Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I want to join a gender critical feminist group

71 replies

WinchesterWoman · 18/09/2016 19:47

Hi I've decided I want to talk to people in real life about feminism and meet more gender critical feminists like those I've met here at mumsnet, and get notifications about talks and lectures.

I don't know what to join though, after a bit of googling. The Fawcett Society statement on gender identity starts off OK then moves on to 'lived experience and 'inclusivity'.

I've drawn a bit of a blank now. Does any one have any advice please. London / south east area. Many thanks indeed.

OP posts:
WankingMonkey · 21/09/2016 23:08

I daren't start a trans thread for the bile that gets thrown at you for doing so. Prefer to contribute. Though this isn't necessarily trans its about this whole gender-binary concept.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 21/09/2016 23:42

Ah good point. I agree with the unnecessary bile. The lovely Miranda who is often quoted on these threads had a whole heap of bile thrown at her today for questioning the trans agenda. Labelled. TERF and transphobic. I'm still scratching my head how a Trans person can be transphobic. I think this is my new peak trans moment. Certainly highlights that the you're 'transphobic' insults are not really about people being phobic but the activists being so ... fundamentalist? Yes, I think we have some fundamentalist trans activists. They certainly shout loud enough.

I'm still picking apart the issues and look forward to reading the essay tomorrow and hopefully have ideas to contribute.

I agree the gender concept is on shaky ground. I do find it odd transexual is now transgender. It's almost like a denial of the basis esp as I am noticing Transsexuals admit what they are and it's clearly defined male/female. Transgenders hide behind a 'spectrum' with a slew of descriptors ever defining themselves.

Anyway, I shall read and return :)

WankingMonkey · 22/09/2016 01:15

Miranda often gets attacked for not agreeing with the current TA. Transphobic really has lost all sense of meaning given it appears to be used when someone simply disagrees even with the more crazy aspects of it all.

CharlieSierra · 22/09/2016 07:16

WankingMonkey it's a great article. I think you should post it. I started a thread last week, it went to 1000 posts and whilst there were some nasties, I just reported and they were deleted. Go for it, it's important.

venusinscorpio · 22/09/2016 11:00

Yes, I've read that piece before. It's great.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 22/09/2016 14:37

Still haven't read that essay but a friend shared this on FB and well... its safe to say she's calling me a misogynist. ( i shared the essay on FB) They are shutting down any and all conversation about this.

gawd if only they knew that transwomen aren't women and excluding them from female spaces isn't misogyny.

Seriously getting confused with all the terminology thrown about in a piss poor manner.

I want to join a gender critical feminist group
WankingMonkey · 22/09/2016 16:11

s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-22589.pdf

Obama’s HUD department rules that ‘Gender Identity’ determines ‘Sex’

The Department of Housing and Urban Development joined other Obama agencies Tuesday in ruling that ‘Gender Identity’ determines reproductive biology and overrides Title IX sex-based protections for women and girls in homeless shelters. The department defines Gender Identity as “the gender with which a person identifies, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth and regardless of the person’s perceived gender identity.” [p70]
The ruling allows any male to access female sleeping quarters, showers, and restrooms on the basis of self-declared ‘Gender Identity’. Questioning such a declaration on any basis is ruled as discriminatory and women’s rational need for privacy and safety from male violence is dismissed as “unsubstantiated fears” [p52].
The rule explicitly forbids requesting evidence of a “transition”, including duration, consistency, or sincerity of belief in declared ‘Gender Identity’. There is no provision to address men who may assert ‘Gender Identity’ for an improper purpose:
“HUD also revises paragraph (b) to add a provision that the policies and procedures must ensure that individuals are not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentary, physical, or medical evidence of the individual’s gender identity.”[p13]

