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.

Thanks for the name compliment.

I see many Buffy parallels to this argument actually. Without getting overly geeky, Buffy's job was to protect the weak and vulnerable. She also had 'allies' that were a bit morally dubious. (Angel, Anya, Spike) she worked alongside and tolerated them.

Until their actions infringed on the people she was supposed to be protecting as soon as characters like Anya, who was vulnerable in many ways, used their privilege to stamp on the rights of the vulnerable, Buffy layed down the law.

Which is similar to this. Women are happy to support trans people to have third spaces and equal rights written in law.

But as soon as they start dismantling sex based rights there's a conflict of interest and the right thing to do is protect the vulnerable. The vulnerable being women who can't access public life if they are taken away: religious women and trauma victims for example.

Now I'm all geeked out.

I just wanted to come back to the points made by @Helen8220 in her other post:

*- like many people on here, I believe that the vast majority of perceived differences in behaviour and personality between men and women are the result of socialisation rather than biology. There may be some population-wide, average differences that relate to biological factors, but we can’t know for sure, given the pervasive and powerful nature of gender norms.

• I think generalisations about men and women based on observation or statistics should be treated with caution - they may be important and useful in some contexts (eg medical) but unhelpful and damaging in others (eg in making assumptions about a given person you are interacting with socially, or in deciding policy about what activities or interests children should be offered or encouraged to participate in).*

I think the dichotomy in the "nature v. nurture" debate, only matters in a world where difference is used to underpin discrimination.

So saying "there is no inherent difference, other than stemming from socialisation" is a way of forcing a win in the argument for equal rights and treatment, because... difference has been used for centuries to justify an inferior treatment of women. It makes sense to say "there is no difference, hence your unequal treatment is not justified".

I think that is still buying into a system which sees difference as legitimate grounds for worse treatment, because it merely focusing on removing the basis for unequal treatment.

Why can't people be different and still afforded the same level of respect by law and institutions?

The state and legal system should act to mitigate differences, rather than acting as if they don't exist.

Personally I think that the whole system of oppression towards women is grounded in the biological inferiority complex of men, and a "containment and compensation" system for the fact that women give birth, and men don't. I have spoken to a few men who expressed jealousy of women's ability to give birth. Look at how absurd it is that until now marriage certificates did not contain the name of the mother of either of the parties getting married. the person who brought you to life did not even get a mention on a document that shows "where you came from". If this isn't evidence of a bitter way of "containing" and suppressing the reality of women giving life, I don't know what is.

To me, only with an acknowledgement of difference, can there be true equality.
For example, only with acknowledging that women give birth and men don't , but both share equal parental responsibility, can we try adressing the reality that men are very rarely seen as primary carers for the children.

It is easy to legislate and create equality in the legal sense, if you just remove the basis for equality from the sphere of consideration.

So in the case of liberalism: it creates perfect equality in the sphere of law, by treating everyone as if they are a free-floating homunculus of will: devoid of economical inequalities, and biological differences. You are free, as long as you agree in a social game of being "race and gender blind".

I think someone said, I don't remember who: "beware of anyone who grants you rights you already have".

And I think this is the problem with the argument based on "there aren't differences, hence we must be treated equally", because there are differences, and it should not change that we all already are human, and deserve full respect of the law without having to prove that there isn't any difference, to be "granted" those rights (or have them upheld).

Do we feel compelled to make arguments that "there isn't any real biological difference between short and tall people, it's all cultural"?

Now imagine one of those creepy taxi drivers in the adjacent bed when you're in hospital.

EXACTLY

Just to back up some of my earlier points, it is critical that we use evidence to inform healthcare access. In reply to the OP data is very important so knowing someone’s biological sex is crucial. It’s not a question of ‘reducing’ a woman to biology, it is that there are real life differences in accessing and experiences of healthcare. Ignoring that is going to increase healthcare inequalities.

Ignoring that trans women are not born women - is not going to help access to healthcare for women or trans people. If we ignore that someone is trans and not record that, for example, we will have no idea whether that group is having particular problems accessing healthcare, how and why.

We do know, from stacks of studies, that women have certain problems accessing healthcare and that single sex wards protect them more from sexual assault and preserve dignity and privacy when vulnerable.

