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 watched calamity Jane this afternoon

She's going around in her cowboy outfit and then she puts a frock for the party and everyone is lawks you're beautiful! We never realised before! The old hair down glasses of why miss Jones you're beautiful!

I know it's s silly film thing but where did it come from?

After watching the big brother episode where the young man they knew got his drag stuff on and as a young good looking man with all the makeup- big hair, long long legs and very high heels, tiny dress etc. The straight men were visibly confused and uncomfortable. Because all the cues saying 'sexy lady' were firing but they knew it was a man.

All of this makes me think that the trappings of femininity are really major for men. They respond to what they see as triggers and irrespective of the actual person proceed accordingly.

This would explain a lot of things.

The way men see boobs/ legs and leer shout etc not stopping to notice that their target is a child.
The way stuff like short skirts mean you're asking for it/ clothes give 'signals'. Women always say wtf to all that but it would explain where it comes from.
And also why men seem to think that certain hair/ clothes etc means you will look like a sexy lady whatever your age sex etc.

Just an observation.

@Helen8220 I'm interested in what you think about sex-segregated spaces that aren't those of, say, an office or middle-class workplace. What about the following?

• changing for PE for children aged 8-11. My daughter is 8 and in the past year has become intensely self-conscious about her bodily privacy, including the possibility of others seeing her when she is changing. Should she expect to have to change with boys and be taught to override her desire for privacy so that if the boys want, they can try to look at her while changing? (In her school they all change together from ages 4-6 and the boys do look, tease, stare at the girls even then.)

• my MIL, aged 62, works in a factory where she has to change to put on workwear and safety protection, and there are male and female changing rooms, but no space for individual cubicles. At times she has had various illnesses that mean she is particularly self-conscious about changing in front of others. One of her workmates has recently come back after a mastectomy. Should these women be expected to change with the men - of all ages? They are often aggressive or jocular. Even the older women report staring and sexual harassment from male co-workers.

• a dear friend spent months living on chemotherapy wards having treatment for blood cancer. Ward bays were either four or six patients to one or two lavatories and one shower/bath. Patients had little privacy except flimsy curtains, which they are only allowed to draw back occasionally for medical procedures (staff like the curtains back as a default so that everyone gets enough light and so that they can see quickly if there is anything wrong with patient). Few possessions were allowed in the hospital, often patients were wearing very little clothing due to the heating and wires and tubes from central lines and IVs which were sometimes running for hours, so that you have to take your IV stand with you to the loo. Every bodily issue, wash, loo trip and consultation is audible by others. Fluid input and output had to be constantly measured so patients had to wee into pans and leave their urine pans in a set space where every couple of hours nurses would come to collect them to measure and test output, so patients using the bay patient loo often have to do so together with a neat row of other people's urine in little pans. It's dehumanising enough to have so little privacy even with other women; I can't imagine how it would be to have a man present if you are seriously unwell, unable to wash often, need help with personal care and have your body only partially clothed a lot of the time.

I'm primarily thinking about your point as follows:

as a starting point, I think people should not be treated differently or discriminated against due to their sex or gender, and that includes not excluding men or women from public places or services - including not having sex segregated spaces or provision. There may be reasons to depart from that to accommodate the feelings or preferences of specific individuals, but it shouldn’t be the starting pointing, and it should always require justification.

Because that sounds like it's a feasible expectation in a nice middle class workplace where it's basically an office and some pleasant loo cubicles. But there are lots of public institutions and spaces, workplaces, schools and hospitals that aren't like this. Why should it be up to women every time to ask for privacy in changing rooms or when unwell, for example? It isn't just in swimming pools that people might be undressing or vulnerable or not want their bodies exposed to others.

What do you think about those examples above? Because you're saying that you don't need to know about anyone's genitals and so on; but there are plenty of times of life or spaces where people might well get a good look at others' genitals; and surely everyone should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and especially privacy from potentially sexual stares or looks? Should girls or women always have to ask every time for their privacy to be "justified" in every space they are undressing or vulnerable in? And who decides? What if a man decides women's desire for privacy isn't justified? Is that a form of harassment in itself?

