What category do trans people fall in according to the GC model?

[CloudyMoment]

I am trying to understand the following about the gender critical model:

If gender is something to be abolished or moved beyond, and if all there is, is the biological facts of sex, what category does it leave trans people in?

Do GC just want them to identify by the sex they are born in? Or do they want to create a separate legal / social category?

I mean.. gender abolition is not close to reality. There are still people who feel like they are the opposite sex or gender, or even "nonbinary", and I doubt this will vanish even if we abolish gender, because I've read so many accounts of trans people who say they feel the opposite sex since childhood. As much as I'd like to believe that this is will not be a problem in a society without gendering of children, I am not sure I can discount how trans people are telling me they feel now.

Personally I am close to adopting GC views - I feel somehow non-conforming or even "agender" or "nonbinary", but at the same time I feel that this doesn't make me any less of a woman- because just because I don't feel my gender as something tangible internally, doesn't imply that I am not that thing externally.

I am kind of stuck conceptually. I cannot view trans women and cis women as the same. I just don't feel it is right they inhabit the same category. At the same time, I don't feel it is right to force people into a category they feel is wrong for them - eg trans women into the male category, because it clearly causes them distress.

For all I've read about GC feminism I never see a clear answer for what category trans people should belong to, other than saying that males cannot be females.

'Gender identity is the sex you identify as or the sex you feel you are or should be.'

But what does this mean?

I have a physical disability from birth. It's meant a lot of physical pain, a lot of not being able to join in with the other children, a lot of surgery, a lot of physio,a lot of school missed and quite frankly it took me until I was about 30 to come to terms with it. And my childhood, teenage years and as a young woman it really fucked me up. Psychologically I'm damaged by it all.

(Not a sob story just factual).

I always felt that I desperately wanted to be normal. To not have that. To be able bodied. My body betrayed me. My brain knew how to do things and I could ask my body to do them but it could not.

The self centredness of all this never ceases to amaze me.

Loads of people through history have desperately wanted to be something else. Have seen in their minds eye their life if they were other than they were. A different sex, a different level of wealth, a different colour skin, a different religion.

What do you think fairy stories are?

'So therefore if a biological woman has the best possible treatment and surgery available to become the closest possible facsimile to a man that the current science is capable of creating - with a big, muscly, hairy manly body and face and highly realistic male genitals - then we're insistent that that person should change in the womens' changing room, in front of women and little girls of all ages? shock'

And this is really irritating as well.

IF a transperson passes as the opposite sex then of course no one will notice them queueing for the ladies or the gents and think, hold on.

But in reality, passing is really tricky. There are a host of cues.

These sort of posts though are just. It's all so contradictory.

I thought that genitals were nothing to do with it. Ladydick etc. The idea that genitals should have anything to do with which facilities you use has been roundly condemned. Lots of laughter about 'genital inspections' etc. So why the post saying oh but the genitals?

We are also told that internal ID has nothing to do with how you look. And I would say that anything that pushes major surgery into anyone is a really awful idea. That statement really seems to go against that

And why big, muscly, hairy manly body and face? Is that what a 'real man' looks like?! Men come in all shapes and sizes and hairiness etc. That's a really interesting choice. A short slim unhairy man is still a man, is he not?

All these stereotypes and boxes. So depressing.

Just so much to say it's just all... So wonky.

CloudyMoment (OP) wrote - "the gender critical model ... Do GC just want them to identify by the sex they are born in?"

Identifying as something is the transgenderism model.

Personal identity has become a huge thing in 21st century western culture. It is difficult for many people, who are very focused on personal identity, to imagine a world where personal identity is not the most important thing in a person's life.

Meanwhile, most things in the universe, including the gender critical model, don't depend on feelings and operate successfully independent of personal identity. The gender critical model is centred on biology not feelings.

The gender critical model is not about identifying as anything - instead it is about being male or female.

@SmellsLikeTeenBedroom

Fair enough. I knew all that intellectually but I admit I've never seen a naked transman. So where does that leave us? Do the things you've mentioned mean there's nothing offensive or problematic about a transman in a women's changing room? Right down to their facsimile genitalia being freely visible?

I'm not a woman so I can't answer this question. But answering it seems like a necessary part of addressing the OP.

Sex is being biologically female or male.

Gender is the social and cultural expectations surrounding each sex.

All feminists have tried to change those expectations, so in a sense all feminists are gender critical.

Personally I don't think gender can be completely abolished because biology does matter and sometimes we need to distinguish socially between male and female, which according to the model means 'gender'.

However, gender is external, not internal, which means non-binary or trans identities without sexual dysphoria don't fit the model. Genderism needs strong gender roles to exist so it makes sense. Feminism opposes these strong gender roles.

