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

To include males in the definition of women, is not only absurd, but invalidates the definition of women as a word, as a class and as a category. As I said before class / categories are exclusive, that’s what makes them useful, try running a database without them.

To use the language of the wokians, women are VALID, stop erasing their existence, not to mention culturally appropriating their womenhood and victimhood....

To use the language of the wokians, women are VALID, stop erasing their existence, not to mention culturally appropriating their womenhood and victimhood....

Exactly. And the fact that they can't recognise that they're doing this says it all, really.

The hypocrisy, the irony and the circular logic.

The vast majority of women are women. Some women are trans women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women

The vast majority of female humans are female humans. Some female humans are male humans because they identify as such, not because they are female humans.

This is gibberish, mate. Try again.

If they can’t see it Tyro, they are either obtuse or it’s a sign of extreme arrogance IMO.

I think it's just that they don't really believe in sexism, to be honest.

I mean, they've heard of it, and they pay lip-service to the idea that it's bad, but they're completely blind to it. Can't spot it happening in the real world, because if they let themselves see it... Well. We know how painful it is when those scales fall from your eyes.

I don't have time to respond to everything again but I'd just like to say I completely agree with you @Quaagars

And @Kantastic no. Absolutely not. I held no negative views of trans people at all before here. I do not need you to tell me that I had some sort of hidden prejudice and that's why I found some sort of solace in the transphobia rampant on MN. Trust me I'm as woke and leftist as you'd like in most areas of my life.

And your points I agree are as manipulative and as inaccurate AF. Your first or second point is that "we have established that there is no transphobia on MN" Have we hell. I have consistently expressed that I find many of the content posted on MN transphobic and pretty extremely so.

Maybe I should clarify since in saying I felt uncomfortable with my own views because I felt they were transphobic, it is the exact views consistently expressed on this forum that I agreed with. And yet now everyone else is pretending that they hold none of the views posted here. Makes no sense at all.

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset it's not gibberish at all. Your rehashing of what I've said perfectly explains what I feel. You may not agree but it's at least pretty easy to understand, right? I don't know literally how to say it any simpler than that.

it is the exact views consistently expressed on this forum that I agreed with

As requested, please detail exactly what these views are that you espoused, and where you have found them expressed here. You've been extremely vague about this so far.

@Winesalot yes. That is what I am saying re legal sex classification.

My point like @Quaagars said earlier though, is that valid and real concerns for women's rights are completely veiled on this board by constant like crossing into transphobia. There is a way to be defensive of women's rights without being transphobic. That balance is certainly not found here.

@Kantastic because it's everywhere. Its the very core of this board. Instead of arguments about women's rights and legal status, the focus is always on invalidating trans women entirely. There is also hurtful and hateful stuff paraded out, disparaging comments and entire threads about transgender individuals (see simulated pregnancy thread), dismissal of personal pronouns even though they are a gender and not sexed based protected characteristic and therefore have no bearing on women's rights, and the general attitude of disgust and disdain toward transwomen. I have seen on these boards over time many discussions of autogynaphilia like it is some sort of perversion and sole reason trans women identify as such, describing them as men in dresses in a disparaging way. A complete refusal to engage in good faith with any trans woman who may attempt to post here.

It frustrates me because the concerns are valid but they are lost among the pretty accurate impression that mumsnet is an infamous hotbed of transphobia. Its a shame and it's kind of shameful.

Ok Cloudy. So, you agree that there should be some exceptions to defining transwomen as women in law.

Where then do you differ from opinions expressed on this particular thread?

And do you believe that by saying transwomen are women in a non-legal situation will never have any impact on future legal uses of the word? I believe that if you allow a word to change definition now, even socially, it will certainly impact future legal use of the law. Am I wrong in this thinking in your view?

I do not need you to tell me that I had some sort of hidden prejudice and that's why I found some sort of solace in the transphobia rampant on MN

You seemed to admit this in your own posts though, that you realised you were being transphobic. Thats not the position of the majority here (or certainly doesn't seem to be, I cannot know what goes on in other posters minds I guess), and it IS a problem. I won't say its not the opinion of anyone, as obviously an example or two could be found. But from what I have read on here, the massive massive majority of people come at this from a womens rights angle, not 'anti-trans'. If someone is actually anti-trans thats a huge problem and such posts are very quickly deleted luckily.

And yet now everyone else is pretending that they hold none of the views posted here. Makes no sense at all.

Which views are people claiming not to have?

There is a way to be defensive of women's rights without being transphobic

Definitely agreed. Same as its possible to advocate for trans rights whilst not trying to remove womens. I agree that some posts verge on, or are just outright transphobic. Again, generally deleted or challenged. Some might have not been, if so thats a failure of HQ as I am positive outright transphobia would be reported, if not by the regulars here, then by the TRA monitors.

I personally think the entire trans part of this argument is quite irrelevant for many here. Why would it be really? If there was not a push to remove womens rights, women wouldn't be talking about it. Infact, if it was about creating safe spaces for transpeople, improving access to healthcare and normalizing gender nonconformity, I am quite sure a lot of feminists would support those goals. But it is unreasonable to expect feminists to give up on all they and others fought for, and lose the rights won not that long ago, to please other people.

