Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Gender Critical = fundamentally right wing (according to Vox)

574 replies

TheRealMcKenna · 29/09/2020 17:34

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

OP posts:
turnitonagain · 30/09/2020 00:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ for repeating deleted post. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

wellbehavedwomen · 30/09/2020 01:00

Cloudy, that opinion piece has been debunked really thoroughly, not least by this intersex woman.

Using intersex people to make that argument is horribly ableist, quite honestly. Many have asked repeatedly not to have their medical conditions co-opted like that. Apart from anything else, it doesn't prove the point that trans individual seeks to make, because intersex people remain male or female - it's just that human development is fiendishly complex, and at times something does go awry. That doesn't make it a spectrum. It just means human reproduction is bimodal, and complex.

HecatesHat · 30/09/2020 01:04

@turnitonagain

Two posters?

How many would it need to be? Should I run a poll?

Two posters on a national forum apparently said they'd back Trump so that's proof that GC feminism is inherently right wing?
wellbehavedwomen · 30/09/2020 01:05

@caughtalightsneeze

As with Soh, I only start to take issue when that impacts other people's rights, too.

It impacts other people's rights the minute someone demands that others bend reality to suit them.

Sure, but I look on it as I do a religion. I have a friend who is a devout Muslim. Another is a rabbi. I respect those beliefs are central to who they are. I just don't share them.

That's what I mean about impacting other people's rights. I'm happy to attend events that matter to them, and go along with their religious observations. I'd never serve them pork! I would avoid making any references or jokes which might upset them. But I would draw the line at being expected to profess the faiths myself, or wear a headscarf.

The problem with the gender identity as mandated belief system starts when I'm expected to offer my pronouns, pretend I believe in something I regard as clearly untrue (as opposed to offer courtesy) pretend it's not horribly unjust in sports for male people to compete against female... and support male people being permitted in spaces set aside for females, when the risk to those females is clearly evidenced.

That's what I mean about impacting on rights. Someone else's dearest beliefs don't harm or impact me, usually. These do.

CloudyVanilla · 30/09/2020 01:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

S00LA · 30/09/2020 01:12

I might have missed it in the thread but did anyone manage to extract an explanation of why, just because something's a social construct , that implies identifying as it is "valid"? "Brain surgeon" is a social construct

That’s a good point. Apparently I’m not allowed to identity as a brain surgeon Because I have no medical training . I don’t know why others think it’s accurate or fair to discount me as fundamentally identifying as what I personally understand to be a brain surgeon.

Surely people should trust me when I say I have a strong identity of myself ? After all, being a brain surgeon isn’t is any more dismissable than sexual orientation.

It is absolutely wrong to me to tell someone that when they say they identify as a brain surgeon, that that identity is not valid. Either because somebody else either thinks they can't truly feel like that, or that it doesn't matter what they feel because legally they are not the occupation they feel they are or wish to be.

I Also feel that I have a right to be to be accepted as a Medical practitioner and a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons. Anyone who disagrees with me and suggests it will risk patients safety is hyperbolic.

There are 25,000 members of the Royal College of Surgeons - how will it harm anyone if they let just a few people like me in? There are 290,000 doctors in the Uk - why are they so hateful and exclusionary of people like me with no medical training ? I’m one of the most marginalised and misunderstood people in society - I deserve to get what I want.

I do agree that laws need to tread carefully and be able to consider people like me on a case by case basis. But the lack of proportionality around these issues is nothing short of hateful and phobic.

I believe the vast majority of people who believe they are brain surgeons just want to be respected for who they are and live with dignity.

I do not believe there is evidence enough to support the active exclusion of people who believe they are brain surgeons from most Operating theatres and hospital clinics.

Some people claim that there’s a risk to patient safely for me to perform neurosurgery, but I’ve never seen any statistics to show how many people are harmed by fake Neurosurgeons each year. And even if they had them, I’d just argue that’s a price that needs to be paid.

That’s why I think that fake surgeons and real surgeons should practise peacefully along side eachother without issue and without the need to put fake surgeons in their place and remind them they are not qualified.

turnitonagain · 30/09/2020 01:15

The problem on MN is that there is blatant transphobia and it is constant. It's literally the entire focus of the feminism board. There are situations in which as you said it will not be appropriate to rule in favour of transgender people

I actually think this is not just an MN problem but a problem with the entire debate.

