So, what is 'non gc' feminism?

[ArabellaScott]

Hello, all.

What does feminism that isn't about sex/gender look like?

What subjects does it investigate?

What aims does it have?

Would be good to hear from those who didn't feel able to post before.

Should have been bold on the first two paras

It’s not a normal part of the life cycle. It’s the result of male-led lobbying centring the interests of men’s wishes and needs

This.

How you can anyone live as anything they are not born? How you can one live as cat if they are not born one? It makes absolutely no sense. ... unless you see "cat" as a role or a set of behaviours or stereotypes, of course. Or unless you think that artificial stripes and fur are all it takes.

@dreamingbohemian

My biological sex is female. I don't think 'woman' is as simple as biological sex, that is where we differ obviously.

I think the definition of 'woman' is currently in flux, that is why we are all having such fierce debates about it. This is a normal part of the norm life cycle -- the contestation over how to define social norms. At some point a consensus will re-establish itself.

I suppose for me a working definition would be anyone who lives their life as an adult human female, whether they were born as such or not. Yes, there is a certain fluidity to the definition but I think that's okay, this is normal for most aspects of identity.

I mean, can you define British? Who is a British person? What if they are born abroad to British parents, can they still be British? What if they come to Britain in their 30s and live here for years, can they become truly British? Interestingly, on that last question, some British people would say yes and some would say no.

And yet, despite this apparent muddiness, there is not really a problem in understanding what we mean when we say things like, we want to improve the lives of British people, or we want to help British children get a better education. We don't all stop and say hang on, how are you defining British? We focus on the main issue.

I think that's really what feminists like me want. We just want to get on with things. There is not much confusion, in real life, about what a woman is or what we mean when we talk about women's rights. Trans women are a tiny minority of women in the UK. Yes, there are important issues around inclusion, but these are not insurmountable.

Actually- this whole post- I just... wow. What self indulgent rubbish.

... neither of which, I would contend, lead to very effective lobbying on behalf of the feline community.

(Oops, sorry, Strawberry , it was an afterthought.)

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It’s not a normal part of the life cycle. It’s the result of male-led lobbying centring the interests of men’s wishes and needs

This.

Exactly

I can’t believe women fall for this tripe

Feminism Chat is for everything BUT the inclusivity debate.

Good point. That's why I'm finding all these "why won't you go off to your silo and leave us in our space" comments a bit odd. This is not your "safe space". It's not reasonable to expect other perspectives to be silenced. There are issues which are general feminist issues which may benefit from a sex based class analysis, as well as including other perspectives.

I read some of these posts and feel so sad for my DC. I'm only 33- things were not like this when I was a child. When exactly did science/biology stop being respected? What a world.

My biological sex is female. I don't think 'woman' is as simple as biological sex, that is where we differ obviously.

I suppose where I differ is that I think it is very simple that woman applies to a human of the female sex. Only reason I am a woman is by dint of my biology.

Would it not be better to come up with a name for the status you refer to as not so simple.

Also, it seems strange to not have a word that precisely and accurately identifies half of humankind.

Also, it seems strange to not have a word that precisely and accurately identifies half of humankind.

Especially when the language to describe the other half is never touched. What a surprise.

@dreamingbohemian so if trans women are not female, what are they?

[quote AmIPeriOrAreYouJustAnnoying]@dreamingbohemian so if trans women are not female, what are they? [/quote]
Male. You know, having been born as boys and all that.

I mean, can you define British? Who is a British person? What if they are born abroad to British parents, can they still be British? What if they come to Britain in their 30s and live here for years, can they become truly British? Interestingly, on that last question, some British people would say yes and some would say no.

Being British is a not a biological category.

There is also a miserable irony in the fact that this thread, which I took as originally being an opportunity to suggest some areas of discussion away from the fucking trans thing has now deteriorated into flat out "so what is a woman?"

They all do!

@Potteringshed

There is also a miserable irony in the fact that this thread, which I took as originally being an opportunity to suggest some areas of discussion away from the fucking trans thing has now deteriorated into flat out "so what is a woman?"

Yes and it wasn’t GC feminists who brought it up.

It’s not meant to be on here but if non GC bring it up that’s what you get.

I'm very confused.

I thought biological essentialism is the philosophy that people's hobbies, life goals, personalities, skills and so on were determined by biology, e.g. the idea that girls innately don't like football because they are girls, will like crochet, won't be able.to read a map, and innately are repulsed by careers in STEM.

I take huge issue with That Which Must Not Be Mentioned, because I think it is essentialist and it pathologises men and women who don't conform as "born in the wrong body" in order to shore up a sexist, erroneous philosophy!

So I am very confused to hear that I am the biological essentialist. I don't think having an opinion on what words mean makes me a biological essentialist.

What do/did other people think it meant?

Clearly someone here is wrong, if people taking the opposite point of view both think the other is a biological essentialist!

My biological sex is female. I don't think 'woman' is as simple as biological sex, that is where we differ obviously.I think the definition of 'woman' is currently in flux, that is why we are all having such fierce debates about it. This is a normal part of the norm life cycle -- the contestation over how to define social norms. At some point a consensus will re-establish itself.

Is this for real? No wonder ordinary women don't believe in feminism, when somebody can come out with this.

I read a book by a feminist philosopher, Mari Mikkola. She essentially argues for a kind of feminism that isn't focused on women. She thinks the wrong that feminism seeks to address is the dehumanisation of women. But wait! Men can be dehumanised too! So feminism should be expanded to be a project to end all dehumanisation because dehumanisation is bad. She has a whole chapter about how men are raped too, and feminism is too narrow and focused on female rape victims only and so the goal of feminism should be to end ALL rape not just the rape of women. In fact, feminism is harmful because it focuses too much on women and leaves men out (how terrible for the nasty ladies to focus just on themselves.)

So you can have something called 'feminism' without a focus on sex or gender. My problem is, I don't think it's feminism. Mikkola doesn't dwell very much on questions that to me are obvious like - who is doing the raping to whom, and why? Who is dehumanising whom?

I think I'm not properly 'gender critical' I think, as I believe there are significant average differences between the sexes in terms of interests and attributes. I'm aware this is seen as unscientific but it's been my overwhelming experience, which I find difficult to discount, even allowing for the influence of culture and parenting.

I still think I'm a feminist though (others may disagree), and still believe in strongly advocating for women.

This thread is a massive example of why people don't like posting on the board and why people want a space which is not dominated by GC feminists.

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

Most importantly I want a space where I can debate the feminist issues I care most about without having to define what a woman is. Can someone explain to me why this is such a big problem?

This is the top google def of biological essentialism, which sounds like what I thought it meant.

QUICK REFERENCE

The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture). The concept is typically invoked where there is a focus on difference, as where females are seen as essentially different from males:seegender essentialism. The term has often been used pejoratively by constructionists; it is also often used synonymously with biological determinism.See alsoessentialism;comparestrategic essentialism.

www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507973

@BeBloodyBold

This thread is a massive example of why people don't like posting on the board and why people want a space which is not dominated by GC feminists.

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

Most importantly I want a space where I can debate the feminist issues I care most about without having to define what a woman is. Can someone explain to me why this is such a big problem?

I wish non GC would but that means you have to avoid the topic too

Amd iirc the first response to the definition question was put this on the sex and gender board

I believe feminism can cover all people who identify as women. It's a belief just like the GC belief that feminism should only cover people assigned female at birth with XX chromosomes.

Deliberately goady nonsense. Being a woman isn't a belief, it's a biological reality.