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.

@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.

Pages behind.

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.

A British person is someone who has full citizenship rights in the UK. You can ask the Windrush Generation or Shamima Begum why this is important.

It's all very well navel-gazing about the definition of 'woman' or 'British' and pretending words can mean anything you want them to but these are luxury beliefs.

Our rights depend on the law, which is made out of words. That's why we need clear definitions. We're not doing this for fun.

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 only ever hear things like this from nationalist groups. I absolutely would say 'hang on ...' and I would point out that there are a fuckton of people living and working in the UK who are not British and we couldn't do without them and why shouldn't their lives be improved too? And there are an absolute fuckton of children in UK schools who are not British and don't they also deserve a decent education?

@PotatoBasedSnacks

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

Yes.

Unfortunately for both camps, it's a club for life. You cannot join and you cannot leave...

I think it comes down to whether you accept that women don’t have to be biologically female. I do and therefore think these women should be protected alongside all other women.

You really can't blame posters for continually coming back to 'what is a woman?' when faced with posts like this.

If being a woman is not dependent on being female then it must depend on something else and there has never been a clear answer on what that something else is.

If being a woman is not dependent on being female then how will I know if I am a woman or not?

You say 'these women should be protected alongside all other women' but that has no meaning if 'women' has no meaning.

You could just as well say 'these people should be protected alongside all other people' and I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

But we're here to do feminism.

To my mind, non-GC feminism doesn’t focus on ‘woman’ as a biological thing, but rather on ‘woman’ as a social construct

Woman as a social construct is precisely what gender is. So how can feminism that focuses on that be non-GC?

@LangClegsInSpace eloquently put

Our rights depend on the law, which is made out of words. That's why we need clear definitions. We're not doing this for fun.

Very well put.

Indeed. The only thing that makes me a woman is that I was born female and was lucky enough to make it to adulthood.

Only biology. Take away that definition and I don't know what anyone is claiming a woman to be.

As my OH is a man, again defined by his biology, I do know a man is not a woman. We were lucky enough that our respective and different biology worked well, arising in offspring which relied on dimorphic sexual reproduction.

Even when OH has long, rock star hair. Even when I wear his t-shirts.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Our rights depend on the law, which is made out of words. That's why we need clear definitions. We're not doing this for fun.

Very well put.

I agree with this

You have the right to request that you are treated by someone who is biologically female if you wish.

Tell that to Clare Dimyon.

And read the report by Standing For Women:

4 NHS trusts (2%) affirmed that they recognise the exception in the Equality Act 2010 where being of a particular sex is an “occupational requirement” and were prepared to offer female-only services to those patients who made that request

www.standingforwomen.com/nhs-and-police-report

@Holly60

You can’t prove TWAW, you can believe it, as I do. You have the right to choose who examines you, and to refuse to be examined by anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable, for any reason. You have the right to request that you are treated by someone who is biologically female if you wish.

Please listen to us. This is happening. We are not angry about nothing. Women are being told to shut up and accept males in our personal spaces, when we feel most vulnerable.

Why don’t females feelings of validation and safety matter to you?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-branded-transphobic-after-asking-for-female-medic-3jh3snddt

I'm inclined to think of it less as gender critical and more as material feminism. It's essentially class analysis. Outside of the trans stuff its typically anti-porn and anti-prostitution / sex work.

@MarshmallowSwede

Do white women birth and raise white sons? Have white women benefitted from the very patriarchy we live in and white supremacy? Yes and yes. Look at how women In western and Northern Europe live compared to women in Africa and the Middle East. Or look at how Native American women and First Nation women in Canada have to deal with. Or black American women in America as well. There are so many systems set up by white men, that oppress All women, but disproportionately affect women of colour much much worse. And we can’t just blame the white men.. so we don’t bare any responsibility from benefiting from white supremacy? Is that it?

All you have to do is ask any woman of colour how white women currently are using the “white men are bad” excuse to get off of the hook for the very same patriarchy that has victimised and exploited women of colour.

