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?

[Thelnebriati]

Feminism is not 'exclusive' so the starting point seems to be that women need to be kinder, and thats where it falls down for me.
Women don't need to be kinder or more inclusive, we need to be safer.

Where there is confusion or disagreement it helps to go over terms and first principles.

Sex is immutable, it cannot be changed.
Gender is a performance demanded by people who want to enforce a hierarchy based on sex and need an excuse to justify it.

Gender can''t be quantified because it doesn't exist in biology, so it can only be described as 'X is feminine because women have to do it to appease men, which means men aren't allowed to'. 'Y is masculine because men do it, so women arent allowed to.'
X and Y change over time as men decide what is masculine and feminine.

So trying to build an inclusive system based on gender will only create confusion. Any gender based/inclusive system is hierarchical by default.

[NonnyMouse1337]

Gerla I think those underlying differences will always, eventually, give rise to arbitrary rules and judgements on clothing choices for each sex.

Since the vast majority of humans are heterosexual, take the following example - animals don't wear clothes, so they tend to signal fertility and sexual interest by things like their genitals swelling up. Humans wear clothes, and therefore clothing (and makeup) performs quite a lot of complex functions in human interactions. Clothing signals status, wealth and is also a way of attracting a mate. Youthful, fertile women tend to have fuller lips, and if fair skinned, the lips are quite pink. Cultural practices have developed whereby women wear pink or red lipstick to either enhance these features or hide them if you are aging and want to maintain the youthful look. Many cultures also have makeup practices by women to enhance the eyes - the doe eyed, youthful look.
There is an underlying biological imperative for both women and men to alter their clothing or appearance to appeal to the opposite sex. Over time, various cultural and traditional practices are overlaid on such natural impulses and end up becoming restrictive i.e. the only way to 'properly' be a woman or the only way to attract a man is to wear lots of eyeliner and makeup and have long hair.
Women are unconsciously socialised from a young age to wear certain types of apparel and makeup to signal they are different from men and sexually interested in men. And men are socialised to accept such coded markers and therefore find makeup, long hair and certain types of apparel on women sexually appealing and attractive.
Similarly there are unspoken codes and rules for men - instead of makeup, it's things like being muscular and athletic - and women learn from a young age the specific cultural (and underlying biological) markers in terms of attractiveness in a partner.

So it's inevitable that there will develop unspoken rules and expectations around what women and men should look like or wear, if you see what I mean?

So my view is to accept this is a part of human civilization that will never disappear, but we must always be vigilant and push against harmful practices, and stigmatisation of people who don't want to conform to those practices and let children know they can wear what they like, you're not 'less' of a woman or a man for disliking or rejecting such cultural rules and markers.

How would that not conflict with sex-based rights?

I'll feed the cats and come back to answer that next.

[pensivepigeon]

but if femininity ('female' gender) is defined as anything a woman could possibly be or like, stereotypical or not, why is the word needed? Isn't that just personality?

@AradiaGC The word is needed because of the historical reference of it, I believe redefining it adds to the reflection of how what it means to be a woman in society has evolved and is still evolving.

[pensivepigeon]

It's a calm discussion but I still get the sense that you are feeling defensive of your idea OP because people in this discussion can't see it's merit.

@AdHominemNonSequitur, well the only way to not be defensive is to concede to your point off view if you can't see any merit in what I am saying. Which I am not about to do because no one has convinced me my stance is not without merit...

[Floisme]

Op, if I had started a thread which attracted 100-odd posters, none or most of whom couldn't grasp what I was saying, then I would conclude that I wasn't explaining myself very clearly and that the onus was on me to fix it.

[pensivepigeon]

There is no advantage to clinging to stereotypes as a society even if you're willing for them to be fluid

@Puzzledtenant, I am not 'clinging to stereotypes' merely observing them, exploring them and acknowledging they exist, as a fundamental way of seeking to understand the world around us and find ways of living in it, as they are a form of cultural pattern.

