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.

Teaching children and women that we ought not have any boundaries is grooming. Some women have already accepted this message, and sometimes put themselves across as morally superior to those who do have boundaries. But why should this be the case?

Boundaries are healthy, and strong boundaries protect us, especially women and girls. I don’t think anyone with weaker boundaries is superior in any way whatsoever.

Who benefits from giving women and children, especially girls, the message that boundaries are morally suspect, or even just unkind?

Men.

Thing is loads of the time. Especially with girls and v young women. We already get this message. Don't make a fuss. Give the benefit of the doubt. Be polite etc etc.

Result is ignoring instincts. Not knowing what to do. Not leaving. Not walking away.

And now this has to go further? No thanks.

You say you don’t see why you’d be any more at risk of sexual assault in mixed sex toilets than any other public space. Why then do you think that aid charities, including some that are very ‘woke’, campaign to get sex-segregated toilets for women in other countries and see this as absolutely vital to women’s safety and participation in any form of public life?

For instance:

forgottenwomen.org/causes/safe-toilets

@Helen8220
All your comments are rooted in your own experience and seem to come from a place of privilege.
Maybe start thinking about other people's needs and not just your own?
There's plenty of evidence out there for what people on here are saying, you don't need to just rely on the evidence of your own eyes.

There may be a reason to depart from that to accomodate the feelings or preferences of specific individuals*. Its not about "specific individuals" - its about an identifiable group comprising half the population. Women and girls.

Can I just say, although I'm not aligned to Helen8220's views, how refreshing it is to hear opposing views dealt with in a '"grown up", non aggressive manor.

manner even!

I don’t think it’s that boundaries are bad - boundaries are incredibly important.

Except you don't respect those of women who want sex segregated spaces for safety, privacy and dignity when they feel vulnerable. You keep contradicting yourself. It feels like you haven't really thought through these positions particularly well.

And yes, the things you are describing are pure queer theory.

Teaching children and women that we ought not have any boundaries is grooming. Some women have already accepted this message, and sometimes put themselves across as morally superior to those who do have boundaries. But why should this be the case?

Boundaries are healthy, and strong boundaries protect us, especially women and girls. I don’t think anyone with weaker boundaries is superior in any way whatsoever.

Who benefits from giving women and children, especially girls, the message that boundaries are morally suspect, or even just unkind?

Men.

Exactly. Healthy boundaries are a good thing. If you want some sort of idealist society where men and women are happy to get naked together, that's you. It's unrealistic. Not what most people want.

I’d like to echo a couple of posts above, firstly thank you to @Helen8220 for politely engaging in good faith and coming back to answer points. It’s good to get your view.

However, I must agree with Merchy that you speak almost exclusively from your own personal view point, seemingly without much empathy/consideration for others.

@Leafstamp

I’d like to echo a couple of posts above, firstly thank you to *@Helen8220* for politely engaging in good faith and coming back to answer points. It’s good to get your view.

However, I must agree with Merchy that you speak almost exclusively from your own personal view point, seemingly without much empathy/consideration for others.

Yes, absolutely respect @Helen8220 for engaging in a level headed and thoughtful way

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

This is interesting an typical of what I see again and again with queer theorists - namely a refusal to engage with life as it is

as life is we have many old school buildings which have separate male and female changing areas often laid out in such a way that there is little privacy to be had.

Changing this give all users privacy from each other is often impractical due to money and space.

Therefore the least bad option is to keep changing areas single sex. That's the practical thing to do.

But it's very rare for a queer theorist to get down to practicalities, to think about how you preserve privacy and dignity for school girls in the context of those old school buildings, how you keep women prisoners safe.

Everything seems to be very abstract and theoretical, whereas feminists tend to be driven inevitably by practicality, by what can be done now to make women's lives better

This statement was made by the deptford people project, which you might find relevant @Helen8220. Just ahead of the HoC meeting about self ID.

"Statement from Working class community workers from Deptford. We are attending the women’s meeting at the House of Commons today. We would like to offer an explanation as to why this is necessary. See below

After many years of working at grass roots within our community we have recently been made aware of an issue that directly effects the working class and women in our area.

You must understand we are not graduate activists or or women’s rights campaigners. We are community workers and our concerns regarding changes to the GRA come from a lifetime of personal experience and having worked with some of the most marginalise people in our area.

The majority of our recent projects have been working with rough sleepers, the homeless and those that have been excluded from society. The issues they face include: unsupported/ mental health illness, sexual violence and prostitution, childhood trauma and abuse...

domestic violence, poverty, ex care system issues, addiction, prison,rehab,homelessness and austerity.

The people in our community that we represent are the most likely to access/ be placed in sex segregated services.Some have and will access all of these services.

Our local political and community organisations have been infiltrated by a group of well meaning white middle class goldsmith (uni) students. These people although well intentioned have rail roaded many vital projects by introducing identity policies and intersectional thinking. They do this without truly understanding or experiencing working class issues.

Meetings we have attended for the purpose of discussing community housing projects and women’s wellness etc have been used as a platform to re educate working class people on the new academic language expected within our organisations.

As anyone from a working class back ground will tell you, these theories and ideologies rarely translate into working class communities.

The extremely small number of transsexual (I use the old term as this has a very different meaning to the university umbrella term currently thrown about) members of the community are and have always been excepted and protected by community organisations.

We are now informed that transgender people are being routinely abused (mis gendered) and should be protected above all other marginalised groups. All that has changed is privileged students have adopted a set of gender identities that allow them to be considered marginalised.

