Discussion thread - GC? Radfem? Terminology we use, and does it matter?

[xxyzz]

Just this. Sparked by a slight bicker between two people I follow on Twitter, both of whom I generally agree with, with one saying the other 'wasn't really GC'. It reminded me of other discussions I've seen between people arguing over whether they'd call themselves radfems or GC or neither, and that I wasn't (truth be told) that sure of the difference.

So - what is the difference, assuming there is one? I often call myself GC but probably my preferred term would be 'feminist' - I stand up for equal rights for women, in a long tradition of other women doing the same. It's a widely-understood term, in the way that radfem and GC aren't.

So what do you call yourself? Does it matter? Would a different or new term do better?

NB Please note this is not a thread for swords to be crossed at dawn with political enemies, just a gentle look at terminology for that slow period in the run up to the new year... :)

I would first and foremost always call myself a feminist if it came up, I have not wavered from that for the last couple of decades. In a discussion about gender I might mention that I am gender critical, but it's not something I would lead with. As others have mentioned, there seem to be many people who call themselves GC because they oppose to the trans issue, but are not really feminist or interested in feminism in other issues. I sometimes describe myself as radfem, as I think it better describes my views on things like porn, prostitution, surrogacy and the patriarchy. Most radical feminists seem to have a more of a true intersectional outlook, being aware of how class and race affect the material lives of women all over the world. (Much more so than liberal "intersectional" feminists.

The popularity of the term GC may also stem from the fact it's only 2 characters, so easier to fit into a tweet.

That's likely a factor, but I think there's something subconscious going on with it too.

GNC was a well-understood acronym within feminism long before the genderist stuff kicked off. Take the N out and what are you left with? People have commented many a time that our position is always misrepresented; the Other Side think we're gender-conforming.

Pillocks.

I think TRAs have scored some success by persuading Lib Fems that feminism isn't feminism if it isn't intersectional (by which they're not really concerned with racial inequalities or class/poverty, they mean if it doesn't centre transwomen).

I don't think the current crop of TRAs drove this. Mainstream feminism was all about the intersectionality when I started googling it twenty years ago. Which left the goal wide open, as it were.

The infighting's a bit tedious. I take the view that so long as we're all pulling in broadly the same direction (women's lib, improving material conditions for females, etc) then we're all good.

@TyroTerf - eek, hadn't even occurred to me that some of those who oppose us might assume GC = 'gender conforming', instead of 'gender critical'.

Maybe this is an argument for using a new/different term, or at the very least spelling out the acronym.

Also, as someone pointed out above, as 'gender critical', even when written in full, can be misinterpreted as meaning critical of those of different genders, rather than critical of the concept of gender, ie sex stereotypes.

The feminist use of 'gender critical' must be basically incomprehensible to people who think that gender is actually a real, inherent and unalterable quality of people.

Mainstream feminism was all about the intersectionality when I started googling it twenty years ago. Which left the goal wide open, as it were.

Yes I think it did. It's been exploited to include men.

The word "gender" causes so many problems because it means one thing to us radfem/GC feminists and something totally different to libfems/rest of population. So saying we are critical of (or want to abolish) gender is guaranteed to upset some, and confuse others. Doesn't mean we are wrong, and it's useful if we are taking to other GC/radfems, but you kind of need a translation service when taking to anyone else . (Think the libfems could do with being aware that they aren't using words with one universal meaning either though)

I don't think it's a conscious assumption. But it fits: we're talking about a movement whose adherents tend to view being "cishet" - in other words, gender-conforming - as being inherently of the oppressor class.

Which suggests to me that their understanding of gender is a damned sight less developed than ours.

To be a feminist is to be gnc: conforming to the feminine gender means keeping your pretty little head down and always putting yourself last as you nurture everyone else with your body.

But to this lot, it's all just about aesthetics. There's no acknowledgement of gendered behavioural expectations, and an outright denial of the reality of gendered socialisation. They don't understand what the gender part of gender-critical actually means.

