An inclusive way to be gender critical?

[pensivepigeon]

My thoughts on gender and sex are thus:

Gender is a social construct. It is how society and individuals view the presentation of the sexes - in fashion, interests and work roles. Whereas sex is biological, we cannot change it even though we might surgically change our appearance and take artificial hormones which affect our bodily functions.

However because gender is a social construct and we are part of society we can define it. I define gender as

Female = adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.
Male= adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.

If everyone took this on board it would mean safe single sex spaces could be preserved, as people could present themselves however they want, wear what they want but use the single sex space appropriate for their sex without conflict. Uniforms would offer everyone both traditional female and male options which either sex could wear. Ditto with sports, competing takes place within the appropriate sex classes but competitors can wear either the traditional male or female competition uniforms. There would be no confusion and need to agonise over language when providing medical care.

Taking this stance stance means I have no problem when it comes to saying I am of female sex with a female gender.

So am I gender critical? Is this inclusive?

The working definition does not have to include the size of the box - it does not have to be restrictive and narrow.

Okay, but how big are the boxes? In your ideal world, where your redefinition of gender is accepted by society at large, what's in the 'masculine' box that isn't in the 'feminine' box, or vice versa?

If the answer is 'nothing' then surely gender is redundant and we all fit in one big 'human' box. If the answer isn't 'nothing' then you're making the case for a less restrictive set of stereotypes. You're certainly entitled to hold that view, but it's not a typical GC feminist one (you don't have to be a GC feminist, either, of course, but it might help to explain some of the disagreement).

I have not intended this to be patronising - am trying to be friendly, supportive and encouraging, whilst gently saying - it comes across that you haven’t quite really got what the issues are, yet. But keep going.

It is a little but I'll forgive you. I do fully understand your stance but it doesn't mean I agree with you. You might say the same to me. However I have persisted in posting because I also see that many have expressed they don't understand what I am saying. Hostility, I saw a bit but acknowledge it was a pretty tame sort of hostility. I do realise twitter etc is much more hostile.

Please stay around. We’re all at different points. There is so much to learn here, discuss, debate. It’s ok to disagree. Radical feminism doesn’t have much truck with authoritarianism :-)

Thank you for that. I'm not going anywhere.

I think, generally, I have learnt calmness in the midst of some pretty traumatic events. This might come across as naivety to some people which I don't mind. I do feel slightly sorry for them though because I am not naive at all! It's sometimes a hidden weapon! I don't feel as if I've lost in life much although I have experienced hardship.

I’m definitely not radical anything. I know there are two sexes; Male and female. Man and woman.

I think we need to build a more inclusive culture where men who consider themselves as trans women are safe to live their lives free of violence and harassment. The issue is surely about men’s spaces not being safe, not that the solution is to negate womanhood.

If the answer is 'nothing' then surely gender is redundant and we all fit in one big 'human' box.

Yes, and yes. However, having the boxes comes first before realisation of the second.

I think we need to build a more inclusive culture where men who consider themselves as trans women are safe to live their lives free of violence and harassment. The issue is surely about men’s spaces not being safe, not that the solution is to negate womanhood.

I agree. This is what I am advocating.

However, having the boxes comes first before realisation of the second.

But I would say that gender norms are far more constrictive nowadays than thirty years ago. So how does that work? Are you suggesting that we need to make everything worse to make things better?

Are you suggesting that we need to make everything worse to make things better?

No we simply acknowledge the boxes.Then explore them in discussion and what we think they should be which leads to widening of them so they encompass each other.

No we simply acknowledge the boxes.Then explore them in discussion and what we think they should be which leads to widening of them so they encompass each other.

What do you actually mean though? What does acknowledging boxes look like?

@Sittinbythetree

I think you are over complicating it.

For me gc means that there are females and males -(xx and xy) and I couldn’t care less what they wear or their interests - that’s personality not ‘gender’.

Is it inclusive - I don’t really care. I’m not interested in whether some men feel sad / angry that I don’t include them as females. Female includes all women and only women.

To me inclusivity is about making sure that people with particular needs are able to be fully part of society - disability access, no racism or homophobia. It doesn’t mean pretending things aren’t real - no men in women’s sports. It doesn’t mean pandering to groups that think they are vulnerable when really they aren’t. I think it’s insane that we are having to waste energy on this tiny group of TRAs while ignoring the fact there are loads of people who are genuinely vulnerable. If there were as much noise about; domestic violence, child poverty, everyday racism and sexism, disability access, fgm, literacy, numeracy, child abuse, we might actually see more progress as n these things. It might also mean that for example not everyone can do the job they want if they aren’t actually able to do it.

