Can we be "Sex realist" now? Not "Gender critical"?

Yes please OP

It's true that the term 'gender' had already been used before Butler, especially: Money, Stoller and Rich. But most of Butler's sources and influences didn't use the term gender in a technical sense; notably Foucault, de Beauvoir, Kristeva, Irigaray, Lacan and Wittig all used different terminology in discussing ideas about femininity and masculinity, sex and stereotypes. Butler brought it all under the term gender and codified it. That's of course a bit of an over-simplification, but I don't think her contribution can't be over emphasized.

To your point - pre-Butler it would have been quite normal to find the term 'sex stereotypes' along side 'gender stereotypes' with no universally accepted distinction. Only after Butler did it become widely accepted that gender was a personal attribute separate from sex and thus an identity. It's also worth pointing out that Butler's Gender Trouble itself doesn't go that far. It's main thesis is that gender is something one does, it's a composite of one's performances - which implies that it's not a fixed identity.

The introduction of gender in a technical sense, e.g. a role you perform, is a postmodernist abuse of language, it tries to project a retroactive meaning in order to derive new interpretations of the existing usage, with Butler famously codifying it.

I thought this use of the word 'gender' was the same as in 'gender stereotypes'. It was already in use well before Butler. The difference is that it was accepted that gender stereotypes were imposed by society. We don’t have a choice about them, but we can choose to go against them, although they will always be there in the background with the associated disapproval coming from some quarters if we do so.

The postmodernist idea that by going against gender stereotypes people somehow 'become' a different gender is just bonkers. Even more insane is the idea that by adopting the stereotypes imposed on the opposite sex people actually change sex.

The term gender critical seems to have reached irreversible momentum, so that it seems unlikely that it will be dislodged as the antipole of GI. But I do think it's worth fighting to reclaim gender. Gender was up until recently a synonym for sex, e.g. you could talk about the gender of a connector (socket or plug), or of a goose or gander. The introduction of gender in a technical sense, e.g. a role you perform, is a postmodernist abuse of language, it tries to project a retroactive meaning in order to derive new interpretations of the existing usage, with Butler famously codifying it.

The introduction of the concept would have been mostly harmless if a new word or phrase had been coined for it, say sexual persona. But by giving a word with a material connotation a metaphysical definition all manner of sophistry and misdirection could be invoked. To me, that's why it's important to insist that I don't believe in gender - it's simply that gender = sex.

Yes I've seen this "well obviously I'm a biological woman claim". They claimed there were a few different ways to distinguish sex and then went through them discrediting each one except "hormone sex" 🙄🙄🙄

But in saying that their DNA changes, they are truly talking nonsense, and it is verifiably nonsense.

Whereas saying they “change gender” is harder to refute because gender lacks a single meaning and its meaning has been deliberately fudged and blurred until no one is sure if they really mean sex, or something more nebulous. So they have got away with talking bollocks by using unclear language.

I think if they are pushed onto the ground of having to claim to change sex, more people can see that this simply isn’t true. It is sort of forcing the debate to be couched in more precise and accurate words that have a concrete defined meaning, eg sex, DNA, which is better for those of us rooted in reality.

“Gender” is a slippery word because it is used in at least three ways, and if the speaker doesn’t clarify the sense in which they are using it, it enables people to vaguely agree while every person in the room takes away a different meaning from “ I have changed gender”.

But “I have changed sex” is way less ambiguous and just makes the speaker sound delusional.

Some people say the earth is flat. Doesn't mean it is.

Why are we supposed to be concerned about idiots spouting unscientific nonsense?

Are you concerned that people will believe them if they shout loudly enough?

Yes, they try to redefine words. It doesn't mean I'm going to give them up. I don't think it will help to 'retreat' linguistically. I know what I mean by gender and I am opposed to it. To be honest, 'feminist' should be enough.

They were saying that way before the SC ruling.

They are saying that they have female brains, therefore are biologically female. That taking oestrogen makes your blood feminine.

They've been saying that for years. This isn't new.

This whole movement has been built by men claiming to have lady brains. That's what transgenderism is all about. What did you think they've been saying for the last 10-15 years?

I generally describe myself as "pro women" or say that I "support women".

It isn't a synonym for gender critical, or for sex realist, but it is the foundation of my feminism. Of course, some people use "women" to include "trans women", but in the context I use it (e.g. discussion of feminism, or "anti-trans") it is pretty clear what I mean, enough for them to argue about it!

