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?

Trans women are not a statistical danger to women as a whole.

Male people are a statistical danger to women as a whole. Males don't belong in female only spaces for a host of reasons, one being their presence makes women less safe.

Currently trans gender people are not banned from using the bathrooms of their choice.

"Bathrooms" are in private houses, why would they be? Or do you mean toilets?

Ah, a man (biological male) has decided to come alone and tell all the women (biological female) that they’re wrong for not wanting a not biological female in single sex spaces. How apt

They're like buses.

Ah, a man (biological male) has decided to come alone and tell all the women (biological female) that they’re wrong for not wanting a not biological female in single sex spaces. How apt

Prime opportunity I say, to unpick some of that thinking. My question has still unfortunately gone unanswered, though...

@DadJoke do you have an answer to my question? Here:

"Why is deemed acceptable that trans genders people's psychological well-being should be put before that of female survivors of male abuse?"

Another question @DadJoke,

Why is the psychological, cultural phenomenon ( as it is "established, accepted and researched by all reputable national and international psychological bodies.") of gender identity deemed more in need of protection than the PTSD (also "established, accepted and researched by all reputable national and international psychological bodies.) of females who have survived (centuries of, if you are interested in inheritable cultural phenomenon) male abuse?

Trans women are not a statistical danger to women as a whole. This is just the bathroom panic narrative. There are some bad trans people, just as there are come bad disabled and BAME people, but pointing at unrepresenative samples is the essence of bigotry

You ignored completely the issue of the privacy and dignity of one's sex. Single sex spaces exist for reasons of safeguarding.

Campaign for third spaces and you will have solved your own anxieties around safety. Colonising the spaces and services of another group is not the answer.Examples are examples, and as such they are representative of the problem.

in Britain we call toilets, toilets, not bathrooms. the issue is far more than just about toilets, though.

*I am discussing this issue with gender critical feminists not women in general. Most women in the UK support trans gender rights. Currently trans gender people are not banned from using the bathrooms of their choice\8

You've got no idea what what most women in Britain think. I, on the other hand, know what many women think because I've spoken to a wide ranging sample of them. women and girls value the privacy and dignity that single sex spaces provide, and they feel very uncomfortable with males in their intimate spaces, unless invited.

The lack of openness on the issue still means that the public is largely unaware of what contemporary 'transgenderism' even means or implies, anyway. And when they do, they are not impressed. We all know the difference between male and female, as it is instinctively registered. This is why we have single sex spaces, service s and provisions; and in Britain they are written into law.

Campaign for your own spaces just like every other marginalised group has had to do.

Fully transitioned transexuals are not the same group as the far more diverse transgender identified grouping of today.

Everyone in Britain already has equal civil rights. That includes people who identify as trans.

@pensivepigeon "Why is deemed acceptable that trans genders people's psychological well-being should be put before that of female survivors of male abuse?"

I don't agree with the premise of the question.

Trans women for example are not perpetrators of abuse as a class against non-trans women. If an individual member of a protected class has an issue in general with people from another protected class, it might be possible to make an accomodation, but just because an individual has PTSD and is triggered by BAME people, disabled people, or transgender people for example, that says nothing about an accomodation for the whole class.

Any of these issues can be discussed and solved if we start from the premise that gender identity is a real thing, and that people are the gender they say they are. If you start from a counterfactual, that trans women, for example, are men, we get nowhere.

Trans women for example are not perpetrators of abuse as a class against non-trans women.

It's not remotely relevant what inner gender identity they have. Males are perpetrators of abuse as a class against females.

If you start from a counterfactual, that trans women, for example, are men, we get nowhere.

How is that "a counterfactual"? Give us your definition of "trans woman".

Everyone in Britain already has equal civil rights. That includes people who identify as trans.

Indeed.

@Justhadathought You've got no idea what what most women in Britain think. I, on the other hand, know what many women think because I've spoken to a wide ranging sample of them. women and girls value the privacy and dignity that single sex spaces provide, and they feel very uncomfortable with males in their intimate spaces, unless invited.

Again, this is based on the premise that transgender people are not who they say they are, and gender identity is not real. I am not basing my views on a collection of anecdotes, though I have listened to many women on this issue. A few are still GC, but on the whole, they are intersectional feminists. I wouldn't rely on those conversations alone to form an opinion.

Discomfort with the presence of members of protected classes has been a source of bigotry and oppression throughout the ages.

This obssession with trans women, who are not the source of women's oppression, seems disproportion, when it's men who are the main source of women's oppression. It would be nice if more of this energy was directed there rather than attacking a highly oppressed minority who are in the most danger, and should be allies.

