Are feminists getting played?

[Maniak]

It makes me sad that feminists are spending so much time banging on about bathrooms in a world that has women still working for no pay, old women still more likely to be poor, surrogacy, underfunded maternity care, and poor support for carers. And other stuff.

Yes, the trans thing is annoying, but have you noticed how it always fires up before major elections? It's like Afghanistan in the 80s when the US provided just enough weapons to keep the war going so Russia would use all it's energy and get weak.

I feel like feminism is getting distracted with the trans stuff. At most, it should take up 10 percent of our feminist attention. But I rarely see feminism these days that isn't all about trans. Seriously. Do you think we're getting played here? Is trans really such a big deal?

@Maniak
Sex is based on gametes for the purpose of sexual reproduction used by many plants, animals and mammals.

The body that supplies the large gamete is labelled the female body.

The body that supplies the small gamete in labelled the male body.

This is true for all species that rely on sexual reproduction for perpetuation of their species.

Women will always be a distinct and separate sex class. Our biological reality is what makes that so

Yes, but only individuals know that if the stats say otherwise.

Crimes are already recorded according to gender identity which skews stats on violence against women and girls and gives men the ammunition to say that women are just as violent as men.

Loads of government forms now ask for gender instead of sex and it's only a matter of time before the laws are updated to reflect common usage.

Which will mean that genderism actually sets us back years, especially on things like male violence against women.

@jackyholyoak I know but if gender was rendered meaningless because of trans and then the biological sex categories were redefined it would not be based on gametes (which we can't easily observe) but on social and reproductive function, most obviously sperm production and pregnancy. I mean, I'm just imagining, taking trans to its conclusion.

I just think we have bigger problems than this. For example I don't think many women know that their husband is more likely to kill them than a random.

Without a definition that differentiates between male and female your sentence just means that people are more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Everybody, in fact, knows who is who and what is what

No, they don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Like the OP says, semantics actually isn't going to define women out of existence

Women will always exist. The things that can disappear are language, legislation and knowledge.

Yes I agree Sakura which is why my one personal wish in this fight is that women would stop wasting their time arguing with twats on Twatter. It's like the women on the relationships board who are convinced that if they could just make their husband understand why his behaviour is hurtful he'd stop. The truth - that he already knows and simply doesn't give a shit - is often too hard a pill to swallow. Basically I think GC women need to LTB that is Twitter and focus their energy exclusively on other women. So I agree that feminist energy might need redirecting within the GC movement, but I don't agree that it needs redirecting away from it.

The idea that female oppression is class based and rooted in biology is essential to feminism, and I think the fact that a movement directly perverting those two facts has sprung up is a really strong indicator that we're on the right track. If feminism is about striking patriarchy at it's root, then transactivism is about striking feminism at it's root. The academia springing up around genderism/ transactivism is, IMO, really valuable work which will help feminists identify how men can and will use weaponize feminism against us.

... if gender was rendered meaningless because of trans and then the biological sex categories were redefined it would not be based on gametes (which we can't easily observe) but on social and reproductive function, most obviously sperm production and pregnancy.

How can the biological sex categories be redefined if the large gamete and the small gamete persist in their existence? Surely, there would still be a body that supplies the small gamete and a body that supplies the large gamete?

I'm inclined to think it's a big deal and we're being played.

I concur. You can't just ignore it, because destroying the meaning of the word 'woman' is bound to destroy feminism. At the same time this fight takes so much energy from other important issues.

Distracting the enemy with an issue he cannot ignore but which must be addressed and is thus consuming valuable resources is, actually, a tactic regularly employed in warfare.

It's authoritarianism v liberalism innit.

Noting that this 'liberal identity' shit is an authoritarian movement pretending to be a liberal one and categorically isn't liberal in nature.

It's just another linguistic corruption.

All these linguistic corruptions are ways of hiding political intent from people and their own best interests, because they generally hide something unpalatable to the population.

This isn't unique to the trans issue or feminism. It's about creeping authoritarianism across society.

Feminism happens to be a concept that is a facet of liberalism. It only appears to manifest throughout history as a significant force in society at times where society is in a period of relative political stability and at peace.

Liberalism isn't something that can only flourish because of women's power. It can only flourish with the support of men and women.

I think the desire to separate feminism off as a separate political force misses the point. Authoritarianism encourages hierarchical rather than flat power across the board. So it affects other areas such as race, nationality, religion, class etc.

All those things where rights emerged as a reaction to abuses of power.

That's why it serves the interests of all those groups to stand together and protect each other. It's the whole 'first they came for' shit.

History repeats.

And hence why you should allows challenge the corruption of the integrity if language and where groups are dehumanised and look out for reversal narratives.

@jackyholyoake well sure. I was just imagining how it would be if trans became mainstream. If the trans advocates win. I mean maybe at some point people will insist that a gamete-based definition of sex difference be imposed and everyone will have to line up and be tested. Who knows.
But that's not what I imagine. I see it more like self ID smashing into the reality of pregnancy.

my one personal wish in this fight is that women would stop wasting their time arguing with twats on Twatter.

There will always be twats on twitter.

The problem is that Jo Swinson, Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy don't seem able to talk about the impact of biological sex.

Fortunately, @Maniak, laws are not made on the basis of your thought experiments / imaginings.