One side argues that if TWAW/TMAM then they should have full access to everything based on their gender identity, which causes problems in some sex-segregated spheres like sports, prisons, etc. If you acknowledge those problems then you are a bigot.

The other side (represented here) is that any recognition of someone's gender identity if it doesn't match their biological sex is illogical and will lead to an erosion of women's rights and threats to women's safety and wellbeing.

I think a lot of people are in between these two positions - I certainly am - but these two shouty sides try to make it impossible for us to sit on the fence.

Personally having spent time in the US and with relatives living there, I would never in a MILLION years trust the Republic party or the Christian right in America, their agenda is toxic and dangerous to most women, most people of color, and most non-Christians. So to the point of this actual thread, yes I find it strange and worrying that any GC feminist would claim support for a Republican politican (e.g. Trump, the sponsors of that "women in sports" bill) as I have seen on Mumsnet more than once.

caughtalightsneeze · 30/09/2020 01:16

wellbehavedwomen yes, I agree with you. I was a bit blunt with my one sentence response! I suppose what I mean is that the 'religion' of gender identity impacts on other people's rights at a very early stage compared with conventional religion for example. In the sense that being polite to a religious person just means accepting that that's what they believe and leaving them to get on with it. But with gender identity, that's not enough, being 'kind' has to include accepting that belief as your own and accepting any associated behaviour that goes with it, even if it's detrimental to your own wellbeing.

CloudyVanilla · 30/09/2020 01:22

What a stupid and offensive comparison.

I think that's really summed the heart of the issue though. You as "GC" feminists (as well as plenty of other lovely groups mainly in the far right) believe that the very existence of trans people is up for debate. It is not debatable. how their existence may impact women is debatable, but no wonder MN is so widely seen as transphobic when you actively deny that trans people even have the right or ability to identify as such.

It must be hurtful to be told your existence is offensive or doesn't matter or is harmful to others. I know I will get a hundred replies saying you don't care about their feelings or how they can do what they want as long as it doesnt effect me and all the rest of of transphobia 101 lines. I honestly have no idea why I stayed on this thread so long.

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:22

[quote CloudyVanilla]@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings you don't own feminism, you don't get to decide that feminists who don't exclude trans women are not feminists.[/quote]
It's not feminist to place the needs of males with a self declared 'woman' identity over females.

Feminism centres females. It's a movement for female liberation - largely FROM gender.

I think you need a new name for your thing, which is about meeting the needs of male people.

caughtalightsneeze · 30/09/2020 01:26

The fundamental position on here that is not understood is that trans people have a right to recognised as the gender they choose, not based on biology but on the pure fact that they are transgender.

Why do you believe they have that right though? Why does it only apply to transgenderism? We don't apply that same logic to other situations. We don't accept that anorexics should be accepted as being fat because that's how they see themselves. We don't accept that someone who has continually educated themselves informally, no matter how well, should be accepted as an academic in their area of interest. And we definitely don't accept people as belonging to a race that they don't belong to. Why is gender different?

caughtalightsneeze · 30/09/2020 01:28

What a stupid and offensive comparison.

What comparison were you referring to?

CloudyVanilla · 30/09/2020 01:30

Agree @turnitonagain it's a shame because a small number of ignorant TRA posts, if not outright trolls, have made women think that the whole objective of being trans is to be treated like a literal biological woman, and not as a woman in the context of society. This has led to the equally ignorant backlash of the constant bleating of "they want us to believe that they are women" in completely the wrong context. I see so much on here about validation, autogynaphilia, basically the worst representation of what a trans person could be. And the incorrect like of thinking that to be accepting of trans people, you have to pretend they all have vaginas and we have to book them pretend gynaecologist appointments and give them pretend tampons for their pretend periods.

Fringe ideas will always exist, but I think you always have to step back and take a look at yourself when you are using the very worst example of a group of people to determine your opinion of the entire group. That is usually know as bigotry.

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:31

Nobody is stopping males from believing themselves to be females. People have a right to their beliefs.

Not all beliefs, particularly when they fly in the face of all observable evidence, should form the basis for laws affecting other people.

