Terrified of regressive modern feminism

[TRHR]

By saying "you can't be a woman if you're born without a vagina, and if you're born with a vagina you must be a woman" you're making reproductive organs the defining and most important characteristic of being a woman. This attitude was used to oppress women for centuries. We were baby makers only, and hormonal and chromosomal differences were used to say that we were too "emotional " for public life, education and jobs. Only over the last 100 or so years have our minds and emotions been rightfully recognised as just as important as our vaginas. GC is now going back to seeing our sex organs as our most important identifier and as a feminist and a young woman this really scares me. It is playing right into the traditional patriarchy, is sexist, regressive and oppressive. The fact its being done in the name of 'feminism ' terrifies me. The recent historic implications of insisting women are defined by their bodies scares me. These views are still held by conservative (often religion based) communities and we've all seen how easy it is for these groups to gain power - feminists shouldn't be helping them justify their attitudes or behaviour.

If you've seen/read the Handmaid's Tale you'll know what attitudes I'm afraid of. GCs ironically tell TRAs they are 'handmaids' when actually it is their attitude that has historically led to the oppression that Attwood (who is trans inclusive) bases her books on.

Gender is not a set of stereotypes - it's an identity based on culture, history, society , psychology and often (but not always) sex. It's far more freeing than "vagina = woman" and takes account of each of us as individuals not just bodies, which is what feminism up until now has fought for.
As an example, many trans women don't wear "girly " clothes, they identify as "masculine/butch" lesbians. Many trans men still like wearing make up and dresses e.g. in drag.
Many people would say the world shouldn't be defined as 'male / female' at all. But it always has done, that won't be changed in our lifetime. So seen as that is our social structure, it's oppressive to police how people choose to move through life under this structure based on bodies.
Thanks for reading this far and if I get one extra person to consider the harm that GC is doing, especially to young women of child bearing age, it'll be worth the condescension and vitriol that this post will inevitably receive.

Your title is a little... intense.

I’m not someone on these boards all of the time, but I do know that there is a lot of silliness around about people suddenly defining what it is to be a woman. And by that I mean, people who aren’t a woman defining what it is to be a woman. I’d like to leave it at that, but the inevitable ‘but what is a woman really’ means that anyone defending some of the inequalities and safeguarding of women, are forced to be very specific about this definition of women.

Which is silly really because no one should have had to defend what being a woman is in the first place or defending the inequalities or safeguarding needs of girls and women.

It needn’t have been this whole thing!

If someone who isn’t born a woman wants to be one - surely, surely there didn’t need to be a huge big fight to say I’m actually born a woman too how dare you - and all of this need to trample over safeguarding issues. No need at all. We could have all lived happily together!

@Floisme

So many interesting writers not on that reading list: No Mary Wollstonecraft, no Mary Seacole, no Betty Friedan, no Camille Paglia, no Maya Angelou. Not even Germaine Bunbury.

No Lynne Segal or Kate Millett either.

But the best part is finding out everyone's interesting qualifications and jobs. Although listening to people list their double degrees does make my own sad little ba/masters education look rather lacking. It's not that a degree makes the woman, it's just interesting to know that the very intelligent voices in here have all sorts of backgrounds, education and skills. Kind of blows the idea of a Mumsnet 'type'.

Yeah don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about people’s degrees and the only reason some of us were listing them is to show the OP that MNers aren’t some kind of weird 1960s stereotype of housewives jealous of their university-going daughters or whatever she imagined! That and the tone of “I have read more feminism than yow” 🤣

One reason I LOVE MN and this board so much is for the sheer bloody intelligence, articulacy and grit of all the women here - whatever education they’ve had. The experience and quality of debate on MN puts any university seminar to absolute shame.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

My god, I’m so tired of this straw person so beloved of those who seek to dismantle the category of woman. Can we put it to bed for once and for all?

you're making reproductive organs the defining and most important characteristic of being a woman

No, TRHR. We’re not. You’re pretending that we are so that you can knock down our supposed argument, because you don’t have anything with which to knock down our actual arguments.

