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?

[Puzzledtenant]

@pensivepigeon

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.

Do you mean perhaps, instead of totally get rid of gender, it becomes something very separate to sex, in the same way 'being emo' or 'being punk' is? In that way there could be infinite numbers of genders depending on culture or time, so dressing in short dresses with a full face of makeup might be 'A' but applicable to either sex, so you would still be a man if you were male but an 'A' too?

I'd support that, it's no different from dressing a set way and calling yourself a punk, but TRAs would hate it, the whole conflict is because sex is willingly being joined with gender.

[ChancesWhatChances]

While your idea of people presenting as people and using services based on their sex is exactly how I think society should be - it isn’t. Trans people have thrown the dummy out over and over again because they want to access services and spaces they don’t need, have never needed and will never need because it’s not faaaaaaaaair that those nasty little women want to be the only people called women.

[Doyoumind]

Ultimately 'the other side' would reject your proposal OP, so it gets us exactly nowhere.

[Gerla]

It's not because it engages rather than shuts down discussion
Well you're going to have to explain it a bit better then as it doesn't sound like an evolution of current feminist thinking. You are just saying "we should talk about it". Or have I missed something?

[SorryPleaseTryAgain]

OP, do you realise that gender is not a binary where men and women are equal? It is a hierarchy where men are above women.
Stating that it would be more inclusive of women to not want to abolish gender in order to not "shut down" discussion with TRA's is like asking the black community to be willing redefine racist stereotypes in order to not "shut down" the conversation with Rachel Dolezal.

Question: Do you think it is unreasonable for women to want abolish a structure that oppresses us?

[pensivepigeon]

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.

Yes, but we are not talking about new words. We are talking about words which have a more defined meaning historically and talking about what they mean now (because they reflect culture). It is useful to be able to know this in order to reflect on our past and current times.

[pensivepigeon]

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.

Yes.

This is a discussion over how.

[ShowOfHands]

Your position isn't an evolution of feminist GC thought, it's close to but shy of it. Yes men and women should wear what they want, do the jobs they want and present however they want while sex-based rights are preserved where necessary.

We are all in agreement.

Defining and redefining a construct which is a smokescreen for biological sex, is not evolving the discussion; it's becoming mired in a false dichotomy.

[Sittinbythetree]

I think you are over complicating it.

For me gc means that there are females and males -(xx and xy) and I couldn’t care less what they wear or their interests - that’s personality not ‘gender’.

Is it inclusive - I don’t really care. I’m not interested in whether some men feel sad / angry that I don’t include them as females. Female includes all women and only women.

To me inclusivity is about making sure that people with particular needs are able to be fully part of society - disability access, no racism or homophobia. It doesn’t mean pretending things aren’t real - no men in women’s sports. It doesn’t mean pandering to groups that think they are vulnerable when really they aren’t. I think it’s insane that we are having to waste energy on this tiny group of TRAs while ignoring the fact there are loads of people who are genuinely vulnerable. If there were as much noise about; domestic violence, child poverty, everyday racism and sexism, disability access, fgm, literacy, numeracy, child abuse, we might actually see more progress as n these things. It might also mean that for example not everyone can do the job they want if they aren’t actually able to do it.

[Cwenthryth]

@pensivepigeon

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.)

Ok: so you see a problem that those of us rejecting gender have ultimately the right idea, but won’t be listened to by wider society the way we are going about it, is that what you think? (This argument is also sometimes known as “you are feministing wrong”).

Sorry also makes a very important point: your concept is ignoring misogyny (and homophobia) - gender is not a neutral concept. It is is a hierarchical structure with straight gender conforming men at the top.

[JosephineBaker]

No matter how often I read the opening post, it makes no sense to me.

Conflating terms, having open ended definitions that include literally everything... it’s not a more inclusive stance, it’s just garbled.

Perhaps I’m being particularly thick today.

[pensivepigeon]

Defining and redefining a construct which is a smokescreen for biological sex, is not evolving the discussion; it's becoming mired in a false dichotomy.

Or perhaps the defining and redefining would just clear the (smoke from the) air?

[pensivepigeon]

“you are feministing wrong”).

My discussion is explorative rather than accusatory.

[Whenwillow]

Isn't the original post more or less along the same lines as JK Rowling's tweet? That didn't go down very well.

[Babdoc]

OP, you don’t have to convince feminists to retain single sex spaces, you need to convince the TRAs.
People with male genitals and male chromosomes and male secondary sexual characteristics, who insist that they are in some undefined way actually female, do not want acceptance in their own male single sex spaces. They want to invade women’s spaces, to seek external “validation” for their subjective internal belief.
This is why compromise is impossible. They have been offered separate “third spaces” and refused them.

[pensivepigeon]

I was not thinking of engaging with TRAs. This is more about how we can talk to our children.

[Puzzledtenant]

Ok, so in your gender ideal if someone who didn't know anything about sex or gender came to you and said 'Can I recognise a woman in the street?' what would you say?

A certain TRA would say "they'll be the one in high heels and a dress with pretty makeup - with or without facial hair"

I'd say, being gender critical, "sorry, you've got the wrong idea, 'woman' is a sex based class, eg got X chromosomes, and a social based class, eg at higher risk of rape, so you couldn't pick either of those things out by sight"

[Doyoumind]

The way we talk to children is to say that you dress as you want, behave as you want and push for the career you want whatever sex you are (but in reality if you're female or gnc be prepared for it to be more challenging).

[pensivepigeon]

'Can I recognise a woman in the street?' what would you say?

I would describe the cultural normative appearance but also add that ultimately people of either sex can adopt whatever cultural norms they wish to.

[SorryPleaseTryAgain]

I tell my child that she is girl and that means that she will get periods and breasts like me, that she can one day (probably) carry a baby inside her, birth the baby through her vagina and feed the baby from her breasts. That she has tiny little eggs already inside her now, how amazing that is.

I also tell her that that is really pretty much all that being a girl really means. There are no girls toys, girls clothes, girls colours, girls interests, girls jobs etc. Everything is for everyone.

What are you suggesting that we tell our children?

[Puzzledtenant]

Then what you're talking about is gender critical, it's basically making gender useless because it could mean anything so means nothing.

[Cwenthryth]

@pensivepigeon

'Can I recognise a woman in the street?' what would you say?

I would describe the cultural normative appearance but also add that ultimately people of either sex can adopt whatever cultural norms they wish to.

That’s reinforcing gender stereotypes but with a caveat. Sorry - it’s just not enough.

[pensivepigeon]

A classroom learning resource would be anatomically correct dolls which the child/teacher could add clothing and wigs and makeup to with different 'settings' where the dolls could be placed in different societal roles.

[Whenwillow]

This is more about how we can talk to our children.
Lots of parents are actively working on acceptance of their children wearing/playing with whatever they want.
In the 90s when I had my children, people were much less stereotypical about what girls and boys should and shouldn't do. It just wasn't a thing.
I've noted that when people go 'gender neutral' it usually means women wearing stereotypical men's clothes, or colours at least.
But I've noticed that boys are being more actively encouraged or at least accepted in wearing pink and sparkly things, which are traditionally reserved for girls.
I think some of this is to allow them to be who they want to be without feeling pressure to consider themselves the wrong sex.
Is that what you're getting at? If so, yes, but the way I understand it, this is not what TRAs want.

[pensivepigeon]

Sorry - it’s just not enough

I'm happy with it.