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.

Unfortunately, due to schools denying teachers even basic discipline procedures for children (I'm all for being kind and fair but children need consequences and boundaries) teachers are more than ever likely to rely on children's peer relationships to stop poor behaviour. Sadly, that does mean that we'll behaved children are placed next to trouble makers out of necessity- there's simply no sanctions that can be applied without said teacher getting a ticking off from senior leadership who never set foot in a classroom.
Teachers (largely female) are undermined and mistrusted by parents and management and have had their powers stripped away.
But that's a loaded topic for another thread.

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

Yes, me too.

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

This is such a thoughtless presumption. And a wrong one. What if the people around you (males) make you feel even more vulnerable? Your privilege is showing.

a refusal to engage with life as it is

Well, that's naturally follows from the "queering" concept. It explicitly favours a non-normative view. To a fault.

The problem is that the normative view is often normative because it's correct! Something being widely-accepted is not necessarily a sign of establishment oppression. It could just be an accurate model of material reality!

Saw a couple of things on Twitter today along those lines. First this quote from Douglas Murray

The metaphysics that everyone is being force-fed is grounded in a desire to express certainty about things we do not know, and to be wildly dismissive and relativistic about things that we actually do know.

See - "queering" in both directions.

And another great set of posts from Jane Clare Jones. (Only a couple of excerpts here - follow the links)

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1393920166958882819

It just came to me that the bottom line here is that our opponents think nature is the problem. And we think the domination of nature is. That's about as diametrical as two world-views can get. And both call themselves 'feminism.' [...] 'If Nature is Unjust Change Nature' might sound hip and edgy to the xenofeminists. To me it just sounds like a toddler having a tantrum when it encounters limits. BAAAAAAAD MUMMY IT'S NOT FAIR WAHHHHHHHH.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1393924687579734019

It also just came to me that the fundamental issue with Wokeism is that it has entirely collapsed the thinking of oppression into a thinking of prejudice which is modelled on the structure of xenophobia. [continued]

Whether or not you think sex should be public (and I would argue that a woman does have a basic right to choose to avoid sharing some spaces with people who could make her pregnant), is irrelevant to the fact that sex is almost always obvious.

If humans couldn’t spot basic patterns like male and female we would have died out long ago, or at least evolved into a different species. Of course some people have access to surgery and medication that can disguise sex, but that is a very first world privilege.

Certainly nobody would bother to stop women from voting or driving if they couldn’t judge sex with a high degree of accuracy.

Fine to argue over situations where sex segregation should take place - that is just simple balancing of rights. (Sex segregation doesn’t always benefit women).

Very wrong to pretend that sex doesn’t exist, or that it’s somehow rude to talk about sex based rights. That is very old fashioned indeed.

I don’t feel differently in those contexts whether it’s a man or woman But a lot of women do, me included. Why should we have to justify wanting a female only space? A lot of women will just forego medical treatment rather than be forced to divulge previous sexual assault. This is the reality. Please try and empsthise with women who haven't been as lucky as you have.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

This is such a thoughtless presumption. And a wrong one. What if the people around you (males) make you feel even more vulnerable? Your privilege is showing.

It really is. People have to go into hospital all the time, where they are completely aware of absolutely everything. Kidney stones, gallbladders, broken limbs - routine surgery is endless.

Never mind privilege, it's such an odd position to take.

Until we had mobile phones, every bed would have a television, for goodness sake. Every bed. Not confined to a handful of people. If you're well enough to watch TV, you're totally aware of who is watching it in the bed next to you.

@NiceGerbil

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.

I v much agree .Almost all of the really dangerous situations i have been in come down to this.

Thanks for all the very thoughtful and considered responses, and the kind comments about my manner of engagement - I also really appreciate those who are approaching the discussion in an open and non-hostile way. I am here because I think it’s really important to try and have a constructive conversation about these matters, and seek as much understanding as possible of where the people on the other side of the debate are coming from, and not simply dismissing them as naive/conservative/misogynistic/transphobic (etc).

@NiceGerbil

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.

We need some kind of experiment to look into this further, and I know I’m not going to convince you (and anyway i realise this is just my world view and I may be wrong), but I still think that you are underestimating the extent to which the immediate cues on which we categorise people - in the first moment we see them, particularly - as a man or woman come from hair, clothes, make up, mannerisms etc. Or the number of people (whether trans, non-binary or just gender non-conforming) in relation to whom it’s pretty common for others not to be sure of their sex/gender, even following a conversation.

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!

