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?

It means accepting that people have a gender identity but that is different to sex.

For spaces where sex matters, sex is placed above gender when deciding what spaces people use.

Is that right OP? If so, I agree but don’t think that many TRAs would see it as inclusive.

What gets me about the trans debate, is that it's ok to disenfranchise 50% of the population for the sake of not offending a small minority!

Is that right OP? If so, I agree but don’t think that many TRAs would see it as inclusive.

Yes, that's about the size of it and I fully acknowledge many TRAs wouldn't see this as inclusive. Less radical trans people might be ok with it, though.

So OP no males whatever their gender in female only spaces and female sports. Also get men to make male spaces safe for transwomen and non binary males. Got it!

This thread has 354 messages, which is suprising because it's one of the most irritating and banal initial posts I've read to date on mumsnet.

I feel bizarely drawn to it in a way I simply can't explain because it really doesn't warrant the time commitment.

People, save yourselves, look away.

I feel like I'm being fed on, and I'm off

You're posting in bad faith, Pensive Pigeon. You're sea-lioning

Yep! And an awful lot of time invested in doing so.

This thread feels like what would happen if you tried to convince a group of 19th century early feminists that they shouldn't be fighting against the middle-class cult of domesticity, they should be redefining 'domesticity' to include everything they wanted to be able to do, so as not to offend the men who thought the ideal of feminine domesticity was culturally important.

(I await the bad-faith engagement of 'I didn't mention middle-class/19th century people, so you're wrong' or similar...)

The fact that I suggested you start your own thread to stop derailing another

I didn't feel like I was derailing it since some GC posters have, including on this thread, considered my stance gender critical.

I am still with everyone else who has found your position confused, inconsistent and yes, naïve, which is understandable because you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven’t actually fully understood what the issues are that we are facing, and seem to think if we were all just nicer then we might get a better response from those who have a completely different worldview and purpose/goal than us.

So anyone who agrees with a lot of your particular brand of gender critical stance but only partially agrees with the whole of it is confused, then? I'm sorry but the definition of confused is not disagreeing slightly with you.

One would think having a more moderate nuanced approach was the most rebellious thing ever amongst the posters on this thread...

This thread feels like what would happen if you tried to convince a group of 19th century early feminists that they shouldn't be fighting against the middle-class cult of domesticity, they should be redefining 'domesticity' to include everything they wanted to be able to do, so as not to offend the men who thought the ideal of feminine domesticity was culturally important.

I would have some sympathy for them. My motivations are not so as not to offend men, though. My stance is chosen in order to be fair to men and women who don't have the stomach to make changes through outright conflict, who appreciate that everyone who doesn't parrot their views exactly is not necessarily their mortal enemy.

And there we have it:

My motivations are not so as not to offend men, though. My stance is chosen in order to be fair to men and women who don't have the stomach to make changes through outright conflict, who appreciate that everyone who doesn't parrot their views exactly is not necessarily their mortal enemy

The agenda. Be kind, don't rock the boat. And legal, polite, firm debate reframed as 'outright combat.'

Be kind, don't rock the boat.

More like be kind whilst steering the boat!Whilst some people get caught up squabbling more pragmatic, moderate people quietly get on with some very subtle redirecting...

And legal, polite, firm debate reframed as 'outright combat.'

Legal, yes. Polite, no. 'Outright combat', not what I said. My word was 'conflict'. Again, I think some appreciation of nuance is needed. The meaning is different.

As I have stated in my opening posts. Single sex spaces are made safe spaces for a whole multitude of genders but remain single sex. Sports categories are single sex but multi gender, uniforms allow for this etc etc.

Nobody on here will disagree with you that people should be able to reject gender norms without facing prejudice or violence from members of either their own sex or the opposite sex. But you are woefully mistaken if you think that will satisfy the trans lobby, or if you think that a desire to be free from male violence is the sole or even main reason transwomen want access to women-only spaces. If a transwoman genuinely believes they are a real woman, it is patently obvious that they would want to use facilities designated for women. And that isn't even taking into account the potential for men to pretend to identify as women in order to gain access to women's spaces. Somehow I don't think they'd be very interested in your 'solution' either.