There have been no studies saying that trans women experience the same historical vulnerabilities as women, or need the same level of protection from sexual assault, or enhanced need for privacy and dignity in healthcare. There is no evidence that trans women pose no risk compared to a man in a hospital ward (and indeed this would be difficult to study as numbers are probably too low to make such an inference).

Pragmatically there are times when patients need to share a mixed ward for clinical and health reasons, such as in ITU or in a surge of cases. In these cases attempts are made to provide enhanced privacy and protection such as physical screens, individual bathrooms with locked doors, more covering hospital gowns.

In one trust for example, a quote:
Mixed gender ward accommodation is a recognised concern for some patients for personal and cultural reasons.
The Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), the Human Rights Act (1998) and principles from the United Nations and the recent Health Select Committee on Human Rights have all raised the need to consider equal and fair treatment as a matter of dignity and human rights.

This also goes for men too, some men will feel extremely uncomfortable sharing a ward with women. Having to go into hospital is something that is often not a ‘choice’ in that we are ill, and therefore even more critical that dignity, privacy and safety is upheld.

Taking mixed vs single sex wards in hospitals, there is plenty of evidence that making wards mixed caused rises in sexual assaults on women, and women not seeking help, worsening mental health and avoiding seeking care.

If there is a move to include trans people in their preferred ward, then that has to wait until there are robust, open and transparent studies into what effect that will have. And looking at all possible solutions rather than essentially scrap the single sex ward provisions.

Without a proper robust review of trans people and single sex wards there are so many holes and issues which cut across the European Directive of Human Rights, and inequalities in accessing healthcare. There may also be particular issues for trans people which have been ignored also - we need find that out from proper studies, not group lobbies. At present, in most instances if a person self identifies as a woman, whether that is just by name or whatever, they, may even be a sex offender, then they can stay in a woman’s ward if they ask for Mixed gender ward accommodation is a recognised concern for some patients for personal and cultural reasons.
The Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), the Human Rights Act (1998) and principles from the United Nations and the recent Health Select Committee on Human Rights have all raised the need to consider equal and fair treatment as a matter of dignity and human rights.

Being led by the evidence rather than lobbying is key in my view. And evidence needs looking at legal directives, studies, experiences in the past of mixed vs single sex wards.

I don’t think it is generational either. I know my teen would be concerned being in a room on a ward with males.

And I'm sure most people would be concerned for a teenage girl on a ward with adult males.

Apologies for grammar/paragraph fails! Rushing too much today...

@CardinalLolzy

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.

It’s a fair and reasonable point, but I just don’t think we can know while we’re still in a culture where people tend to present so strongly in accordance with gender expectations. Also, I think as the number of people who don’t experience romantic or sexual attraction to only one sex/gender increases (as the results of the 2011 census suggests is the direction of travel) it will become less of a focus or priority in social interaction.

Do you reckon? I do think it's hardwired into us to sort people into male/female. Any evolutionary change would take millions of years! But you may not think it's hardwired.

Attraction to multiple genders wouldn't affect this, as you can't see gender visually.

I don't know if the number of same-sex attracted people is increasing over time or whether people are more willing to say so now compared to in the past. But I don't think about potential partners when I'm identifying someone as male or female - I'd be unconsciously ID'ing a child or pensioner, it's an instinct. Wish I could find the old thread now.

@SunnydaleClassProtector99

Thanks for the name compliment.

I see many Buffy parallels to this argument actually. Without getting overly geeky, Buffy's job was to protect the weak and vulnerable. She also had 'allies' that were a bit morally dubious. (Angel, Anya, Spike) she worked alongside and tolerated them.

Until their actions infringed on the people she was supposed to be protecting as soon as characters like Anya, who was vulnerable in many ways, used their privilege to stamp on the rights of the vulnerable, Buffy layed down the law.

Which is similar to this. Women are happy to support trans people to have third spaces and equal rights written in law.

But as soon as they start dismantling sex based rights there's a conflict of interest and the right thing to do is protect the vulnerable. The vulnerable being women who can't access public life if they are taken away: religious women and trauma victims for example.

Now I'm all geeked out.

I am always up for some Buffy-related geeking :)

Im not sure I fully follow the analogy though. Does Anya represent trans women in this scenario?