If you really can’t see how problematic it is blaming white men as bad while at the same time raising and birthing them and expecting to get off of the hook for the part you play, then you need to go speak to women of colour.

And it’s the typical response of white women who when called out on this to say it’s victim blaming. I’ve had many women of colour bring this topic to my attention and I thought since we were going to have discussions I would be one to bring up.

For example. Trans women who are white telling women of colour they are more oppressed and that women of colour are wrong for focusing on their issues which are women’s issues, and if if trans women are not centered in their feminism then they are wrong. Or calling them “white feminists”. Which we all know means to have a self centered, navel hazy, whites only focus on women’s issues. This idea of inclusiveness is pushing women of colour to the side for white trans women to benefit. Meanwhile the sisterhood of feminism is totally abandoning women of colour for white trans women to feel good about themselves.

And I say white trans women are leading the movement because if you follow the money trail, it is white trans women funding the movements in the US, which seems to direct the movement globally.

So feminists supporting this trans movement are basically supporting white supremacy. That whole “trans women of colour”’thing is a smoke screen. How? When biological
Women of colour barely have their concerns heard in feminism as it is. Black women are constantly binned in with trans women for inclusion? Hello.. black women are women. Not men. That plays into the stereotypes
Of black women that hurts them.

Pray tell me, how a white Western European man (no matter how he identifies) is more oppressed than a black American woman? If a white Swedish trans woman had the audacity to say this to me I think I would vomit.

So this is what I mean. Who has given white men this level of entitlement from birth? You think they just raised themselves? They just decided at the age of five to be entitled on their own? Our whole society, which we participate in enforces their entitlement. So yes white women are half of the blame.

White men are bad, white men are entitled, white men oppress. That’s throwing rocks and hiding your hand. I mean black women and other women of colour keep saying this. Are we listening at all?
No because as soon as they say it we get offended and say it’s victim blaming. Yet want them to support feminism but won’t even know examine our own role in white supremacy and supporting the very patriarchy we claim to want to do away with.

Your response was a perfect example of white feminism btw. Nothing about my statement is anti woman. You or anyone is free to refuse to examine why you as a white woman don’t see how you helped create the very monster you rail against. Aka white men.

I suggest you have a discussion with a black British woman or black American woman or other woman of colour for greater insight as they can give you better input. And perhaps some advice as to how we can do better.

Feminism for biological women is barely inclusive, yet here we are having trans women pushing women aside.

And who is getting the short end of the stick? Way more than any white woman. Women of colour.. we are all getting a bad deal. But the added little insidious, evil of white supremacy in the pro trans movement is definitely affecting women of colour way more than us.

So I want to again ask.. how is a white trans woman from Western Europe or Scandinavia for example more oppressed, or have it worse than a biological woman of colour?

There is no way any white man in Sweden or anyone in Scandinavia in general more oppressed than any person of colour. I can say this with confidence no matter their sexuality or how they identify.

If I have learnt anything from feminism, it is the refusal to accept responsibility for things that are beyond my control. You are not at fault for what you cannot prevent. Ever. I don't care if that is global climate change or an illness or an accident or indeed violence or rape. If someone tells you that it is your fault when you did everything you could to stop it, that is victim blaming. If you blame women for the actions of men, that is misogynistic victim blaming.

Do white women birth and raise white sons? Yes, sometimes. Do white women benefit from white supremacy? Yes. Neither of those things means that they are responsible for the actions of men - any more, indeed, than all men are responsible for the actions of other men. Are you genuinely saying that a mother is responsible for the actions of her children? Am I, who only have a daughter, less culpable than my (equally feminist) sister, who has sons? If they grow up to oppress women, is that her fault? If my daughter grows up to internalise misogyny in ways that damage her or others, is that mine? If a woman of colour has sons who also perpetuate the patriarchy, is she equally culpable, even though the patriarchy affects her more? Are mothers, in fact, by definition more culpable - because having children at all perpetuates the patriarchy somehow, regardless of the choices those mothers make - than childless women? None of this makes sense. Of course we all have a responsibility to interrogate our part in systems which oppress, particularly when we are privileged by those systems - but that means changing our own thoughts, our own actions, our own behaviour. Emphatically NOT anyone else's (although that might be, indeed probably is, the ultimate aim). If the point you are making is that we all participate in a system that oppresses people, that we cannot ever extricate ourselves entirely and that therefore we are all more or less culpable... well, yes. Certainly. But that, while it may be true, tends to distract from the need for wider social and structural change. Tell mothers that they can solve it all by raising their sons differently, and - oops - no one is looking at the governments, the laws, the mechanisms that reinforce inequality.

