Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

An inclusive way to be gender critical?

882 replies

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 07:57

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?

OP posts:
Biscuitsanddoombar · 27/02/2021 16:58

One of the reasons we are where we are is that the TRA have been playing the long game. They’ve been working on this for years salami slicing away, shifting the Overton window so that in the 21st century we have people seriously having to explain that women are adult human females and that there are only 2 sexes.n

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 16:59

You continually seem to misrepresent what radical feminists are supporting. Why do you think a radical feminist would tell you how you should be? Nobody is saying that

So me expressing my particular views sit comfortably amongst radical feminism?

OP posts:
Gerla · 27/02/2021 16:59

And the young people I know certainly believe scientific facts. So I don't catastrophise. They are the future. I don't underestimate women's influence on society even when they don't shout and scream.

I am no catastrophising and I am glad that you know young people like that. Unfortunately a lot of young people do seem to believe that it is possible to change sex, that sports should be mixed because if women only tried a little harder, they would be able to win anyway etc etc. I would also say that the fact that you think women are shouting and screaming when we are actually just speaking up for our rights is very telling. Having said that, it takes time to really understand this debate (and I am no expert!) I remember years ago thinking that a more moderate approach was possible - and then I saw how women were being cancelled, rights taken away and opportunities removed and I realised that I was being naive.

Gerla · 27/02/2021 17:00

So me expressing my particular views sit comfortably amongst radical feminism?

Radical feminism isn't about having a problem with you expressing views or telling you what you should do. Why would you think that?

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:02

One of the reasons we are where we are is that the TRA have been playing the long game. They’ve been working on this for years salami slicing away, shifting the Overton window so that in the 21st century we have people seriously having to explain that women are adult human females and that there are only 2 sexes.n

Exactly! Undoing that requires more than just metaphorically bashing them over the head and telling them they are wrong! It requires equal and opposite force. Which includes long game playing and shifting ideologies.

OP posts:
pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:03

Radical feminism isn't about having a problem with you expressing views or telling you what you should do. Why would you think that?

Erm, some rather hostile posts, sorry... hyperbole... on this thread....

OP posts:
CoffeeTeaChocolate · 27/02/2021 17:03

OP what have you seen any TRA post that makes you think that they ever would agree to staying out of single sex spaces?

Gerla · 27/02/2021 17:05

Exactly! Undoing that requires more than just metaphorically bashing them over the head and telling them they are wrong! It requires equal and opposite force. Which includes long game playing and shifting ideologies.

Again, what do you actually suggest? Because the only concrete idea if you have outlined here is using dolls in the classroom to talk about gender. I don't think that is really going to cut it.

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:06

OP what have you seen any TRA post that makes you think that they ever would agree to staying out of single sex spaces?

They don't need to agree, however if society felt their behaviour was unacceptable, they would feel as uncomfortable as they do in the single sex spaces appropriate to their sex.

OP posts:
pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:07

Again, what do you actually suggest? Because the only concrete idea if you have outlined here is using dolls in the classroom to talk about gender. I don't think that is really going to cut it.

Just talking and convincing people. The more people do it the more are convinced.

OP posts:
orderingcalmingtea · 27/02/2021 17:09

TRAs have the advantage of time to play the long game because they aren't losing anything so there's no reason to rush. Laws are being rewritten currently to erase women so we can't play the long games it will be too late

Gerla · 27/02/2021 17:11

They don't need to agree, however if society felt their behaviour was unacceptable, they would feel as uncomfortable as they do in the single sex spaces appropriate to their sex.
Unlikely. You might not have noticed but a lot of places have already bought into the whole ideology. Laws have already been changed. Institutions have already been capture. Talking to people is not going to be enough.

Puzzledtenant · 27/02/2021 17:11

@pensivepigeon

If you say that is body dysmorphia then Stonewall, Mermaids, many politicians, many organisations, many celebrities - in other words a whole lot of people with very loud powerful voices will call you transphobic and people have lost their jobs, safety and ability to speak freely for saying similar. I'm afraid you're about 10 years behind what's been creeping in - this is why we're saying there's no middle ground, it's already been taken.

