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.

@Floisme

I disagree that the op won't come back. I predict they will pop in again later with another telling off, and that it will be even longer than the first.

They'll give their opinion on what FWR is like, and I'm not holding my breath for careful quoting of the points raised so far let alone good faith engagement (you can look up what that means online, OP, rather than hear it from people you've already decided you disagree with)

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.

I honestly don’t even know what that means?

Actually I’ve read it for the tenth time and do you mean that even though you reject sex based rights you think everyone is forced to conform to fitting into one sex or the other because of society and so we need to be more fluid about people changing sex? Is that it?

Surely the crux of gender critical feminism is the right to live your life any way you please without dictating to the rigidity of sex based stereotypes. So the sex stays fixed and the gender is fluid. How does that not fix the very issue youre highlighting?

Haven't read the whole thread but this is a strawman argument that misrepresents Gender Critical feminism.

GC is now going back to seeing our sex organs as our most important identifier

insisting women are defined by their bodies

No, GC believes that sex organs identify people in relation to which sex they are. That doesn't extend to defining a person solely in terms of their sex. People are multi-faceted and sex is just one of those facets. A fact that critics of GC either don't understand or wilfully misinterpret.

I just read a fascinating thread on Twitter

twitter.com/jlmasterson/status/1391759039042883592?s=21

responding to a Twitter thread astonishingly resident of the Op’s posting…

Is that even possible? How much longer do you reckon?

Well, I reckon it will probably take a couple of paragraphs to refute some of the excellent posts here at least. And then three or four to unfurl how we all fulfilled their expectation of condescension and vitriol.

I think it might avoid mentioning the lack of one extra person to consider the harm that GC is doing piping up to confirm that OP has helped enormously and thank them. And of course will avoid the dissonance of mentioning young women of child bearing age that undermines the entire reasoning of the post.

A post which fails to realise that for many of us on this thread, being a young woman of child bearing age is EXACTLY when we realised how much we were still discriminated against for being able to have those children.

Not because of our brains, or our interests, sometimes it was the way we dressed......but low and behold, it was because of our ability to continue the human race!!! Ta da!

So, that will in fact shorten it to just a couple of paragraphs longer by my reckoning.

damn.. that is lo and behold ... the auto carrot has done it again.

Some pp were saying they came to the thread expecting a critique of third-wave feminism, here's a video of Gail Dines that I saw on Ovarit this morning.

Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

Surely this must be applied to everything. If it's wrong to group people according to material reality then that must apply to all groups or you would just be reducing people. So a child is anyone who say's they are a child and must be treated accordingly, same for race etc.

What a coincidence!

Surely it can't just be Vagina People that Must Not Be Named, surely we are now defining all groups of people by how they feel.

To the people asking why I hadn't responded yet, did it occur that I posted at lunch and then actually have a job I had to do? The child bearing point I'm surprised caused confusion. My point was about women being defined as baby makers, therefore being of childbearing age is of concern that my identity would be pigeonholed as such under such a simplistic definition of being a woman. I also appear to have read far more feminist literature than most of the posters asking me. More than Invisible Women, or K Stock. May I also recommend reading Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville West, the Pankhursts, Gloria Steinam, Judith Butler (please read and understand the difference between 'performative' and 'performance '), Deborah Frances White, Lyndal Roper.
There's also a confusion about definition of 'stereotypes ' - what I listed was a huge range of complex intersecting aspects of our lives - how can that be a stereotype? I fear that for some, 'organs = woman' is just easier to engage with than these considerations.
I don't disagree that different sex organs have different medical concerns. I think it's far clearer to refer to things like a 'cervical smear for people who have a cervix. Partly because not all cis women (and intersex people) have exactly the same organs and needs. It's actually safer to talk about the relevant body parts than 'woman'. It should be a medically relevant descriptor, not an identifier.
Also there was zero disrespect in my post for people who've suffered terrifying things (although none of you know what I may or may not have gone through so don't make assumptions that I don't know terror). We can't police what scares people or how they're allowed to express themselves. This thread has shown me how much gatekeeping there is in the GC community. Thank you to those who responded thoughtfully, without putting words in my mouth.

They'll give their opinion on what FWR is like, and I'm not holding my breath for careful quoting of the points raised so far let alone good faith engagement (you can look up what that means online, OP, rather than hear it from people you've already decided you disagree with)

BINGO!
Thanks OP

I also appear to have read far more feminist literature than most of the posters asking me.

I had my suspicions but I'm now actually convinced this is a parody thread/OP. Er, brava, I guess?

I knew it

I'm sorry this is not kind of me but I am dying at the reading list.

‘ I also appear to have read far more feminist literature than most of the posters asking me. More than Invisible Women, or K Stock. May I also recommend reading Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville West, the Pankhursts, Gloria Steinam, Judith Butler ‘

That’s rude, patronizing and incorrect, and it’s Gloria Steinem not Steinam.

I think it's far clearer to refer to things like a 'cervical smear for people who have a cervix.

Its clearer not for the many women who don't know they have a cervix and for any men who might think they do.

If you take a few minutes to do some research then you will realise the significant numbers of women who are excluded by such inaccessible statements.

A fiver to Floisme you're clearly not new to FWR 😉

No we don’t want to be seen as body parts. Although I have seen marketing copy that does this for female products to pander to TRA

We want to use woman and have it be biologically based and to not erase sex based rights

I have to admit I could never get on with Virginia Woolf.

I prefer to look at the changes that are occurring in the every day lives of most populations.
Particularly there are more women into a wider range of careers than there used to be, many of the worlds senior people are women.
Most countries have plans and targets to continue to improve the ratios.
That is happening now, it might be slow but the examples of countries reverting to old ways are rare. I can only think of the assault on 'the right to choose' in the USA.
Even in those States surely there are more senior police officers or engineers or doctors who are women than there used to be.
Let us support women we know in the activities and ambitions that they choose.

OP, I find your claim that 'person with a cervix' is better than woman in medical information to be classist, disablist and xenophobic.

Please educate yourself. I don't have the emotional energy to do the work for you today.

I'm glad the OP is back. I would very much like to see her response to WeeBisom's excellent post in particular.

I also appear to have read far more feminist literature than most of the posters asking me. More than Invisible Women, or K Stock. May I also recommend reading Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville West, the Pankhursts, Gloria Steinam, Judith Butler (please read and understand the difference between 'performative' and 'performance '), Deborah Frances White, Lyndal Roper.

I don't think you have any evidence to come to such a belief.

From a recent interview with Owen Jones and Judith Butler,

Judith Butler, "I would say that at the beginning of queer theory, and I think I can situate myself among those who were part of its beginning, it seemed that the term queer was important precisely because it moved us away from strict identity categories.

So you know queer means deviating. Queer means odd, awkward, not following in a straight line, not following a developmental model of sexuality or gender or the transition from childhood to adult."

As well as queering the boundaries between sex and sexual orientations, Butler also suggests disrupting the boundaries (and Safeguards?) between adults and children.

I also appear to have read far more feminist literature than most of the posters asking me.

Do you think so dearie? 🤣