At least 80% of British people think that sex is determined at conception, and can't be changed, only disguised. We don't have a word for this, because it wasn't previously needed.

And it wouldn't matter, if it were not for the data falsification, unsafe medical practices, arrogation of cross-sex sex-based rights, etc. All of this was imposed on us by UKGOV and ECtHR, and none of it was needed to protect trans people from discrimination. It's these legal and institutional structures we're against, not trans people.

How about 'GRA abolitionists'? Although, more is needed now. It should be illegal to conceal your sex, or to facilitate the medical 'transition' of anyone under twenty-five.

People already, somehow, confuse being gender-critical with 'biological essentialism' even though they're the polar opposite. I think 'sex realist' sounds, superficially at least, even more like this, which is another reason I think it's not a useful term.

That is fine. Women is also fine.

I really couldn't give a fig what people choose to call themselves or others, it's entirely bloody immaterial.

Those who don't supoprt women's rights have been calling us names for years. It belies a weakness in argument when it gets to ad hom attacks, and worrying too much about what they'll call us, or what we or others want to call themselves, is pointless distraction.

Same with flags. I fucking hate flags.

Agreed.

And the really insidious thing about gender is that it works inside your own mind as well. It's not just society telling girls "doesn't matter if you enjoy it and are really good at it, you won't be as good as the boys and it's not for you anyway, girls are for other things", it's that our self images are formed within that gender soup as well, so it means many girls never even think of trying, or believe themselves it's not for them.

Kids learn about the world by living in it and by being taught. Of course they pick up the genderised messages and lives they see all around them as "real" rather than recognising they are just "the way things happen to have turned out". They need adults to help them understand what can exist outside their lived experience.

The problem, for us, about trans ideology is that it hasnt a core belief.

One of the core beliefs is that there exist gender identities that match, or align with, one sex or the other.

It is unclear whether this implies, for example, that 'woman' gender matches with 'female'. I would like to see it made clear, by people who believe this, which gender identities match which sex.

I agree with this. It's incredibly easy for terms to get misused and I think 'critical of gender' is as simple and straightforward as it gets. Everyone argues about differences between sexes and how much they dictate what you're like etc and I think it gets very muddled.

GC is perfect. I think gender is harmful. To say I don't is just a really weird lie, but what else to expect from these dishonest people?!

And saying agender trans people are anti-trans is just bizarre as well. Absolutely shows the state of their 'arguments'.

Well yes that too. My critiques of gender stereotypes tend to leave me critical of them!

I was gender critical before transactivism came to the fore. Even if transgenderism didn’t exist, I’d still be gender critical - no girl or boy, man or woman, should be prevented from fulfilling their potential because of restrictive gender roles and stereotypes.

I'm using 'critical' in the sense of 'expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of'

You don't need to get into the minutae of genderist ideologies, you just need to keep laser clear that people born female also exist, being born female has specific risks and consequences, and whatever makes a trans woman a women, it's by definition a different thing to being born female so it makes no sense to say that people born female don't have the right to say what we need as well.

Don't get tricked into answering their questions, ask your own instead. Make them justify why people who are born female don't deserve support as well.

The problem, for us, about trans ideology is that it hasnt a core belief. The rationale to allow a man into a changing room with teenage girls changes depending on who is justifying it.

If we say we are against gender, or ignoring sex, there'll be someone, somewhere who'll agree but still want men to be in that changing room.

I hate to be all rik from the young ones, but we are anti establishment as well. The Government, media, institutions have been using GC as a derogatory term. But whatever words we use will be eventually.

I like to focus on safeguarding, but again this is turned against us by people misunderstanding it.

I don’t agree. Of course ‘critical’ is a negative! That’s the point. ‘Gender’ - the cultural stereotypes and roles - unfortunately exist. They most certainly need to be criticised, and to a large degree dismantled.

At the point we started using the term gender critical on this board, ‘sex realism’ was pretty much a given. Calling oneself a ‘sex realist’ is about as useful as ‘oblate spheroid earth realist’. I think it almost gives credence to the sex unrealists having a legitimate position which requires ‘balance’ in a debate.

What is negative is where cultural ideas of gender restrict any person’s free choices, within their own abilities. I’m a scientist, my daughter is an engineer - not so long ago ‘gender’ would have prevented us from following the careers we love.