All of the above.

What does acknowledging boxes look like?

Engaging in the discussion about gender diversity. Allowing people to say their piece. Then maybe gently ask some challenging questions whilst openly acknowledging where you agree with them.

If everyone took this on board it would mean safe single sex spaces could be preserved, as people could present themselves however they want, wear what they want but use the single sex space appropriate for their sex without conflict.

Trying to be 'inclusive' is misguided. It's impossible here. The whole point of single sex services is that they are exclusive of the opposite sex.

Women's places exclude men, for rational, explicable, justifiable reasons. You are arguing for this to continue, OP. But it is that exclusion which some people resent and are arguing against.

There will always be conflict, as long as some people feel that exclusion of any kind is unfair.

The patriarchal position: Sex exists, sex determines gender
The feminist position: Sex exists, sex does not determine gender, gender is a construct
Trans position: Gender identity exists, sex does not exist, gender identity determines sex.

I think it’s insane that we are having to waste energy on this tiny group of TRAs while ignoring the fact there are loads of people who are genuinely vulnerable. If there were as much noise about; domestic violence, child poverty, everyday racism and sexism, disability access, fgm, literacy, numeracy, child abuse, we might actually see more progress as n these things.

But they are loud! They are the squeaky wheel. And it is difficult for lots of people to ignore. The only way is to engage and address their perceived vulnerability in order to move on.

Engaging in the discussion about gender diversity. Allowing people to say their piece.

But again, that is what we have been doing. It hasn't worked. We are told TWAW. We are told NO DEBATE. Yes, you can engage in discussion on mumsnet - but you are preaching to the converted. You can't on Twitter or in many universities.

There will always be conflict, as long as some people feel that exclusion of any kind is unfair.

Maybe. But why do they want to occupy our safe spaces? Is it because their's are unsafe? Tackle this and our safe spaces remain safe.

Tackle this and our safe spaces remain safe.

1. Do you not think that women have enough to do without sorting out the problem with male spaces, too?
2. Safety is not really the problem here. Many people have suggested third spaces so as not to open up women's spaces. The idea was rejected by activists - they want to be accepted as women. Anything less is not acceptable.

But again, that is what we have been doing. It hasn't worked. We are told TWAW. We are told NO DEBATE. Yes, you can engage in discussion on mumsnet - but you are preaching to the converted. You can't on Twitter or in many universities.

This is good practice. There are many who read these discussions who occupy other less safe spaces for discussion too. I simply believe diplomacy can work.

Have you seen what happened with the women's bathing spaces in London. There were male, female and mixed sex spaces. Males are now welcome in all of them. Women are not allowed to say no.

They want to occupy our safe places for validation. For proving that they pass. To make us complicit in their beliefs. To make us give way and accept our needs and beliefs are secondary ( a male trait! )

I simply believe diplomacy can work.

Even when we have the evidence that it is not working?

1) Do you not think that women have enough to do without sorting out the problem with male spaces, too?

Just kills two birds with one stone.

2) Safety is not really the problem here. Many people have suggested third spaces so as not to open up women's spaces. The idea was rejected by activists - they want to be accepted as women. Anything less is not acceptable.

I believe it is safety that is the problem for some. Then some become bitter and don't want to single themselves out as anything 'other'. It can be easy to pass or hide amongst women who might not challenge than have everyone watch you use a dedicated space. Fear can make people aggressive.

Even when we have the evidence that it is not working?

Diplomacy takes time.

If safety is the issue surely Male sex, female sex, mixed sex is the answer. Anyone can use mixed sex. But this is not acceptable to many. Forcing access to female areas is not about sex but power. Otherwise you wouldn't want to feel safer at the cost of others feeling less safe. It is pure entitlement.

Sorry that should say ' not about safety but power'

I believe it is safety that is the problem for some. Then some become bitter and don't want to single themselves out as anything 'other'. It can be easy to pass or hide amongst women who might not challenge than have everyone watch you use a dedicated space. Fear can make people aggressive.

OP you sound like a lovely person but I really think you are being naive. For a lot of males (and yes, I know people would say they are not transgender but really the impact is the same) being able to use female bathrooms is a golden opportunity. It is well-documented that letting males into female spaces results in a huge risk in the risk of voyeurism and even attacks. It is not fair on women to say they have to expose themselves to risk because some trans women do not want to use men's bathrooms (or even a third space). It is not on us to sort out this problem.