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 think feminism is practise. There are theories which can inform and/or inspire but its about the doing of liberation for all women and girls

Hear hear R0wentrees!

Yes. This is the work we do. And that work can take different forms, part-time, full-time, in-between times. One thing I've learned from middle age is you can't boil the ocean, so focus on a few things that want changed and make sure they align with your highest values. It's why I center women and girls, and not men. I am happy to speak up when trans women are abused or when young men are subjected to unfair cultural beliefs, but it's not feminism and I choose to focus energy on protecting women and girls.

TL;DR: Pick a focus

Because of where I live, there are many local Black groups that focus on specific issues impacting Black people in my city, from BLM to mothers sharing food delivery. Even though I support them wholeheartedly, I do the bare minimum to be an ally / I've shown up to some vigils and helped organize food and toiletry banks during key protests. But I'm not demanding access nor membership and frankly, I purposely make connections that benefit girls (like helping a predominantly all-Black Girl Scout -Guides- troop get scout resources that were on the opposite side of the city, making transportation a nightmare for them). This is a minuscule amount of work compared to Black leaders in my city and I've felt bad that I don't show up all the time, but again, my focus is girls and women and I can be far more effective if I focus on that than thinking I can help everyone all the time (spoiler: no one can).

I wish trans women good luck, but I can't fix all their unique issues and I am not ok with them thinking any fix should involve demands on women and girls's spaces.

So, my big question for the @TRHR
"What specific feminist work do you personally want to focus on to help women and girls and why."

(Sorry for the late post, I'm often sleeping when you all are discussing).

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox

I really think that in future, people will be looking back and discussing how transphobic we were as a society in this time

I really think we'll be looking back and saying how callous, unmerciful and compassionless we were to women affected by this ideology who will have to go to the same jails as transwomen rapists, compete with transwomen in competative kickboxing, rugby, boxing etc.
It's inhumane.

Quite.

It’s really like saying ‘I can partake in the disabled olympics because I self identify as disabled’.

@GoingThruTheMotions

I'd be interested in that article if you can locate it Cardinal This is kind of what I was alluding at earlier with Emma Watson. Being kind is generally just showboating without any cost. If Emma was being turned down for roles in favour of transwomen then I could believe she genuinely wanted to be kind, but that's not going to happen. As a pretty well known actress Emma doesn't stand to lose in the same way as say, Serena Williams does. Therefore she can afford to be generous and do empty virtue signalling.

I honestly didn't remember this when I posted but it's by Kathleen Stock! kathleenstock.com/the-pity-party-on-the-left-2/

An extract: "When companies or individuals ostentatiously promote the value of kindness like this, they aren’t interested in helping people navigate the complex work of how to manifest kindness in everyday interactions. What they mostly mean is: feel kindly towards others. Demonstrating kindness essentially involves definite action. In contrast, kindliness seems to involve only emitting a vague feeling of warmth towards other humans. Yet promoting something so vague and underspecified as a political value carries with it certain risks. In practice, kindly feelings can quickly transmute into the dangerously sentimental emotion of pity, or else into a passivity which daren’t risk saying or thinking anything critical at all."

Which one is more sexist:
"woman seen as a collection of characteristics such as: feminine, soft, more empathetic, less logical, more emotional"

OR

"woman seen as a human full of any possible traits and expressions: who has the following physical characteristic: born female"?

I don't identify with either my "gender as a woman" NOR my sex as a female. I am not my just my gender and I am not just my sex.
In fact I would go as far a saying that I feel "just a human" on most days and don't think of myself as "a woman".

This, in a nutshell!

@Rejoiningperson

This is a kind of aside, but relevant. There seem to be ‘two’ parallel but opposite ‘new’ and claiming ‘progressive’ ways of thinking not just in sex, gender but in race, disability.

For example, in acting as we are talking about that - it is now seen as not progressive to employ an actor to ‘act’ disabled or to ‘act’ another race. There is a growing recognition that disabled and different race people should be represented as far as possible as themselves, with their own voice, and that no one else should identify for them, even in acting.

The sex / gender debate seems to cut through this. It seems that for example a role for an actress is more ‘progressive’ if it can go to anyone who identifies as a woman, not a biological woman.

So a real push to have some inequalities better identified by those who are actually disabled or actually that race. From years of being denied that voice, which is similar to women’s experiences. Women weren’t even allowed to be actresses and then when they were, they were ‘whores’. Disability wasn’t played by disabled actors. White people played black people on the big screen.

Just musing about these things really...

In trans ideology, a woman's part played by a trans woman is being played by a woman. It would only be an "able bodied person playing disabled person" scenario if the part specified trans or cis and the woman playing it wasn't.

And I think if the TRA's brave new world is really achieved, roles where a cis person was specified would be quite specific - historic roles, mothers - otherwise there'd be the risk of a woke-on..

