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.

'To be honest, I see a lot on here with generalisations about men ("they really hate us, don't they?" etc) and often feel a similar way about it.'

And have you heard what they say about us???!!!!

And are people going onto the sites where men gather to talk about murdering us, raping us, beating us. About putting us in our place. All of that stuff. And saying. Oh but that's not fair! Not all women are sluts who deserve to be,,, ??? I bet they aren't. Do you?

@NiceGerbil

'To be honest, I see a lot on here with generalisations about men ("they really hate us, don't they?" etc) and often feel a similar way about it.'

And have you heard what they say about us???!!!!

And are people going onto the sites where men gather to talk about murdering us, raping us, beating us. About putting us in our place. All of that stuff. And saying. Oh but that's not fair! Not all women are sluts who deserve to be,,, ??? I bet they aren't. Do you?

I take your point, but it's not a great situation if we're concluding that many feminists are as bad as incels, who are amongst the most dysfunctional individuals in existence.

And to do as you suggest would surely be the female equivalent of NAMALT (although I do believe that incels are a vanishingly small minority of men and most men aren't like that).

Both groups are similar IMO, not unlike the far left and far right. Both are prejudiced against the opposite sex.

I take your point, but it's not a great situation if we're concluding that many feminists are as bad as incels, who are amongst the most dysfunctional individuals in existence.

Why are you concluding that feminists are as bad as people who plan the rape, abuse and murder of the opposite sex? Women’s words are as bad as extreme male violence are they? I think you need to examine your internalised misogyny.

Women tackling issues like male violence against women and girls are as bad as men plotting to rape and take ownership of women and girls? You what now?

if we're concluding that many feminists are as bad as incels

Are "we"? are you familiar with what incels actually do and say?

Both groups are similar IMO, not unlike the far left and far right. Both are prejudiced against the opposite sex.

Recognising a pattern of violence is not prejudice. When are you allowed to conclude that hatred exists, if not when it is evidenced by an global epidemic of harm? Men abuse women more than women abuse men. That is simply a fact.

@CardinalLolzy

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!

I am glad this section resonates.

I think it boils to down to two perspectives, and it actually runs deep into philosophy/ psychology, and into some form for mind/body dualism.

The perspective drastically changes, depending on what you perceive as the "top layer" of your own sense of self. Is the top layer is "human" with your gender being just a subset/ category of that? Or is the "top layer" your sense of self your gender, with "human" just being a general descriptor, amongst others such as ethnicity?

Some people think of themselves as a "human who has all these characteristics, including gender"

Some people think of themselves as "man/woman" first, and "human" second.

And I think this perspective changes everything - because it basically points to where we see and feel the essence of our being.

For those who are in the second camp (they at their core feel like a man or a woman), saying "biology matters", is terrifying because it puts their internal sense of self at the whim of external circumstances, and ties it to reproduction. It can feel reductionist.

But for those who see themselves as "human first" they might essentially not feel like either man or woman. They just "feel like a person". The only thing that points to their gender is their body, that fixes them in that position socially.

And to them, removing the basis of biology from social categorisation, feels oppressive - because it leads to gender being seen as something internal, when prior to it they did not necessarily experience it as something internal.

It suddenly pushes a demand on them to define their interiority as that of a man, or a woman, when prior to that they did not think of it that way.. and it asks them to qualify their personality traits as feminine or masculine. So a woman, who sees themselves as human who happens to have a vagina and who is also rational, will have to wonder if she isn't man, just because their interiority doesn't match the expected set of feminine traits. ``

I personally was told on multiple occasions that I "do certain things like a man". BUT I am not one, and certainly all this talk will disappear when I will have to face the realities of being a mother.

And, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think OP is firmly in the camp that sees "man/woman" as the top layer of their sense of self.

So by holding the view that you are man/woman at the core of yours, and then having defined that on the basis of biology can feel terrifying - because pointing to biology as the cause of gender categorisation can feel like robbing you out of a sense of self.

But I would encourage OP to ponder if this is really the way things are - if we are all "women and men and non-binary beings who also happen to be human" OR are we "humans who have certain characteristics, one of them being their sex".

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

If it can’t be described or defined why are laws being based on it? And why are those of us who don’t have a gender identity supposed to take the concept seriously when it’s apparently ineffable? And why am i being obligated to share spaces with males on the basis of them purportedly having some mystical quality in common with me when I don’t personally experience this quality and no one can explain what it is?

Maybe gender identity is like a psychedelic trip and lies beyond the mind’s capacity to explain. That’s nice for gender havers I’m sure. But the difference between gender and other ineffables is that no one is letting DMT entities dictate the law.

