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

This "with us or against us" mentality is poisoning the Left. It seems to be particularly bad in the USA, but it's seeped over to this side of the Atlantic as well.

Trans issues are just one part of it. If you agree with 95% of the Left positions but disagree on one key issue let's say trans activism, or abortion, or Black Lives Matter (the movement, not the sentiment), or supporting Israel you are labelled right-wing, or even "far right".

They complain about the Right gaining ground. But the ground considered Left is shrinking faster than Arctic ice, and they don't yet realise they are the polar bears.

They complain about the Right gaining ground. But the ground considered Left is shrinking faster than Arctic ice, and they don't yet realise they are the polar bears.

Brilliant that.

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.

This seems to be where the big ‘shift’ in attitudes on the left has occurred in the last decade or so.

The ‘liberal’ position used to be that you could be whoever you wanted to be, believe what you wanted to believe, wear whatever you liked and follow the career path you chose as long as you allowed others that same privilege.

That has all gone now. The ‘liberals’ are illiberal. What you are permitted to wear or how you can wear your hair depends on your race. You can date whoever you want, as long as you make it clear that you have no ‘requirements’ in terms of genital preference or race. You must raise your fist in solidarity when asked, wear this lanyard and display this icon on social media. The validity of your opinion is dependent not on your expertise on a subject but on your oppression status.

Until the ‘left’ starts pushing back on these illiberal ‘rules’ being forced on us in the name of ‘social justice’, they will continue to lose support.

This "with us or against us" mentality is poisoning the Left.

Yes, it is purity spiralling in action.

I like this section from Jo Bartosch's latest work

4w.pub/the-fall-of-stonewall/

Whilst Stonewall have never pretended to promote a feminist analysis, until recently, the charity did not actively oppose the rights of women. Today, thanks to the inclusion of the ‘T’, Stonewall is campaigning against the Equality Act (2010), positioning themselves in opposition to feminist aims. With the meaningless strapline, "acceptance without exception" Stonewall has been very successful at positioning "trans inclusivity" as the liberal default for the bien passant. The result of this has seen Stonewall turn its attention to actively dismantling women’s rights in the UK; promoting the acceptance of men who identify as women in not only women’s single-sex hospital wards and prisons, but also women’s sports. Stonewall have even recently begun to lobby World Rugby to make the women’s game single gender rather than single sex; despite the fact that an independent report showed an increased risk of injury to women of 20-30 percent.

I think you would have to be quite selective in your definitions of 'harm to women and women's right' to not see those harms to women's rights that are being done in the name of being kind or having sensitive consideration of trans women because they are at the first instance dismissed as not women and therefore excluded from any woman centric idea or resource.

People who identify as transgender should definitely have their own set of rights and they should work to progress those and seek compromise where they conflict with others rights.

@CopsCantCatchCriminals

They complain about the Right gaining ground. But the ground considered Left is shrinking faster than Arctic ice, and they don't yet realise they are the polar bears.

Brilliant that.

Yes! I don’t feel I’ve moved to the right, its more like the left put me on a raft and pushed me out into the sea.

I keep seeing variations of this popping up all over Twitter. It definitely has more than a grain of truth to it.

... its more like the left put me on a raft and pushed me out into the sea..

That's how I feel and, I never thought I'd say this, I'm really glad they lost the general election.

Great post Winesalot. I really think that the Rugby lobbying could be Stonewall's bridge too far moment. There's no hiding the disparities, the inequalities will be so glaring to the average person.

That has all gone now. The ‘liberals’ are illiberal. What you are permitted to wear or how you can wear your hair depends on your race. You can date whoever you want, as long as you make it clear that you have no ‘requirements’ in terms of genital preference or race. You must raise your fist in solidarity when asked, wear this lanyard and display this icon on social media. The validity of your opinion is dependent not on your expertise on a subject but on your oppression status. That! That sums up why I feel so bloody uncomfortable with rattling pots and pans for the NHS and a whole host of other small behaviours.

I may be stealing that for a while...

I think left and right (even in conjunction with a libertarian-authoritarian axis) is a very imprecise political descriptor but, in a very broad sense, could it be a sign that sufficient change in some areas has been made as far as state intervention is required? That is, a movement by the population to the political right isn't so much a sign that things are moving backwards but that the changes to society which the population desire cannot or should not be advanced by the state but by slower, organic social change.

This is from a NYT piece by Professor Michael Schill written in 2017 during a period of sustained violent attacks against freedom of speech on US campuses.

Fascist regimes rose to power by attacking free speech, threatening violence against those who opposed them, and using fear and the threat of retaliation to intimidate dissenters," he writes. "By contrast, American academia is dedicated to rational discourse, shared governance and the protection of dissent

That has all gone now. The ‘liberals’ are illiberal. What you are permitted to wear or how you can wear your hair depends on your race. You can date whoever you want, as long as you make it clear that you have no ‘requirements’ in terms of genital preference or race. You must raise your fist in solidarity when asked, wear this lanyard and display this icon on social media. The validity of your opinion is dependent not on your expertise on a subject but on your oppression status

Great post. The recent scenes from Washington DC of a female diner surrounded by a mob using intimidation to force her to make a political hand gesture says it all. These are the tactics of fascists. And what makes them so sinister is that they are so bloated with self righteousness and so historically illiterate, they believe themselves to be anti fascist.