Some trans people want to physically change their bodies, but GC feminists don't believe a true sex change is actually possible. In this case 'transwomen are transwomen, transmen are transmen'.

@NiceGerbil

You seem to misinterpret my intention. I'm certainly not arguing for trans rights over women's rights or anything like that.

You may have missed but I was responding to a post that suggested it's very simple: trans people should use the facilities corresponding to their birth sex. I was simply pointing out that if it IS that simple, then women must be completely unfazed by the idea of any kind of transman (up to and including the most masculine, if you prefer) changing in front of them and their daughters.

Are they? Are you? Just say yes, and I'll agree that fine there's no problem here.

But if not, then it's clearly not that simple. Where should they change instead? It's one thing to stand up for women's rights but these are still people that need to be considered.

The original use (or at least the ones I know) of 'identify as' were perfectly valid.

I mentioned disability. There are various levels of disability. There's also a big psychological thing. Putting the label disabled on yourself is a big deal. I didn't start ticking the disabled box until I was about 35. I didn't see myself as a disabled person. For a variety of reasons.

Ethnicity. People have a mix of backgrounds. And may identify with one more than another. Again, the words identify as, or most identify with make sense.

In both of those examples it's difficult to draw lines (what level of disability? What % of ethnicity is required?) but it's clear that you don't use identify as something you're not. Everyone knows that you don't tick disabled if you have zero disabilities. And that you don't say you're Haitian if all of your family as far as you know are from the Midlands. (Or at least... That used to be understood).

It's another concept that has been appropriated, bastardised and devalued.

The appropriation, inaccuracies, bald lies, rewriting of history, theft of the arguments of other groups and turning them against them is just. It's obscene to see.

I note that people with DSDs are being left alone now. And gender non conforming is more often coming into the mix with trans. EG make things safer for trans, non binary and GNC people...???

And yet old school feminists. Many of whom became feminists because they noticed gender role when they were young and kicked against it. Are the devil. These women who are often GNC in many ways are the enemy but also in the group to be protected? How does that work then?

I think trans men should use male facilities if they want to. Females are rarely dangerous to males so men have nothing to fear from trans men. If males have a problem with that it's not the job of feminists to solve it for them.

Females, however, are vulnerable in the presence of males, particularly males they do not know in enclosed spaces outside of the home. I wouldn't get into a lift alone with a male I didn't know and I don't want to share any facilities with males. I've been sexually assaulted, as have most women to some degree or other, and I don't want it to happen again to me or any other woman.

[quote FifteenToes]@SmellsLikeTeenBedroom

Fair enough. I knew all that intellectually but I admit I've never seen a naked transman. So where does that leave us? Do the things you've mentioned mean there's nothing offensive or problematic about a transman in a women's changing room? Right down to their facsimile genitalia being freely visible?

I'm not a woman so I can't answer this question. But answering it seems like a necessary part of addressing the OP.[/quote]
You're right, the lines become less clear once a person has had genital surgery. But I would say two things:

Firstly, as other posters have said, if a transperson genuinelly fully "passes" then there would be no issue in so far as no one would actually notice. The issue, of course, is that the overwhelming majority don't "pass", and most of course have not had surgery.

Secondly, I really do feel for transpeople who've chosen to undergo surgery, because they've made themselves into "neither-one-thing-nor-the-other", and have essentially doomed themselves to a future of being an outsider in whichever changing room they go into. And it's not just changing rooms of course. The majority of people, whether gay or straight, are either attracted to women with female genitalia or men with male genitalia. By making oneself into a man with female genitalia or vice versa, a transperson has reduced their potential dating pool hugely.

It's really sad, and this reality doesn't always dawn on people until it's too late. As a GC woman, I don't hate transpeople, I feel sorry for them, especially young girls. Because they start out with perfectly healthy bodies and they end with something that requires a lot of maintenance and works less well than what they started with.

There's a bloke who has had loads of plastic surgery to look like an alien lizard.

Where should he go then?

I mean it's flippant but it's a fact this man exists and really believes that's what he is and he has altered his appearance enormously to match how he feels he ought to look

And who is the arbiter of who passes? That's a fucking shit deal for all the trans people who don't. A real kick in the teeth tbh.

At the moment as ever people who really pass have and will continue to use the facilities for the opposite sex. No one will know.

And until this idea that everyone is what they say they are, everyone should go where they feel comfy, no one must question this, it worked fine. Women turned a blind eye to transwomen who didn't pass. Who weren't that big in number and in my limited experience were very quiet and sheepish.

That was ok. Everyone was ok.

But say yeah just whatever. Loads of women's toilets turned unisex while the men's are men's. Males in women's prisons and long term mental health facilities for women. Self ID for communal changing for swim England and gymnastics (usually in schools, girls and women aged 5-60 getting naked). Sport. Etc

And it's a no.

