To not know what this means?

[flyingpigsinclover]

I just got an invite to an event which welcomes 'genderqueer' women.

What on earth does it mean ? It's a new one on me.

Dungaree wearers?

Mantegnaria I love your logical takes on this. I could do with you around to answer all my life's dilemmas.

I wasn't born as a male. I've never worn dungarees. Nor am I confused. (Only about things involving maths, sometimes.)

Looks like you got the responses you wanted though, OP. 🙄

We are talking about an addendum to an invitation to try and ensure people who have often been pushed out feel includes and welcome.

Yet it's inviting such a level of scorn from some. Really disheartening.

Ok, crazy suggestion. Ask whoever invited you for some clarification? It’s how they are defining that’s relevant, surely!?

Don't be so daft @skittlesandbeer, why do that when you can start an inflammatory conversation on the internet...

/s

It's a trade union women's conference, I won't be going.

@WillowWeeping

12th post. Well done

It a load of self-indulgent nonsense

Genderqueer standing alone makes sense. Genderqueer women is a bit less clear.

As it’s a women's conference, then I guess it means 'women who don’t look like women'. Whether that means genderqueer biological men is a bit hard to fathom.

Who could have known 'woman' would become difficult to define.

You aren't going anyway or you aren't going because they're not excluding people who identify as trans/don't fully identify as female?

I think the reason they state this on invites is so that people who have traditionally felt excluded are explicitly invited. This doesn't mean it's not going to focus on the original issues or that the event will be somehow changed unrecognisably from it's original form.

I identify as female. I am not gender queer. This doesn't mean that a trade union event would suddenly become inaccessible to me if it's open to people who are.

I wouldn't be going anyway, however I do object to them advertising a women only event that is not women only. They should just call it a conference and have it open to all genders so that they include people who are trans, genderqueer etc etc rather than advertising it as for a limited gender.

This thread is interesting. I'm not particularly gender-stereotype conforming (work in a technical field, try to keep awkward conversations non-emotive, ever mindful of logic/fact, non-tactile etc), and by this logic must be genderfluid/genderqueer.

However I have always thought that doing away with the stereotypes was part of what feminism was trying to achieve - making us all realise that being a woman or man is a broad umbrella and that you can be whatever you want under that auspice.

Therefore on principle, I refuse to identify myself as non-binary/genderfluid/genderqueer etc. I'm just a woman, whatever that happens to mean.

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron. I thought that you were either gender queer or a woman, both. Or is it referring to gender queer people with female bodies?

@flyingpigsinclover

You think that advertising it to a limited sex is okay but not a limited gender.

Besides your obvious bias, what's the reason for this?

"Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron. I thought that you were either gender queer or a woman, both. Or is it referring to gender queer people with female bodies?"

It is an oxymoron. Which is why it made sense when I knew it was a trade union thing. This is people who are not completely comfortable with millenial gender politics attempting to get with the programme and be inclusive. They mean genderqueer people with women's bodies, yes. They are attempting to put on something for females and are struggling to find a form of words that allows them to do this.

I would eye roll slightly at the wording and go to the event. Trade union women are ace! You will meet some cool women and have some good chats.

the event is women only

No it's not according to the invitation, it's biological females, and anyone else who wants to go. Men will be welcomed in with open arms by saying they identify as female, or like wearing a frock sometimes.

auntbessie you can make faces all you want but this is the reality. It's to appease the speshul snowflakes of the world and it's absurd.

Many women don't adhere to gender stereotypes and are therefore, in terms of dictionary definition gender queer. But we all know that they're not interested in attracting women who have crew cuts, like Sunday league football or DIY*

*other sexist stereotypes are available

It seems to me that the special snowflakes are the ones whinging about it.

99% of people couldn't give a fuck.

I'd guess it means blokes can go if they identify / partially identify as women.

The mere concept of gender / genderqueer is sexist as fuck but there you go.

Genderqueer men were my peek trans. I was a member of a women's group that had got absolutely quagmired in merely defining who was allowed to be in it.
At that time, I was very open to including transwomen. I thought we could just say we were open to women, make it clear we were including transwomen and leave it at that. Not so. A woman (as in an adult human female) piped up that she was genderqueer and felt excluded. So then we were "women, transwomen and genderqueer". Except that opened us up to any man who felt like turning up and saying he identified as something other than male. At that time, there happened to be a couple of extremely sexist male genderqueer people in the general scene.
So everyone is contorting themselves to find a way not to include them while also including women who, for whatever reason, didn't identify as such.
Someone suggested the group be open to "everyone except cis men" which I felt was too broad. Someone else suggested "people who have faced oppression as women" which would have left us as arbiters of everyone's subject time experience of "oppression" as well as sounding absurdly melodramatic and subcultural.

At one point, I seem to remember coining the phrase "are now, or have been, a woman"
Thankfully I had a baby and became too busy for all that nonsense.

I just as confused as ever. Just googled the term and have no idea what they're talking about. Anyone else get fed up of all these new politically correct gobbledegooky terms?

The concept of gender fluidity and being transgender is prevalent in many diverse cultures and has existed literally since ancient times...
bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2008/02/transgender_history_trans_expression_in.php

Actually messing with gender as a concept, rebelling against the stereotypes laid down by society - terrific. I'm all up for that. Let's rip gender apart & let people just be who they are.

Making the stereotypes so powerful that anyone who doesn't match them must actually be a member of the opposite sex in the wrong body - crap. Reactionary, sexist crap that goes back to the days when women like the Brontes, Mary Ann Evans and Dr James Miranda Barry actually had to pretend to be men in order to succeed in their careers. According to current definitions they'd all be called trans nowadays, because they got out of their female stereotype box.