I don't much care for the 'gender critical' handle. Is there anything better.

[JustcameoutGC]

I am relatively new to the Women's versus trans rights debate. Despite my very lefty leanings, I have ended up on the gender critical side for a few reasons. My training as a scientist, my sense of fairness, my personal reaction to the attempted erasure of language like 'women' and 'mother' and the hideous places that he total enforce t of TWAW takes us.

However, I really don't like the terminology of gender critical feminist. I would much rather be defined by what I do believe in rather that what I am critical of. And I am not critical of gender per se, it is the pseudo religion of gender ideology that I have a beef with.

I know sex is real, and immutable
Sport needs to be fair for it to work
Women on jail need to be free of worry about rape
Women need single sex spaces

Is there a terminology that frames this position in a less negative way than 'gender critical'?

*I'm just interested when you have personally been asked to validate somebody's identity.
Genuinely interested"

Everyone has a trans acquaintance who doesn't pass, or you haven't lived.

I am tired of all labels. I prefer to think things through for myself, make the arguments that I believe in and live my life and make my choices moment by moment. Labels can be helpful in finding like minded others, accessing services, helping understanding etc but they can also be limiting and dehumanising.

@JustcameoutGC

In work, several gender neutral / non binary trans individuals with a range a pronouns, which our SW influenced training has said we must observe.

To me this is asking me to deny the evidence of my eyes and ears and to validate the chosen self professed identities of individuals through the compelled use of pronouns. In my book anyone can refer to themselves any which want they choose, but expecting me to do likewise is compelled validation.

So really this is more to do with you objecting to how people identify rather than this perceived request for validation?

Transgender folk don't want your validation they just want to be left alone.

I think you like most people who are obsessed with Stone Wall lose sight of the fact that the genuinely transgender are not the same as the people who self id.

Probably best to fight Stone Wall rather than Transgender folk.

I have campaigned for gay rights, life long feminist, socialist, in my soul I feel I should be a real ally to the trans movement, to work together to figure out how we accommodate TW alongside women who have been abused and Muslim women and young women in ways that all our needs are met.

But in the debate as framed by SW, that is not an option on the table. Transwomen are women, for all purposes and in all circumstances, and anyone who says they are a woman is one (and indeed you can be a woman on Monday and a man on Tuesday).

This extreme stance makes it impossible to define women and protect our rights. It ignores the very obvious safeguarding risks. It ignores the impact on women in sport. It opens the door to erasing homosexuality, to telling lesbians it is bigoted to reject a partner because they have a penis.

I hate that I am agreeing with Liz Truss. That I have had to turn my back on the Labour Party. But here we are. Despite my lifelong political beliefs, I cannot deny material reality. Sex is real and immutable, and sex combined with gender stereotypes is the basis of the oppression of women and girls. It is not possible to identify out of oppression.

I agree OP. I view myself as:
Pro women
Pro men, people, children
Wanting to reduce inequalities
Wanting to uphold protection for those who are more vulnerable - safeguarding children, safeguarding autistic children, disabilities. Upholding single sex spaces in public places and human rights dignity, privacy
Pro live and let live. As long as people do no harm then people should be free to live the life they want. I have no problem if adult Bill wants to put on a dress and be called Mary, for example.
Feminist, but also a humanist. Will stick up for men’s issues too such as reducing stigma around mental health.

Truth is almost very important to me. Truth, fairness and balance. I believe that terrible things can be allowed to happen once we turn away from the truth. I believe that there are truths - the Earth is round, humans are descended from apes, Covid is a real virus, climate change is real, and there are XX and XY chromosomes which make men or women. These are truths whether I want to believe them or not.

These are my moral compasses.

@Imasoulman, I think you are pointing out that the trans umbrella as defined by SW is a very broad church indeed, which does not necessarily benefit all those within it equally. I see that and have read the contributions of several trans people on these pages who feel very disenfranchised by SW.

But they have become so influential in defining the language and policy and definitions in this space that their definitions dominate any discussion of trans rights.

Trans people deserve to live as full, happy and peaceful a life as everyone else. I would happily work for that to happen, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the rights of women and girls.

As I said your fight is not with Transgender folk, it's with Stonewall.

Stonewall don't really give a toss about Trans rights.
They won the fight for gay rights and then realised that they had made themselves redundant without a revenue stream and so jumped on the Trans bandwagon.

You are being lead astray, everyone needs to rebel against Stonewall.

I hear you, and my dearest wish is that we can find some common ground and figure this shit out, but as long as SW is seen as the organisation that is the voice of the trans community, I don't see that happening.

Sorry should have said...
Truth is always very important... was that a Freudian slip?!

I think you like most people who are obsessed with Stone Wall lose sight of the fact that the genuinely transgender are not the same as the people who self id.