HUD disregards with a handwave the rationale for protection of female privacy and safety against male violence behind the Congress’s Title IX provision for sex-segregation in areas of public nudity:
“Contrary to the public comment that suggests what Congress’s intent was in creating single-sex facilities, HUD does not opine on Congress’s intent behind permitting single-sex facilities, but does make clear in this rule that, for purposes of determining placement in a single-sex facility, placement should be made consistent with an individual’s gender identity. This rule does not attempt to interpret or define sex.” [p30]

Yet the HUD ruling does re-define legal sex -as a characteristic on par with sex-stereotypes of “appearance, behavior, expression”- falling under the newly invented federal category of “Perceived Gender Identity”:
“Perceived gender identity means the gender with which a person is perceived to identify based on that person’s appearance, behavior, expression, other gender related characteristics, or sex assigned to the individual at birth or identified in documents.” [p70]

The ruling itself re-defines ‘sex’ as a component of ‘Perceived Gender Identity’ but the agency also defines ‘Gender Identity’ as a “component of sex’ in its response to public comment:
“In response to the comment with regard to this rule’s impact on a “legal sex category,” this rule does not provide a definition of “woman” or “sex.” In this rule, HUD notes that gender identity—and whether a person identifies with their sex assigned at birth or not—is a component of sex.” [p45]

HUD cites the Title IX re-interpretation of other Obama appointed agencies (which call for the elimination of sex as a protected category) as precedent for Tuesday’s ruling, making no mention of the current legal challenges to this very interpretation by 23 states and various private litigants:

“Consistent with the approach taken by other Federal agencies, HUD has determined that the most appropriate way for shelter staff to determine an individual’s gender identity for purposes of a placement decision is to rely on the individual’s self-identification of gender identity.” [p39]

HUD cites various internet surveys as evidence that males with ‘Gender Identities’ are at greater risk of harassment and violence than women and girls. Therefore HUD rules that women and girls must be forced by the state to sacrifice their own safety and absorb the risk from males who prefer sleeping and bathing among women. HUD addresses the safety concerns of individuals with ‘Gender Identities’ extensively, including those who ‘identify as’ having no reproductive biology at all:

“In circumstances where an individual does not identify as male or female and such information is relevant to placement and accommodation, the individual should be asked the gender with which the individual most closely identifies. In these circumstances, the individual is in the best position to specify the more appropriate gender-based placement as well as the placement that is most likely to be the safest for the individual—either placement with males or placement with females.” [p48]

Yet HUD completely disregards voluminous FBI, CDC, and other forensic documentation of epidemic sex-based violence against women committed by males as “beyond the scope” of the ruling, wrapping up their dismissal with a version of the classic ‘but women rape too!’:

“HUD’s rule requires that individuals be accommodated in accordance with their gender identity. It is beyond the scope of this rule to detail methods for best serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, as discussed earlier, this final rule requires that providers must take nondiscriminatory steps that may be necessary and appropriate to address privacy concerns raised by all residents or occupants. HUD notes that both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and other VAWA crimes include persons who are transgender or gender nonconforming individuals and persons who are not”. [p58]

HUD fully expects violence, (which it calls “physical harassment”) to occur between homeless women and the males placed in female sleeping and bathing areas as a result of this ruling:

“If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants. HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment.”[p17]
Strangely, although statistics show that female stranger violence against males is an infinitesimal probability compared to the reverse, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is, yet again, solely concerned with the former- the issue of women’s protection from male violence being “beyond the scope” of the Obama administration’s mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women.

---------

Meanwhile in America. I cannot believe it. This was passed yesterday. Gender IS sex now. We are fucked. I can't believe I knew nothing about any of this until last month.

venusinscorpio · 22/09/2016 18:07

What a crock of shit. Arseholes.

ftw · 22/09/2016 19:23

We've already lost, we just don't know. Sad

CharlieSierra · 22/09/2016 20:11

And now, as well as the first female soldier on the front line, and the prisoner in a women's prison for beating up their boyfriend due to 'hormones', we have the fucking fell runner. Women's champion for several years running apparently.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 23/09/2016 17:16

FFS.