That's just one aspect of your post I wanted to ask about; there are others, but this is the first one, partly because you admit that your view might be privileged; and I'm wondering whether one of the issues with women who are comfortable not having any sex segregation is that those women by and large are healthy, young or relatively young, and move in spaces where they don't expect to be physically vulnerable or incapacitated.

I mean if you are a healthy young person in your twenties or thirties working in an office space with unisex cubicle loos, the only place you might expect to find yourself undressing in front of others might be at the gym, with other people who are at the gym. You simply don't see the spaces - all over the place if you are poor or ill or young or vulnerable - where women need to change clothes or perform bodily functions in front of other people, and feel vulnerable and stared at, or are at the mercy of others' decisions about their bodies or their privacy.

Women who work in nice offices don't want this either! No way.

Very few women have not had various incidents with creepy men. Periods, menopause, changing, getting away from arsehole men at work. That applies wherever you work.

I think it's a youth thing more. I had definite 'cool girl' tendancies back in the day, even though I also noticed and hated the way I had been treated since a child because I was female. All the small stuff, and then when your breasts start growing the harassment.

I think in the end it's a combination of things

If men like me and know me they won't be shits to me
A desire to prove to yourself that NAMALT because to accept that at some level the vast majority have dodgy attitudes is a hard thing to know
If you're heterosexual then- related to the above- you want to go out meet men pull them etc etc. And so thinking they're pretty much all arseholes at one level or another doesn't really help with that
A massive discomfort when you're young of not going along with it. You don't want to make a fuss. You know what will happen if you say that wasn't very funny etc. They will laugh in your face. Unpleasant.
That sort of thing.

Many women who are clear eyed on this when they get older and prepared to say things were crap on this when young. I was. I saw it. I didn't like it. I had no idea how to handle it when it was my friends and it was me and a bunch of blokes iyswim

@Cleanandpress

- when I interact with other people - socially, or in a work context - I don’t need to know what genitals or chromosomes they have, or what genitals they were born with.

What a weird statement to make.

People trying to persuade the world that men are women have to say some crazy weird crap to explain it.

A work colleague asked me if I'd ever used tampons, because she hadn't and her daughter had started using them. I think we both made the assumption, without even thinking about it consciously, that we had the same type of genitals. Was this wrong and transphobic of us? Shit!!

I agree with nice gerbil that Helen's logic sounds very much like the 'I don't see colour crowd'.
And of course, not 'seeing' or acknowledging race makes it very easy for racial discrimination to happen.

No black employees in senior management? I didn't notice. I don't see colour.
Only black employees are minimum wage cleaners. I didn't notice. I don't see colour.

Not 'seeing' sex would make sexist discrimination very easy. Generally women think this is a bad thing...

Replying to @Helen8220 - thanks for your views. Many I do agree with, or at least see the logic of. I do think biology does play a significant role, however I think nurture/culture also play a significant role. Trying to prise apart the two is too simplistic for me, we are complex. We are all an interesting mix of our biologies and nurtures. Like families, what a mix they can be, although you can see similar traits too. I find it utterly fascinating. It’s nice to see people liberated more from tight cultural expectations. I am proud of living in a society where to be gay is accepted for example.

I do differ from you about difference as I have worked in inequalities in various forms for a lot of my career. It is now widely accepted that we will just exacerbate inequalities if we just make everything open to everybody. Disabled people need special access toilets. Kids in poor areas need outreach and more provision in education to even hope to have more of a level playing field than those in better areas.

As an example, take the NHS. Free to all at the point of care. What a fantastic institution. Anyone can access and it is ‘colour/inequalities blind’ as it were. However even that isn’t. Some very good studies around this, very well respected - see the Marmot Reports if you are interested.

Take visiting the GP. No-one should be discriminated against you say? No GP would be consciously discriminating. Anyone can turn up. It’s free. And yet when studied, middle class people get see for longer appointments, get referred to specialists more often and receive more than those who are poorer. Ethnic minorities, particularly those most at risk such as refugees and women (who often don’t have as much English as men when newly arrived) face huge barriers to basic healthcare, such as even visiting the GP. There are also considerations of religion, of single sex spaces, of physical access, of cultural access.

