Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"What makes a women" NY Times article

215 replies

iisme · 08/06/2015 10:30

Nothing very new here but it expresses most of my feelings around the trans debates very clearly and well. I want to put it on Facebook but I know it will kick off a shit-storm and I'm not sure I have the strength ...

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?referrer=&_r=0

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
FloraFox · 10/06/2015 08:59

I saw this on Twitter this morning and want to add it to our MN arsenal of very good graphics.

"What makes a women" NY Times article
Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2015 11:34

I read you piece in the New Statesman about female only spaces. It is really well written and I am just so sorry this happens to anyone.

The article mentioned some Trangender people who support the issues around women only spaces, I wonder where we could read about things from them? Does anyone know?

BabyGanoush · 10/06/2015 11:56

Good article OP

Beachcomber · 10/06/2015 12:05

There is a list here of transwomen who are gender critical on the fantastic 'The New Backlash' blog (please everyone read it and link to it where you can as it is a very very good summary and analysis of where we are at with transpolitics).

I love the quote from Susan Hawthorne in the introduction.

Language has its political uses and obscure language is always helpful to those with power. Orwell named this in his novels 1984 and Animal Farm, referring to the need to confuse others either by applying contradictory terminology or by using terms that are so vague as to be rendered meaningless. Politicians and bureaucrats revel in obscurantism and one of the powerful challenges to this is sheer clarity of language. Obscurantism leads to political passivity and social fatalism. Feminists need always to be awake to such strategies and the use of clear, context specific and direct language is the first step in truly transforming society.

ISaySteadyOn · 10/06/2015 14:00

That is a very powerful blog, Beachcomber. Thanks for linking.

TalkingintheDark · 10/06/2015 17:39

'TERF' is slightly more cunning though because the average right on lefty liberal is horrified at the idea that they aren't open minded and inclusive of everybody and everything. They will throw girls and women under the bus in order to fall over themselves to declare the Emperor's nakedness a marvelous set of trendy progressive post-modernist clothes.

I love this, Beachcomber.

Also loving WETs Grin

Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2015 17:54

Absolutely, the Emperor's new clothes comes to mind whenever I read phrases like "This is a step towards unlearning that penises equates to maleness", or similar!

Can I ask, how did this legal situation arise so that now anyone identifying is female is considered female. I mean do they need to pass a test, an exam, something, anything? Could a woman in prison have a male put in her room if the male says they are female? Etc?

I don't read the newspapers but I read the internet a lot and of course have seen this all since it became law but when and how did it become law! Is it part of the 2010 Gender equality act?

Thanks.

Italiangreyhound · 10/06/2015 19:45

Thanks Yonic, that was what I was looking at. I wonder how it go in?

This from one of the links someone posted earlier.

blackvulva.tumblr.com/post/120232038553/imagine-this-white-people-who-claim-that-they-are

Thequestforunderstanding · 10/06/2015 21:18

Yonic

Genes are not a set of rules, they are a set of processes. These processes interact, conflict and co-operate within our bodies, interact with the genes of those around us through a variety of information pathways (e.g. language) and with society as a whole. They are altered by our experiences, and their expression depends upon the context in which they are placed. The human brain is by several magnitudes of order the most complex and sophisticated system we have ever known and our socially sensitive genes are much more recent and often more powerful than our most of our other genes.

To simply say that women have the babies and men slut-shame them because of the differences in genetic reproductive advantage is a huge over-simplification of human behaviour. It is also a hypothesis that (as far as I know) has no empirical support - evolutionary psychology is not a proper science. I would say it's an example of the appeal to nature dressed up in the clothes of science en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature - that is, male sexual violence is "normal" because it is "natural" and that non-violent males are somehow an exception to basic male behaviour, are "unnatural", and could revert to their "natural" state of violence at any moment. The same principle of "natural" racially determined behavioural traits was used to justify enslaving black people.

In fact, almost no aspect of our current human behaviour has been untouched by the last few tens of millenia. Our eating habits, our sexual habits, our family structures, our technology, our means of communicating, our means of getting around - all these are cultural creations which we have adapted to. I'd suggest that the act of inventing civilization was like an Extinction Event for humanity, leading to a sudden evolutionary surge that is possibly still ongoing. Many of our genes are very recent developments www.newscientist.com/article/dn8483-civilisation-has-left-its-mark-on-our-genes.html#.VXiZZvlViko . Our genes are intrinsically tied into our societies because they evolved in a complex social environment and so nature and nurture cannot be separated out. For us there is no such thing as biological human behaviour, all human behaviour has a social aspect.

So, cultural context. If this model of human behaviour is correct, male human sexual violence is not an example of men simply following their genetic destinies, but is an outcome of the way society conditions different genetic systems. Boys grow up looking for a model of how to behave towards women and many currently grow up thinking sexual violence is normal and the sexual objectification of women as something to aspire to. Sexual violence is not the result of a lack of socialization, but is a direct outcome of socialization. By this logic, the assertion (made by some feminists) that men are naturally sexually violent actually adds to the socialization of men as potential sex offenders. It instills in young minds the model of "normal" male sexual behaviour being that of violent behaviour.

