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?

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.

Diplomacy everywhere unless directly in defence of someone vulnerable where there is no time for diplomacy, i.e. an emergency situation. Just because people have explained why they think diplomacy hasn't worked doesn't mean I agree with them and say oh, sorry, diplomacy is crap you are completely correct. I still maintain and would stress its value even if it takes a long time and is difficult. Just because I understand your point but disagree doesn't make me confused,

It seems like a step backwards to me to talk about "female interests" or "work roles" etc.

I suggest talking about them because they are being talked about. If we dismiss the conversation in an overly abrupt manner it only adds fuel to the fire and promotes more controversy.

OP. Could I ask what diplomatic things you have done/are doing/plan to do to implement your..erm... nuanced highly evolved counter approach to resolving the gender stalemate?

My plan is simply engaging with the people and real life situations within my path in a manner consistent with the approach I have outlined. It doesn't take much forethought when the approach is an internalised one.

So leaving it to other people then

So leaving it to other people then

The conflict, yes, I'm afraid so. But I will do what I can to protect the innocent when it up to me and have done successfully several times in my lifetime. However, this was done through diplomacy and utilised existing channels. Conflict and brute force did not play a part in achieving this success.

I think the issue is that trans women don't want to be "gender non conforming men", they want to be women in every way they can (probably biologically if they could).

If they could, that would pose some interesting dilemmas. Would they seek to highlight the importance of (their new biological) sex after transition or still claim gender be prioritised over sex? They would essentially disappear in terms of being trans once the transition were fully complete in order to completely assimilate into their chosen sex.

Well I feel reassured that you are out there, on our side, (diplomatically, non confrontationally and through the proper channels) winning the hearts and minds of people who's paths you happen to cross, by informing them that the male gender contains male and female stereotypes and that the female gender contains the same male and female stereotypes. A nuanced gender ninja.

Aw, thanks. Nice to be appreciated, @AdHominemNonSequitur.

@pensivepigeon

It seems like a step backwards to me to talk about "female interests" or "work roles" etc.

I suggest talking about them because they are being talked about. If we dismiss the conversation in an overly abrupt manner it only adds fuel to the fire and promotes more controversy.

How about crowding them out? Instead of an article about "here is a brave man in lipstick, smashing gender norms" (which feels like the entire front page of the BBC website sometimes), an article about a woman achieving something. Or a man achieving something that may not be seen as masculine (but not making that aspect the focus). When you say to a girl "here is a woman who didn't want to be like a typical woman, instead she rebelled and did what men do", you are still reinforcing the message that what she did is kind of a Boy Thing, which will unconsciously put many girls off. Same thing when a fuss is made of "here is a lovely man doing a womanly thing, caring for his baby like a wacky gender rebel". It flags up to the reader or listener that there is something odd about it. Most people don't want to be odd.

I appreciate probably none of us here are in editorial positions, but apply the same logic to everyday conversations etc. - just talking about the things people do, and doing the things that we do, without fanfare and without bringing gender into it.

I feel we are talking at cross-purposes with these mentions of "conflict and brute force". As I said, I can understand why you have perceived some of the dynamic of this thread in that way. Are you also suggesting that we are approaching the blissfully ignorant potential allies in our real lives in a spirit of "conflict and brute force"? Hmm. It is frustrating sometimes, because many people just cannot actually believe what is happening, so one can find oneself beleaguering one's husband (say) with a repetitive "brute force attack" that may begin to bear fruit after some hours...

How about crowding them out? Instead of an article about "here is a brave man in lipstick, smashing gender norms" (which feels like the entire front page of the BBC website sometimes), an article about a woman achieving something. Or a man achieving something that may not be seen as masculine (but not making that aspect the focus). When you say to a girl "here is a woman who didn't want to be like a typical woman, instead she rebelled and did what men do", you are still reinforcing the message that what she did is kind of a Boy Thing, which will unconsciously put many girls off. Same thing when a fuss is made of "here is a lovely man doing a womanly thing, caring for his baby like a wacky gender rebel". It flags up to the reader or listener that there is something odd about it. Most people don't want to be odd.

Yep, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Applied with absolute consistency. I note small successes when people start to use the same words and phrases as me. I often purposely try to use ones which are out of circulation (within the circle I am talking to) sometimes. It shows they have paid heed to whatever I've said.

Are you also suggesting that we are approaching the blissfully ignorant potential allies in our real lives in a spirit of "conflict and brute force"?

