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 do wonder how many of the sporting advantage deniers have ever faced a male in any kind of contact sport? I’ve been utterly gobsmacked at otherwise intelligent people suggesting there’s no real difference, but whenever I’ve discussed this in real life, it turns out they’ve never actually hit or been hit by a member of the same vs member of the opposite sex.

I have, in several sports. My experience matched that of the roller Derby player unthread. Women, even tall powerful, strong ones ‘give‘ a little when you hit them. Men, even small thin weak ones, do not. It’s like hitting a bloody wall.

I’ve also done a sword based martial art, it makes me laugh in the movies when a woman parries sword attack by a man, in almost every fight I’ve had, even weak men have the sheer strength to just knock your weapon out of the way and continue the attack. You can withstand it for a few minutes, but your level of effort vs theirs, you tire too quickly.

And boxing... yeah. I’ve sparred with small, relatively weak blokes who were less fit than me, AND are holding back. Ouch. And again, not only can they easily push aside your defence, then can hit so hard they can knock you over. With minimal effort, so they can just keep on doing it.

Do golf clubs still have men only days, etc. When I was a kid I worked at a golf course and women were barred from being members, could only play on special “ladies days”. Is this still allowed? What about male private members clubs like the Garrick, shame they’re invitation only or we could try and join! Stating that we’re men of course.

I do wonder how many of the sporting advantage deniers have ever faced a male in any kind of contact sport? I’ve been utterly gobsmacked at otherwise intelligent people suggesting there’s no real difference, but whenever I’ve discussed this in real life, it turns out they’ve never actually hit or been hit by a member of the same vs member of the opposite sex.

Yup. Mixed football here. 5 a side works okay as officially it's non-contact, and the pitch is so small it favours short, accurate passes and positional nous over strength and speed. But if you do collide with a bloke, by God you know about it

But the other thing that really leaves me gobsmacked is how arse about face the whole ideology is. I honestly know lib fems who think that admitting that men can (on average, and at the high extremes of the distribution) can run faster than women will completely undermine the fabric of feminism but at the same time see no problem whatsoever in wholeheartedly embracing the concept of lady-brains - that apparently poses no threat to feminism whatsoever .

@JacobReesMogadishu

Do golf clubs still have men only days, etc. When I was a kid I worked at a golf course and women were barred from being members, could only play on special “ladies days”. Is this still allowed? What about male private members clubs like the Garrick, shame they’re invitation only or we could try and join! Stating that we’re men of course.

Don't worry yourself about the men losing special privileges to transmen Jacob

They thought of that right from the start with the Gender Recognition Act's special exceptions.

Two main exceptions to trans people's legal recognition are that the descent of peerages will remain unchanged (important only for primogeniture inheritance) and a right of conscience for Church of England clergy (who are normally obliged to marry any two eligible people by law).

Phew! That was lucky for the boys!

For many of us the whole concept and meaning of 'transgenderism' is not an autommatic given. The concept itself is open for query and question, even as we can accept the feelings of an individual thus 'identified' and have compassion for human suffering.

We seem to have gone from a maladaptive psychological condition and/or bodily dysphoria, to the 'fact' of having been 'born in the wrong body'. This obviously sounds very regressive to those for whom gender stereotypes have been the obstacle to being who we each truly are - in spite of our sex.

Sex is real. A woman is an adult human female, the world over Gender stereotypes are just that. Social constructions which vary from society to society and are more or less stringently enforced.

Women have fought long and hard for certain protections based on the realities and experiences that arise ( and the social responses to) from their sexed body; and also for separate categories in sport - in which girls and women can excel and have a fair playing field.

But if you do collide with a bloke, by God you know about it

This is the thing - normally, when we are looking to change something fundamental like sex segregation in sport, we would look to understand the risks and establish the safety first. This whole situation is arse about face.

Let’s take down safeguarding rules that were put in place for a reason with no risk assessment or thought to the consequences. Should we also start a campaign against seatbelts and motorbike helmets?? The safety issues are just as well evidenced.

We also are continuously trying to make dangerous sports safer (concussion research and new rules in rugby) not more dangerous.

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.

 That is untrue.  
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838</a>

[quote 2bazookas]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.

 That is untrue.  
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838</a>[/quote]

Yes, it was these blatant lies that made me absolutely livid yesterday

I agree gardenbird Males were admitted to women's prisons, refuges and rape support BEFORE evidence was gathered, before risk and impact assessments were done. Just look at jj's posts and related links. The solid research has not been done, the data is not even gathered properly nevermind analysed and published. It beggars belief that such a huge change was made arse about face.

MN PLEASE can this go into Classics? There is a lot of very well researched and articulate posts around a very prominent issue at the moment. And Mumsnetters have also displayed compassion to those who do have complex gender dysphoria.

Anyone know when the next part of the judicial review re: housing trans males in the female prison estate is heard?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8886815/amp/Prisoner-sexually-assaulted-jail-launches-bid-ban-trans-inmates-womens-prisons.html

I honestly know lib fems who think that admitting that men can (on average, and at the high extremes of the distribution) can run faster than women will completely undermine the fabric of feminism

There was one upthread I think. I do wonder if there’s an unconscious performative element to some types of libfem. In that they really believe that women are fundamentally lesser, but they must posture themselves against that.

