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.

[quote Helen8220]**@NiceGerbil* and @Delphinium20*
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that being gender non-conforming is only ever just a matter of appearance - but in the context of talking about how we categorise people as male or female by looking at them, that seems to me the relevant aspect of gender non-conformity. People might be surprised to see a woman doing something that they conventionally don’t expect women to do, but I don’t think that in itself would make them question whether or not the person was a woman (although 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)[/quote]
I think you're wrong and not understanding what people have been saying here . Clothing, hair and make up is a very small part of how we know who is a man and who is a woman. You're showing pictures to try and demonstrate that actually just shows that you're not understanding that women and men move differently. Many women wear jeans and boots and hoodie. Just like men. We still know who is a man and who is a woman. It's very old fashioned to think that males and females necessarily have different dress codes.

I do think the naivety of youth does impact on the optimism of young women about the safety level of mixed spaces. More older feminists will disagree because our experiences have demonstrated the need for sex segregation to protect these young innocents from our experiences of rape, assault, harassment, flashing, embarrassed and humiliated

So much this. Thirty years ago I was a young woman reading empowering articles in magazines and I thought sexism was dying and we were just on the cusp of real equality. But I see the same belief in young women today. Some things have certainly got better but that underlying lack of respect and agency has never really changed.

Ah ok...

That's just in the UK though I think?

Gender conformity includes heterosexuality. By definition homosexual people are breaching a very deeply entrenched gender norm, irrespective of how they present etc.

Being homosexual is extremely dangerous in some countries and illegal in others. I believe the penalty is death in Iran. Is that still the case?

@NiceGerbil

So in short.

Do I have this right?

There should be no sex segregation in anything.
Ideally yes, if you mean having spaces where men/women are not allowed to be, just because they are men/women. But I accept we’re not there yet - too many people currently wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. It will take a long time for that to change.

The vast majority of people read sex by clothes etc and not by anything else.
No - I think that clothes etc (incl mannerisms) play a significant role in our process of identifying whether another person is a man or a woman - particularly in the first moments of seeing them - though more so in some cases than others.

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).
No - as you’ve pointed out, there are many different ways in which people may be gender non-conforming, and they will have very different consequences for different people in different contexts.

Must be interesting to live in a world where nobody can tell the sex of anybody else and men are no threat to women, pity it's just a fantasy.

Re youth- for some maybe.

But CSE of girls is still rife. Sexual abuse in the home or by other trusted adults. The recent news showing that sexual assault and rape in school is a serious problem. Men start perving at girls (and I think it depends on where you live city Vs not) but it starts young.

So I think it's not right on the whole to say that girls don't get it. Same as it's not right to say that it's generational, or that girls of certain backgrounds are protected from it all completely.

When I was young I suppose my world was smaller. There was my mates from school. And then there were creepy old leches. Going clubbing on alternative and then rave scene. Again those men were to me a different group to those men.

So if the question was would I feel concerned about changing with my on the whole fairly shy, a bit scared of girls, indie mates? Or be in a bog with a couple of mashed up chaps at a rave. No I wouldn't.

I think that's the issue rather than not knowing what men can be like in general.

No - I think that clothes etc (incl mannerisms) play a significant role in our process of identifying whether another person is a man or a woman - particularly in the first moments of seeing them - though more so in some cases than others.

I guess I'd better buy some pretty dresses then, cos the way I dress everyone must think I'm a bloke (not).

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.

It isn't. Single sex services should be single sex. It's not about identity. Trans people's wishes/demands to use the space for the opposite sex to themselves shouldn't trump women's rights to privacy and dignity away from the opposite sex. It's not fair or balanced. Another solution needs to be found.

'. But I accept we’re not there yet -'

What needs to change to get there?

Must be interesting to live in a world where nobody can tell the sex of anybody else and men are no threat to women, pity it's just a fantasy.

Again, as Helen will no doubt acknowledge, it's her privilege talking.

*There should be no sex segregation in anything.

Ideally yes, if you mean having spaces where men/women are not allowed to be, just because they are men/women. But I accept we’re not there yet - too many people currently wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. It will take a long time for that to change.*

Can I just clarify what you mean by this? What do you think would influence people being more comfortable with it? Do you believe that people will have less issues undressing in front of the opposite sex, or do you believe violence by men will become less prevalent or do you think that the amount of people who require single sex spaces due to religious belief or practice will decline, or...

It's a genuine question as I can't see a point at which these will stop being considerations. You obviously feel differently and it would be interesting to understand your thinking about this.

If everyone else who didn’t hold that belief was happy to share mixed sex facilities

Hardly anyone wants mixed sex facilities, apart from you, so that's a moot point.