Why did I feel awkward being around my half-naked female classmates when I was just becoming aware of my attraction to other girls/women and their bodies? Because I didn’t know where to look, was terrified of people thinking I was looking at them, that they would call me a pervert or a lesbian (which was considered one of the worst things you could be).

With regard to changing in the toilets, I don’t remember them policing where we changed and don’t remember it being an issue - I don’t think I was the only person to do this.

Fernlake I'm confused.

'It really is. People have to go into hospital all the time, where they are completely aware of absolutely everything. Kidney stones, gallbladders, broken limbs - routine surgery is endless.

Never mind privilege, it's such an odd position to take.

Until we had mobile phones, every bed would have a television, for goodness sake. Every bed. Not confined to a handful of people. If you're well enough to watch TV, you're totally aware of who is watching it in the bed next to you.'

I've never been in a hosp where I had a telly!

I haven't been an in patient for maybe 8 years but there wasn't one then.

Maybe it depends on the hosps and type of wards? I mean it's not a standard thing for NHS beds is it? Across the board?!

I mean when my MIL was in HDU there were no tellys.

And if there is a telly is doesn't follow that the patients are with it enough to watch it! What's your logic there?

Anecdote time!

When I was 19 I stayed on a mixed sex ward. It was my first time in a grown up hosp after having lots of stints in a specialist children's hosp. Incidentally those wards were mixed sex, and actually that was fine. There was always a nurse or two keeping an eye- their room had a window and if course they were seeing patients a lot. As it was children who were having quite serious stuff done and were often in long term that was a real feeling of comradeship tbh. Anyone interested feel free to ask!

Anyway mixed sex. So I'm 19 in a ward with about 12 beds. About 10 were occupied. I was the only female. It wasn't high risk or anything so the nurses came round i dunno. Every 2 or 3 hours or something.

I did feel uncomfortable. And I wasn't a nervous type of person at all. Not of anything- not of men. I knew obv what they could be like but my youthful optimism said it's a few bad apples, vast majority are fine etc

I felt uncomfortable. I was very aware there were all these men and me. And I was in a nightie and fairly immobile. I tried to ignore it. 3 of them just sat there staring at me.

It wasn't the best tbh.

Nothing happened- none of them even spoke to be. But I felt sort of alone, out of place and vulnerable.

That's the sort of thing where people say but nothing happened!! What's the problem. It's not illegal to look at someone etc. But lots of women and girls know the men can make you feel unsettled pretty easily if they want to.

As luck would have it, it was an orthopaedic ward so no one was moving around the place much!

@Helen8230 take a look at <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_Semenya_ASA_IAAF_decision.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwig_8Htls_wAhVKA2MBHf3_Ax4QFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw3BeVhx1eA_XOdMb66bVmOd" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this to see a great explanation why the discrimination on the basis of sex and not on legal gender is justified in sport.

Helen iirc when you changed at school you pretty much faced the wall/ locker. And if s locker opened the door to give some privacy.

Or if no wall/ etc you tend to look down/ focus on your clothes. That's where to look!

Sorry that sounds like I'm picking but I don't really get it. For boys it's different- when they're teenage, I'm told that random erections are an embarrassing problem. And so I can well understand why it would be a worry getting changed.

'We need some kind of experiment to look into this further, and I know I’m not going to convince you (and anyway i realise this is just my world view and I may be wrong), but I still think that you are underestimating the extent to which the immediate cues on which we categorise people - in the first moment we see them, particularly - as a man or woman come from hair, clothes, make up, mannerisms etc.'

You need more studies to see if human beings are good at telling what sex others are? Or if they are mainly going on presentation according to gendered norms. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Out of interest. We're animals, mammals. Clothes are really a human thing. If you were in a room full of naked people. Or at a nudist beach. Or in a community at some place/ point in time where clothes were not worn. Your suggestion is that without the clothes, and say little makeup or difference in hair. That you would have to try harder to indentify the people's sexes? Or have misunderstood.

We need some kind of experiment to look into this further, and I know I’m not going to convince you (and anyway i realise this is just my world view and I may be wrong), but I still think that you are underestimating the extent to which the immediate cues on which we categorise people - in the first moment we see them, particularly - as a man or woman come from hair, clothes, make up, mannerisms etc. Or the number of people (whether trans, non-binary or just gender non-conforming) in relation to whom it’s pretty common for others not to be sure of their sex/gender, even following a conversation.

