Peak GC Moment?

[CantUnderstandNoThing]

I've namechanged for this because I'm a bit nervous of the vitriol I have seen directed at others with a differing opinion.

I know there's been a few threads with people sharing the moments they hit "peak trans", often citing individuals (Karen, Lily etc) or moments that led them to their GC beliefs.

I've realised I've hit peak GC, or perhaps peak t--f would be more appropriate, and I was wondering if anyone else has? For me, the peaking moment was the interview with India and Posie. I felt very uncomfortable with how offensive and discriminatory Posie's argument was. And really, it just came across as hateful. I realised I didn't want to be aligned with that.

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

Anyone else feel the same? Or starting to feel the same?

OP - you said in your first post that you were peak-gd’d specifically by Posie’s TV interview. And my point remains that you seem to object to the GC stance on that basis.

*opinion not option

I often find the interviews etc off putting. Because they always go a but further than just calmly stating the difference in ideology. Ie for us (me) the word woman solely relates to the subgroup of humans who have female reproductive potentiality. Anybody not in that group, isn't in the same subgroup as me (as far as sex goes). And that many people (me) don't feel like they (I) have a gender at all.

The arguments do.leave a bad taste. Being backed up by the right wing on basic biological categorising, does leave a bad taste.

When the people speaking for your side of the argument include things that feel less relevant or not why or how you would put the argument across, it can be off putting.

But women don't have penises. Women are female. These words are about sex not gender. At least as far as legal protection goes. We segregate because of sex. What purpose does gender segregation have?

And that's not to say that being able to request female doctors is the only issue before anyone leaps on that! I know there's much bigger issues. I was just using a personal example.

It’s definitely allowed to be questioned! There have been lots of threads about this and if I were any savvier at advance searching, I’d be able to link them for you so you can see that lots of GC people have felt the same way

Sorry if I have missed the answer but what was it that made you uncomfortabe about Posies interview?

Was it what she said?
How she said it?

Now and then, I come across feminists whose views are more extreme than mine. My views on transsexual women / those with a GRC under the current system are ambivalent. Biologically they remain men, but I am aware that there are genuinely dysphoric people who have been quietly trying to fit in and as they have been doing so for some time, I don’t personally feel the current law needs to be repealed.

So again, I feel uncomfortable when those women come to the fore and state they only want women in their groups and exclude transwomen whose views seem completely reasonable to me.

But still, here I am. I can’t walk away from this because I don’t agree with everything every woman is saying. I fight this fight pn my own terms. If I see something I feel is genuine transphobia, I try to speak out as I will not align myself with that.

But the principle of sex-segregation is so important, that I can’t abandon it. When I look at how far the debate has been skewed, I can see there is a need for those like Posie who will say the to move the Overton window back to a position that reflects reality. We shouldn’t need to point out that women don’t have penises. It shouldn’t be in any doubt. But enough doubt has been spread, that perhaps it does need saying.

What with all the vitriol directed at feminists (I saw us described as 'crawling out of a cesspit' yesterday) it's not surprising that some people would start having doubts. When that happens it's best to remind yourself why you personally are gender critical. Why don't you agree with trans ideology? For me there are three points:

Theoretical. Feminism teaches that gender is a social construct while whether someone is male or female is biological. Gender is something to be challenged unless these social constructs relate directly to biology (only women need abortions or maternity protections, for example). Trans ideology reinforces gender by claiming it's the definition of male and female - not biological sex.

Practical. Issues like men competing in women's sports, male criminals being sent to women's prisons, men taking political posts created to improve women's representation, the growing pressure for unisex toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards etc.

The free speech issue. TRAs have been ferocious in suppressing free speech and vilifying opponents. That alone is a sign that they know their argument wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny.

Also, if you're uncomfortable being 'on the same side' as some conservatives, remember that the Iranian government forces gay men to identify as women. Trans ideology has homophobic allies.

Great post NotTerfNotCis

OP - there have been several threads, started by regulars, talking about how and when we doubt ourselves. You could have just looked, read and contributed to one of them. Reading your posts on this, the thread you started, you don't seem to have had much in the way of a GC position to start with and you have picked some... predictable canards for your doubts. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of your thread.

Can'tUnderstand

I do sympathise with you. There are definitely some things said by various GC women that I disagree with. And I think that, from the point of view of effective 'tactics' for persuasion, it's possible to come on too strong. But I also think that happens with any set of views/discussions/campaigns, and I've seen a lot of that over my lifetime, so I don't let it bother me.

But I always come back to my core, fundamental understanding of the reasons why women have always been historically marginalised and oppressed. And that's because of biology. Because of greater male physical strength and the male desire to control access to our sexuality and our reproductive abilities. Everything: forced marriage, rape, FGM, female infanticide, lack of access to education, to employment, to independence: it all comes back to that.

The transactivists are trying to pretend that's not true, that it's irrelevant, that women shouldn't talk about it, that they can somehow be women and represent women without experiencing that and the female socialisation that goes along with that. It's just wrong.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance around this subject. That is in itself uncomfortable.

The TRAs seem to specialise in presenting themselves as needing special support, sensitivity, but then behave brutally.

Let's face it, gender critical didn't used to be all about trans people.

The issues of violence towards women, safe spaces and the issues in women's sport are obviously very important and absolutely need discussion but the current angle of "women don't have penises" isn't helping that at all (imo obviously).

