Guardian "What does it mean to be a woman? it is not just about femininity.

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/02/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-woman-it-is-not-just-about-femininity

Feel like banging head against brick wall.

No - it isn't at all about femininity. Everyone is welcome to femininity.

There’s been significant progress in dispelling the notion that (cis) people have to conform to a stereotypical “ideal” of femininity or masculinity

There was some progress in dispelling the notion that women don't have to conform to a stereotypical idea of femininity - until TRAs decided that all people had a gender, unless they agreed to identify as some variation of non-binary, thus endorsing the notion that most people fall into one of two binary categories. There has been very little progress in dispelling the notion that men can be anything other than masculine.

Having gendered norms forced upon you from birth can be an utterly traumatic experience, and I wouldn’t blame anyone who would want to remove themselves from that.

Yes. we call ourselves 'gender critical'.

If all we’re doing as a society by existing outside of conventional gender norms is splitting ourselves into three discrete, rigid categories – women, men, and non-binary people – then that doesn’t seem like enough.

Good point! Maybe lets just recognise that we are all human beings expressing our own identity and not categorise people unless it is absolutely necessary e.g. when recognising the physical consequences of being born with the kind of body that produces female gametes or the kind of body that produces male gametes.

Maybe lets just recognise that we are all human beings expressing our own identity and not categorise people unless it is absolutely necessary e.g. when recognising the physical consequences of being born with the kind of body that produces female gametes or the kind of body that produces male gametes.

Exactly.

Male/female are just biologial classes. Nothing more.

Nothing to do with liking football, blue, high heels, make up, pink, lighting fires, wild camping, hair length, hair colour or any other aspect of personal preference.

I cannot understand the complete blind spot, where people can identify the issues with gender norms and gendered expectations, but then can't/don't/won't make the next logical leap to want to remove gendered expectations, for everyone!

And the complete blind spot that many many girls and women have exactly this experience of hating the gender norms foisted upon them from birth. (and boys/men too), but that doesn't make them non-binary - it just makes them normal people!

And agree, no need to split by gender roles, just by sex where relevant and necessary.

Is the world honestly a better place for yet another self-regarding article about how trans people navigate the world? Just seen a piece in the BBC News online about how trans people choose their names.

Ffs people, look outward. No one gives a shit about your personal identify or whether you’re Elinor or Amelie.

I’m sure it won’t surprise people that the article was pre-moderated and I couldn’t get my comment through

I looked through all the comments and none were even vaguely gender critical. A few sort of asked questions, mentioning the "adult human female" thing, but no disagreeing with the author, all "thank you stunning brave!".

So frustrating. I would expect some more balance to the answers, and I'm sure all the GC comments were not offensive etc.

Anyone going to bother trying to write a response piece to send in?

I cannot understand the complete blind spot, where people can identify the issues with gender norms and gendered expectations, but then can't/don't/won't make the next logical leap to want to remove gendered expectations, for everyone!

Yes. So near and yet.....

Some good comments which get down to the point of it. What is a woman then if it's got nothing to do with femininity or biology?

I think articles like this are great. It gets people thinking about this critically without any cry of transphobe.

I looked through all the comments and none were even vaguely gender critical.

Really? I thought this one was good:

If you remove the "masculine" and "feminine" stereotypes, all you're left with is the biological scientific of woman and man. They can't be defined in any other way. This the argument of feminists. They are not defined as women by the clothes they wear, the make up, the games they prefer. They are women because they are adult human females.

Yes, I wanted to ask 'Well, when you say your identity is as a transwoman, what does that mean then? You've told us what it's not - gender stereotypes - and it's clearly not biology, or you wouldn't need to transition to it in the first place - so what the hell is it then? What does 'being female/a woman' mean to you if it's neither biology nor gender stereotypes?? What the hell is left?'

I just don't get that. I'm a woman because biology. Men are men because biology. Gender stereotypes are just that.

What am I missing here?

It's a good start on getting that particular group of young progressives thinking critically about gender ideology and what the next step is once they accept that, actually, EVERYONE feels pressure to perform gender roles associated with their sex.

It would be interested to know if any of them are making the connection that a lot of old "cis" people have been rejecting that pressure for many years and have found peace in self-acceptance.

Oh, Guardian. You keep on disappointing. Why not ask a woman to write about what it means to be a woman?

This comment was interesting (in response to someone questioning whether people would feel the need to transition if there were no gender stereotypes):

People would still transition I think, and in larger numbers. The experiences of trans folk, many of whom come to realise their transness through gender non-conformity, and who find blockers and cross sex hormones to dramatically improve cognitive function, suggests it.

Dramatically improve cognitive function . I haven't seen this claimed before. is there any evidence for this?

