Coming out as gender critical

[terfypants]

I'm about to send this message to one of my oldest friends, and am terrified. She is in Canada and is something of a trans rights activist (I'm in UK), and so far I have remained silent when the issue has come up... but its putting a strain on the friendship, so this feels a bit make or break (I'm not expecting her to come round to my way of thinking, but I want to be able to talk about it). Before I hit send, I thought I'd share it here, in the hope that I might get some feedback on tone and content... I found it very difficult to write.

I’m more than a little nervous about broaching this topic, knowing what a polarising issue it is, but increasingly my silence has felt dishonest so – in the hope that this might result in a stimulating discussion and frank exchange of ideas – here goes.
Gender ideology and trans rights activism. It is clear that it is a subject close to your heart, and it is evident that we have very different perspectives on the issue. Given that I think on most things our politics are pretty closely aligned and I know you to be intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate I am genuinely interested in understanding your take on what it means to be trans, and what that means for the rest of society (I’m thinking about the law here, but also things like the practice of stating one’s pronouns).
I’m struggling to succinctly sum up my own feelings on the matter, as there are so many facets to this and I don’t know where to begin, but I guess at root it boils down to the fact that I simply don’t believe we have an innate gender identity or that it is possible to be born in the wrong body, from which starting point much of trans rights activism (in its current incarnation) crumbles. In particular I find the notion of ‘trans children’ deeply disturbing, and cannot see how affirming gender non-conforming children as members of the opposite sex is anything other than sexist, homophobic and cruel.
So what do I think?
That one’s sex is fixed and cannot change. It is also, in the vast majority of situations, irrelevant and should have no bearing on how one is expected to dress or behave. Where it is relevant, though, it is reasonable to draw distinctions on sex based lines – I can’t personally get too worked up about toilets (you know me – I’ll piss anywhere), but in relation to prisons, sports and initiatives intended to counter the under-representation of women in specific arenas it is absolutely appropriate to exclude men, however they identify.
That gender is a useful theoretical tool for analysing how relations between the sexes are structured and behaviour understood. It is not a property of individuals and is not fixed. I would much rather work towards a society in which gender stereotypes are dismantled than one in which they are reified to the point that one’s ‘gender identity’ is seen as more authentic than one’s sex.
That there are people who feel very uncomfortable in their bodies, and dearly wish that they were the opposite sex. This might manifest as feeling that they are ‘really’ a man / woman despite their biology, but this doesn’t make it true – I don’t even know what it means to ‘feel like a woman’ other than by referencing my female biology. For some people the distress of having the ‘wrong’ body might be alleviated by presenting as a member of the opposite sex and modifying their body so it more closely resembles the body they wish they had, but ultimately it is incumbent on everyone to come to terms with the reality of who they are, and it is not reasonable to expect the rest of society to structure itself around maintaining a fiction.
As I said I’m nervous of saying this, and am well aware that attempts at frank and open discussion on the subject don’t always end well. But the more I read on either side of this debate, the more I feel that in many cases people are talking at cross purposes to each other, and that, if only we could get past the knee-jerk reactions and defensiveness on both sides, we may find there is more agreement than we realise. In that spirit, I would love to hear your perspective on some of this stuff.

How about saying that you're really troubled by the idea of transwomen being moved into women's prisons in the US, OP, and seeing what she says? If she continues to uphold trans rights on that front, I'm afraid I'd want to end the friendship.

I know others are stretching to include people whose opinions they don't agree with, but for me friendship involves having certain values in common — and top of my list is women's material, sex-based human rights not just here in the UK but around the world. Anyone arguing that we need to give them up to anyone who said they were a woman, that woman is not a discrete sex-based class and that the word 'woman' is hate speech could not be a friend of mine. Perhaps an acquaintance or someone I felt residual fondness for because of shared memories, but not a friend. Someone willing to sell her own sex down the river for men is not my friend.

@terfypants

I’m confused by your comment that you don’t think that the pronouns other people use to describe you are for you to decide... does that mean if you preferred to be she/her but I called you he/him, you’d be ok with that? But I don't 'prefer' to be she/ her. I am female, and people who have met / spoken to me generally choose female pronouns when referring to me. When they don't, which has happened, I'm OK with it, yes.

