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

Thank you Susanna Rustin.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/feminists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression

You may staunchly believe that but just because you say so doesn't mean there is no debate. It is literally one of the hottest topics politically today. The feminist board here is constantly posting on transgender issues. Characterizing other women as whining because they dissent is offensive and pointless.

If you don't want to debate the issue then why don't you post on one of the many many trans threads on here when there are absolutely no voices of dissent.

[quote Winesalot]Thank you Susanna Rustin.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/feminists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression[/quote]
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Right.

Here is the study regarding the criminality:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

The conclusion: male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females. By contrast, female-to-males were at a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls and did not differ from male controls, which suggests increased crime proneness in female-to-males after sex reassignment.

However, here is a handy dissemination of the study.

fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/. (including a debunking of a debunking at the end.)

There are stats on UK inmates on this thread already. However, feel free to come up with a study that debunks those.

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

BolloxtoGender I know there's no such thing as a male woman, but some people are under the impression that 'woman' is a gender identity. My phrasing is aimed at helping such people to understand our point.

Indeed. And 'cis woman' is now the name some have assigned to what was previously known as the sex class 'women' which is now the more privileged sub-category of the new gender identity category 'women.' What's even more grating is that 'cis women' are assumed to be comfortable with their gender.

Because 'gender' (as in gender roles, rules and stereotypes) is one of the main ways women are kept down that particular assigned identity is pretty problematic for many feminists.

And of course these changes take a rubber and erase the name for the category which is oppressed mainly on the basis of sex.

Indeed. And 'cis woman' is now the name some have assigned to what was previously known as the sex class 'women' which is now the more privileged sub-category of the new gender identity category 'women.'

Yep. Which is why I feel it's helpful to dispense with the terms "cis" and "trans" and describe things in terms of male 'women' and female 'women'. Whatever this mysterious and nebulous thing is that they call 'woman', the reality of male and female remains.

So, for the sake of those posters who believe 'woman' is an identity rather than an adult female human:

Male women are privileged over female women; they take over spaces, dominate the conversation, are centred and championed; the feelings of male women take precedence over the feelings of female women every time.

When males of any given category automatically take precedence over females of that same category, this is called sexism. It is this injustice that feminism opposes.

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

Indeed. And 'cis woman' is now the name some have assigned to what was previously known as the sex class 'women' which is now the more privileged sub-category of the new gender identity category 'women.'

Yep. Which is why I feel it's helpful to dispense with the terms "cis" and "trans" and describe things in terms of male 'women' and female 'women'. Whatever this mysterious and nebulous thing is that they call 'woman', the reality of male and female remains.

So, for the sake of those posters who believe 'woman' is an identity rather than an adult female human:

Male women are privileged over female women; they take over spaces, dominate the conversation, are centred and championed; the feelings of male women take precedence over the feelings of female women every time.

When males of any given category automatically take precedence over females of that same category, this is called sexism. It is this injustice that feminism opposes.

Repeating because it's a great post.

When males of any given category automatically take precedence over females of that same category, this is called sexism. It is this injustice that feminism opposes.

Couldn’t agree more.

You don’t come across as pro trans Cloudy.

So it's 'extreme and bigoted' to consider transwomen as 'not women'.

I don't regard transwomen as women because - and get this radical idea - they are not women. The things that have defined my life as female will not - with the possible exception of sexual assault - be happening to transwomen:
Worrying about menstruation and managing it for 35 years
Morning sickness
Childbirth
Newborn baby commando-crawling up my body to find the boob
Breastfeeding (pain, leakage, great rushes of hormones)
Menopause (coupled with sudden skin aging and no doubt a reduction in bone density)

That is how biology has differentiated my life from that of men, including transwomen. We need a word for the people who do those things - who bleed, give birth, make milk, stop bleeding. That word is woman.

So could Cloudy and others stop watering it down?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The claim that some males are women is utterly extraordinary. Before Cloudy spends any more time berating the bigoted stance of women who, understandably, would like some evidence of this extraordinary claim, before accepting it in law, they might like to provide that extraordinary evidence.

Really. Stop treating women as if they are stupid/bad - something straight from the misogynist's handbook - and start backing up your claims to truth with some strong, reliable, replicated evidence!