You are suggesting here that defining entails a sense of limitation of the people being referred to, as if by saying that only biologically female adults are women, we are saying that ergo women are nothing but their reproductive capacity.

I think we all know that’s bullshit, but I see this argument rolled out again and again, with “define” sometimes replaced by “reduce to” or similar.

The thing is that when we say the definition of “woman” is “adult human female”, we are not talking about limiting the actual people included here in any way, shape or form.

We are not reducing those women to any set of characteristics or personality attributes, we are not setting any expectations of behaviour or dress or feelings for these people, we are not proscribing what they cannot or must do to be seen as women. We are most certainly not saying that their reproductive potential is their most important characteristic, as you falsely claim we do.

We are recognising that in terms of personality, preferences and abilities there are infinite ways of being a woman, with the only guaranteed commonality being our shared biology (whatever state of functionality or health that biology may be in).

This is the bit you need to try and understand, TRHR; this is where your linguistic sleight of hand comes completely unstuck:

What we are limiting is not the people themselves, but the category. We are defining which group of people exactly fall under the heading “woman”, which people can and should reasonably and justifiably be included in that category, and which people can and should reasonably and justifiably be excluded.

That is the limit.

Not the people themselves.

The category.

Which people may reasonably be considered as belonging to that category.

Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand the difference between limiting people and limiting categories?

Will you now stop lying about what “GCs” think and say, tell all your friends that YOU GOT IT WRONG, stop spreading your misinformation all over the internet?

Or were you never interested in the truth anyway?

FML. To think this has to be said over and over again. I have had it up to HERE with the lies, the misrepresentations, the projections.

JUST STOP IT ALREADY

Final word to @NoDoublethinkXX, awesome black radfem lawyer, formerly of the parish of Twitter, because she phrased it so elegantly and succinctly:

Imagine lacking the intellectual capacity to understand having a class defining characteristic is not a reduction thereto.

I feel like we can end the thread here after this mic drop.

As arguments go, it really is a shite one, isn’t it:

“If you don’t agree that we should pretend that some people born with penises are actually people born with vaginas, it means you think all people who were born with vaginas should never do be able to do anything that doesn’t directly involve their vaginas.”

I mean, WTAF?

.....

Just stop and think for a moment about HOW powerful and extensive male privilege is in this relentlessly patriarchal world we live in, that arguments THIS crap have taken hold of the entire liberal world - because they are driven by biologically male people and they benefit primarily biologically male people, at the expense of biologically female people.

That laws are made based on arguments THIS crap.

That countless WOMEN have been taken in by this crap, and kid themselves it’s “feminist” to subscribe to it: shitting on themselves and calling it liberating! Supporting the patriarchy is challenging the patriarchy! Yeah!!

This is life in the 21st century.

What the penis owners want, the penis owners get.

Same as every other century.

Bravo to that post, LangCleg

@MonkeyNotOrgangrinder

No, you've got it wrong. GCs, as you call gender critical feminists, are saying that anyone who's not female can't be a woman. It doesn't follow that we are then saying that women are only baby making machines. Not sure why you think that? Women should be free to be whatever we want to, but all women are female. We are the sex that can grow babies and give birth, which is pretty amazing. Women who don't have babies for whatever reason are still women/female. Men are not and never xan be women/female. They are male.

This with giant hairy vagina flaps on.

Whilst I never question my stance on this, when I see posts like Talking's, they totally reinforce it.

So re WeeBisom - I've got zero doubt she's exceptionally well read. The only reason I bothered to comment on my reading is that I was literally asked to / it was assumed I'd done none. Then the list gets criticised. WeeBisom started off by stating her academic credentials, so bit of a double standard that I get accused of 'name dropping' And in a manner I've come across previously, university and related literature gets disparaged. I point out the problem of mocking female education and I get told I'm stereotyping this platform. I'm not, I was repeating back what has literally been said to me. When told I'm just listing lit with no points - my points are in my posts - I was just also responding to requests to back up my understanding.

