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

@FloralBunting no that is completely off base. I specifically learned these views from MN. I did not come here as a transphobia looking for fellow transphobic voices. My point was that I gained an unbalanced view of transgender debate directly from mumsnet, that I did not hold at all before.

I now feel differently. That is my point.

Where do these new genderists get royally minted from? Gender Studies?

My point was that I gained an unbalanced view of transgender debate directly from mumsnet, that I did not hold at all before. I now feel differently. That is my point

Again, same

My point was that I gained an unbalanced view of transgender debate directly from mumsnet, that I did not hold at all before. I now feel differently. That is my point

I'd like to suggest that a forum is not responsible for the people who read it, and that if you picked up ideas from this forum that the vast majority of people posting on the forum don't agree with, that says a lot more about you than it does about FWR.

But... baby steps. It's great that you've stopped projecting negative stuff onto trans people. Now try not projecting negative stuff onto FWR regulars!

@DickKerrLadies I do not share the view that the identity of woman is erased by trans people identifying as women. I consider it as an extra definition of woman, rather than a replacement. The vast majority of women are women. Some women are trans women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women. I truly don't understand why that it such an alien concept.

I have already said that understand and agree that concepts such as self identification are potentially detrimental to women's rights and therefore do not support it. I understand when it comes to a question of legal validation and not social validation in terms of gender identity that that is problematic for women and do not support it.

and that if you picked up ideas from this forum that the vast majority of people posting on the forum don't agree with, that says a lot more about you than it does about FWR.

Oof. Wow.
Is that a case of DARVO in action?
Deny those views are prevalent on here (and if it is, minimising to "not all of us"
Attack "says a lot more about you than it does about FWR"
Reverse Victim Offender Now try not projecting negative stuff onto FWR regulars!

Again.
Wow

Okay, bold and quote function really is being an arse this morning.

My point was that I gained an unbalanced view of transgender debate directly from mumsnet

I have been on MN for less than a year. Maybe it has changed. What are the views that were expressed on MN that you once believed and do not now believe?

DickKerr you've done it again - raised an interesting question that I want to answer, but Cloudy should be answering it first.

Sod it, I'm answering anyway.

You'd call yourself a feminist as a result of your experiences and understanding of the world, which are informed by your being female and raised in a patriarchal society, yes?

Feminist is, therefore, a gendered identity found exclusively in women (though not all women).

A sense of class consciousness and solidarity with other females, borne of the understanding that we all get fucked over for the crime of being women (adult human females) in a man's world, is part of the gendered identity feminist. Cloudy does not have this, clearly.

If pressed, I would describe my gendered identity as terven.

And when you look at all the different gendered identities and note the sex in which they occur, it is blindingly obvious that the sex hierarchy underlies the formation of these identities, and that "all gender identities are valid!" is a lie.

The gendered identities found in females are not respected, not validated, not accommodated by the trans lobby. The trans lobby only really cares about male gendered identities, and makes a show of also acknowledging those female identities that do not threaten male identities.

That's the bit that Cloudy hasn't spotted yet. It's the same bit Butler missed, and the same bit the TRAs miss.

I have already said that understand and agree that concepts such as self identification are potentially detrimental to women's rights and therefore do not support it. I understand when it comes to a question of legal validation and not social validation in terms of gender identity that that is problematic for women and do not support it.

Sorry, getting back to what I have just posted.... so you agree that there is conflicts with the acceptance of transwomen as women in law?

Oof. Wow.Is that a case of DARVO in action?

Oh dear, you're trying to create a hall of mirrors here. Let's see if we can go a level above "no u" DARVO accusations, let's break it down logically.

1. We've already established that the views Cloudy is speaking about dont' correspond with mainstream views on FWR. That has been established on the last few pages of this thread. If you disagree please explain what views Cloudy refers to and where you've seen them referenced on FWR.

1. Therefore, if Cloudy/you are telling the truth, some predisposition within Cloudy/yourself, caused you to form these views upon reading this forum. Most FWR regulars, not sharing Cloudy's views, do not have this predisposition . Therefore Cloudy's experience says more about Cloudy than it does about FWR. If you disagree with this point, please explain at what point you feel the logic breaks down.

1. Therefore what I'm saying is well-founded and your DARVO accusation is DARVO. Oof. Wow. Wow. Etc. if you disagree with this point you're going to have to explain why either 1 or 2 is wrong.

I have recently seen someone state that labeling others is a practice of those unwilling or unable to enter rational discussion.

[quote CloudyVanilla]@DickKerrLadies I do not share the view that the identity of woman is erased by trans people identifying as women. I consider it as an extra definition of woman, rather than a replacement. The vast majority of women are women. Some women are trans women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women. I truly don't understand why that it such an alien concept.

