Gender Critical = fundamentally right wing (according to Vox)

[TheRealMcKenna]

I know it’s Vox, I know it’s not a ‘reputable’ news source, but this is hilariously bad.

Main points:

• TERFs calling themselves ‘gender critical’ are akin to white supremacists calling themselves ‘race realists’.
• Women are oppressed based on gender identity and not biological sex.
• Most ‘decent’ feminists include trans women in their movement, but a horrid bunch of conservative-allying pro-life supporting homophobic white supremacists don’t.
• GC feminists Who rely on ‘science’ have abandoned the idea that chromosomes determine sex (this is news to me)
• GC feminism is mainly a UK phenomenon and is ‘whipped up’ by the horrid Mumsnet site. Everyone else in the world is lovely (apart from those far right pro-life conservatives).
• GC feminists cite a tiny number of high profile cases to whip up fear and hatred of trans women.
• GC advocates bully people online, especially on Twitter.
• GC academics have a terribly large amount of power and influence.

www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

Bloody hell? So little respect for the mental acuity of women. We can, apparently, be bamboozled by any man posting in FWR.

And that's before you get onto the tiresome obfuscations.

Trans people exist - yes, dear heart, we know.

Trans women are all TRAs - well, except for Truscum, etc. You see that's your misunderstanding, your conflation of more than one idea.

Trans people have rights, human rights. Regardless of your understanding, and ahead of the pending court decision, the EA2010 does not give transwomen the absolute right to enter single sex, female spaces.

Believe what you will, but try to understand that your recent ranting does not accurately reflect the 'nuance' of discussion here, much of your posting traduces much of the discussions had here.

Froth on, but don't expect to be taken seriously. You'll need to do far better than this if you want to persuade anyone that your starting point was gender critical... internal consistency would be a good start!

@CloudyVanilla

Because transgenderism is not a mental illness. And if I really need to explain why pretending to be educated or skilled at something is not the same as gender identity then I have no hope any more.

Are you saying that ideniftuing as something you are not is a mental illness ? How hateful and phobic is that!

How can you suggest I’m mentally ill ? That’s what people used to say about gay men and lesbians.

I am not pretending to be skilled or educated at anything, I’ll freely admit I have no medical training. I just truly feel and know in my heart that I’m a surgeon. Who are you to tell me how I should identify ?

Why is gender identity more real than occupational identity or racial identity ?

Just wanted to say thank you for responding at length @CloudyVanilla
I am firmly GC, and like every feminist I know, I find transphobia unacceptable. I don't ever want to think I am being bigoted, hateful or cruel towards anyone, and so I spent a lot of time reading the trans perspective to ensure that I'm not; arguments like yours help me to check this, so thank you. I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree at all.

@wellbehavedwomen has got it all spot on

And for the poster saying they've seen 'more than once' that feminists would vote for Trump. Seeing it twice does make you technically accurate but makes you come across as arguing in very poor faith. No I'd never vote for Trump but I can understand how Biden's avowed first day in office act of undermining women as a sex class is an immediate and definite danger, compared to the unproven worry that Trump might overturn Roe vs Wade. Neither is a feminist vote really.

But laws are pragmatic. How can laws and legislation around practices such a childbirth, maternity leave and care and female reproductive health be railroaded by people it doesn't apply to, for example?

As I've said before, this is why I feel many aspects of trans exclusive feminism are hyperbolic. Because laws that apply to women mostly apply to sex characteristics and will therefore have no bearing on trans women. It really is a very small number of situations where there is even a remote possibility of "erasure" and even progressive countries like the UK and America are pushing back on trans rights. So I'm really unclear why on MN the biggest threat to our wellbeing is seen to be trans women.

Please, trans inclusive feminists, explain to us how replacing the clearly defined legal definition of woman (adult human female, female of the sex class that produces large motile gametes) with the nebulous, esoteric non-definition of gender identity, benefits, supports and protects the sex based needs of female women.

I don't describe myself as a trans inclusive feminist. As said I'm in the middle. I don't see transgenderism as a threat to my safety or legal protections, however I agree that in some areas there is clearly a conflict that should be in the favour of biological women (e.g. sport). I disagree with the more extreme claims of trans activists - for example a lesbian is not a transphobe or bigot if she doesn't date someone with male genitals.

I don't think trans is the most important feminist issue and so as I've said many times remain deeply suspicious of any feminists who end up aligned with the US Republicans or Christian right wing activists simply because of trans.

I didn't ask how small the number of costs to female women would be. I asked what the benefits are. Feminism is for female liberation, how is the liberation of females furthered by usurping sex with gender identity?

Oh... There it is. The turning the clock back to a basic argument that has been covered here many times over.

You are, again, ill informed.

Hint: gender and sex based medical provision, statistics etc.

