Thank you stonewall - now I know who to avoid

[Kit19]

136 businesses come together to support corporateWall sorry stonewall on trans ‘rights’

Like everyone on fwr I fully agree trans rights are human rights but what they are not is women’s rights. They are reserved for biological women

Also they must be rattled if they’ve got the city bods on their board to do a ring/email round to do a show of support

I think theres a certain amount of rose tinted spectacles going on here.

I think you're missing the point. There was a lot more overt sexism in the past in the form of women not being allowed to do certain jobs or TV programmes like Benny Hill. But the gender boxes weren't so rigid. Women doing gender nonconforming things in the 80s were just women. Now young women doing gender nonconforming things seem to feel the need to label themselves as 'trans' or nonbinary. It seems rare now for a young gender nonconforming woman to be just a woman doing what she wants to do.

It's certainly predominantly young people who have driven the explosion in non-binary and other gender identities, I'm not really sure who you think these middle aged men are.

This link was posted earlier in the thread. You might find it informative.

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

@OldCrone

Social discomfort with gender nonconforming girls was I think more structural, it was unusual for women to have certain jobs, neither of my male grandparents would get in a car driven by a woman, women couldnt serve in the army, and even female bus drivers were controversial.

I would have seen all these things as sexism, not 'discomfort with gender nonconforming girls'. Are you male?

I see your point about sexism, but I think gender is about much more than just appearance or presentation and historically included things like employment opportunities. It is the root of sexism. Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers, or men primary school teachers or beauticians, because of their gender, not their physical sex. So for someone to cross that line back then I would see as gender nonconforming, in that they were not conforming to the social gendered role expected of them.

Also a lot of those gender nonconforming 80s men I think were just performing a different type of masculinity, the dandy, the lover not the fighter, if you know what I mean. Glam rock bands may have tried to look like women but they wrote song about riding motorbikes and havig sex with lots of women. Bowie and his ilk had their fair share of groupies, some disturbingly young. It was very heterosexual, and very masculine in it's way, and often very misogynist. You never saw Motley Crue or Duran Duran in a nice Laura Ashley floral frock and knitted cardi did you. And it was still half naked women in lingerie not men in their videos. There were still lines that musn't be crossed.

I think that on the gay scene people like Boy George did push the envelope much more, but they were largely despised for it amongst older generations and in the playground. No boy would have admitted to being a Culture Club fan at my school, they wouldn;t have dared.

Yes born male, lived with gender dysphoria my entire life, including from very early childhood so have a pretty good idea of how gender nonconformity was treated in the 80s. It was terrifying tbh.

[quote OldCrone]It's certainly predominantly young people who have driven the explosion in non-binary and other gender identities, I'm not really sure who you think these middle aged men are.

This link was posted earlier in the thread. You might find it informative.

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/[/quote]
Yes as I've said, I don't buy the conspiratorial view of history and I don't think acceptance of trans people has been a plot by rich Jews. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers, or men primary school teachers or beauticians, because of their gender, not their physical sex.

Aaand if you can say why those gendered roles were assigned to each sex, you might get some clarity. As it is, your perspective seems muddled and dismissive of women's perspectives and rights which, given your sex, will surprise no one who has been following this for some time.

I know someone who works for google. Everyone there is non binary or trans or demisexual or something. It would be a nightmare for them if suddenly they stopped being trans inclusive

jj

Do you imagine that's surprising? The influence of tech, its hiring policies, is discussed by Douglas Murray. It wields global media power on a scale unimaginable by any legacy media, like Murdoch. Google 'women killed in 2020.' What do you notice about the results? Tech is not neutral. It is dominated by a specific political and cultural conformity. Silicon Valley is the epitome of the left coast. As has been pointed out to you by PP, the cabaret of arcane labels does not change the fact that the gender stereotypes which dominate social media in the 21st century are profoundly regressive. What could be more regressive than suggesting if a girl likes trucks and short hair, she is actually a boy, or if a boy likes pink and ballet, he is actually a girl? This isn't 'progressive.' It is deranged. Marlene Dietrich was busting stereotypes and wearing trousers back in the 1930s. David Bowie was wearing a dress on the cover of The Man Who Sold The World in the 1970s. FFS.

