So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

PurgatoryOfPotholes I think some posters are re-defining words to suit themselves, so ‘biological essentialism’ becomes anything anyone wants it to mean, rather than its actual meaning.

faux disbelief that there could possibly be any way to discuss feminism, or be feminist, without first agreeing that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex

Fixed it for you.

The OP asked for non-GC perspectives. Now having given them, let's see, it's self-indulgent rubbish, tripe, something in there about cats, the usual pile on.

Funny though how when discussing what 'non GC' feminism is (which is what the thread asked), you've chosen to talk about how you think men can be women.

Rather than choose to discuss all those incredibly important things like the pay gap, VAWG, sexualisation of young girls etc, that you claim to have been interested in and not had a space to talk about on before.

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

But why call it Feminism? Why take a word that already had meaning and then complain that the people who were already using it don't use it in your new way?

I mean, "taking the Female out of Feminism" - it's a brave position but not a slogan I'd want to stand behind!

I've been lurking on this thread for ages , MotherOffCod. It's been a while, but wasn't it your post that diverted the discussion?

I don't think the OP was disingenuous at all, and I thought some people posted considered responses that helped me understand where they were coming from. In fact, they made me feel more supportive of a board split! I do wish the thread hadn't been sabotaged by people jumping to atttribute bad-faith to the OP.

You know what’s nice - this way we won’t have to listen to non GC sex and gender debate because they can’t bear the other board.

It seemed a good opportunity to explain different feminist perspectives

My mistake, won't do that again.

And with that, I'll leave you all to your 'appropriate topic'

Ha indeed. Apparently "what is feminism?" doesn't belong in Feminism.

Most importantly I want a space where I can debate the feminist issues I care most about without having to define what a woman is. Can someone explain to me why this is such a big problem?

How can you talk about feminism when you can't define the group that feminism is for?

Who is feminism for? What group of humans?

Hooray. Cross posted with the move notice. Byeeeeeeee!

“ Yes and it wasn’t GC feminists who brought it up. ”

It was a GC regular poster who started the thread. And entirely unsurprising where it’s ended up, given it started right in with a barrage of sarcasm and faux disbelief that there could possibly be any way to discuss feminism, or be feminist, without first agreeing with GC dogma.

Give it a rest folks.

If you’re really so fascinated to see what can possibly be discussed with a non GC lens, then watch and wait.

Possibly you’re not really, and actually just want to go on saying trans women are men, and trans is the biggest threat to women everywhere etc etc…. In which case you really do have a perfectly good board,that you’ve been posting on for ages, where the rules haven’t changed….

X post

Ha at it being moved

If you take part in a thread about feminism in the abstract, then I think to be honest you shouldn't be so offended when people ask you who you're centering in your feminism and why. If you can't be bothered or don't find it interesting, don't engage.

And MNHQ were very clear that it was about silo-ing specific questions, not specific viewpoints - unfortunately there's obviously some ambiguity about whether basic analyses of feminism belong on the feminism board, or the Nest of Vipers...

The OP asked for non-GC perspectives

Anything to do with the sex and gender debate is meant to go in the other topic whether it’s GC or not.

Why didn’t you stick to other topics if sex and gender is low interest?

The OP asked for non-GC perspectives. Now having given them, let's see, it's self-indulgent rubbish, tripe, something in there about cats, the usual pile on.

It's all deeply tedious. Looking forward to some interesting threads that can give all this a swerve.

I don’t believe I am a woman. I am a woman.

I thought biological essentialism is the philosophy that people's hobbies, life goals, personalities, skills and so on were determined by biology, e.g. the idea that girls innately don't like football because they are girls, will like crochet, won't be able.to read a map, and innately are repulsed by careers in STEM.

You're confused and so are the rest of us. Who is supposed to believe in biological essentialism ? GC/ NonGC? As far as I can see nobody but an idiot would believe in the above philosophy, so what does it have to do with this debate?

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

Deliberately goady nonsense. Being a woman isn't a belief, it's a biological reality.

Amd iirc the first response to the definition question was put this on the sex and gender board

This is the top google def of biological essentialism, which sounds like what I thought it meant.

QUICK REFERENCE

The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture). The concept is typically invoked where there is a focus on difference, as where females are seen as essentially different from males:seegender essentialism. The term has often been used pejoratively by constructionists; it is also often used synonymously with biological determinism.See alsoessentialism;comparestrategic essentialism.

www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507973

This thread is a massive example of why people don't like posting on the board and why people want a space which is not dominated by GC feminists.

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

Most importantly I want a space where I can debate the feminist issues I care most about without having to define what a woman is. Can someone explain to me why this is such a big problem?

I think I'm not properly 'gender critical' I think, as I believe there are significant average differences between the sexes in terms of interests and attributes. I'm aware this is seen as unscientific but it's been my overwhelming experience, which I find difficult to discount, even allowing for the influence of culture and parenting.

I still think I'm a feminist though (others may disagree), and still believe in strongly advocating for women.

I read a book by a feminist philosopher, Mari Mikkola. She essentially argues for a kind of feminism that isn't focused on women. She thinks the wrong that feminism seeks to address is the dehumanisation of women. But wait! Men can be dehumanised too! So feminism should be expanded to be a project to end all dehumanisation because dehumanisation is bad. She has a whole chapter about how men are raped too, and feminism is too narrow and focused on female rape victims only and so the goal of feminism should be to end ALL rape not just the rape of women. In fact, feminism is harmful because it focuses too much on women and leaves men out (how terrible for the nasty ladies to focus just on themselves.)

So you can have something called 'feminism' without a focus on sex or gender. My problem is, I don't think it's feminism. Mikkola doesn't dwell very much on questions that to me are obvious like - who is doing the raping to whom, and why? Who is dehumanising whom?