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.

@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.

Absolutely.

This sleight of hand finds its fullest expression in the alarming concept that to experience male violence is actually what makes a woman, as described in Torrey Peters’ work.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4188497-TW-nominated-for-the-womens-prize-for-fiction

I don’t suppose that this view is consciously widely held, but it does exist.

Closing your eyes and going lalala won’t make sexism go away

This is the nub of it. Call women whatever you like, they'll still be oppressed and exploited by the penis people. You just won't be able to form an effective resistance to tackle any 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

Maybe I've missed something, but how does moving to your world of non-genital gender identity improve this?

If a company has a board that's 50% men and 50% transwomen, is that fair in your opinion? No-one gets identified by their genitals, but magically the company doesn't have any high earners taking maternity leave. And we don't have the words to describe what the problem is (if you consider there is a problem)

My replies probably fall in the 'scathing' camp because sadly I didn't think anything was going to work with the op, although there are some great responses for lurkers. But if there had been fewer replies she'd have said we were ignoring her, if we'd been kinder (as lots of posters were) she'd have called us patronising, and so on. So mostly I shrug and I laugh and hope I'm still around when the penny drops. You get it when you get it.

I'm still curious as to why this doesn't happen with any other civil rights movement that I'm aware of? Individuals and schools of thought always come in and out of fashion but I don't think you see this visceral distaste anywhere else - or do you?

Re op’s comment that we think op is stupid:
I don’t think you are stupid; I think you are wrong.

Yes, there's also Andrea long chu's helpful redefinition of a woman as "the universal asshole" - I paraphrase somewhat as I don't have time or enough bleach to read it again. What does this mean to you OP? Is this a good thing? Are you either concerned about or aware of male paraphilia?

I'm still curious as to why this doesn't happen with any other civil rights movement that I'm aware of? Individuals and schools of thought always come in and out of fashion but I don't think you see this visceral distaste anywhere else - or do you?

I think the clue is in that OP has signposted male experiences as providing "insight"

Feminism was colonised by Queer theorists and Queer theory is a men's sexual rights movement.

Genevieve Gluck on the links between transgenderism & porn
Women's Human Rights Campaign (WHRC) 10th May 2021

OP I am still really no clearer on what gender identity is. So, I am going to ask a more narrowly defined question @TRHR. What are the psychological factors that feed into my gender identity. What in psychology in inherently male or female? And how do we know that.
This is a genuine question. It feels to me like some people are prepared to go to war, give up our hard won rights over a concept that I cannot even begin to get my head around.

Assume I am an interested A level student, but not particularly well read in the subject and explain it to me in your own words.

as a 'young woman of childbearing age' busy at work, you may think your vagina and reproductive organs are of no consequence. But I bet my bottom dollar that very soon, the probable men in charge of your company, when looking for promotions, will start to place men above you, because there will be an unspoken fear (that still very much exists, but they are not allowed to voice it) that it is likely that you may require time off for maternity leave. And that if you go on to have a second child, you might have 2 lots of 'paid holiday' and expect all sorts of adjustment to the way business is 'supposed' to run on your return. If indeed you do return, because many women, after child number two, find it really really difficult.

You may never have mentioned children. You may have been vocal about not wanting them. You may never have them. At the moment you are young and flying high amonst the probably far more mediocre men in your workplace who surround you. But that time of silent discrimination is coming, and the 'gender' (FFS) pay gap really only hits once those reprductive roles come into play - and then womens pay and prospects generally fall off a cliff.

But no. we are not 'defined' by our reproductive organs. We can do, be think and feel the whole gamut of human experience. But we sure as hell have been oppressed BECAUSE of them since the first warrior class tribe did a raid on their neighbours and decided that stealing their women to breed new child members was a fine and dandy idea, and women became a valuable chattel of their fathers

Thanks R0 - I'll think about that although I'm not sure if it can all be down to Queer Theory because every generation has done it to some extent. When I was young I devoured everything I could find on the women's suffrage movement (which is why the advice to read the Pankhursts slayed me). But my mum and my aunties had done all this amazing stuff too - in WW2 - and they talked about it whenever they met up and yet I had no idea because I never listened.

But it would never have occurred to me to try and lecture or educate my aunts. I just ignored them because I didn't think they had anything interesting to say. The contempt feels new, so maybe you're right.

Sorry, bit of a rambling post but I'm pretty much thinking out loud.