@CloudyVanilla

But laws are pragmatic. How can laws and legislation around practices such a childbirth, maternity leave and care and female reproductive health be railroaded by people it doesn't apply to, for example?

As I've said before, this is why I feel many aspects of trans exclusive feminism are hyperbolic. Because laws that apply to women mostly apply to sex characteristics and will therefore have no bearing on trans women. It really is a very small number of situations where there is even a remote possibility of "erasure" and even progressive countries like the UK and America are pushing back on trans rights. So I'm really unclear why on MN the biggest threat to our wellbeing is seen to be trans women.

I think you are being naïve.

If men can successfully argue that they are women and that is upheld in law, and they must be referred to as women at all times how do you even go about recording information? How do you know if those born male are being paid more than those born female? How do you know who is committing crime and in what pattern? How do you know if medicines have side effects that only affect those with a menstrual cycle? And so many other examples, hundreds of them. If you can't define something accurately, it might as well cease to exist.

have made women think that the whole objective of being trans is to be treated like a literal biological woman, and not as a woman in the context of society.

I'm afraid you are under a misapprehension. That's exactly what it means.

In the USA, two young male runners are competing against young female runners. Clearly, there's a phenomenal advantage. No hormones or surgery - nothing - and in the States, sporting success in high school can lead to scholarships to university. That is absolutely all about ignoring biology. When I've raised this with US friends - women, feminists - they've said, "but trans women are women." Shelters, prisons, rape crisis work. "Trans women are women." When I have sought to argue, I've been told that the problem is that I don't understand: trans women are women. (This also makes lesbians transphobic, if they don't want to date a trans woman with a penis. Lesbian dating apps will kick members off if they seek to specify that they only want another female. The Guardian sent a lesbian on a blind date with a trans woman, in fact. So in old money, they sent a lesbian on a blind date with a heterosexual male. But that's fine, because trans women are women?)

A rape survivor wrote to her local hospital, asking that only a female clinician performed intimate care - a mammogram. That letter was then used in training as an example of unacceptable bigotry. Yet what was asked was covered squarely by the Equality Act. That's not about accepting someone in a social role. It's about insisting that a transwoman is in every way the same as a natal one. That's where we are headed.

Most of us had no issue with social acceptance in the way you describe. Why would we? That's no different to accepting religious observance, as I said. But that's not what is being demanded now. A young man who is very active in politics in Scotland said that transwomen are women, so they should have been the only ones asked about GRA reform as they can represent women, and also trans people. He was serious.

Again: there is no issue with anyone trans living in any way that makes sense and feels right to them, and I believe and hope that the overwhelming majority of posters here support that, and would support laws to prevent harm resulting. There is a problem when women's rights and provisions, and the definitions they rely upon, are either weakened, or erased completely. It's not as if we've had them very long, is it?

'Trans' isn't the most important feminist issue. Being able define the females needing liberation, naming the sex based roots of their oppression, and placing boundaries around meeting their sex based needs is feminism

Feminists didn't start this fight, we are simply holding our boundaries, our language and our spaces, against (yet another) landgrab from males and the women who feel sorry for them.

'Aligning with The Right' wouldn't need to be a thing if the left weren't gleefully telling women to just lie back and think of England.

@ALittleBitofVitriol women won’t have the time or resources to fight for anything when their rights to bodily autonomy have been rolled back.

The US is on the precipice of the Handmaid’s Tale with Trump and his right wing justices.

And if you can't define a woman's body correctly, you certainly can't uphold any rights pertaining to it.

@nothereoften

And if you can't define a woman's body correctly, you certainly can't uphold any rights pertaining to it.

If that makes you feel better to see it that way, sure OK. I’ll be on the side of the immigrant women having their wombs forcibly removed and those about to lose their access to abortion. They are in immediate danger.

CloudyVanilla:

"As I've said before, this is why I feel many aspects of trans exclusive feminism are hyperbolic. Because laws that apply to women mostly apply to sex characteristics and will therefore have no bearing on trans women. It really is a very small number of situations where there is even a remote possibility of "erasure" and even progressive countries like the UK and America are pushing back on trans rights. So I'm really unclear why on MN the biggest threat to our wellbeing is seen to be trans women."

The problematic trend is not necessarily from trans women or at least from trans women alone, but from the current trend towards erasing our ability to name the female biological sex or to organise as a category defined by being of the female biological sex. Because sex-based oppression is, well, based on sex, finding that now it is 'pregnant people' and not 'pregnant women' is troubling.

To see why, consider this example:

The current US law prohibiting pregnancy discrimination is based on the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sex.

If we replaced the concept of sex with the concept of gender (based on identity), as at least some trans activists desire, what would happen to laws like that one?

After all, when genders are based on pure identity there will be female-bodied people, capable of becoming pregnant, in all the genders, so no particular gender would be singled out if firms decided to fire or not to promote young female-bodied people (due to them being likely to be more expensive workers).

