”I don’t want society to section off “biological women” whilst everyone else gets to be everyone else, not defined by biology. That’s othering. That’s what women have been trying to escape for hundreds of years and now we’re back to women othering themselves. It’s not long before we go back to being told we can’t do XYZ because of our poor feminine biology”
And
“I just can’t get over how any woman can believe they’re a feminist whilst consistently defining womanhood as vulnerable and biological. It’s so not helping anyone.”
Just coming back to these two posts.
This is an example of polarisation that seems to underlie that misrepresentation of the equality / equity that second wave feminists sought as I believe it. Often this is linked with a false narrative that all discrimination is bad when in actual fact, there are different types of discrimination. And discrimination in and of itself as an action is not ‘bad’. It can be good for society and individuals also.
This is lazy thinking though that some feminist academics have also been publishing so I don’t blame posters specifically for this, there are professional feminists who are saying this. And many extreme trans activists.
When you evaluate it though, it can only be a false premise.
Feminists who believe that there are some needs that are unique to female people and that they need to be fully considered in policy and law do not believe that ‘biological women’ should be ‘sectioned off’ unless there is a specific need for that. This makes statements like these falsehoods. Because it removes the limiter on the statement, in this case ‘unless there is a specific need’ and makes a blanket statement about what some feminists believe. Again, this may not be something the poster has considered and they might be simply repeating what they have read from people they have chosen to respect.
So, no. feminists who are considered ‘gender critical’ join the poster in not wanting society to ‘section off biological women’.
“Whilst everyone else gets to be everyone else, not defined by biology” is not true. If female people are ‘defined by biology’, that just leaves male people. So…. there is no everyone else outside ‘male people’. Now it is a feminist thought, I believe, that male people have been the ‘default’ in many societies for a very long time. The reality is that there is only two sexes. And both are defined by their biology. There is absolutely no truth that there is any other group of people not defined by their biology. There is plenty of arguments that males should never be the default position and that no female person should be negatively discriminated against because of their sex.
However, it is very short sighted to say that every day life is not defined for many by their sex. In many job roles, if there is not a separate male vs female lifting regulation, then the maximum lift will be set with consideration to female physical limitations. Including the impact of repetitious lifting will have on the female body. This is just one example.
The argument for ‘equality’ misses the need that feminists fought for ‘equity’. That women should never be excluded from job roles or any opportunity that was not by necessity sex exclusive (such as male carers for male people). The argument was that women can contribute just as much to a workforce as male people so employers should not fucking discriminate against them for being female.
Making accommodations for female people is not ‘othering’ them! FFS. It seems like messed up logic to declare that differences in the needs of male people and the needs of female people are non-existent and that, as a concept, this ‘equality’ is progress!
“It’s not long before we go back to being told we can’t do XYZ because of our poor feminine biology”
When I see professional feminists use this line of thought, I see it as coercive. It is threatening women with falsehoods to get them to comply or to campaign for that feminist’s view of women’s equality. It is not based on any reality at all. There really is not threat that the roles that are open to female people will begin to be limited. It is an empty threat. And it is also based on misrepresenting what other feminists are saying.
That is the polarisation part. The absolute statements being made. That is:
Feminists who acknowledge the needs of female people, including their trauma history that is certainly based on their ‘biology’, are reducing female people to their biology.
This is simply not true and it doesn’t take much to understand why.
“I just can’t get over how any woman can believe they’re a feminist whilst consistently defining womanhood as vulnerable and biological. It’s so not helping anyone.”
This is also a misrepresentation. One framed in exaggeration. Because feminists are not ‘defining’ womanhood as ‘vulnerable’. Feminists who prioritise the needs of female people above male people ‘acknowledge’ women are vulnerable to not only negative sexist discrimination in the work place, but also they will never be as strong or have the physical advantages of male people.
Women are not fucking TV super heroes, no matter how much some people wish to believe that it is highly likely that the average female person (even on testosterone) can fight off the average male people. The answer to that is, no. They MAY fight off an attacking male person but it is more likely that they will be significantly harmed and injured. However, technically, yes. All female people are ‘vulnerable’ when compared to male people.
Again, grip strength in a male in the lowest quartile of all male adults will be still stronger than all but the top 5 or 10% of female people. Punching power has large discrepancies. And female people have got less dense bones making them more susceptible to breakage AND our brains have more delicate brain fibres meaning we are more susceptible to permanent brain damage.
I ask any poster who uses the arguments that women are ‘just as’ strong as male people to show their workings. Link us up to the evidence. Otherwise you are speaking bollocks and you really need to stop because it is harmful to women and girls.
Now, where does that matter.
A person’s sex rarely matters in today’s society except when female people need extra protections due to their physical reality. And female people are hugely more at risk of having a male commit a sex crime against them. Toilets, changing rooms, prisons are all part of female single sex spaces. This IS where it matters.
Also any role where a female person wishes to have a female person look after them. For whatever reason.
So, I would now like someone who believes that acknowledging the physical reality of female people ‘is not helping anyone’ to explain to us how this is true in their eyes.