I don't understand

[MamaToTheBabyBears]

I don't understand why anyone ever thought women's sports, toilets, changing rooms, toilets etc were there because women wear high heels and lippy or whatever other sexist stereotypes are fitting. They are there because men/males and women/females are biologically different. Its for dignity, privacy and safety. In sports it's also for fairness because women are not men with different genitalia. Our bodies are different and that is a fact. Women's prisons weren't designed as women's prisons because women like to arrange flowers.
I'm just so confused, surely it does not take a great deal of intelligence to realise that toilets, sports, changing rooms, prisons, how crimes are recorded were not in place based on personality?
Why are gender and gender stereotypes the same thing now? It seems regressive to me, not progressive.
Why are we, as a society, no longer rooted in reality? Why do we no longer believe science is real in terms of humans being mammals and human anatomy?
I just don't understand, can anyone offer me any insight?

Because people prioritise men.

I agree mama. My clothes don't make me a woman. Nor does the way I think or who I love.

I'm a woman because my DNA has made my body the way it is.

It's a combination of issues.

Many people are woefully ignorant of history and fail to understand why we have single sex toilets or sports etc. I think over the years, these underlying reasons have been forgotten so people think it's ok to get rid of them because it's no big deal.

I think it would be a very useful exercise to show why and how single sex spaces were created, so people understand their value.

Society is still rooted in reality and the vast majority of people still believe in science.
However, there's a section of academia that is steeped in a school of thought called Postmodernism. This philosophy or approach or whatever you want to call it, has been brewing in academic and intellectual circles for a few decades. It appears to be a sort of overreaction / overcorrection in response to the modern ideas of scientific enquiry, skepticism, and other ideas usually associated with the enlightenment era in Europe.

This school of thought claims (as I understand it) that there is no objective truth or reality and if you can control or change the 'discourse' (language or dialogue) around something then you can change its reality.
It's probably an oversimplified explanation, but say we all agree the sky is blue; postmodernists think if you claim the sky is green and manage to get everyone to also say the sky is green, then the sky really is green.

That's why postmodernists are soooo obsessed with language and words and changing and obscuring meanings etc. They think if you control the narrative around anything then that will literally change it. This might make sense for some very subjective ideas, but to most people it's pretty absurd to think merely changing words will change objective reality or facts. There's more to postmodernism than just that... It's also about power and 'deconstruction' etc ...

Anyway, lots of areas of academia have taken up these ideas and incorporated them into their theories, including certain types of feminism. It's a very trendy bandwagon that is popular in universities.
The problem is a lot of these graduates enter the real world in various social, political and economic arenas and bring along these 'brilliant' ideas. So we end up with people in organisations and positions of influence who subscribe to the notion that everything is socially constructed and reality is whatever we want it to be, and they don't care much for empirical proof because there is no such thing as objective truth. If you are passionate about some form of social justice as well, then you think if you can push through policies that change or obscure definitions then this will disrupt the 'dominant' power structure (deemed to be heterosexual, white and male) and usher in a utopia where all the 'oppressed' types are liberated.

Thank you @NonnyMouse1337 that's very helpful! Do you think we, as a society, believe that the sky is green or too scared to declare it blue?
I think it should be compulsory to read all children the emperors new clothes.

But if they believe reality is what we decide it is, then it's not reality is it?

Most people still know the sky is blue, but are scared about saying it because the 'sky is green' brigade have managed to convince people, especially those in government bodies, that anyone who says the sky is blue is really a hateful bigot.
And nobody wants to be labelled as a hateful bigot so they stay quiet or feel they should support poorly thought out policies because it the 'right' or 'kind' thing to do.

But if they believe reality is what we decide it is, then it's not reality is it?

I think they believe there is no single, objective reality and all other narratives are equally valid.
There's this bizarre movement to 'decolonise' everything at the moment.
I watched this really worrying video of some university event, maybe it was in South Africa, and some students were claiming that modern science is racist, so it should be rejected and there's no reason why something like black magic is not a valid subject as well.

All these movements borrow heavily from postmodernist thinking. (which ironically was initially developed by white men I think!!)

