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

'You surround yourself with positive feminism'

@MichelleofzeResistance

I see.

1. Women have to provide to you evidence, that you approve of, in sufficient amounts, explaining the issues for female people, before you're prepared to extend any kind of listening to or acceptance that some of them may have an issue with this. Until this happens (and you will decide if the evidence suits your criteria) there is no problem. However you're very clear on the huge problems for male people and expecting others to take those seriously, without providing such evidence yourself.

2. Even if that evidence is produced - and you clearly know what it is, since you've mentioned one of the big issues for female people and intersectionality, you've already invalidated this as something they need to get over or accept losing services as a penalty because you don't agree with or accept their personal views/needs/culture/beliefs. (But you do unconditionally extend this respect for the male people we're talking about.)

3. The only thing that would justify female people having needs/feelings about this in your view would be if there was absolutely incontrovertible proof of those female people being in actual, physical danger, but you've added provisos of how unwilling you are to consider that evidence anyway.

Thanks, that's a very helpful lay out of your beliefs, and the massive double standards involved.

That just about nails it

Away from the subject of TWAW, there is also the very real concern that many of us on here have about the medical transitioning of children.

I have a sibling who genuinely believes that puberty blockers are reversible - stop taking them and you go through a normal puberty. They believe that children who identify as trans at a very young age (5 was the age quoted to me) genuinely believe they belong in a body of the opposite sex and that they should transition as soon as possible to avoid natal puberty. That is what the ‘support’ organisation whose ‘support’ meetings they have been attending have told them.

Voice one word of concern and you are a transphobic bigot and responsible for the high suicide rate in trans teens.

@MichelleofzeResistance the irony is that everything you just said could said by a trans woman to a feminist. It is somehow on them convince you that their right to just be and be recognised in society the way they feel is valid and acceptable. It's up to them to prove somehow empirically that they are "safe" even though there is no quality evidence to the contrary. And even though that is fact you still choose to ignore that and focus on anecdote or theory.

[quote CloudyVanilla]@MichelleofzeResistance the irony is that everything you just said could said by a trans woman to a feminist. It is somehow on them convince you that their right to just be and be recognised in society the way they feel is valid and acceptable. It's up to them to prove somehow empirically that they are "safe" even though there is no quality evidence to the contrary. And even though that is fact you still choose to ignore that and focus on anecdote or theory.[/quote]
Since you've identified competing rights there what's your solution?

TW are biologically Male - as such they are no more dangerous than the average man but neither are they less dangerous

Men commit 98% of sexual assaults which is one of the reasons we have sex based spaces for women

But you know all this, you just don’t think it matters

Except that the situations are not symmetrical, because it is simply an incontrovertible matter of empirical fact that people with penises are male - they are in fact, men.

I get that some of them are deeply upset about the fact that they are men, and wish people wouldn't remind them of that fact. And in the general course of things, being a nice, well-socialised, peaceable sort of person, I wouldn't dream of reminding them.

I do, however, draw the line at the presence of the aforementioned male penis in, for example, a women's open-plan changing area, or a women's prison.

Why do they think it's only feminists who are GC and not, in fact, the majority of the population. From all ages, races, and irrespective of their politics.

The thing is, I believe the first job of female spaces is to meet the needs of all females. If it has to exclude some in it's attempt to prove to male people that they are trusted as safe and able to express their self identity, then it's stopped working.

It has nothing to do with who is safe, or anything else other than some female people need female only spaces and provisions, and they matter just as much as TW do. Solutions have to work for everyone.

You've also massively extrapolated a lot of that and downright misrepresented a lot of what I said. I never said I valued male feelings more than female feelings. When asking for data or evidence that the social acceptance of trans women would be detrimental to women, I was given an anecdotal example of gender neutral toilets and a Muslim woman. My point was if both being transgender and religion are abstract and debatable ideas, then why is it automatically the right of the religious person to take precedent?

Again, you've said I've dismissed "evidence" but no one has given me ANY evidence. Quite the contrary. I have mentioned that the vast majority of male violence to women is perpetrated by males known to or close to the victim. Trans women are at an even higher risk of this violence. But proportionately it's still a much more pressing issue to you to focus on excluding trans women from environments, many of which they already have a legal right to be in and there is no resulting wealth of evidence that trans women are doing significant harm to women.

@CloudyVanilla

You've also massively extrapolated a lot of that and downright misrepresented a lot of what I said. I never said I valued male feelings more than female feelings. When asking for data or evidence that the social acceptance of trans women would be detrimental to women, I was given an anecdotal example of gender neutral toilets and a Muslim woman. My point was if both being transgender and religion are abstract and debatable ideas, then why is it automatically the right of the religious person to take precedent?

Again, you've said I've dismissed "evidence" but no one has given me ANY evidence. Quite the contrary. I have mentioned that the vast majority of male violence to women is perpetrated by males known to or close to the victim. Trans women are at an even higher risk of this violence. But proportionately it's still a much more pressing issue to you to focus on excluding trans women from environments, many of which they already have a legal right to be in and there is no resulting wealth of evidence that trans women are doing significant harm to women.

I shared a thread with you Cloudy, have you read any of it?

@HecatesHat my solution is to do what most societies already do. Have transgender rights and when a direct conflict of interest occurs then deal with that on a case by case basis? You all act like there isn't already loads of legislation over both women's rights and transgender rights.

Oh lol Burns again.

Them of "let me slip into computer games character to be the real me" etc

The farmers have some funny stories about that character too.

