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.

Lol as though we were forcing @MotherOffCod to stay for the duration until Mumsnet decided to move the thread 😂

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

Lol as though we were forcing *@MotherOffCod* to stay for the duration until Mumsnet decided to move the thread 😂

😂

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I've been lurking on this thread for ages , MotherOffCod. It's been a while, but wasn't it your post that diverted the discussion?

I don't think the OP was disingenuous at all, and I thought some people posted considered responses that helped me understand where they were coming from. In fact, they made me feel more supportive of a board split! I do wish the thread hadn't been sabotaged by people jumping to atttribute bad-faith to the OP.

Yep, exactly. I think it's hugely unfair that my post was hijacked by bad faith posts and had to be moved.

Like you, I was finding some of the other viewpoints interesting and worth discussion.

Back in the box, though, god forbid women talked to each other politely, eh?

@randomlyLostInWales

How can we discuss abortion rights if we can't name the particular group of people who have this specific medical procedure?

I think I read it in New Scientist in an artiicle a few weeks ago about something and pregnacy and the new phraseology was something like:

pregnant people, this means women, transmen and any other other group like non-binary who can become pg.

It made me stop reading and seek out DH to point it out to him.

But that's perfectly reasonable - trans men can get pregnant? Or are you against referring to 'trans men' at all? It isn't 'people who can pregnant' which seems to rub GC people up, it identifies trans men as a group of people who may be able to become pregnant.

Unless you're against trans people being able to describe themselves as such I can't see your issue with this.

@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.

So you think the existence of trans men is the result of female-led lobbying?

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin. Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.

Yep, exactly. I think it's hugely unfair that my post was hijacked by bad faith posts and had to be moved.

There is a risk this will happen with every thread, if someone doesn't like the subject or discussion just derail and get it moved

Trans women are appropriating womanhood, trans men are trying to escape it. That's the argument, basically.

Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.
Sorry, the above was a reply to this.

So you think the existence of trans men is the result of female-led lobbying?

I think the push to redefine what it is to be a woman is a direct result of a male agenda. I don’t think there is an equivalent female, lobby, no. Nobody is worrying themselves about how dreadfully exclusionary the word ‘man’ is, are they? I wonder why…

@PronounssheRa

Yep, exactly. I think it's hugely unfair that my post was hijacked by bad faith posts and had to be moved.

There is a risk this will happen with every thread, if someone doesn't like the subject or discussion just derail and get it moved

I think it seems if certain posters make posts others will post on that to get the thread moved, too. I got told directly I wasn't allowed in that space - nothing to do with what I'd posted.

@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.

Your argument is really muddled to me. You’re defining female as your biological sex distinct from the word woman yet go on to say that the word woman should be anyone who lives their life as an adult human female - your argument is circular.

It isn’t women who are redefining the word woman.

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin.

Surely if transmen are causing "a wholesale assault" on mens rights then its up to the men to push back against it, or not?
My brother asked me recently why I wasn't bothered about transmen using men's toilets. Apparently as a man he doesn't want them in there. I pointed out that that's his fight to have. Not mine. I'm concerned with keeping female spaces for females.

Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.

Actually I do think different issues are at play for the 4000% increase in teen girls seeking out gender clinic services and men who embark on transition in middle age.

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin. Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The GC position does not have any problem at all with trans people of either sex or gender. The "denying our existence" straw man is just that. What we are fighting for, as feminists, is women's rights, and often specifically single-sex spaces and services. Those are not threatened by anyone who chooses not to use them, but they are threatened by people who assert that they have a right to use them when they do not. Some transwomen assert that, and therefore they feature in discussions about single-sex services, protections and safeguarding more than transmen.

And as you say, there is a massive power imbalance - which feminism exists to resist - and so it is not the same thing to be an MtF trans person as to be FtM. To appropriate membership of an oppressed class - and with it, claim all the things that have been fought for in order to attempt to redress some of the worst abuses and vulnerabilities - is different from trying to identify out of it. That is not to say that some men's spaces don't exist for good reason, and might be threatened by transmen claiming the right to invade them, but there are fewer of them. And also feminism is for women , so those battles will never be at the top of the feminists' list.

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin. Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.

Basically, implicit power vs explicit privilege.

Males in a society shaped by patriarchy have implicit power. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere because it's coded in the culture and built into the everyday functions. It's in how male voices are given more authority than female ones, the default face for a CEO, a judge, a cabinet minister, a comedian, a renowned artist, an entrepreneur is a male one. It's in the traditional working day not lining up with the traditional school day, in the expectation that caring for a family is funded and staffed from private income by the parents and if one sods off tough luck. It's in the way we publicly condemn rape but prefer to let rapists off than ask hard questions about the society that grows them.

Females in that society don't have power. What we have is explicit privileges put in place to balance and protect us - women only spaces, women only shortlists, women only opportunities.