It's transphobic to suggest that people who identify as transgender aren't 'genuine'. Isn't it? To identify as trans is to be trans - acceptance without exception. Loads of people have come on here to tell us bad feminists this.

SW do not care about genuine dysphoric people - women have rubbed along with dysphoria people forever and found a way to understand and respect one another.

SW is trading in plain old fashioned misogyny along with the likes of OJ and his new best friend - fellow misogynist Frankie Boyle etc who just use trans umbrella as something to pat themselves on the backs for being ‘inclusive’ whilst excluding biological males they do not accept or understand. The added bonus is they get applauded for hating women not doing as they’re told and having an ‘opinion’ . Stupid women....

@CardinalLolzy

I think you like most people who are obsessed with Stone Wall lose sight of the fact that the genuinely transgender are not the same as the people who self id.

It's transphobic to suggest that people who identify as transgender aren't 'genuine'. Isn't it? To identify as trans is to be trans - acceptance without exception. Loads of people have come on here to tell us bad feminists this.

I think the two groups I mentioned are different, again and I don't want to sound like a stuck record but Stonewalls ridiculous marque sized umbrella is not helpful to anyone.

I am Transgender myself but still feel strongly that female only spaces, womens rights etc need protecting.

Ironic that my own thoughts on this could be considered transphobic but that is how j see it.

NRTFT but, if asked, I just say I'm gender logical.
My argument is that the notion of "gender" is a made up nonsense that has no basis in anyone's lived reality.

As far as I'm aware, "gender critical" isn't even about the trans issue specifically?

It's rather about feminists that reject the idea that gender has an underlying realness to it.

So strictly speaking (?) they couldn't say that men were inherently more aggressive and violent. Rather, they would have to say that this is social conditioning and this role has been imposed on men by the circumstances of the society we live in.

That's an interesting empirical question that deserves research, but it's not something that's a straightforward truth or "common sense".

Probably most people I'm guessing would reject it and think that gender roles are part social construct, but part grounded in real differences in gender. (Whether or not that turns out to be the correct view.)

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

Pro-reality?

Love it !

“Common sense-ist”?

Binary feminist.

Reality based?

Feminism is critical of gender roles and stereotypes by default.

So just feminism. Radical means root, (biology , female) so rad fem.

Really, to be truly 'gender critical' there needs to be analysis of male stereotypes and how damaging they are to men as well as women. Because, both sets of stereotypes are ultimately why we are in this mess. The little boy I taught with asd who now seems to be transitioning as and adult just wanted to wear dresses. Was happy with his body.

Societies with extremely rigid gender roles seem to be the ones where "third " sexes culturally evolved in order to deal with individuals who didn't comply/ fit the gender role binary.

I can put my gender critical hat on, especially for factors affecting children, but swap it for feminism as a lot of issues in this specifically negatively affect women's rights in this.

Hi OP. My cynical tuppence, for what it's worth, is that any term you choose will be turned into a slur by those who would seek to denigrate the views it's supposed to encapsulate.

So I wouldn't spend to much time and heartache trying to come up with the perfect moniker!

@JustcameoutGC

So, I think gender does exist in the form of gender stereotypes and expectations. I think gender identity is total bollocks. Maybe we should be gender identity deniers. GIDS. What could go wrong?

Unless you accept those stereotypes and expectations completely aren’t you criticising them?

I think 'gender critical' is perfect.
Gender is nothing more than the sexist expectations of how female people are 'supposed' to behave. Gender is nothing more than pinkification and stereotypes.
Gender is pretty much the astrology to sex's astronomy.
Being critical of gender is simply being critical of sexually stereotyped expectations and structures, no matter where they come from or if they claim to be progressive but aren't.
I think 'gender critical' does what it says on the tin.

I'm just interested when you have personally been asked to validate somebody's identity

Stonewall and others are encouraging organisations to ignore sex because they believe that recognition of sex invalidates identity.

The more organisations ignore sex, the higher up the Diversity Champions chart they rise.

The fear of invalidation of identity is used to drive policy.

Thank you for this thread. I'm uncomfortable with the state of the general discourse on self-identity and worried about the impending expectation of things like pronoun announcements in my organisation, but lacked coherent counter arguments in the face of a widespread well-meaning acceptance of the new dogma. I've been reading this board a lot to get my thoughts together. I fully take PPs point above that the coercive approach from Stonewall isn't representative or advantageous to all transpeople but it dominates the debate. I do think that 'feminist' still represents my views best and in a way this new threat to single sex spaces and the definition of women is an opportunity to reclaim some ground that has been eroded by a hyper-accommodating approach adopted (or perhaps presumed) in the wake of earlier wins.

*self-identity isn't the right expression, I probably should have said gender identity

I describe myself as having mainstream views in regards to gender as most of the population have the same views as me in regards to TW in sports, prisons etc. So yeah, Gender mainstream.