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?

"Long-term, the plan is to eliminate sex differences, and therefore women as a class, with rights of their own."

I wonder if we need to be a class. This idea of equality with men works okay for a lot of women who don't have children. It's only with pregnancy and caring responsibilities that it falls apart. So maybe we SHOULD be more explicit and talk about rights for "pregnant people" or even rights of people who are susceptible to pregnancy. If that is what we mean.

Plus, categorising a sex based on what genitals they do, or do not possess, will exclude all those who do/don't possess them.

Woman. Adult human female.

Job done.

This idea of equality with men works okay for a lot of women who don't have children.

I was discriminated against because of the potential to have children.

I never had children, do I get the back pay for promotions not given?

I wonder if we need to be a class. This idea of equality with men works okay for a lot of women who don't have children

Only if it's about the actual children. And even then it's often about not being able to have the actual children.

Women who don't have children are still disadvantaged!

Yes, it is a big deal.

To talk about a phenomenon, you have to be able to define it. Historically, women were able to talk about the phenomenon of being female in a patriarchal society because they could define their class as biological female and there were commonalities within those parameters.

If you destroy the boundaries of those parameters but still retain the legal label for the definition, suddenly there are no shared commonalities between those individuals under the label "woman". You end up with an absurdist chaos.

And how can you agitate for, say, improved gynaecological or obstetric medical care when you then have "women" in positions of political power insisting that these are not a priority because not all women have a female reproductive system?

There has to be a legal definition for individuals of the female reproductive class because, otherwise, the specific issues that face those individuals cannot be recognised in law or by the state.

👀👀

BUT ALL WOMEN ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO PREGNANCY! At some point in their life. Or if not it's usually because of some female-only disease / condition so therefore also inextricably linked to female biology. FFS.

I see this is one of these threads

Yes, but as Datun says, for the lurkers...

Why does my life have to be broken down into segments? The time I was a menstruator, a miscarriage haver, a birther, a pregnant person, a breastfeeder and so on.

Can you not just say woman so I can talk about the cumulative impact of these events, rather than acting like a pregnancy just fell out of the sky and fell on me, and if it hadn’t I’d basically be a man. Because that is not how it works.

"Women who don't have children are still disadvantaged!"

Yes but for reasons of gender perhaps rather than reasons of sex? Traditionally, we have included all those concerns together under feminism. But does it even make sense to? When I first became a mother, I felt abandoned by feminism, which is crazy since becoming a mother is fairly prototypical female. But it's the opposite of equality with men.

This idea of equality with men works okay for a lot of women who don't have children.

I don't have children. Yet the very perception of me in the workplace as someone who might have children has in itself had an impact on my career. Funnily enough, it seems that male academics are perfectly able to recognise what a woman is when it comes to discriminating against us. Also, my fucking female biology is now having a detrimental effect on my productivity now that I am perimenopausal, with a womb full of large fibroids to boot. It's offensive to suggest that I don't have anything in common with other females just because I haven't expelled a human from my body. That is TRA manipulation of language.

People who may get pregnant
People who may suffer from FGM
People who are sexually objectified
People who get raped
People who need abortions
People who need a female HCP
People who need a female prison
People who need a rape refuge
People who need a smear test
People who need menstrual products
People who need a pregnancy test

I mean the list just goes on and on.

You'd need an awful lot of paper every time you talked about women, wouldn't you!

people who are susceptible to pregnancy
🤣🤣
That would be women then
Maniak, I'm sorry you're so sad to see women fighting for their rights.
It's so nice of you to come here and start a thread to tell women that they're not womanning properly.
I'll consider myself told, if you can't or won't see what is happening then I'll be the one that feels sorry for you.

A lot of the 'man made world' issues (medicines, built environment, cars etc) apply to all women, regardless of children.

Yes but for reasons of gender perhaps rather than reasons of sex?

No. Women aren't raped, subjected to FGM, or require a pregnancy test, because of the way they dress or whether they like kittens.

"And how can you agitate for, say, improved gynaecological or obstetric medical care when you then have "women" in positions of political power insisting that these are not a priority because not all women have a female reproductive system?"

Well exactly. The female reproductive system is a real thing. And there should be better care and resources for issues related to it. But women have other organs of course. So there should be a term for medicine of the female reproductive system, such as ob/gyn. That's all good.

Calling women womb havers or whatever also creates the impression that it is some kind of additional bolt on part, like an aberration on being human.

Most human beings on this planet are women are and so have a womb.

It also makes wombs sound like a belonging we just happen to be in possession of, rather than it actually being part of us. And I doubt that wording is accidental, because many people want control of wombs.

I'm not sure the OP meant it to be 'one of those threads' tbf.

Well exactly. The female reproductive system is a real thing. And there should be better care and resources for issues related to it

So the person in charge of funding for these things ought to be someone who had a vested interest? So therefore another womb haver, perhaps?

Cervical cancer screening should be driven by other cervix holders.

FGM campaigning should be headed up by people who understand what FGM could do to them.

Prisons to be inhabited by other, well you can't say womb havers because what if they've had a hysterectomy? So other, um ...?

If I want a female HCP, what do I ask for? How do I know if she's got a womb, cervix, or what?

Female reproductive care exists in the context of the social position women are in.

You cannot separate out women’s physical and social experiences in their treatment.

Women and men are different from each other. There are no advantages to attempting to pretend that is not the case.

"Why does my life have to be broken down into segments? The time I was a menstruator, a miscarriage haver, a birther, a pregnant person, a breastfeeder and so on."

Your life doesn't have to be, and of course it would be offensive to describe people in that way.

But consider the UN declaration of human rights. Mothers and babies have protected status. That's getting eroded with the surrogacy industry. The mothers don't have protected status because of their chromosomes or wombs but because of their special relationship with the child. They were pregnant, gave birth. That is specific to that function and stage of life and it is important.

This reminds me of a certain lawyer suggesting they are only words and words won’t hurt us.

That is specific to that function and stage of life and it is important.

Yes, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about eliminating the word woman.

Apparently, so we can move on with all this trans business.

When in fact it creates a shit show of nonsensical language and unnecessary monikers.

Mother and child refers to a relationship. I am someone else’s mother.

The word woman refers to something I am throughout my whole adult life. It is required to explain the continuity of my life.

There are no benefits whatsoever to getting rid of the word woman, only negative consequences.

Well, one way would just be to roll over on the semantic stuff, and just be womb-bearers or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I hate all that language, but it is just words.

But who gets to define a womb, isn't it just an overgrown prostate?
And if I need a womb to be a womb-bearer someone had better get me one. (not me personally).
Trying to move the goal-posts doesn't work if someone else claims the whole damn pitch.

Yes Maniak we do need to be a class. Because feminism isn't "equality with men" where poor women get to be just as oppressed by capitalism as poor men, BME women get to be just as oppressed by white supremacy as BME men, disabled women get to be just as oppressed by ableism as disabled men, etc etc etc while Old Cheltenham Ladies get the plush jobs alongside the Old Etonians.

It's liberation of women - all women - from patriarchy. And the root of the oppression of women as a class is in our reproductive capacity (hence the striking imbalance being in pregnancy and caring responsibilities). If the answer to "is this liberating to women as a class" is "no," then whatever it is (sex work / cam girls / fashion industry / diet industry / non-binary identities) are not feminist, but rather an expression of individual advancement. And while individual advancement of women is often a reflection of the improved situation of women as a class, it is not a substitute for it.