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox

I really think that in future, people will be looking back and discussing how transphobic we were as a society in this time

I really think we'll be looking back and saying how callous, unmerciful and compassionless we were to women affected by this ideology who will have to go to the same jails as transwomen rapists, compete with transwomen in competative kickboxing, rugby, boxing etc.
It's inhumane.

Someone I know said 'men get raped in prison too', and that they weren't interested in sport so they didn't care about that.

They didn't see the point of awards with a category for women.

"Why can't we all just be people?"

(They said, not me).

I admit to saying crap like 'I don't see colour' in the past (yes I still cringe thinking about it), trying to be all open and liberal like. I'm learning by listening and discussing.

Really nice philosophical point this:

I don't identify with either my "gender as a woman" NOR my sex as a female. I am not my just my gender and I am not just my sex. In fact I would go as far a saying that I feel "just a human" on most days and don't think of myself as "a woman".

Which in a kind of philosophical discussion would naturally lead to - there is no need for anyone to ‘claim’ or ‘identify’ with either gender. No gender surgery or hormones. No need to dress or act differently and therefore no need to ‘go’ into female spaces or be seen as female. Just themselves.

I'm honestly starting to think being GC is positively correlated to intelligence.

GC requires being analytical, which is a certain type of intelligence.
I'd like to meet an analytical mind on the opposing side- disappointed so far.

@GoingThruTheMotions It's a tough call when your ideology is built on logical fallacies.

@RadandMad

I'm honestly starting to think being GC is positively correlated to intelligence.

As most of the world, not just feminists, is GC, you might be on to something.

Saying that, as someone who was previously in the 'be kind' camp, I think there is a certain type of emotional intelligence that can be manipulated into following the ideology. Mother in law is a good example. Someone from her church is transitioning and she was fretting about how to be kind. I've tried to tell her that her normal level of kindness is enough (overkill sometimes). I've also mentioned the importance of safeguarding and looking after the family the individual is leaving in their wake. (She'd been so preoccupied with being kind she'd forgotten them!)

It should be enough to treat everyone with respect and dignity. Not extra rights for the elite.

The proliferation of mantras, slogans and 'no debate' has led to a culture where critical thinking is becoming endangered. As we have seen on this thread, trans activists or allies will state fallacies, refuse to engage in debate and then complain that they are being picked on and that everyone is transphobic. There's no effort to provide a well thought argument and any request for a basis/background for their thoughts is met with 'educate yourself'. It's not good faith debate, it's just a way to 'back up' their false hypothesis and in many cases, to generate carefully curated screenshots.

The only good thing I can see about posts like this is the amount of sunlight it must give to lurkers. If a simple question like 'how would you describe the word gender without using stereotypes' cannot be answered, despite it being the basis of the first post, then there is no foundation to the argument.

I also think the desperation to "be kind" is also connected the fear of getting things wrong and being called out. If one is excessively kind to the needs of extremely demanding individuals then it mitigates the risk of getting it wrong.

If a simple question like 'how would you describe the word gender without using stereotypes' cannot be answered, despite it being the basis of the first post, then there is no foundation to the argument.

This. This. This. This.

It's ridiculous for this not be answered.

THIS!!!!!

This is the starting block for discussion and the willful refusal to answer such a simple question speaks volumes.

If you can't answer this question you have no case and should stop the hate. Because it is hurting women. You are hurting women.

It is not transphobic to say that. I have no problems with transwomen or transmen. But TWANW

@lonel

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 That's only a problem if you go on to say "and that means you can only reproduce and child rear". Which feminists aren't saying. You seem to think it though. Is it just possible you haven't understood feminism at all? Hmmm...

Yes - the OP's statement comes up boringly often.

The answer given again here is simple and true.

Are you Amy Dyess? Sounds a bit like her hyperbolic ramblings about ‘dangers’. Anyway, I will engage once you understand what GC feminists are actually saying.

I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning MrMeno's latest video, re Sam's tattoo.

Worth a watch. Not a song as I was expecting...

It's going to be like the South Sea Bubble or the Dutch Tulip Bubble. People will look back and say "What were they thinking?!"

Can't say I'm surprised that the tiny minority who agree with the op, have not put forward any kind of rational argument or even offered any thoughts further than "your all mean, nasty women transphobia waaa" it gets very boring when none of you can articulate simple answers to simple questions. It just makes you look incredibly ignorant.

I guess it's because there isn't a very good argument beyond emotional blackmail and insults.

@Chev2021

I agree with OP.

Historically, one of the biggest flaws of feminism has been how elitist and non-inclusive it's been (especially in the uk - very racist). Why are we repeating this pattern with transphobia? Surely it's better to have more allies?

I really think that in future, people will be looking back and discussing how transphobic we were as a society in this time.

I'm interested in examples of UK racist feminism please. I don't deny there are examples. But I'm not aware of them through my own reading or experience. Possibily there is white centreing through insensitivity. But I would love to learn more about where you see this.

I'm interested in examples of UK racist feminism please

One example might be the argument made by some feminists that if you say you don't think trans women belong in women's spaces you might as well say you don't think black women belong in women's spaces.