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?

But it has nothing to do with their sex and sex based rights are what is important.

@Doyoumind, yes, and I believe in preserving theses rights. However, in order to do that, I feel engaging with people regarding gender might be helpful. There would be no perceived need for single sex based rights to be eroded if society really accepted the real fluidity of gender as a social and cultural concept along with the binary nature of sex in human beings,

@Gerla

But we are society! Society is us!

I think if you start trying to redefine words by yourself then you just end up talking at cross purposes with people and discussions get nowhere.

But a few initial thoughts in response.

What do you mean by inclusive, and why do you feel it is important?

Male and female are sexes, they have distinct meanings, so I don’t think it’s sensible to then appropriate those same words to indicate gender. Masculine and feminine seems more appropriate to refer to stereotypes typically or traditionally associated with a particular sex.

If something is defined by “adhering or not adhering to” then it is absolutely meaningless, tbh. I genuinely don’t know what you mean, because it could quite literally be anything.

Now when you this bit, I’m with you:

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.

This is all what GC feminism strives for. Just without the need to embrace gender to do it. Gender is irrelevant, or should be, in situations where the differentiating factor is sex. Your opposition comes form people who would argue that if someone feels feminine and likes to present in a feminine manner, then they should be included in female spaces, regardless of their sex. I also don’t think many of the prominent transwomen athletes currently competing in women’s sports would be satisfied competing against men as long as they can wear lipstick and the pink unitard/shorts/helmet....that’s not what they are after as I understand it. They want everyone to agree with them that they are women because they say they are, at the end of the day. The entire world will never agree with them on that.

This is why the way out of this for me is to reject gender - on a personal level I don’t identify with either set of stereotypes and rather than accepting that masculine=male and feminine=female, I say bollocks to it, nope, not for me thank you, I don’t believe. It is freeing. I genuinely think a lot less young people, especially teenage girls, would struggle with gender dysphoria if we smashed gender stereotypes completely for them during childhood, and gendered expectations were never internalised in the first place.

I would be interested in hearing what you thought gender critical meant before you wrote this post? Did you think that gender critical feminists were opposed to trans ideology but actually wanted to preserve traditional gender roles?

What is it about your post that you think is more "inclusive" than gender critical feminism?

But you are just arguing for what we want already - for rights and services based on sex where how you behave or present is irrelevant. We're already inclusive in that sense. No isssues with gnc people whatsoever. It just has nothing to do with their sex.

doesn't that render it meaningless?

@AradiaGC

No, simply because language can describe what is cultural as well as what is natural. Cultural language is useful in reflecting and discussing cultures. It helps us question ourselves and interaction with the natural world.

OP I don't understand. You seem to be trying to convince people of what they already believe... What do you think Gender Critical means?

I agree with your sentiments OP but I don't think you're defining gender at all, you're saying it can be anything to anyone which is no definition at all. I'd be fine with this, I don't think there's any use for gender at all, but certain people who are stuck to old gender stereotypes don't want to allow there to be no definition for gender.

If you define something you have to be able to say, even roughly, what each category 'is' - so misogynists and many TRA's say masculine is short hair/suits/playing rugby/drilling and feminine is long hair/sexy dresses/makeup/baking cakes. In your definition masculine is anything that a particular man likes, feminine is anything that a particular woman likes which is no definition at all, basically throwing the concept of gender in the bin (but keeping sexes). I'd be all for that but it's the same stance as gender critical and many people are yelling that's transphobic and literal violence.

But we are society! Society is us!
Yes I know. Not sure what your point is, sorry.

OP, do you mean that instead of trying to argue against the concept of gender we should basically nod and smile and go along with it whilst ensuring that gender stereotypes include things like female doctors, men wearing make up, men taking on the bulk of caring roles, such that eventually there are no stereotypes for people to appropriate because each gender stereotype includes every way of being?

I suggest you speak to some TRA's about the sports issue and see if they want to campaign for transwomen to be allowed to wear the female uniform while still competing with their own sex in the mens sports category. I can guarantee you that EVERY SINGLE FEMINIST on this board and elsewhere would enthusiastically join that campaign.

I think OP has believed this TRA lie that we care how people look because we object to the likes of Alex Drummond. Alex can present however the fuck Alex wants but that doesn't make Alex a woman. The issue with Alex is not just the beard but the absence of any desire to medically or surgically transition but then claim to be a woman as if being a woman is only about wearing dresses.

I would be interested in hearing what you thought gender critical meant before you wrote this post? Did you think that gender critical feminists were opposed to trans ideology but actually wanted to preserve traditional gender roles?

Really? No. I know what gender critical means. However, I realised my stance is an evolution of it. Instead of wanting gender and reference to it abolished I would seek to use it to reflect the reality of more feminist principles. Feminism is (part of) our culture after all...

Of course I don't think hormones or surgery make a woman either, of course.

No, simply because language can describe what is cultural as well as what is natural. Cultural language is useful in reflecting and discussing cultures. It helps us question ourselves and interaction with the natural world.

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't say it was meaningless because it was cultural. I said it was meaningless because you want you use a single term, say, 'female-gendered' to describe both A and not-A - both adhering to and not adhering to stereotypes. What, then, is the point in the term existing?

If I invented a new word and defined it as referring to things that were either green or not green, it wouldn't be a useful word. It means literally anything and everything.

To reflect the reality of more feminist principles?? Explain.

@Meceme

Great. I think there is only sex. I don't believe in the concept of gender. Everything outside sex is personality.

I'd agree.

I'd pose the question differently ...

How can we be inclusive but maintain safeguarding and sex based protections?

Then maybe you need to explain your new definition of gender a bit better than, because at the moment none of us have grasped it.

You seem to want to preserve and redefine gender roles instead of abolishing them, what is the purpose of gender roles in your opinion?

However, I realised my stance is an evolution of it
But it really isn't. You seem to be saying, let's keep gender and let it include everything. That's basically the same as abolishing it.

Surely feminism is not a gender based ideology. It is a movement or ideology prompted by sex based need.

I think OP has believed this TRA lie that we care how people look because we object to the likes of Alex Drummond.

Hmm, really? No. I understand why the concept of gender can be dangerous if it used to essentially 'trump' protected characteristics. However, I think the concept is here and in very much in use and difficult to simply 'ban'. However discussions over what gender / people's self expression means are very welcome currently. It would be quite simple to redefine gender in order to promote inclusivity but preserve protected characteristics.

@AradiaGC

No, simply because language can describe what is cultural as well as what is natural. Cultural language is useful in reflecting and discussing cultures. It helps us question ourselves and interaction with the natural world.

You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't say it was meaningless because it was cultural. I said it was meaningless because you want you use a single term, say, 'female-gendered' to describe both A and not-A - both adhering to and not adhering to stereotypes. What, then, is the point in the term existing?

If I invented a new word and defined it as referring to things that were either green or not green, it wouldn't be a useful word. It means literally anything and everything.

If I invented a new word and defined it as referring to things that were either green or not green, it wouldn't be a useful word. It means literally anything and everything.

Exactly this.

That's basically the same as abolishing it.

It's not because it engages rather than shuts down discussion. (The shut down happens later when gender ceases to matter to people.)

@pensivepigeon

@Gerla

But we are society! Society is us!

But society is not you (or us) alone. What “society” thinks or does cannot be dictated by one subset.

But society is not you (or us) alone. What “society” thinks or does cannot be dictated by one subset.

No. But it is how society starts.