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.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than "women suffer abuse" and "transwomen suffer abuse".

Both of these statements can be true without having to say that transwomen are women.

Transwomen should fight their own cause rather than forcing women to concede something that isn't factually true. They'd get further that way. Women don't want to accept that men can simply identify their way out of their biology. That doesn't mean transwomen aren't deserving of support and protections.

It just means they aren't women.

Very well said.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Why does it need to be any more complicated than "women suffer abuse" and "transwomen suffer abuse".

Both of these statements can be true without having to say that transwomen are women.

Transwomen should fight their own cause rather than forcing women to concede something that isn't factually true. They'd get further that way. Women don't want to accept that men can simply identify their way out of their biology. That doesn't mean transwomen aren't deserving of support and protections.

It just means they aren't women.

Very well said.

Worth saying again! Totally agree. And I think, well I hope, I think most trans people are also in agreement it’s just an intense and extreme minority who through the algorithms of social media are becoming more extreme. OP and others don’t need to listen though, I wonder why you do? It’s not balanced.

But I've also seen lots of snide sarcasm, misrepresentation of what I've said and basically being called stupid.

See to the log in your own eye, before you point out the mote in ours, OP.

@GoingThruTheMotions

Oh how cruel. Mumsnet got rid of my carefully placed indents. Most invalidating.

RIP. You are valid, bruh.

You know how people say "oh I'm colour blind, I don't see colour me" and are all proud of themselves and how progressive they are while negating the lived experience of people of colour who know that race is a significant factor on how they have to negotiate their way through life?

You know how these "colour blind" people aren't actually progressive, and almost certainly extremely privileged not to have to think about and recognise race, or lying to themselves?

That's you when you pretend that sex doesn't matter, that you don't see sex, when you ignore women who are telling you that the way they live their lives involves negotiating with the lived experience of having a sexed body.

Great post.

@TRHR thank you for expressing your points patiently and clearly in the face of so many scathing and patronising replies. I had to skip the last 8 pages of comments as it’s time to sleep but so far, having carefully read and considered all of the responses, I’m still on your side

I had to skip the last 8 pages of comments as it’s time to sleep but so far, having carefully read and considered all of the responses, I’m still on your side

yes you read them? or no you didn't read them. If you skipped the last 8 pages, surely didn't carefully read and consider them all?

You know how these "colour blind" people aren't actually progressive, and almost certainly extremely privileged not to have to think about and recognise race, or lying to themselves?

Best summary I've read was "if you can't see race you can't see racism".

Surely it's unethical not to add transwomen to surrogacy lists? I'm sure people wouldn't have a problem being assigned a trans surrogate given that TWAW.

Exactly OP it is about culture, history, psychology and what ever else you said as well as genitals. That's why you can't just decide you are a woman and share the same understanding and feeling as a woman even if you change your appearance and pronouns because if you have been a man you've not experienced the impact of these and other things on your development and sense of self.

I have a young niece and nephew who are being brought up in a very gendered household. Literally, my nephew will get a blue pen and my niece will get a pink pen. Niece is described as 'a little madam who knows her own mind' when she wants something. Nephew is very similar but isn't described in such terms.

Niece wanted a particular traditional children's toy for her birthday (a toy traditionally played with by both girls and boys, e.g. a spinning top, teddy bear). DH and I found one we thought was nice, then checked with niece's mother to ensure it was age-aporopriate (as it was marketed towards a slightly older child). Niece's mother asked if we could get a more 'girlie' version in pink. We questioned this a little, but her mother was adamant, so we dutifully bought a pink version.

It has been eye-opening to witness how my niece is channelled into one direction and my nephew channelled in another from such a young age. I actually happen to think there are probably small differences in girls' behaviour and boys' behaviour, but I see how any differences in my niece and nephew are being reinforced and magnified by their upbringing.

My niece is very happy with her 'girlie' toys, which is great. However, if, as she gets older she starts to rail against her 'culture', this will not make her a boy.

Feminism is meant to be about dismantling these cultural expectations (which are stereotypes, no matter how much you try to dress it up). Queen Elizabeth I was not a man because she said she had 'the heart of a king'. The suffragettes were not men because they wanted the vote which had been traditionally and culturally denied to women. They fought to change the culture!