Is there anyone who doesn’t come from a privileged background who thinks everyone knows if they have a cervix or not? Or is it just naive privileged middle class people who think such a ridiculous thing? No matter whether English is someone’s first language?

CloudyMoment, there are plenty of things in the world that terrify me, but never biology, not even at one of those 3am sleepless moments. I'd have to be looking for things to be frightened of, I think, before biology would worry me!

I have no idea whether being a woman is at my core or my surface, either, even after all these years. I know I have a rational mind with a strong analytical bent, but oddly I've never felt forced to consider whether I'm a man. I think it's unlikely I'll start worrying about this now, at my time of life. There are so many more important and interesting new things to consider both about the world and about myself.

I'm honestly finding it hard to follow your thinking or understand your concerns, but perhaps that's my limitation. Personally, since childhood I've rather scorned gender stereotypes and resented having them applied to me and I worked hard to raise my now-adult children to ignore any gendered expectations of them, follow their own fascinations and make their own paths.

I was raised to believe I could achieve pretty much anything I wanted if I set my mind to it and worked hard. Nobody at home ever told me I must or must not do certain things because I was a girl, though messages like that did sometimes come from school and wider society. I mostly ignored them.

CloudyMoment, there are plenty of things in the world that terrify me, but never biology, not even at one of those 3am sleepless moments. I'd have to be looking for things to be frightened of, I think, before biology would worry me!

I have no idea whether being a woman is at my core or my surface, either, even after all these years. I know I have a rational mind with a strong analytical bent, but oddly I've never felt forced to consider whether I'm a man. I think it's unlikely I'll start worrying about this now, at my time of life. There are so many more important and interesting new things to consider both about the world and about myself.

I'm honestly finding it hard to follow your thinking or understand your concerns, but perhaps that's my limitation. Personally, since childhood I've rather scorned gender stereotypes and resented having them applied to me and I worked hard to raise my now-adult children to ignore any gendered expectations of them, follow their own fascinations and make their own paths.

I was raised to believe I could achieve pretty much anything I wanted if I set my mind to it and worked hard. Nobody at home ever told me I must or must not do certain things because I was a girl, though messages like that did sometimes come from school and wider society. I mostly ignored them.

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

If it can’t be described or defined why are laws being based on it? And why are those of us who don’t have a gender identity supposed to take the concept seriously when it’s apparently ineffable? And why am i being obligated to share spaces with males on the basis of them purportedly having some mystical quality in common with me when I don’t personally experience this quality and no one can explain what it is?

Maybe gender identity is like a psychedelic trip and lies beyond the mind’s capacity to explain. That’s nice for gender havers I’m sure. But the difference between gender and other ineffables is that no one is letting DMT entities dictate the law.

NewlyGranny

I was trying to show both sides of the divide here. I think that the difference between where people like OP are coming from v. people like myself or GC thinkers.

I think that for those whose sense of self is synonymous with their gender ( "I am a woman" rather than "I am human who happens to be a woman") can feel threatened by the fact that their sense of self is linked to a category which is defined by a biological trait.

Because they might not actually identify with that biological trait itself.

They would like to believe that if they were born in a male body, their sense of self would still be the same (they'd still be a woman).

@CloudyMoment

NewlyGranny

I was trying to show both sides of the divide here. I think that the difference between where people like OP are coming from v. people like myself or GC thinkers.

I think that for those whose sense of self is synonymous with their gender ( "I am a woman" rather than "I am human who happens to be a woman") can feel threatened by the fact that their sense of self is linked to a category which is defined by a biological trait.

Because they might not actually identify with that biological trait itself.

They would like to believe that if they were born in a male body, their sense of self would still be the same (they'd still be a woman).

The "imagine if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in a male body" gotcha as an explanation of how a transperson might feel is one that always baffles me.

If I woke up tomorrow in a male body*, it would be my body. I would still be me but I would be a man. I would have a penis and it would be my penis. I would have the same thoughts, feelings and preferences that I do now.

I would also have higher levels of testosterone and much less estrogen and that might affect the way I think and behave to some degree, but they would still be my feelings and behaviours.

I just don't get it as a thought experiment but your hypotheses about how people think about themselves and how some people might put their sense-of-self-as-a-woman ahead of their sense of self as a person makes sense.

*Obviously if this actually happened I'd be absolutely terrified and think I was going mad, just as I would be absolutely terrified and think I was going mad if I woke up in another woman's body, or my body 20 years ago

I think you are onto something in terms of differences in how people experience self, Cloudy.