Ooft touchy. I said preferred as I’ve no clue if you identify as female or male and it would be rude to assume. But that’s good that you’re ok with it, I’d hate for someone to refer to you as he if that wasn’t what you would want to be referred to - brilliant you are so gender fluid about it pronouns!!

@Babdoc

jul26m, you are very fortunate that your email recipients think you are male. If you insist on female pronouns, they will immediately and subconsciously downgrade your contributions as “just a woman”. It has been shown that the same email with a male name gets a faster and more respectful response than with a female one. So forcing women to put female pronouns at work will increase sexist discrimination against them. Why should we subscribe to that? At present we can sign off with initials and surname. Long may it continue.

Interesting that this is deemed the solution to sexist discrimination. Thankfully, not every single person I’ve ever encountered in my life is a sexist misogynist and I feel respected in my work place, I of course acknowledge certainly may not be the case for all but I would query if every male they emailed was a sexist misogynist. In all my years of work I’ve never encountered a work place where first names were not used.

It is really difficult to reason with a zealot and probably useless. However, asking them to explain their beliefs is quite different. For example pronouns, why insist on them when it is transphobic to do so as well as sexist. Do they support the Yogyakarta Principles or not? Perhaps by forcing them to explain they might come to recognise the irrationality of their beliefs.

@NancyDrawed

I know this isn't in the same league, but I have a friend who is pro fox hunting, whereas I am anti. We have discussed our reasons for our respective views. I respect her right to hold a different view to mine and we have agreed to disagree on that issue and now we don't discuss it.

GC v TRA is clearly a much more volatile area, but do you think you could get to a similar place with your friend, or will she not respect your right to an opposing view?

I find this last point you mention interesting, as I’ve found that many GC folks aren’t respectful of a TRA’s rights to an opposing view from themselves.

@334bu

It is really difficult to reason with a zealot and probably useless. However, asking them to explain their beliefs is quite different. For example pronouns, why insist on them when it is transphobic to do so as well as sexist. Do they support the Yogyakarta Principles or not? Perhaps by forcing them to explain they might come to recognise the irrationality of their beliefs.

Can I ask if GC folks support the Yogyakarta Principles?

If it was me I would "hide" her trans posts on Facebook and not sign the petitions, and otherwise continue as normal on other topics and avoid discussing transgender with her at all. It is most unlikely you'll have a "stimulating discussion and frank exchange of ideas" which does not quickly become a shitshow because you obviously have your position, she obviously has hers, and there is nothing to discuss. Most people will eventually treat silence, lack of likes etc as a tacit agreement to avoid a bone of contention for the sake of friendship.

And "faux innocence" is a really shitty way to approach a friend.

It is very transphobic insisting that transgender or non binary people should out themselves by demanding that they declare their preferred pronouns.

Unfortunately it is also very discriminatory to insist that women in STEM call attention to their sex (or gender) in their emails.

Can't win. Which is why I wouldn't even get into it with someone whose friendship I valued.

I* I know others are stretching to include people whose opinions they don't agree with, but for me friendship involves having certain values in common — and top of my list is women's material, sex-based human rights not just here in the UK but around the world. Anyone arguing that we need to give them up to anyone who said they were a woman, that woman is not a discrete sex-based class and that the word 'woman' is hate speech could not be a friend of mine. Perhaps an acquaintance or someone I felt residual fondness for because of shared memories, but not a friend. Someone willing to sell her own sex down the river for men is not my friend.*

I agree with this but I also think that many women are blinded by their desire to help people whom they perceive to be vulnerable. It is possible that this friend knows a very vulnerable trans person and their desire to help them has become all important . So perhaps a full frontal attack is not what is needed.

Ooft touchy. I said preferred as I’ve no clue if you identify as female or male and it would be rude to assume. But that’s good that you’re ok with it, I’d hate for someone to refer to you as he if that wasn’t what you would want to be referred to - brilliant you are so gender fluid about it pronouns!!

No, she's not being touchy or genderfluid. Like me, she just doesn't believe in gender and she's happy to be identified as what she looks like, whether people get it right or wrong. GC people just don't share your faith or your way of classifying people. We are the clear-eyed, clear-headed atheists in your temple of gender ideology.

I'm a short-haired older lesbian and I really don't care if someone calls me sir because I'm comfortable with who I am. I wouldn't even bother to correct anyone who read me wrong. It doesn't matter. I don't need the world to validate me. Perhaps you need to examine why this is so important to you?