I see your point about sexism, but I think gender is about much more than just appearance or presentation and historically included things like employment opportunities. It is the root of sexism. Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers, or men primary school teachers or beauticians, because of their gender, not their physical sex. So for someone to cross that line back then I would see as gender nonconforming, in that they were not conforming to the social gendered role expected of them.

Employment opportunities (or the lack of them) were due to sex, not 'gender' (perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'gender' here).

Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers

When I was at school, I wanted to be a pilot. I looked into this and I found that I couldn't, because although British Airways by this time were taking women as trainees, at 5'3" I didn't reach the minimum height requirement (which was something like 5'5" or 5'6"). At the time I viewed this as thinly veiled sexism, because the minimum height requirement wouldn't exclude many men, but would exclude 50% or more of women. Nothing to do with gender. The RAF didn't train women to be pilots at that time, which I again viewed as sexist. Nothing to do with gender. My exclusion from this profession was very much to do with my physical sex.

I did an engineering degree instead. Obviously someone forgot to tell me that women weren't 'supposed' to be pilots or engineers.

I don't believe people 'have' a gender, so I don't think anything happens because of someone's 'gender'. The root of sexism is sex.

Those things are mixed up.

Sex is the root of our oppression, and gender (sex role, as it used to be understood) is the tool.

Nothing to do with the new concept of internal gender ID. Which is different and as it's invisible can't be something to be singled out over because it's not visible. Although of course people who have dysphoria have a struggle, as do those who don't fit in their sex role.

Most feminists that I know are feminists because they didn't fit in their sex role- the appearance, abilities, preferences they should have due to their birth sex. They noticed it and said no. Get rid of the sex roles. Let people be people.

They are women who have never felt comfortable in their box and as such would have a lot in common to fight together with trans people to relax and maybe remove the oppressive stereotypes and assumptions about the sexes.

It's a shame that's not the way it's ended up.

The thing I find interesting is that when I was young I saw myself as a person, and every time I had it pointed out in whatever way that I was female (why don't you smile more you're so pretty, oh! You like maths???, Get your tits out'' etc etc) it jarred with me. Now we have people fighting to be 'treated as a woman' and the assumption seems to be that this is how women want to be treated, or how it's right to treat us. Which feels like a step back to me.

@OldCrone But wasn't the assumption that women shouldn't/couldn't be pilots based on gender. There's nothing about physical sex that prevents it. So it must be gender surely? Isn't that how gender manifested as a tool of social control?

I don't believe people 'have' a gender, so I don't think anything happens because of someone's 'gender'. The root of sexism is sex.

People may not feel they have a gender identity but they surely have a gender, we don't get a choice unfortunately. Even our names are gendered, and from just reading your name some people will start to make assumptions about the type of person you are based on your socially assigned gender. Gender is done to us not just by us, whether we like it or not. Isn't that the problem?

And most people do largely confirm to their gender even now, you only have to walk down a High Street to see that. I feel a bit concerned about a lot of the gender free discussion especially when discussed by men, as if you can declare yourself gender free then carry on performing your gender perfectly, or at least adequately enough to not bring social hostility, and if you are a man you get to retain all your privileges whilst completely abrogating your responsibility for patriarchy. Seems dubious to me. Gender is still very much a strong social force I think, in ways that extend far beyind how people dress, and imo it needs to be destroyed. Where we almost certainly differ is that I think the fracturing of gender amongst younger generations, in the sense that it is breaking down the traditional narratives of masculinity or femininity linked to physical sex, is very much a step forward. Not the endpoint, not the revolution, but a necessary part of the process. That link between gender and physical sex had to be smashed, it may not be perfect, but I think it offers some hope and is a step on the journey to something better.

I don't think either of those men would get away with behaving like that in a school today.

I would have agreed until about 2015

However, 'children should be seen and not heard' and 'respect your elders', have just been replaced with equally harmful demands that children should be responsible for other people's feelings, even when it means compromising their own boundaries.

'But wasn't the assumption that women shouldn't/couldn't be pilots based on gender. There's nothing about physical sex that prevents it. So it must be gender surely? Isn't that how gender manifested as a tool of social control?'

If it's unrelated to physical sex, then how come it's all people with the physical sex female who get that role applied?

