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

I'm very glad, Cloudy, that you recognized you were only really engaging with the topics here on a superficial level and that it was just feeding a sense of bigotry in yourself, and that you stopped. That is a positive thing, and I'm not being remotely sarcastic when I say that.

What you haven't done in the thread, imo, is show how the actual content of the views here are bigoted, merely that your fairly superficial engagement led you to indulge an irrational hatred. Obviously, if you just go along with anger and frustration without really grasping why that anger and frustration exists, that's wrong, and you certainly should have an epiphany and move away from that.

But yes, it is a misrepresentation to say that you were 'gender critical' if you were not, you simply liked coming here to indulge a cathartic sense of anger.

I'd like to reiterate to everyone who reads FWR that if your purpose and focus is not the liberation of women and girls and the maintenance of their rights and protections, please don't use us to justify a dislike of people who don't conform to gendered stereotypes. None of the regulars here share your perspective - our focus is unapologetically women and their rights.

Still pondering gender identity. There has to be something objective that connects all people who share the gender identity of 'woman', surely? At the moment all I can come up with is that people who have the gender identity of 'woman' want breasts (or at least do not want a double mastectomy for purely aesthetic reasons) and don't want a penis. In other words, people who were born with breasts and no penis who have the gender identity of 'woman' do not want to physically alter their body. Those that were born with a male body do.

Everything else that might point to a gender identity just seems to me to be about stereotypes.

It seems to me that trans people are more comfortable conforming to the stereotypes associated with the opposite sex. However, since not all natal females are comfortable conforming to those stereotypes, yet still consider themselves women, the willingness to conform to certain stereotypes says nothing about the objective reality of a gender identity.

I get that trans people feel very strongly that they have an innate gender identity. I get that it is very distressing to believe that you are the opposite sex 'on the inside'. I'm not saying those feelings don't exist or that transpeople don't exist.

However, I don't understand why 12-year-old girls must be expected to share communal changing rooms with 50-year-old male-bodied people on the basis that the girl does not want to physically alter her body while the 50-year-old does.

I appreciate that this post may come across as offensive: I don't mean it to. I am just trying to unpick the rationale behind all of this.

If I am getting this all wrong and someone can explain the features that unite all people with a shared gender identity, I am very open to hearing them.

It seems to me that trans people are more comfortable conforming to the stereotypes associated with the opposite sex

And I think it's worth noting that it really is the stereotypes rather than the actual reality of being the opposite sex. Because if it was the reality the whole public discussion around trans rights would focus on trans men, not trans women. Trans men would be expecting society to change to suit them, whilst trans women would be afraid of being seen to make a fuss because they wouldn't want people to think they were difficult. As a generalisation obviously.

Edge the gender identity 'woman' has two necessary conditions: being observed female based on phenotype, and being raised accordingly in our sexist and sexually dimorphic world.

The gender identity 'trans woman' also has two necessary conditions without which it cannot occur: observed male phenotype, and raised accordingly.

Application of the idea, however, cannot help but he horribly misogynistic, because the Other Side, like the mainstream, refuse to acknowledge the relevance of sex, dimorphism, and oppression.

And for the record, I think calling them gender identities is daft and misleading; they're gendered identities - the result of an ongoing process of being treated as male or female (with all the stereotype expectations that entails). No one is born with one.

@CloudyVanilla

I understand the analogy. My view without going into too much detail as it is almost 2:30am and I need to go to bed, is that transgenderism is more pervasive and socially real than the analogous equivalences given on MN. If it were a fleeting feeling then they simply wouldn't be such a presence in humanity

I skipped the posts after this so forgive me if I am repeating...

Transgendersim, the word, is more pervasive. The state of being really isn't.

Transgenderism the ideology is more pervaisve, actually make that invasive.

Let me explain. It's not new. It has gone by many different names over the years, centuries (read some Ancient Greek texts, you'll see it). The difference with transgenderism (note that I mean the ideology not the people) is its politicisation, it's aggression... and you cannot deny either of those, there has been enough evidence posted on this thread alone to show that TRAs (again the activists, the ideology, not transpeople as a class) are aggressively and politically acting for their own benefit, to the detriment of women.

Back in the 1980s transgenderism and non binary was called gender bending. For some, Boy George, Marilyn, Grayson Perry and many others, it was a state of permanence, their identity, an innate part who they are.