Instead, we should take the approach that there is no natural state for either boys and girls. Gender-neutralizing early childhood experiences is not about overcoming genetic pre-programming, but is about preventing stereotypes being programmed into the genes in the first place. The possession of a penis is irrelevant to success in physics, and the possession of a womb is irrelevant to success in parenting. The possession of any particular set of genes is irrelevant when it comes to our basic human rights. To be a boy is to primarily be a person and so it is with being a girl. Anything that draws a significant distinction between men and women encourages gender stereotyping, and that includes attitudes towards rape and abortion. In other words, actively ignoring gender differences by not highlighting the gender aspects of a particular social issue actually does make it more likely sexism will disappear in a puff of smoke. Abortion is certainly a gender-neutral right in my mind and derives entirely from our human right to self-determination. Interestingly, Google gave me this. www.norc.org/pdfs/gss%20reports/trends%20in%20attitudes%20about%20abortion_final.pdf

While abortion is often characterized as a women’s rights issue, there is little difference between men and women in their attitudes toward abortions and men are actually slightly more supportive of legalization [...]

I'd certainly say that women make up the majority of the most vocal advocates of abortion, but I think the statistics suggest that abortion isn't really a women's rights issue.

YonicScrewdriver · 10/06/2015 21:25

"abortion isn't really a women's rights issue."

Eh?

I don't disagree that roughly equal numbers of men and women support The availability of abortion. That doesn't stop abortion from being a women's rights issue, any more than it stops prostate cancer being a men's health issue no matter how many guys I sponsor in Movember.

Slut shaming, the Irish laundries etc etc are cultural reactions to biological realities. At no point did I say they were evolutionary psychology.

If you don't think sexism throughout the past 2000+ years has its roots in the differing biologies (macro - uterus or testes, not gene expression), what do you think it is rooted in?

AskBasil · 10/06/2015 21:26

"but can't help but feel that the ultimate aim of feminism should be for all people to define themselves largely as adult humans and to be able to drop the gender bit."

How about you go away and work on that aim and leave feminists to carry on working on their aim, which is liberation from male supremacy? If you work on ensuring that women can function as adult humans and we work on liberating ourselves from male supremacy, we might one day not only define ourselves as adult humans but be treated as and accepted as adult humans. Even by men.

SweetAndFullOfGrace · 10/06/2015 21:28

Um. Abortion is a women's rights issue because men can't have abortions. It's not about who cares about abortions, it's about who has them (and who needs those rights protected). Hmm

AskBasil · 10/06/2015 21:28

And of course your definition of feminism, removes the agent of female oppression.

Natch.

AskBasil · 10/06/2015 21:28

It's a coincidence that the only people who think abortion isn't a women's issue, are MRA's and transactivists, isn't it?

SweetAndFullOfGrace · 10/06/2015 21:29

Basil we are oppressing ourselves, obviously. We want to be oppressed.

AskBasil · 10/06/2015 21:37

"I'd certainly say that women make up the majority of the most vocal advocates of abortion, but I think the statistics suggest that"

The statistics suggest that 100% of abortions happen to women.

Which of course, is considered a hopelessly transphobic thing to think, in some circles.

grumpyuncleR · 10/06/2015 21:41

Here are some useful sources of information for anyone hoping to counter the transgender cult-
gendertrender.wordpress.com/
4thwavenow.wordpress.com/
stoptranschauvinism.wordpress.com/
genderidentitywatch.com/
www.reddit.com/r/Gender_Critical/
www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/

YonicScrewdriver · 10/06/2015 21:45

Quest, I understand from your other new posts that you've joined MN and come to the FWR section because you are a man writing a book about how the brain produces gender typing - is that right?

FreudiansSlipper · 10/06/2015 21:52

totally agree with the article

yahyahbubblegah · 10/06/2015 21:57

It's a coincidence that the only people who think abortion isn't a women's issue, are MRA's and transactivists, isn't it?

Of course abortion is a women's rights issue. But that isn't to say that it can't also an issue for men. From family experience I can assure you that abortion can be utterly devastating for prospective fathers.

HermioneWeasley · 10/06/2015 22:21

Yes, men are impacted by women's reproductive choices. BUT NOT TO THR SAME EXTENT WOMEN ARE!

Holy shit - I cannot believe that there are people here trying to say that men have an equal stake in women's reproductive rights. I mean, that doesn't make sense - they are WOMENS' reproductive rights. The clue is in the name.

almondcakes · 11/06/2015 00:11

Thequestforunderstanding,

There's no evidence that ignoring gender aspects of a social issue will make sexism disappear.

Women are the only ones who get pregnant. That isn't likely to change any time in the near future. We need rights that are specific to the group who gets pregnant.

The possession of a particular set of genes (or more to the point a particular biology) is not irrelevant to our human rights. It is simply untrue to say so. There are human rights that are specific to women.

You may not want women to have human rights that are specific to us, but it is untrue to say they don't exist. They do.

almondcakes · 11/06/2015 00:21

And Yonic never mentioned evolutionary psychology or claimed the differences were innate.

I took her to mean that men behave in particular ways now to control women's reproduction to ensure a woman is pregnant with a particular man's child, and the biology of females makes them more vulnerable to certain actions carried out by men.

That is the case now. It is well documented and is central to planning actions to gain equality for women. Whether it was true when we evolved is not particularly relevant.

Italiangreyhound · 11/06/2015 00:45

Thequestforunderstanding re In other words, actively ignoring gender differences by not highlighting the gender aspects of a particular social issue actually does make it more likely sexism will disappear in a puff of smoke.

I don't think anything is disappearing in a puff of smoke! Least of all sexism. Indeed, talking about things disappearing in a puff of smoke makes we think of the Wizard of Oz or fairy tales! (Margaret Hamilton, who played the witch in the Wizard of Oz, who disappeared in a puff of smoke was burnt during filming - playing with fire isn't safe!)

And suggesting feminists ignore gender aspects would be counter productive. Part of fighting against anything is to know what you are fighting against. That doesn't mean any feminists will be forcing their girls into pink or making their boys play with trains! But pretending that society will all become right if we just ignore things is not going to work, IMHO!

Swipe left for the next trending thread