Armchair psychology disclaimer.

I think the gender movement as a whole is power driven and political, but for individuals susceptible to it, with a strong affinity to gender themselves (and thinking about ego, sense of self etc), I wonder whether strong identification with gender at the level of self might be an immature developmental stage of ego integration or a defence mechanism to protect from an undeveloped sense of self.

Steps, like Loevinger's 10 stages of ego integration.

Obviously there would be huge variation between individuals but there is a bit of an age divide, so time and maturity probably feed into it, and I do think in my 20's (and pre children), I would have been more susceptible to gender ideology.

Also the well documented comorbidity of gender dysphoria with personality and/or sensory processing/developmental disorders fits.

People with personality disorders certainly have poorly developed object relations and need more external validation than the average age matched person in my experience (some of the more enthusiastic "cis allies" also seem to fit this schema)

One thing I have observed (on the interwebs and in life) is a cohort of, frankly lovely, older, post transition MtF transexuals, who are formidably gender critical, wise and really do seem to have found some sort of peace/ resolution/ integration. Possibly they have sort of fast track to a fully integrated, mature but playful (flowing 10th stage) personality. A sort of ego transcendence.

That said, there is also another older cohort, (we have a regular visitor I am thinking of, who thinks they have been through some sort of dark night of the soul, complete with spiritual awakening, giving them permission to come and preach their higher gender truths to poor stunted mumsnetters) This group thinks they are at stage 10 but in reality are probably stuck around E3 self-protective stage and desperately need the validation, but settle for feeling morally superior to those they can't get it from. Classic narcissistic false self.

‘Maybe gender identity is like a psychedelic trip and lies beyond the mind’s capacity to explain. That’s nice for gender havers I’m sure. But the difference between gender and other ineffables is that no one is letting DMT entities dictate the law.’

I reckon I could make a better go of describing the characteristics of a psychedelic trip than anyone has of a gender identity.

I think my sense of self probably would have been the same if I'd been born in a male body. 🤷🏼‍♀️ I don't lose sleep over it, though. I don't think I have any particularly strong gender identity; I'm an adult human female and I never imagined or wanted any choice about that. Every cell of my body is coded female so nothing I could do or have done to me would alter that. It's my sex, not my "gender". It doesn't affect my intelligence, interests or personality as far as I'm aware.

It does affect my social and political concerns, though, as I do feel a sisterly bond with women, especially women in difficulties or suffering oppression, and especially for girls who are facing harassment.

Am I a human who happens to be a woman or am I a woman? Dunno. I don't get the difference.

Am I "threatened by the fact that my sense of self is linked to a category that is defined by a biological trait"?

Nup. I'd have to twist my psyche into the shape of a pretzel before I could feel that. 🥨

or my body 20 years ago

We can dream!

@Welcome2hateHolland

or my body 20 years ago

We can dream!

Actually that was an example of me forgetting that I'm old - my body 20 years ago would just look and feel better to live in while being recognisably me. I think i'd be pretty pleased about that...

I meant more like 40 years ago which would be far more Freaky Friday

My biggest concern about supposed inclusive language such as "'cervical smear for people who have a cervix" is that it is not inclusive.

These sorts of statements are dangerous.

It has been proven that many women do not know that they have cervix. Using this sort of language significantly increases the risk that these women may not have cervical smears and therefore may die of cervical cancer.

This is not inclusive behaviour. It's woke behaviour. It makes the person using the language feel inclusive and cool, whilst directly damaging the people that it should help (women).

I understand that you want to be woke and cool, it's a bit like giving to charity :) but can't you try to do it in an inclusive way so that you don't actually harm others?

How about women and other people with cervix?

How about women and cervix havers.

How about women and trans men.
I'm sure you can come up with something cool that is actually inclusive

But instead you prefer to exclude the word women and as such increase risk to women. I just can't understand how anyone can justify the risk to women. Even if you feel that you are aiming to reduce hurt feelings for other groups, surely the risk of death must be taken more seriously than hurt feelings?

We must use truly inclusive language, which means using woman/women where it is the appropriate and safest word to use.

I would love to have my body of 40 years ago back! I'd not only have a pelvic floor unaffected by the exit of a 10lb baby but I'd have my glossy, gorgeous chestnut hair again, now seen only swishing about on the head of the aforementioned baby all grown up. We can dream.

I think my identity and sense of self has been impacted by the galloping years more than it ever has been by "gender". I still get a shock looking in the mirror and seeing my grandmother, especially as she's been dead since 1954. 😂