Gender in the Blender?

[pombear]

Bit of a drop and run here, as I was passing the radio on the way to something else but just heard this:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000lh74

Is it just me, or does it feel like we're being handed back a re-writing of feminism here.

I thought we'd put bloody 'gender' in the bloody 'blender' years ago, and that's why so many of us are so pissed off right now about the new stereotype and boxes that accompany the trans activism language?

This programme felt like it was telling me something I knew already, but as if it was a truly new revelation (but with labels, and boxes and pretending that the feminism I know was trying to keep people in them, rather than help break out of them)?

I posted this on the Evaristo thread:

More Genderwang! from Evaristo on A Point of View on Radio 4:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lh74

It starts well with her stating that gender and sex are distinct but then she gets drawn into the same dead ends that appeal to many:

There are 3 "biological sexes": male, female, and intersex.
NATALT, so we must ignore the Yanivs that the nasty press fixate upon.
The nasty press are presenting this in the same way as "all gays are paedos" and "all blacks are muggers".
We must have a lovely chat rather than have a row. (Paraphrase: women standing up for their rights just isn't kind.)

But then she throws in the grenade of "gender isn't intrinsic". It's very easy to get cancelled with loose talk like that.

My overall impression is that she thinks very very highly of her own intelligence and wisdom. It might be better for her to rely less on her effortless mastery of the subject and actually get to understand more of what she's pointificating on.