I have already said that understand and agree that concepts such as self identification are potentially detrimental to women's rights and therefore do not support it. I understand when it comes to a question of legal validation and not social validation in terms of gender identity that that is problematic for women and do not support it.[/quote]
I do not share the view that the identity of woman is erased by trans people identifying as women.

You are free to share whatever views you want but the reality is that there are areas, such as the aforementioned crime statistics, where it is now no longer possible to tell whether crimes recorded as being committed by women (gender identity) are being committed by females or males (sex). This is happening, whether you share that view or not.

I truly don't understand why that it such an alien concept.

Great, so you understand what it means to identify as a woman then? Could you please explain it to me, because it honestly is an alien concept to me. I do not 'identify' as a woman.

Giving birth, breastfeeding, all that stuff is directly related to my sex and therefore must have no bearing on my gender identity, because, as you say, some women are women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women.

So, what's left of being a woman to identify as?

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

DickKerr you've done it again - raised an interesting question that I want to answer, but Cloudy should be answering it first.

Sod it, I'm answering anyway.

You'd call yourself a feminist as a result of your experiences and understanding of the world, which are informed by your being female and raised in a patriarchal society, yes?

Feminist is, therefore, a gendered identity found exclusively in women (though not all women).

A sense of class consciousness and solidarity with other females, borne of the understanding that we all get fucked over for the crime of being women (adult human females) in a man's world, is part of the gendered identity feminist. Cloudy does not have this, clearly.

If pressed, I would describe my gendered identity as terven.

And when you look at all the different gendered identities and note the sex in which they occur, it is blindingly obvious that the sex hierarchy underlies the formation of these identities, and that "all gender identities are valid!" is a lie.

The gendered identities found in females are not respected, not validated, not accommodated by the trans lobby. The trans lobby only really cares about male gendered identities, and makes a show of also acknowledging those female identities that do not threaten male identities.

That's the bit that Cloudy hasn't spotted yet. It's the same bit Butler missed, and the same bit the TRAs miss.

YY. Thanks for answering.

I've said similar before, but I was critical of gender before I was a feminist. Before I knew what feminism was.

So if a gender identity is how we identify based on how gender is enforced on us and on society and our internal feelings about that (which are valid, importantly) then yes, I can see how feminist fits as a gendered identity and I would say that I am a feminist as a direct result of gender and gendered expectations.

I do genuinely wish to understand the position of people on this. Whilst the regulatory capture is undoubtedly going on, there are people who genuinely find something helpful to them within gender ideology. And as someone who, like I say, has always been critical of gender, it really fascinates me that people would find it liberating rather than oppressive.

So, what's left of being a woman to identify as?

Stereotypes.

If certain quarters weren't so invested in denying the impact of sexual dimorphism on the emerging human consciousness, we'd not be having this argument over and over again.

We understand ourselves to be women because we recognise that our biology - gestator-type biology - is given that label. 'Woman' is a sexed identity. In genderfree utopia (where there are no stereotypes) we would still understand ourselves to be women because we would still understand ourselves to be female.

Males who claim to have a woman identity have fundamentally misunderstood what it means to be a woman. Being female was always a necessary condition; the basic feminist position is that being female is a sufficient condition.

The genderist position is that being female is neither necessary not sufficient. You are a woman if you perform the cultural construction of womanhood, and by extension, if you do not perform this you are not a woman.

You're only a real woman if you confirm and perform, in other words.

It's sexist bollocks. Same old patriarchal female-hating shite, creating dysphoria in females in order to pander to males.

@Quaagars

When it is demanded that womens rights simply become 'peoples rights' thats removing rights from women, obviously. Why should women agree to this, when they very much need their sex based rights?

OK, can agree with this but some of the things on here (such as names on Starbucks coffee cups!) not so much.
There's a line that tips into transphobia that I''m not comfortable with but can see concerns on self ID.

I will have a look at the starbucks thing when I get a sec, but even if it is exactly as described and the poster is basically saying transpeople existing in general is a problem..its still not grounds to write the board off as that tbh. Kind of like the example earlier in the thread, about 2 posters saying they would vote Trump (IMO its a hard decision there, a creep who is open about it, or a creep who tries hiding it, lovely!) being made out to be 'the GC movement' thinking that way. Same as when people bring up Posies USA meetings and make out thats what GC feminists agree with, rather than the direction one decided to take.

I have seen transphobia on here. Its generally challenged, and most often removed within a few mins of being posted which says other members are reporting those kinds of posts.