It's very baffling to me as someone who is very much about objective truth and using scientific principles to understand the world around us. I'm still surprised at how popular this school of thought is and I'm trying to read up on it. But it explains a lot about the claims and assumptions of ideologies that derive from it, like queer theory and transgenderism.

Really good posts on Post Modernism Nonny

we get visited every so often here by a woman that I think is a Queer Theory (derived from PoMo) academic.

It's very noticeable that she makes statements like 'the surgical advice given to transwomen is too heternormative'.

And the posters here say things like 'what does that mean? no neo vaginas? No artificial breasts? what?'

And she would be completely unable to give concrete examples of what she meant. It's all theoretical to these people. Except it bloody isn't

I think in sports people genuinely forgot that there are sex differences that affect performance. People always seem surprised when I mention it. So many people were so keen to see eg girls be allowed to play on boys football teams, women break through into sports like boxing. They seem to think it's regressive to divide sports by gender. When I mentioned to friends that a newly transitioned trans boy they knew who is a prestige athlete would not be in the rankings now competing as a male at all they just didn't get it.

and regarding 'the sky is blue'. there are theories that we all perceive the sky as different colours, but because the prevailing wisdom is that it's blue we're all coralled into calling the colour we perceive the sky as, as 'blue'

it's pure post modernist bollocks of course, and whether by accident or design, works against human solidarity

I don't understand why anyone ever thought women's sports, toilets, changing rooms, toilets etc were there because women wear high heels and lippy or whatever other sexist stereotypes are fitting. They are there because men/males and women/females are biologically different. Its for dignity, privacy and safety. In sports it's also for fairness because women are not men with different genitalia. Our bodies are different and that is a fact. Women's prisons weren't designed as women's prisons because women like to arrange flowers.
I'm just so confused, surely it does not take a great deal of intelligence to realise that toilets, sports, changing rooms, prisons, how crimes are recorded were not in place based on personality?

You'd think, wouldn't you?

people see women beating men up in films all the time and think it's real

the portrayal of violence in fiction is way off beam full stop, but particularly mixed sex violence

I don't think it's far to damn postmodernism and all its works because of a few excesses. Prepostmodern ideas in western culture were too often ethnocentric, hegemonic, racist and misogynistic. Used up all my big words.

I think the problem lies more in Blair's thoughless moves to dilute higher education to reach an arbitrary 50% figure. This has led to a change in the character of what-used-to-be higher learning, made worse by the change in student finance which has made people see a degree as a material consumer good rather than something valuable in its own right. Learning becomed mechanistic, orthodox and uncritical, Kids Today Dont Know Nuffing.

I don't think it's far to damn postmodernism and all its works because of a few excesses

yes, some of the challenges to prevailing thought brought about by PoMo were A GOOD THING. but I think people got so caught up in the beautiful world of challenging everything and nothing is really real, that it went way beyond anything remotely useful.

maybe, as you say, the removal of the 'elitism' element in higher education is part of the problem.

I do reserve the right to damn Queer Theory and all its works though. because it's dangerous bollocks.

Ha! Yes, BernardBlacksWineIceLolly mixed sex violence is completely unrealistic in films. There's no way a woman (in a skin tight outfit and heels no less) would be able to beat up a man much bigger and stronger than her. Also she would be pretty seriously injured and have bones broken if he hit her with his full strength instead of being able to bounce back with her hair and makeup all intact.
I wish we didn't resort to stupid and unrealistic ideas about women's physical capabilities in relation to men.

I think that liberal feminists who prioritise men have a lot to answer for.

when I'm watching stupid action films with buff men and women beating each other up, I sometimes find myself longing for Smiley's people

fussy little Smiley, obese Connie Sachs, bringing down an international spy ring using the power of their minds. doesn't make people go 'ah!' when projected on a 3d screen I guess

yes, some of the challenges to prevailing thought brought about by PoMo were A GOOD THING. but I think people got so caught up in the beautiful world of challenging everything and nothing is really real, that it went way beyond anything remotely useful.

My thoughts exactly. a lot of it is completely empty theorising with no basis in reality.

completely empty theorising with no basis in reality.

We've been there before with the neoplatonists, who did so much damage for over two thousand years.