For others, myself included, it was a joyous phase of openly kicking against stereotypes, defying sex based discrimination, being ardently feminist, loud and obnoxiously so in some cases; that led to an adult life of just being me. A not particularly feminine female: happily married, but not 'Mrs' in every day life, I have a name, it is used; definitely 'she' but hardly ever dress or make up wearing; I have been the main wage earner, and have not been, I am now self employed bringing in 50% of the household money; I am me. I don't 'identify' as anyone or anything but me, myself. Some parts of 'me' change as time goes by, other bits remain the same. I am still me. I am not woman, wife, partner first and foremost. I am me, independent, myself.

I suspect that most Genderists would state that I am non binary and would be puzzled at my vehement rejection of the term.

Non binary would mean that I believe I am neither male nor female. I am. I am female. Every atom of my body is female. Non binary would fail to describe my physical being.

Non binary would also fail to describe how I feel whenever I am asked to give the point some active thought. When I asked I feel like me. The sum of my life experiences. I can acknowledge that some of those experiences are purely down to my sex, my being female. Others are due to my rejection of the stereotypes associated with my sex. ALL are down to me being me... an individual, a person.

So non binary fails to desribe what I am and how I feel.

All I ask is that TRAs accept that and stop trying to make my stating my own innate sense of self a criminal offense (again, an action much evidenced across FWR) and stop trying to make 'women' mean '... and males' in law!

@FloralBunting

I'm very glad, Cloudy, that you recognized you were only really engaging with the topics here on a superficial level and that it was just feeding a sense of bigotry in yourself, and that you stopped. That is a positive thing, and I'm not being remotely sarcastic when I say that.

What you haven't done in the thread, imo, is show how the actual content of the views here are bigoted, merely that your fairly superficial engagement led you to indulge an irrational hatred. Obviously, if you just go along with anger and frustration without really grasping why that anger and frustration exists, that's wrong, and you certainly should have an epiphany and move away from that.

But yes, it is a misrepresentation to say that you were 'gender critical' if you were not, you simply liked coming here to indulge a cathartic sense of anger.

I'd like to reiterate to everyone who reads FWR that if your purpose and focus is not the liberation of women and girls and the maintenance of their rights and protections, please don't use us to justify a dislike of people who don't conform to gendered stereotypes. None of the regulars here share your perspective - our focus is unapologetically women and their rights.

Wow. How patronising.

Thank you Floral. I have also felt that there is a superficiality often applied here.

That would very neatly explain the complete lack of engagement of people in the issue of the conflict of rights. I and others have asked numerous times for suggestions on how to deal with the conflict areas and get .... crickets. tumbleweed.

The discussion keeps coming back to a few posters telling women they are shamefully not acknowledging the existence of transgender people. And that vastly overused word transphobia.

Since it is actually a legitimate exercise to question the redefining of our own sex class, where are the boundaries to where we, with our female socialisation already in play, cross over to being hateful. Hateful vs being able to articulately state where the conflicts arise that need to be upheld. And by the way, we as a society have been recently taught (or attempted to) that to we are hateful for even acknowledging in our minds that there is a clear difference between males identifying as females and females. So, even more ‘socialization’ aimed at females happening here.

And the posters who keep coming to tell us we are shameful NEVER have any evidence. studies or facts. Their arguments always rely on acceptance because they say so. Yet, we as women fighting for women’s rights to be protected, are not accepted despite the evidence and the research we present to prove our case.

That is where the discordance lies in this threads. The superficiality of the posters declaring us hateful. There has never been even a definition of transphobic preferred to back up their own claims.

Maybe they can offer one now? The word transphobic keeps being applied to the regular posters frequently. What does this mean? Or have you even considered that you, yourselves have bought into a concept that is about silencing dissenters and you haven’t seen it yet? If you used this board to fuel your own biases without fundamentally understanding the issues then that is a reflection on you. if you have ever thought ‘I have no problem seeing a naked penis in my changing room so this is a straw man argument’ or ’I haven’t experienced any sexist discrimination at work so it mustn’t be anywhere near as common as these people say. Besides mtf transpeople say they experience it too’ you have not applied that empathy you have extended to transwomen to women. To those born of a sex that has endured violence, abuse or religious belief in the first example or the realities of being born female who have endured sexist discrimination all their lives. In the second, you might not even acknowledge that this actually is still happening.

