So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

The thing is, as women have always been oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex, seems a bit of a reach to include biological males, doesn't it?

I agree. I don't really trust people who glibly push the idea that biological sex doesn't matter.

If you hold feminism up as the fight for women, and you do not disaggregate data within women by race, and consider men of colour, you are upholding white supremacy.

I don't have to consider any men in my feminism. Because it isn't about men. I completely support disaggregating all data by race as well as by sex.

Women of colour are included in feminism. Men of colour are not. I refuse to apologise for that.

That is not to say that they don't have equal rights to be free of oppression. But feminism is for women.

I see feminism as the struggle to end the systemic oppression of women throughout the world.

*I define 'oppression' very broadly, to include violence against women, the lack of equal rights, everyday misogyny, medical negligence, etc.

I also view 'women' broadly -- every race and nationality and yes, trans women as well.*

The thing is, as women have always been oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex, seems a bit of a reach to include biological males, doesn't it?

Would you define the systematic oppression black people to include white people who identify as black?

You are free to define women narrowly if you want. As I said, I am not comfortable with arguments based in biological essentialism.

It's not "narrow" any more than the definition of a bicycle doesn't include cars, and therefore it isn't appropriate for cars to use cycle paths.

The essentialism, is all yours. I think you have a huge blind spot, and you don't actually understand why the women you are dismissing believe what they do about sex/gender.

when black women are 5 times more likely to die in child birth?

I think the reason for that is multi factorial, and some things are related to feminism, and some not. The issue itself, is undoubtedly an issue for feminism.

How can you have a chat about feminism without talking about women.. aka adult human females? This is exactly what turns me off about this wave of feminism. It’s a movement for women’s rights, but one isn’t allowed to say women. I’m curious what this is trying to accomplish if you can’t even name the very group of people the movement is for.

How do you define feminism if it isn't based on sex?

I see feminism as the struggle to end the systemic oppression of women throughout the world.

I define 'oppression' very broadly, to include violence against women, the lack of equal rights, everyday misogyny, medical negligence, etc.

I also view 'women' broadly -- every race and nationality and yes, trans women as well.

You are free to define women narrowly if you want. As I said, I am not comfortable with arguments based in biological essentialism.

What if as a white woman, your consumption of goods and services requires suffering? There is an online calculator that takes an audit of your spending and ownership, and tells you how many slaves are in your consumption line.
My number was 147.
You can find it via google.

What if you are oppressing people of colour by failing to teach your children anti racism, so that they go on the oppress? Layla Saad writes brilliantly about the goal of becoming a good ancestor.

What if as a white women, you consume media that centres representation of white people and not black people and culture, this contributing to a media culture that represents humanity as white, causing black people to feel dehumanised?

What if as a white person you do not hold your government and corporations and education establishments responsible when they deny structural racism, refuse to teach black history, when black women are 5 times more likely to die in child birth?

Your question presupposes that you are not complicit, and I would say if you think you are not complicit, you are not looking hard enough.

Lastly- outcomes for non-white people, men and women, in pay, in life expectancy are all worse than for white women. If you hold feminism up as the fight for women, and you do not disaggregate data within women by race, and consider men of colour, you are upholding white supremacy. And white supremacy and patriarchy are the left and right hand of our system. If you fight one without fighting the other you will lose.

I read a lot about the recent scientific research into the spectrum of sex

As do many GC women on FWR, and you are overegging the pudding because it suits your personal view to do so.

You don't want your identity to be determined by your reproductive organs... so you insist that to be a woman you have to have female reproductive organs?

Oh, come on. I won't speak for Strawberry but I believe that a woman is an adult human female. Someone whose body is organised around the production of large gametes, whether all the organs are functional or not. What's your definition? (Non-circular, please.) Someone with a feminine soul?

I fail to see how you can believe that definition is more reductive than that being a woman is feeling or behaving or looking a certain way.

And I want to be referred to as a woman. Not by my bodily functions or body parts. I don't want to be called a 'menstruator', a 'vagina haver', a 'person with a cervix'. It's gross and offensive.

Exactly.

So how does that work then?

You don't want your identity to be determined by your reproductive organs... so you insist that to be a woman you have to have female reproductive organs?

No but woman isn't actually an "identity" that you can choose from a list. It's simply the name for an adult human female, like a hen is an adult female chicken, a doe is an adult female rabbit or deer. So it's the name for the person that absent any medical issues or surgical removal, has said female reproductive organs.

Quite simply @dreamingbohemian I am a woman because of my biology. It's not my 'identity'- I don't 'identify' as anything. I'm just a woman.

And I want to be referred to as a woman. Not by my bodily functions or body parts. I don't want to be called a 'menstruator', a 'vagina haver', a 'person with a cervix'. It's gross and offensive.

You don't want your identity to be determined by your reproductive organs... so you insist that to be a woman you have to have female reproductive organs?

I read a lot about the recent scientific research into the spectrum of sex and there's mounting evidence it's not entirely binary (approximately 1% of people have chromosomes that don't match to XX or XY). Therefore I'm comfortable with a fuzzy definition of womanhood.

I wouldn't define myself as GC, and whereas I'm a big believer in free debate and diversity of thought, the Feminism Board has been overran with conversations about pronouns and "persons with wombs".

These aren't the most important issues to me as a feminist. I accept for GC feminists it is the most pressing issue, but it isn't for me. For me the most pressing issues are:

1. male violence and toxic masculinity
2. women as carers (through a few lenses: women as default parents / the low pay caring staff roles pay / women caring for adult parents)
3. toxic positivity (for example #be kind) which is designed to keep women small and non-challenging.

I'd like to have a space where I could discuss these issues without every debate dissolving into a conversation about pronouns or definitions of womanhood.

You don't think there's a chance that the new ontological category of 'people who impregnate people' might just carry on the status quo as they always have?

Also I think some posters here are missing the point of the OP. You can think that trans issues aren't what you want to focus your feminist energy on, and that's fine. I believe that the world is round, I don't want to debate it endlessly, I want to talk about other things, even when I'm thinking about geography I don't want to only or mostly read threads that argue endlessly about the shape of the earth... but that's the basis of my approach, if someone asks how we should calculate flight paths or whether Cornwall should be on GMT I take it into account, because nothing else makes sense. If you're not a GC feminist - and by that I mean you don't agree, not that you just don't want to talk obsessively about it - what is your fight about? How do you define feminism if it isn't based on sex?

@Ereshkigalangcleg - I have a mediocre grade in GCSE biology. I have no fucking clue whether strength comes from testosterone or from bone density in puberty or whatever. So I place my trust in scientists and doctors on the relevant committees to have those debates.

I couldn't say much more except "I'm stronger than those men and weaker than those and have never competed against a trans woman". How does that help anyone?

There are many, many women who would like to talk about other aspects of feminism but have no space to do so because you are loud, very loud.

Deathbypostitnote, I don’t understand this. Some others have said it too. But we are not jostling with each other for room in a confined space. Anyone can start a thread on any topic. The title can make it clear, if you wish, that this isn’t about gender. A glance down the board shows numerous different topics.

And gently and respectfully, as long as you are not personally oppressing people of other races, it's ok for racial politics not to be your main focus. It's ok to think feminism is solely about women's rights and that modern theories such as queer theory and intersectionality aren't actually the last word on it.

Agreed. Feminism and women's rights, safeguarding children is my main focus. I'm a young single mum who has escaped an abusive marriage and needed the help of Women's Aid. As a result of my life experiences my focus is on VAWG and all issues related to feminism, and anything that threatens the rights of women, and as a mother, anything that threatens the safety, health and well-being of my children.