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:33

@CloudyVanilla

Agree *@turnitonagain* it's a shame because a small number of ignorant TRA posts, if not outright trolls, have made women think that the whole objective of being trans is to be treated like a literal biological woman, and not as a woman in the context of society. This has led to the equally ignorant backlash of the constant bleating of "they want us to believe that they are women" in completely the wrong context. I see so much on here about validation, autogynaphilia, basically the worst representation of what a trans person could be. And the incorrect like of thinking that to be accepting of trans people, you have to pretend they all have vaginas and we have to book them pretend gynaecologist appointments and give them pretend tampons for their pretend periods.

Fringe ideas will always exist, but I think you always have to step back and take a look at yourself when you are using the very worst example of a group of people to determine your opinion of the entire group. That is usually know as bigotry.

What does it mean to be treated like a woman in the context of society?

And can you see how this runs counter to the feminism, in which women challenge what it is to be 'treated as a woman'?

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:33

Typing on bus, excuse typos

CloudyVanilla · 30/09/2020 01:34

Because transgenderism is not a mental illness. And if I really need to explain why pretending to be educated or skilled at something is not the same as gender identity then I have no hope any more.

HecatesHat · 30/09/2020 01:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

wellbehavedwomen · 30/09/2020 01:36

[quote CloudyVanilla]@wellbehavedwomen I agree with you. The problem on MN is that there is blatant transphobia and it is constant. It's literally the entire focus of the feminism board. There are situations in which as you said it will not be appropriate to rule in favour of transgender people but the stance on MN is that they are essentially all just misogynist men in dresses who get off on pushing women's boundaries. Look at the poster right under tours and their "bend reality" comment. The fundamental position on here that is not understood is that trans people have a right to recognised as the gender they choose, not based on biology but on the pure fact that they are transgender.[/quote]
Honestly? Women are being threatened with rape and murder, losing their jobs, and because of that, many are terrorised into remaining silent. Look at what happened to JK Rowling, who has said nothing transphobic - and a woman who spoke out against that avalanche of violent misogyny has just been dropped as a judge from a women's book prize. And have you seen some of the things regularly said to gender critical women, more generally? It's strange to me, that people can be so enraged by Mumsnet postings, while apparently just shrugging at the extremely explicit fantasies of rape and murder directed at women who dare to assert that biology is real, and matters. I've seen absolutely nothing similar from any gender critical woman, ever - thank God. I'd be appalled if I had.

Have I seen transphobia on Mumsnet? Yes, sometimes. I've challenged things I strongly disagree with, and I've not been alone in doing so. This is a hugely busy site, with all manner of views. But I also think that one of the reasons people think it's so terribly transphobic is that they are not used to seeing this discussion happen at all. They are not used to seeing women push back in any real way, because it's the only mainstream site that allows this to happen at all. Sadly, feminism itself - real feminism, that centres women - is now seen as transphobic if it dares point out that the best interests of women, and the best interests of transwomen, cannot align on some issues, because they diametrically oppose. That's not transphobia - it's actually horribly misogynist, that people characterise feminists not supporting male interests instead of their own as bigotry. But when you never hear the other side, the Overton window narrows, and frank expression of the opposite shocks. Personally, I think it's pretty shocking that major corporations have opened up communal single sex changing rooms to anyone who wants to self ID in, without warning the women using them - but women objecting to this meet with abuse, and I'm afraid I doubt you would notice. Abuse of female women is the norm, after all.

And you say it's a fundamental right for someone to be recognised as their gender. Do you accept that it's not a fundamental right to be recognised as a member of the opposite sex, though? Because that, right there, is the crux. Stonewall campaigned to remove the exceptions for sex. There are moves afoot to replace sex with gender. That would erase women, as a biological sex class - and with it, our capacity to defend our own rights. Given oppression for women, across thousands of years and all over the world, is sex based, that is a massive problem. Women and girls are already being told that connecting their biology with their sex is transphobic - and it's not happening to men. There are no campaigns to make prostate cancer PSAs 'inclusive' by rendering the words men, male, or boy problematic. This is all aimed at women, and all aimed at removing our rights to retain single sex spaces, and to collectively identify as a group, based on shared biology. Which we very much need.

You can't defend what you can't define.