So. May we get a definition, a very clear, definition of what is transphobic on this thread?

They won't define transitions and they never will, because the cognitive dissonance won't let them.

The definition is easy to infer from looking at how they use the word though.

It simply means "refusal to validate trans identities."

Or even refuse to accept that trans people exist!

I have never understood that one. Why would we be posting if we didn't believe they exist?

Gah, sodding autocorrect! I type transphobia far more than I type transitions, but the damned thing will not learn.

It does amuse me that this word that no one can define isn't even in the dictionary on this device though.

that transgenderism is more pervasive and socially real than the analogous equivalences given on MN. If it were a fleeting feeling then they
simply wouldn't be such a presence in humanity

I think the equivalences were age/race/something else?

So I'll take age. Theres already a famous man who believes age is fluid. Hes currently a 8 year old I think. Hes not alone hes just the most famous I know of. So in your view, this age dysphoria is valid? It's not fleeting, hes been various ages for years now. Obviously true because its similar to GD.
So as I currently feel like a very old woman, I should just identify as 90, claim my pension and retire? Or is there a cut off point, tomorrow I may feel a sprightly 60 year old so its fleeting , but equally I may feel over a hundred. Who knows? Wheres the cut off?

The definition is easy to infer from looking at how they use the word though.

It simply means "refusal to validate trans identities."

Yes. But it goes deeper and I think they believe it is any deviation from acceptance only. And that perhaps there is a lot of projection occurring because they themselves feel the dissonance so maybe they know that it might apply to them so they must fight that. Many have admitted they have areas where they can admit conflict occurs so maybe there is more than a little projection?

Floral is correct. FWR= Feminisim and Women’s Rights. How is stating this patronising? Mainly women use this board to talk about a range of things which may affect the rights of women because it is important to them.

This thread has veered from the original topic which was the incorrect allegation that Gender Critical women are siding with the far “right” (whatever that means).

Most of the commentators have strongly disagreed and pointed out the flaws in that argument.

Women do not need to be scolded and told to be kind when they are expressing their concerns.

Well, "not validating trans identities" is clearly an umbrella term. It covers a range of sins.

And sin is what it's all about. Refusal to accept the narrative as literal and objective truth. Whoever described it as secular evangelicalism was bang on the money.

Wow.
How patronising.

That's somewhat ironic.

I think the equivalences were age/race/something else?

One of the ‘something else’ was disability.

One day I’ll start a thread about self-id with disability and comparisons with gender self-id (there are many). Needless to say, if resources and facilities are created to support people with a protected status, there are those who will identify as such in order to gain access to them. This means some form of ‘gatekeeping’ is required and this inevitably leads to conflict and accusations of bigotry when the boundaries fall on the ‘wrong’ side of an individual who wishes to be included and is not.

My post was purely to address those who struggle to understand my lack of dismissal of gender identity based on it being a feeling, as someone said they didn't understand it.

I think you mean me. I said I didn't understand the following quote: I now feel more strongly that gender identity and expression and social construct is not possible to simultaneously limit too nor entangle from biological sex.

And I didn't understand what you were saying more generally about the reasoning behind your change-of-mind process, to the point where I was assuming there wasn't any. However, FloralBunting has explained what you were talking about and I get it now. You came here because you were genuinely, legitimately transphobic. You "agreed with us" because it validated your intuition that "trans people bad." You've now evolved beyond that world view, but you're assuming that the rest of us agree with past-you

It's an interesting perspective, to be sure, so thank you for sharing it. I still don't understand the specific quote above but I don't think it matters too much.

Is that quote confusing because it's missing a prefix?

Because if it's being suggested that performative gender can't be a) entirely limited to or b) entirely disentangled from biological sex, then I agree entirely.

I'm just not sure that particular poster understands why that statement is an accurate description of reality.

So many good little allies parroting buzzwords and catchphrases without ever deconstructing them to find the meaning, it's depressing.

Because if it's being suggested that performative gender can't be a) entirely limited to or b) entirely disentangled from biological sex, then I agree entirely

There's an unexplained "simultaneously" in there if that's what it means - unless "simultaneously impossible" was intended. But like I said, I don't think it matters too much, it was the entire change of mind process that didn't make sense until Floral's comment!

