Do you think the term "Gender Critical" is why some people won't engage?

I think IRL the majority of people have no idea what's going on and I envy them that, because I've butted heads with it at work.

If you think about what this was like in the past, it was fine though

Someone IRL said to me that her trans friends would support Darlington nurses but the whole thing has become so toxic they don't feel able to speak up about that either

I had a work colleague who spoke very vocally about supporting trans rights

Anyway, the first meeting she chaired that I was in, she misgendered someone (completely by accident). The person was absolutely fine about it as I knew they would be, but others in the meeting were bristling. It was only after that that she said to me that she was very confused.

I don't know for sure

But the impression I'm under is that most people don't know much about it.

Then I've run into situations where people simply would not believe that stuff like Darlington nurses was happening. I also had a friend say to me ages ago, that any confusion would be sorted out before the Olympics. Ha.

I talked about it initially, when the GRA became legislation - but I genuinely think people either had no idea what I was talking about or didn't understand the difference between different groups and the whole thing is just loaded with problematic language.

Once in the US, a coworker told me that I must put "cis" in front of any male or female descriptors.

I remember a guest on Triggernometry saying it was a very city centric thing as well.

if you hear the term "gender critical" with no context and no knowledge of the GRA or any other issues, you're understandably going to be baffled.

Then there's the forced teaming problem. A gay friend said to me that he was absolutely raging because he feels people see trans as a subset of gay.

So, plop the term "gender critical" into that and of course people are going to be confused, especially if they're not online much. And tbh that is a wise choice - being off-line.

"Men can fuck off deciding what’s a big enough issue."

And yet it's women more broadly who decide whether advocacy is worth their while which clearly it isn't in this case. Millions of women have been spear heading Climate change, reproductive rights, Palestine protests & nary a whisper for women's spaces. Face facts, its women who don't care.

Going to get hated on here but I have no problem with trans people existing. Feels like we’re going back in time with so much hate towards trans people because a lot of the media drums up the hate towards trans people by solely publishing negative stories about them. Society used to largely hate on the gay community until they realised they were nothing to be afraid of.

I get the toilet debate, I’m happy to share toilets with trans women but fully get that other people aren’t so where it’s an issue we should look at something like having ‘men’s’, ‘women’s’, ‘disabled’ and ‘free for all’ toilets, like Primark who has the men’s, women’s and any fitting rooms. No drama needed. Also agree that trans women should be referred to as “trans women” if they have transitioned, doesn’t take anything away from me personally being a woman because ‘trans’ shows they were born male and have transitioned to female.

I just think it’s being blown out of proportion by a select few people in the trans community who are aggressive or forceful about certain issues. A trans woman I know goes out of her way to not use any public toilets because she doesn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable. She openly laughed with me and some peers when the NHS sent her a cervical screening letter because it was ridiculous and she is well aware that she was born a male. She doesn’t refer to herself as a woman, if ever explained her history she explains she was born male and transitioned. She’s literally just existing and minding her own business.

Also used to teach in school and we had a young girl who from about year 1 expressed that she’d like to be a boy. She insisted she was known by a nickname instead of her real name and would never wear skirts/feminine style clothes and had her hair cut short. She’s now much older and starting to transition but apparently is still happy to be referred to as ‘she’ as she is aware that she still looks female and that it will take people time to get used to. Another example of someone who is literally minding their own bloody business and who felt like something was different from them being young.

It’s all tiring because I’m so for women’s rights but the right wing press have riled everyone up to the point where women think all of their rights are being stolen. There are some ridiculous examples, don’t get me wrong, and I don’t think anyone should just be allowed to identify as a woman and therefore go in women’s spaces, but I’m not sure how we are supposed to police these things, other than single cubicles / changing spaces etc. Last year when it snowed badly whilst I was out I chucked some emergency clothes on that I keep in my car (jogging bottoms, old coat, beanie hat) and carried on my day. Nipped in to Tesco to the toilet and a woman stopped me and said do I know that this is the ladies! I said yes, I am a lady, I was born a lady, I’m just dressed for the bloody weather in some old clothes! Was I meant to drop my pants or show her my health records to prove it? Was bloody awkward but she seemed to sense by how shocked I was that I wasn’t lying

Don’t @ me for this, I literally have come across 2 trans people in my entire life, described above, and neither have impacted me either positively or negatively, they were just existing

Redefining the word woman to include some men has a real world impact, as many distressed women have discovered. Men can fuck off deciding what’s a big enough issue.

