So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

I think the definition of 'woman' is currently in flux, that is why we are all having such fierce debates about it. This is a normal part of the norm life cycle -- the contestation over how to define social norms. At some point a consensus will re-establish itself

It’s not a normal part of the life cycle. It’s the result of male-led lobbying centring the interests of men’s wishes and needs.

• Suffocating is a great word for how it’s felt, increasingly, for years, and it’s a huge relief to be finally getting a space that’s (intended to be) free from that lens and narrative.

I’ve longed for space to post without bracing for attack, insults, brigading and bullying, and to be able to express and discuss inclusive feminism without having to either tacitly condone hostility towards trans people or offer myself as tribute for a pile on. *

MoC: Sorry, but if you want to discuss 'inclusive feminism' you'll have to do so on the 'Sex & Gender Debate' board. Feminism Chat is for everything BUT the inclusivity debate.

My biological sex is female. I don't think 'woman' is as simple as biological sex, that is where we differ obviously.

I think the definition of 'woman' is currently in flux, that is why we are all having such fierce debates about it. This is a normal part of the norm life cycle -- the contestation over how to define social norms. At some point a consensus will re-establish itself.

I suppose for me a working definition would be anyone who lives their life as an adult human female, whether they were born as such or not. Yes, there is a certain fluidity to the definition but I think that's okay, this is normal for most aspects of identity.

I mean, can you define British? Who is a British person? What if they are born abroad to British parents, can they still be British? What if they come to Britain in their 30s and live here for years, can they become truly British? Interestingly, on that last question, some British people would say yes and some would say no.

And yet, despite this apparent muddiness, there is not really a problem in understanding what we mean when we say things like, we want to improve the lives of British people, or we want to help British children get a better education. We don't all stop and say hang on, how are you defining British? We focus on the main issue.

I think that's really what feminists like me want. We just want to get on with things. There is not much confusion, in real life, about what a woman is or what we mean when we talk about women's rights. Trans women are a tiny minority of women in the UK. Yes, there are important issues around inclusion, but these are not insurmountable.

Completely agree MarshmallowSwede

They also often say if lesbians are allowed in female spaces, why not heterosexual males who identify as lesbian women, as if we are the same as heterosexual males. They have no idea how misogynistic, racist and homophobic they come across to anyone listening to them.

Exactly! Think Buffalo Bill from silence of the lambs. Woman is not a costume.

Can someone explain to me why Men Right’s Activists aren’t having debates with trans men about what a man is? I mean how can they fight for their rights if they don’t know what a man is? It’s also weird how similar the arguments of the pro trans is to the MRA activists.. isn’t that funny ladies?

What’s also funny .. It’s only ever women being asked to change our language on how we describe ourselves, give up our safe spaces, move aside for men in our sports.

Weird isn’t it how men never ever seem to have to debate what a man actually is? We all know what a man is. But a woman.. we can’t trust science!

@BeBloodyBold the Spectrum of Sex appears to be a discussion of various types of 'intersex' conditions with several personal accounts at the end and is written largely by an intersex activist and scholar.

You might want to Google Russell's teapot theory.

Funny.. it’s seems they are as quiet as church mice.

Even if I'm wrong, there's no harm in me being able to have a conversation about the feminist issues that concern me without going back to first principles and debating what being a woman is.

It's fundamental to advocating for the rights of a particular group to understand what the group is, what it isn't, in order to not get derailed by demands that have nothing to do with the group, and aren't in the best interests of its members.

I mean, who gave GC feminists the right to decide who a woman is? You are entitled to youropinionas are the rest of us.

I'm guided by science. It's not actually an opinion but a fact.

White supremacy and patriarchy are like two sides of the same coin, but often white women fight one, while upholding the other and that is why feminism has to look at both systems if it is to succeed.

@Freebleweeble I couldn't agree more, and I hope people will take some time to look into this if they have not done so before

I mean, who gave GC feminists the right to decide who a woman is? You are entitled to youropinionas are the rest of us. Personally I don't want my identity to be determined by my reproductive organs.

So how do you determine your sex then?

Not the act of - but woman - female sex

young girls are being hyper-sexualised

Yes they are which is a big part of why so many are opting out via dangerous hormones and surgeries. You don't think that should be addressed as part of the wider problem including pornography?

I mean, who gave GC feminists the right to decide who a woman is?

Who decides then? Men? The word woman didn't become untethered from female until some men decided they wanted it to be.

Personally I don't want my identity to be determined by my reproductive organs.

Good to know you won't be calling us vagina people, uterus havers, cervix havers, birthing bodies and menstruators.

Btw the word women has been around for a long time and has meant sex

It’s not GC feminists changing it it’s men

Who do you all think put pressure on Mumsnet to make this change. Really?

I mean, who gave GC feminists the right to decide who a woman is? You are entitled to youropinionas are the rest of us. Personally I don't want my identity to be determined by my reproductive organs. I find the biological essentialism of GC feminism very disturbing and I want no part of it. But I am still a feminist, someone fighting back against misogyny and patriarchy every chance I get.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion of what a woman is, Bohemian , Cod - but what is it? You haven't said, and presumably you know who it is you're fighting for so passionately.

@dreamingbohemian thank you, you expressed the point I was trying to make 1000x more eloquently than I did.

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?

Also agree with pp being born female (girl) and growing into an adult woman is not a identity, that is the whole problem. It is not an identity one can assume, like being a goth or a punk, the idea is frankly offensive in the extreme.

Thank you @DifferentHair and @MotherOffCod : )

I experience female socialisation and expectations, because I’m treated as a woman and expected to fill certain niches in society (which I think are often unreasonable), because I interact with a lot of the boxes marked as ‘woman’.

Males are not socialised into femininity though, they are not expected to be ‘kind’, empathetic and accommodating to others. Males are socialised in the exact opposite way, to be entitled, self centred, controlling, and to think only of themselves. If a male dresses in a feminine manner, or has medical intervention, the male socialisation doesn’t suddenly vanish.

I don’t think males who identify as women are treated like women, I think they are treated with the same priority over females as any other male, their desires and demands always seem to be met. Females are still expected to be ‘kind’, empathetic and accommodating to them, and put their desires above our own needs.

So I don’t see any benefits to females of including males in a movement supposedly for females, only detriment. The same as I wouldn’t see any benefits to including white people who identified as a different race, in anti-racism movements, only detriments.

Even if I'm wrong, there's no harm in me being able to have a conversation about the feminist issues that concern me without going back to first principles and debating what being a woman is.

I didn't post on the board before, as it didn't feel like an appropriate space to do so. I will post now, but will stop if threads get continually derailed.

I’ve tried to use it and it isn’t working for me either.
I would have thought this is more indicative of the western world’s reliance on the oppression of poorer countries rather than a specifically white people issue though. I’m happy to be corrected by someone who managed to get to the end.

I got to the end but don't understand the meaning of it. So basically if you own 5 pairs of jeans you have slaves working for you? Isn't that mixing up people in Asian countries being exploited in sweat shops with racism and slavery? What if you buy from reputable clothes manufacturers? This is basically damned if you do anything. Weird tool and very offputting instead of highlighting an actual problem.

Personally I don't want my identity to be determined by my reproductive organs.

It’s not. It’s your sex.

Also you are more likely to be called something which refers to your body parts without GC feminism.