That is, a movement by the population to the political right isn't so much a sign that things are moving backwards but that the changes to society which the population desire cannot or should not be advanced by the state but by slower, organic social change.

The thing is, I don’t think the ‘population’ as a whole has moved to the right. I think what has happened is that the academic social justice theories that lie behind identity politics have influenced the left-wing parties and moved them further towards the authoritarian left. Whilst the parties have tried in vain to appeal to their traditionally economically left but socially more traditional voters, they have been captured by their loud activists.

The thing is, I don’t think the ‘population’ as a whole has moved to the right.

Sorry, I didn't mean in terms of beliefs but rather where they align with what the parties have to offer. I picture it as similar to a slide rule.

@CloudyVanilla
I did move further to GC or trans exclusionary feminism
I got all my info on the trans debate from MN and when I looked into it further I realised was not morally sitting well with me and my other values. So naturally I started looking into it more and I really strongly disagree with TERF now

Just wanted to say I was and am exactly the same, got all my info from MN and didn't know anything about trans issues before at all - and am just saying so because when I've mentioned this before been told "no it never happens" and that it "doesn't go that way"
so it's really good to hear that it's not just me, that I'm not making it up as it "never happens"
It clearly does as others have said so too.

I believe gender identity matters much more than GC feminists assert, whether rightly or wrongly it is an integral part of human nature Therefore, I do not feel it is my right nor do I feel it is accurate or fair to discount someone who says they fundamentally identify as what they personally understand to mean female. I do not believe arguments or counter points of "oh but what is a state of mind, what is it to feel like a woman?" Because I trust other humans when they say they have a strong identify of themselves and I do not feel that feeling trans is any more dismissable than sexual orientation. It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel because biologically they are not the gender they feel they are or wish to be

Same

@turnitonagain

This post is timely given last week several posters said if they were American they’d vote Trump because of the trans issue. It was the day after news leaked that he’d be replacing feminist legal scholar Ruth Bader Ginsburg with right wing religious zealot judge Amy Coney Barrett who will do all in her power to trample on women’s access to abortion and contraception when appointed to the Supreme Court.

Trump by the way is a man who thinks it’s ok to “grab ‘em by the pussy,” has been accused of multiple sexual assaults, and attacked a female journalist for “bleeding out of her wherever.”

So the Vox article doesn’t seem so off base.

Good point

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel

I'm sorry, this is bollocks.

You have no sense of it being wrong at all to tell someone that their identity doesn't matter and is not valid, that they truly can't feel the way they feel and it doesn't matter what they feel - you are all for saying this to someone. You have said in this thread, 'muslim ladies' can stick it and go without provisions of any kind if they won't put their own needs and feelings aside. I won't unpack the various issues with that alone, never mind the whole 'Muslim lady' bit.

There's no moral position here. Just different standards of treatment you want to base on sex.

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel

With regards to the second part of your statement, what is it that, for you, makes it absolutely wrong to tell someone that it doesn't matter what they feel in this context? Because by definition that means that you are ok with telling a different group of people that it doesn't matter what they feel.

Why is one morally right in your view whilst the other is morally wrong?

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel.

Does this thinking extend to other matters beyond gender?

If someone identifies as a child, despite being born 30 years ago, and that person commits a crime, should they be tried in a juvenile court?

If a boxer identifies as weighing 120 lbs, despite the scales showing a much larger number, should they be allowed to fight in the featherweight division?

If someone identifies as black, despite being a pale blonde with no known ancestry from the African diaspora, should that person be consulted about racism ahead of "cis black" people?

Because by definition that means that you are ok with telling a different group of people that it doesn't matter what they feel

No, it means (for me, anyway) that it's not a case of saying it doesn't matter what people feel, it's not that at all - you're entitled to your feelings, but other people living their lives and having different experiences to you doesn't make them any less valid.
Trans people existing doesn't affect those who aren't.
Your life is yours. You shouldn't get to tell others what they are or aren't though. That's the difference

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel because biologically they are not the gender they feel they are or wish to be

Maybe Quaagers can clarify since they feel the same? I too am interested in hearing why and how this is then limited to 'gender identity' and not other areas of life that will have as much impact. Truly, age is also a really important aspect of individual identity that is also accurately biologically derived.

Trans people existing doesn't affect those who aren't. I think that you have read enough proof to know that there are evidence based affects that prove this false though. And you are yet to provide a suggestion to protect women against those effects.

For example, sports. What do you propose there? Jails? These are undeniable affects.

I will concede that believing that sex is binary and that women are adult human females is a traditional view!

Trans people existing doesn't affect those who aren't.

Existing doesn't affect others. And I don't think anyone here is arguing that they don't exist.

But insisting on being classed as a member of the opposite sex does affect others, very much so.

@Winesalot

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a woman, that that identity is not valid because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or especially that it doesn't matter what they feel because biologically they are not the gender they feel they are or wish to be

Maybe Quaagers can clarify since they feel the same? I too am interested in hearing why and how this is then limited to 'gender identity' and not other areas of life that will have as much impact. Truly, age is also a really important aspect of individual identity that is also accurately biologically derived.

I am also interested in knowing Quaagars' response to this question.