Saying 'oh, culture doesn't change' and promoting the idea that if your feelings and behaviour do not accord with what is culturally acceptable, you should just identify with the opposite sex is a hugely retrograde step.

I fail to understand how Katie Montgomery being catcalled on the street does anything but reinforce the idea that women are there to provide sexual pleasure for men and women must either accept this as part of their 'culture' or try to identify out of it. Is this really what 'modern' feminism is about? Is this what teenage girls and women in their 20s are fighting for?

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

And i remember shon enjoyed the validation, describing it on twitter.

@TRHR, you say you are a woman? How are you a woman? Do you wear dresses and suscribe to a feminine appearance or are you masculine presenting? What makes you a woman if not your biology? That is not regressive, it is fact. What is hatmful is an ideology that proposes that female brains are fundamentally different to male brains from birth

I'm reading your op again and I think you've set out a straw man.

None of what you've outlined is how I understand the issues, I don't know anyone who says it's "vagina based."

If you've read some of these books, I don't understand how you've mis represented the arguments in this simplistic way.

Have you read the transwidows threads and websites?

And again, "GC" feminism doesn't exist.

How much of what you've looked at includes transmen?

Harm: have you read the detransition pages on Reddit? Especially the irreversible harm done to ftm? And those young men dealing with botched genital surgery?

Harm: Jazz Jennings cannot experience full sexual pleasure.

Are you aware of the actual harm reducing oestrogen in women's bodies, women who want to be male? Reducing oestrogen in a body with xx chromosomes impacts a huge range of physiological processes, including bone density and most of all the brain.

When you translate all this down to children, who can absolutely wear what the hell they like and do what they like, but you're saying - what?

I don't know what your argument is. A child who "feels" like the other sex can harm their body with hormones?

Names and clothes are not active harm, kids should be able to express themselves, as adults can.

Your arguments are very narrow. You're not seen wider contexts nor seem to understand safeguarding, especially for children.

Im glad you returned to debate, I apologise for calling you a plopper. Fwr are very used to people starting threads and not returning to answer questions. Women are angry about the harm that is being portrayed as "kindness."

[quote Helen8220]@TRHR thank you for expressing your points patiently and clearly in the face of so many scathing and patronising replies. I had to skip the last 8 pages of comments as it’s time to sleep but so far, having carefully read and considered all of the responses, I’m still on your side[/quote]
I've seen the odd scathing and patronising reply, but most other responses have been very reasoned.

I'm interested in your perspective too, Helen. What are the cultural, societal, historical and psychological atrributes that make one a woman?

If someone is uncomfortable with any of those attributes does it automatically make them not a woman? (Would it make them a man?)

Is being a woman defined entirely by one's current cultural and social background? If I, for example, as a born and raised British woman were to go to live in Saudi Arabia, would I cease to be a woman on the basis that I did not identify with the prevailing cultural, historical, social and psychological view of 'womanhood'? Furthermore, would the Saudi government view me as a woman or not on the basis of my identity?

"Inclusion"

This is a very western and white argument.

I think it's far clearer to refer to things like a 'cervical smear for people who have a cervix. Partly because not all cis women (and intersex people) have exactly the same organs and needs. It's actually safer to talk about the relevant body parts than 'woman'. It should be a medically relevant descriptor, not an identifier.

You've forgotten the huge numbers of women in this country for whom English is a second language and are often uneducated, or women who have learning disabilities.

This is such a naive and narrowly thought through comment. I never discuss privilege as I hate privilege top trumps, but that comment absolutely does come from a POV of able minded and cultural privilege.

There is so much crap thrown around about being inclusive to trans women (never trans men), and yet the people who actually need the inclusive language, because of how they were born or the culture they were born into are excluded.

If your response to the question "What is a woman?" is to give a reading list, you're over complicating something that can be answered in three words.

What is hateful is an ideology that proposes that female brains are fundamentally different to male brains from birth

OP do add Jacky Fleming's 'The Trouble with Women' to feminist book recommendations,

'Take that, Mr Darwin
Jacky Fleming's latest book The Trouble with Women opens with the epigraph 'Take nobody's word for it', the motto of the Royal Society. It is a nugget of wisdom that seems very apposite in our post-truth modern world '“ and it could as easily describe Fleming's approach in puncturing accepted myths...'