WinchesterWoman · 24/09/2016 01:37

Rock and a hard place in the US. If Trump wins, I believe this egregious injustice will begin to roll back. The entire mood of the public sphere, the zeitgeist, will shift on the trans issue. That won't happen if Clinton wins. However if Trump wins, abortion rights will come under greater pressure - no shadow of a doubt.

The differences are: the most serious prolifer is the appalling vp candidate Pence, whereas Trump is more pragmatic (his God is money). Plus, I learned on MN a week ago, abortion is not in the federal gift, but a state level issue. Whereas Clinton's pro trans agenda would undoubtedly continue where Obama left off. And that is in the federal gift. So if you were voting in November what would you do? What the hell kind of choice is this for women?

OP posts:
Atenco · 24/09/2016 03:59

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery Just wanted to say that it is perfectly possible to open a new anonymous fb account. I had to do that last year as my account was deleted because I was reported by one of the thugs belonging to the governing party here in Mexico, I imagine you were reported by a transactivist.

TwatbadgingCuntfuckery · 24/09/2016 08:17

Yes I think I was some kind of activist. I'm very much a feminist and an environmentalist. ( I've debated with many climate change deniers) I set up the old account to hide from an ex as well because my RL name - Google it I am the top result iyswim - I've turned off FB Google search so my account is private and only I can add people.

Still can't comment in groups arm because they are open.

I might set up a second account in a previous name and see what happens.

rivierliedje · 24/09/2016 09:19

I am voting in November Winchester. I've never been a fan of American politics (so narrow and devisive) and this new gender identity thing is bollocks, but I'll still be voting for Clinton. Definitely the saner of the two and the republican party has an atrocious record on women's rights which I could never contemplate voting for.

I wish there was a radfem group around here. I can't even find a feminist group to join.

SenecaFalls · 24/09/2016 15:45

Plus, I learned on MN a week ago, abortion is not in the federal gift, but a state level issue.

The ability of states to regulate abortion is very much a federal issue. The US Supreme Court decided in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade that abortion is a constitutionally protected right. Many states have passed laws limiting that right that federal courts have invalidated on the grounds of Roe v. Wade. The Republican nominee has stated his intention to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The last case supporting abortion rights in the US Supreme Court was decided by a majority of one vote; it will take only two appointments for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

So it is very much a federal issue and the outcome of the presidential election will likely determine the future of women's reproductive rights in the US.

I am voting for Hillary.

SenecaFalls · 24/09/2016 16:15

A similar relationship exists on the issue of marriage rights. Under the US constitution, states have the main authority to regulate marriage. But there are federal constitutional limits to what they can do, which are determined by the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. So the Supreme Court decided in a landmark case in 1967 that states (in that instance Virginia) could not prohibit interracial marriage. And then in 1995 in another landmark case, the SC held that states could not prohibit same sex marriage, this making same sex marriage legal in all states.

The Republican nominee for the presidency has said that he will appoint judges who would overturn the same sex marriage decision.

WinchesterWoman · 24/09/2016 16:54

Thank you Seneca - I obviously misunderstood. Really helpful thanks for clearing it up.

OP posts:
SenecaFalls · 24/09/2016 17:04

Oops, that same sex marriage case was 2015. Obergefell v. Hodges.

Thanks, WinchesterWoman; it is a complicated interplay between the federal government and the states. There would be some of the more liberal states, like New York and Massachusetts, that would allow abortion, but in any state with a Republican controlled legislature, abortion would be illegal and probably criminal. Overturning Roe v. Wade would also make it easier for the federal government to limit access to abortion nationally.

Lifejustbounces · 26/09/2016 11:47

Hi all, just to let you know that the RadFem Collective workshop was brilliant. They are a really welcoming, interesting and humorous group so I'd thoroughly recommend going to any of their other events if you can.

EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs · 26/09/2016 12:28

That's great to know. Thanks, Life.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page