I agree that some stuff seems not related to feminism at all. I recall thread posted a few months back with a photo of a 'GNC' male. The thread appeared to be simply to take the piss out of said person, nothing at all to do with womens rights, just being nasty. It was deleted but took a few hours, assume mods were busy or something. So yeah, occasionally posts do cross the line, would be quite daft to claim it never happens when it clearly does. One particularly dark time IMO for FWR was a thread created to ridicule Lily Madigan for their appearance. Luckily, it didn't last long, and also many regular posters stood up for Madigan in the thread before it was pulled. A few were just being outright transphobic which is clearly unacceptable. Lily should be able to wear what they want etc, the only time I have an issue with it, is when it crosses over to be bad for women. So while I think Lily should be able to live their life as they chose without prejudice, I do not think it is prejudice to talk about how Lily took a position that was meant for a woman, when Lily is a transwoman. But expressing that view is apparently hateful and me claiming that transpeople don't exist, or I don't want them to exist. I don't care that Pip Bunce dresses 'as a woman' a few days per week, totally up to them. I do have a problem when this crosses into Bunce winning awards that are meant for women. And so on.

The only thing I really care about when it comes to 'trans' stuff is that transpeople are able to be safe and happy in themselves and I find it awful when people will just take the pee for no reason at all just because someone does not conform to stereotypes associated with their sex. But besides that, my concerns come from purely a womens rights angle.

Also, transactivists constantly going on about what a hotbed of transphobia MN is, has the potential to attract actual transphobes, and I think this has happened a few times. Which is problematic really, as transphobia and concerns for womens rights are not the same thing at all.

because it's everywhere. Its the very core of this board. Instead of arguments about women's rights and legal status, the focus is always on invalidating trans women entirely

Exactly, and it's not just trans women, it's trans men too (as in female to male) as the Starbucks thread is showing up all too completely.
It's "pandering" to them for wanting their name validated.
Apparently.
That kind of thing said.
You have to see it for yourself, not demand someone "shows " you.
It's pervading, it's underneath the "what about the safety concerns" -

Its the very core of this board

Good way of putting it -people say "show me" wanting I presume specific examples.
It's not that simple, it's the core as you say.

A complete refusal to engage in good faith with any trans woman who may attempt to post here.

We have had a fair few trans posters, along with the fact that a lot of women who post here actually fit the description of trans themselves. I generally do see replies in good faith, unless the poster is starting a thread simply to scold women for not being nice. Or acts all naive and pretends to not understand issues, only for posters to put many long detailed replies, to then be confronted with 'you are all big meanies, bye!'.

Okay, at least you are being specific in some of your comments.
This, I'm afraid, is both false and informative:

Instead of arguments about women's rights and legal status, the focus is always on invalidating trans women entirely.

The focus here is on women's rights. Only narcissists and angry toddlers believe that everyone who says "no" to them is personally out to get them.

As for the rest, I'm going to translate some of what you've said to opinions that are expressed on here that I actually recognise.

Would it be correct to say that these are the opinions that you've found on here, that you used to agree with and no longer agree with, and that you define as right wing:

1. that there are free speech issues around compelled pronoun use and no one should be forced to use chosen "pronouns."
2. that autogynephilia exists.

2a. that most transwomen are autogynephiles

1. that simulating a stillbirth and forcing a Facebook group full of mothers who have actually experienced stillbirth to be your audience for this pretence is unbelievably disgusting and abusive behaviour, worthy of widespread condemnation.
2. that trans women are men (we're not allowed to say this on here, but there's no doubt that many of us believe this.)

Would you agree that this is a list of things you used to believe because of what you've read on here, that you no longer believe, and that you think are right wing opinions? (I'm not sure whether 2 or 2a is the proposition you have a problem with.)

I generally do see replies in good faith, unless the poster is starting a thread simply to scold women for not being nice

Really?
The responses I've seen given to people saying they're a trans woman have always been fucking disgusting.
Although not if it's a trans woman who has the same view, they sometimes get a free pass.
Threads started by trans women usually descend into shit slinging pretty quickly.

If you can't simplify it so that it doesn't come across as gibberish, then it remains gibberish.

I'll have another go at making sense of it:

The vast majority of women are women.

Bollocks. All women are women. For this bit to make sense, you need to include additional data. Do you mean:

The vast majority of female people identify as women

OR

The vast majority of woman-identifying people are female?

Some women are trans women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women

We all know perfectly well that what you mean by this is:

Some people I consider 'women' are male women because 'woman' is an identity open to males.

But the way you phrased it... gibberish.

Trans women are 'women' with male biology, who are considered 'women' because they identify as such would be a far simpler way of phrasing it, which has the added benefit of actually making sense.

What you've actually said here is a nonsensical mishmash. Some women are trans women? Yes, I agree. Some females are females who identify as trans. Every single one of them has female biology, which is why they are women.

By using "trans women" to denote male people who identify as women, rather than female people who identify as some flavour of trans, you have rendered your own sentence nonsensical.