So who has fucked it up for the old school transexuals? Not women. We were being kind. Until we were pushed too fucking far.

I don't think it would be safe for a transman in a male prison. I also don't think it would be safe for a transwoman. That doesn't mean they go in with the women. We're not the category where the 'not men' go.

Separate facilities. And violence in prison in general needs to be addressed.

I can't imagine the mastectomy scars fade very fast tbh.

And I saw a pic that I thought was shock anti trans propoganda of the wound to the arm after getting the flesh to create something that looks like a penis. I honestly thought it was a gross lie. I googled. It wasn't.

Those scars won't fade fast or completely either

I've had a lot of surgery. I have a lot of scarring. The surgery being discussed is massive, risky. Really painful. The way it's discussed in almost a casual way. It's just really upsetting tbh.

Gait is not changed by surgery and we can identify male gait from female gait.

But where facilities are divided by sex (they cannot legally be divided by gender) regardless of what stonewall say, transgender individuals do NOT have the right to 'chose which to use' - they must use those of their sex and can be excluded from those of their 'legal sex' if they have a GRC in order to preserve the safety, privacy and dignity of women or fairness in sport. As such the legal and moral onus is on transwomen to stay out of female sex spaces regardless of if they think they 'pass' or not. It should not be up to anyone to gatekeep these facilities anymore than I should need to gatekeep my house to stop random individuals wondering through. Transwomen should not be using female spaces so simply should not be there or place themselves there.

@NiceGerbil

The original use (or at least the ones I know) of 'identify as' were perfectly valid.

I mentioned disability. There are various levels of disability. There's also a big psychological thing. Putting the label disabled on yourself is a big deal. I didn't start ticking the disabled box until I was about 35. I didn't see myself as a disabled person. For a variety of reasons.

Ethnicity. People have a mix of backgrounds. And may identify with one more than another. Again, the words identify as, or most identify with make sense.

In both of those examples it's difficult to draw lines (what level of disability? What % of ethnicity is required?) but it's clear that you don't use identify as something you're not. Everyone knows that you don't tick disabled if you have zero disabilities. And that you don't say you're Haitian if all of your family as far as you know are from the Midlands. (Or at least... That used to be understood).

It's another concept that has been appropriated, bastardised and devalued.

The appropriation, inaccuracies, bald lies, rewriting of history, theft of the arguments of other groups and turning them against them is just. It's obscene to see.

I note that people with DSDs are being left alone now. And gender non conforming is more often coming into the mix with trans. EG make things safer for trans, non binary and GNC people...???

And yet old school feminists. Many of whom became feminists because they noticed gender role when they were young and kicked against it. Are the devil. These women who are often GNC in many ways are the enemy but also in the group to be protected? How does that work then?

To add to the point about race: my husband is mixed-race, and I am white. This means that for my children, they're a bit of a mixed heritage and none of the "ethnicity" boxes on questionnaires is a perfect fit. DS tends to tick the "White British" box while DD ticks the "Mixed-Race" box. Totally up to them, and it would be wrong for me or anyone else to tell them they're ticking the wrong box. However, when I fill in my own form, to tick anything other than the "White British" box would be incorrect and untrue.

Overall though, I think the comparison with race (and disability) is a bit unhelpful, because both race and disability are infinite, whereas biological sex is binary. There are loads of different racial and ethnic groups, too many to count, and disability exists on a broad spectrum. But there's only two sexes: the one that produces eggs and the one that produces sperm.

Yes exactly.

The appropriation of 'identity' has fucked things up for things where it was useful.

Now though, everyone laughs about how anyone can identity as anything.

The steamrollering through the language and arguments of other groups is appalling.

I always desperately wanted to be normal. ... To be able bodied. My body betrayed me. My brain knew how to do things and I could ask my body to do them but it could not.

I sympathise, NiceGerbil.

TRAs’ self-obsession is sickening.

@FifteenToes just to respond to part of that

I don't want to dwell on this as it wasn't my main point (although if I did, I might point out that if there were any that passed so well you didn't notice, then you wouldn't know, because you didn't notice).

I also don't want it to be glossed over. You say you aren't a woman so you won't know how it feels to be a woman in any single sex space when a transwoman enters: Many times women paused, felt a moment of fear, anxiety, discomfort and then stopped and, quite contrary to their own feelings, chose, as in an active, self checking, double think, to not notice the man in the room. Many times I have chosen to 'be nice' to try and equate the male bodied person in the room with me with spiders - you know "more afraid of you than you are of them". I have even felt ashamed of myself for feeling nervous: bad woman, poor transwoman. Because we do notice, have always noticed. You cannot change the way you move, the sex based differences in gait exist and cannot be erased (I'm an exercise physiologist by education, trust me on that one).