I still can't believe a person who states they are well read and intelligent like OP, can then go on and claim adult human females don't need a name to describe themselves and set themselves apart from adult human males?
Logically, if you follow the arguments to the end, it would mean women become completely invisible. Statistics would ignore the female sex differences to male. Medicine would ignore the female sex even more. Sexism isn't visible anymore. All facilities will be mixed sex, mainly used by people who declare themselves to be men. All sports championships will be in hands of people who share certain traits like high levels of natural testosterone that their body is sensitive to.

Is that the world OP really wants?

[quote R0wantrees]I'm still curious as to why this doesn't happen with any other civil rights movement that I'm aware of? Individuals and schools of thought always come in and out of fashion but I don't think you see this visceral distaste anywhere else - or do you?

I think the clue is in that OP has signposted male experiences as providing "insight"

Feminism was colonised by Queer theorists and Queer theory is a men's sexual rights movement.

Genevieve Gluck on the links between transgenderism & porn
Women's Human Rights Campaign (WHRC) 10th May 2021

[/quote] That's a really good presentation. Thanks for posting.

Gender is not a set of stereotypes - it's an identity based on culture, history, society , psychology and often (but not always) sex

I'm baffled as to why you would think this was a good thing and likely to avoid harmful stereotypes, when you are aware how much history has been stacked against women and our existing culture defined by men.

If a company has a board that's 50% men and 50% transwomen, is that fair in your opinion? No-one gets identified by their genitals, but magically the company doesn't have any high earners taking maternity leave. And we don't have the words to describe what the problem is (if you consider there is a problem)

This is the crux of it. If you fully buy into genderism, its more consistent proponents argue that 50% men and 50% transwomen is a perfectly fair "gender balance". Do you see a problem with it, OP?

Thing is too that women who don’t want children and/or who don’t have children are also discriminated against and vilified for being ‘unnatural’ as the reaction to Helen Clarke, Theresa May and Julia Gillard attests. This is because these women challenged gender roles and stereotypes; those structures that oppress us. It is these that must be challenged.

To you it's regressive to them (including many intelligent and well respected women like Emma Watson and Michelle Obama) it's progressive. That's just how life goes, this is what happens– times change. I'm not saying I agree with it but what do you want to do about it?

@shroompie

To you it's regressive to them (including many intelligent and well respected women like Emma Watson and Michelle Obama) it's progressive. That's just how life goes, this is what happens– times change. I'm not saying I agree with it but what do you want to do about it?

Question it, ask for explanations, expect more than no debate and you're all just ignorant middle aged women.

Why is this so hard?

Also, I meant to add, re the op, using an author of fiction as the basis of an argument isn't really effective in a argument based on science and facts.

I'd also love to know if you've read any of Dr Em's writing on queer theory?

Fiction and queer theory, as with the visual and performing arts are all about ideas that have roots in real life, but allow imagination to run wild. It's effectively lies and tricks of the light. We enjoy believing it. But it's coercive, intended to make you feel emotional responses. That's what art does. That's what advertising does.

There's no coincidence that queer theory has huge roots in the arts.

As adults we know what's real or not, except that imagined truths, ideologies, are now being dressed as science. Brain science has been used and abused (as Gina Rippon describes, neurotrash), biological sex is being used and abused, (see Simon(e) who is a trans visual artist and neuro researcher but actually basically appropriates intersex)

Claire Graham have an heart wrenching talk yesterday about how it feels to have an intersex difference and to be used and talked about, after liking at current LGBTQI resources. And how that feels as a child in school with an DSD.

Young women and children today need to learn about coercion. They're being coerced to believe things that simply aren't true.

For what purpose?

GNC Ben on coercion in the trans community.

Not lie back and think of England that’s for sure.

OP I would really genuinely like to know if you feel that this is just a sex issue;
Would you have the same argument about race? Is race just an identity without biology?
So in your words... if I swapped race for gender...
RACE is not a set of stereotypes - it's an identity based on culture, history, society , psychology and often (but not always) RACE
Would this be true? And if not, why not?

But it isn't progressive.

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?

I carefully read and considered all of the responses in the first 10 pages.

I also really want to know why transwomen need to have a vagina. If we must talk about vaginas.

For me, to say getting a vagina as an adult makes you a woman, reduces "women" to people with a hole to fuck.

It's a dangerous operation. But then, telling a lesbian that someone with a penis is also a lesbian and should be considered for dating, is the height of sexual gaslighting.

I carefully read and considered all of the responses in the first 10 pages.

Perhaps you should "carefully read" the full thread, Helen.