It’s not always perfect but the NHS, as well as other major institutions, make great efforts to address these barriers. There are options to ask for a female GP. Translation services. Disabled access. Outreach into deprived areas to increase take up of health services and health promotion going into these areas.

It is recognized as incredibly important to do this as the people most at risk of ill health are the most deprived and the most vulnerable. This includes women, different races, the disabled, those with mental ill health, those poorer, those suffering domestic abuse. And these are the people who experience most difficulties accessing even our wonderful free, open NHS healthcare.

If we knock down these ‘labels’ and say well anyone can be a woman, a different race, disabled, mentally ill, poor etc... then we are no longer able as a society to reduce inequalities. We become a more unequal society, and we squash those in need.

So anyone who shuts down any of these is directly collapsing one of the pillars to help reduce inequality, keep society healthy in mind and body and ensure our society ‘levels the playing field’. There can’t be a justification for knocking that down. A women’s refuge for example is trying to level the playing field for extremely vulnerable women, their need to have a women only refuge that is safe is the absolute priority.

That's the queer theory piece though.

At the root (as I understand it) the idea is that boundaries are barriers are bad. Queer theory is about 'queering' norms, removing barriers, etc.

I've never seen anything to say why though now I think of it. Might have s Google!

@helen8220

You talked about the gendered nature 9f domestic violence. I'm not sure what definition of gender you used but I think it's important to say clearly that domestic violence is set based oppression. There is no evidence of any correlation with gender identity based far as I know. If we, as people are saying is happening, start to register people's gender identity rather than sex, we will hide the fact that predominately it is male bodied people assaulting predominantly female bodied people. That perpetuates oppression. I don't think we really do have unwarranted sex segregation any more. Do you? Are there any contexts where the sex segregation is not necessary to protect females? Who should we ask to be sure about that? Should it be middle class healthy youn intellectuals or those women in difficult situations who are directly impacted?

Thanks for all the responses to what I wrote. I’ll try to work through and reply to the points raised but there’s quite a lot so apologies if I miss things....

On prisons - I think any inmate who is considered likely to be a particular threat to other inmates, or to be particularly vulnerable, should be risk assessed and managed in whatever is the most appropriate way to keep them and other inmates safe. No prisoners should be unsafe or left at risk of violence (including sexual violence). Sadly I suspect we’re pretty far from achieving that (though probably better than some other countries, eg America, where I understand sexual violence is incredibly common in prisons).

On trans women in elite sports - I think this is a really difficult one. Specific sports need to be assessed carefully and a determination made about how a person might be advantaged by having been born with male physiology (and been through male puberty, where relevant), and guidelines drawn up about whether and in what circumstances it is fair and safe for a trans woman to compete with non-trans women.

Thank you @ChateauMargaux for your really interesting and insightful comments, I wasn’t aware of that judgment on sex segregated schooling.

On trans women in elite sports - I think this is a really difficult one.

Not for me, and most of the population it isn't. YouGov poll found opposition to males in female sports across nearly all demographics.

Sports categories for women are based on sex, not identity.

What you have failed to come up with is any real reason why we should give up sex based rights? For the feelings of some males? While throwing women and girls under the bus?

I agree with nice gerbil that Helen's logic sounds very much like the 'I don't see colour crowd'.
And of course, not 'seeing' or acknowledging race makes it very easy for racial discrimination to happen.

No black employees in senior management? I didn't notice. I don't see colour.
Only black employees are minimum wage cleaners. I didn't notice. I don't see colour.

Not 'seeing' sex would make sexist discrimination very easy. Generally women think this is a bad thing...

Absolutely. It's exactly the same.

On single sex spaces generally, and the impact of having experienced sexual assault or harassment, or been in particularly vulnerable situations. I’ve experienced a handful of very minor sexual assaults, mostly in nightclubs or parties, once walking down the street in broad daylight. I know I’m relatively lucky not to have experienced worse. I don’t see why I’d be more at risk in mixed sex public toilets than in many other places that are mixed sex, including packed public transport, and given that the vast majority of toilets are still sex segregated, presumably there isn’t any evidence to suggest women are more at risk of assault in mixed toilets than sex segregated ones?