You "agreed with us" because it validated your intuition that "trans people bad.".

Yes. This does seem to be so. I have very rarely come across a regular poster on this board who feels that a blanket statement of ‘trans is bad’ is true in any shape. However, we keep being told that is what we believe and that is what we say.

If the proponents of shame actually took the time to clearly explain and link research (and not opinion pieces misusing other’s medical conditions to explain theories with massive holes) to back their claims, now that would be a discussion worth having. I have suspected for a while now, they have no evidence beyond the flimsy sloganeering and a need to obey the directive of ‘being nice’.

And if they are on the side of "be nice" then those who disagree must be on the side of "be nasty". Logic innit.

That's ok.
Paedophile and "M.A.P." alliance and sympathy = fundamentally a Left-wing thing.

As proven by articles in Vox and Salon.

Okay, I think I can make sense of the "simultaneously".

Limiting gendered expression to one sex or the other = only females are permitted to wear makeup, only males are permitted to wear trousers, etc etc.

Disentangling the gendered shite from biological sex = anyone can wear what they like regardless of sex, etc etc.

The two positions are contradictory, so can't be held simultaneously.

At least I think that's what it means, but as I said, I'm assuming there's a missing prefix because otherwise the second half straight up doesn't make sense and needs rephrasing.

Anyway, this is a bit of a diversion, I think. The important point to take away from it is, as de Beauvoir said, one's sex is one of the immutable pillars around which one's understanding of Self (and Other) develops. You can't disentangle your phenotypical sex from your understanding of your gendered identity; the latter cannot exist without the former.

In short: transwomen are transwomen; a subset of males who disidentify with the cultural construction of manhood.

@FloralBunting

I'm very glad, Cloudy, that you recognized you were only really engaging with the topics here on a superficial level and that it was just feeding a sense of bigotry in yourself, and that you stopped. That is a positive thing, and I'm not being remotely sarcastic when I say that.

What you haven't done in the thread, imo, is show how the actual content of the views here are bigoted, merely that your fairly superficial engagement led you to indulge an irrational hatred. Obviously, if you just go along with anger and frustration without really grasping why that anger and frustration exists, that's wrong, and you certainly should have an epiphany and move away from that.

But yes, it is a misrepresentation to say that you were 'gender critical' if you were not, you simply liked coming here to indulge a cathartic sense of anger.

I'd like to reiterate to everyone who reads FWR that if your purpose and focus is not the liberation of women and girls and the maintenance of their rights and protections, please don't use us to justify a dislike of people who don't conform to gendered stereotypes. None of the regulars here share your perspective - our focus is unapologetically women and their rights.

Really superb point, Floral. There is no question that the women's/trans rights arguments brings out lots of people eager to win allies for more extremist political tribes, both right and left. Some people may well wander into here to moan about "Marxists," or the gays, or Tories, or whatever, and try to tie the fate of women and girls (or trans folk!) in Britain to their personal hobby horses.

Right/Left do not own women and girls, and we do not owe either of them anything the moment they start undermining our rights. I'm also glad Cloudy is learning to be a better person when it comes to accepting and supporting gender nonconforming people. But I am wondering when all these new-minted genderists will start really engaging with the concept of balancing rights in pluralistic democracies.

Cloudy It seems like these days, the need for one to define themselves and give themselves an identity is seen as vitally important.

We're told by people such as those at ActionAid that there is no such thing as biological sex. Crime statistics are recorded by gender identity, not sex.

So ok, I'll try and get on board with this new classification system and find my place in the world, my identity. Except, if the word 'woman' now refers to gender identity rather than sex, then I'm not sure what my identity is.

To identity as a female is, as you say, transphobic because the class female obviously excludes those who are not female. So that's out.

You believe that gender identity is an component of human identity. I'm trying to explain to you that I don't recognise or experience any feeling of gender identity. I do not identify with the gender role of woman. Never have. But obviously that doesn't mean I identify with the gender role of man because I've never experienced it. How can I know what it means to feel like a man? Especially when I don't know what it means to feel like a woman, if woman no longer relates to sex.

This is why I ask questions. How can I identify as something or even know whether I have a gender identity at all if nobody can explain what it means? This is why I'm asking you to clarify what you mean when you talk about gender and gender identity - to help me understand.