[pensivepigeon]

There still seems to be this idea in some quarters that it’s just because the discussion hasn’t been held in right ‘inclusive’ way and that somehow if it was then we’d all find a happy middle ground and all would be well. That’s not the case at all. It was made clear to us there was to be #nodebate therefore no compromise

@Biscuitsanddoombar so you think we are best fighting fire with fire? But it it is water that puts out fire. The middle ground is not necessarily happy, it is the most dangerous place to occupy, you can be attacked from both sides. However, if you want to win you need to take the middle ground in order to go on to occupy enemy land.

[pensivepigeon]

that's the difference between stereotypes for one person to make sense of the world and allowing them to become an expectation for society.

@Puzzledtenant, I'm talking about redefining stereotypes and thus not letting harmful ones prevail.

[pensivepigeon]

To be honest, if you can make any definition that TRAs accept - which doesn’t result in labelling biological women - and that makes them stay out of single sex spaces indefinitely, I am sure the women here would be completely on your side.

@CoffeeTeaChocolate, well that would be something.

[pensivepigeon]

The problem, then, comes when society imposes these stereotypes with an iron fist - insisting that everyone must adhere to these unspoken 'rules', rather than accepting that while many people might be ok with the clothing practices that evolved for their sex, there will be many others who don't care much for such rules / stereotypes or who actively prefer the clothing and fashions associated with the opposite sex. The issue is with society labelling anyone who doesn't like the gendered clothing for their sex or who prefers the gendered clothing of the opposite sex as somehow weird or deviant, and other forms of stigmatisation.

@NonnyMouse1337 , I agree with this.

[Puzzledtenant]

@pensivepigeon

There is no advantage to clinging to stereotypes as a society even if you're willing for them to be fluid

@Puzzledtenant, I am not 'clinging to stereotypes' merely observing them, exploring them and acknowledging they exist, as a fundamental way of seeking to understand the world around us and find ways of living in it, as they are a form of cultural pattern.

You may be exploring them, that's great, but you're talking about what to do when one group of people want to set those stereotypes in concrete, even to the point that those stereotypes decide your sex, and another group want to be free of the stereotypes altogether because of the risk they pose to sex based freedoms/protections. In that case keeping the stereotypes while you explore them is not the middle ground or a way forward. It's almost watching the 'battle' (not everyone involved wants it to be a battle but unfortunately it's being made into one) from the sidelines and telling everyone it would be far easier if they were on the sidelines too - if everyone could happily sit on the sidelines there wouldn't be a 'battle' in the first place.

[notyourhandmaid]

This post seems very confusing, but it's worth noting that the idea of recognising that any space should still be single sex has been deemed to be 'transphobic'. I think you're trying very hard to be kind here, which is a starting point for many women who are denounced for their views on this and start seeing how unreasonable and illogical the whole thing is.

[Biscuitsanddoombar]

There’s no middle ground to occupy OP, that’s the point. TRA don’t want a middle ground, they want everything women have. As has been said numerous times - GC feminists are happy for TW to dress how they want & calm themselves what they like. If they were campaigning for TW specific services we’d be there with that, but they don’t want their own services, they want women’s services.

TRA are not sitting around wondering how to include GC feminists are they? No they’re not because they don’t see why they should and I don’t see why I should spend anymore time contemplating how to sell women’s sexbased rights to people who are heavily invested in not wanting women to have sex based rights

The real question, is how to engage the majority of the population who aren’t even aware what’s going on

[Puzzledtenant]

@pensivepigeon

that's the difference between stereotypes for one person to make sense of the world and allowing them to become an expectation for society.

@Puzzledtenant, I'm talking about redefining stereotypes and thus not letting harmful ones prevail.

What is a non-harmful stereotype then? I can't think of one example.

[Gerla]

I'm talking about redefining stereotypes and thus not letting harmful ones prevail
So you think there are harmful and beneficial stereotypes? What would the latter be?

