So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

See, I just find this baffling and quite depressing.

You’ve got a group of women here who have created (fought for!) a tiny space of the internet to discuss a pressing feminist issue which affects all women whether they recognise it or not. And it’s - what?inconveniencing? upsetting? boring? - others who want to talk about other feminist topics (like what?) that don’t centre being a woman? (again, what?).

There is some sort of hellish cognitive dissonance going on here, and it hurts my head.

@Imasoulman
Can transwomen not be GC ?
Or am I misunderstanding gc feminism ?
Honestly a genuine question. I'm not being goady, I genuinely sometimes struggle to process written information and I can often get the wrong end of the stick.
A simple definition would be great.

It seems unlikely to me. As I understand it a man transitions to being a transwomen because he believes that his gender does not correspond to his biological sex. If he doesn't believe that gender is a thing then he's still a man.

Theres a lot more to women's oppression than trans issues so it'll be nice to have a space that's clear to discuss them without getting lost in amongst all the trans threads.

It's that simple. No one's suggesting these issues have no intersection with trans et al, just that it would be nice and necessary to center different aspects as the GC crowd had become a bit suffocating. As Freeble has demonstrated, there are other important conversations to have. She isn't suggesting they have no bearing on GC issues, just that there was no space to do so as the conversation was relentlessly turned to focus on one thing only. Not that it wasn't relevant, but it wasn't the only aspect that was relevant.

No point expecting posters to explain how other issues have nothing to do with GC issues. They're not trying to suggest there's no connection. They'd just like to follow a train of thought that didn't center GC issues and wasn't talked over by the same group of posters.

I have a working definition of the term ‘woman’. It includes transwomen. Female also has a clear definition. so when talking about feminism I might talk about the rights of ‘women’, or of ‘women and transwomen’ or of ‘females and transwomen’. Doesn’t make me less of a feminist to do so.

@Holly60

What do you see as the future of feminism that includes anyone who identifies as a woman?

I asked this of someone on another thread but didn't get an answer.

I can understand what male people identifying into womanhood get from inclusivity but what are the tangible benefits to women?

How does it improve feminism for women and girls?

[quote Potteringshed]@RoyalAcademyOfFarts - which is probably exactly why it's healthy to split the board. It means you are able to engage in conversations that are centred around the biology/chromosomes/defining womanhood but there is also space for other people to discuss issues without that as a central theme.[/quote]
I just don’t believe that.

I think it’s the equivalent of sending the rabble rousers to the naughty corner to think about what they’ve done.

I have been involved in many more discussions about disability and feminism, or racism and feminism,

In contrast, I haven't.
I have had a lot of discussions with GC feminists about disability because disabled women understand more than most that their bodies are what makes them oppressed.
And the most insulting of insults is telling Black feminists from developing countries that caring about things like FGM and child marriage is white feminism.

Can transwomen not be GC ? Yes. Some more famous ones say so quite regularly, and are often aytacked for it, by people who purport to be supportive of trans voices.

I have friends who have been what is now called trans for 35+ years. Two with a GRC. Both of them are GC and, whilst grafteful for the recognition and protection of the GRC, do not consider themselves to have actually changed sex. They recognise the 'legal fiction' for what it is.

[quote Potteringshed]@RoyalAcademyOfFarts - which is probably exactly why it's healthy to split the board. It means you are able to engage in conversations that are centred around the biology/chromosomes/defining womanhood but there is also space for other people to discuss issues without that as a central theme.[/quote]
But what are these feminists issues which being female is not the main factor of?

[quote RoyalAcademyOfFarts]@Holly60

I don’t understand a feminism that includes biological males and is based on womanhood being about gender stereotypes of femininity.[/quote]
feminism ... based on womanhood being about gender stereotypes of femininity

I don't think that is what non-GC feminism is at all.

White women’s role in the oppression of black men is a valid topic. But it’s not feminism.

GC feminism is so focused on the notion of women as oppressed by the threat of trans rights , it does not look at the the barriers placed on non-white women, by white women, the barriers placed on non-white men, by white Women. And there are SO MANY.