This isn’t really on point, but the talk of Buffy made me think about the brilliant twist in the first scene of the first episode of Buffy, part of what first made me love it - when the slightly dubious seeming young man is taking a pretty blonde girl somewhere creepy and isolated (was it a crypt?), and as an audience we’re encouraged to think that she’s at risk, in the typical horror story scenario. But then it turns out she’s the vampire, and turns around and attacks him. I loved that turning of the assumptions about men and women on their head.

@CardinalLolzy

Do you reckon? I do think it's hardwired into us to sort people into male/female. Any evolutionary change would take millions of years! But you may not think it's hardwired.

I can see the logic of that, but my personal view is that the overlay of social and cultural meanings and significance can be much more powerful than this sort of evolutionary programming. I’m generally quite suspicious of references to evolutionary causes for sex/gender behavioural differences, as I usually see this deployed in support of what I consider regressive gender stereotypes - eg men are hardwired to be promiscuous and to like sex more than women do, or that women are programmed not to take risks as much as men, so are less good at certain types of jobs.

Attraction to multiple genders wouldn't affect this, as you can't see gender visually.

I think gender is to a significant extent visually observable - although it’s partly about an inner sense of self, but you can’t completely divorce it from the outward trappings through which it’s observed and expressed. When I’m attracted to a person their gender presentation plays a big role even though I’m bi - I’m often particularly attracted to non-gender-confirming people.

I don't know if the number of same-sex attracted people is increasing over time or whether people are more willing to say so now compared to in the past. But I don't think about potential partners when I'm identifying someone as male or female - I'd be unconsciously ID'ing a child or pensioner, it's an instinct. Wish I could find the old thread now.

@NiceGerbil

'It’s all so situation specific - if any of those men had chatted to you normally and been friendly and kind (though not over friendly!) do you still think you would have felt uncomfortable?'

Hell no.

All the times I've been in hosp the protocol is to not chat while in bed, to give people privacy if they're in pain etc and because they can't get away if they don't want to talk! It's more like how it is on the tube in terms of behaviour.

Would I have been put at rest at the age of 19 on a ward with all men, 3 of whom were staring. if a non stare one had come to me bedside and struck up a conversation? When I couldn't get away?

And IME men who strike up conversation randomly are never just being chatty esp when you're that age.

Fair enough, I was just wondering, and trying to think back to situations where I’ve felt uncomfortable. I was thinking that for me I’ve sometimes been put at ease by the person saying something that made them seem less unknown and potentially threatening - eg saying something about their wife, or daughter, or their husband for that matter. But I’ve never been in that specific situation so I don’t know how I would have felt.

The thing that I find flummoxing about this presentation thing.

We're animals. Mammals. We have some clothes and whatnot but they're just trivial to me.

If you go to a party and there's a load of 3.year olds and there's a paddling pool. And some of the little buggers take all their clothes off ( this happened. Nightmare. Couldn't catch them). Does it make it more difficult to know their sex?

On a beach where topless is the norm. Men and women. Tricky to tell sex?

Looking at images on the news where shaved heads are universal. Hard to tell the sex?

A portrait of a person with a massive powdered wig on back in European history. Can't tell sex?

I watched calamity Jane at weekend and looked up the real one. Dressed in hide leather with a gun. Obviously a woman.

I once went out on hols and met a group on a special night out, maybe 8 people. Skin tight minidresses. They looked great. And there was no question they were men. Shoulders, musculature. Height. Oh and the body shape and the bumpy bits around the groin.

The idea that clothes and hair are the primary indicator of sex is very strange to me.

@justawoman that’s an interesting study, but I would have expected to some extent that gait was influenced by social conditioning as well as pure biology? I would say that quite a few people who are generally gender-non-confirming have noticeably different physical mannerisms, posture and gait from those of the same sex who are more gender conforming.

Helen thanks for the response.

The thing is, that single sex stuff and social norms around men and women existed for a reason and for all women and girls.

You seem very focused on your own experiences etc. To the exclusion of all others really. That doesn't bother me so seems fine. That would bother me so no.

But you're only one person and there are millions of women in the UK.

' I would say that quite a few people who are generally gender-non-confirming have noticeably different physical mannerisms, posture and gait from those of the same sex who are more gender conforming.'

Every woman or girl, around the world, who has noticed and disliked her prescribed role, now and through history, is or was gender non-conforming.

When you say GNC are you talking about on the outside? Clothes? I think maybe. But many are GNC in what they think, how they feel, the jobs they do, etc etc etc.