[pensivepigeon]

The OP seems to think that on the long protest march to something approaching equal rights we haven't tried to accommodate or thought about this long and hard before adopting our position.

@Shedbuilder, the OP thinks nothing of the sort. The OP just wanted to discuss this subject on here and explore different approaches.

We need firm boundaries that allow us to say no to men in whatever guise they present themselves.
I would take a more dynamic approach otherwise you only end up with more division. I thought a large part of feminism was about breaking down barriers and equality. One person's barrier is another's boundary. So unless you are completely separatist then you have to leap the boundary into the middle ground occasionally.

[pensivepigeon]

Fighting gender stereotypes is exactly what feminism is about.

So saying that someone is female because they conform to feminine gender stereotypes is not feminist

@NotTerfNorCis , no disagreement with me there.

[ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings]

OP I'm wondering if you're coming from the same place as Contrapoints regarding gender. In her "gender critical" video she imagines the world she thinks gender abolishonists are after as one where everybody has to wear beige shapeless clothes in identical styles, with identical short hair cuts, and speak in an identical toneless robotic way. Her idea of a world without gender is a world in which nobody is allowed to be either feminine or masculine. The idea that you are promoting seems to be that a better goal is a world where anybody is allowed to be feminine or masculine. And that instead of abolishing gender (no one of either sex can do x) we should redefine it to make it inclusive of everyone (anyone of either sex can do x). Its possible that you think that the traditional GC position is the one proposed by contrapoints, and that your idea is therefore an expansion on that. If that's what your think then I'm afraid you're wrong, and Contrapoints has misunderstood or misrepresented feminists here. Gender abolition has never been about banning femininity or masculinity, it has always been about simply uncoupling these from someone's sex and making them available to everyone. I think that the view your proposing is the one most feminists and gender abolishonists already hold.

If that's not it then I'm sorry but I'm really stumped. Maybe you could try again to rephrase your position?

[pensivepigeon]

Gender is a social construct and can be anything to anybody.

@andyoldlabour, agree.

[Gerla]

I thought a large part of feminism was about breaking down barriers and equality. One person's barrier is another's boundary. So unless you are completely separatist then you have to leap the boundary into the middle ground occasionally.
Feminism is about equality of opportunities and treatment for women. What do you mean by separatist? Are you saying women should not be able to define their own sex?

[tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz]

I think many people confuse feminism with a movement which fights for equality and fairness for all.

It's not. It's for women.

Sure, many of us will of course be fighting many other battles but they will be different to feminism.

[Barracker]

If it's a stereotype, it's not legitimate.
And if it's not legitimate, no-one has any business labelling it with the word for an entire sex.
The association between sex and stereotype will always be damaging, and will always be false.

'Inclusion' is a steaming pile of horseshit. It's become a carte blanche for "no-one must dare to challenge my false claims and false entitlement"

[Meceme]

All stereotypes are harmful. We should treat people as individuals and value them for themselves. Sometimes legislation is needed to protect and safeguard people. You cannot legislate for individuals, you legislate for classes as a whole. Sex is a marker we consider not gender precisely because it is immutable.

[bourbonne]

@Doyoumind

I think you are confused. We all agree people can present how they want. It doesn't matter to any of us. But it has nothing to do with their sex and sex based rights are what is important.

This. I don't see why we should reify gender. People need to do what they do and get on with their lives, not navel-gaze over a gender menu. It's become paralysing for young people; a huge distraction.

[DeaconBoo]

I'm totally baffled. We've been saying for yonks on here, over and over, that people can be (1) feminine, masculine, or any combination. They can be (2) male or female.
(1) and (2) are entirely separate. (1) is neither necessary not sufficient to be (2). (2) is neither necessary nor sufficient to be (1).

Recently, I'm starting to see 'gender identity' mean a third thing, that's the most indefinable thing as it seems somewhat separate from gender as society-imposed stereotypes. Until that is defined, we can't really get very far.