The problem is that the focus is on a group of very distressed male people, and what needs to happen to alleviate that distress. And few seem interested in what the wider impacts on all women will be, if our definition, rights, and ability to name central facts are erased and reshaped to suit a small group of males.

I'd also point out that it's telling, really. The above paragraph. We live in a profoundly, pervasively, and almost invisibly sexist world. Like fish in water, it's quite hard to notice.

CloudyVanilla · 30/09/2020 01:38

@BlackWaveComing I hear that a lot on mumsnet. I don't understand the disingenuous view point that people exist in a vacuum and that there are no social construct that apply to gender. As if we don't know that both overt and nuanced gender stereotypes do exist and that we don't immediately process gender as innate social information. Are you telling me you don't see gender?

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:38

@CloudyVanilla

Because transgenderism is not a mental illness. And if I really need to explain why pretending to be educated or skilled at something is not the same as gender identity then I have no hope any more.
It's a disorder of perception, if nothing else, requiring extensive medical treatment.

However, we shouldn't stigmatise mental illness by being horrified at the comparison. That's really very ableist.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 30/09/2020 01:40

turnitonagain
You're not quite accurate with this summary:
The other side (represented here) is that any recognition of someone's gender identity if it doesn't match their biological sex is illogical and will lead to an erosion of women's rights and threats to women's safety and wellbeing.

The problem is not 'any recognition of someone's gender identity' - the problem is the usurpation of sex by gender identity, when the provisions are for circumstances where sex is the relevant characteristic. The problem is being told that sex is a racist colonialist construct, while gender identity is THE most important, real, valid essence of a person. So important and valid and yet, no, we can't define it for legislative purposes. If you can define it, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Please, trans inclusive feminists, explain to us how replacing the clearly defined legal definition of woman (adult human female, female of the sex class that produces large motile gametes) with the nebulous, esoteric non-definition of gender identity, benefits, supports and protects the sex based needs of female women.

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:42

[quote CloudyVanilla]@BlackWaveComing I hear that a lot on mumsnet. I don't understand the disingenuous view point that people exist in a vacuum and that there are no social construct that apply to gender. As if we don't know that both overt and nuanced gender stereotypes do exist and that we don't immediately process gender as innate social information. Are you telling me you don't see gender?[/quote]
Of course I see it! That's why I'm a feminist - to push back against the gender imposed on women and girls.

That's why I raised my children with an acceptance and celebration of gender non-conformity.

But do I see gender as an innate part of people's selfhood, unshaped by the environment - of course not!

This is getting quite frustrating. My pov is basic feminism. Anyone arguing about feminism in good faith would know this.

caughtalightsneeze · 30/09/2020 01:42

@CloudyVanilla

Because transgenderism is not a mental illness. And if I really need to explain why pretending to be educated or skilled at something is not the same as gender identity then I have no hope any more.
Which leads to the question, why is it not a mental illness? Believing yourself to be something you are demonstrably not is usually the very definition of a mental illness. And we are constantly berated and told that transgender people are often suicidal. Which again is generally accepted as a sign of poor mental health.

If someone were suicidal and believing something that is fundamentally untrue in any respect other than gender identity, no one would hesitate to say that person was unwell.

BlackWaveComing · 30/09/2020 01:44

@ALittleBitofVitriol

turnitonagain You're not quite accurate with this summary: The other side (represented here) is that any recognition of someone's gender identity if it doesn't match their biological sex is illogical and will lead to an erosion of women's rights and threats to women's safety and wellbeing.

The problem is not 'any recognition of someone's gender identity' - the problem is the usurpation of sex by gender identity, when the provisions are for circumstances where sex is the relevant characteristic. The problem is being told that sex is a racist colonialist construct, while gender identity is THE most important, real, valid essence of a person. So important and valid and yet, no, we can't define it for legislative purposes. If you can define it, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Please, trans inclusive feminists, explain to us how replacing the clearly defined legal definition of woman (adult human female, female of the sex class that produces large motile gametes) with the nebulous, esoteric non-definition of gender identity, benefits, supports and protects the sex based needs of female women.

I'd also like to know how this benefits women and girls. In what way does reifying gender advance feminism? Because, surprising though it may be, we are actually allowed to put our own needs first.
Swipe left for the next trending thread