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 just wanted to link to Heather Mason's Twitter thread about dangerous offenders in Canada with the caveat that oh-so-conveniently records aren't kept only self-ID, so these individuals/crimes are hard to trace (listed as female in crime stats often with changed names). Heather has to do the job of an investigative journalist to find these, so it's not a complete or exhaustive list, but it is certainly a male-offending pattern:

twitter.com/Mason134211f/status/1307373520876449792

@quixote9

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?

It's possible the thought process goes something like this:

"They're just a bunch of stupid middle age mums/women, I'll demonstrate to them how stupid they are and their responses will prove what bigots they are"

"I'm not going to answer their questions, annoying women, I don't know. Anyway, whatever, they're bigoted and wrong, here are some thoughts about why..."

"Oh, facts. Fuck this, I don't know, bunch of bigots, I'd rather blow my brains out..."

Yes.

I'm just wondering whether it's good or bad news that someone who unquestioningly puts men's wishes above women's needs is calling herself a feminist?

Good in that obviously "feminist" is the socially acceptable thing to call yourself these days. But useless in that this doesn't involve actually defending women. And perhaps worse than useless in that it devalues the name and concept of feminism.

borund had been told that we believe some things (set A) that are different to the things she was told to believe (set B) and so she was coming here to tell us the right thing to believe.

At no point did it occur to her to go look up what the set A beliefs actually are what GC people beleive. Nor did it occur to her to check whether the set B assertions were factually accurate.

Both sets of info are widely available and easily accessible. Like Mumsnet threads, prison statistics, newspaper articles galore about Barbie Kardashian and Karen White, the DM and The Guardian online.

Lazy-arsed student needs a kick up her lazy arse from her alleged lecturers.

@SheldonesqueIsUnwell

It would be interesting to me if those male athletes who choose to ID as a woman for college places choose to still identify as a woman after they’ve gained the fame/accolades or do they choose to ID as a male again once they have taken advantage of the situation?

@SheldonesquelsUnwell. That is an interesting question, how much do trans athletes prioritise their career , over their need to live their lives as their true selves? Trans cyclist Emily Bridges is a case in point. Emily has stated that she has known she was trans for some years, but kept cycling as a UK elite funded male cyclist presumably because having been strongly tipped as a potential male medal winner in Paris 2024 the lure of the prestige was too great. Emily has quite frankly stated that the plan was always Paris first, transition later.

However, since very serious injury destroyed all hopes of being an elite male Olympic gold medal cyclist in 2024 Emily’s plans have changed radically . Although current performance times do not put Emily in the top echelons of world cycling with former male colleagues they do mean that on current form she would still have an excellent chance of a medal, possibly gold, in the women’s events.

For this to happen however Emily must race as a woman, hence the switch in transition plans. Transition for Emily has become a priority, not something that could happily be postponed for four more years.

Of course in order to fulfil Emily’s ambition and dreams and bring years of hard work, training, and years of dedication to fruition, it means Emily will need to transfer to the UK elite women’s squad in order to receive funding, invitations to training camps, diet and training support , access to world class equipment etc etc .

There are sadly only a limited number of places available on the elite women’s squad, so if Emily is given a place it will probably be at the cost of another member of the women’s squad’s ambition, dreams, hard work, training and years of dedication.

I think anyone who enjoys watching women’s sport would be advised to watch as much as they can in the next couple of years, because in ten years time I think there will be elite men’s sport events (as at present) , and non elite men’s sport events, formerly known as women’s sport.

@SonEtLumiere

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.

The sporting advantage deniers truly sicken me, and I cannot even begin to disguise the absolute contempt I feel towards their assertions. There is only one sort of person who would be happy to put women into a boxing ring against a man, one that finds her being battered delicious. I simply cannot engage in discussion with them, and just tell them that I know (and everyone else knows) they are utterly taking the piss and making an eejit of themselves.

The danger element is obviously terrifying. But it is also so fucking offensive to the woman that have fought and struggled to be recognised and taken seriously in sport. Given that across the running events from 60m up to the marathon female records are consistently between 15-20% slower than male records what possible reason could there be if not male physical advantage? If you deny the physical difference you are basically saying women just don't try as hard, don't want it as much or don't care. Given that women have had to fight to be allowed to compete in many sports, have had to fight for attention and sponsorship and coaching and facilities and everything else it is so bloody insulting to imply that men want it more. It is so frustrating that women's sport is just being to attract media attention and money and bang it could be taken away like that.

OP’s mum deserves a drink.

What on earth was wrong with ReadyFreddy's comment? Completely inoffensive as I recall.

ReadyFreddy's previous two posts have also been deleted. Welcome to our world, Freddy

Hope OP's mum has plenty of wine and patience. At least she can take comfort in the fact that life has a habit of teaching arrogant children a few lessons, especially female ones.

readyfreddy - I'd like to hear what you have to say. Could you paraphrase it within guidelines? Failing that just PM me...

I saw the deleted post and it was nothing but a statement of fact.

All posts from that poster deleted throughout the thread.

I have never understood why being younger is supposed (by the young) to mean being wiser and more experienced.

Do they think dementia sets in at 30, or only with parenthood, or what?

@NotBadConsidering

All posts from that poster deleted throughout the thread.

And everywhere else. Must be someone who was already banned.

@KittiesInsane

I have never understood why being younger is supposed (by the young) to mean being wiser and more experienced.

Do they think dementia sets in at 30, or only with parenthood, or what?

Such people seem to think that your opinions become worthless as soon as you reach an age where you are no longer considered 'attractive'.

Which is, frankly, a very strange viewpoint for someone who calls themselves a feminist.

Folly of youth? Lack of experience and the unshakeable knowledge that you alone hold the keys to the meaning of the universe?

Then you leave uni/school, get a job and mortgage and learn life lessons...

So much casual ageism around these days, and the lionisation of youth; as if we have not all been young and idealistic at one point; swept up in visions of what could or should be, and consequently ignorant or uncaring about everyday reality; including our own. Naivety and youth inevitably go together. Then life teaches you how to live it, if you are wise to enough to listen.

Folly of youth? Lack of experience and the unshakeable knowledge that you alone hold the keys to the meaning of the universe?

Weren't we all like this (or most of us?)
I know I was. I treated my very wise mum in exactly the way OP treats hers -- as a silly old biddy in need of education.
I did get the chance to apologise before she died, aged 96.
I hope OP gets that chance, and I hope it comes sooner rather than later.
OP Mum: Hope you are reading this thread with a big smile on your face! Take heart: this too will pass.

Lack of experience and the unshakeable knowledge that you alone hold the keys to the meaning of the universe

Oh dear. I remember my own unshakeable beliefs at that age! But to be fair, I wasn’t opposing women’s right to single-sex spaces or demanding that men be allowed to compete in women’s sports.

My post back thread has been reported and deleted. I think some of the words like "experimental" were considered by mnshq inflammatory