The 'but' in the sentence is where the problem lies. We want to stop violence against women but also need to take male feelings into account.
That's not having a pop at you, OP. It's female socialisation in action.
India had an interview recently where she responded that men had had a hard year when talking about the two plus women who are murdered a week, and didn't get much criticism for that outside GC circles.
I don't agree with everything Posie says. I don't agree with very single GC poster, for that matter either. It would be weird if we all did.
But there is this culture whereby a single GC woman saying something someone doesnt agree with is proof that undermines everything GC, whereas trans women saying some really nasty or violent things is just 'frustration' (Thanks Avery in particular).
It's pretty much male/female socialisation in action.
Ultimately, the question is who is vulnerable and who is under threat? My concerns are with the women and children in refuges, and all those female people who experience male violence. It's not with privileged people like India, Monroe, Shon etc born in male bodies who dismiss that violence and are fighting to remove protections because it suits them.

Sorry @CosmicCanary , I thought I had answered. I used the interview as my example of hitting peak GC. I felt uncomfortable with her saying to India that she should be able to do everything she's doing as a man, whilst wearing a top with a message that must seem offensive to India. Other posters have said it might be because of this need to be kind or polite to people, and perhaps I'm struggling with that!

I guess I do believe that India believes she is a woman, and doesn't feel comfortable as a man. As I'm typing this I'm realising that I'm very confused on the whole thing. I want to say it's because I believe India is a woman, but I'm not quite there yet. I'm sorry, I'm not very clear because I'm obviously not sure what I think!

OP - women are on the back foot with this one. So much harm has already been done to the safety of women and children with many of our rights already having been removed. It is uncomfortable at times and like many others I am tired and weary that we have to have this fight.
But then I think of women's sport, the girl guides, pregnant people, the cervix havers, mixed sex hospital wards, Karen White, women being hounded out of work and our children being gaslighted into believing they can change sex through medication and surgery and I know there's no alternative.

It's fine to acknowledge feeling uncomfortable - that bloody female socialisation kicks in repeatedly. But look at the damage that's already happened and then call up your inner courage. And yes - the horror from that Posie interview was the creepy Eamonn Holmes.

I was just trying to say I was uncomfortable with big aspects of the current argument and wondered if anyone else was.

What aspects are they? The people “on our side”, or something else? It’s totally valid to feel uncomfortable, but it’s useful to examine why. Discomfort is telling you something is wrong - but what is the something? Female socialisation being bucked, a woman being “unkind” to an individual who is “different” and therefore “vulnerable”?

@LangCleg - I think the problem might be that I'm not clear. I thought I was GC, I've read and read thread after thread and felt I agreed but perhaps I was always confused.

I think it's also worth pointing out that increasing numbers of transsexual people are speaking out. The current trans narrative is hurting them too.
I can't think of a much more transphobic word than 'truscum' and the fact it even exists tells you a lot about the current state of the trans movement.

I'm a laydeeee! I'm a laydeeee!

I'm going to bow out and think. If it's any consolation to those I've annoyed, I'm annoyed too! I'm obviously a lot more confused on the issue than I thought I was and it's come across badly.

OP, I work in a primary school and I’ve been told by the head of practice and training at the Sex Education Forum that we should be teaching children that “most but not all boys have a penis, and most but not all girls have a vulva and vagina”.

This came from someone with a PhD (not in a STEM subject) who works for a charity that advises schools.

I can’t imagine any GC statement that would persuade me it’s a good idea to stop fighting against this bullshit.

I guess I do believe that India believes she is a woman, and doesn't feel comfortable as a man. As I'm typing this I'm realising that I'm very confused on the whole thing. I want to say it's because I believe India is a woman, but I'm not quite there yet. I'm sorry, I'm not very clear because I'm obviously not sure what I think

What makes India a woman though?

And if you want to believe that India is a woman then you need to accept that Karen White is a woman, Laurel Hubbard is a woman, Hannah Mouncey is a woman and all the other men who claim to be women and abuse the system so they benefit are women. You can’t cherry pick the ones you feel sorry for or think meet certain requirements.

Women are adult human females. Turning woman into something men can opt into is a nonsense and is deeply misogynistic.

Your reasoning seems so peculiar too. That Posie said something demonstrably true wearing a t-shirt that bore the legend that was the focus of the interview before India merailed it, has made you consider that the whole GC argument is flawed? That’s, frankly, more than a bit pathetic.

And if you want to believe that India is a woman then you need to accept that Karen White is a woman, Laurel Hubbard is a woman, Hannah Mouncey is a woman and all the other men who claim to be women and abuse the system so they benefit are women. You can’t cherry pick the ones you feel sorry for or think meet certain requirements.

Yes, this is it in a nutshell really.

@LangCleg - I think the problem might be that I'm not clear. I thought I was GC, I've read and read thread after thread and felt I agreed but perhaps I was always confused.

Please don't @ me. It's not the done thing around here - as a regular you should know that's a bit rude. Thanks.

It doesn't seem to me as though you've always been confused. I'm unsure why you'd think you ever had a GC position going by what you've said here about your views and people who haven't considered these issues don't usually even know such a thing as a GC position exists. And singling out Posie in a JAQing way is not particularly subtle.

Over and out on this thread.

To pick up on an earlier point (I forget whose): I disagree with saying that people should just read old/previous threads rather than starting new ones.

We know there are new people coming to this board all the time, and they won't have seen those old threads. It's not like this is a club, where everyone has been here for ages. Also, I've noticed that threads like this, that cut slightly across the majority view, often prompt the most well-thought-out arguments and most nunanced discussions.