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!

They weren't convicted of rape in the last 2 years
When a person keeps saying the same thing over and over as a pp has I do wonder why.
Could it be that if I look at further than 2 years ago I find way way more of the things that are being dismissed as not happening? Or could I maybe look at different stats for a different crime and find something very interesting?

Like instead of rape, maybe child rape, or serious sexual assault or the like.

Well when I'm not sloshed I will have a cutsey look around the ONS

Teaching my 4 year old phonics is less stressful than the last 3 pages of this thread and she doesn't think d's and b's are different.

@Ringsender2 @DialSquare or a non footballer explaining the offside rule to a bunch of pros!

So it seems that patterns of criminality are very different to mens, but to work out exactly how much and in what way would require significant research.

To my mind the question is not how similar or otherwise TW offending is to other men, but how different it is to women - the demographic potentially at risk from them.

So how likely are TW to be convicted of rape or violent crime compared with natal women (their potential victim pool and the demographic whose space they aim to gain access to)?

If there are no differences then you could argue that TW pose no more threat to women than other women. But arguing that TW are only slightly less risky to women than other men is a flawed premise - you're making comparisons with the wrong group

Op: I'm young, and I know everything as only the young can. Why are all you bitter aging women getting it so wrong. Ugh. 🙄

MN: Sit down, this might take a while.

OP: FLOUNCE

Random naysayers: No No, you're all bigots.

MN: give up your evidence

Random naysayers: I haven't got anything concrete. And I don't care if you can show me evidence that disproves mine, you're all still bigots.

Indeed @CandyLeBonBon!

@MaudsMotorbike

Hi borandukht

I'm really excited to answer your question, because I think that years ago I would have been in your shoes. I grew up very much admiring the likes of Candy Darling, April Ashley and those pioneering transexuals (not meaning to be offensive using that term, that's how they identified). I went to a lot of what would now be considered gender queer clubs and had no problem at all with blokes / trans women in toilets.
I think, to be honest, I had NO IDEA what feminism was until I had kids at the age of 37 and my high-flying career, sporting achievements, and freewheeling attitude to life was forced out of me along with my children (and some of my organs, don't ask). I had identified as a feminist for years, but even I was very shocked at how quickly disadvantaged I became, compared to my husband, as a direct result of biology.

So, here are my answers:
1/ I don't believe that transwomen pose a threat to me personally in any of my spaces. However, by broadening the definition of "women" to include men, you've let men in. And men do pose a theat, which I know myself after being sexually assaulted. I believe men should stay the fuck out of women's spaces and the law as it stands offers protection.
2/Intersex women fit into my feminism wherever they like. Intersex women have asked to be left out of this and I respect their wishes. Interesex women aren't trans.
3/What makes a woman? Biology. "Bottom surgery" (did you really type that with a straight face?) is just plastic surgery, it's not changing any underlying biological facts. I don't know what Caster's biologcal make up is, so I can't say if she's a woman or not. Her doctors know and I sincerely hope that the athletics authorities have put her in the correct category, otherwise she will have stolen medals from other women. Which would be unfair.

Exactly this.

@CandyLeBonBon

Op: I'm young, and I know everything as only the young can. Why are all you bitter aging women getting it so wrong. Ugh. 🙄

MN: Sit down, this might take a while.

OP: FLOUNCE

Random naysayers: No No, you're all bigots.

MN: give up your evidence

Random naysayers: I haven't got anything concrete. And I don't care if you can show me evidence that disproves mine, you're all still bigots.

quite...

Good point @ReadyFreddy - keep on trucking. Sadly men's voices add weight to this argument where women's go unheard. It's the age old problem.

@JacobReesMogadishu

yes, because the defining feature of womanhood is whether a man wants to fuck her. Nice.

That’s not what that poster said and you know it. You are dodging the question of why TRAs always come and bother women. Never go and bother a male dominated forum (where there tends to be a lot of blatant transphobia). The previous poster was giving an example of a commonly held view which a lot of men have.....which I’m sure you’d consider transphobic.

But you don’t go and lecture them do you? No, because you’re someone who thinks women should know their place. You’ve been totally brain washed. You aren’t answering the majority of questions here. You seem to have quite low understanding of the issues and a total lack of awareness of how unintelligent you come across. I feel sorry for your mother, she must be so ashamed/embarrassed of you.

Agreed. I suspect the OP isn't being entirely truthful..

OP, do you think Eddie Izzard is now a woman, simply because he says he is?

I'm inclined to agree @ClaireP20

@ReadyFreddy that's the thing - what is needed is to make gender-non-conforming men feel safe in men's spaces, and for more men like yourself to be aware of that and contribute to an atmosphere of not-being-bothered-about-it.

None of us have access to sex-segregated spaces on the basis of our internal feelings - we have access to them on the basis of sex. To demand otherwise is not a good example of a 'right'.

Maximum frothing and hopes of reported bigotry I imagine

As well as all above,

We fought hard for our rights, for female only spaces. To not be erased. Scientists will note that chromosomes, hormones and genetic make up of females is of a certain spec, male is different. A woman is an adult human female.

I am a lesbian. I don't do dick. I will NOT do dick. Even if owner of said dick tells me he's a woman, now I am being told my sexuality is not valid.
I am tired of lesbian erasure. We felt slightly more recognised for a small length of time, and now we're being invalidated again and it infuriates me. A surgically inverted penis is not a vagina.

Bringing an intersex human into this argument is a classic straw man. A completely different, separate, unrelated matter.

A woman on another site said they want to now self-ID as a black woman (they are white anglo). I trust you are ok with people choosing to self-ID as black or Asian, and misappropriating their colour and culture? Because, self-ID and all?

You wouldn't be a hypocrite now......would you?

So you're more than ok with this then? Rachel Anne Dolezal, also known as Nkechi Amare Diallo, is an American transracial former college professor and activist known for identifying as a black woman despite having been born to white parents.

Yeah, I have to agree. I don't know many men that would be all that arsed about a transwoman in their changing room. I know some that might talk about it, but that's not quite the same thing.

Very true, @ReadyFreddy. The problem is male violence. I honestly don't know how best to reduce that threat for men - but putting women at risk is not an acceptable solution.

And re: your earlier post - the focus on 'validation' is so telling. It's not something that typically occurs in a rights movement. Campaigns for same-sex marriage were not concerned with making sure everyone 'believed' it was a 'real marriage' - it was about legal rights. The level of thought-policing when it comes to transgender issues is extraordinary.