My point was if both being transgender and religion are abstract and debatable ideas, then why is it automatically the right of the religious person to take precedent?

Because the religious person in this instance is an adult human female, i.e. a woman. Why on earth would she not get priority in a woman-only space?

Why should 'gender identity', whatever that is, take priority? (And yes, definitions are important to me. We have to be able to define words like 'gender identity' and 'woman', otherwise it all becomes meaningless and every space becomes open to everyone.)

Thank you for engaging with the discussion though. I do appreciate it.

I'd add the issue comes with open, unconditional entry to female only spaces being seen as the ultimate gesture of validation and acceptance by TW.

They therefore see female people having their own needs, issues, requirements for female only spaces as wilful refusal of that validation and acceptance - as opposed to those female people just saying, "this does not work for me, because I have needs that can only be met in female only spaces. I cannot meet your need and still have my own needs met."

Anyway, returning briefly to the opening post.

What I want to know is when my huge cheque from the religious right is going to arrive. There's been rumours that it's in the post since, like, forever.

Also still waiting for my lesbian mail-order bride - I believe Julie Bindel was in charge of that one, but I could be mis-remembering. Dunno what I'll do with her when she arrives, mind, what with me being straight and all that - maybe she could stand in a corner and I could use her as a hat stand or something.

Also not sure whether the whole gay marriage thing will invalidate the cheque from American right-wingers thing, not to mention the fact that if I'm a woman, married to a woman, I'm not sure how we'll do the surrendered wife thing - do we both dig trenches at opposite sides of the garden, wave white flags on sticks, and surrender to each other?

All a bit confusing, really.

Well yes I imagine that if somebody identifies as female they would see access to female spaces as a positive.

I don't see why gender neutral toilets are even necessary as trans gender people are allowed to use public toilets aligned with the gender they choose. If a Muslim lady cannot use a gender neutral toilet for fear of encountering a trans woman then she cannot use a women's only toilet either because a trans woman still has an equal right to be there.

Again also, I do feel all sense of proportionality is lost in this war on trans women that "GC" feminists have waged. It's awful that some women have come to harm through manipulation of existing legislation or practices, but in reality it is estimated that trans people make up what, less than 1% of the population?

I cannot say with any truth in my heart that I am willing to victimize a tiny and already marginalised portion of the population, with no evidence to support doing so. I honestly can't believe how far this has all gone.

What I want to know is when my huge cheque from the religious right is going to arrive. There's been rumours that it's in the post since, like, forever.

That is, indeed, a very important question.

I am GC and not a feminist. I have been called TERF, transphobe and worse, but unlike women I've never had rape threats. Weird that...

why is it automatically the right of the religious person to take precedent?

They are both religious/metaphysical claims. Single sex provision is predicated on the needs of the sexed individual.

As hypothetical muslim woman will be the correct sex for a female single sex space, her rights will take precedence over the desires of the hypothetical male person with the metaphysical belief that he is in fact a woman.

This isn't complicated. I do thank you for your candor in laying out your perspective here, Cloudy, I'm always keen to read the thought process of those who have apparently moved away from thinking women need their own provision to giving male desires a place in feminism.

Did you name change when you changed your views? I can't recall you ever posting other views than the ones you are expressing now.

So many words, so much non sense. Like much of PoMo academia.

@CloudyVanilla

Well yes I imagine that if somebody identifies as female they would see access to female spaces as a positive.

I don't see why gender neutral toilets are even necessary as trans gender people are allowed to use public toilets aligned with the gender they choose. If a Muslim lady cannot use a gender neutral toilet for fear of encountering a trans woman then she cannot use a women's only toilet either because a trans woman still has an equal right to be there.

Again also, I do feel all sense of proportionality is lost in this war on trans women that "GC" feminists have waged. It's awful that some women have come to harm through manipulation of existing legislation or practices, but in reality it is estimated that trans people make up what, less than 1% of the population?

I cannot say with any truth in my heart that I am willing to victimize a tiny and already marginalised portion of the population, with no evidence to support doing so. I honestly can't believe how far this has all gone.

They're not a tiny marginalised group though. They have far more influence than plain old females who account for 51% of the population. The marginalised group in this scenario is not the one that is small in numbers.

@CloudyVanilla

Well yes I imagine that if somebody identifies as female they would see access to female spaces as a positive.

I don't see why gender neutral toilets are even necessary as trans gender people are allowed to use public toilets aligned with the gender they choose. If a Muslim lady cannot use a gender neutral toilet for fear of encountering a trans woman then she cannot use a women's only toilet either because a trans woman still has an equal right to be there.

Again also, I do feel all sense of proportionality is lost in this war on trans women that "GC" feminists have waged. It's awful that some women have come to harm through manipulation of existing legislation or practices, but in reality it is estimated that trans people make up what, less than 1% of the population?

I cannot say with any truth in my heart that I am willing to victimize a tiny and already marginalised portion of the population, with no evidence to support doing so. I honestly can't believe how far this has all gone.

So there's this:

It's awful that some women have come to harm through manipulation of existing legislation or practices

And then there's the 'victimisation' of trans women, with what? Words? The truth? I'm confused why the latter is worse than the former Cloudy?

Honestly I'll try to be a nice positive feminist if you can explain why I shouldn't worry about the women who have been hurt and will be hurt by the erosion of their rights?

@DoctorTwo I'm confused about your point? Are you saying you're right and I'm wrong because there are nasty people on the internet? I've had rape threats like any women, I can get you the majority of them come from hetero cis men and not some TRA trolls