How are you defining GNC?

@NiceGerbil I’m not saying that you can’t ever - or even usually - tell a person’s biological sex from their physical traits. I’m saying that I think we underestimate how much we rely on gender presentation as the first immediate indicator of gender/sex in normal everyday life. Of course, there are many individuals (generally young, fit people, with typically ‘ideal’ body shapes - whether natural or plastic surgery enhanced) who - if they’re wearing tight clothes - can be easily identified as male or female regardless of hair or clothing style. But in the case of people whose bodies don’t fit the paradigm for their sex - eg very fat people, or very old people - or very fat old people - you might find you’re relying much more on hairstyle, style of clothes etc.

@NiceGerbil in this context I mean gender-non-conforming in the sense of not presenting in the manner expected of a person of one’s biological sex in the relevant culture/societal setting - I’m thinking primarily in terms of hair, clothing, jewellery, make-up (or lack thereof), mannerisms, voice....

Sorry @Rejoiningperson you’ve said a lot of interesting things that I do want to come back to

Gender non conforming is not just about how you 'present' though.

To me anyway.

Prescriptive gender roles cut across everything.

The suffragettes were gender non conforming. They did not agree with being disbarred from voting due to their sex. They decided to fight.

That was GNC.

They carried out various acts. Arson. Setting bombs.

That was GNC.

They did not stand down. They chained themselves to railings. They got put in prison. Where they were essentially tortured in various ways.

That's GNC.

The pics I've seen they have the hair clothes etc for women of that time.

I don't understand why you see gender role/ sex role as only external presentation. What you wear is trivial. How you think and the actions you take. Are much bigger. And women doing that, speaking out, trying to achieve change. Fighting for what they believe in. All of that. Is GNC.

I'd be interested to understand why the presentation is the main thing for you. It's so different from my view.

Women who do not conform to the expectations of their sex are murdered for it all over the world. Imprisoned. All sorts of stuff.

In Afghanistan women working in various roles (which goes against gender expectations) are killed. Journalists. Judges. Girls attending school. They get murdered for not adhering.

In Saudi Arabia a group of women drove cars. They were behaving in a GNC manner in that society. They got taken to prison and there are many reports of torture.

Helen you only see gender non conforming as..

'hair, clothing, jewellery, make-up (or lack thereof), mannerisms, voice....'

What would you call women (and men) who are gender non conforming in terms of behaviour, interests, jobs, all the other see stuff where 'men are like this' and 'women are like that'.

If people couldn't accurately judge sex, 'gender non-conforming' wouldn't be a thing, and nobody would be able to have any social or cultural expectations (gender) linked to sex.

You might as well have social and cultural expectations of something completely invisible like blood type.

Twelfth night is fiction, not real life.

(Although that would be an interesting hypothesis - Shakespeare's women weren't all played by men because nobody could tell the difference and the so called 'ban on women going on stage' couldn't be enforced?)

But in the case of people whose bodies don’t fit the paradigm for their sex - eg very fat people, or very old people - or very fat old people - you might find you’re relying much more on hairstyle, style of clothes etc.

But lots of people in those groups dress in completely unisex ways. Older people are more likely to dress in gender-undifferentiated ways than younger people. You can still tell what sex someone us even if they’re fat, old and wearing a tracksuit. At least, I can.

This idea that it’s difficult to tell someone’s sex is such a strange point to keep insisting on. Why not just accept that if it’s hard for you to tell what sex most people are and you rely on “gender” cues, it’s a personal quirk?

That’s a very good point: if we can’t identify sex from looking at someone, how do we know they’re gender non-conforming? I’m a woman. If I wear a pretty long pink dress and heels I’m being utterly conventional. If my brother does, he’s being gender non-conforming. How can you tell the difference?

[quote Helen8220]@justawoman that’s an interesting study, but I would have expected to some extent that gait was influenced by social conditioning as well as pure biology? I would say that quite a few people who are generally gender-non-confirming have noticeably different physical mannerisms, posture and gait from those of the same sex who are more gender conforming.[/quote]
I agree that gait is probably affected to a small extent by social conditioning. However, it’s mostly to do with physical differences, notably the shape of the pelvis and the difference in musculature (men have much more muscular upper bodies and swing their arms far more). Anyone training athletes know that women runners run differently (and slower) because of the angle of the pelvis.