Any of these issues can be discussed and solved if we start from the premise that gender identity is a real thing, and that people are the gender they say they are. If you start from a counterfactual, that trans women, for example, are men, we get nowhere

Gender and sex are two separate things. Gender is entirely a mental and social construct, and as such it is relative to the individual and to the society that formulates it.

You can believe in 'gender identities' if you wish, but you have no right to impose that belief onto others. Sex is an established fact, the world over, however.One's inner feelings about oneself are one's own issue to deal with. You don't go around expecting the whole world to conform to your very private ideas or feelings about yourself.

Again, this is based on the premise that transgender people are not who they say they are, and gender identity is not real

Pretty much, yes.

Nobody wants to deny someone's else's feelings about themselves, but feelings and material reality are two separate issues.

Nobody just accepts a stranger's word that "they are who they say they are". Not in most normal or formal circumstances, anyway. and certainly not when faced with the obvious cognitive dissonance of being presented with a white person, for example, who tells you they are black; or with an obviously male person who tells you that they are female.

Feelings don't trump reality.

Discomfort with the presence of members of protected classes has been a source of bigotry and oppression throughout the ages

Males have not traditionally been a protected class. Females, on the other hand, have been, and remain so. The world over.

Protected groups tend not to try to storm the boundaries of other protected groups. Protected groups usually seek their own safe space, in fact. Forcing oneself on another, who does not want you there is not generally something a vulnerable person or group does. that speaks far more of privilege and power.

This obssession with trans women, who are not the source of women's oppression, seems disproportion, when it's men who are the main source of women's oppression. It would be nice if more of this energy was directed there rather than attacking a highly oppressed minority who are in the most danger, and should be allies

If you try to force your way in, and coerce people, of course you are going to get a reaction. Women require and value single sex spaces, services and sports. That is why we have them.

It is you who sounds obsessed. Trying to force something where it is not wanted; and with no signs of empathy for the group that you are trying to impose upon.

they are intersectional feminists

Are they campaigning for gender identity to completely replace biological sex in feminism? Do they understand that women are different to men biologically? If so, they are not.

If an individual member of a protected class has an issue in general with people from another protected class, it might be possible to make an accomodation,
@DadJoke

Biological females are protected under British law.

but just because an individual has PTSD and is triggered by BAME people, disabled people, or transgender people for example, that says nothing about an accomodation for the whole class.

Biological females who have suffered abuse from biological males are a whole class. (Pretty big one. It's why British law is as it is) And transgender MTF people wanting access to women's safe spaces are biologically still male. Hormones, surgery etc doesn't change this (as you stated yourself) and the (potentially) physical and psychological intimidation they exert on women when they (metaphorically) force themselves into female spaces exists just as much as gender identity does.

Any of these issues can be discussed and solved if we start from the premise that gender identity is a real thing, and that people are the gender they say they are

Just look at the title of this thread I started! Look at the opening post! I have started from this premise! I understand this.

I questioned your own assertion that gender expression might not match gender identity since I believe it pretty logical that a verbal expression of gender identity is a form of gender expression however I also stated this really does not matter in the context of a wide variety of genders been deemed completely acceptable for either sex.

And no where on this thread had it been established that someone's sex can be changed. And provisions and protections are made under British law for biological sex. Why should gender change these provisions? Someones sex still remains the same. Surely gender, as it is separate characteristic from sex, should have separate provisions and protections made where appropriate?

It is you who sounds obsessed. Trying to force something where it is not wanted; and with no signs of empathy for the group that you are trying to impose upon.

Quite.

*It would be nice if more of this energy was directed there rather than attacking a highly oppressed minority who are in the most danger, and should be allies8

It would be nice if you campaigned for your own spaces, services and categories...just like other groups have had to do. Nobody wants anyone to feel unsafe or oppressed........do they?

If you listen, you can hear what women are telling you. They are telling you that they value, need and require the spaces and services that they have; that they find it offensive to try to suggest that being a woman is just a feeling in someone's mind; that women must change the language that they use to describe their own experience; that other groups must be centred in their spaces.....

If you identified with rather than as you would understand this.

Do they understand that women are different to men biologically? If so, they are not.

I slotted this in about being different biologically after I typed the last sentence so it doesn't make sense. Apologies.

To sum up: it is not in the least "intersectional" to seek to deny the axis of oppression that is being biologically female, in favour of pandering to people who don't feel themselves to fit into their biological sex.

It would be nice if more of this energy was directed there rather than attacking a highly oppressed minority who are in the most danger, and should be allies.

Indeed. And they could be allies if they fully acknowledged, that since sex is separate from gender, provisions and protections are made for sex and gender, each, separately. It makes sense as there are differing needs.

I'm not sure DadJoke has any gender identity confusion. He appears to identify very strongly as "man telling the ladies what's what".