ie in the whole TERF thing?
My understanding is the basic position is:
sex = biological fact = reason for all sorts of bad stuff done to women (e.g. sexual assault, inadequate medical care) = need for interventions/policies to address bad stuff because of biology = need for women to be identified as women in a number of circumstances so biological related bad stuff can be addressed
gender = social construct and cultural stereotypes (e.g. relevantly makeup and dress wearing) = reason for all sorts of bad stuff being done to women (e.g. women are easily distracted by pink unicorns so can't possibly run business, men aren't able to clean so women must do all the cleaning) = need for gender stereotypes to be uncoupled from identification of "women" as women. Indeed, often this means the use of sex specific terms is to be avoided to avoid gender stereotypes (e.g. chairperson).
dominant transgender position/self- id = women = gender construct not biological fact = women to be identified as 'cis' women on the basis that they are one subset of a broader category of women based entirely on gender = the complete opposite of basic feminist principles.
Am I missing something? How is this radical??? My understanding is that this is really uncontroversial feminist logic that is accepted in the mainstream??? For the life of me I can't see how this logic is radical.
My own view is that i am entirely happy for men to wander round in dresses and lipstick and more power to that for challenging gender stereotypes. Very happy to support clear rights for people who don't feel they fit within established gender constructs to not be discriminated against in the workplace etc.
VERY unhappy to get changed at the swimming pool with ANY person with a penis in the room whatever they identify as. Very happy to support the provision of other areas for such people to get changed were they feel safe.
How is any of this radical? How did that become the accepted term??