To WeeBisoms point, yes there is a difference between description and categorisation, but gender and sex descriptors have always come loaded with bias. I just don't think it's realistic to have the word 'woman' as a pure descriptive category. When we talk of women's rights, politics , oppression, education, surely it's clear that we're not just talking about chromosomal differences. As I said before, seen as we wont move away from that in this lifetime, why not let people move through the world without distress caused by imposing a purely sex based identity?
Re being defined by a vagina as a 'reduction' - I love being a woman, I'm very proud of it. But the reality is women have and remain to be underrepresented and subject to many biases and abuse - so hopefully you see how a binary rigid identity based on genitals exacerbates this.

On the topic of abuse, this isn't just about sexed bodies, gender identity plays a big part. As the majority of trans women who've been subject to gender based abuse will tell you. When I'm (frequently) harassed by men (3 this week and counting) , they don't wait to check if I was born with my vagina or have 'real' boobs first. They see attraction and want to wield power over female gender - Katy Montgomery and Shon Faye have v insightful experiences they've shared on this if you want further examples.

Re comments on defining gender identity quickly - perhaps the issue is you expect this to be simple when it's not.

Re the comments that I had the audacity to come and post something anti GC - last I checked this is a public women's/ feminist forum, I have as much right to start a discussion as anyone.
And there has been some level if good discussion and literature recommendations. Unfortunately this has been severely diluted by lots of comments essentially telling me I'm stupid. Again, way to support women and have the free speech GCs ask for so often.
In a nutshell it still seems perfectly possible and desirable that sex AND gender identity play a big part in people's lives. Inclusive feminists aren't trying to 'erase sex' as JKR etc claim - it's possible and more flexible with greater freedom of life possibilities to have both. I've seen some great examples, eg from WeeBisom , of the different ways in which sex is important in lots of people's lives and the differing roles of categorisation v description. But I hope she's not offended that I don't think that's the whole story in terms of how society treats us.
But I've also seen lots of snide sarcasm, misrepresentation of what I've said and basically being called stupid. Way to be welcoming to a young woman new to this feminist forum.
Have a good evening.

What TalkingtoLangClegintheDark said.

That would be Shon "enjoy your erasure" Faye I assume? So much insight to offer women. Can't imagine why we don't listen to Shon more.

It is maddening but it appears society isn't so big on facts these days. Those espousing illogical beliefs are amplified and reasoned voices are silenced allowing this stuff to take hold in our institutions and political parties.

Hmmmm, just read the first post, and before I check to see if the OP has even come back, I’m going to predict a few things:
Either
-OP won’t return, one post pointing out how dangerous we all are despite no proof.
Or
-OP will come back for 3/4 posts, before deciding we really are as dreadful as she predicted, she’ll probably use stereotypical insults such as ‘screeching’, ‘sneering’, ‘hysterical’, ‘bitches’, etc.

Also
-OP will not be able to define ‘woman’ other than to say everyone who says they are one, is one.

• OP will not acknowledge men/trans women have a built in strength, body shape, penis, that we have to trust they don’t want to use to shock, scare, assault, us with.

-OP will cite Paris Lees or another beautiful, feminine trans woman as a ‘gotcha’ for you can’t tell the difference. Not acknowledging they’ve had thousands of pounds worth or surgery to look like a ‘woman’

• OP will not acknowledge men/trans women/girls have larger hearts, lung capacity, leg/arm length, chest/torso strength, that basically make any sport between women and trans women unfair.

-OP will not acknowledge that a child bearing age woman, is much more likely to be discriminated against than a trans woman (simply because TW don’t have a ‘child bearing age’)

-OP will also mention non binary people but not acknowledge that a NB person with a male body will be more advantaged/privileged than a NB person with a female body.