Can I ask if GC folks support the Yogyakarta Principles?

You'd best set up a surveymonkey, as they're not all on this thread. I imagine there are a range of views about them.

I think the principle that people shouldn't be pressured to out themselves is probably a good one, whatever I feel about any other YP.

Shedbuilder

"We are the clear-eyed, clear-headed atheists in your temple of gender ideology."

Well said, very succinct.

Many of us will have friends who have very strong religious beliefs and few of us would tell these people to their face that such beliefs are baseless. However, when the espousing of such beliefs results in harm to vulnerable groups then I think we have to make a stand. Because someone believes in a religion dies not excuse them from blame , if the practising of that religion results in women and girls being treated as property. Equally the belief that someone can change their gender does not excuse them from blame if by promoting this belief results in vulnerable women being raped in so called female prisons.

I find this last point you mention interesting, as I’ve found that many GC folks aren’t respectful of a TRA’s rights to an opposing view from themselves

I can be respectful of another person's right to hold a view while totally opposing it. I have only ever seen evidence of intimidatory tactics TRA to opposition and not in the other direction though.

I suppose we all have different thresholds for what we would deem disrespectful, similar to personal ideas of what is offensive. For example: for me, biology trumps gender identity, would you consider that to be offensive/disrespectful if I said it to you? Or would you disagree while accepting that I have a right to that view even if it clashes with yours?

@NancyDrawed

I find this last point you mention interesting, as I’ve found that many GC folks aren’t respectful of a TRA’s rights to an opposing view from themselves

I can be respectful of another person's right to hold a view while totally opposing it. I have only ever seen evidence of intimidatory tactics TRA to opposition and not in the other direction though.

I suppose we all have different thresholds for what we would deem disrespectful, similar to personal ideas of what is offensive. For example: for me, biology trumps gender identity, would you consider that to be offensive/disrespectful if I said it to you? Or would you disagree while accepting that I have a right to that view even if it clashes with yours?

Interesting, as I’d argue I’ve seen MANY intimidating tactics from the GC side. I think it’s maybe that each side could see the points of view as intimidating from the other?

Honestly, yes I would see that view as disrespectful to people whose lives that view disregards - transgender people who struggle with their gender identity being told that ultimately whatever you were born with between your legs is what you are - is disrespectful. It’s not like transgender is a wildly thought up concept that came into existence last year. It’s protected in law, human rights but it seems many people are happy to ignore their human rights to have their gender identity respected.

@andyoldlabour

Shedbuilder

"We are the clear-eyed, clear-headed atheists in your temple of gender ideology."

Well said, very succinct.

I agree! his point there is succinct... and egotistical x

Can I ask if GC folks support the Yogyakarta Principles?

Which ones? There are 29 of them plus additional recommendations and extensions.

More seriously, I can answer your question, though I am not gender critical so you may not care. When the Yogyakarta Principles don't conflict with my other principles then I do support them. And that is mostly. But when they conflict with my other principles then they don't automatically trump everything else. And they are not intended to. The Principles plus 10 document says that there is also discrimination on grounds of sex, which the Yogyakarta Principles do not deal with. And no one kind of discrimination always trumps another.

I guess OP, you want women to be and to feel safe, especially in places such as changing rooms and refuges. You want sport to be a fair competition. You want personal pronouns to be something you can declare or not, and if you do, everyone respects that.

I wonder if the term gender critical is a label to use in any case, when all you want to do is see women respected and safe.

Interesting, as I’d argue I’ve seen MANY intimidating tactics from the GC side. I think it’s maybe that each side could see the points of view as intimidating from the other?

Can you say a bit more about that, what would the intimidation be?

Its old, because thought I saw you on another thread this morning asking what a “gender critical worldview” was, which I took to mean you didn’t know what being gender critical was. Seems like an hell of an education to get in an afternoon, and my curiosity is piqued.

FWIW, I don’t agree that what makes men, men and women, women is “what’s between your legs”, which is a pretty reductive way to talk about human beings.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay

Can I ask if GC folks support the Yogyakarta Principles?

Which ones? There are 29 of them plus additional recommendations and extensions.

More seriously, I can answer your question, though I am not gender critical so you may not care. When the Yogyakarta Principles don't conflict with my other principles then I do support them. And that is mostly. But when they conflict with my other principles then they don't automatically trump everything else. And they are not intended to. The Principles plus 10 document says that there is also discrimination on grounds of sex, which the Yogyakarta Principles do not deal with. And no one kind of discrimination always trumps another.

