even know what their birth sex was? Are they still treated as men by society? How best can people fit in and attempt to thrive within the context of a rigidly gendered society whilst trying to also dismantle it? How much of womanhood (and manhood) is socially constructed, in terms of the experiences women/men have, and how much of that is socially enforced rather than a natural product of biology? Where does the self end and the body begin and which should take precedence in defining ourselves? Is a lesbian a woman in the context of a patriarchal society where women are expected to be sexually reproductive partners/property of men - Wittig famously declared herself not to be a woman on these grounds. Should feminists be aiming to eradicate the sex difference completely, or at least as much as is possible, so we just become humans and our genitals are irrelevent (as Firestone argued).

These are deep and complex questions and it's little wonder feminism has spent so much time discussing them. Of course biology is part of the picture, but how we categorise things, how we are socially formed, how we live and seek to live within patriarchy - these are all up for debate. And as I say you might not agree, but I'm just pointing out that those who thinks differently to the GC position are not automatically misogynist idiots who doesn't understand biology but people who are looking at it in a different, more nuanced, and I would argue more whole and humane way.

Women are oppressed because of their biology.

And the 'gender' is the tool that is used against women.

Hi Babybee, a woman is an adult human female, that’s always been the case. No one has ever contradicted it in the past. — They absolutely have. Feminists from Firestone to Dworkin to Wittig to Butler have written widely about how under patriarchy a woman is a socially constructed role as well as a physical reality.

jj1968, you have misunderstood the work of feminists who pointed out that women have a socially constructed role, the feminine sex stereotype, and in the time they were writing most women were constrained to live in those limited roles.

(I can’t speak for Judith Butler, who isn’t what I’d recognise as a feminist, ie someone whose priority is women.)

The triumph of feminism was in breaking out of those sex stereotypes. The gender-identity movement relies on re-establishing them.

Women are oppressed as a class because of their female biology. Attempting to get society to unrecognise sexual biology is an attempt to make it impossible to fight this oppression.

You turn up on women's boards to lecture them on how they're womaning/feminisming wrong. You wouldn't dare do the same on transwomen's boards.

To be fair I'm not aware of any trans forum equivalent to this one where 90% of posts of post are about gender critical activists. You get the odd thread or two but the truth is we're just not that into you. Gender critical activists are just one of many hurdles trans people have to navigate to try and achieve lives with some kind of fulfillment.

But that doesn't stop gender critical activists turning up on them, just like it doesn't stop gender critical activists turning up at events like Pride and the Anarchist Bookfair which are explicitly trans welcoming, or invading events for trans children and refusing to leave to the point the police had to be called to remove them.

Mumsnet have been quite clear this forum is open to trans people and they welcome the debate. They run this website and set the rules, not you.

I think we need to start from the perspective that anyone who is asserting that a person born male is a 'woman' need to offer some explination for that belief, as it seems to fall well outside scientific theory and practice. And as we nowadays see reality in terms of scientific logic then the onus of explination lies with anyone asserting twaw.

For info DD is 10 (but am certain could understand at 6).

Trans women are by and large treated as (often a highly sexualised sub class of) women by patriarchy

You can't be serious.

Simple example of how this is obviously false:

You turn up on women's boards to lecture them on how they're womaning/feminisming wrong. You wouldn't dare do the same on transwomen's boards.

Even DD understands this.

To be fair if a six year old had a deep understanding of the complex ways patriarchy impacts on our understanding of sex, self and bodily diversity and how social categorisation and hierarchy flows from that I would be mightily impressed.