On healthcare settings, I have also experienced feeling vulnerable and undignified to an extent - I’ve had quite a few very intimate examinations and a couple of minor procedures due to menstrual and digestive issues, which have involved on occasion finding myself entirely naked other than a hospital gown in a busy waiting/recovery rooms. The nurses and doctors dealing with me were mixed sex, and that didn’t affect how vulnerable or undignified I felt - what mattered was whether they dealt with me in a kind, professional and empathetic way. I didn’t love being in a such an exposed state in a room with multiple other patients - from recollection they were all probably female, but I don’t think I would have felt any more embarrassed or vulnerable if any of them had been male. Anyone waiting to undergo - or recovering from - a medical procedure is probably much more concerned with their own position and vulnerability than interested in those around them.

I know that others feel differently, and their feelings should be accommodated where possible. But I hope over time it will become less common for people to regard the opposite sex as so ‘other’, and stop feeling any more awkward or embarrassed being undressed around the opposite sex than they are around people of their own sex.

Speaking of which, and particularly with regard to school changing rooms as someone mentioned - I don’t think anyone, and definitely not children who have reached an age where they might be self-conscious about their bodies, should be required to undress in front of other people in changing rooms. I used to go into the toilets to change for games at school, partly because I was overweight and intensely embarrassed of my body, and partly because - as I was just becoming aware of my own bisexuality - I felt incredibly awkward being around my classmates undressing. To assume that it’s fine and appropriate for a group of teenagers to have to get changed together with no privacy just because they’re all female is completely wrong.

presumably there isn’t any evidence to suggest women are more at risk of assault in mixed toilets than sex segregated ones?

This is about changing rooms rather than toilets (not sure why some people always want to talk about toilets), but the data discussed in this article indicates that 90% of sexual assaults and harassment etc in changing rooms takes place in those which are mixed sex.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

@Minezatea I used the term ‘gender based violence’ because i understand that is the usual term for types of violence that disproportionately affect people of a particular sex/gender (generally women). My partner works in this area and that is the term she and her colleagues use. I don’t think it obscures anything - much more research is needed to understand the causes of domestic violence, but the roots are clearly extremely complex, and involve social, economic, physical and cultural factors.

I hope over time it will become less common for people to regard the opposite sex as so ‘other’, and stop feeling any more awkward or embarrassed being undressed around the opposite sex than they are around people of their own sex.

Speaking of which, and particularly with regard to school changing rooms as someone mentioned - I don’t think anyone, and definitely not children who have reached an age where they might be self-conscious about their bodies, should be required to undress in front of other people in changing rooms.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say we should all become more comfortable with being undressed around people of both sexes, then that nobody should have to be undressed in front of anyone else.

Well maybe, if you are prepared for discussing anything related to biological sex to become a taboo topic. I mean, there’s always a reason in every generation why women must not talk about their bodies to each other, and this trans thing is our generations reason to taboo the topic.

But I would rather still assume that people claiming to be women actually are women so we can casually talk about our lives including our bodies.

Otherwise it is just odd, like never mentioning feet or anything to do with things you do with your feet just in case someone secretly has no feet.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear in what I meant. Just like everyone else, I make assumptions about the people around me - and certainly in my office the vast majority of people are, as far as I know (and statistically most likely to be) not trans - so my assumptions have not yet transpired to be incorrect. I’m pretty chatty in the office, so talk about a wide variety of things, including menstrual issues, relationships, whether or not we have (or want) children. Other people can choose how forthcoming they want to be about any of those areas of life, including whether or not they menstruate (or ever have/are capable of it).

Also, there are some situations - particularly LGBT+ events, which I often attend for work purposes - where there are quite a few non-gender-conforming, trans and non-binary people present, and I would always take their lead about how much or little they want to disclose about their personal information and history in terms of biological sex characteristics.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say we should all become more comfortable with being undressed around people of both sexes, then that nobody should have to be undressed in front of anyone else.