Well I ask this as when I put across a non-gender critical viewpoint I am hounded as to whether I support the Yogyakarta principles (which I honestly have never heard of being mentioned outside of mumsnet GC forums ironically) - so of course I was curious if GC women support them considering the first one is about how everyone no matter their gender identity is entitled to human rights. One human right is the right to self-identify their gender and that misgendering is a form of discrimination - which, apologies if I’m mistaken, but I haven’t come across any GC mumnetter who would agree with this.

I find it ironic that GC mumsnetters push the (15 year old) Yogyakarta principles as why I am obviously so wrong in my support of the transgender community and their activism for correct pronouns (considering this is the stance of the majority of the transgender community and aligning NGOs in 2021 so I’m more inclined to support this as opposed to 15 year old random principles from Indonesia) but I do wonder how much these gender critical folks do for further women’s rights (yunno aside from their anti-trans activism which does nothing to further women’s rights) outside of being mumsnet moaners.

Honestly, yes I would see that view as disrespectful to people whose lives that view disregards

I am not disregarding anybody's life by holding that view, though! Your biological sex is fixed at conception. Whether you then live without being bound to the stereotypes and behaviours that your culture usually expects, based on your sex, is up to you. Your biology is what you are, but not necessarily who you are, if that makes sense?

I think it was Kristina Harrison who said that while she knows every cell in her body is male, that doesn't mean she can't live a fulfilling life being treated by the world at large as if she is female. She knows she is male (the what) and a transwoman (the who).

@Sophoclesthefox

Interesting, as I’d argue I’ve seen MANY intimidating tactics from the GC side. I think it’s maybe that each side could see the points of view as intimidating from the other?

Can you say a bit more about that, what would the intimidation be?

Its old, because thought I saw you on another thread this morning asking what a “gender critical worldview” was, which I took to mean you didn’t know what being gender critical was. Seems like an hell of an education to get in an afternoon, and my curiosity is piqued.

FWIW, I don’t agree that what makes men, men and women, women is “what’s between your legs”, which is a pretty reductive way to talk about human beings.

I feel I am now understanding the nuances of a GC point of view. I was clarifying if a “worldview” is different from a persons personal point of view and what that would entail or include. I wasn’t sure if I was misunderstanding or if it did really just mean the same thing. Considering that poster apologised for their unclear language I think it’s perfectly reasonable to seek clarification before giving any viewpoints or opinions? its a shame more people on here don’t do this. There is many nuances of the GC community I’m not fully aware of and I am sorry that I am looking to further my understanding of a differing viewpoint ....

What exactly would you say makes men and women different with regards to sex which is not their sexual and reproductive organs?

I’ve seen trans people and the ideology of gender identity spoken about fairly “reductively” on here to be fair.

@NancyDrawed

Honestly, yes I would see that view as disrespectful to people whose lives that view disregards

I am not disregarding anybody's life by holding that view, though! Your biological sex is fixed at conception. Whether you then live without being bound to the stereotypes and behaviours that your culture usually expects, based on your sex, is up to you. Your biology is what you are, but not necessarily who you are, if that makes sense?

I think it was Kristina Harrison who said that while she knows every cell in her body is male, that doesn't mean she can't live a fulfilling life being treated by the world at large as if she is female. She knows she is male (the what) and a transwoman (the who).

Okay, I see what you are saying.

Just to clarify, if say, a transwoman (born with male genitals) under went a gender reassignment procedure and took the relevant hormones - would they be consider male or female in your view?

transgender people who struggle with their gender identity being told that ultimately whatever you were born with between your legs is what you are

People are just pointing out that sex exists, and sometimes it's important. However much they struggle with their identities, it doesn't change the reality of sex, nor does it mean their issues are the only ones which should ever be considered important.

I think you’ve misunderstood why people are referring to the Yogyakarta principles here. It’s that one would expect efforts to support trans identified people to adhere to or reflect these governing principles, not that feminists think they’re correct. A trans ally wouldn’t want a closeted trans person to feel pressured into outing themselves in a compulsory pronoun sharing drive, and citing the Yogyakarta principles is one way to illustrate that things that seem on the surface to be helpful possibly aren’t truly helpful.