What the gender critical movement is trying to achieve

I would say that the NHS should treat transgender people the same way they treat everyone else.

There should be a NICE review of the evidence behind the various interventions for people with gender dysphoria. The NHS should provide the best treatment for these patients, according to the evidence, and bearing in mind the cost of the treatment.

(As a doctor, I believe that proper evaluation of the evidence would suggest that treatment with cross sex hormones and surgery does not improve mental health in the long term, and definitely harms physical health, so is unlikely to be a worthwhile use of NHS funds).

People who identify as 'transgender' who do not have gender dysphoria can pay for their own body modifications, like anyone else.

The concepts of 'gender affirmation' (ie, allowing patients to diagnose themselves) and 'informed consent' ( by which they mean allowing a patient to choose whatever treatment they want as long as they sign a form to say they know the risks) should have no more place in Gender Clinics than anywhere else in a healthcare system funded by taxpayers.

I'm another one who thinks that the framing you are using doesn't represent what is actually going on OP.

I am probably the sort of person that you would describe as "gender critical". But it's not how I choose to describe myself. I would describe myself as a feminist and a women's libber. I want girls and women to be liberated from the oppression of patriacrchy and I want us to have equal rights and socio-political status in the world.

I've held those views since teenagehood and I'm still on the same path of resistance as the one I started out on. In the 80s and 90s if seemed like things were improving and thanks to the brave and brilliant work of the feminists who had gone before me, things were really changing.

Then the backlash came. It came in various forms and guises; pornography, queer theory, the redefining of prostitution and sex trafficking as "work", neo-liberalism, etc, etc. And transgenderism was another prong of that backlash and therefore something to be resisted as, like the other elements, it was founded on sexist, misognyistic, male supremacist ideology. It was all part of the same thing and based on the same set of beliefs (men as default human and women as "other", boys and men as having superior status and girls and women inferior status, girls and women existing to be exploited by boys and men, the normalisation of male violence and rape culture, etc, etc[.

One of the main pillars of patriarchy is the idea that it is the natural order rather than an ideology and a socio-political system. And the bedrock of patriarchy as natural order is gender. Gender is the socially constructed notion that sex should determine social role and status. This complex, extremist and oppressive notion is simplified, packaged and presented to us "femininity" and "masculinity".

Another age old pillar of patriarchy is that boys and men are human and self-defining and girls and women are not boys and men and are defined by boys and men.

The tenets upon which transgenderist ideology are founded are ancient and deeply ingrained. Transgenderism has simply picked up these ancient tenets and run with them in ways that are new. And because the ways are new, lots of people have been hoodwinked into thinking that there is something progressive going on. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth; it's just a case of old dog new tricks. The tenets are exactly the same as before and are deeply regressive.

So, personally, I'm still trying to achieve what I always have been - the liberation of girls and women from patriarchy and thereby gender / sex castes / male supremacism. Nothing has changed for me. I am resisting gender just as I always have because it is a tool with which to subjagate girls and women. What we call transgenderism is actually just plain old fashioned genderism. It is genderism mixed up with queer theory, social media, experimental medecine, pornography, fetishism, lesbophobia and homophobia, woman hating and the tedious god complex that men seemed to have had since forever.

You might as well ask "what is the feminist movement trying to achieve?". Or an even better question would be "what has the feminist movement always had to resist?".

What the GC movement is intent on achieving is the maintenance of appropriate and healthy boundaries - in the face of a movement which seeks to negate and deny such boundaries.

They police themselves if the social contract is recognised and respected.

The problem now is that it is not, and some will wilfully transgress boundaries even when other provions are available. That is because transgenderism as we now know it is about transgression and the wilful erosion of boundaries.

Boundaries are seen outdated and personally restrictive, and uphold old power structures. Curious though, that a whole new set of boundaries has been erected aroun d what is and is not permissible to say - and woe betide anyone who trangresses this type of boundary.

Toilets are the go-to gotcha for gender ideologists. It is simple to police access to the women's prison estate, female hospital wards, refuges and shelters and VAWG support services as the access is controlled. Nobody controls access to public toilets and we rely on the social contract. There are people who refuse to accept the social contract and force their way in by main force. If we can solve this then we've cracked it.

No one is suggesting 'policing' toilets.

But allowing natal males in to a (until recently )women only space changes the social contract.

No one knows what is expected, women can't challenge people who make them feel unsafe and dodgy men can take full advantage of this.

I will not mouth religious views I don't believe in. I consider that a respectful stance to the followers of that religion as well as myself.

So - no, thank you to 'respecting pronouns'.

Where do you want to draw the line when it comes to single sex public toilets?

For me being gendercritical means no ridiculous thought-limiting language, biology sex is real and keep it that way in law (apply it to sport, women shortlists, shelters, vulnerable places), question gender-affirmative care for kids.

But exchange between Maya Forstater and Robin White left me uneasy because the focus came to public toilets - it made me wonder if they really want to start policing public toilets too? Given practical implications...

I don't speak for the movement but for me,

Women and men to be defined biologically ie sex is immutable
No issue with transpeople living 'as if' they are the opposite sex so long as they realise they are still a male/ female and not equivalent to the sex they want to be.
Leave under 18s out of it
Leave intersex people out of it ( unless they choose to identify as one sex or the other due to being truly ambiguous, very rare)

Basically, allow me and others to define ourselves by what's between our legs, not what's between our ears. Afford me the same respect to define myself how I wish to, that trans activists demand from others.