Why should feminism look at the barriers placed on men? Surely it's for women?

@RoyalAcademyOfFarts - which is probably exactly why it's healthy to split the board. It means you are able to engage in conversations that are centred around the biology/chromosomes/defining womanhood but there is also space for other people to discuss issues without that as a central theme.

My question is- Just because someone with xy chromosmes is getting called a woman, does that unburden you of the brutality inherent in participating in white supremacy as a white woman? That presupposes a lot. But no, my youthful feminism had long been what was later called intersectional. Though that is very hard to keep up as an older woman, as I live in a very white rural area that. In my immediate locale nationalities are varied, but skin colour not so much. 7 miles away that changes and the client base of the interconnected community charities I work/volunteer in changes quite drastically. Provision across the organsations change with their location.

So I concentrate on what I can see, what arrives at the door of the organisations I work within/across.

Transmen/women do have the ability to negatively affect some of our provision. BAME people do not.

I used to be a regular poster on the feminism board until i took a step back from the trans stuff and realised that it was full, absolutely full to the brim of threads about trans issues. I saw all sorts of other threads get totally ignored and pushed down the board by the same trans threads filled with the same posters all saying the same things over and over again. Theres a lot more to women's oppression than trans issues so it'll be nice to have a space that's clear to discuss them without getting lost in amongst all the trans threads.

I have a working definition of the term ‘woman’. It includes transwomen. Female also has a clear definition. so when talking about feminism I might talk about the rights of ‘women’, or of ‘women and transwomen’ or of ‘females and transwomen’. Doesn’t make me less of a feminist to do so. PLEASE pop over to the other place and tell us that working definition. Or just PM me if you don't want to do that!

To be very honest, no pisstaking, sarcasm or anything else negative, I want to undertsand how that definition is worded. Because if I understood that then it would be possible to have a far less confusing, angry, defensive discussion about the whole issue.

I know, this will be laughed at, my intentions suspect, but as far as I can tell this is at the very heart of the "Sex/Gender Debate" and I have never understood how it came about. Mainly because I have never read a definition that really does as you describe.

@jellybeansforbreakfast
No I’m reading. I just don’t want to get into a bun fight.

Interesting what you said about chromosomes.

White supremacy is a system in which non white people are oppressed regardless of their chromosomes. White women play a vital part in upholding and creating this oppression, and could work to acknowledge dismantle, and engage in healing as a core part of their feminism.

My question is- Just because someone with xy chromosmes is getting called a woman, does that unburden you of the brutality inherent in participating in white supremacy as a white woman?

@ArabellaScott
Thank you for listening. I think your question was a great one.

You might live in an all white environment, but it could be interesting to explore some questions?-
what that is good in your life is built on black suffering?
What is the history of this place you live? Why is it so white?
As a white woman, is there anything you could do to counter white supremacy?
Where do you have power and influence in this regard?

X

Good post op. I'm looking forward to learning more :-)

@Holly60

I don’t understand a feminism that includes biological males and is based on womanhood being about gender stereotypes of femininity.

No. No "GC" feminists asked for a split of the boards, or an exclusive space at all, that's simply not true.

This thread is in "Feminist Chat", not "Feminism: Sex and Gender Debate". The Sex and Gender topic was not asked for by what you call "GC" feminists, and the vast majority objected to the change. Threads have been hived off from Feminist Chat, to free it up for you and others who requested the split to use as you now see fit.

Why the assumption that all GC feminists are white? Privileged? Somehow living up in the clouds with airy fairy ideas disconnected from everyday struggles?

Do me a favour! If you can’t even call yourself a woman these days without offending a man, that’s a major problem - especially for the most oppressed women in our society and the wider world. Femicide, rape as a weapon of war, FGM happen to women not transwomen or cis women or womxn or menstruated or chest feeders…or whatever label men want to give us because they don’t like us using the name we call ourselves.

I don’t understand non GC feminism, because it doesn’t exist. End of.