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.

And for so long as we have separate facilities for men and women, the rights of non-trans people who object to the presence of trans people in those places do have to be balanced against the rights of trans people who want to use those facilities.

How do we balance those rights? If a self-declared 'transwoman' who has made no changes to their body wants to use the facilities designed for women, should the women have the right to exclude such a male person, because they look no different from any other male, or should the rights of the male person override the rights of the women to a female-only space?

Sorry about the hosp post- my mistake. I take it back!

Thanks! But would you mind not being quite so quick to jump to the conclusion that I’m some sort of monster, incapable of empathy and disinclined to charitable giving?

' I realise anyway you disagree that it’s ever the case that you can’t tell a person’s biological sex as a result of them having a non-gender conforming appearance'

I don't recall saying that!

You're the one who said that it's difficult to tell the sex of people who are very overweight, or are elderly, which is a much stranger statement!

I think there's a couple of people I've not known but that's been because of body shape and having a height that is not unusual for either sex, and an androgynous face. People who look like that are pretty rare though.

I find it baffling that presented with say a line of people in plain t-shirts, no makeup, and shaved heads. You would struggle to tell which were male and which were female.

And the other thing that follows that in a line of people with no clothes on, due to the lack of gendered clues, you would have more trouble telling male from female than with clothes on!

@NiceGerbil

On religion, ok, I should have said ‘largely’ secular society. It seems Christianity at least is on a downward trajectory in the uk, and predicted to fall below 50% in the most recent census (also worth bearing in mind the number of people who tick Christian by default without actively practising or really believing).

This does seem like a bit of a diversion though.

The posts about not being able to understand why women and girls might feel uncomfy in various situations because they hadn't happened to you were somewhat lacking in empathy though!

I must admit I was surprised at the reply to my experience on a mixed ward when young was met with the idea it might have helped if one of the men had come over to my bed and started chatting! It's such an odd suggestion. Which made me think that you couldn't really empathise with the situation as if you could imagine how it felt you'd know the last thing you'd want would be one of them coming over and striking up a conversation!

Well you're the one who brought it up! And it's just plain wrong.

Religions other than Christianity also count iyswim. 75% ish have a religion.

I wish I could identify out of the crippling periods that sent me to A&E. The sexual harassment and abuse I experienced from the age of 12. I wish I could identify out of the unwanted pregnancies, abortion, the hormone fuck up that is reliable birth control. I wish I could identify out of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Out of Pre Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder, peri menopause and all the anxiety, depression and weird physical shit that comes with it

I find it baffling that presented with say a line of people in plain t-shirts, no makeup, and shaved heads. You would struggle to tell which were male and which were female.

I’m sure I’d be able to tell some, probably the majority - maybe all of them - it would depend on who they were. I think it would be less instantaneous than if they were presenting in a gender conforming way though.

And the other thing that follows that in a line of people with no clothes on, due to the lack of gendered clues, you would have more trouble telling male from female than with clothes on!

I never said that - I was always talking about people with clothes on.

By the way, I know it’s different with only photos, but can you easily tell the biological sex of all these people?

It's also not being very consistent to label religious ideas of men and women as regressive whilst not engaging with the regressive reliance on stereotypes in gender ideology.

Religions other than Christianity also count iyswim. 75% ish have a religion.

If we’re talking about the UK being a secular country aren’t we really just talking about the formal separation of church and state anyway?

Being male and female is all about the anatomy you are born with. People do dress and act differently as we are all unique but you are either male or female

Not that it’s for me to tell a person what they should or shouldn’t believe, or how they should live, but to me the expectation that women have to be ‘modest’ seems regressive and oppressive. If everyone else who didn’t hold that belief was happy to share mixed sex facilities (I’m not saying they currently are), I don’t think the whole system should be set up just to meet that expectation of how women should behave.

You have contradicted yourself here. You don't want to tell others what to believe, but you think that if some women are excluded from public life because of their belief in 'modesty', that is OK. Why should such women lose some of their rights? That is really no different from telling them that they shouldn't be 'modest' - in other words telling them what they should believe.

You say that people can believe what they want, but you can't help conveying that you think your own belief system is superior to anyone else's, and they would be better off if they shared it. You don't seem to have grasped that other people's beliefs are just as important to them as yours are to you.

What I see over and over in your posts, Helen, is a lack of empathy, an unwillingness to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and see how others might view the world.

It's also not being very consistent to label religious ideas of men and women as regressive whilst not engaging with the regressive reliance on stereotypes in gender ideology.

I agree it’s regressive to penalise a person for not conforming with the gender norms or stereotypes associated with their biological sex. But I accept that people are often severely penalised (in social terms) for not conforming, and that in some cases that goes to the point of it being easier for them to ‘live as’ (ie to regard themselves, and have others regard or at least refer to them as) a different sex/gender

I accept that people are often severely penalised (in social terms) for not conforming

Can you explain what you mean by this? Perhaps with some examples?

And for so long as we have separate facilities for men and women, the rights of non-trans people who object to the presence of trans people in those places do have to be balanced against the rights of trans people who want to use those facilities.

