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.

The first speaker makes the comment about women enforcing femininity onto transwomen, in the first ten minutes.

There is some truth to that, in that the entire foundation and justification for the GRA and other permitted ID changes was to support people pretending to be the other sex.

If you're not pretending to be the other sex - which would include actually doing something to your appearance - then what is the legal fiction for? It was intended to ensure the state didn't "out" someone doing an otherwise-convincing role play.

If you're not going to attempt to pass as the opposite sex, you don't need the legal fiction as per the original justification. It similarly justifications like "I wouldn't be safe in the men's looking like this".

So that specific argument is sometimes made in isolation, aside from the more general argument about whether there should be legal fictions to support those attempting to pass as the opposite sex at all.

I truly honestly don't get it, because it seems to hinge on an idea of being a woman that neither feminine, nor has a female body and YET is a claiming the word "woman". This seems to truly imply some kind of mystical quality of gender, which eludes me.

This is where it starts to look like a sort of religious belief in a gendered 'womanly' soul, which is neither female nor feminine. And then we get back to the question of what they think a woman is if it is neither an adult female human nor a person who is feminine.

They claim that they 'know' they are women, but can't explain what 'woman' actually means.

It kind of feels like.. either we are a group of people who simply aren't able to perceive what is obvious to others. OR we are being gaslit.

Despite the fact that we can't understand what this is all about, they also claim that very young children can grasp it almost instinctively. So we get two contradictory claims that they can't explain 'gender identity' to us because it's too complex, but even pre-school children can 'know' what their 'gender identity' is and whether they are transgender.

None of it makes any sense.

If you're not pretending to be the other sex - which would include actually doing something to your appearance - then what is the legal fiction for? It was intended to ensure the state didn't "out" someone doing an otherwise-convincing role play.

Quite, hence the push to change birth certs to maintain privacy and professional non-disclosure of the pc of GR.
If someone can be identified as having the pc of GR, it is no longer the case that they are indistinguishable.

But my comment was more that the fault was being credited to women, when it is society that pushes gender conformity.

It's not quite clear to me what the link is between having a female gender - which has nothing to do with stereotypes, appearance, it's your innate sense of self - and femininity, which is culturally decided etc - and physical bodies, which are biological and fixed. Are they linked at all? How and to what extent? It's hard to work this out without relying quite heavily on stereotypes or assuming that a female gender is a sense of one's femininity (which is how I tend to interpret it, but appreciate that's possibly wrong)

It's hard to work this out without relying quite heavily on stereotypes

I’d go further and say it’s outright impossible.

Hi OP.

I've not RTFT because I thought I'd address your point directly.

You're not thinking straight, because you've completely muddled "the characteristics of humanity" with "the characteristics of being female".

If it helps, unburden yourself of all the false associations you have by practicing thinking clearly, the way you would using another physical human characteristic, like being two legged, or having blue eyes, or having diabetes.

BEING A BLUE-EYED PERSON EXAMPLE
There is a very clear definition of blue-eyed people. It references eye-colour, which is about physiology.

In order to be a blue-eyed person, it is necessary:
1. to have eyes
(there is a very clear material definition of eyes that means they can be easily distinguished from ears)
2. For those eyes to be blue.
(There is a very clear definition of blue that means it can be easily distinguished from brown)

Once I properly understand what "blue eyes" is, I can easily distinguish between people who ARE blue-eyed, and people who AREN'T, (because they are one of the alternatives. These include but are not limited to brown-eyed, green-eyed, hazel-eyed).

And when I talk about blue-eyed people, no-one of intelligence thinks I am "reducing" a blue-eyed person down to nothing more than their eyes, and rejecting all other human characteristics they have. I'm not referencing, and I'm certainly not dismissing their entire humanity, potential, capabilities, attributes in that instance. I'm not saying "Blue-eyed people have nothing to offer the world other than eye colour, nothing else about them matters". That would be ridiculous.

No, because when discussing a blue-eyed person, intelligent people understand entirely that the subject matter is eye colour, and is relevant to the conversation at that moment.

I'm simply saying:
"Here is a whole human being, complex, interesting, fully equal to other humans. Their eyes happen to be blue, which makes them easily distinguishable from people whose eyes are brown. This physical characteristic in no way affects their full humanity."

Now. Try that thought experiment using the physical characteristic "female" instead of the physical characteristic "blue-eyed".