I don’t think so - in healthcare contexts there are clearly times when it is necessary to be naked or nearly naked in front of other people - I don’t feel differently in those contexts whether it’s a man or woman. In most other situations where people might need to undress (shop, school, gym etc changing rooms) I think provision should be made to ensure everyone has privacy if they want it.

On the point about being ‘colour blind’ - I completely agree that we cannot and should not pretend that race and sex/gender based discrimination do not exist, and I acknowledge that I make assumptions about other people (whether consciously or unconsciously) because of how they appear in terms of race and gender (and many other factors, eg accent, weight/body shape, age, haircut, style of clothing).

I was never claiming not to see gender - it was just that, although I (like everyone else) have been socially conditioned to be highly attuned to other people’s gender presentation and apparent sex, I try to challenge my own assumptions, and remember that - however curious I might be - I don’t have a right to know whether or not a person is trans, or what biological characteristics they have or were born with - in cases where I’m not sure.

That's the queer theory piece though.

At the root (as I understand it) the idea is that boundaries are barriers are bad. Queer theory is about 'queering' norms, removing barriers, etc.

I've never seen anything to say why though now I think of it. Might have s Google!

I don’t think it’s that boundaries are bad - boundaries are incredibly important. It’s recognising that many of the cultural and social categories and expectations that shape our lives and how we relate to one another are not as universal, immutable or objective as we are led to believe.

@Helen8220 it seems that you are generally happy to use mixed sex spaces. Which is, of course, absolutely fine & additional provision of those spaces has frequently been suggested.

Are you opposed to the retention of single sex spaces for people who have made it abundantly clear that they require them?

'I was never claiming not to see gender - it was just that, although I (like everyone else) have been socially conditioned to be highly attuned to other people’s gender presentation and apparent sex'

For me it's the other way around.

People's sex is generally pretty obvious. I think sex, skin colour and age are the first things noticed in the split second we first see someone, or at least that's what we were told in a talk at work.

How people dress comes after.

When I watch the news from around the world where modes of dress are quite different to ours, or look at pics from history, i don't have trouble knowing male from female. Irrespective of what they were wearing. What their hair is like etc. Additionally in some areas, and more through history. People didn't wear so many clothes.

In a situation where men and women are in similar garb with short hair. I would really find it odd to say well I can't tell from their clothes. And if I can't do that then it's a guess.

'It’s recognising that many of the cultural and social categories and expectations that shape our lives and how we relate to one another are not as universal, immutable or objective as we are led to believe.'

Well no that's the whole point. All of that stuff is constructed by society.

The thing that is immutable, a social construct, and is the same across the world and through history is sex.

Sorry a lot of posts!

'partly because - as I was just becoming aware of my own bisexuality - I felt incredibly awkward being around my classmates undressing'

Why?

For men this seems to be a big deal. To say the least.

For women though not.

Didn't changing in the toilets set you apart even more than you obviously already felt? And how did you get dispensation to do that? My school would have just said no!

'I don’t think so - in healthcare contexts there are clearly times when it is necessary to be naked or nearly naked in front of other people - I don’t feel differently in those contexts whether it’s a man or woman. In most other situations where people might need to undress (shop, school, gym etc changing rooms) I think provision should be made to ensure everyone has privacy if they want it.'

Again I find this a bit back to front.

Loads of women and girls have experienced inappropriate behaviour from male docs. Anecdotally and there are news reports not infrequently about docs being found guilty of sexual assault of female patients.

On top of that smears for example are really invasive. A lot of women have been assaulted/ raped. And the bottom line is if someone is sticking something 'no larger than a penis' inside you a lot of women prefer another woman.

You seem to say because you personally don't mind then across the board it should be get who you're given.

There's also examinations after assault. I assume children have to go through that if they've been raped. Why shouldn't they have a woman?

The impact of making all that get who you're given will result in women and girls thinking nope. You may think that's silly. But doesn't the real life impact on loads of other women and girls matter?