The people we encountered were far from marginalised. In fact they were highly educated, openly classist and aggressive.

This new politics doesn’t equate in our community or for the people we support. We are dealing with working class issues with severely marginalised people and the trans lobby is a gentrification of working class social and political movements. Note the difference between trans lobby and trans people who we support.

No one will discuss our concerns regarding self id. Our local Labour Party has refused to comment or debate with the working class people.

We are attending the meeting this evening as this is only place that is willing to discuss theses issues.

When we are being verbally abused and called fascists because we are concerned about the effects of policy change on marginalised people it is a direct attack on working class women and grass roots organisations.

when sharing information about this event and attempt to shut it down be aware that you are complicit in the silencing of not only women but working class people who have not afforded the privileged of a safe space or university education. Thank you x

Society’s wishes are surely moving in the other direction - with people wanting more sex segregation not less?

The number of Muslims, as well as Christians from countries with more traditional cultures is growing. They need more sex segregation in order to participate.

The female only swimming sessions prior to lockdown where I live are ridiculously overcrowded, and it is obviously discriminatory against women that they are not offering more.

@Helen8220

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.

In your earlier post you said 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 indicating that it was opposite sex patients you were OK about being undressed in front of. I'm not sure why it should be necessary to be naked in front of other patients, but obviously it is sometimes necessary for the medical professionals to see you in such a state.

Unfortunately not all male doctors can be trusted not to sexually assault their patients.

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/former-gynaecologist-convicted-of-sex-assaults-on-patients-at-london-hospitals-a3279636.html

Women are also in danger on mixed sex wards in hospitals:

Patients and their relatives attested to intrusion, exhibitionism and leering from nearby beds, even with staff around. In 2009, Channel 4 discovered that almost two-thirds of sexual assaults by patients in hospitals (21 out of 33 in 2007/8), occurred in mixed-sex wards.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/mixed-sexed-wards-endanger-and-humiliate-women

Helen, whilst the idea of separate changing rooms sounds wonderful to our grown adult situations, it certainly isn't a viable option for all people, particularly children.
In primary for example, children need to get changed where the adults are. This is for a number of reasons but not limited to: assisting with changing for younger children, safety, safeguarding- abuse marks are usually spotted this way, young children can't lock doors as they often can't unlock them again, anti bullying etc.
Then as a pp poster said, there's just the plain and simple fact of limited space and budget. Schools struggle to afford basic things such as schemes of work and pe equipment. Luxury changing rooms would be a waste of money.

Whilst I appreciate your adult tone, I do think you need to consider your position from a practical position and not just an ideological one.

[quote CorvusPurpureus]@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? [/quote]
This, I think, is the key point. I have seen posters on these boards mention many times about 'third spaces' where there is a mixed sex option as well as single sex provision. This would seem to meet everyone's needs.

Why are the large, well funded organisations such as Stonewall not pushing for this option? The only answer I can see is that this is considered 'othering' by those who want the validation of using the toilets which match their gender, without really caring that the vast majority of the public want (and expect) single sex provision.

Why are the large, well funded organisations such as Stonewall not pushing for this option? The only answer I can see is that this is considered 'othering' by those who want the validation of using the toilets which match their gender, without really caring that the vast majority of the public want (and expect) single sex provision.

This is exactly it. It's not about the space, it's about the women in that space. If all the women vacated the space, the next space they went to would become the focus. The women themselves are the point.

See FairPlay For Women's FOI re prisons where the space was only selected on the basis that male offenders need association with women.

Prison bosses put transgender sex offenders into female prisons because they need “association with other women”

Women are being used as a resource. Against their consent.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prison-policy/?fbclid=IwAR2ZysmdeMciqdvkCcB3pJIJ_v-YR67BtaqbOyWooh3cKud7aiEjerXQI_0

Women are being used as a resource. Against their consent

It's like the old trick at school of making the studious girl sit next to the disruptive boy. It was shit then and it's shit now

Women are being used as a resource. Against their consent.

Yes this. It's not about the space. It's about who is in the space. (Women). Thats it. If it really was about just wanting to pee, changing / undressing in safety, a third space would be more than adequate for this purpose. But it's not about that. It requires women to be in that space also.

It's like the old trick at school of making the studious girl sit next to the disruptive boy. It was shit then and it's shit now

Not an old trick though. Still happens now. To the detriment of my daughter.

@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.

Thank you Helen for a considered response. I don't think you understood the point I was making (or trying to - may have been made badly!). If we start to record assaults based on a person's 'identity' rather than sex, this WILL skew the data, potentially to the degree that it obscures essential information. Domestic violence is perpetuated by males (mostly) to females (mostly). If those males start to identify as 'women' and the crimes are recorded as being committed by 'women' then we no longer have data about sex-based oppression.

Together with your statement that if a person wants a female for health care/ chaperoning etc. then they should have one (a statement I well welcome, btw and thank you for acknowledging that what the female wants in that situation matter, as this is rare), I think you seem to be saying that we need to keep a category of 'female' which is cannot be inhabited by a person born male. I think this is also very welcome, but it is not a TWAW position. It is a TWATW position, which is something that is much less contentious.

Just to reiterate what others have said about changing rooms etc. Some facilities are too old/small to have separate cubicles for everyone. I think that suggestion of the ideal (which it is) sidesteps the complexity of the problem and is not helpful (though I think it was meaning to be).

What are your thoughts on this?

Sorry Helen, also meant to say that I think most women in prison are vulnerable. There are huge rates of trauma in female prisoners and being in prison is another trauma. We can't choose to separate out just a few of these to consider them vulnerable.