@Alltheprettyseahorses

I don't understand why we're debating this. Women have said no, that's the end of it. Everyone knows what no means and it is the opposite of starting a debate. All this whining and asking us to justify why we say no and give examples so the (usually) male person asking for them can decide if our reasons are good enough, as if they have authority to grant or refuse our access to spaces we fought for and actually own, is boring. No. That is more than enough. I for one don't expect to hear any more.

Principles of consent go out the window on this issue.

The most enthusiastic proponents of no means no will add the caveat, unless it's a woman saying no to this subset of men, in which case, bad luck, his yes means more than your no.

Right, so you're just speaking for yourself and haven't thought about trans issues much, but everyone who posts here is supposed to be a monolith that hypothetically votes the same way in a hypothetical US election scenario? You don't have ulterior motives, but assume we do?

Why is it easier to think that we're just bigots, instead of realising that we are individuals with our own thoughts and circumstances?

This is so disingenuous and I repeat I’m disappointed in the quality of debate in this topic. People here are overly hostile and assume the worst of anyone who disagrees with the unwritten manifesto. I never said what you accuse me of calling users here and if you can find it quote it.

Good luck to all in the echo chamber, you’ve done well to alienate a straight woman who could potentially be an ally because you treated me like an enemy for no reason other than that a few of my opinions clash.

Just saying over and over that 'you're disappointed' is a bit pointless, fyi.

If you're an ally for women's rights (though why would a woman not be a feminist?) then you're an ally, regardless of how 'nice' people are about their arguments.

An argument stands or falls on its merits, not on the amount of flattery you receive when you question it.

If you don't believe women are entitled to limited sex-based provision, then just come out and say that. Be honest.

@turnitonagain

Right, so you're just speaking for yourself and haven't thought about trans issues much, but everyone who posts here is supposed to be a monolith that hypothetically votes the same way in a hypothetical US election scenario? You don't have ulterior motives, but assume we do?

Why is it easier to think that we're just bigots, instead of realising that we are individuals with our own thoughts and circumstances?

This is so disingenuous and I repeat I’m disappointed in the quality of debate in this topic. People here are overly hostile and assume the worst of anyone who disagrees with the unwritten manifesto. I never said what you accuse me of calling users here and if you can find it quote it.

Good luck to all in the echo chamber, you’ve done well to alienate a straight woman who could potentially be an ally because you treated me like an enemy for no reason other than that a few of my opinions clash.

You can see why someone on the outside might be confused or alarmed at any connection between feminism and right wing politics.

You have repeatedly linked GC feminists with the right wing, extreme right wing in fact in one post, without any evidence. Posters on this thread have patiently explained why centering women in feminism is not right wing, in fact quite the opposite. They've taken time to explain this in detail. You've then repeatedly criticised the quality of the debate whilst failing to tackle key points that they've raised yourself.

"TERFs calling themselves ‘gender critical’ are akin to white supremacists calling themselves ‘race realists’."

And yet bring up the parallels with trans racialism and 'you're crazy, there are no similarities'

Some sore losers on this thread! Genderism in the UK is over. People have examined its claims and found them to be false. The government is in the process of dismantling the unlawful customs and culture that have grown up around it. Get over it!

You've then repeatedly criticised the quality of the debate whilst failing to tackle key points that they've raised yourself.

I know I'm disappointed in the quality of the debate. GC feminists repeatedly present a huge amount of stats and evidence to support their position. On this thread, these stats were requested by the non-GC posters and were duly provided. The stats were then ignored and sidestepped.

Questions that go to the heart of this issue, i.e. what it means to be 'a woman'; how can you defend a woman in law when you can't define what a woman is; what precisely is gender identity etc. go unanswered (they always do).

Women on these boards produce numerous examples of transwomen (or men purporting to be transwomen) putting women at risk owing to laws that treat transwomen exactly the same as women. These are either ignored or brushed off as isolated incidents.

We're told that the feelings of male-bodied people who identify as women must take priority over the feelings of adult human females, even though nobody can explain why.

And we're told that the quality of the debate is disappointing. I agree.