I think that clothes etc (incl mannerisms) play a significant role in our process of identifying whether another person is a man or a woman - particularly in the first moments of seeing them

You keep saying this. Do you have difficulty differentiating men and women? I struggle to recognise faces, I tend to be more aware of hairstyles, voice, and way of moving when recognising people.

If you genuinely use clothes and mannerisms to recognise sex I can only think you have some kind of sex recognition problem similar to my one of facial recognition.

I’d have thought that one very important reason for sex segregation would be not just that people “don’t feel comfortable” with the opposite sex (because of their old fashioned hang ups) but because there is a clearly proven and measurable divide by sex on who is most likely to come to harm in vulnerable environments. Men are a danger to women in vulnerable positions, and we may all feel “comfortable” in unisex showers and changing rooms when men no longer assault and harm people far more than women do.
And we might all feel “comfortable” on mixed sex sports teams if there wasn’t a predictable outcome in average results entirely as a result of the sex of the participants.

In other situations, yes, absolutely, scoff away and demolish pointless divides - I remember a charity bookshop with lots of different book categories, then “women’s” books. Clearly none of the others were. Or, the local village show which, in a blast straight from the 50’s, has 12 cake baking categories, one of which is “from the man of the house”. Or kids toys segregated into pink and blue. Or “men are scientists and women are care-givers” type career assumptions. Or assumptions that the woman should do more childcare than the man. Or ridiculously sex-specific deodorants and moisturisers. Or throwaway comments “huh, men, they’re all the same” or “you women can never get ready on time” or any of that guff. Absolutely push back and laugh at all of that. But not where safety and fairness and actual vulnerability are at risk. Those things have to be dealt with with the world as it is right now.

I spent one of my A-level years exclusively wearing men's clothes as part of my rebellion against the pressure on women to wear make-up and take care with their appearance.

Despite my men's clothes and lack of make-up, I can assure you, no-one thought I was a boy for one minute, and it never occurred to me to think they would.

People who consider themselves progressive but who sell out vulnerable women for fashionable beliefs are not progressive.

This. I don't see anything remotely progressive about taking privacy and dignity away from women and girls.

I think this might be key Helen.

'But I accept we’re not there yet - too many people currently wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. It will take a long time for that to change.'

What changes need to be made to make both male people and female people ok with it, in your view?

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.

Ugh. This is like those alt-right guys who suddenly care about women’s rights when it’s useful stick to bash Muslim communities with.

This is the real world. I would love to see women in cultures that put strict rules on their behaviour be freed from those restrictions but it has to come from changes within the community.

Society thinks it can “empower” these women from the outside by not accomodating their cultural restrictions but it doesn’t work that way, all that does is prevent them from taking part in public life at all.

It’s just another example of women being used as tokens in cultural battles with no consideration for us as humans with our own values and motives.

It’s just another example of women being used as tokens in cultural battles with no consideration for us as humans with our own values and motives.

Yes, exactly.

Differences in sex won't 'disappear' if you heavily gender clothes and activities.
If you want a gender neutral world the best thing to do is close the gap by campaigning for things like shared paternity extension and let toys be toys.
Insisting that wearing pink automatically makes you a woman shores up those boxes, it doesn't pull them down.
And whilst Helen might not like the man/woman boxes, the people absolutely depend on them for validation. If you get rid of the binary there's no way for them to identify in.
Perhaps work on tackling some real problems in the face of a unisex utopia, like the prevalence of violent porn, assault and voyeurism and then we'll be in a position to turn everything unisex.

Plenty of other religions in certain groups have modest/ strict dress codes for women.

Round here there's a closed Christian sect with a large membership who are totally separate from mainstream society.

Also Jewish groups who tbf also have certain requirements for men.

I do live in a part of London with a lot of religious diversity. There's a spiritualist church round the corner and a bona fide cult a few mins away from that on foot.

All of this seems to push those groups even further out of the mainstream (and they are already very very closed). The problem is that no one knows what's going on.

To push even more children into 'private' religious schools outside the state system is imo not a positive thing.

To return to the OP, at the end of the day, any feminism worth its name needs to centre women and girls. Intersectionality is one paradigm, but it has its flaws in the way it is applied in practice. And the main issue is that if it is truly intersectional it would absolutely recognise being born female as an axis of oppression. And modern intersectional feminism such as advocated by liberal feminists concerned with MTF trans inclusion often does not, so it fails the main test of being feminist. Centring women and girls.

It's really odd to me to hear you say the ideal is no sex segregation. Do you not believe in professional women's sports? Or health care which is adjusted to female and male needs?

Women are not reduced to nothing more than our bodies, by understanding the reality of these bodies. Only gender identity ideology sees personality as linked to feminine and masculine gender identity. It's not reductive to acknowledge that women as a sex class have uteruses, vaginas, and ovaries. That we menstruate, get pregnant and go through the menopause. It's liberating. We are our bodies, but they do not define our personalities. Nor does a mythical lady brain.