There was a thread on this a long time ago, what it would be like if everyone was 'gender non-conforming'. I don't think many would disagree that we instantly categorise people as male/female - I remember realising this even as a child, that 'what you first notice about someone' is whether they're a boy/girl.
But, because the world is so gendered at the moment, feminine appearance (gait, height, figure, clothes etc) generally does map pretty well onto the property of 'being female' - and vice versa for masculine/being male - so it's a pretty reliable rule of thumb for our current culture.

If that changed, we'd adapt to looking further at something else - hand size, maybe, or pay more attention to body shape, or wait a bit longer before making up our minds - but in most cases we'd be able to tell sex pretty reliably.

Risk / benefit analysis... how many women can be made feel uncomfortable to save the feelings of one male bodied person who identifies as female?

1 woman misses out on a literary award but 1,500 women no longer feel valued as authors but 10 male bodied authors can enter the competition.

1,000 women use the public toilets in X town every day. 230 of them now enter the toilets more cautiously, only when necessary and often cut shopping trips short and go home or seek out single sex facilities because they don't want to run into a male bodied person while they are there. There are 5 transgender women in the town.

5% of CEO's of FTSE 350 companies are female. 1 trans women awarded an 'Influential Woman in Industry' award. 100,000 women across the country feel disempowered.

You don't need to look at hand size to tell sex!

Yes the 'look' is heavily gendered. It always has been in my lifetime.

I'm baffled at the idea that sex isn't pretty bleeding obvious!

Ever looked at lycra clad cyclists? I tend to watch them going along as I have keen cyclists in the family. Even head down going along in similar clothes you tend to notice sex. And I don't think I look for hair. The women are smaller and a different shape. Esp if you're behind them in a car!

It would also follow that if looking at pictures from around the world where hair/ dress is very different to the UK, and a style you weren't familiar with. That you'd have trouble telling what sex they are?

I was imagining everyone with long hair and a long grey baggy sack so you couldn't instantly tell body shape from a glance! In our beautiful vision of a gender-free future
Size/height is a good short-hand but obviously won't work in small proportion of situations. Can't find the thread now but it was an interesting thought experiment.

I think women are generated better at distinguishing sex than men. Watching A Promising Young Woman with DH I clocked the (I thought) obvious transwomen. Cue 10 minutes of arguing until I googled it to settle.
DH's defense was he feels mean as he wouldn't want to mistake a real woman for a man.
I can spot a male in the dark, in the rain, from behind, dressed any way just by the way they walk and move. It's probably an instinctual thing. I think babies have it too. DS very wary of all men not his daddy.

Generally not generated ugh.

@NiceGerbil

It would also follow that if looking at pictures from around the world where hair/ dress is very different to the UK, and a style you weren't familiar with. That you'd have trouble telling what sex they are?

It would take longer for me to reach a level of certainty, yes, than with current UK fashion etc. Or where men and women both tend to be slight of figure. Because we do use superficial things as short-hand. And I've seen people genuinely think some women are men at first if they're not wearing makeup and don't have a delicate bone structure - someone tried to 'out' as a trans woman on here a while ago a middle-aged woman that was just not OTT feminine-looking. I think our expectations are a bit distorted. But none of this is to say that we wouldn't be able to identify sex in most cases, just that we'd look for different cues if clothes/hair/body size wasn't a reliable indicator.

and still pictures give less information than real life/video showing movement.

Anyway sorry for going off on a tangent - had a look for the other old thread but can't find it - I'll be off now.

@SunnydaleClassProtector99

I think women are generated better at distinguishing sex than men. Watching A Promising Young Woman with DH I clocked the (I thought) obvious transwomen. Cue 10 minutes of arguing until I googled it to settle. DH's defense was he feels mean as he wouldn't want to mistake a real woman for a man. I can spot a male in the dark, in the rain, from behind, dressed any way just by the way they walk and move. It's probably an instinctual thing. I think babies have it too. DS very wary of all men not his daddy.

Biologically that makes a lot of sense - men are dangerous to tiny children; just think about not just sexual predators, but the number of men who kill babies and children in anger - there was yet another in the news yesterday 😢

DD also did not like men and was not keen on any of them apart from DP and grandad for a long time: she was initially very very wary of the couple of young male workers at nursery, and once told me disapprovingly “I don’t like mans in my nursery.” (We had no reason to think there was anything wrong with them and they were never alone with the kids.) DD still isn’t a fan of male teachers in school! Most young kids are not that comfortable with unfamiliar men and it’s not hard to see why given the difference in size and vulnerability.

If we look to our primate cousins too, males will kill a mother's offspring and then impregnate them with their own baby.

And women's survival can depend on you being able to decode male in aggressive mode at a distance (ever walked behind a group of lads and just sensed the hostility before it happened?)