What this means for single-sex services is that the only group who can refuse to share facilities with fellow male people, are transwomen. Women cannot refuse.
This gives extra rights to one group. I really don’t think that’s balanced.

I'm not going to play guess the sex of random pics ta.

You seem to be attempting to 'prove' that most people judge sex by clothes, makeup, hairstyle.

Even though loads of women have said.. eh? Nope.

Your point is I think that if I (a 5'3 woman with big boobs and a fairly feminine face) put on a suit and sensible shoes. That men in the gents would not notice I was female? (I already have short hair).

And similarly if a 6'4 male with an obviously male physique, and a clean shaven face but with masculine features eg jaw shape. Puts on makeup, a dress and a convincing wig. Women will glance and register female?

I honestly don't get that at all.

In the end the argument that no one can tell what sex anyone is anyway, men as a group are not dangerous to women, and all genders should decide what's best for them in terms of current single sex things.

Then there is zero point in having single sex stuff at all.

Is that your preference Helen?

@Helen8220

It's also not being very consistent to label religious ideas of men and women as regressive whilst not engaging with the regressive reliance on stereotypes in gender ideology.

I agree it’s regressive to penalise a person for not conforming with the gender norms or stereotypes associated with their biological sex. But I accept that people are often severely penalised (in social terms) for not conforming, and that in some cases that goes to the point of it being easier for them to ‘live as’ (ie to regard themselves, and have others regard or at least refer to them as) a different sex/gender

Instead of the female ones who don't conform (just through presentation? Or other stuff as well?). Becoming pesky feminists.

You are aware I assume that women and girls who have pretty standard presentation, are exposed to abuse, violence etc if they behave in a non conforming way?

Opinionated women are not popular.
Women who speak out about things men don't want to hear are vilified and threatened.
Feminist activists in other countries can be imprisoned. As the suffragettes were.

I've been verbally abused, assaulted and once memorably had a man say let's take it outside (fight) because I've never been keen on playing the defer to the man game. I understand why most women and girls do it. Trust me. Not knowing your place as a female is dangerous.

If we don't define women and men as sex classes, why do we need those words? If we don't use women and men, what are the words for 'adult human females' and 'adult human males', because we'll probably find we need them before long.
How do we educate young people about anything related to biology, how do we train our medics without reference to women and men?

Why were those young humans killed in Kabul a few days ago?

Why did Boko Haram kidnap 276 young people in 2014?
Why did Japanese soldiers need 'Comfort Women'? I could obviously go on and on but what's the commonality here?

I accept that people are often severely penalised (in social terms) for not conforming

Can you explain what you mean by this? Perhaps with some examples?

I mean that many individuals who don’t appear or behave in the way expected of their sex - whether that is a woman with facial or body hair, a deep voice, a flat chest, or a man in a dress, or with an ‘effeminate’ voice or walk, or who is just a bit too sensitive - are mocked, shunned, or in the worst cases physically attacked. Surely you’ve seen this happening - whether in your own life, or on the news?

@NiceGerbil

In the end the argument that no one can tell what sex anyone is anyway, men as a group are not dangerous to women, and all genders should decide what's best for them in terms of current single sex things.

Then there is zero point in having single sex stuff at all.

Is that your preference Helen?

Yes! I think I said that in my original post.

@Helen8220

I accept that people are often severely penalised (in social terms) for not conforming

Can you explain what you mean by this? Perhaps with some examples?

I mean that many individuals who don’t appear or behave in the way expected of their sex - whether that is a woman with facial or body hair, a deep voice, a flat chest, or a man in a dress, or with an ‘effeminate’ voice or walk, or who is just a bit too sensitive - are mocked, shunned, or in the worst cases physically attacked. Surely you’ve seen this happening - whether in your own life, or on the news?

It's still all mainly about how you look.

No response to the fact that gender non conforming behaviour especially in women runs various levels of risk around the world. Including imprisonment/ murder.

Girls are being killed by bombs or fire in Afghanistan because they go to school. Which is considered wrong because of gender role. It's not what girls are supposed to do. Get an education.

They look v gender conforming though.

Any comments on that?

And fyi 'feminine' men are in danger from other men because of homophobia. That can't be news to you surely?

And after stating that I HAVE had various situations with men where I was verbally attacked/assaulted because my words and attitude were gender non conforming...

Asking if I've seen it on the news

So in short.

Do I have this right?

There should be no sex segregation in anything.
The vast majority of people read sex by clothes etc and not by anything else.
Of the issues faced by GNC people, the main thing is about appearance not anything else. (Why would someone who presented in a stereotypical way for the opposite sex be at risk on the street? No one can tell what sex they are. They go on clothes and hair etc).

Is that right?

@NiceGerbil

And after stating that I HAVE had various situations with men where I was verbally attacked/assaulted because my words and attitude were gender non conforming...

Asking if I've seen it on the news

That was a response to @OldCrone (as quoted in my post), who asked what I meant by people being penalised for not conforming, and asked for examples.