How do mean feel when they see a transwoman or transman in male single sex spaces? Is it fear? I doubt it.

Transeople who have so much intervention, surgery, coaching etc that they do tend to pass? I know 2, a transman who passes quite well, until he laughs, or walks. A transwoman who passes quite well, until she moves, or laughs. I have known them both for 30+ years, supported one through many surgeries and was the 'best person' at the wedding of the other. I know how hard it is for them to manage their personal expectations with societal mores. Neither of them think they have changed sex, both of them have had all the surgery possible and have a GRC. The transman uses male facilities. The transwoman uses single cubicles and checks her day to make sure she can!

Why the difference? The transwoman is fully aware that she makes women nervous. The transman has never had anything more than a sideways look - and uses cubicles. Yes! That same sideways look transwomen get, because men see it too! The gait, the whole body language is a giveaway. You see it, especially in motion.

Personally I don't know how to square that away. When people modify their bodies iin extreme manners, like the lizard man upthread, their choices make them 'other'. They should have, prior to any body modification have thought all of that through - you know, the much makigned talking therapies, watching, waiting and thinking before launching on any medical intervention.

There are times when the answer is obvious - transmen in female facilities like prisons for example. Or no transwomen or transmen in female sport beacuse of either natural or chemically enhanced performance. Transmen in some but not all sports maybe, if they are not in physical danger or have an advantage. See how complicated it gets?

And that is why this rumbles on. There is no simple answer, no matter what your perspective is.

But that doesn't mean women need aquiesce to the demands being made around the language, rights and safeties based on their sex.

Logically it can never work on a concept of 'passing' - of course it can't, that is horrendously unfair.

India Willoughby is a well known broadcaster and there are many publicity photos of them. India has the kind of physical attractiveness most of us can only dream of, and when looked at in pictures alone, is an example of someone who may be easily be taken for a female person. However when you see India on camera alongside other people, you very quickly notice the proportions and movements that tell you this is someone born male and a transwoman rather than a female person. An extremely beautiful and feminine transwoman, but not a female person. Now look at Alex Drummond, not as well known, but plenty of publicity pictures of Alex too. Also an extremely attractive transwoman, who is proud of their beard and moustache as part of their feminine appearance. Now look at pictures of Danielle Muscato, who retains a very masculine appearance and is clear that their identity is not based on conforming to other people's stereotypes of what a woman should look like. (And quite right too.)

Where could you put any line about which of them should be allowed to use female facilities on the grounds of 'passing' enough? How on earth could you make that fair, or kind to those three people? How could you possibly set up a system in which they were supposed to recognise whether or not they met some system of 'passing' to enough degree? How are you going to gatekeep it? The short answer is, you can't and no one should be trying. It's ridiculous, it's unfair, it's unkind, it's discriminatory, and it's wholly unrealistic.

And it doesn't address the issue anyway, which is that some female cannot use mixed sex facilities. That's it. That's the issue. That's it in a nutshell and why those women must have maintained female only spaces that aren't regarded as something being unfairly gatekept from or a goal denied to people born male. It's just what some female people need, and removing access and resources from those female people because male born people don't want them to have them? Not really justifiable.

The only fair, reasonable, rational answer is third spaces. Which are mixed sex, which can meet the needs of all people regardless of their degree or choice of transition or the awful and hurtful unfairnesses such as 'passing', and which do not remove female facilities from some female people. Gender and sex need to be recognised as separate things where it is necessary to meet different people's needs differently. Female people cannot be transwomen and should be using specially designated roles and spaces and resources for transwomen: why is less respect and care awarded to female people? Other than ingrained sexism.

Female people cannot be transwomen and should not* be using specially designated roles and spaces and resources for transwomen

obvs. Sorry, not enough caffeine on board yet.

Just to respond to the question that has been raised a few times "how
is it possible to feel a certain gender, without having had the experience of it".

I think it boils down to a tragic lack of awareness between what is social and what is internal.
When people have personalities and characteristics (internal), that they can't express freely as remembers of the sex they are born into, because the typical and expected behaviour and roles of that sex is completely different (external), they might feel so misaligned and alien to it, that they will seek acceptance else where.

It is somehow based on reality - the reality of their personality.

They personality and "core" so to speak is different to what is common amongst members of their sex, to the point that they reject the sex themselves.

And, I think this is tragic tbh, because what personality traits are coded as masculine to
feminine is arbitrary and socially constructed.

People should be free to be themselves, and break out of expectations, and have room to unfold their personalities, without having to worry wether it fits a box or not.

The important thing with the GC model, if you can term it that, is the protection of women in certain spaces, places and situations. If I am ordering a book online, what I consider myself to be is irrelevant, as is what other people ordering the same book consider themselves to be. However, if I am in a changing room or having invasive medical examination, it does matter.