An inclusive way to be gender critical?

A classroom learning resource would be anatomically correct dolls which the child/teacher could add clothing and wigs and makeup to with different 'settings' where the dolls could be placed in different societal roles.
So saying sex exists but you can dress how you like and do what you like? I think you're trying to reinvent the wheel. This is basically what happens already (at least up until recently when certain people have tried to push for a return to gender roles).

We're not shutting down discussion though. You're talking to the wrong audience.

There would be no perceived need for single sex based rights to be eroded if society really accepted the real fluidity of gender as a social and cultural concept along with the binary nature of sex in human beings

I think I partly get what you’re saying. Are you saying we broaden the gender stereotypes and then eventually no-one will think about gender because it will be meaningless. That is, gender now says ‘women’s work’ is housework/childcare etc, but you’re saying broaden that to be ‘women’s work’ can be any kind of work?

TBH, I don’t see the point. I do educate my children to reject stereotypes but I do that by telling them stereotypes are stupid and we can wear and do what we want. I don’t need to have the middle-man of gender to do that.

Moreover, I don’t think accepting regressive ideas (gender stereotypes) and trying to redefine and broaden their definitions will work because it doesn’t address the underlying discrimination against women. To me it’s like being ‘colourblind’: ie if we just ignore people’s race, racism will magically disappear.

This is more about how we can talk to our children.
Lots of parents are actively working on acceptance of their children wearing/playing with whatever they want.
In the 90s when I had my children, people were much less stereotypical about what girls and boys should and shouldn't do. It just wasn't a thing.
I've noted that when people go 'gender neutral' it usually means women wearing stereotypical men's clothes, or colours at least.
But I've noticed that boys are being more actively encouraged or at least accepted in wearing pink and sparkly things, which are traditionally reserved for girls.
I think some of this is to allow them to be who they want to be without feeling pressure to consider themselves the wrong sex.
Is that what you're getting at? If so, yes, but the way I understand it, this is not what TRAs want.

Then what you're talking about is gender critical, it's basically making gender useless because it could mean anything so means nothing.

I tell my child that she is girl and that means that she will get periods and breasts like me, that she can one day (probably) carry a baby inside her, birth the baby through her vagina and feed the baby from her breasts. That she has tiny little eggs already inside her now, how amazing that is.

I also tell her that that is really pretty much all that being a girl really means. There are no girls toys, girls clothes, girls colours, girls interests, girls jobs etc. Everything is for everyone.

What are you suggesting that we tell our children?

The way we talk to children is to say that you dress as you want, behave as you want and push for the career you want whatever sex you are (but in reality if you're female or gnc be prepared for it to be more challenging).

Ok, so in your gender ideal if someone who didn't know anything about sex or gender came to you and said 'Can I recognise a woman in the street?' what would you say?

A certain TRA would say "they'll be the one in high heels and a dress with pretty makeup - with or without facial hair"

I'd say, being gender critical, "sorry, you've got the wrong idea, 'woman' is a sex based class, eg got X chromosomes, and a social based class, eg at higher risk of rape, so you couldn't pick either of those things out by sight"

OP, you don’t have to convince feminists to retain single sex spaces, you need to convince the TRAs.
People with male genitals and male chromosomes and male secondary sexual characteristics, who insist that they are in some undefined way actually female, do not want acceptance in their own male single sex spaces. They want to invade women’s spaces, to seek external “validation” for their subjective internal belief.
This is why compromise is impossible. They have been offered separate “third spaces” and refused them.

Isn't the original post more or less along the same lines as JK Rowling's tweet? That didn't go down very well.

No matter how often I read the opening post, it makes no sense to me.

Conflating terms, having open ended definitions that include literally everything... it’s not a more inclusive stance, it’s just garbled.

Perhaps I’m being particularly thick today.

Sorry also makes a very important point: your concept is ignoring misogyny (and homophobia) - gender is not a neutral concept. It is is a hierarchical structure with straight gender conforming men at the top.

I think you are over complicating it.

For me gc means that there are females and males -(xx and xy) and I couldn’t care less what they wear or their interests - that’s personality not ‘gender’.

Is it inclusive - I don’t really care. I’m not interested in whether some men feel sad / angry that I don’t include them as females. Female includes all women and only women.

To me inclusivity is about making sure that people with particular needs are able to be fully part of society - disability access, no racism or homophobia. It doesn’t mean pretending things aren’t real - no men in women’s sports. It doesn’t mean pandering to groups that think they are vulnerable when really they aren’t. I think it’s insane that we are having to waste energy on this tiny group of TRAs while ignoring the fact there are loads of people who are genuinely vulnerable. If there were as much noise about; domestic violence, child poverty, everyday racism and sexism, disability access, fgm, literacy, numeracy, child abuse, we might actually see more progress as n these things. It might also mean that for example not everyone can do the job they want if they aren’t actually able to do it.

Your position isn't an evolution of feminist GC thought, it's close to but shy of it. Yes men and women should wear what they want, do the jobs they want and present however they want while sex-based rights are preserved where necessary.

We are all in agreement.

Defining and redefining a construct which is a smokescreen for biological sex, is not evolving the discussion; it's becoming mired in a false dichotomy.