I've not read the full thread but I have read most of your posts @pensivepigeon
I'm still a little bit confused as to what you're advocating, if I'm honest.
Are you saying that people use, for example, clothing, to send out a signal regarding how they wish to be treated?
I understand that you want to maintain single sex spaces, and you want the all the people using them to be accepting of anybody in them, regardless of how they present, clothing - wise. Am I right? So you would like men to be accepted as tranwomen in men's spaces, just as women presenting as men (gendered male clothing, testosterone induced facial hair etc) in the ladies
Just examples, but is this what you mean?
And if a transwoman is dressed in 'girly' clothes, that would be taken as a signal that they want to be spoken to as a 'girly girl'?

But you are woefully mistaken if you think that will satisfy the trans lobby, or if you think that a desire to be free from male violence is the sole or even main reason transwomen want access to women-only spaces. If a transwoman genuinely believes they are a real woman, it is patently obvious that they would want to use facilities designated for women. And that isn't even taking into account the potential for men to pretend to identify as women in order to gain access to women's spaces. Somehow I don't think they'd be very interested in your 'solution' either.

I'm not looking at engaging with the trans lobby, more the vast swathes of ordinary, moderate people who are responsible for education and services in this country along with the education and service users plus the younger generation of people who are our future.

So you would like men to be accepted as tranwomen in men's spaces, just as women presenting as men (gendered male clothing, testosterone induced facial hair etc) in the ladies

Yes.

And if a transwoman is dressed in 'girly' clothes, that would be taken as a signal that they want to be spoken to as a 'girly girl'?

Possibly, but I wouldn't make any assumptions. They might just like the clothes or be dressing ironically.

Are you saying that people use, for example, clothing, to send out a signal regarding how they wish to be treated?

Not really. Some might. Clothing choices are made for many reasons.

So, from what I understand from reading these boards @pensivepigeon, your answer to my first question shows that you're advocating exactly what most GC people want.
Your suggestion is to work with Joe Public to encourage acceptance of gender non-conforming people more, in general?

Re my other questions, I was just putting those out there as ideas, based on something a trans-ally friend said to me. We were discussing gender stereotyping in general, and she offered up the idea of clothing as a signal.
Just out of interest, I asked DH whether he'd prefer to share single sex spaces with a transman or a tranwoman.
His response was that he'd prefer to pee next to a bloke in a dress than a woman.

I think you are preaching to the converted here. Unfortunately what you are proposing isn't what the TWAW brigade want.

And this is the problem. What you are suggesting, now I've worked it out, is exactly what most moderate people want. But they are shut down with accusations of bigotry, and worse, because the TRAs want no debate.

I think you are preaching to the converted here

Then why the hostility?

Your suggestion is to work with Joe Public to encourage acceptance of gender non-conforming people more, in general?

Yes, whilst preserving single sex provision.

What you are suggesting, now I've worked it out, is exactly what most moderate people want.

I think so too.

But they are shut down with accusations of bigotry, and worse, because the TRAs want no debate.

From this thread, it would seem neither do more radical GC feminist, sadly. However, I'm hoping to appeal to the moderate majority.

And I feel my views on redefining gender (in the way it is assumed by society to be connected to someone's sex) and making it as broad as anything can possibly be, means that eventually there will cease to be any need from any sector for the term.

Which means, if you were to agree with my premise, no one would have any problem in saying their gender matched their sex. No matter what they wear, how they did their hair, their interests, their working roles, their personality, likes and dislikes or anything.

If they disliked their body, for whatever reason, it would be treated as a separate issue.

Which is all exactly what JKR said.

And we need more people to think it and then they will say it too.