"destroying the meaning of the word 'woman' is bound to destroy feminism."

I don't think so. Feminists have always been critical of the "woman" construct. That's why it's so weird to see the fight over single sex spaces as if they're feminists greatest achievements (although I do like them). Nah. We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

No, feminists have been critical of the expectation that we need to perform femininity. Don't confuse that with the single sex spaces and services provided because of biological need, privacy, or personal safety.

Feminists have always been critical of the "woman" construct. That's why it's so weird to see the fight over single sex spaces as if they're feminists greatest achievements (although I do like them). Nah. We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

I think you'll find that feminists have always been critical of the sexist stereotypes created by patriarchy that are attached to women.

We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

Of course people can't be 'defined away'.

However, you can very easily define away rights, services and protections.

I have more freedom than my mother, grandmother and great grandmother because of access to contraception, maternity leave and equality law.

You cannot make the connection between access to contraception and increased participation in the work force if you can't identify the people whose participation in the work force is increasing because they can control their fertility.

• and all that is before you even begin to look at the harm caused by forcing everybody into a gender box.

That's why it's so weird to see the fight over single sex spaces as if they're feminists greatest achievements

Single sex spaces are essential for the privacy, wellbeing dignity and safety of women and girls from men. That is why women cannot afford to have them stolen from us.

I even get the piss taken out if me for wearing a brightly coloured t-shirt

How awful for you, LordRudolph - that's just like the oppression women face daily, so I totes see how you 'get' us now.

OP, I have no reason to think that you didn't start this thread in good faith, but I feel the time and energy that feminists are spending justifying why the gender issue is important to the cause (on this thread, on others and in general life) is actually what's distracting them from the cause.

One of the important reasons for employers to encourage LGB people to be out at work is because of the energy it takes up having to censor everything you say and not reveal your true identity, when this energy could otherwise be spent on being productive at work. While I'm generally out as gay, I definitely feel I go through having to censor myself on sex/gender/trans issues at work as I know how powerful the gender message is in my organisation. It's exhausting and leaves me with less energy to fight all the issues I'd otherwise be fighting so my personal priority is to focus on this issue (among a few others) as it's most pressing to me.

Others obviously choose their own priorities based on their views and circumstances, and I see loads of evidence out there that other women are focussing on other feminist issues - the dragon analogy from a PP is perfect.

We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

Definitions in law are pretty important you will find.

We absolutely can be written out of law.

Absence from statistics and absence from specific definitions simply erases the issues that women have.

It enables the idea that there is no problem, because the problem is not officially visible so it can not be officially recognised and in turn does not need to be solved because it does not exist officially.

The problem still exists but not officially.

Visibility is a big part of tackling issues and that requires definitions which reflect accurately and explicitly.

Definitions in law are pretty important you will find.

Well said, @RedToothBrush.

And thankfully UK law does define men and women and sex.

Sex is defined as the congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals.

Man is defined as a male of any age.

Woman is defined as a female of any age.

We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

Yes I think this is what the OP is essentially getting at.

I have been fighting against trans for years. Have had more than my fair share of rape threats from misogynistic transwomen. Yes I understand class analysis and how trans affects us all across the board.

However that doesn't mean I should agree with the analysis that it is the most pressing issue in feminism. It just isn't, to me. That is my analysis. I know others disagree. But I have looked at it and I have concluded that, while very important, it is not the most important. And furthermore I think it is taking up all feminist energy to the neglect of everything else.

I don't necessarily think this means feminists are being played, though it kind of looks like we are, it just means that trans is serving its purpose of being a timewaster.

That's why it's so weird to see the fight over single sex spaces as if they're feminists greatest achievements (although I do like them). Nah. We are women, we can't be defined away because we're real.

The issue with the invasion of women's spaces is not that we will be defined away, but that we will in the long run be excluded from public life. Women in Afghanistan have not been defined away...

However that doesn't mean I should agree with the analysis that it is the most pressing issue in feminism. It just isn't, to me. That is my analysis. I know others disagree. But I have looked at it and I have concluded that, while very important, it is not the most important. And furthermore I think it is taking up all feminist energy to the neglect of everything else.

Do you have evidence for this assertion that it is taking up all feminist energy to the neglect of everything else, please?

Feminist activism does actually occur outside of Mumsnet, as far as I am aware.

I don't necessarily think this means feminists are being played, though it kind of looks like we are, it just means that trans is serving its purpose of being a time waster.

I disagree that it is time wasting. The reform of the GRA 2004 was being progressed in the absence of any consultation with women. Women asserting themselves into that progress stalled it. We continue to stall it.

Women asserting themselves into the practice of treating children has raised all kinds of questions about what is going on.

So, in my view, not a minute has been wasted or will be wasted in the future, since the trans voice is now not the only one in the arena.

Under sharia law, the differences between men and women are clearly maintained. It's the opposite of self ID. Imagine self Id in Afghanistan! It would be awesome.

But I have looked at it and I have concluded that, while very important, it is not the most important.

I don't understand how any other issue can be addressed if you can't explain what a woman is.

Going back to the OP, whether or not you care about bathrooms or single sex spaces, you can't talk about the reasons that older women are more likely to be poor if you can't talk about the issues that affect them because they are women.