If they did, they'd know that elevating the needs and wants of the male over the female is entirely consistent with the long-standing rules of gender. The females who champion these special males are gender-conforming; and the male who feels entitled to that centreing is gender-conforming too.

The females who champion these special males are gender-conforming; and the male who feels entitled to that centreing is gender-conforming too.

Yes!

I try to say ‘sex stereotypes’ instead of gender.

‘Against sex stereotypes’ rather than ‘Gender Critical’? Not as snappy though!

I was talking to ds2 regarding feminism...at one point in the conversation he was looking a bit hunted

Ds1 came in and asked him what was the matter

Ds2 looked forlornly at him and said ‘I inadvertently used the wrong word’

Ds1 said ‘ you didnt say gender did you ‘ 😱 and shot back out of the room

You've reminded me of the one and only time DD has used the word gender in my presence.

She'd somehow managed to divine the original French meaning; gender meaning sort or type. I was weirdly impressed.

Shows up the silliness quite nicely too, as there can be a great many answers to the question "what sort of person are you?" but woman and man aren't generally on the list.

I remember a couple of years ago lurking in the Pregnancy forum here, reading up on private gender scans, and noticing that on every thread someone would pop in to say "it's not gender, it's sex!", and then someone else would say "ah, be quiet, who cares", etc. At the time, it meant very little to me. I was vaguely aware that sex was the more "biological" term, but I didn't really know why it had become a controversy that spilled over into baby scan threads.

(I get it now, of course).

I don't think all feminists are GC, and some GC people are not necessarily feminists. If someone describes themselves that way I tend to assume they are emphasising that particular idea because they think it's relevant to the discussion.

@TyroTerf

I don't think it's a conscious assumption. But it fits: we're talking about a movement whose adherents tend to view being "cishet" - in other words, gender-conforming - as being inherently of the oppressor class.

Which suggests to me that their understanding of gender is a damned sight less developed than ours.

To be a feminist is to be gnc: conforming to the feminine gender means keeping your pretty little head down and always putting yourself last as you nurture everyone else with your body.

But to this lot, it's all just about aesthetics. There's no acknowledgement of gendered behavioural expectations, and an outright denial of the reality of gendered socialisation. They don't understand what the gender part of gender-critical actually means.

If they did, they'd know that elevating the needs and wants of the male over the female is entirely consistent with the long-standing rules of gender. The females who champion these special males are gender-conforming; and the male who feels entitled to that centreing is gender-conforming too.

I would say the vast majority of women who would broadly consider themselves as part of the women's movement, and possibly as feminists, understand the idea of gendered expectations. And think that at least some of them are bad, and also that they aren't things people should have to conform to in order to be considered a woman. They also tend not to believe in what we might now call "gender ideology" if they have been exposed to it enough to know what it is.

Where you would lose a lot of them is in saying that any kind of culturally mediated/expressed differences between men and women are only caused by socialisation, are a manifestation of patriarchy, and would be better off abolished, and an important goal of feminism is to accomplish that.

I would say that latter group is more what characterises GC positions or RadFems, and it's not identical to feminism itself. In some ways I think it's been unable to give people a really knock-it-out of the park answer to gender ideology because most don't see masculinity and femininity as whole negative or even false ideas. So the GC approach just doesn't resonate.

I suppose I am a feminist but I worry if I call myself that I will be confused with lib fems so I usually say I campaign for the rights of women and girls. I also use the phrases gender non conforming and sex stereotypes when discussing issues.

That is interesting, @ChestnutStuffing. I probably don't fit the criteria in your second paragraph. I took GC to mean "critical of the concept of an innate gender identity unconnected to your sex, which must override biological reality". To be honest, I say GC as shorthand here, but in RL I'd just say "I don't believe in gender ideology" and illustrate it with examples of the ideology playing out.

Where you would lose a lot of them is in saying that any kind of culturally mediated/expressed differences between men and women are only caused by socialisation, are a manifestation of patriarchy, and would be better off abolished, and an important goal of feminism is to accomplish that.