On the off chance that the OP hasn’t flounced and is reason these replies, I’d like to gently suggest to you that this:

‘It takes account of each of us as individuals’

Seems to be what you like about the gender ideology, however, it’s generally impossible for a society to take account of individuals, which is why we are often grouped together with those who have similar needs eg age, sex, race, etc. There are always exceptions to rules, and there may be overlaps but women and trans women have very few similarities. And whilst I absolutely acknowledge TW suffer discrimination and it must be dreadful for them, women’s discrimination is very different.

Dish out goady: expect to reap what you show.

^It's 2050 in OPs brave new world. Justin Timberlake is doing a comeback tour:^

Now, listen, I wanna try some right now
See they don't do this anymore
I'ma sing something
And I want the guys to sing with me, they go
It feels like something's heating up, can I leave with you?
And then the ladies go
I don't no but I'm thinking 'bout really leaving with you
Guys sing
Audience shrugs frowns and looks confused.
And ladies
Audience starts whispering about whether the cervix Havers should sing or not.
Bra thrown at stage
Justin: I feel unsafe.

A feminist utopia indeed.

When we talk of women's rights, politics , oppression, education, surely it's clear that we're not just talking about chromosomal differences. As I said before, seen as we wont move away from that in this lifetime, why not let people move through the world without distress caused by imposing a purely sex based identity?

This is a specious argument as it fails to attend to the distress that your new ideology is causing to people. We could use the same argument in reverse, hence it's pointless to say it.

Re being defined by a vagina as a 'reduction' - I love being a woman, I'm very proud of it. But the reality is women have and remain to be underrepresented and subject to many biases and abuse - so hopefully you see how a binary rigid identity based on genitals exacerbates this.

I think you are completely wrong her in so many ways. Firstly most people do not have an identity based on their genitals. What they have is societal expectations pushed on them based on their genitals. You don't seem to understand the nature of the prejudice very well. I am agender but that did not stop someone sexually assaulting me at age 14. This was nothing to do with my identity and everything to do with my genitals. Secondly, your ideology will hide the under-representation you talk about. Are you not worried about that?

On the topic of abuse, this isn't just about sexed bodies, gender identity plays a big part. As the majority of trans women who've been subject to gender based abuse will tell you. When I'm (frequently) harassed by men (3 this week and counting) , they don't wait to check if I was born with my vagina or have 'real' boobs first. They see attraction and want to wield power over female gender

Yes that is true when someone does pass as a woman. However, my experience of oppression started from the moment of my birth which is not the same for transwomen. Also it is entirely about how people physically present which for most people has nothing to do with their identity (see above).

Re comments on defining gender identity quickly - perhaps the issue is you expect this to be simple when it's not.
For generations we have had a simple definition which is that a woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Your definition does not need to be as pithy as that but are you seriously expecting people to engage in any conversation about this when you can't even be bothered to define what 'it' is?

At the root of this is a huge assumption on your part about how other people develop and consider their identities and it's really oppressive of you to refuse to listen to what people are saying. You are welcome to have a gender identity and I think most people will enter into conversation about what that means to you and how life can be adapted taking yours needs into account as much as others. What can't happen, however, is for you to tell others that they have a gender identity and refuse to hear it when people say they really, really, really, really don't.

Again, you can't even bring yourself to copy/quote the things you disagree with - you insist on rephrasing and re-writing them.

Come back when you want to engage with what we're actually saying - we'll welcome it (honestly!)

But the reality is women have and remain to be underrepresented and subject to many biases and abuse - so hopefully you see how a binary rigid identity based on genitals exacerbates this.

Nope - you will need to talk through this logic - how have you reached this conclusion from the premise? Perhaps you could start by answering a single one of the actual questions put to you?

Well that was predictable

"Way to be welcoming to a young woman new to this feminist forum".

Posters new to FWR whose first post on Mumsnet is accusatory and woefully misrepresents feminism really shouldn't be surprised when they get pushback. The OP is one in a long line of new posters who come on here to lecture women in how to do feministing and womanning better. Without exception they fail to address the incoherencies and fallacies in their own arguments and (just as in this thread) endlessly whinge about other posters not fawning all over them and prostrating ourselves in admiration at the unwanted words of wisdom being cast in our direction.