And the other consideration for women who are interested in women's rights is the priority that GC concerns is given over others like dom/sexual violence, mental health, rising misogyny. Media space being finite hasn't been kind to these other more consequential causes as a result of its saturation re 'trans' panic which doesn't engender respect.

Night Shift, by the Commodores. What a great song.

Yep I agree that most people would agree with GC core beliefs but I don't think you can compare the slow traction to other women's rights causes because those had a substantially bigger consequences. Reproductive rights & anti discrimination in the workplace are hardly on par with trans women in private spaces in terms of real world impacts.

Things that have real world consequences for women and girls are often slow to gain traction, so if you're thinking of 'the GC movement' as a campaigning force for women's rights, its not that surprising. However that doesn't mean that people don't agree with the underlying beliefs that are labelled GC. They just wouldn't feel the need to label themselves, as its the default belief, with TI being opt in, not opt out.

That most people would agree 'men can't be women' or prefer single sex spaces doesn't translate to either significant protest or electoral pressure to decide elections like the economy or immigration does. The masses just aren't fired up enough about gender 'ideology' because it doesn't affect them in their day to day lives.

The Trump campaign spent millions on attack adds on trans issues that had already received media saturation in the last few years & yet it didn't even rate on exit polls.

But the GC movement is growing.

But the context here is why the GC movement isn't growing & what's required is real world consequences that have a meaningful impact on peoples day to day lives like climate change, BLM, Palestine, Immigration & more recently No Kings.

I think maybe from the 'PR' aspect, 'sex realist' might be marginally better (frighten a few less horses), but I can't see it's a massive factor. Not compared to, say, the BBC and most of the major news outlets in the UK not covering the issue fairly or accurately. Or at all.

I think its actually because it wouldn't occur to the vast majority of the population that they needed to label themselves as something simply to carry on believing what almost everybody has believed for ever. Its a bit like asking why the round earth movement doesn't have much traction.

There's no widespread traction for GC ideology because their concerns have no meaningful effect on the overwhelming majority of people. 0.5% of the population's loo habits aren't anything to write home about hence their protests only manage a few hundred people to attend at best.

I'm not sure if it puts people off but a lot of people don't seem to understand what it means.

French feminists Marguerite Stern and Dora Moutot coined "femellistes" as in defending females. But " femelle" In French is almost exclusively used for animals (we don't say sports femelles as you would female sports for instance) and Stern went from full leftist (she was a Femen and even did jail time for feminist protests) to extremely right wing partially because she was bullied so badly for TRAs so... Not great either.

Sex realist is a terrible brand. Sounds like race realist, and you know what that means.

I think sex realist is a better term for the trans fight, because it describes the coalition better.

I don’t think Kathleen Stock is straightforwardly GC, for example. Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Mary Harrington, James Kirkup, JKR, Douglas Murray, etc probably all have quite different views on the nuance of gender but they all reach the same conclusion on trans and speak to different audiences.

It might put off people who don’t like to say sex though.

Should add: some people don’t like “sex realist” because conservative groups present themselves as sex realist, but also believe that gender (as in, how you present yourself) is determined by your sex. GC people tend to think that gender - how you present - should be completely de-coupled from sex.

I think gender is a load of rubbish so I think the term is appropriate. It doesn't apply to people like Matt Walsh but he thinks it does. That part is unhelpful.

In general, all the language is incredibly confusing and usually becomes that when academics get involved. So yes, I imagine a lot of people are put off and many people don't understand it and I don't blame them.

Just flinging this on here, as it’s relevant:

I don't think most people would be put off but I think it depends on the person and what you mean by GC, the two terms are not interchangeable. I'm gender critical and quite happy to describe myself as such - I'm critical of the concept of gender, and the patriarchal stereotypes it enforces. I've noticed otoh that lots of 'sex realists' are more bio-essentialist in their reasoning or are simply not that bothered about the stereotypes and think many of them apply to one extent or another.

I don't think it's the term gender critical that is putting people off engaging.

I think it's mostly fear.

GC came about because the liberal feminists (remember them?) insisted that not including men wasnt feminist. So GC basical meant feminism that was focused on abolishing gender.

Its always been a bit clumsy, because a woman can be GC and socialist,or radical or whatever. Then it became wider as men got involved.

I dont think the term puts people off, though. Anything that prioritises women above men is seen as negative, whatever language is used.