The exact same principle applies.
Heres what it looks like when you apply the exact same principle by replacing words.

Eye Colour -> Sex
Blue -> Female

BEING A FEMALE PERSON (WOMAN)
There is a very clear definition of female people (women). It references biological sex, which is about reproductive physiology.

In order to be a female person, a woman, it is necessary:
1. to be a person
(there is a very clear definition of human that means they can be easily distinguished from other animals)
2. To be female
(There is a very clear definition of female, that holds across all species of plants and animals, that means it can be easily distinguished from male)

Once I understand what "female" is, I can easily distinguish between people who ARE female, and people who AREN'T (because they are the only alternative: male)

And when I talk about female people, no-one of intelligence thinks I am "reducing" a female person down to nothing more than their sex, and rejecting all other human characteristics they have. I'm not referencing, and I'm certainly not dismissing their entire humanity, potential, capabilities, attributes in that instance.I'm not saying "female people have nothing to offer the world other than sex, nothing else about them matters". That would be ridiculous.

No, when discussing a female person, intelligent people understand entirely that the subject matter is sex, and is relevant to the conversation at that moment.

I'm simply saying:
"Here is a whole human being, complex, interesting, fully equal to other humans. Their sex happens to be female. This characteristic in no way affects their full humanity.

TLDR?
Women are physically female in the same way blue-eyed people are physically blue-eyed.
Neither material fact is remotely an insult nor an insinuation of reduced humanity.

Barracker 👏

Very clear, Barracker.

Tomorrow, could you do how gravity only works downwards, please?

👏👏👏

Barracker

OP is not coming back, right?

@somethinginoffensive

especially to young women of child bearing age,

So you do know what a woman is then?

Yes, interesting that she didn't say 'young woman of promotion to CEO age' or 'young woman of travel the world age'. Or even 'young woman of the age of 25'. She literally defined her age by her biology!!!?????

I havnt got a philosophy degree and I havnt studied the principles of logic but @Barracker definitely nails it.

Might be worth also posting your superbly clear explanation on the Break It Down For Me thread, Barracker, I can do it for you if you like.

Great post, Barracker.

Say we found an island with a set of humans on it who had never encountered the rest of the world. They don't wear clothes (it's warm).

They would recognise that they come in two varieties: one variety gets visibly bigger and gives birth to young and and can feed them, and the other has the equipment to plant the seeds (whether it ever does plant a seed or not, or whether any babies are born to one particular person or not, they all come in type X or type Y, and this is clearly visible to all.)

They all do whichever jobs that need doing to keep the group fed and sheltered etc that they are best at, that they enjoy most, regardless of which variety they are. Their names are such that no-one can tell from hearing it whether they are X or Y, as anyone can use any name.

I don't see how in such a society there could ever be such a thing as 'trans', or 'an innate sense of gender'.

Are you less terrified of woman centred feminism now @TRHR ? This must all be very reassuring for you.

@Barracker

Hi OP.

I've not RTFT because I thought I'd address your point directly.

You're not thinking straight, because you've completely muddled "the characteristics of humanity" with "the characteristics of being female".

If it helps, unburden yourself of all the false associations you have by practicing thinking clearly, the way you would using another physical human characteristic, like being two legged, or having blue eyes, or having diabetes.

BEING A BLUE-EYED PERSON EXAMPLE
There is a very clear definition of blue-eyed people. It references eye-colour, which is about physiology.

In order to be a blue-eyed person, it is necessary:
1. to have eyes
(there is a very clear material definition of eyes that means they can be easily distinguished from ears)
2. For those eyes to be blue.
(There is a very clear definition of blue that means it can be easily distinguished from brown)

Once I properly understand what "blue eyes" is, I can easily distinguish between people who ARE blue-eyed, and people who AREN'T, (because they are one of the alternatives. These include but are not limited to brown-eyed, green-eyed, hazel-eyed).

And when I talk about blue-eyed people, no-one of intelligence thinks I am "reducing" a blue-eyed person down to nothing more than their eyes, and rejecting all other human characteristics they have. I'm not referencing, and I'm certainly not dismissing their entire humanity, potential, capabilities, attributes in that instance. I'm not saying "Blue-eyed people have nothing to offer the world other than eye colour, nothing else about them matters". That would be ridiculous.