I am genuinely interested in how one can go from being GC, to being the total opposite. I do not understand how you can change your whole belief system because you see some other people with the same belief system being nasty or saying something you disagree with? In my head, I cannot imagine going from the opinion that women exist in their own right, and should have sex based rights which are needed...to women give up everything...because someone said something bad. I have actively tried many times to find something that might possibly switch me 'back' and I really cannot think of anything that would do it. It is interesting though that a minority of posters say they have switched that way, when generally its all the opposite, as such when those posters post, I do keep a eye on the thread and hope for an explanation..honestly, I would LOVE to go back to seeing no problems with it all, life was much less stressful then! There has surely got to be more of a reason than 'some feminists were nasty' or 'the views align with X group'..as if agreeing on one topic means you must agree on all topics.

Haven't read the rest of the thread past the quoted post yet so if this has already been answered, sorry. Have not much time today so am kind of replying as I see instead of RTFT then replying..

In short I agree that some women on here will be transphobic. But it really does not seem the majority, and of course it depends on your definition of transphobia also..if it is TRA style, then even saying women exist at all is phobic. There are thousands of posts saying that! Most have a narrower version of it though.

Have also i the past seen threads specifically about transpeople, which IMO do not actually fit in this forum. FWR is about womens rights, s the trans thing only matters in the context of how it affects women. Well, for me and it seems many others to, given threads specifically about only trans people tend to be ignored, closed, or filled up with 'and this has what to do with womes rights?'

I personally have not seen anyone claiming trans people just existing is an issue, not on here either (twitter, different matter!) but theres no reason to disbelieve it really..any position there is to take will be taken by someone. The 'wish they did not exist' thats thrown around a lot too is..not common from what I have seen. I find it interesting that a tiny proportion of feminists have one opinion., and this is put across all of them. Thousands of posters on here, and 2 saying something questionable is made out to be the while forum..kind of bizarre when the same people will say not to put behaviour of a couple across as the whole group, which I disagree with totally, of course some transwomen rapists does not mean all are rapists..that goes without saying. But in the context of the trans thing, transwomen remain as much of a risk as any other male, and why shouldn't they. Also for me (and I assume many others here) 'trans' is almost irrelevant to my opinion..any group attempting to actively remove another vulnerable groups rights would be thought of the same by me. (I do not see feminists as removing 'trans rights;' by pushing against selfID by the way, the rights that exist are womens, and the proposal is to remove said rights. So fighting to retain existing rights is not the same as fighting to remove someone elses..

Thanks for the replies so far, especially of those 'on the other side' so to speak. Its useful to actually talk I think, and try to iunderstand each other, rather than slinging 'bigot' or 'handmaiden' at anyoe who has even a slightly differing opinion.

You're only a real woman if you confirm and perform, in other words.

Exactly. And I've been sticking two fingers up at that for years.

I suppose that's one of the reasons it baffles me so much. That all this stuff isn't new, in any way. So when people start talking about how it's such an important part of human identity and when laws start being re-written to suit this 'revolutionary' idea I can only assume that I must have missed something and as soon as someone who understands it comes along and explains it then it'll all be great.

It's why I'm so keen on definitions, because otherwise we could all be talking about absolutely anything and if I really wanted to have endless, circular conversations I'd just go and talk to my kids instead

To carry on from my last post (because I was interrupted by the door): the genderist position is that having male biology is not a sufficient condition to qualify for the label 'man'.

One reason we are having all this trouble is that there's no male equivalent of feminism. There's no movement fighting for males to be allowed to wear what they want and not be boxed in by the cultural construction of masculinity.

Our insistence that female is a sufficient condition of 'woman' is how women have fought back against the imposition of constricting stereotypes that function to keep us ever subordinate to males.

Their insistence that male is not a sufficient condition of 'man' directly contradicts the method by which we attempt to liberate ourselves.

And the way this all plays out in the real world simply replicates and reinforces the hierarchy of male dominance and female submission.

This attempt to liberate themselves from having to perform masculinity is predicated on our willingness to perform femininity. We must be shoved back into our box, so that the box continues to exist, so that they can attempt to occupy it.

It's antifeminist, pure and simple.

There's no movement fighting for males to be allowed to wear what they want and not be boxed in by the cultural construction of masculinity.

YY, those who should be saying this are too busy trying to say those males are women, in the exact same way society tries to enforce masculinity upon them.

Really thoughtful stuff Tyro, thanks for taking the time.