Yes it's gender ideology that is the movement. Gc is just reality. And tw are not a subset of women even without a penis.

As others have said, its not a movement.

I want the government to stop giving men female id and birth certificates. It's a pointless lie that compromises safeguarding.

When government doesn't understand that sex and age are key factors in safeguarding and conspire with adult men to hide key facts about themselves, what hope do other organisation have to maintain safety?

Yep, completely this

if you campaign for transwomen to be identified as male, or for them to be kept out of women's spaces and sports because they are male, it's going to affect them.

I don’t think the word woman should be used to describe any sort of man, no matter what the prefix, so your argument doesn’t make sense to me. Men and women are opposites in the same way up and down are opposites. It makes no say that “up” is “transdown”.

I read it as

if you campaign for men to be identified as male, or for them to be kept out of women's spaces and sports because they are male, it's going to affect them.

It’s only going to affect the men who rail against reality and women’s boundaries. Why should people be so concerned about this group? Respecting reality and women’s boundaries isn’t that great an ask of people.

It's pretty obvious- if you campaign for transwomen to be identified as male, or for them to be kept out of women's spaces and sports because they are male, it's going to affect them. Certainly TRAs- including the man who asked this question on Twitter originally - are deeply concerned about what gender critical feminism means for them.

Yes, I'm sure they would be.

But the fact that trans people would be affected by women regaining their sex-based rights doesn't mean that people who believe that biological sex sometimes matters have any kind of goals involving trans people - they're generally concerned with protecting their own sex-based rights and those of their children and so on.

I think characterising it as 'campaigning for transwomen to be identified as male' is an odd way to phrase things, as it implies they're not male - it's not like gender critical people are trying to redefine transwomen as male - they actually are male; it's that transwomen are campaigning to have themselves reclassified as female, and women are saying "no, that doesn't work for our existing sex-based rights (which we still need) because you are biologically male".

Males will obviously feel that is very mean of women and they will take every opportunity to tell us, as they always have.

It's nothing new for men to shame women into being kind to get what they want - it's probably the reason half of us even exist in the first place.

The thread is about the 'end goal' of gender critical feminism. Obviously people who identify as trans are affected by gender critical goals.

Trans people will obviously be affected by gender critical people pushing back to retain or reinstate their own rights, so obviously they aren't going to be happy about not being able to rearrange the world exactly as they'd like it.

But aside from a few odd or vindictive people who will be an inevitable subsection of any large group of humans, I can imagine that gender critical people have any end-goals that have anything to do with trans people specifically - why would they?

This sounds more like the myth perpetuated in trans circles - that if women try to retain their existing sex-based rights, proponents of gender identity frame it as those women "trying to eradicate trans people".

There is no Gender Critical Movement. There are people who are gender critical.

For me, no recognition of "gender" in law at all.

All of the protections for 'expression' are already contained in laws for sex discrimination. People should not have special extra rights because they choose to believe in a framework of regressive sexist stereotypes.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think these people actually change sex. But in a compassionate society you have to be a bit flexible. It's kind to go along with their identity to a point. The moment a transwoman wants to compete in women's sports, or to be sent a women's prison though... that's where the line is drawn.

I used to believe in being compassionate and using pronouns but I think that's what got us into the mess we are in now. I think Helen Staniland was spot on when she said "It starts with pronouns and ends with a six foot male getting their cock out in the female changing room". Over the last 5 years my compassion has completely evaporated.

OP your position is far too waffly and as a PP says, puts trans at the centre of it. Again. It really is quite simple - getting the law and our institutions to acknowledge:

• Biological sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is immutable and based in reality AND IS NOT A "BELIEF", gender is a complex mix of cultural stereotypes and individual personality.
• No-one should be discriminated against for either their sex or gender, but biological sex matters sometimes and when it does, single-SEX facilities need to be provided and respected for the dignity and safety of users.

As far as I'm concerned, it mostly boils down to those two points. Totally mainstream and uncontroversial up to a couple of years ago.

I think this whole thing has exposed the vulnerability of the structures of our supposedly free society, how they can be misused to suit the purposes of those who want to coerce others into their own belief system and values.

People with serious psychological disorders and dangerous ideas about human sexuality, being able to use strategic litigation, abuse of well-intended initiatives to make workplaces and public services inclusive and fair, manipulation of communications technologies, and so on, to entirely circumvent democracy and crown themselves our overlords. This is a serious hole.

We need to plug it.

Why kind of problems do trans people have?the BBC , the CPS , Banks, the NHS, the Anglican Church all cater to them.

I don’t want to be socially shamed into pretending. So no, I won’t do the pronouns shuffle

the whole idea that anyone is born in the wrong body is preposterous

people should be able to dress how they like and behave how they like, sure. But if it tips over into pretending they’ve changed sex and expecting others to go along with it then I’m out

you seem very focused on what others should do for people who enjoy role playing as members of the opposite sex OP

I think opposing gender “stereotyping” (or what feminists have long just called gender) has always been the main tenet for me. I am gender critical in the most fundamental sense, and that is what first led me to doubt a supposedly progressive movement that is predicated on the belief that gender is innate (I am aware that TRAs argue that their version of gender is not about stereotypes, but let’s be honest it always boils down to pink and blue).

I was gender critical long before I had considered where trans people/ ideology might figure in all this, which I think is something that TRAs don’t tend to be able to comprehend.