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

Also, conspicuously law abiding women.

This is how I feel, the term centres gender ideology in describing us.

My belief is that biological sex is real and very important in certain situations, I don't care about trans people at all if they abide by the rules applicable to their sex and stay away from children.

You forgot rights hoarding dinosaurs

Beeeee you’re back! Collecting more screenshots for Bluesky??

They say a lot of nonsense, I grant you.

They love a label, a slogan, a badge and a flag. When one tactic doesn't work, they just try another.

Things that didn't work. No Debate. Acceptance without exception. TWAW. Non binary people. More of a woman than you'll ever be. TERFS. Nazis. Far right. Christian - you name it, they've tried it.

None of it works because sex is real and they know it.

Race realist is someone who uses crap science to justify racism, so 'sex realist' is probably not far off. Certainly 'gender critical' implies a critique of the concept of gender, which nearly none of you do.

I use 'anti-trans' as it covers all bases and is more honest.

Look. You choose what you want to call yourself. You're being quite pushy about other people's choices. Which I'm against.

I believe in the concept of gender. I am critical of the concept of gender and it's attempt to restrict who I am and the choices I make in life.

I do not believe in the belief system of gender ideology which says that performance of gender stereotypes is the most important thing about me and defines my sex class.

I see what you are saying. The use of 'gender critical' is like having to play the opposition on their home pitch.

As I suggest above.....i think it was useful in earlier days when the issue had not become so public and so visible...when individuals were battling away in the courts trying to explain why they opposed the imposition of gender ideology...but now it has become too esoteric and does nothing to help the public understand the crux of the issue.

I too prefer to call myself a sex realist.

I think it was Julie Bindel who rejected "gender critical" because she believes gender is purely imaginary and should therefore be rejected, not "criticised".

One of the big problems for us is that many people still see "gender" as a synonym for "sex", which allows the TRAs to get away with many layers of deception.

My response is always to point out that sex is a physical reality, "gender", as used by the TRAs, is role-playing fantasy.

That's interesting. With just three statements (and their opposites) that have a simple agree/disagree response, I thought everyone would fit in somewhere.

What are your responses to the statements?

Do you think sex is nonphysical/changeable or that sex is physical/non-changeable? (I think I know your answer to this as you call yourself 'sex realist'.)

Do you accept or reject gender variation?

Do you think gender is oppressive/constructed or that gender is edifying/innate?

Well, if biological sex is good enough for the Supreme Court.....

We sort of got stuck with GC because it's written into Forstater. But I'd be happy to summarise my beliefs as TWAM/TMAW.

I'm also a TERF, should anyone want to get into all that....

'Gender Critical' was a handy short-hand term a few years ago.....in trying to describe what the movement was opposing...but I certainly feel it has had its day and has now just become a pejorative; and one which most of the public do not understand the relevence of, anyway. It's a bit esoteric. Because it presumes one understands the difference between 'sex' and 'gender' to start with.

Most people have just accepted the conflation of 'sex' with 'gender' that they have been fed...and if you asked them the difference between the two terms I'm not sure many would be able to fully articulate what was meant by 'gender'. So, as a term, it is a little bit alienating for most people.....it comes across as just some kind of ideology that 'feminists' and gender ideologues/trans rights activists battle each other over, but which has nothing to do with them.

So, if you had to have a label......and I'm not sure one is now really needed as the argument is so far advanced......'Sex realist' would be more meaningul and more easily understood.

That’s pretty rude. I’m well aware of what they’re doing - this isn’t particularly new.

Some people prefer sex realist, others gender critical. I don’t think an internecine dispute over this is worth much myself.

Are you new to this? We've been discussing it for years 😂

In order to think they have 'changed sex', they have to believe in sex, yes?

So they are sex realists as in they recognise the male and female sexes.

Even non binary people recognise this by referring to themselves in relation to the 'binary' of sex.

In one version, they think that their true biological sex is not that signified by their natural physiology (ie as on birth certificate) and that the proof is their body-incongruent gender identity.

Existence of gender identity is impossible to prove or disprove. But even if you've got one, your biological sex will always remain what it says on your original birth certificate (absent very rare DSDs).

I can't think of a pithy term. Birth-sex sticklers?

They don't really believe that they have changed sex though. If they did, it would be an innate belief, not reliant on affirmation from strangers.

I'm gender critical. I was gender critical as a Feminist way before trans people were even on my radar, way before the term Gender Critical was coined, because I understood that the gender roles presented by society as innate and natural are in fact social and artibtrary, a mechanism for patriarchial control of women (and also constraining men).

Under patriachy appropriate gender behaviour is conditioned and policed through social expectations and social sanctions and women who do not exhibit the expected gender expressions are deemed to be flawed and unnatural. The gender citical insight is that behaviours that are genuinely natural don't need to be policed because they happen anyway. The fact that "unnatural" women need to be managed is proof that the gendered behaviours were never natural in the first place.

When trans women were first on my radar I thought "great! a bunch of guys pulling at this from the other side - women saying "being female doesn't mean we automatically do all that constructed Feminine stuff any better than men do" and men saying "being male doesn't mean we can't do all that constructed Feminine stuff just as well as female people". I was very disappointed when I realised they wanted to throw away the female, make being a woman just about the contructed Feminine stuff, and on that basis claim a right to everything of "women" even things that only exist in the first place because some people are female. I still cling to the hope we can get through this stupid version of trans rights and forward to something more inclusive and open-ended for women again.

Sex Realism is a much broader church. There are people who believe like me that sex is significant and cannot be ignored, but unlike me want to also keep those gender constructs alive and firmly tied to sex. The society that they envision based on that is not a place I ever want to see us go. So yes I believe sex is real, but Sex Realist isn't a banner I would speak under.

Yes! I’ve been thinking the same and prefer to call myself SR rather than GC. Let’s all do it. Sounds more positive and more understandable to people who don’t know much. Difficult to call SR views bigoted too no?

What? I’m aware that they say this. But I very much doubt any of them believe it.

Of course they’ve come from female when we finally pushed back against them taking woman.