(extract)
“It is normally anger or a feeling of being helpless,” she says over a coffee at her home in Otley. “I am always aiming at something – I have a target.” And she frequently hits the bullseye, combining, to great effect, the personal and the political.

She had been planning a book for a while and had pulled together lots of ideas and notes, but then one evening she watched a TV documentary about the 1950s New York art scene which proved to be a bit of a catalyst. “I was very aware that not a single woman artist had been mentioned – and this was being presented as an accurate version of events,” she says. “I had been thinking about male genius before that – the notes I was making were entitled ‘the irritating history of male genius.’”

After watching that programme Fleming began some research. She googled “can women be geniuses?” and came across Darwin’s theory that women definitely could not because of their “biological inferiority”. “I was absolutely stunned,” says Fleming. “He was one of the most respected scientists in the world at the time, so people would naturally assume that what he said was true.” (continues)
www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/take-mr-darwin-1786141

@WarriorN

I'm reading your op again and I think you've set out a straw man.

None of what you've outlined is how I understand the issues, I don't know anyone who says it's "vagina based."

If you've read some of these books, I don't understand how you've mis represented the arguments in this simplistic way.

Have you read the transwidows threads and websites?

And again, "GC" feminism doesn't exist.

How much of what you've looked at includes transmen?

Harm: have you read the detransition pages on Reddit? Especially the irreversible harm done to ftm? And those young men dealing with botched genital surgery?

Harm: Jazz Jennings cannot experience full sexual pleasure.

Are you aware of the actual harm reducing oestrogen in women's bodies, women who want to be male? Reducing oestrogen in a body with xx chromosomes impacts a huge range of physiological processes, including bone density and most of all the brain.

When you translate all this down to children, who can absolutely wear what the hell they like and do what they like, but you're saying - what?

I don't know what your argument is. A child who "feels" like the other sex can harm their body with hormones?

Names and clothes are not active harm, kids should be able to express themselves, as adults can.

Your arguments are very narrow. You're not seen wider contexts nor seem to understand safeguarding, especially for children.

Im glad you returned to debate, I apologise for calling you a plopper. Fwr are very used to people starting threads and not returning to answer questions. Women are angry about the harm that is being portrayed as "kindness."

Would be great to get a response to this from @TRHR, @Helen8220 and @PuffinTilly

I think that the "I adore being eye-fucked whilst I'm on an escalator" stuff tends to come from one of the Paris-es. I guess that this is one of the fundamental points of misconception that the OP is presenting? It's perfectly possible that Faye, Lees, Monty etc may write moderately interesting items of fiction or non-fiction about street harassment as experienced by themselves. I fail to see why this is of interest to me as a feminist? I'm interested in why women are subjected to street harassment and indeed how we can stop men from street harassing women. It's possible that if we were to end male street harassment of women overnight then Paris etc may no longer experience what they say that they experience. Again, what has this to do with feminism? I'm trying to make sense of the OP's assertions, one of which seems to be that to define women as belonging to the class that produces the large gametes is somehow restrictive and therefore it should be as belonging to the class that gets eye-fucked on escalators by those that belong to the class that produces the small gametes. And my question is why? What do we gain from this reclassification? In short, what is the value in it?

I am a woman long passed “child bearing” years. I have campaigned for, worked with and supported women to have safe streets, places of refuge, rights to have and raise their children, financial independence and security. I did this because I as a woman had similar stories to other women, and felt it was my duty. It is now the job of younger, stronger women, who face greater challenges than I did, to do likewise.

I also find the assumptions men sometimes make about women’s brains are offensive and idiotic. You have transwomen tweeeting about “taking bimbo pills”. What does that say about how they view women?

However, there are some traits (nothing to do with intelligence) where the average woman is different to the average men. Women generally tend to score higher on agreeableness. I see many transwomen on Twitter who ask people they don’t like to suck their lady dick. I hope they are not the ones arguing that they have a “lady brain”.

@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.

One day, when you are a little older, you will be so mortified you actually wrote this.

Closing your eyes and going lalala won’t make sexism go away. If we can’t see it and count it we can’t fight it. Sex isn’t the same as gender. Fiff faff about all you like with your gender - that’s hardly novel - but stop conflating it with your sex because data on sex needs to be transparent to monitor sexism.