No, I didn't set out to criticise anyone on here in particular. I was just warning against certain behaviours and advocating the way of dealing with things I outlined. But I have observed it happening on here and in real life.

Hmm. It is frustrating sometimes, because many people just cannot actually believe what is happening, so one can find oneself beleaguering one's husband (say) with a repetitive "brute force attack" that may begin to bear fruit after some hours...

Brute force attacks are exhausting. I think giving yourself time to calmly get a point across at your leisure and at the most opportune moments is much more preferable.

@pensivepigeon

I think the issue is that trans women don't want to be "gender non conforming men", they want to be women in every way they can (probably biologically if they could).

If they could, that would pose some interesting dilemmas. Would they seek to highlight the importance of (their new biological) sex after transition or still claim gender be prioritised over sex? They would essentially disappear in terms of being trans once the transition were fully complete in order to completely assimilate into their chosen sex.

They basically would seek to have gender and sex squashed together - their story seems to read "I was assigned male at birth wrongly because all anyone cared about was my biological sex, I grew up and bravely realised sex is not about biology, I was a woman in my head so I should be a woman despite how biology went wrong for me. I view women as wanting to wear a dress, not beat each other up in toilets and get flirted with by men which is what I want so instead of try to do those things as a man this must mean I AM a woman. Therefore I am a woman both in sex and gender and in any way or definition and to argue with this is transphobic. I must be allowed in any women's area as I am a woman, any women who have a problem with this can be disregarded as they are being unkind and exclusive."

I view women as wanting to wear a dress, not beat each other up in toilets and get flirted with by men which is what I want so instead of try to do those things as a man this must mean I AM a woman. Therefore I am a woman both in sex and gender and in any way or definition and to argue with this is transphobic

But if they actually biologically became a woman and took the place of a woman within society they would then experience a women's oppression from the time of the transition.

Would make good science fiction I suppose...

Women’s best chance of success in resisting the transactivist agenda lies in plain, direct, unambiguous language which carries the clear message that ‘inclusivity’ is unacceptable if it means including men in women-only activities and institutions.

But if they actually biologically became a woman and took the place of a woman within society they would then experience a women's oppression from the time of the transition

Which (let's ignore the fact that it's impossible to change sex) they would interpret as transphobia, not sexism. Anything less than total capitulation is transphobic.

I think this rather confirms my suspicion about 10 pages back that this is a wind-up designed to keep women busy and divert them from writing their thank-you letters to various peers.

I agree most of the time you are likely to win more hearts and minds by gentle reasoned conversation dropped in at opportune times, rather than (verbal) brute force.

But when the other side are beating down the doors to your house (toilets, sports provision, language) you do need to stand strong and resist and call for re-enforcements and shout loudly rather than open the door and say come on in we'll chat.

Especially if that other side have already infiltrated the media, police, politics etc so they have become organisationally deaf and blind.

What do posters mean by ‘brute force’, when it comes to language?!

Seems goady.

@Dozer

What do posters mean by ‘brute force’, when it comes to language?!

Seems goady.

I agree. In my last post to the OP, I said (a passwords untilbit tongue-in-cheek) that perhaps I had employed this technique on my husband, meaning in the sense of a brute force computer hacking attack, which is when the hacker just generates endless passwords in the hope that one will let them in. What I meant was, sometimes people just will not hear anything you say about this topic until you have said it 100 times. I'm not sure that's what the OP meant by the term, though.

Typo in my second sentence, sorry - the bracketed bit should simply have read "(a bit tongue-in-cheek)".

What do posters mean by ‘brute force’, when it comes to language?!

Seems goady.

This seems nit picky. It is clear through their tone that of a lot of posters on this thread aren't prepared to have people with an even slight difference of opinion express their views without accusing them of being 'confused', 'defensive', 'naive', lacking in clarity...So I used the term 'brute force' to describe the tone of certain styles of discussion. I have observed this on many different thread and even said the tone of this thread is comparatively gentle although I have seen more of a brutal style of language creeping in.

Dozer My use of 'brute force' when it comes to language is trying to describe how you would go about trying to make a group of friends understand the issue.
Either you tackle it all in one go, head on, using firm language
or you can drip feed issues and gradually bring them round.

Often the gradual approach is a better way in many things.
However with the current debate it often is too gentle and we get trampled on, so we have to be louder and more direct iyswim?