OP do you at least admit you were incorrect to say "We can't police how people are allowed to express themselves"?

Assuming that by 'we' you mean, say, British society in general, rather than you and your mate.

You still haven't explained how you interpret the term gender. If you want to have a constructive discussion about this topic (though it is seeming less and less likely that that is your intention), then that would be very helpful.

And pointing to a list of literature is not helpful for two reasons.

1. Everyone interprets things in different ways
2. If you are expecting everyone on this thread who hasn't read these books/articles and come back to you, there is going to be a long delay in continuing this discussion.

As the majority of trans women who've been subject to gender based abuse will tell you. When I'm (frequently) harassed by men (3 this week and counting) , they don't wait to check if I was born with my vagina or have 'real' boobs first. They see attraction and want to wield power over female gender - Katy Montgomery and Shon Faye have v insightful experiences they've shared on this if you want further examples.

OP, the fact that you get harassed, but the men who do so aren’t checking first to see if your breasts are implants, does not mean that you are being harassed because of your gender identity. The breasts are materially there, whether you grew them or acquired them.

Who’s doing the harassing by the way? GC feminists? The men who are doing the harassing want to wield power over your sexed body, not your gender identity. They don’t want to rape your gender stereotypes.

Is the “gender based” harassment a trans woman experiences done by feminists? I’d think also largely by men. But most trans women are harassed by men for being men - not for being women.

Why aren’t you focusing on the men who do the harassing, raping, violence? How is it other kinds of feminists who are the terrifying ones? Maybe - just maybe - you’re unjustly displacing your fears onto the straw women of other feminists, because it’s too frightening to think about where the problem really lies?

Where do you stand on trans women like Paris Lees and Andrea Long Chu who actively celebrate male violence as affirming of a female “gender identity”?

Finally - I don’t think you can drop in and deliver us what another poster succinctly called a “wokescolding” (love that term), and then complain you’re being patronised in return. We just disagree with you; and you can’t really complain about being misrepresented, when there is a whole thread of posters pointing out you’ve misrepresented them.

Why not engage, listen, consider that you might be mistaken, think about all the contradictions in gender identity ideas that don’t really fit together or make proper sense? I’ll wager you’ll be a GC feminist one day.

Inclusive feminists aren't trying to 'erase sex' as JKR etc claim - it's possible and more flexible with greater freedom of life possibilities to have both.

Except we have so many examples of exactly this. Why would Stonewall have lobbied to remove the protected characteristic of sex from the Equality Act if their purpose was not erasure?

Why so much backlash and anger towards women in Scotland who wanted it to be explicit in law that raped women had a right to be examined by someone of the female sex only?

Why did Dawn Butler MP go on national TV and state that babies are born without sex?

Those are just three examples out of what must amount to hundreds or even thousands of instances at this point. Do you have an explanation as to why this thing that apparently nobody wants to happen keeps happening?

But the reality is women have and remain to be underrepresented and subject to many biases and abuse

How does opening up women's spaces, prizes, sports, opportunities etc to the opposite sex (who are over-represented) help promote balance?

If we no longer recogise who is a woman how will we recognise if/when under-representation worsens?

I haven’t read much feminist literature. Hardly any in fact.
I have, however, read a lot of medical textbooks, research papers, guidelines etc for getting on for 20 years now.

I won’t labour over the ‘cervix-havers’ stuff because so many pp have said what’s needed on that and quite frankly how much more reductive can you be than labelling people by their anatomy??

The point is that even if you decide to remove the word ‘woman’ and replace it with body part-haver you still have done nothing to address the commonality of women’s physiology, their pathophysiology and what we might call their pharmacology. The physical, anatomical structures, amazing as they are, are only a tiny part of the story.
You cannot erase the way women’s bodies, as a class, behave and the shared physiology that underpins all that even if you erase what “woman” actually means.