Did we know Mel Gibson was gender critical?

It was a silly thread really presumably by a TRA. I tried a joke or two, well i am no Ricky.

Do we have any shit on Keanu Reeves now that would really upset me.

Why ever not? It may be for other reasons, but I would be very surprised if RCC had adopted this new gender ideology. I don’t think Catholic doctrine dictates that people can change sex, and shape shift to become the other sex.

Whether that is by simply stating it to be so, or applying lippie etc.

I would refuse to believe any shit on Keanu! I adored him SO MUCH as a teen. Actually obsessed. Everything I’ve heard about him over the years has been very complimentary so hopefully no skeletons in the closet.

He deffo has the swoon factor

You think I secretly really know all about Mel Gibson and was what, trying to prove some sort of point?

Jesus Christ, sometimes a question is just a fucking question.

@Cailleach1 but knowing that humans can’t change sex isn’t the same as being gender critical. Plenty of types of people with lots of conflicting beliefs or ideas know that humans can’t change sex. That doesn’t make them all gender critical. “Gender critical” means being critical of gender as a concept. So, objecting to gender roles being enforced on people because of their sex for example. The Catholic Church is quite keen on enforcing gender roles and suggesting that they are innate. Nothing gender critical about any of that.

I would expect a fundamentalist Catholic to be gender conservative and believe that men and women should conform to societal expectations based on their sex.

People who are gender critical believe that gender is an oppressive social construct.

Both groups are able to observe that humans cannot change sex, but that is not what 'gender critical' means.

The "problem" with sex realism is that it's, well, realistic! So all sorts of nasty people (and he does sound nasty) are going to be sex realist as well as the decent sorts who care about women's rights. It's inevitable.

That Venn diagram with the three coloured circles is useful, as it does clarify the difference between being sex realist but gender critical, and being sex realist and gender conservative. So often they are confusedly (or disingenuously) conflated.

Absolutely @Heggettypeg. TRAs reveal their inability to think critically when they say ‘You agree with Trump!’ (On sex and gender). Trump = right wing bad, therefore GC feminists = right wing bad. It’s such shallow, basic thinking.

It’s also why many TRAs assume that gender critical feminists are also homophobic- because they lump us all in with bigots who hate anyone who’s different from the norm. I have found this one of the most frustrating aspects of the whole debate. All of the gender critical feminists I know are left wing and very accepting of diversity and difference. In fact, the homophobia comes from the ‘other side’ as far as I can see. Denying the existence of two sexes is to deny the existence of homosexuality. As the proud mum to a lesbian daughter, that really matters to me. (DD is a TERF for the same reasons as me. But she and her gf are obviously not homophobes!)

I doubt it, considering the demonstrably high percentages asserting women should be subordinate to men. To be gender critical is to oppose bioessentialism or indeed gender complementarianism of the conservative Catholic variety.

I don't really think it's that useful a diagram tbh.

It's this business about "oh the Catholic Church ( or whomever) wants to enforce regressive gender roles. It's just not accurate, and it's not accurate about most conservatives in the west.

Similarly, not many people when you press them actually want to totally get rid of all gender roles.

In general feminists and the people being described as sex realists reject gender ideology for the same reasons. They think it's unscientific, bad medicine, bad for kids, women, and vulnerable people, and sexist.

Searching on a reputable site like Google is your friend. Even if, no, especially if it tells you things that challenge your world view (and are backed by evidence).

I think that starts from not quoting/supporting people who are known for being bigoted in defence of your views.

"Denying the existence of two sexes is to deny the existence of homosexuality"

This doesn't make sense to me.

If I believe there are several genders and sex is irrelevant, I can still believe that men exist who are only attracted to men. It's just that who I define as men might be broader than someone who doesn't subscribe to gender ideology.

Similarly, I can believe that there are several genders and that sex is irrelevant, and still believe that some men are only attracted to biological men.

So I can't see a way where denial that there are only there are only two sexes automatically denies the existence of homosexuality.

I have zero 'worldview' of people I have paid zero attention to in my life.