I would say that latter group is more what characterises GC positions or RadFems, and it's not identical to feminism itself. In some ways I think it's been unable to give people a really knock-it-out of the park answer to gender ideology because most don't see masculinity and femininity as whole negative or even false ideas. So the GC approach just doesn't resonate.

I've had conversations with people who self describe as GC who don't view it that way either, so it's not even a universally accepted idea within that group.

I think what throws me with this particular subject, it's there is huge support for campaigns like Let Toys Be Toys (which is very much saying that differences are a result of socialisation and should not be enforced) and that support is from radfems/libfems/ people who'd never call themselves feminists - but that doesn't then translate to widespread agreement on gender as a social construct.

ChestnutStuffing - ” Where you would lose a lot of them is in saying that any kind of culturally mediated/expressed differences between men and women are only caused by socialisation, are a manifestation of patriarchy, and would be better off abolished, and an important goal of feminism is to accomplish that.”

I agree - because these are elements of dogma, not incontrovertible, scientific facts, and they therefore require a leap of faith. Choosing not to take that leap is not necessarily due to stubbornness, lack of “education” or misogyny but rather to healthy scepticism.

MedusaBadHairDay - ” I think what throws me with this particular subject, it's there is huge support for campaigns like Let Toys Be Toys (which is very much saying that differences are a result of socialisation and should not be enforced) and that support is from radfems/libfems/ people who'd never call themselves feminists - but that doesn't then translate to widespread agreement on gender as a social construct.”

This is equally understandable, IMHO. Gender does not need to be accepted as 100% a social construct in order to be against forcing children to play only with “stereotyped sex role” toys and for encouraging children to play with a wider range of toys.

In fact, it is possible to totally reject the notion of gender as a social construct and still support “Let Toys Be Toys”, eg. transgender ideology would support boys playing with “girls’ toys”, vice versa and “unisex toys” on the basis that toy preference reflects innate “gender identity”.

Feminism draws certain conclusions about the world because it interprets observable phenomena according to a specific belief system.

I shy away from discussions about what it means to be a “real” feminist because they always seem to end up with one or more purists identifying heresies that need to be rooted out. BTW I am NOT suggesting that anything like that is going on in this thread.

The problem that I have with “RadFem”, as a term and as a thing, is that it includes truly “fundamentalist” feminists who brook no dissent.

The term “radical” originally meant “root”, as in “fundamental”, but it also means “extreme” in the same sense as “fundamentalist”, eg. relating to religion.

That, I think, is part of the reason why a lot of people, men and women, switch off when they hear the word “feminism” and dismiss arguments by disparaging them as “feminist”. Not “misogyny” as a reaction to women or womanhood but more akin to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and whatever you would call fear of fundamentalist Christianity or any other religion. It is not to do with individual people but with the extreme tenets and would include antipathy to extreme political views.

I am thinking out loud here, these are not well-developed ideas but more like musings so I am not wedded to them nor prepared to defend them to the death

They are thoughts at the back of my mind that I think account for the fact that I tend to talk about “Women’s Rights” rather than feminism but I am perfectly happy to call myself a feminist or be called a feminist.

I also agree with previous comments that “Gender Critical” as a term has its problems. As far as its relationship to Transgender Ideology is concerned, I agree that it is used as a catch-all term for what is very often (most often?) better described as something like “Anti-pseudoscience” or “Pro-Science” without any presumption of adherence to a feminist viewpoint.

Disagree with ChestnutStuffing, as I don't think anyone needs to think that men and women are identical socially ie that everyone starts off as blank ciphers as far as tastes and interests go, to think that we still shouldn't limit toys and clothes to one sex or the other.

To compare, most people (including feminists) would agree that men and women are different biologically but wouldn't agree that just because men, tend to be physically stronger, say, that no woman should be allowed to do a job where physical strength is required. What matters is equality of opportunity. Even if in practice, there'll never be equality of outcome, as most women (as well as some men) won't actually have the physical strength to do the job.