I can quite believe this within certain circles. However, changes do occur within society and not all changes are fuelled by outright conflict.

But when another person/group are bringing conflict what is your solution? For example, I should be able to go out on the streets now (ignore covid restrictions!) wearing a T-shirt saying "woman = adult human female", because that's an obvious fact, same as if it said "the prime minister isn't a zebra". But if I did and a transperson reported me to the police (assume I was just walking and said or did nothing to them) it would be recorded as a hate incident and I could be fired (my job depends on passing DBS check).

How can you hope for gentle changes in society when others are steaming ahead to put things like that in place?

RedToothBrush · 27/02/2021 17:13

Gender stereotypes by definition can not be inclusive because their purpose is to put people into restrictive, narrow boxes.

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:13

I would also say that the fact that you think women are shouting and screaming when we are actually just speaking up for our rights is very telling.

I suspect it is not telling you the truth. I don't like aggression or use of exaggeration to make a point full stop. From men or women. I find it distasteful. I do greatly admire persistence, drive and quiet strength.

OP posts:
Justhadathought · 27/02/2021 17:14

Exactly! Undoing that requires more than just metaphorically bashing them over the head and telling them they are wrong! It requires equal and opposite force. Which includes long game playing and shifting ideologies

That just sounds like a recipe for perpetual conflict.

Personally I think we simply need to keep telling the truth of sex and the implications that arise from that for women. Re-asserting why we have single sex provisions in the first instance; and challenging incursions. We must also seek to protect children from exposure to a confirming narrative which is very regressive and potentially damaging to a young person's physical and mental health That's it!. Stand firm.

Trans identified adults should campaign for third spaces and provisions. It would solve one part of the conflict over-night. Nobody here wants to stop people presenting or dressing in any way that they like.And what people feel inside their own mind is their business. But women need to stand firm for the objective facts of their existence. For reality.

In time I do believe the trend will wither. Though it may still need to have more obvious public exposure for the public to really 'get it'.

Sex is not an ideology.

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:16

For example, I should be able to go out on the streets now (ignore covid restrictions!) wearing a T-shirt saying "woman = adult human female", because that's an obvious fact, same as if it said "the prime minister isn't a zebra". But if I did and a transperson reported me to the police (assume I was just walking and said or did nothing to them) it would be recorded as a hate incident and I could be fired

Yes, it is wrong and this particular battle may be lost. However, winning the war does not require you to wear a particular T-shirt.

OP posts:
pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:18

Personally I think we simply need to keep telling the truth of sex and the implications that arise from that for women. Re-asserting why we have single sex provisions in the first instance; and challenging incursions. We must also seek to protect children from exposure to a confirming narrative which is very regressive and potentially damaging to a young person's physical and mental health That's it!. Stand firm.

Which is what exactly what I have advocated. Albeit in a non aggressive manner.

OP posts:
pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:20

Sex is not an ideology

No, but gender is and it is gender which I refer to redefining when I talk about ideology.

OP posts:
pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:22

Gender stereotypes by definition can not be inclusive because their purpose is to put people into restrictive, narrow boxes.

The working definition does not have to include the size of the box - it does not have to be restrictive and narrow.

OP posts:
Gerla · 27/02/2021 17:24

Which is what exactly what I have advocated. Albeit in a non aggressive manner.

Do you not realise that a lot of people have done this? Have you read J K Rowling's essay? That's non-agressive, carefully worded to not offend - and yet the backlash was aggressive and brutal.

No, but gender is and it is gender which I refer to redefining when I talk about ideology.
'm not sure what an alternative gender ideology would look like (and I don't see how it would work). I think this ideology is far more embedded that you have understood and you probably don't realise that in many arenas gently expressing your current views would still be regarded as hate speech.

AdHominemNonSequitur · 27/02/2021 17:24

OP. I think the answer to your question "Am I gender critical" is yes, you have articulated the beliefs of most GC people, you too are now firmly in the transphobic camp, causing literal violence to thousands of innocent transgendered souls. To test it out, try discussing this with anybody on twitter with pronouns in their bio. Actually don't, I've done it and it's terrifying , they are entrenched and it's much scarier than mumsnet.