Some women are trans women

Either this means some females identify as trans, or this means some woman-identifying people are male.

You know how you could have phrased it, if clarity was something you had the faintest passing interest in?

Trans women are women because they identify as such, not because they are biologically women.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Again the focus on 'validation' with no real explanation of what it means.

By all means express yourself as you wish. But don't expect othe people to see you the way you see yourself. I have a transman niece. She'll always be a woman, howeverI use her male name. I shall never see her as a man because she's biologically female. I accept her as x my niece and love her dearly.

If a person's entire self-esteem is based on compelling the world to collude in a lie that's not going to work.

I think people on these boards would be happy to engage in actual discussions in good faith if only people would answer questions. But when a question is posed it is so often met with being ignored, sidestepped or the poster asking the question being accused of being transphobic and a bully for even asking it. Or the sneering 'I'm not explaining it to you' response.

invalidating trans women entirely.

The points you have raised can actively be discussed to be points that are harmful to women.

-see simulated pregnancy thread - situations like this one is very extreme and it has actually caused great harm to women. Vulnerable women who are suffering from a) being banned from a support group for complaining about a person simulating a situation which actually is incredibly distressful and b) this simulation does tend to make light of these events. If you don't believe it is harming women, could you please explain why you disagree please.

-dismissal of personal pronouns even though they are a gender and not sexed based protected characteristic and therefore have no bearing on women's rights. Who decided they were gender based? How does the erosion of language used to describe a woman, including pronouns, not have bearing on women's rights? What about women's rights to be able to be able to use biologically based pronouns to describe their attacker in court without the threat of being prosecuted for saying 'he' when describing a rapist with a penis?

- discussions of autogynaphilia like it is some sort of perversion and sole reason trans women identify. I cannot comment on this, otherwise my post would be deleted.

You then say there is a general attitude of disgust and disdain toward transwomen. I see there are times when frustration directed towards individuals who are causing harm to women. Yes, disgust and disdain does happen. Usually those posts are deleted. Lots of disgust and disdain at organisations that seen to be pushing harmful agendas, certainly. I rarely see disgust and disdain expressed towards the community as a group. That would be worthy of deletion and is not a sentiment shared by the regular posters.

I feel this is another blanket statement and it is wrong.

A complete refusal to engage in good faith with any trans woman who may attempt to post here. There are a number of transwomen who post here. I have seen some come and have very positive discussions here and they contribute to our understanding. Transmen as well. You may not have been active here though to see those posters that are here to bait and shame. There are plenty of those and some of those are transwomen.

We’ve probably wandered far from the point of the OP here, but I’m still curious about how it is that my beliefs about sex and gender make me right wing.

One of my woker friends was adamant that I’d got this way because of my husband, who he believes is right wing, and who has wickedly brainwashed me into turning right wing. I thought that was truly progressive, so I told him I only vote how my husband tells me to, too

Actually my husband, though he has voted Tory in the dim and distant, is a card carrying member of both Labour and the Lib Dems these days, and I’ve never voted anything further to the right than Lib Dem. Woke friend won’t have it, though. Because, apparently, people who earn what we do can’t possibly be anything but Tory. It’s hilariously simplistic.

I can see that feminism could look like transphobia to someone who centres transgenderism. But transgenderism isn’t the most important thing in most people’s lives.

Feminists defend single-sex spaces because women need them, not because we want to make non-female people unhappy.

We have some single-sex spaces, we don't want them removed, and no one has yet given us a good reason why we should relinquish something that matters to us.

Look... I don't have the time, its really obvious, the place is full of it, just look at the answers here. And other threads too!

It's simple. People are what they say thay are. Being something people don't want you to be is transphobic, unless you are trans in which case, solidarity babes, I validate you!

Don't even begin to talk about womes rights, cos that means you are stealing trans rights. Don't mention biology, that's invalidating.
And no, I can't give you specific examples because it is in the very air, the electrons of the board. Each pixel is infested with it!

Got it??!! Good....

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

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.

I am not sure that all things associated with gender are stereotypes. Something like "women cray at films" is an example of something that is, though it might be true that women are more likely to cry at films.

But something like - dresses are culturally assigned as being associated with women - I don't know that this is best described as a stereotype. It's also true to some extent, and clearly not intrinsic, and obviously not every woman likes to wear a dress and a few men do. It's not anything that there is a fundamental need for women to do or men to avoid though there may be culturally mediated expectations that can in some cases be very strong and even prescriptive.

But I feel like stereotype is really the wrong word for this - it's almost more like language to me, an recognition and expression and symbol of the reality of sex on a material level.

Some of the people who say they feel their gender is different almost seem to be hankering after the cultural expression - the question is why I guess, but it seems to me there may be all kinds of reasons including just thinking it's attractive or comfortable etc. Which is fine as far as it goes, but I am not sure that being a sexually dimorphic species, and a species that develops culture, we can ever really prevent culture expressing our sexual dimorphism in some ways. Just like it would be difficult to imagine a language that did not include expression of that reality which is so basic to the experience of most human beings.