And no, Google is utterly shite, and has been for years, as already stated in the post you failed to read.

I have also never watched Titanic, never had beans on toast and never listened to Taylor Swift. People sometimes just do have different lives that don't match yours.

Homosexual literally means "attracted to members of the same sex". If some people are attracted, instead, to same-gender presentation/identification, then we need another word for those people and they are not relevant to a discussion of homosexuality.

The denial consists in redefining "man" and "woman" and then either talking as though same-sex and same-gender attraction are the same thing - or as though homosexuality is same-gender attraction and purely same-sex attraction is a myth or some sort of moral failing. This has happened: same-sex attracted people have been referred to as "sexual racists" (by Nancy Kelley of Stonewall, of all the crass betrayals), and "genital fetishists" (by various delightful visitors to this board).

If you say that sex is irrelevant yet then talk about biological men being attracted to biological men, then you are admitting that sex is relevant to their attraction, so what are you trying to say?

Yeah that still doesnt make sense because you can fully acknowledge that some people are only attracted to people who are biological males or females and still believe that there are several genders.

It isn't impossible to hold both views so in no way is a belief in gender identity intrinsically homophobic.

It's best to stick to arguments with substance or nobody will listen to you.

You’ve never had beans on toast??!!! 😱

Do they still make that R4 programme I’ve Never Seen Star Wars? Think we should start a thread on FWR with a similar theme. I’ve personally never watched The Godfather or eaten oysters.

Homosexuality- attracted to members of your own sex

Heterosexuality - attracted to members of the opposite sex

Bisexuality- attracted to members of both sexes.

If you redefine homosexuality to mean attracted to people of the same gender regardless of sex then you redefine it as a subset of bisexuality.

I have also never had beans on toast, or baked beans on anything. I actually love pulses but the smell of canned baked beans makes me heave. I also never had a bacon roll or a Lorne sausage roll, or set foot in a Waitrose, I've never watched a minute of Love Island or Big Brother or IACGMOOH or any of the UK soaps. I'm not certain I would recognize a Taylor Swift song and I might be a bit vague on Ed Sheeran too. I have seen the three Godfather movies and I'm quite fond of oysters (all seafood really).
I'm still unclear why we are force-teamed with Mel Gibson considering that the X account in the OP isn't even actually Mel Gibson.

What is "utterly shite" about Google as a search engine?

I have heard of Mel Gibson, yes, but I have never seen anything with him in and could not picture what he looks like.
Nothing I hear about any public figure ever surprises me very much, but I think that most people, famous or otherwise, understand that sex is real, immutable and important in many circumstances.

Nothing wrong with @Heggettypeg’s argument or @BackToLurk’s. They’ve said exactly what I wanted to say (more articulately).

Homosexuality means you are exclusively attracted to your own sex. Many (not all) TRAs insist that must also include people who actually aren’t the same sex at all but think/pretend they are because they of their gender identity.

You’ll note that my original post didn’t say that gender ideology is inherently homophobic; just that it often comes from ‘that side’. As you say, some TRAs might accept that it’s ok to be an exclusively attracted to your own sex while still believing that people have gender identities.

But a great many do not. A pair of transwomen in a relationship together often call themselves lesbians. That’s an example of the homophobia I’m talking about. They aren’t lesbians and it’s insulting to lesbians for two men to refer to themselves as such.

No you did say that right here:

"Denying the existence of two sexes is to deny the existence of homosexuality"

That means that if you deny that there are only two sexes then you are homophobic because you deny the existence of homosexuality.

As I said earlier, it is best to argue from stronger positions than that.

Yes, those who deny there are two sexes deny homosexuality, I stand by that. (Not all TRAs deny there are two sexes so that is not inherently part of the ideology; it’s just what most of them believe).

There’s also a tendency to define those gay men or lesbians who are exclusively attracted to their own sex as a subset of the new brand of homosexuality (assuming they aren’t just dismissed as transphobes). Much as biological women are redefined as a subset of their own sex (‘cis’ women). In its worst form, it’s a horribly parasitic ideology. And as you suggest, it redefines homosexuality out of existence.