And it's the same for gender - what matters is that all children are given an equal opportunity to develop tastes/interests in different directions and play with/wear what they want. Now GC feminists might expect more equality of outcome without gendered socialisation; others might expect that girls and boys on average might tend to gravitate towards certain toys, but still agree that many individual girls and boys would buck the trend, given the chance, if not limited to only toys 'allowed' to their gender stereotype.

Don't think I've put that very clearly, sorry.

This thread has been really helpful for me, though, in understanding confusions and assumptions about the term gender, and the need to be very careful when using it to ensure that whoever you're speaking to understands it the same way you do. Otherwise, explanations will potentially increase misunderstandings and accusations of transphobia etc, raher than reduce them.

I admit to having been baffled by how eg Stella Creasy managed to be outaged on Twitter that her infant daughter was expected to dress in pink or be called a boy...and yet still stand up for TWAW on the basis that anyone who identifies with wearing pink is a girl.

Maybe the concept of gender is the key to the lack of comprehension between libfems like Creasy and feminists on here?

Can we explain it better so they understand??

@xxyzz

I admit to having been baffled by how eg Stella Creasy managed to be outaged on Twitter that her infant daughter was expected to dress in pink or be called a boy...and yet still stand up for TWAW on the basis that anyone who identifies with wearing pink is a girl.

Maybe the concept of gender is the key to the lack of comprehension between libfems like Creasy and feminists on here?

Can we explain it better so they understand??

You might be interested in this thread - there was some discussion of this issue:

Unlimited potential: Report of the Commission on Gender Stereotypes and Early Childhood
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4106251-unlimited-potential-report-of-the-commission-on-gender-stereotypes-and-early-childhood

Thanks, HecatesCats.

I think a term like ‘stereotype rejector’ or ‘stereotype reducer’ might be more useful descriptor to the wider population than GC.

Gender critical isn’t clear to a bystander and gives an idea that we’re criticising life choices when we mean to criticise gender stereotypes.

I want to use gender disbeliever or gender atheist (gender infidel?!) but I think that a bit niche. It perhaps gives credence that some people are entitled to believe in pink brains.

Gender stereotype critical?

@xxyzz

Disagree with ChestnutStuffing, as I don't think anyone needs to think that men and women are identical socially ie that everyone starts off as blank ciphers as far as tastes and interests go, to think that we still shouldn't limit toys and clothes to one sex or the other.

To compare, most people (including feminists) would agree that men and women are different biologically but wouldn't agree that just because men, tend to be physically stronger, say, that no woman should be allowed to do a job where physical strength is required. What matters is equality of opportunity. Even if in practice, there'll never be equality of outcome, as most women (as well as some men) won't actually have the physical strength to do the job.

And it's the same for gender - what matters is that all children are given an equal opportunity to develop tastes/interests in different directions and play with/wear what they want. Now GC feminists might expect more equality of outcome without gendered socialisation; others might expect that girls and boys on average might tend to gravitate towards certain toys, but still agree that many individual girls and boys would buck the trend, given the chance, if not limited to only toys 'allowed' to their gender stereotype.

Don't think I've put that very clearly, sorry.

I don't think that anyone needs to think that either.

What I've said is that when you look at Radfem ideology, it will include almost nothing as innately connected to biological sex, even when you are looking at things on the group level. They also tend to connect this with the idea of patriarchy, which is to say that it exists explicitly as a means to oppress.

Much more so than many other people who think of themselves as feminists do (and I don't mean liberal feminists). And much more so than a lot of people who think of themselves as supporters of women's rights. Most see the intersection of socialisation and biology in the desire to seem masculine or feminine or in many more human behaviours and social structures, and they don't necessarily think these things all developed in order to oppress women, or even that they all do oppress women.

What I've said is that when you look at Radfem ideology, it will include almost nothing as innately connected to biological sex, even when you are looking at things on the group level

I think you might be cherry picking the bits of radical feminism that fit your preconceptions.

There's actually quite a lot about biology in there, and plenty of things innately connected to it.

Radical feminism doesn't hold that the patriarchy exists in order to oppress, either. You're laying a narrative, an intent, onto a description of function.