The RL embodiment of this in my experience are very active on social media, very libfem, and frequently making excuses for shit blokes, along with ... sEx WoRk iS WoRK, I centre ALL women ESPECIALLY TRANSWOMEN and shouting UTERUS HAVER whenever anyone types the word woman. I’ve had to unfollow a few, lest I cause a scene.

I used to take karate and ds does kickboxing (I think Kickboxing is the stronger discipline but he might disagree). It wasn’t long before he could beat my ass when we sparred - definitely a while ago. I wouldn’t dare now - even if I was 20 years older he would clobber me.

TL:DR But I read about 11 pages - Did the OP ever come back?

Dances she's been away for a while - her last post said being on this thread made her 'want to blow her brains out about four times'. Not sure whether that was because of the volume of posts or the fact that she had no answers? It would be great if she could come back.

@Dances

TL:DR But I read about 11 pages - Did the OP ever come back?

Surprisingly yes. Talking utter shite but yes.

To be honest, I burst out laughing on the last 1000 post thread where positrans managed to time it beautifully to get in under the wire with the last post being a triumphant “transwomen are women!”. It was comedy genius and they must have been thrilled to pieces. It got a grudging hat tip from me from a timing perspective, I can appreciate that no matter where it comes from

It was certainly an interesting climax to the thread...

I also noticed it didn't take long for the OP to get a post deleted. It can be tricky staying within the FWR guidelines though.

I do wonder how many of the sporting advantage deniers have ever faced a male in any kind of contact sport? I’ve been utterly gobsmacked at otherwise intelligent people suggesting there’s no real difference, but whenever I’ve discussed this in real life, it turns out they’ve never actually hit or been hit by a member of the same vs member of the opposite sex.

I have often thought the same thing. I do lots of mixed sex training/non-competitve sport, you know like circuits, crossfit, running, cycling. I have a DH and teenage sons who are sporty. Real life experience shows the differences ever so clearly. It's just daft to imagine away all the physical differences.

I wonder about their sexual experiences too. Surely a modicum of rough play or, say, awkward positioning where he takes her weight would have let them experience the strength disparity. Not to mention the hardness of the male body compared to female ooh er missus even when both are fit.

I was told in the 1980s by a “feminist” health professional that my PMDD (as I now know it was) didn’t exist because if women were so badly affected by their hormones, they wouldn’t be taken seriously in the workplace/by men. At which point I ceased to take anyone who called themself a feminist seriously, up until fairly recently.

Growing up I played football with the lads and one by one they could all out sprint me, out jump me, shurg me off the ball with with no effort when they had not previously been able to. I was 5'9" by the time I was 13 and class arm wrestling champ. much to the annoyance of a few of the boys so not some tiny, delicate wee thing but even the guys that were still several inches shorter than me and so skinny they had to run around in the shower to get wet could suddenly brush me aside like I was nothing. No amount of reducing current testosterone levels with take that advantage away. Their bones were different, their muscles were different, their hearts and lungs were different. They were men, with male bodies and I was not.

*f 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?*

1. I am not able to answer that question without my post being deleted as my answer would go against Mumsnet guidelines. The best I can do is to say that for me, transwomen represent exactly the same threat in women's spaces as men do for the same reasons. Most men are not a threat, but we don't let them in anyway. And no, lesbians do not represent the same threat.

1. Intersex women are women. As others have said, please stop using intersex conditions (or DSD as they are more accurately known nowadays) for your political point scoring. People with DSD's have asked to be left out of this row as it's nothing to do with them, please respect that.

1. A woman is an adult human female. A female mammal is of the sex which produces large gametes and has a female reproductive system.

No one ever has any confusion as to what a woman is, when they want to interrupt or mansplain. No doctor has any difficulty in knowing which foetuses are female, when s/he aborts a foetus for being the wrong sex.

HTH

Greetings to your mum.

Am I allowed to cut-and-paste from another thread? I do think it fits in this thread. I suspect the OP on this thread is a tad disingenuous in putting the (lack of) understanding shoe on her own foot. In fact, as I suspect she knows fine well, it belongs on her critics' feet. It does look as though it is transgender ideology which is fundamentally incomprehensible, rather than its opponents.

Anyway, here:

Given what 'transwoman' means, 'transwomen are women' is analytically false ( sc. logically contradictory) if 'women' means 'women', and plainly nonsensical if 'women' is taken to mean something other than 'women'.

Confused about what 'women' means? Well, think of your mother; she was certainly a woman. The mother of my children, she is a woman, as is the mother of any human child; likewise my grown-up daughters. All of them, women. Knowledge of the meaning of such a common word as 'women' is not, as they say, rocket science, at least for a native English speaker.

Do transgender ideologues themselves understand their own claims? No, they do not, at least if they sincerely try to assert 'transwomen are women'. 'Transwomen are women' just cannot be true. At best it can be analytically false; more likely it makes no sense.

OP, what on earth do you think you mean by 'transwomen are women'? -- Nothing at all ? I suspect you realise that. So, subsidiary question: what on earth are you playing at, 'young feminist'?

Out of curiosity, I've paged through the responses to see what our listening and engaging OP has to say about all the usual points.

But after dropping in a few times to say you're-all-wrong (sources needed as they say on Wikipedia), she/he has vanished.

I wonder how the "Be kind!" people always manage to identify the people they don't need to be kind to so quickly?