I think the urge to blame is the flip side of the urge to assert control, because it is actually less shitty to imagine that we are Bad People who Could Do Better, than to realise that we may well be powerless. It is comforting to believe that the struggle is all about individual choices and behaviour, rather than that we depend on social change and other people coming together. Current liberal feminism has a strong strain of that, I think, with the myth of choosing degrading things as 'empowerment', and feminist action being about 'leaning in', changing oneself in order not to have to change society: let's believe that if we don't achieve equality it's our own fault, because the alternative is that we are vulnerable. And that's true of victim-blaming too. (It won't happen again, because I know what went wrong. This time I'll do something different. I won't say that. I'll go home a different way.) And yes, it is misogynistic.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with your analysis of the power balance between a white transwoman and a woman of colour. But it seems to me that you focus on the wrong question. The intersection of other axes of oppression is important to feminists, for good reason. But it should not matter to feminists whether a particular male is more or less oppressed than women, because feminism is for females. If your feminism demands that you focus on everyone, according to a scale of how oppressed they are, then it is not feminism. We can choose to focus on women. That is what makes us feminists. It doesn't stop us supporting other fights, it doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to do good elsewhere, it doesn't make us nothing but feminists. But it is OK to use your energy to fight for women - whatever and whoever else needs help.

Finally, I think a previous poster has already asked that we don't assume everyone is white.

I suppose for me a working definition would be anyone who lives their life as an adult human female

What does 'living as an adult human female' (when you were born male) actually mean though? Can you give examples of things that constitute 'living as a woman' which aren't just stereotypes that in no way actually make you a woman (and indeed which plenty of natal women don't do)?

For example, if wearing dresses, skirts and make-up, having a typically female name, liking hobbies traditionally popular with women, or using the pronouns 'she' and 'her' are not things that actually make a natal woman a woman, and if a natal woman can choose not to do any of those things and still be a woman... how can any of those things possibly make a natal man into a woman?

You haven’t had an answer lazylinguist. I’d love to know the answer to your question but proponents of gender identity ideology always disappoint.

Maybe they could just admit that they embrace sexist stereotypes and that those of us who don’t like being sexually submissive (womanhood according to Associate Professor Lavery) wearing high heels and make up are somehow less womanly than any person who does.

Then they could try to explain how embracing sexist stereotypes is in any way feminist.

Plenty of people who consider themselves GC are not feminists but just how can you be a feminist and not criticise the imposition of gender stereotypes?

Girls can like sport, Lego, woodwork, cars and dinosaurs. None of that makes a girl into a boy.

Girls can have short hair and hate dresses. Clothes and hairstyles don’t change a girl into a boy.

Boys can like ballet, embroidery, dolls and soft toys. None of these things turn a boy into a girl.

Boys can wear long hair, glitter, pink, frills and dresses. Clothes and hairstyles don’t turn him into a girl.

If people could accept children as they are they wouldn’t feel the need to alter them with drugs and surgery to fit their hobbies and clothing choices.

You haven’t had an answer lazylinguist. I’d love to know the answer to your question but proponents of gender identity ideology always disappoint.

Indeed. And if someone answers "Well of course it's not a love of dresses, quilting and eyeliner that makes a TW a woman!", we have to ask "Well what is it then?"

I just don't understand why it's seen as more woke and progressive to aspire to be in the opposite gender-stereotype-box or invent new gender-stereotype-based boxes for oneself than it is to opt out of all gender stereotypes and just be yourself.