It's strange because you are talking about non aggressive strategies, that to me seem to be exactly what is being done anyway, but now also talking about fighting ideology with ideology and battles and wars.

Your definition of transgender was-" Someone who does not believe they conform to gender norms, as they perceive them and starts to express/present themselves according to how they feel."

I think that is a better description of a gender non conforming person or a non-binary identity. It may also cover sensible old school transexuals, attempting to relieve dysphoria, but it is not how MtF or FtM transgender people, who believe in gender identity and gendered souls and being born in the wrong body see themselves. TWAW and TMAM remember and all the allies believe this too. #NODEBATE #NoCompromise. Any deviation from this will incur cultural wrath.

But whether non- binary or trans, gender ideology takes the abstract concept of gender and reifies it (makes it concrete), in order for selected chosen people to be able to escape it or step outside of it altogether.
It then takes the concrete reality of biological sex and tries to make it into an abstract concept of lesser significance.

Having solidified a pink and blue box (which trans individuals can then move between) or reject altogether, it creates the box/label "cis" for everyone else.

They cannot think about gender in any other way, or there would cease to be a means by which they are oppressed and nothing to escape from or to, they need gender and they need it to be rigid for most people, as indeed it it is for them in the abstract. Without it, they can't disidentify from it and there is no ideology or opressive societal structure.

This is about people who believe in boxes, but at the same time believe they are feeing the world from boxes.

You are on a forum of people who genuinely don't believe in gender boxes, but regretably acknowledge the need to distinguish between people based on sex, because they get put in a box because of their sex.

Your arguement about approaching it side on (I think)is that the content of the boxes should be debated as a way of compromise (as in, both boxes should be acknowledged but understood to contain the same things). This is largely what we do, or rather the line is " do what you want with the boxes, but these are the modest boundaries we need you to respect". If both gender boxes contain the same, there are no boxes, so GC folk are happy...but biological sex still exists and needs acknowledging.

Members of the public who feel strongly that there are gender boxes, may be persuadable, so there may be some value to your approach here, but then they would become gender critical...and biological sex still exists and needs acknowledging.

The trans ideologues will still not be happy. They need those boxes, more than anyone, for round them their world view rotates. They don't see it as a stepping stone, or they would be able to acknowledge and understand gender non conformity. They utterly reject the concept of sex based rights and in the mean time...biological sex still exists and needs acknowledging.

Cwenthryth · 27/02/2021 17:26

OP I really appreciate that you are coming at this in good faith. Your views come across completely in line with a gender critical take on things and you want to solve problems.

There’s a philosophical/political principle called Chesterton’s fence that gets bought up from time to time on here. Basically if you want to remove a barrier then you should seek to understand why that barrier was put there in the first place - that can be applied more widely - if you want to challenge something, you should seek to fully understand it first.

I haven’t seen hostility to you on here - I can see frustration from some posters and a certain incredulity at your naïvety and somewhat inconsistent arguments perhaps. But forthright disagreement is not hostility. It’s just typing on the internet. Women a lot further down the path than you just maybe don’t have so much patience when you’re not making a lot of sense, because it turns out you have been basing your case on some mistaken assumptions.

Please stay around. We’re all at different points. There is so much to learn here, discuss, debate. It’s ok to disagree. Radical feminism doesn’t have much truck with authoritarianism :-)

I have not intended this to be patronising - am trying to be friendly, supportive and encouraging, whilst gently saying - it comes across that you haven’t quite really got what the issues are, yet. But keep going.

Gerla · 27/02/2021 17:33

Please stay around. We’re all at different points. There is so much to learn here, discuss, debate. It’s ok to disagree. Radical feminism doesn’t have much truck with authoritarianism :-)

I agree. And I apologise if some of my comments come over as brusque - I am typing responses while child-wrangling. Grin It's not my intention to be aggressive.

pensivepigeon · 27/02/2021 17:52

you probably don't realise that in many arenas gently expressing your current views would still be regarded as hate speech.

I certainly do realise this. I pick my audiences. MN discussion boards are a relatively safe space.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread