I'm a young feminist; I cannot understand your Gender Critical positions

[borandukht]

Hello all, I'm writing this because I'm at the end of my tether with my mother, who has become engulfed in the gender critical discourse mainly thanks to this website (cheer or weep for that depending on your view). She had originally been very comfortable with transgender rights, and given we have a closeish relative who is transgender too, I've never felt put out or uncomforted by what the trans-rights movement was all about.

After absorbing what you lot have to say about the matter (in general, I know there are some pro-trans feminists on here) she's completely changed her tune and frankly it's becoming exhausting and absurd. I had never really listened to the arguments of GC feminists before the last year or so, and frankly after listening to them I have become ever more convinced that you are unfortunately gravely misinformed on a variety of topics regarding transgender individuals, the goals of the rights movement, and the resultant society that values trans-lives. Some of the repugnant transphobia I've seen online further makes it hard for me to value this movement's "genuine concerns" as truly genuine. What made me snap was yesterday seeing a comment on here stating that the Daily Mail was more feminist than the Guardian. I read neither, because they're both toilet paper, but anyone who says anything so blatantly obtuse to reality clearly has a very specific, narrow view of feminism predicated entirely on not liking GNC people - I don't see how anyone who's read any Daily Mail article ever could say that without laughing.

So, I'm here to listen. GC people always say they just want an open discussion, and I am happy to oblige. There will be no hate, nothing like that. I will try and engage you directly, and respond to why you have these positions as fairly and equitably as I can. Hitherto the arguments I have read/heard from GC's online and in print have been unconvincing, but here at least I can respond directly and try and start this discussion that is so desirable.

If you want specific starter questions (god I sound like my lecturers), think about stuff like:

1. Why do transwomen represent such a threat to you in women's spaces, in your mind?
2. Where do intersex women fit into your feminism?
3. What makes a woman? If it is genitals, does a transwoman with bottom surgery count in your mind? If it's chromosomes is Caster Semenya a man?

I hope to read your answers soon. In the meantime, merry post-Christmas!

I'll address all sports related queries here - I generally think that transpeople should be able to compete as cispeople but with certain safeguards to ensure they have medically as well as socially transitioned, more to ensure fairness than anything. It is fair to say that a non-medically transitioned trans-woman would outcompete the average cisgender woman in a lot of sports, but equally it is scientifically illiterate to say that hormone therapy doesn't massively affect someone's athletic ability. It should be case by case. Incidentally on the injury point - as a big rugby fan I often make the point that Faf de Klerk, a 5'7" fly half who weighs barely anything, is allowed to play against 6'6" second rows who weigh the same as a bus. Particularly with physical sports, there is an element of mismatched size and injury risk in it anyway. Boxing and MMA make more sense to be more heavily policed in that regard.

As you are in America, and you've just posted this I guess you'll agree that Andrea Yarwood and Co., should never have been allowed to race against women in school sports then, as clearly Andrea Yarwood has had NO hormone or other therapy?

There is far more to males and females than hormonal differences, this has been widely explained and no amount of hormone therapy reduces the inherent advantages of a male against a female. The only being scientifically and biologically illiterate here is you.

You say you are a big rugby fan, I doubt that as you clearly don't understand the game if you think your comment about Faf de Klerk is some kind of argument closing down gotcha.

As for prisons, the statistics show that trans-women have not committed sex assaults in prison, and don't pose a risk to vulnerable inmates. I'd happily have all rapists, regardless of gender identity, sequestered off into their own isolated wards anyway (failing their execution of course), but the stats do not belly a risk to women inmates.

The statistics in the UK do NOT show that. As I stated before women are entitled to not only safety but also privacy and dignity, there is little enough dignity in prison without removing the very last shred of it to appease men.

we can make stricter rules for women only spaces, including restricting access for trans women. This does nothing to reduce the aggregated risk to cis women (as a lack of access to these spaces has not ever been a factor in whether or not women are assaulted or harmed by anyone) and excludes trans women.

How do we tell who is a ‘genuine’ transwoman and who is a predator?

Why would we legislate to make it easier for any male to walk into a female only space unchallenged? You do know that not every transwoman chooses to transition their appearance - so will appear fully male? Why do those people feel any need to use female only spaces? (And yes they do exist)

Why should women give up single sex spaces because some male people feel at risk in their own single sex spaces?

Should other groups of males vulnerable to male violence be allowed into female only spaces as well?

Are you aware of the cases of sexual assault/rape that have already taken place because male-bodied people were allowed into female only spaces? If these people had not been identifying as female they would not have been allowed into those spaces.

It is hard to determine the exact number of sexual assaults carried out by male-bodied people identifying as trans because strangely that data is not routinely collected. We do know of some attacks on women so why do we want to make it easier for those attacks to take place? Most normal people hear about a bad thing that has happened to someone and would support moves to prevent it happening again.

So transwomen are women... unless they want to compete in women's sport.

So that's exception Number One.

As for prisons, your statement As for prisons, the statistics show that trans-women have not committed sex assaults in prison, and don't pose a risk to vulnerable inmates. is false. A 30 second google on the topic pops up conviction and accusation.

1. Why do transwomen represent such a threat to you in women's spaces, in your mind?
2. Where do intersex women fit into your feminism?
3. What makes a woman? If it is genitals, does a transwoman with bottom surgery count in your mind? If it's chromosomes is Caster Semenya a man?

1. It’s MEN who represent such a threat in women’s spaces, which is why we have such spaces. Transwomen are men, ergo present the same degree of threat as other men.
2. Intersex is a disorder of sexual development. It has sod all to do with transgenderism. Just the same as other chromosomal disorders such as Down’s syndrome.
3. A Woman, by definition, is an adult human female. Adult because biologically they’ve passed puberty, Human because they are, and female because they have female biology. Caster is a biological man.

There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. The overwhelming number of people have their sex observed at birth as determined by their genitalia, and many before birth via chromosome testing.
Anyone who pretends they are suddenly the opposite sex to what they were born as is deluding themselves. Anything they do to their bodies to appear as their opposite sex is purely cosmetic.

It’s interesting that you say you're at the end of your tether with your mother. If she suddenly decided she was actually now a man, would you then see her as your father? If my daughters suddenly decided they would like to be men, would they become my sons?

". Incidentally on the injury point - as a big rugby fan I often make the point that Faf de Klerk, a 5'7" fly half who weighs barely anything,"

Faf de Klerk weighs 80kg. Thats hardly nothing - and little body fat.

Incidentally on the injury point - as a big rugby fan I often make the point that Faf de Klerk, a 5'7" fly half who weighs barely anything, is allowed to play against 6'6" second rows who weigh the same as a bus. Particularly with physical sports, there is an element of mismatched size and injury risk in it anyway.
But there is a far greater risk of injury to a 5'7" woman who has thinner, lighter bones, a different muscular structure, small linger capacity and a differently alined pelvis. That before we think about a woman who is 5'0" and weighs 7 stones.

Oh are in the US op?

Rights for trans people and women are a complete shambles in many parts of the US.
No offence, but your rights and legal protections are woefully inadequate, especially regarding employment and health.
It must be so shit for so many trans people in parts of the US (and for many other groups of course). However the answer to that problem is not to take rights away from women. Why not put some energy into addressing your shitty employment laws?

• small lung capacity

You won't have to listen to me, as I find all these Trans issues quite disturbing, and sad.

Bambam2019

^I mean my first thought would be because maybe it draws in crowds, for whatever reason, such as women supporting other women, (but that not being the only reason) so has good sponsorship opportunities etc.
So why do you think nearly all equestrian events are run as mixed sex classes?
I have absolutely NEVER felt that I am at a disadvantage to men when competing, based solely on my assigned gender at birth.^

You think the Kentucky Oaks is only for fillies because women want to support female horses?

Is it possible you misunderstood me?

The rest of your post is a circular argument. You do a sport which can be mixed sex and so, unsurprisingly, you haven't felt at a disadvantage for your sex.

Try doing a sport that only involves the capabilities of your body, without any horses involved, and see how you feel then.

OP you cannot medically transition from man to woman. You will still have experienced a different biology especially before you started taking any hormones. You seem to be basing your arguments on a scientific misnomer.

You also seem to be basing your arguments on wrong information re: sex assaults' on prisons/ hospitals etc.

Now you have seen more actual facts do you still feel that subjugated and traumatised people are not entitled to the single-sex spaces which were set up to protect them?

@ClareCAIS

Can I ask again OP, why you were weaponising the lives of people born with variations of sex development?

Hi Clare. Nice to see this question answered. Sadly, I doubt you will though. No one ever does, do they?

I’ve never understood why gender critical and gender non conforming haven’t found more common ground on here.

But trans ideology is the opposite of gender non conformity. Genuine gender non conformity says "so you're a man (woman) who likes the stuff society arbitrarily associates with women (men)? Fine. Crack on. You're great just as you are."

Trans ideology says "so you're a man (woman) who likes the stuff society arbitrarily associates with women (men)? That means you are in reality a woman (man) because such is the overwhelming importance of sexist stereotypes the define who you are."

