An inclusive way to be gender critical?

I personally don't think the idea of gender abolition is feasible or realistic. I don't mind if that doesn't make me a feminist. There has never been any human society / culture / civilization that functioned without gendered roles or stereotypes. In my view, 'gender' or gendered stereotypes will always develop in any human society, like music or language / dialects / accents.

I think that sometimes there is a fundamental misunderstanding that “gender abolition” would entail everyone having the same androgynous haircut/wearing grey boilersuits and enforcing everyone to share the same beliefs........ for me rejection of gender is not denial that gender is a cultural phenomenon that exists, that would be plainly stupid; it is - apologies for quoting Gwyneth Paltrow here - the conscious uncoupling of sex and gender - and not enforcing that in everybody’s private lives and personal beliefs, but when it comes to shared, agreed circumstances, laws, regulations etc. Does that make sense? I’m hungry and waiting for the toaster to toast....!

It's so fustrating because it feels like much of it should be common sense. Please do embrace the identity you want to choose for yourself and I hope you find happiness in whatever that may be.

That said certain services should be divided by biological fact i.e. sex. Changing rooms, toilets, prisons, hospital wards the right to choose someone of the same sex to provide intimate care or perform an examination, domestic violence services. These are because the service users are vulnerable.

Sports should also be divided by sex as otherwise it's just not fair.

I think that gender identity ultimately needs to be on par with religion. Something only a limited amount of people (at least in the UK) believes in, but which cannot be forced onto other people.

There needs to be a respect for the people who do believe in it and they should not be discriminated against for believing in it. However, there should be no pressure for others to go further than to acknowledge that some people believe in gender.

Then is can be taught in schools along the same lines as religion is taught “this is what some people believe”. Very matter of fact that it is a belief and not presented as an actual fact.

@NonnyMouse1337 who would be the comparator? If I said I had a female gender identity, and then my brother said he also now had a female gender identity, and then my sister said she had no gender identity at all... Where does that leave us in relation to each other, and to what purpose? Genuine question.

By the way, as a heterosexual woman, I'm all in favour of masculinity and femininity. Not in an exaggerated or rigid way, just the little cues and differences and performance that create the dance of flirtation. I think it's completely normal to enjoy that to an extent. However, that's in a romantic or more social context. It should be irrelevant in the workplace, in education, the public sphere, and in the law.

I don't really get excited about smashing down barriers per se. Never have. I'm interested in understanding situations and thinking about solutions, be they boundaries or open spaces.

I would be in favour of changing 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act to be 'gender identity'

How would that not conflict with sex-based rights?

By being very clear in legislation that no one can change sex or 'identify' into the sex-based rights of the opposite sex (including the pregnancy and maternity characteristics in the Equality Act).

I should also add that I would amend or abolish the GRA to avoid the anomaly of sex on birth certificates being changed, but that's a different discussion.

The term gender reassignment is meaningless. Gender can mean all sorts of things and how can you 'reassign' a gender when we know that no amount of medical or surgical alterations or wishful thinking can change your sex?

I think gender identity is a load of guff, like religion, but clearly there are people who believe in the concept and think it is significant. So maybe it is a better idea to replace gender reassignment with gender identity, while being explicit that it has nothing to do with sex and does not grant anyone sex-based rights and protections.

Gender identity can automatically cover types like non-binary or whatever people want to call themselves, including those who feel they have an internal feeling or identity of the opposite sex. Having it in the Equality Act means the usual protections from discrimination in employment, housing etc etc apply. It also enables people with the characteristic of 'gender identity' to do things like set up a club or service that caters specifically for people with a gender identity and maybe only employ people with a gender identity for certain key roles (like a mental health support helpline or whatever).

None of that has to impact on the protected characteristic of sex and sex-based rights.

Obviously I haven't worked out all of the details, but ultimately neither side is going to get their way 100%. Gender identity will need to be acknowledged in some way, while making it very clear that it is distinct from sex and doesn't infringe on the rights and protections that are based around sex.

I'm totally baffled. We've been saying for yonks on here, over and over, that people can be (1) feminine, masculine, or any combination. They can be (2) male or female.
(1) and (2) are entirely separate. (1) is neither necessary not sufficient to be (2). (2) is neither necessary nor sufficient to be (1).

Recently, I'm starting to see 'gender identity' mean a third thing, that's the most indefinable thing as it seems somewhat separate from gender as society-imposed stereotypes. Until that is defined, we can't really get very far.

All stereotypes are harmful. We should treat people as individuals and value them for themselves. Sometimes legislation is needed to protect and safeguard people. You cannot legislate for individuals, you legislate for classes as a whole. Sex is a marker we consider not gender precisely because it is immutable.

If it's a stereotype, it's not legitimate.
And if it's not legitimate, no-one has any business labelling it with the word for an entire sex.
The association between sex and stereotype will always be damaging, and will always be false.

'Inclusion' is a steaming pile of horseshit. It's become a carte blanche for "no-one must dare to challenge my false claims and false entitlement"

I think many people confuse feminism with a movement which fights for equality and fairness for all.

It's not. It's for women.

Sure, many of us will of course be fighting many other battles but they will be different to feminism.

I thought a large part of feminism was about breaking down barriers and equality. One person's barrier is another's boundary. So unless you are completely separatist then you have to leap the boundary into the middle ground occasionally.
Feminism is about equality of opportunities and treatment for women. What do you mean by separatist? Are you saying women should not be able to define their own sex?

OP I'm wondering if you're coming from the same place as Contrapoints regarding gender. In her "gender critical" video she imagines the world she thinks gender abolishonists are after as one where everybody has to wear beige shapeless clothes in identical styles, with identical short hair cuts, and speak in an identical toneless robotic way. Her idea of a world without gender is a world in which nobody is allowed to be either feminine or masculine. The idea that you are promoting seems to be that a better goal is a world where anybody is allowed to be feminine or masculine. And that instead of abolishing gender (no one of either sex can do x) we should redefine it to make it inclusive of everyone (anyone of either sex can do x). Its possible that you think that the traditional GC position is the one proposed by contrapoints, and that your idea is therefore an expansion on that. If that's what your think then I'm afraid you're wrong, and Contrapoints has misunderstood or misrepresented feminists here. Gender abolition has never been about banning femininity or masculinity, it has always been about simply uncoupling these from someone's sex and making them available to everyone. I think that the view your proposing is the one most feminists and gender abolishonists already hold.

If that's not it then I'm sorry but I'm really stumped. Maybe you could try again to rephrase your position?

I'm talking about redefining stereotypes and thus not letting harmful ones prevail
So you think there are harmful and beneficial stereotypes? What would the latter be?

There’s no middle ground to occupy OP, that’s the point. TRA don’t want a middle ground, they want everything women have. As has been said numerous times - GC feminists are happy for TW to dress how they want & calm themselves what they like. If they were campaigning for TW specific services we’d be there with that, but they don’t want their own services, they want women’s services.

TRA are not sitting around wondering how to include GC feminists are they? No they’re not because they don’t see why they should and I don’t see why I should spend anymore time contemplating how to sell women’s sexbased rights to people who are heavily invested in not wanting women to have sex based rights

The real question, is how to engage the majority of the population who aren’t even aware what’s going on

This post seems very confusing, but it's worth noting that the idea of recognising that any space should still be single sex has been deemed to be 'transphobic'. I think you're trying very hard to be kind here, which is a starting point for many women who are denounced for their views on this and start seeing how unreasonable and illogical the whole thing is.