So the real problem is that sex characteristics are now treated as they were gender-neutral characteristics and they might end up that way if we do not analyse the issues in some detail. Feminist activism would then become piecemeal, addressing lots of separate issues as if they were isolated incidents when, in fact, the group in the intersection of all of them consists of biological females.

I'm not in the US and not interested in their extreme, tribalist politics. I'm annoyed that it is infecting the rest of the world. Trump being a POS does not excuse the opposition from being misogynists.

Again, feminists are just holding our boundaries. Against silencing from both sides. We're speaking however, whenever, wherever we can. That only one side is even pretending to hear us is not 'aligning' with them, but it should be seen as a shameful blight on the side with their earplugs in and blinders on.

You can hold the line by pushing politicians who generally support pro-women policies rather than jumping on a one issue bandwagon with people who want to take very important women’s rights away.

Have at it. Literally no one is stopping you.

It's easy to criticize the female women speaking out in the only place that will let them, rather than criticize your own fallible tribe for their misogynistic refusal to hear them.

'The Left' should do better. Aren't they ashamed of themselves for letting their opponents get a foothold? They aren't owed women's votes or support. Being a smidge less shit atm than 'The Right' is not. good. enough. Certainly not good enough to start policing who we are allowed to talk to.

Who is my tribe @ALittleBitofVitriol? I’m speaking for myself only. Are you not capable of being questioned? Must I be some agent of a trans agenda because I disagree with backing Republicans and Christian extremists who generally are anti-woman - as in XX vagina having women.

@turnitonagain

If that makes you feel better to see it that way, sure OK. I’ll be on the side of the immigrant women having their wombs forcibly removed and those about to lose their access to abortion. They are in immediate danger.

I agree with you that this is more important - I was trying to consider why some women might see it differently. As I said earlier, I wouldn't advocate voting for Trump.

@ALittleBitofVitriol

'The Left' should do better. Aren't they ashamed of themselves for letting their opponents get a foothold? They aren't owed women's votes or support. Being a smidge less shit atm than 'The Right' is not. good. enough. Certainly not good enough to start policing who we are allowed to talk to.

The worst thing is that they're not even a smidge less awful than the right. They're every bit as awful, just in a totally different way.

I have always been a huge believer in the idea that casting a vote is something of a social responsibility. That not casting a vote means not engaging with democracy. If I were a female voter in the USA I would be in despair. I could never vote for Trump because he is just so utterly immoral in every way and his attitudes to women are disgusting. But the alternative is a creepy man who physically handles women and girls and sniffs them. He's the sort of person I wouldn't allow my teenage daughter to stand next to. What a choice for the voters of America.

I think a few issues have been brushed to the side here. Here are just two employment issues of accepting males into the ‘social construct’ of women.

• protections against discrimination BECAUSE of sex is still very much needed. Sex not gender. Such as hiring a transwoman over a female who might get pregnant and have time off. Yes, there are laws supposedly based on sex but how many people are actually successful in legal action with this. Very few. So, how again do you protect females in this situation? And if gender data collected rather than sex, it remains hidden.

• males who have had opportunities not offered to females due to sexism then transitioning and taking positions set aside for females. This is already happening. (although of course there is no statistics collected to prove or disprove because it would be considered transphobic). i particularly see this as an issue with roles meant to be advocating for women.

Language policing has become a massive issue and these changes are disproportionately being forced on women. women are telling organizations they are not ok with the changes but are being ignored, like usual. Where is the benefit in using terms that dehumanise female biological processes and bodies for those who have poor language skills or education? Hardly inclusive is it?

And sport? The ignorant minimizing of safeguarding risks (I noticed cloudy has not addressed the jail statistics at all. It is like always, those stats are hand waved away as anomalies.

And transitioning of children? I am watching the realities of the effect of this ideological movement on teenage girls right now. The harm it is causing is heartbreaking. And all without adequate studies (published and repeatable) to back up the ‘affirming only’ treatment.

It is unwise to downplay the conflicts. These are just a few.

Quite the contrary. I have mentioned that the vast majority of male violence to women is perpetrated by males known to or close to the victim. Trans women are at an even higher risk of this violence.

Considering the lack of reporting by women on violence against them, I query why you believe this is true.

I am surprised to see anyone who believes in clear thinking post this link:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

It not only uses people with differences of sex development as a tool for making their point, it denies the reality. Sex is naturally binary. There is no other way to reproduce. And please listen to the people who have constantly asked that their medical conditions are not used to score political points in a discussion about gender identity.

Gender is not a sex category.

This article is used so often as a gotcha but it exemplifies ‘phony’ and confused thinking. I have yet to see a scientifically proven study that proves sex is not binary (that also doesn’t bring the medical conditions under DSDs in as proof). If any exist, please post those links.

I do not believe that we should be basing our provisions for now and future generations on theories that ‘might be proven’ in the all too distant future.