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?

@bourbonne

Man dressed and styled according to a traditional female stereotype in a pink frilly dress, long flowing hair, makeup and high heels is deemed a male person, with a gender expression which falls within normal (infinite) parameters for his sex.

Why not just add validity to the term gender by making it mean anything which it most certainly is?

How does making it mean anything add validitity to it?

Under my proposal of a broader acceptance and understanding of difference genders it is no longer a spectrum. It is just a group of people that dress differently, have different hairstyles, use a variety of different cosmetics and have different interests. It would be deemed completely normal for those people to be of either sex

What you are calling 'a proposal' is nothing remotely new. It has been done before. Back in the day these young people might have called themselves Goths or Emos, for example. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Could just be a bloke in a dress, then we wouldn't all have to be forced into giving any credence to the gender nonsense.

If you don't mind me asking pigeon...how old are you? You don't seem to be aware that we've been through all of this sort of gender bending and elasticity before.

You can't transform from one thing to another if it exists only as a construct...except in your own mind

Once the thought is expressed it moves from the mind into the world at large. The thought, in its expression, can be translated into physical matter as the person who thought it effects their environment.

Every word is a construct. In terms of actual matter they can only describe it. They are not that matter.

If you don't mind me asking pigeon...how old are you? You don't seem to be aware that we've been through all of this sort of gender bending and elasticity before.

I'm very aware. I lived through the 80s, thank you very much when walls were adorned with Boy George and Steve Strange et al!

(And I remember the 70s with the likes of David Bowie...)

How does making it mean anything add validitity to it?

Isn't assigning something a meaning adding validity? (Well at least until people realise the definition is so broad it encompasses almost anything...kind of my point.)

@pensivepigeon so who does that please?

Not the man in a dress, as he is presumably fixated on expressing his idea of a female gender identity (or maybe he is a good old-fashioned cross-dresser without pretentions - do they still make those?). There's nothing in it for him to use gender as a meaningless word unlinked to any connotations of sex, is there?

Not GC feminists, as there's still this abstract notion of gender to contend with, floating about to be used in delineating pointless "identities".

I sort of see what you're saying, that to defeat gender ideology we must let it basically exhaust itself, but can it not fail on its own account without us lending it credence?

I sort of see what you're saying, that to defeat gender ideology we must let it basically exhaust itself, but can it not fail on its own account without us lending it credence?

I'm just thinking my plan might speed up the process.

Once the thought is expressed it moves from the mind into the world at large. The thought, in its expression, can be translated into physical matter as the person who thought it effects their environment

Maybe in a video game it can, but not in science as we know it; nor does it change the reality of sex as it is established on planet earth.
you really cannot change sex. Gender is a mental construct, not a physical one.

I'm just thinking my plan might speed up the process

I suggest it is not so much a plan as a delusion - certainly given the nature of the trans movement. Yes, it will take time to play out - possibly a couple of decades - but in the meant-time we don't just capitulate to it. We need to maintain safeguarding measures and the integrity of single sex provisions and services.

I agree with @justhadathought. Real-world action is where it's at. Let the emperor show his new clothes to the High Court. That's been working quite well so far.

• Maybe in a video game it can, but not in science as we know it; nor does it change the reality of sex as it is established on planet earth. you really cannot change sex. Gender is a mental construct, not a physical one.*

I fully acknowledge this! Never pretended otherwise. I have had a mastectomy and cancer treatment which has left me infertile with only one breast but that doesn't make me any less of a woman! However, it was my own and other people's decisions which affected my own physical matter in this way. What we want to prevent is needless, potentially harmful surgical and drug induced alterations being made to people's bodies because of their thoughts on gender. 'Mental constructs' do affect physical matter and not always in a good way!

We need to maintain safeguarding measures and the integrity of single sex provisions and services

Which I believe too. The sticking point is only how.

Real-world action is where it's at. Let the emperor show his new clothes to the High Court. That's been working quite well so far.

Really? Not according to the thread I was just reading on here. I just believe by being less confrontational it opens up dialogue and steers it along the right tracks which is exactly what is needed to expose 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Merely attempting to silence very vocal people by shouting loudly back just creates more noise.

Mental constructs' do affect physical matter and not always in a good way

They certainly do when the various establishments actively entertain these constructs. That is why the whole thinking behind it needs to be challenged too. It is clear most people do not really understand the effect and implications of giving free reign to this idea/construct......nor have they really ever thought it through.

so who does that please?

Not the man in a dress, as he is presumably fixated on expressing his idea of a female gender identity (or maybe he is a good old-fashioned cross-dresser without pretentions - do they still make those?). There's nothing in it for him to use gender as a meaningless word unlinked to any connotations of sex, is there?

He'll just find something else, hopefully something that won't impinge on women's rights.

Not GC feminists, as there's still this abstract notion of gender to contend with, floating about to be used in delineating pointless "identities".

I think feminists are well versed in abstract notions of delineating pointless 'identities' with all the infighting that as happened over the years within feminist factions. I was hoping it was possible to come through that and unite.

That is why the whole thinking behind it needs to be challenged too.

Which is what I'm discussing doing here albeit using a graduated, staged approach in order to open up discussions to a greater audience.

Which thread is that, @pensivepigeon? I'm thinking particularly of Keira Bell's resounding success. There was also Kate Scottow recently. And various promising judicial reviews in progress. Plus the scrutiny of the House of Lords over the MOMA bill last week.

Confrontation in the courts moves the Overton window. Conversations are being had now that wouldn't have been had a couple of years go. Most people are not interested in getting into the detail of gender ideology, if they are aware of it at all. They just don't want to say the wrong thing and get in trouble, or upset someone.

Standing firm against the overreach of this ideology into our institutions, by using all the proper channels and the strength of civil society, is not destructive confrontation - it's being an active citizen.

Mums and grown adult women are easy to disparage on Twitter, but harder for those in power to dismiss in good conscience. This is a movement full of the kinds of people who are pillars of the community in real life - well-informed, persistent, responsible, experienced.

People will take their cues from laws and policies.

The CQC thread.

@pensivepigeon

The CQC thread.

Where the CQC posted a presentation from their LGBT network about pronouns? I have just skimmed it, but can't see anything about a court case.

"thanks Uppity how interesting

Written Question
Care Quality Commission
6 Jan 2021, midnight
Questioner: Lord Lucas

Question

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Care Quality Commission’s justification for the use of the word gender in the equality and human rights statement on its website reflects Government policy.

Answer (Lord Bethell)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has used the word ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’ in their Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Policy and Principles of Workforce Equality Monitoring since these documents were introduced in 2011.

These documents were reviewed by the CQC’s Staff Equality Networks and approved by the CQC’s Joint Negotiating and Consultation Committee, which includes trade union representatives and senior managers, alongside external, national union officers and were signed-off by the CQC’s board at that time.

The use of the word ‘gender’ did not arise as an issue of concern whilst completing Equality Impact Assessments for new human resources policies. It was neither subject to a specific assessment nor to legal advice at the time, but Government Legal Services have now reviewed the CQC’s use of the word gender in these documents and confirmed that this meets the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="_blank">https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="blank">type=writtenanswers&mpp<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="_blank">type=1879"

Friday 18:04 post.

It was this which was concerning.

If more people understood gender better this wouldn't happen.

Because which genders out of the multitude available are protected?

Well, that is concerning, and that's where we should be fighting it, in my view - not expending energy trying to convince the world at large that gender is such a great concept that it should be extended to mean anything that anyone wants it to mean. We need to be very focused and ask them "well, what is it?".