Also just reading that back, I see that it could some across as contadicting my earlier post, about MRAs agreeing being what initially made me think a bit more on the topic. Its not solely MRAs agreeing, but that did give me pause, and made me research and think, then I arrived where I am. I assume this is kind of whats meant when people say they 'were GC but aren't because MRAs have some GC views' or 'I was GC til I saw some feminists being transphobic' or whatever? In that case, it interests me even more how its possible to go from GC to not GC. Yes, some people being nasty could make you think deeper, but what thoughts could possibly make someone go from thinking stereotypes are nonsense and sex is important (sometimes)...to the total opposite of this..

As I said, I wish someone could explain how their opinions flip 360 in such a way, because it sure would be a hell of a lot easier if I could just go back to not realising the impact this would have on women...I really do.

The opinion change from 'trans supportive' (I dont agree with this description, as do not see most feminists as anti-trans, but..for clarity on what I mean..) to GC makes sense, given the original thought was not actually agreeing that stereotypes are important or anything, but simply 'be nice and ignore potential problems as the group is vulnerable'. For a switch back to make any sense, the starting position must be something along the lines of 'don't be nice' rather than coming at it from concern about womens rights? In short, if anyone was ever concered about womens rights, I don't really get how they can go back on this because they see some other people who believe in womens rights saying things they disagree with.

Having said that, it appears both posters disagree with selfID? But think other posters go OTT sometimes? In which case, I would not say that was switching from GC to the opposite at all, just disagreeing with how some posters express themselves. I disagree with how harsh some comes across sometimes too, surely thats normal in any movement..or even on a large forum! If a post is very harsh, I have reported in the past too, but usually would either ignore or challenge it.

Am reading the starbucks thing now.
My experience of going to Starbucks was thinking "bloody stupid putting my name on a cup" and thinking next time I want to be Regina Phalange.

I have considered doing exactly the same thing. Or putting some other random funny name on, but then I think thats basically taking the piss out of the staff, whi have been told to do the ame thing and probably hate it themselves sometimes! That said, its still a bit tempting. And have actually seen others do this sometimes!

You're right, Dick, it's nothing new. But you know what the kiddlywinks are like for thinking they've invented everything. Basic human tendency, that is. All they've really done is invent new words.

I'm keen on definitions too, but you don't get them just by asking for them. All you get by asking is what someone likes to think they mean, and that's all tied in with their sense of who they are.

To get a proper definition we have to do the fieldwork, as it were, analyse how these words are used, how they're functioning to create meaning. Definitions rest on mutual inference.

It's like all the people who say they don't know what the definition of trans is - when all the people using it are showing very well what it means. It's just a euphemistic prefix that allows well-meaning allies to avoid using the descriptors 'male' and 'female'.

@CloudyVanilla

Okay, but you've completely missed the point of my post.

My literal point is that gender identity being a feeling or based on social construct does not make it invalid. What scientific evidence would need to be demonstrated to prove a thought or feeling?

I'm not getting into a debate yet again on the validity of trans people's feelings. 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 agree that that does not make gender identity invalid. You are correct that a feeling cannot be proven one way or the other.

I accept some feel some inner sense of being a man or woman (or both) which goes against what they actually are physically. I don't have this feeling (so I guess I would be 'a-gender' if I subscribed to the gender belief system) but have no reason to doubt others when they say they do. What I do object to, is making out this 'feeling' is more important than sex. That sex segregation should not be about sex, but about this inner feeling, despite the fact that sex segregation exists being..well because of differneces between the sexes. And that males should have womens rights because of this feeling that cannot be proven or disproven..

@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.

I agree with all of this. It is of course a good thing if someone stops being transphobic, if they were. As cloudy seems to be admitting. Takes a big person to admit it, and its great that this has been addressed.

However, to think others who are GC are bigoted just because you were, is quite shitty behaviour to me. It doesn't sound like you were 'GC' at all, it sounds like you were one of the posters that have been mentione din this thread, that just dislike transpeople and think they shouldn't exist or however its put across. The reason it doesn't sound like you were GC, is that from the description that was given, it was all about being scared or/angry with transpeople. Which is not GC.

I also need to take kids out now, so will resume when I return.

I consider it as an extra definition of woman, rather than a replacement. The vast majority of women are women. Some women are trans women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women

There is only 1 definition of woman and that is biological. To say including males in this widens the definition is simply absurd. You don't identify as biology, it is what you are. There is no such thing as feeling like a woman- I mean, which woman's experience of that is going to define the feeling? Mine, yours, Margaret Thatcher's? I can't believe it is 2020 and we are arguing what is a woman when everyone knows.

To say including males in this widens the definition is simply absurd.

Well it widens the definition undoubtedly. In the same way including sharks in the definition of horses widens the definition of horses. Only now, we have no word to describe thse previously known as horses. But for sure, the definition is widened considerably.