No, because when discussing a blue-eyed person, intelligent people understand entirely that the subject matter is eye colour, and is relevant to the conversation at that moment.

I'm simply saying:
"Here is a whole human being, complex, interesting, fully equal to other humans. Their eyes happen to be blue, which makes them easily distinguishable from people whose eyes are brown. This physical characteristic in no way affects their full humanity."

Now. Try that thought experiment using the physical characteristic "female" instead of the physical characteristic "blue-eyed".

The exact same principle applies.
Heres what it looks like when you apply the exact same principle by replacing words.

Eye Colour -> Sex
Blue -> Female

BEING A FEMALE PERSON (WOMAN)
There is a very clear definition of female people (women). It references biological sex, which is about reproductive physiology.

In order to be a female person, a woman, it is necessary:
1. to be a person
(there is a very clear definition of human that means they can be easily distinguished from other animals)
2. To be female
(There is a very clear definition of female, that holds across all species of plants and animals, that means it can be easily distinguished from male)

Once I understand what "female" is, I can easily distinguish between people who ARE female, and people who AREN'T (because they are the only alternative: male)

And when I talk about female people, no-one of intelligence thinks I am "reducing" a female person down to nothing more than their sex, and rejecting all other human characteristics they have. I'm not referencing, and I'm certainly not dismissing their entire humanity, potential, capabilities, attributes in that instance.I'm not saying "female people have nothing to offer the world other than sex, nothing else about them matters". That would be ridiculous.

No, when discussing a female person, intelligent people understand entirely that the subject matter is sex, and is relevant to the conversation at that moment.

I'm simply saying:
"Here is a whole human being, complex, interesting, fully equal to other humans. Their sex happens to be female. This characteristic in no way affects their full humanity.

TLDR?
Women are physically female in the same way blue-eyed people are physically blue-eyed.
Neither material fact is remotely an insult nor an insinuation of reduced humanity.

Bloody brilliant

Bravo Barracker, I would totally pay to hear you speak in public!

@ApplesinmyPocket

Great post, Barracker.

Say we found an island with a set of humans on it who had never encountered the rest of the world. They don't wear clothes (it's warm).

They would recognise that they come in two varieties: one variety gets visibly bigger and gives birth to young and and can feed them, and the other has the equipment to plant the seeds (whether it ever does plant a seed or not, or whether any babies are born to one particular person or not, they all come in type X or type Y, and this is clearly visible to all.)

They all do whichever jobs that need doing to keep the group fed and sheltered etc that they are best at, that they enjoy most, regardless of which variety they are. Their names are such that no-one can tell from hearing it whether they are X or Y, as anyone can use any name.

I don't see how in such a society there could ever be such a thing as 'trans', or 'an innate sense of gender'.

I would love to get on this island ;)

Spot on, Barraker.

The following twitter exchange is where the first post leads and it does not appear to be progress (note the scare quotes about referring to women as "females"):

mobile.twitter.com/ai_valentin/status/1391225467689127939

"I'm really struggling with a cis woman classmate who says that "she/wombstress" are her pronouns.

Like, I'm all for everyone expressing their gender as they feel it. But "wombstress" just appeared after a TERF student got called out. And it feels...weird. Very bio-essentialist.

She does midwifery, so I understand the choice, but she's talked about women as "females," and was very insistent we placate and validate the TERF who claimed trans people are a threat to women and girls by existing in a digital residency.

She's been otherwise cordial and doesn't misgender folx afaik. But I just can't get past the "wombstress" thing. It feels dogwhistley to me.

Am I out of turn? Is this a thing? Or is this just peak cis woman obsessed with uteruses as markers of womanhood?"

Oh dear, 'her' pronouns?! I'm sure Aleksei meant to say 'wombstress's pronouns'.
Tsk, Tsk.
Also, is Aleksei sure the woman in question identifies as a 'cis' woman?
Call it feminine intuition but I have a hunch he/they might be misgendering this midwife...

None of this is progress for female people

From that Twitter exchange: ' It feels really aggressive to make everyone address her as her reproductive capacity.'

No shit! Tell it to the uterus-havers.

That's hilarious and depressing in equal measure. They really don't like not being able to control people!

Not people, just women

Good point.

There are some very good, very well made, patient, intelligent and respectful posts.

What stands out to me is that the OP or others with her point of view have not engaged with any of them.