A crucial difference between them, aside from the obvious that male power is far more, well, powerful than female privileges which really just boil down to some limited protection from deliberate or unthinking damage by males, is that the implicit stuff is not easily transferred. It only changes when enough of the culture changes, and it's so so deeply ingrained in the culture now. But the explicit stuff is an act of conscious will to prioritise females, so it's trivial to change by deciding to open up the privileges to other people as well.

So that's the difference. Male power is not at risk from trans men because it's not easily transferrable, whereas female privileges are at risk from trans women because they are.

The simplistic analysis of "A to B, therefore B to A" is only convincing to someone who has never thought even the slightest little but about why things are different for males and females in the first place.

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.

No, your fringe belief is valid but gender critical people don't only include xx chromosomes as female.

Those thousands of years of women's oppression - what was it based on, if not biological sex? Are people seriously arguing it was based on gender identity and that all those millions of women could have identified out of their biologically female bodies?

That's the crux of it for me.

Those thousands of years of women's oppression - what was it based on, if not biological sex? Are people seriously arguing it was based on gender identity and that all those millions of women could have identified out of their biologically female bodies?

That's the crux of it for me.

I really don't think people have thought it through all that much.

@Blibbyblobby

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin. Obviously there are centuries of oppression of women so I could understand that angle if it were only trans women that existed, but it's like trans men either don't exist or are a completely different issue altogether.

Basically, implicit power vs explicit privilege.

Males in a society shaped by patriarchy have implicit power. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere because it's coded in the culture and built into the everyday functions. It's in how male voices are given more authority than female ones, the default face for a CEO, a judge, a cabinet minister, a comedian, a renowned artist, an entrepreneur is a male one. It's in the traditional working day not lining up with the traditional school day, in the expectation that caring for a family is funded and staffed from private income by the parents and if one sods off tough luck. It's in the way we publicly condemn rape but prefer to let rapists off than ask hard questions about the society that grows them.

Females in that society don't have power. What we have is explicit privileges put in place to balance and protect us - women only spaces, women only shortlists, women only opportunities.

A crucial difference between them, aside from the obvious that male power is far more, well, powerful than female privileges which really just boil down to some limited protection from deliberate or unthinking damage by males, is that the implicit stuff is not easily transferred. It only changes when enough of the culture changes, and it's so so deeply ingrained in the culture now. But the explicit stuff is an act of conscious will to prioritise females, so it's trivial to change by deciding to open up the privileges to other people as well.

So that's the difference. Male power is not at risk from trans men because it's not easily transferrable, whereas female privileges are at risk from trans women because they are.

The simplistic analysis of "A to B, therefore B to A" is only convincing to someone who has never thought even the slightest little but about why things are different for males and females in the first place.

💪

Made me think. Great post

Or do only trans women have some apparent agenda, whereas trans men are fine? Or are trans men not fine either? I find some of the arguments about the supposed ulterior motive behind trans existence on here confusing - they assume a wholesale assault on women's rights, but don't seem to assume the same for the opposite side of the coin.

Transmen are sometimes excluded from gay male spaces (gay saunas in particular) because they are female, it gets very little coverage because transmen don't make violent threats, cause property damage it become physically violent when they are refused entry. They are not exhibiting behaviour which makes it difficult for men to maintain their boundaries.

@littlbrowndog

Made me think. Great post

Agreed,

Fantastic post above, BlibbyBlobby 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Well when we are telling black women they are less oppressed than trans women who happen to be white. That’s part of the issue.

Black women are continually being silenced and called phobic when they bring up women’s issues.

Are we going to discuss how basically white men are now telling black women and women of colour that they are now more oppressed than them?

That would be of interest. Because If we really want to get into the white supremacy topic that’s part of it.

Also white women birthed and raise white men. So are just as guilty and part of it. So the entire “evil white men” trope is a smoke screen to let white women off the hook in my
Opinion. Let’s blame white men while we have birthed and raised them and basically taught them the very tools of oppression, bathed them in patriarchy. But white women are innocent. And now that’s rolling down onto black women and other women of colour.

Are we going to talk about that?

Fab post, blibbyblobby

I only caught up with this thread this morning.

It does seem as if some posters have taken the board split to mean open season on “known GC posters”, doesn’t it? Who could possibly have foreseen that, eh?

Sorry that people have jumped to,assume bad faith from you, Arabella. I mean, god forbid that anyone would try to understand how the board split is meant to work by talking about it. The very idea!

If you redefine 'woman' so that it has nothing to do with biology or how female people are impacted by that biology (e.g. abortion rights), then what's left?
If you take away biological sex from the meaning of 'woman', all that's left is sexual stereotypes aka gender.
For me, that's what the opposite of gender critical feminism is.
It's gender-supporting 'feminism': people who are redefining woman to mean the set of cultural stereotypes and social roles associated with women.
GC feminism wants to abolish those so that being a woman doesn't mean you're expected to perform those roles or judged if you don't. It allows for full gender non-conformity.
Non gender critical feminism is the opposite. It reinforces and extends gender boxes and the only difference between that and old-fashioned sexism is that you're allowed to move between boxes.
Personally, I don't think that's feminism at all.