Is it possible to be feminine and gender critical at the same time?

[RussellSprout]

I have recently become, due to peak trans and just general awareness of all the trans bollocks, fairly gender critical in that I think we're all just people who happen to have male or female chromosomes/genitals and why does everyone have to define themselves as a man or a woman when its very easy to tell what you are, just look between your legs... ie biology defines this.
So you could say I'm gender critical/agender/don't believe in the concept of gender and gender stereotypes in society.

However, as an individual I'm quite a feminine woman. I like dresses, heels, makeup. I work in a female dominated profession. I'll happily let my husband do the DIY around the house cos I have no interest in it. I'm comfortable with being perceived as being a woman by others.

Sometimes I'm not sure if this is at odds with my new gender critical status. Is it right that I conform to female stereotypes myself whilst being aware of the rights of others not to have to do so?

I'm happily feminine and don't feel the need to resist feminine stereotypes personally, nor do so for my daughter (I'll let her play with whatever toys she wants/dress how she wants.... won't stop her from playing with princesses and pink, but won't discourage her from boys toys/colours either. She usually goes for the pink stuff) . But does that make me hypocritical?

I do wonder if some deep embedded gendered behaviours are almost more evolutionary psychology than cultural. E.g. makeup , maybe women in prehistoric times who accentuated their features using whatever materials they could find attracted a mate more easily etc. Humans have been going for millennia so plenty of time for these things to become ingrained

I do wonder if some deep embedded gendered behaviours are almost more evolutionary psychology than cultural. E.g. makeup , maybe women in prehistoric times who accentuated their features using whatever materials they could find attracted a mate more easily etc.

Nah, it's usually the males of the species that go for the fancy looks to attract mates. See peacocks etc.
The theory goes that females are more choosy because their investment in the mating process is far larger.

It's fine. I absolutely bloody love clothes (although not necessarily feminine ones) but that's not the reason I'm a woman.

I'm no anthropologist but, as far as I'm aware, dressing up and playing around with your appearance are things that humans beings - men as well as women - have enjoyed across cultures and throughout time. Sadly they're now so enmeshed with female stereotypes that I can't see them being disentangled, or at least not in my lifetime.

You are assuming that 21st century UK norms for male and female decoration are somehow permanent not a recent phenomenon.

Go back 200-300 years and even staying within the UK you can see the "normal" being for men as peacocks and women being less adorned.

There's a famous passage, I can't remember the source, where the female character is feeling sorry for the man for having to get up early to do his hair and makeup unlike her who just rolls out of bed and gets dressed.

Lots of made up men in history:

www.charlottetilbury.com/uk/blog/2013/04/a-short-history-of-men-and-make-up/

On the surface, it’s a really stupid question. But actually I think it’s important that some of us radfems are visibly gender conforming, and some of us are visibly not. Because we need to constantly reinforce the point that it isn’t fucking relevant. Because we’re all continually fighting not to lose the basic concept that being female is nothing to do with how you dress or what you’re interested in or good at. We are all 100%, inarguably, equally female, because we were born with two X chromosomes and a vagina. And anyone born with a Y chromosome and a penis is not, and never can be. Even if they’ve got a gold lame purse.

I think it’s important that some of us radfems are visibly gender conforming, and some of us are visibly not. Because we need to constantly reinforce the point that it isn’t fucking relevant.

Perfectly simple and right-on.

I live in jeans, have short hair, rarely wear a dress or make-up, do lots of traditional 'female' tasks, knit, bake, hate sport, and none of these things make me feel more or less feminine. I think growing up in the 70s when women and men largely dressed the same and did similar things a lot more, made me rather indifferent to stereotypes. I don't see how your clothes or preferences define your gender, or your politics. They are just an expression of some parts of you and we are all complicated beings.
However was just chatting with DH about cross-dressers and toilets and he said, 'well obviously they can't come in the men's toilets!' like it was inconceivable.

As long as you don't think that your interest in stereotypically feminine things is down to having a vagina then I don't see how it's at odds with being gender critical.

Gender critical isn't the same as feminist though. So if you have avoided learning to do certain things because they're "for men" or don't actively push the idea that things can be for girls or for boys with your children, I wouldn't personally perceive that as feminist. Do you talk to ds about lego friends to ask why he isnt interested? Ninjago is for boys and girls definitely though.

I do wonder if some deep embedded gendered behaviours are almost more evolutionary psychology than cultural. E.g. makeup , maybe women in prehistoric times who accentuated their features using whatever materials they could find attracted a mate more easily etc. Humans have been going for millennia so plenty of time for these things to become ingrained

I would be surprised if this was not the case. Every mammal has behavioural elements of their sex, it would be really odd if humans did not as well. Because we live in social cultures, you would expect that those kinds of things would be expressed culturally some of the time.

For that matter, plenty of stereotypes can be true observations. It's bit of a stereotype that academically, girls tend to be ahead of boys developmentally in early elementary school, and that seems to be biological. The problem with them tends to be when they get in the way of treating someone as a person.

Yes, of course. Although why you'd want to be something so old-fashioned is a mystery to me.

What's old fashioned?

Question: So if some gendered behaviours are evolutionary psychology, eg women being the nurterers/carers in the social group, how does this fit in with the trans ideology of male and female brains?

I don't believe in male and female brains, but I can see how certain very instinctive behaviours key to reproduction and the survival of the species (such as females being nurterers and males being promiscuous) may become sex-linked. Which wouldn't explain why a man would feel like he's a woman but may explain some behavioural differences in the sexes. Not to say a man can't be a nurterer or a woman promiscuous, but to explain why its more common the other way around.

Femininity is old fashioned.

It's a word that went completely out of style in the UK between about 1968-2014. Came back 'in' in certain circles with the trans fashion brigade and other gender-preoccupied types, but to most women who grew up with feminism, 'femininity' is what your gran tried to instil in you in vain!

such as females being nurterers and males being promiscuous

You should read Inferior by Angela Saini.

That's exactly where I'm going with this, nottongight

Are some very deep grained instinctive behaviours beneficial for the survival of the species linked to male/females.

As these have been selected through evolution.

AKA evolutionary psychology.

Are some very deep grained instinctive behaviours beneficial for the survival of the species linked to male/females.

What 'deep grained instinctive behaviours' linked to male/females are we talking about here because most Evo Psych theories have been debunked?

What 'deep grained instinctive behaviours' linked to male/females are we talking about here? Because most Evo Psych theories have been debunked.

Jellyfrizz I don't know, I'm just asking the question if there are any. I'd have thought promiscuity/ high sex drive in males may be one. Would make sense re gene pool but could all be (literal!) bollocks!

It's a word that went completely out of style in the UK between about 1968-2014. Came back 'in' in certain circles with the trans fashion brigade and other gender-preoccupied types, but to most women who grew up with feminism, 'femininity' is what your gran tried to instil in you in vain!

Thread was going so well too. I'm very feminine. I never wear trousers or anything even vaguely masculine.

Promiscuity is affected by society though, women are traditionally shamed for enjoying sex - look at the connotations of slut vs. stud even today. Women having affairs or sleeping with lots of people are going to keep it quiet whereas men can openly brag about it. That would certainly skew perception.

Angela Saini's book has lots of examples of studies that debunk evo psych theories including those about sex drive & nurturing, I'll have to fish it out to give you more details.