Trans ideology is about embracing, about "reifying" sexist stereotypes. It's completely the opposite of being gender non conforming.

OP you're not a feminist. You put mens rights before womens and you haven't the first clue what you are talking about

Women who are not feminine and who reject gender norms are still women

The idea that transwomen "follow male offending patterns" as you put it, at least in the realm of sex assault (I don't know about other crimes) isn't measurably true stats wise.

OP if you’re in the US then you may not be aware of these stats. Please do read some of the links we are giving you because you might find yourself stating to think critically about this, just like your Mum.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

"What made me snap was yesterday seeing a comment on here stating that the Daily Mail was more feminist than the Guardian. I read neither, because they're both toilet paper, but anyone who says anything so blatantly obtuse to reality clearly has a very specific, narrow view of feminism predicated entirely on not liking GNC people - I don't see how anyone who's read any Daily Mail article ever could say that without laughing."

Jog on love.

And so you're back! From outer space
You just plopped in to find us here discussing laws for women's space
And so you felt like coming by
With some statistics (mostly lies)
And you thought you'd get some screenshots while you're posting on the sly

Go on OP! Just let it go
We have seen your type round here before and honestly we know
Your transgender activism
Is entirely anti-women
Let's just be done
(But I feel sorry for your mum)

@MangoSplit

In response to your first question, do you agree with self ID? Personally, my main issue is not actually with a genuine trans woman, but with a male posing as a trans woman and using self ID to invade women's spaces (changing rooms, refuges, jails etc) and jeopardise their safety. Can you reassure me that sexual assault on women and girls will not increase as a result of this 'loophole'?

Yes actually! Self-ID has been legally recognized in I believe five or so countries and has been de-facto applied in several other municipalities (to my knowledge). None of these countries has recorded any rise in sexual assaults, rapes, or anything like that. Ireland's is the most well studied as far as I know, but none have recorded any issues from the self-ID aside from an increase in govt paperwork :)

It should be noted that part of the reason for this is because self-ID is still a legal process, like changing your name via DeedPoll. Any hypothetical rapist or assaulter most likely would not bother with the effort regarding a toilet or changing room by virtue of the fact that they'd be committing a very public sex crime and be done for it anyway. Regarding refuges, there is a specific opportunity for them to reject anyone who poses even the mildest risk for any of their other sheltered people (such as with same-sex attracted victims of sexual assault). Any good refuge will (as the stats in these countries would indicate) discern whether anybody, cis or trans, is out there as a genuine victim or to assault other victims.

OP I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from on offending rates but they're incorrect.

It's not about whether transwoman have already committed crimes in prison, it's about the likelihood. You can't wait for the Karen Whites of the world to assault women who are in prison (who are more likely to be vulnerable and BAME - these are the women you are advocating for placing at disproportionate risk). What you need to look at is what TW are in prison for, and unfortunately they offend at the same rates as other biological males. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head but something close to 50% of imprisoned TW are in there for sexual offences. They should not be housed with women.

This does not mean I hate TW and wish for them to suffer or whatever it is you've wrongly inferred in your OP. It is equally obvious to me that TW cannot be accommodated in the male estate.

But nor can they be housed in the female one. A different solution must be found. I'm sure you think that's othering, unfair, but women's safety has to come before biological males' gender identity.

I understand that from an abstract perspective, but the statistics do not indicate that transwomen commit sex assaults at anywhere near the rate that cismen do. The idea that transwomen "follow male offending patterns" as you put it, at least in the realm of sex assault (I don't know about other crimes) isn't measurably true stats wise.

Wrong again, it is measurably true statistically. Within the prison population there are a higher proportion of men who say they are women in prison for sex related crimes than men who don't say they are women in prison for the same type of offences. The rate for men who say they are women and who have been convicted of sex crimes is by a long shot higher than the number of women in prison who have been convicted of sex crimes.

Given that men trained for years as priests to give themselves access to victims I find your trust in human nature dangerous. Go study history dearest. And maths/philosophy for logical thinking

Would you consider it to be fair if males frequently won gold and silver in women's competitions with financial prizes or benefits and if females did not frequently win the same advantages when participating in men's sport? Do you believe that there are no men who would self-identify in order to gain such financial advantage, perhaps men who could not win in men's competition? www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/

Do you know that coaches deliberately scouted for and probably exploited athletes with disorders of sexual development because they knew they would have an advantage in women's sports?

Trans people are -at most -1% of the total population. How many crimes do you think they would have to commit to produce a statistically significant increase in the national crime rate?