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?

@pensivepigeon

So male spaces are unsafe? It is unsafe to be amongst males? For men and women? I would have thought this needs addressing. It is not surprising some males reject masculinity. Very sad that the dangers still exists around males even if they reject masculinity. Tackle this and everyone is safer.

And in other news researchers have discovered the Pope is a Catholic and bears have sylvan toilet habits.

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

You seem to be saying that the bandwidth of gender should be expanded, to the point, it seems to me, that gender no longer exists......is meaningless?

I agree! Isn't that what feminism and gay rights were always about?

The issue is that trans activists want to suggest that gender is a determinate, rather fixed thing........and that rather fixed thing is the determiner of an indidual's sex. And as that is logically fallible, the argument then suggests that sex does not really exist at all -or that sex has nothing to do with gender.

You know it all sounds confused, and so do many of your points so far. I'm not sure what it is you are trying to achieve?On one hand you say there needs to be a counter force of equal ferocity, then you suggest non aggression.........

Or rather, I think we can publicly say it's bollocks, and let people see it and decide for themselves if it's bollocks.

*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 safe8

Is it the job of women to tackle this on behalf of other groups? Really?

How about trans people campaign for their own third spaces and provisions. Bingo! no conflict!

I get the impression that you really want to be kind and you really don't want to face the reality that an awful lot of people aren't.

This is why I find strength in and advocate diplomacy over being adversarial

Good luck with that.....

This is pointless.

However, I think it only works against good-faith opponents, where you think there's a good chance you can genuinely get to the nub of the issue together and make progress

I think there is a danger of seeing moderate people as enemies when they are not. They are prospective allies. Even if they don't agree wholeheartedly with every aspect of the generally accepted GC stance. On this thread, I have been assumed naive, someone who was actually a TRA using this thread to their own ends, people have taken purposeful offence to the most innocuous of comments. When I clearly agree with the GC standpoint on lots of issues. I get it. The challenges were not the worst but still adversarial and noticeably disgruntled. I could have easily taken offence and distanced myself completely from the GC cause. When what it needs is strength in numbers.

I get the impression that you really want to be kind and you really don't want to face the reality that an awful lot of people aren't.

I face it every day. I don't have to sink to their level.

You know it all sounds confused, and so do many of your points so far

I don't think they are. They are simply nuanced,

When I clearly agree with the GC standpoint on lots of issues.

I still don't understand what it is that you don't agree with re: feminists. It just seems to be that sometimes they are too direct/aggressive. I think this is partly gender again! Women are judged far more harshly for speaking up for themselves than men are so maybe you should ask yourself if you are doing the same? In any case, yes it is true that some people find feminists standing up for women as off-putting and this is a problem. However, not being assertive is also penalised. It's not easy at all.

I face it every day. I don't have to sink to their level.

There is a difference between sinking to their level and letting them trample all over you.

I'm probably just thick but I'm also probably the least gender critical poster on here but I'm struggling to follow your points.

@pensivepigeon ah, that makes sense. I think on this board there are unfortunately people who drop in to troll, and it can be quite subtle to the untrained eye, which I think can lead to a slightly prickly atmosphere sometimes. I remember a thread that started off as basically "I'm a TW, can't we all make peace and get along?" which immediately got a load of hostile responses that baffled me. Turned out it was a troll who was posting screenshots of this forum on Twitter, boasting about winding us up. That was not a one-off either.

In real life, I doubt many, or any, people take that tack. In fact many of us are scared to say a single word on the topic! There's a lot of diplomacy and careful conversations happening around dinner tables and so on.

Or rather - there is nothing wrong with standing up for yourself. Be too diplomatic and you will find no-one will respect you.

I don't think they are. They are simply nuanced

Nuance is fine if you live in a world of one. If you want others to understand you have to be clearer. You really are not making any sense, and your goals seem shifting and uncertain - based on 'nuanced' feelings....

I think it is very important to reserve adversarial behaviour only to situations which absolutely require it in order to defend the vulnerable where there is no other alternative. A thread in a safe discussion place, such as this, with someone being clearly pretty moderate shouldn't illicit adversarial responses or comments regarding their intelligence/naivety. I think too many people are a bit too 'trigger happy' with this style of rhetoric, on here and in real life. It hinders discussion and creates division where there was none previously.

Women are judged far more harshly for speaking up for themselves than men are so maybe you should ask yourself if you are doing the same?

I don't judge women more harshly than men in this.

Diplomacy only works when both parties have equal power and status. Unfortunately that is not the case for most women in our society.

Be too diplomatic and you will find no-one will respect you.

I have not found that to be a problem.

@Gerla

Or rather - there is nothing wrong with standing up for yourself. Be too diplomatic and you will find no-one will respect you.

This is very true. I would love it if people.in positions of power made decisions based on merit and logic. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that they very often just want to avoid pissing off those who shout the loudest. I don't literally want to go about shouting loudly and it's not in my nature, but you do have to make your presence felt and stand your ground clearly, else you will find you have diplomatically ushered yourself out of the building and into the cold.

@bourbonne , thank you.

There is a difference between sinking to their level and letting them trample all over you.

I manage not to.

A thread in a safe discussion place, such as this, with someone being clearly pretty moderate shouldn't illicit adversarial responses or comments regarding their intelligence/naivety.

Yes, it's true that people can be very abrupt and sometimes people are quick to pounce rather than explain their point of view. However, I would say that your posts are rather confusing. It is difficult to understand whether your appeal for diplomacy is limited to mumsnet forums, chats with friends or wider society. People (me included) have explained why diplomacy hasn't worked and isn't working to protect women's rights in our society but you now seem to be saying that you were talking about responses on mumsnet. This is why people are confused.

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

This is nonsense, IMO. What are traditional "male" (or "female") interests? Work roles? There are plenty of male nurses, teachers, etc etc- traditional "female" roles. And vice versa.

We'd be better off teaching children that men and woman can be anything, present as they like and that "boy things" and "Girl things" are just nonsense. It seems like a step backwards to me to talk about "female interests" or "work roles" etc.

Anyway, I have to go now OP. So in the spirit of diplomacy and not seeming too abrupt - have a nice evening. It was good to chat with you despite our differing opinions.