A new movement?

[AnyOldPrion]

I have previously seen it suggested that the feminism label has a lot of negative connotations and that rebranding might be a useful exercise.

It struck me this morning that we (with recognition of the wonderful Somerville) may have stumbled on the perfect rebrand.

Genderfree sounds definitively positive, unlike radical feminism, which to many sounds alarming. And it appears from the reactions here and on Twitter that many GNC women immediately connected with the concept.

The only downside I see is that it is essential that gender is seen as a negative social construct and not as synonymous with sex.

Any thoughts? I guess if this theory is correct, it will take off organically and grow. But if we like the idea, perhaps we could propagate and actively nurture it as a longer term project and not just a quick flourish that rises up and disappears overnight.

Rebranding feminism as something else comes up every few years, as if the problem lies somehow lies with the movement rather than the worldwide oppression of women and girls by men. Feminism has negative connotations because we live in a patriarchy and it challenges male power. Where feminism has been "rebranded" to be more acceptable e.g. Third Wave Feminism it becomes useless to actual women and in fact ends up working against us

I disagree to some extent. I agree that feminism has always had to fight for women's rights, and it will never be popular because it demands that the powerful give up rights and resources. However, to be successful, it has to get the support of people who do not identify as feminists. Like all successful civil rights movements, it re-frames what are initially seen as extremist, niche demands: votes for women, the right to abortion, rights to higher education etc, as human rights. It is only once its demands are accepted by a large tranche of the population as reasonable, that it can realise those demands.

110 years ago, wanting votes for women was seen as an extremist feminist demand. We didn't get votes by convincing the rest of the world to be feminists, or even to accept that feminism was reasonable; we did it by reframing the demand (votes) so that they saw that as reasonable.

So, we shouldn't rebrand feminism, but we should accept additional brands that help potential allies recognise our concerns about trans activism as normal and reasonable, without necessarily needing them to identify with radical feminism.

im a women's liberation-ist?

Women's libber i believe.

So, we shouldn't rebrand feminism, but we should accept additional brands that help potential allies recognise our concerns about trans activism as normal and reasonable, without necessarily needing them to identify with radical feminism.

This would describe better what I think might be possible/useful. I was in a hurry when I posted, so didn’t think much about it, but posted the thought that had leapt into my mind. Thanks XX.

Isn’t the Stonewell term ”agender?”

I am genderfree but I’m not sure it’s under Stonewell’s umbrella.. is it?

Yes most blokes I know are against the new TRA ideology, but prob wouldn’t call themselves feminist.

better just to own it, give no shits, and carry on.

This

Yes most blokes I know are against the new TRA ideology, but prob wouldn’t call themselves feminist.

This, precisely this.

So Glinner has loads of men looking at him and looking confused (or actively sneering), “So what? You’re a feminist now???”

I’m imagining a situation where they are saying “Oh. You’re a member of this new Genderfree movement are you?”

One comment I’ve seen very often here is that we need more people on board, and especially men (who many see only as allies, even if they have a feminist mindset).

It’s complicated. I get that as soon as something gets big, it gets diluted. It’s a fine balancing act. Populist is rarely extreme. Part of the difficulty I see with this GC fight is that something that IS populist has been painted as extreme. We’ve been given a negative name, which is screamed at us continually until many people who haven’t given it much examination or thought see us that way.

So then Genderfree wouldn’t replace Feminist. It is a rebranding of T**F.

I don't think that works at all. There are people who don't support TRA ideology who understand that sex is binary and immutable, but who don't see the problems with gender. Many religious people and a lot of blokes aren't, and don't want to be, genderfree in any way.
Such people can still be allies in supporting women's rights based on our sex (sports, prisons etc) and safeguarding children without being feminists or caring much either way about 'gender'. Trying to find a label which fits both them and gc feminists isn't the same thing as 'rebranding feminism'. I'm not sure such a label would be helpful anyway tbh?

I agree the term radical isn't helpful and could do with an alternative.

Funnily enough though I am pretty sure that it's the type of feminism most women agree with.

I have spoken to many women who care for their children at home whilst their husband's work. When I express my view point to them that work done by women both in and out of the home is undervalued they tend to agree with me!

I think that types of feminism that focus on say getting more women on to company boards without acknowledging the massively important role that women have in bringing up the next generation are doomed to failure.

Also I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have a movement for the rights of women and children rather than women and girls.

Seems to me that the interests of women and children of both sexes are usually very closely linked. Where violence and misbehavior is unchecked they are usually the first to suffer. Where society isn't properly adapted to the needs of children it's usually women that have to fill in the gap. Likewise where women are well educated and given access to money children thrive and infant mortality drops.

"Genderfree" seems a good trans-facing term for radfems - it frames the discussion in concepts they understand and you can make good headway into how most people aren't cis and how women are harmed by cultural expectations/patriarchy/oppressed because of our sex.

I don't think it should be the rebrand of feminism - which should always centre women and not in terms of gender identity but material reality - but perhaps more of a useful tool to engage hostile people in more debate?