Sex is the root, gender is the tool.

Women have been oppressed globally forever because we are the ones who have the babies, men want to be sure it's their baby, so various mechanisms are created to keep us controlled.

When women weren't allowed to drive in Saudi, why would that have been to do with their gender? It was because of their sex. Women and girls were (are, changes are all very recent and not sure how far they go and doubt they have taken place yet) denied freedom because they belonged to men. Because if women and girls can do what they like, they might not do what men want.

If gender is the root, how is it that different societies have different expectations around female capabilities and behaviour? And that they change over the years? The unchanging thing is sex. This is for men, this is for women. Men are like this, women are like that.

'Where we almost certainly differ is that I think the fracturing of gender amongst younger generations, in the sense that it is breaking down the traditional narratives of masculinity or femininity linked to physical sex, is very much a step forward. Not the endpoint, not the revolution, but a necessary part of the process.That link between gender and physical sex had to be smashed , it may not be perfect, but I think it offers some hope and is a step on the journey to something better.'

But that's where we were heading in the 70s and 80s until backlash and the boys all took off their lipstick and lad culture hit.

Feminists are all for this. Let's do it.

The bit where it falls down is where it goes 'That link between gender and physical sex had to be smashed' but then on to, gender is key, sex is meaningless, and if you relate to the current social expectations around female gender then you are a woman full stop.

Which brings us full circle.

Oh, that's cute. Are you actually telling the feminists here that gender stereotypes are separate from sex? That there is nothing innate about feminine or masculine roles or behaviour in the respective sexes culturally associated with them?

Yes, we know. It's got fuck all to do with the trans movement which suggests that those gendered ideas are somehow more significant than our sexed bodies and the actual consequences of having a sexed body, particularly for women.

Gender is an imposition, mostly negative, especially for women. It is sex that matters, and that Stonewall seems determined to disregard.

Also telling surely is that the people under most attack are the feminists who have always said smash the boxes.

Why don't they go after the people who enforce the boxes, eg violent men who will beat a man up for being perceived as different whether that's gay, feminine, disabled, foreign, not liking the right football team etc etc

That link between gender and physical sex had to be smashed,

Or we could recognise that "gender" isn't real, it's regressive and sexist and harmful, and that personality is not sex based, and nor should be your life opportunities. The new homophobia 2.0 of TRAs concerns me very much, too.

Yes, we know. It's got fuck all to do with the trans movement which suggests that those gendered ideas are somehow more significant than our sexed bodies and the actual consequences of having a sexed body, particularly for women.

Gender is an imposition, mostly negative, especially for women. It is sex that matters, and that Stonewall seems determined to disregard.

This.

OldCrone But wasn't the assumption that women shouldn't/couldn't be pilots based on gender

jj

No, as OldCrone has clearly explained, it was discrimination based on sex and the method used to exclude women was a physical characteristic of the female sex, height, which excluded 50 percent of women.

I think the fracturing of gender amongst younger generations, in the sense that it is breaking down the traditional narratives of masculinity or femininity linked to physical sex

Why is preaching that non conformity to regressive gender stereotypes is a symptom requiring medical treatment and possibly surgery 'a step forward?' A step forward into what? You claim the link between 'gender and physical sex had to be smashed.' A bizarre claim. A violent, destructive image. An inverted relationship. Physical sex precedes gender. It is the hardware. Smashing it up causes serious physical and emotional damage. Given the 4,000 percent increase in girls presenting for gender reassignment, the physical and emotional damage is going to be making headlines for years to come. Let's see how history judges its proponents, cheerleaders and surgeons.

*If it's unrelated to physical sex, then how come it's all people with the physical sex female who get that role applied?

Sex is the root, gender is the tool.*

I'm not saying gender is the root I don't think, I accept it is underpinned by sex, but as you say gender is the tool, gender is what justified women not being allowed to be pilots, and as gender expectations changed so did that assumption. Nothing changed about people's physical sex.

Women have been oppressed globally forever because we are the ones who have the babies, men want to be sure it's their baby, so various mechanisms are created to keep us controlled.

