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.

I'm actually depressed at how predictably these things go.
They don't actually answer questions.
They pretend - from the opening post - people have said things they haven't.
They say things that are simply not true and flounce when called out.
Then - obviously - they tell us what they think FWR is like.

Use your words. Articulate your argument. Change my mind. Read what's being said and address those specific arguments/words/questions. Don't assert things you know to be false. I'll listen when you speak truthfully.

Your initial PST said you found posters' views on this forum regressive and terrifying and that you believed they were harmful to young women like you.

Noe you're complaining women haven't been very welcoming.

It's a bit old now but you might want to add 'How to win friends and influence people' to your reading list

Katy Montgomery and Shon Faye have v insightful experiences they've shared on this if you want further examples.

Last time I read anything from these two they were mocking female’s toilet noises and habits. It was on international women’s day if I remember rightly. And before that, earlier this year Montgomery was involved in sexually harassing a woman on twitter.

Nah. Thanks. I’d actually rather read about the experiences of people who have at least a modicum of respect for females.

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.

Are you saying that because women are underrepresented and subject to many biases and abuses the best way to improve representation and to reduce bias and abuse is to include transwomen in the category of women, because this will inherently improve the figures?

Or are you saying that when women refuse to include men in the category of women that is a is a key reason why they then suffer underrepresentation, bias and abuse?

@CardinalLolzy

So true. I would actually love to discuss these issues properly but there has yet to be one 'woke' poster either able to do so. It all feels very Trump-ish - deflect, obfuscate, insult rather than listen, answer, consider, share ideas. If we can't even start with a clear definition of what a 'woman' is according to the OP, it's ridiculous. I think it must just be whatever anyone wants it to be - except, of course, what most women want it to be and what is has been ever since words were invented. This is just misogyny dressed up in a fancy, designed cloak, doing wonders at pulling the wool over the eyes over people who have yet to really encounter what gender-based oppression really is.

@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.

Well (and bravely) said OP

I agree with you. And I'm so glad that so many of the young people (teens and 20's) I meet these days think as you do. Thank you.

Can we stop with the ageism. Along with the ableism it leaves a bad taste.
I don't disagree that most people 'think as you do'! The patriarchy is, as we might have mentioned, fairly widespread in its power and reach.

Hello Puffin, welcome to the debate. The OP has not wanted to tell us what gender actually is in your new definition. Would you be able to do that? There's a whole bunch of people here really interested in an actual conversation about this issue which they think is causing actual harm to women and which you think isn't. So it's an important conversation to have. Would you be willing to start the conversation by giving us a definition of gender?

OP: I’m glad you acknowledge that there is a difference between description, categorisation and presumably reduction. You say it’s not realistic to have the word woman as a purely descriptive category. But this is precisely the goal of feminism. Women are adult human females and that’s IT. “Woman’ simply describes 52% of the population who happen to have a certain reproductive role, that tells us nothing about what they are like as people. ‘Woman’ doesn’t connote anything about what a person likes, dislikes, is good at, wears etc. The aim is to have women’s sex only be relevant in limited contexts (medicine, sexuality, reproduction), without determining how her life is going to go.
If you think that ‘woman’ is loaded with ‘bias’ (not sure what you mean by that) and it’s not realistic to make ‘woman’ purely descriptive then I would ask why you even want to keep the word. If the very word ‘woman’ is loaded, then better to get rid of it, no? This sounds very much like Judith Butler, who thinks the problem is with the words we use rather than with the society which imposes negative meaning on those words in the first place.
When you say talk of ‘women’s rights, politics, oppression’ is not about chromosomal differences, I don’t follow what you mean. To me, this does just refer to members of the female sex. We aren’t going to get very far in this debate unless you explain what you think a ‘woman’ is, but in my experience very few people who come here to discuss are willing to explain what, exactly, ‘woman’ is, unmoored from all references to biology. Or why that definition is particularly helpful.
“why not let people move through the world without distress caused by imposing a purely sex based identity?” Because it’s not true? Many things are distressing to me. I’m distressed I won’t live for a few centuries, I’m distressed I’m not 21, I’m distressed I’m not super rich. We don’t usually sacrifice truth just to sooth people’s distress. I find this question quite baffling. It’s like when Christians say ‘why don’t you just indulge me and pretend you believe in God? Atheism upsets me.” Also it’s not society that is imposing a ‘sex based identity’ on anyone - it’s nature. Males are born male - they aren’t ‘assigned’.
“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 don’t actually see how stating as a fact that there are two sexes in the human species, and women are female contributes to abuse, underrepresentation and bias. Could you explain this? And could you also explain how your theory, which says that ‘woman’ is a personality type gets rid of bias, abuse, and underrepresentation? If I am sexually harassed or abused, can I prevent it from happening by stating “I’m not a woman, I don’t have a feminine personality?” I really don’t think my private self identification makes any difference, but perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

“ 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”.
Without an explanation, this is another non sequitur.
Do you mean that if ‘women’ can include people with male genitalia, then women will enjoy better representation and less bias?

I had the audacity to come and post something anti GC

I don't care if you are impolite, have at it. But if you're starting with an aggressive post that misrepresents people here, expect push back.

By all means, critique the ideas, discuss and disagree. All good.

Insulting and impugning us is not really winning hearts and minds, OP.

This attitude was used to oppress women for centuries.

You've invisibilised the people doing the oppressing with that statement.

Which is convenient for them, because you dont tackle male violence by making it impossible to name.