Define 'woman'. Define 'gender identity'. Explain why the stats provided on this board are wrong. Explain why the decoupling of the word 'woman' from biological reality will not, over time, lead to the erasure of women as a sex-class and make it impossible to defend women's rights. Explain how many 'isolated incidents' are acceptable before you would cease to view them as 'isolated incidents'.

Then maybe people on these boards will start to reconsider their views and the standard of the debate won't be so 'disappointing.'

Just to be clear: this debate isn't about individual transgender people and their feelings. It just isn't. Individual transpeople are just like anyone else: many are nice. Some are not so nice. Some are highly intelligent. Some are a bit thick. That's the point - they're individuals.

This debate is about what is good for society as a whole. How do women as a class fare when transwomen are treated exactly the same as the same as women? The individualism of trans ideology is actually antithetical to the socialist nature of left-wing ideology.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

So it's 'extreme and bigoted' to consider transwomen as 'not women'.

I don't regard transwomen as women because - and get this radical idea - they are not women. The things that have defined my life as female will not - with the possible exception of sexual assault - be happening to transwomen:
Worrying about menstruation and managing it for 35 years
Morning sickness
Childbirth
Newborn baby commando-crawling up my body to find the boob
Breastfeeding (pain, leakage, great rushes of hormones)
Menopause (coupled with sudden skin aging and no doubt a reduction in bone density)

That is how biology has differentiated my life from that of men, including transwomen. We need a word for the people who do those things - who bleed, give birth, make milk, stop bleeding. That word is woman.

So could Cloudy and others stop watering it down?

And I'd add to that list, "being aware from age 12 that heterosexual intercourse could result in pregnancy and change my life, and adjusting my sexual views and expectations accordingly."

That for me was the biggest philosophical reason for why the lived experience of women and transwomen differ, no matter what a woman's individual sexual orientation, fertility or decisions about reproduction may be. Women (and society) know that females are at risk of pregnancy (whether sex is consented or not) and we have had to fight tooth and nail for the right to contraception and abortion just to reduce our vulnerability as a class.

Our rights to these things are constantly under attack, and in the midst of all this we're meant to accept that "the left" has decided that sex doesn't matter to feminism at all? That all that matters is stereotypes and unquantifiable feelings? That retaining awareness of sex at all is suddenly "right wing?"

Sorry. It makes no sense at all. And while I can respect anyone's right to a faith even while not sharing it myself, I draw a line at sacrificing all women and girls' physical and psychological safety to indulge them.

Cloudy you've probably missed my question in this busy thread but I was hoping that as you believe that 'gender is also a component of human identity that is more variable that human biology' could you explain what you mean by gender because I'm not sure you mean the same thing as I do.

To me, gender is the term for the steretyopical roles and expectations enforced on a person based on nothing but their sex. I can understand how enforced gender roles and stereotypes can affect one's personality being as we are all the product of our experiences. What is the difference between identity and personality? Or are they the same?

Apologies for all the questions, I just genuinely don't understand it.

I've only ever voted Labour. My Dad was a Shop Steward and is still a Labour member (not sure for how much longer though). Most of us here are now politically homeless as Labour doesn't appear to have our interest at heart. Particularly the interests of vulnerable and/or religious women and girls.
I believe that trans people should be able to live their lives without prejudice or discrimination, however, anyone who believes a man is a woman just because he says so, is gullible fool and I'm embarrassed for them. Which is why I don't think that anyone actually does believe it. How could they?

DickKerr I could probably explain that sentence of Cloudy's to your satisfaction, but I'd like to wait and see what she says first. Poke me later if we don't get a response.

Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4

Freedom is the freedom to say that a man is a man, a woman is a woman, a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog

People can identify as a man or a woman or a cat or a dog for all I care, however coercing others to give false testimony that a man is a woman, a woman is a man, a cat is a dog or a dog is a cat is indicative of dystopian thought policing and I will never, ever surrender to it.

I may choose not to challenge a person's choice of ID if to do so would distress them, but for that person to impose their fantasy ID preference on me in a way that is contrary to scientific fact and that violates my own personal space and privacy is completely unacceptible.

Is the freedom to not give false testimony fundamentally right wing?

I do not believe that it is obviously.

Are dangerous, destabilising far right and far left movements being astroturfed and empowered via the extremes of the TRA agenda?

Without a doubt.

We all know this surely?