So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

Such as Singapore, Japan, Qatar etc.

[quote Freebleweeble]@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

It’s a product of white supremacy, a system which is currently upheld for the benefit of white people as a class

In the same way that the patriarchy can be upheld by men and women, but is primarily for the benefit of men.

There is an excellent podcast series called Seeing White which explores the history of Whiteness both as a racial grouping and also as a system of power.

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.[/quote]
Thank you for your reply. It’s really informative.
What about in countries that aren’t predominantly white but are affluent enough to exploit the same poorer countries?

What I don't get, Freebleweeble, is that you are dressing down other posters for not talking about issues that you feel are a priority. Yet... you haven't and won't start any threads about them anywhere.

Likewise, I'd happily read conclusive evidence that there isn't a spectrum.

All the GC feminists here arguing that women’s rights activism is the most important thing in feminism for them... here’s the bit I don’t get...

Yes, you don't get it. You don't understand why it's important to have language and a movement to describe the specific oppression we experience because we are female. You want us to divert our attention to a focus you consider more important. Would you say this to trans people?

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

It’s a product of white supremacy, a system which is currently upheld for the benefit of white people as a class

In the same way that the patriarchy can be upheld by men and women, but is primarily for the benefit of men.

There is an excellent podcast series called Seeing White which explores the history of Whiteness both as a racial grouping and also as a system of power.

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.

In what way? My point that I'm comfortable with a fuzzy definition stands even if it is 0.0001% not 1%.

The overwhelming majority of MTF trans people are average XY males. This is a red herring, it's used as a gotcha by transactivists. All people who have a disorder of sex development are either male or female even if this is ambiguous to the beholder, which is extremely rare in itself.

Biological sex matters. It doesn't have to be determinative of identity. That is a human choice.

I would write a longer post on this but I don't see the point really, I know I won't change any minds here.

There is a long history of people using biological facts to uphold restrictive and exclusive social discourse and policies. I would like to see feminism do the opposite. I would like to see a big tent, 'more the merrier', let's all crush the patriarchy attitude. I don't want to police people's bodies and interrogate their bona fides.

You may disagree with all this and that's fine. I was just responding to the OP. I'm not going to try to change your minds. Let's just acknowledge that different feminists have different views but that does not stop us all working toward the same goal.

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.

@picklemewalnuts
respect.international/slavery-footprint/

[quote Waitwhat23]@picklemewalnuts it's called the Slavery Footprint slaveryfootprint.org/mobile2.html. I just tried to take it but it's being glitchy. Might just be my phone though[/quote]
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.
Would people living in England with the same amount of children etc, and the only difference being their ethnicity, have vastly differing scores?

This thread sort of sums it up for me...

All the GC feminists here arguing that women’s rights activism is the most important thing in feminism for them... here’s the bit I don’t get...

When white supremacy results in the death of women of colour, disproportionate, egregious, ongoing, real world daily consequences of that system- a system that we could really have a big impact on changing and reshaping, taking the lead from our sisters of colour.

I have read THOUSANDS of posts and threads about the risks of trans-rights, but actual women are actually dying because of this other system, and it just doesn’t seem to register... at least not on the FWR board in the last 5 years. The odd thread here and there. Nothing like the avalanche of GC threads.

Of course you don’t just pick one fight, but I just don’t see posters who are so passionate about GC posting about real world consequences of WS on women of colour.

It’s like there’s a bonfire on the front lawn and a lot of people want to go look at the candle in the back garden.

To posters who said:
Because you live in a white area. Because you haven’t ever said a racist slur to anyone.

Saying I haven’t ever personally oppressed anyone is exactly like a man coming here and saying I haven’t raped anyone so what can I do about rape culture? And I’ve seen how that one goes down here.

My agenda consists of the three things I originally outlined. I could work towards those either being GC or not GC.

There are lots of incredibly well-informed people on the board. I respect their views and I don't particularly want to start a fight with any of them. However, having read a lot of the threads, unrelated topics do often get derailed into being about definitions of womanhood. There being a space where that doesn't happen is a good thing in my view.

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

Well as the word woman encompasses females of every race and nationality how much broader can it be? What you mean is you also include male people who share nothing in common with the females of every race and nationality? Is this your concept of broadly.
As for not being comfortable with arguments based in biological essentialism, would you care to explain why ?

@picklemewalnuts it's called the Slavery Footprint slaveryfootprint.org/mobile2.html. I just tried to take it but it's being glitchy. Might just be my phone though

Given how much they value respect for women’s boundaries you’d think they might be more willing to respect this one.

This is the general feminist chat space, not some sort of walled safe space for posters who don't approve of women's sex based rights, and it's a valid question. Maybe scroll on by if you don't like the thread. Other people who disagree seem to have plenty to say, and that's great!

"So many"... really? So many threads. How many exactly?? And there is more than enough goading from those who are pleased as punch to have been given their own space to debate and to have pushed other posters into a silo.

@Freebleweeble I've tried to find the calculator you mention. Can you be more specific about what it's called? When I used your words I got lots of financial planning type stuff, when I used racism slavery audit I got really interesting stuff but not what you referred to, and my initial search terms got me something about white fragility and check your privilege.

It sounds really interesting- I use eco audits quite often, what you describe is new to me.

The two things are not the same. Males are not female, and women are simply adult human females. Black women are female. White women are female. It's a category error to imply that excluding a group of biological males is the same as excluding any group of biological women, and plays into racist tropes about black women.

Exactly- I wanted to say something along those lines too but couldn't word it as well!

So many goady threads and posts from GC regulars still telling everyone else they’re feministing wrong.

Given how much they value respect for women’s boundaries you’d think they might be more willing to respect this one.

Or at least tolerate it.

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).

Are you referring to DSDs here? Those with DSDs are genetically male or female, they just have a variance in sexual development. I think there might be one, exceedingly rare condition where this is not the case, but I don't think it would amount to 1% of the human population.

If there is research showing that humans are not a dimorphic species, then please post links, I'd be interested in reading it.

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

The two things are not the same. Males are not female, and women are simply adult human females. Black women are female. White women are female. It's a category error to imply that excluding a group of biological males is the same as excluding any group of biological women, and plays into racist tropes about black women.