From the article:

"...male at birth, the phrase “that’s not for boys” was one I heard with crushing regularity.
"I attended a Catholic, all-boys high school where toxic, teenage masculinity was inescapable, and I felt deeply uncomfortable about my relationship with maleness and masculinity throughout my adolescence.. "

These are surely the key issues although rarely acknowledged as such.

The writer's subsequent decisions and solutions to the impact of sexism and possible homophobia don't seem to address the cause of their unease.

It sounds very similar to Travis Alabanza's description of teenage /school experience in single male sex spaces. Travis identifies boys' PE lessons as being a key cause of distress (at mixed sex school?)
Recent interview on Radio 4 Today program:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3462982-Radio-4-cis-people-who-are-safe-in-the-world

It's all so retrograde and backwards....as if the women's, and gay, liberation movement never happened.

I think it is clear thart for many, the women's movement and feminism just meant 'equal rights'. No awareness of the deeper issues of repressive gender ideologies or the biological roots of sexism.

The article is the usual thing from the Guardian - no one has it worse than Transwomen - the author not at all surprisingly is another trans woman sexually attracted to women - I do think the pre moderated comments tell an interesting story - the top 2 by recommendations/votes - are clearly GC-and have managed to come through pre moderation( a surprise in itself) - I think the readership of the Guardian is a lot less woke than the editorial line makes us think

True, yes, sorry, there are GC comments but only very mildly and not really challenging the assumptions of the article.

The central "all women have it bad, but especially trans women" thing gets me too. It begs the TWAW question, but also brushes off all natal women's concerns as coming from a place of privilege.

You couldn’t challenge the article more vehemently. Believe me, I tried. I spent ages on a post that I was very clear in my mind had nothing “offensive” in it, but you know...

I actually accept that transwomen have it especially bad, in the sense that our patriarchal society is especially unforgiving of men who reject masculinity in favour of a lesser-valued female role. Add internalised homophobia, internalised misogyny, body dysphoria AND complete ignorance of the fact that most women aren't happily adhering to a gender binary and I agree it doesn't look like a nice place to be.

Which is why I still think talking therapies, self-acceptance and anti-sexism activism are where it's at for people who feel especially aggrieved by the gender expectations foisted on them. I am still no closer to seeing how loading up with body modifications can be advocated as a good general practice for anyone questioning how well they fit a set of stereotypes.

The article is the usual thing from the Guardian - no one has it worse than Transwomen

THere seems to have been an additional shift as alluded to in this article that transwomen who 'do not pass' or are 'non-binary' etc face additional oppression. It seems to be a sub-set.

the one where men with beards and penises claim to be women without even needing to pay lip service to any hint at looking stereotypically female.

I think we are already there - not so much in general society, but certainly in the world of Stonewall's trans umbrella and party activists. If nothing has to make sense anything is possible.

THere seems to have been an additional shift as alluded to in this article that transwomen who 'do not pass' or are 'non-binary' etc face additional oppression. It seems to be a sub-set.

Surely the very most oppressed and brave are the minority who identify as trans without actually suffering from any form of gender dysphoria or being in any way gender non-conforming!

who find blockers and cross sex hormones to dramatically improve cognitive function

You what now???! This whole X Men fantasy is getting out of control.

That's a mind boggling claim to throw out without sourced evidence and explanation of exactly what it means. Otherwise someone get down to MI5 and into the HoC and quick, cross sex hormones all round. Brexit might be saved yet.

THere seems to have been an additional shift as alluded to in this article that transwomen who 'do not pass' or are 'non-binary' etc face additional oppression. It seems to be a sub-set.

Well, going back to my point that patriarchy is especially unforgiving of men-being-women (unless they are Being A Joke - as in the time-honoured British male's collective love of comedy crossdressing), they're right.

They're going from not only not accepting themselves, they're also getting traditional social non-acceptance AND they are running into confused woke semi-acceptance because even their allies are having trouble working out what pronoun they want if they're "women" but not passing and in fact not even trying to because they've belatedly realised that "femininity" can be a quite expensive and high maintenance trap that sucks up all your time and effort when you could be going out and getting shit done.

The next step will be when they finally realise that modern "gender" is a trap. DON'T PLAY IT AT ALL, KIDS.

complete ignorance of the fact that most women aren't happily adhering to a gender binary

This is what I see as the biggest gulf in understanding between transwomen and natal females - because of their male privilege, most transwomen had absolutely no idea that women have it so hard before they transitioned, so they are then faced with the juxtaposition of their previous experiences as a male in the world against their current experiences as a woman.

I think they often mistakenly think that natal women aren't experiencing the same shit and that it's all a consequence of being trans, as opposed to a consequence of being a woman (from speaking to the men in my life, I think many of them assume that 'women would have spoken out if things were that bad', having ignored us all these years...).

And I think there is an element of 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall' in that transwomen have further to fall from their position of male privilege so they feel the impact of misogyny in a way that natal women don't as we've had it from birth and have never known any different.