I think that's part of the story, but I lean more towards Selma James and Marxist feminism in that one of the main reasons for gender (and sexism) manifested in the way it did is because of capital's need for an army of unpaid reproductive and domestic workers. Western capitalism no longer needs that to the same extent and I think that supports a materialist basis for the breakdown, or weakening of gendered assumptions about what work we do.

I also think the desire for male control was not just about having babies but also about ensure women's sexual availability. That's why men wanted to own women and created very strict protocols amongst themselves about how male access to womens bodies should be organised. I think a lot of the second wavers were right when they said marriage was a form of socially enforced prostitution. That's changed to some degree, but now women's sexuality is commodified and exploited through porn, sex work etc. I think this is something that equally applies to trans women, as does the ever growing pressure to adhere to capitalist beauty standards. I wonder if this is why the generational split has emerged to some degree, there is clearly a common oppression and common struggle between trans and non trans women when it comes to sexual exploitation by men, and perhaps young women feel that oppression more acutely than the pressure to have babies and be housewife.

But wasn't the assumption that women shouldn't/couldn't be pilots based on gender. There's nothing about physical sex that prevents it. So it must be gender surely? Isn't that how gender manifested as a tool of social control?

Women have been prevented from doing certain jobs because they are women, that is, because of their sex. Not allowing women to do certain jobs is a form of social control, to keep women in their place. The fact that women are perfectly capable of doing a job but are prevented from doing so is sexism, and sexism is due to sex.

Gender means the social and cultural expectations which are placed on someone according to their sex. So if something is done because of 'gender', it is done because of a person's sex.

People may not feel they have a gender identity but they surely have a gender, we don't get a choice unfortunately. Even our names are gendered, and from just reading your name some people will start to make assumptions about the type of person you are based on your socially assigned gender.

I don't believe I have a 'socially assigned gender'. What does that mean? I do really struggle to understand why some people would have expectations about any aspect of someone's personality simply based on their sex. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

Oppression of women as a biological sex class restricts women. Gender is the framework around it, based on sex stereotypes. It doesn't disappear if we pretend sex doesn't exist.

@FloralBunting

Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers, or men primary school teachers or beauticians, because of their gender, not their physical sex.

Aaand if you can say why those gendered roles were assigned to each sex, you might get some clarity. As it is, your perspective seems muddled and dismissive of women's perspectives and rights which, given your sex, will surprise no one who has been following this for some time.

^So much this, x1,000,000,000,000,000

Ah, so dismissing well documented lobbying as 'conspiracy theories', but la la land about how much better things are for women and girls even though the safeguarding systems that are still in relative infancy are being targeted and undermined?

Thanks again Floral!

jj1968

You are incapable of experiencing the material reality of female girls/women which was afforded to you based on your sex. Choosing as an adult to continue to be blind to the material reality of female girls/women is a choice that only those born male can fully adopt as females can choose it but can't escape the reality. Your opinion is unfounded in regards to female girls/women's experiences as you don't have the first clue as to what those experiences actually entail. Your opinion and experiences are totally relevant in regards to your own physical and material reality but that reality is pragmatically and materially demonstrably different from female girls/women. #MeToo didn't do jack shit for most females it is mostly virtue signaling - sexual assault survivors are still threatened into silence and still fear losing their incomes/homes/etc it hasn't stopped the abuse or brought those not in the limelight to justice or even many in the limelight. Survival and coping is often a very private endeavor; the most violated are the least likely to speak up. I guess it did something for the famous and made some infamous but it really did nothing in the scope of female girls/women's realities. The lackluster responses from corporations, authorities, and those in power while heralded as "so supportive" is all lip service as we can clearly see in regards to sex-based accommodations being converted into gender-based accommodations.

So how does any of that mean if a man says I'm a woman then they literally are. Given that woman = adult human female, no more, no less.

This is why I love free speech. Let everyone say what they really think and then you know who to avoid and why.

Agree re metoo doing nothing.

Most men went swiftly from

That's awful I had no idea (really? We've been going on about it forever)

To

That's too many, it can't be that bad. There must be exaggeration and lies going on

To

I can't even talk to a woman any more!!!

I saw it with my own eyes from the ostensibly nice men at work.

Women weren't supposed to be pilots or engineers, or men primary school teachers or beauticians, because of their gender, not their physical sex.

I'm astonished at this rubbish.