I'd only ever use genderfree with people who believe in gender and not with those who didn't.

* Is there a noun for women's liberation?*

Remember "women's libber"? Maybe it was N American, but it was a mildly mocking insult.

I'd only ever use genderfree with people who believe in gender and not with those who didn't.

FWIW this sums up my position on it too.
I’m a genderfree women at work, because trans orthodoxy, and its that or the inaccurate and offensive cisgender woman. (I don’t actually believe anyone has a right not to be offended, but since half the company have people bending over backwards not to cause offence then they can all bloody do it for me too.) I’m also a feminist everywhere I go and it’s not a replacement for that.

Remember "women's libber"? Maybe it was N American, but it was a mildly mocking insult.

Yup - redolent of burnt bras

Yes most blokes I know are against the new TRA ideology, but prob wouldn’t call themselves feminist.

Probably because they're not. You don't have to be a feminist to see that trans ideology doesn't make sense.

Feminism doesn't include men anyway and we should certainly not be 'rebranding' it to make men like it more. What a self defeating folly that would be.

We've been given negative labels like t**f and feminazi and feminism is seen in a negative way because men don't like the ideas. You can't change the label and make them like the ideas any more. You would have to compromise the principles and then what's the point.

Interesting reading.

At the moment, I'm still very much with "genderfree" because it describes me, accurately, as being free of gender, I have no gender. Gender is bollocks designed to cage people. I reject gender, and genderfree seems a good word for it.
I just have a female body, complete with menstruation, childbirth, complications therefrom etc.

I think I would turn my back on any movement that rebranded itself as gender-free. Feminism is what you make it and it does amuse me to call myself ‘radical’.
Gender-free just sounds like another movement that gives no shit about women’s and girls rights. As women we know our movement involves caring about both boys and girls, but across the whole world, there is proof that we need to focus more on girls because no one else will.

'Gender free' is aspirational.

We are conditioned into a gendered society and we delude ourselves if we believe we are personally free of it.

That's why we need to keep getting to the root.

'Gender free' is aspirational.

I agree - we've all been infected with it from birth, and we're fighting the symptoms.

This, again is this issue caused by the AWAs purposefully mis-using and muddying feminist language.

I am gender-identity-free, but I'm not gender stereotype imposition free.

Fuckers taking our words and twisting them so no-one knows what anyone's saying any more.

How about 'bullshit free'?

I am gender-identity-free, but I'm not gender stereotype imposition free.

I wrote on another thread, it's analagous to being an atheist in a theocracy. (Except the atheist can, if needs must, mouth the words)

Maybe feminism is more like also being a secularist who campaigns to change the status quo?

Having been raised by a radical feminist back in the 50's and 60's I've always been wary even of the term feminist, because I disagrees strongly with some of her positions and didn't agree with adopting a particular agenda which defined my positions for me, which is how I interpreted the word for a long time. And then all this first wave, second wave stuff -- it's just confusing imo. It feels outdated.

Being on MN has somewhat reconciled me to the word but I too would prefer something less angry sounding (though we are indeed angry!) and more challenging in a smart, satirical way, and gender-free is in some ways perfect. But I agree that it is ambiguous in that in a roundabout way it does seem to recognise gender -- otherwise gender wouldn't be part of the word.

So I like the idea of brainstorming...

We don't need an umbrella, thats what went wrong with Stonewall.

Feminism is a movement. Being a man or woman who doesn't believe people can change sex is not a movement, its the default position, and thats why it doesn't have a name.

What feminism does need is a strong identity based on analysis;
We stand for XYZ because ABC. The actions we take over this situation are these.

I think regardless of name, feminsm will always be deeply unpopular as basically, it focusses on women, not men. Whatever the name was, it would be twisted into man hating and such.

I used to think 'radical' in radfem meant extremist. Obviously I know different now though.

I do like genderfree though, and thats currently my 'gender'

Feminism is a movement. Being a man or woman who doesn't believe people can change sex is not a movement, its the default position, and thats why it doesn't have a name

That is another good point in favour of having a 'brand' for people who are GC that is separate from feminism. Many, many people who are not feminists (or who do not identify as feminists) are GC. As you say, they are in fact the norm. The problem is that, because they take it for granted that they are the norm, and because most people are still unaware of what is going on with trans-activism, they are a silent norm. It is easy for politicians and policy-makers to ignore them.

I think there is a need for a GC umbrella term that is separate from feminism, to provide a voice and rallying point for this silent norm. Gender-free isn't the one I would necessarily have chosen, because there is so much confusion about what gender actually is. But it will be interesting to see whether it gains traction.

I think they are just called 'normal, sensible people' or some such thing aren't they?

On a thread about BDSM, a practitoner thought the word 'normal' might be offensive. To me, that shows how much the abnormals are trying to demonise the normals at the moment.

Most people don't believe ridiculous woke horseshit or get off on dangerous sexual practices that require a load of prior admin to make them safer.

The majority are normal because the majority defines normal.