Shon Faye have v insightful experiences they've shared on this if you want further examples.

The same shon faye whose recommendation to youngsters was to 'suck dick and get tits early'? And who defined women as a shifting constellation of something or other? And who hoped that women enjoy their erasure?

Got it. Loud and clear.

I agree with you. And I'm so glad that so many of the young people (teens and 20's) I meet these days think as you do. Thank you

MN bingo. 🤣

I am glad that the OP came back and made some further posts.

I am still of the belief that all that defines women is biological sex, and beyond that the only limitations on what a woman is capable of are those that apply to humanity as a whole.

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

Once again, OP, we are not imposing an identity on anyone. That's what you are doing, or more precisely what the ideology you espouse does.

Sex is not an identity but material reality. It is no more and no less than a characteristic of your body.

Identity however is a combination of your personality traits, the qualities and preferences you have as a person and the beliefs you hold, whether that is as an individual or as a member of one or several groups.

Each society shapes the identities of its male and female members based on stereotypical assumptions, expectations and prejudices about each sex. It does so via the social pressures it employs to impose these stereotypes on each member of the society and by penalising gender-non-conforming people.

Radical feminists oppose these mechanisms. We reject the notion of sex-based identities because that is reductive and regressive biological essentialism.

So by all means continue building strawmen to knock down in this debate, but at the very least I expect you to acknowledge that many posters here have categorically rejected your claim that we believe in and seek to impose sex-based identities on people.

So by all means continue building strawmen to knock down in this debate, but at the very least I expect you to acknowledge that many posters here have categorically rejected your claim that we believe in and seek to impose sex-based identities on people.

Very true! and in fact I have objected to OPs attempt to important a sex-based identity on me . So the only person on this thread who has attempted to force an identity on anyone is the OP!

I guess we're not going to get a definition of gender then so this conversation can properly start? In that case I'm off to bed.

@OvaHere

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?

Hi @TRHR, it’s interesting to read your perspective even though I disagree with you, thank you for posting.

Please please think about and process what the poster above has said. It is simply not true that trans activism is respectful of sex as an axis of oppression. Stonewall wanted it removed from the Equality Act in favour of gender. The proposed USA Equality Act doesn’t have it in. Women had to go to court to have a question based on sex included in the census (the gender identity question was already there, no one suggested leaving that out). And Twitter was full of trans people who refused to put their accurate birth sex down, undermining the collection of data based on sex.

You say you hope you make at least one person reconsider. Can I say I really really hope you will reconsider after reading this thread. By all means have your views on gender being a part of what makes a woman etc - I accept we live in a gendered society. Trans women will share some gender based oppression, and I’m happy to be collaborative fighting against that. But please fight the corner of sex being protected as well as gender, as it is ultimately sex that is and has for centuries been at the root of the oppression of women. It’s the failure to respect and recognise that fact that is one of my main issue with Stonewall’s ideology.

@Faffertea

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.

Faffertea as a student when I was first reading feminist theory one of the things that convinced me twenty years ago that early trans ideas were harmful to women was the whole discourse around the idea of the vagina.

Sex reassignment surgery was less advanced then I guess; but so much of it was still based on the idea that you created a hole to be penetrated and then bingo! A trans woman was then functionally a woman, even if without a clitoris and even if with no way left of experiencing sexual pleasure. The whole idea was that as long as “she” could be penetrated, then that was how the success of the transition was measured.

I remember being horrified even as a young person with relatively little sexual experience, at the idea that women were just functional fuckholes for penetration; that satisfaction in finally “being” a woman was to be able to be an object, rather than an experiencing sexual subject in one’s own right.

More recently, I had my vagina checked out for bumps which the gynaecologist told me were actually just normal variations in the anatomy of the vagina. I was stunned that he told me that there is so little medical literature on the vagina, that it’s known there are structures and textures in the vaginal skin and walls that no-one even knows the purpose of because nobody’s studied them yet. Women really are the dark continent of medicine!

The casual ageism is rather depressing.

Did age become unfashionable at the same time as paragraphing?

@GoingThruTheMotions

The casual ageism is rather depressing.

Did age become unfashionable at the same time as paragraphing?

All these supposedly intersectional feminists never seem to consider the intersection of ageism with sexism. Generally because they're guilty of the ageism themselves. Sadly for them it'll take them getting older themselves before they get it.

It is simply not true that trans activism is respectful of sex as an axis of oppression.

I have to say I agree with this - aside from the actual attempts (which are working) to get sex unrecognised in law - the dynamics of some of the spaces I have taken part in with AMAB and AFAB trans people (as they identify) have, to my total and utter astonishment, been all about trampling the AFABS who even suggest that being AFAB might have given them a different kind of experience than AMABs. Anecdotal, sure - I'm not suggesting this is 'proof' of anything, just an observation about how deeply this stuff is ingrained. Trans men who post here often say they don't get involved in online activism because of the aggression and denying their experiences, usually by others under the trans umbrella in trans spaces.

@GoingThruTheMotions

The casual ageism is rather depressing.

Did age become unfashionable at the same time as paragraphing?

Every new generation thinks they've discovered sex. This one thinks they've discovered gender.

It's scary how quickly it happens to. I am still just in the discriminated against because of child bearing age bracket, but it won't be long until I ease into invisible woman territory.

Thankfully, I finished my teens and twenties in a less batshit time. Every generation finds a way to rebel, but this constant wokery doesn't look like much fun.