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.

I want to see gender as an identifier of people gone altogether. It serves no purpose other than to classify a group of people into something oppressable. I understand why trans people are fighting so hard to be classified as they feel correct but with gender relegated to simply a medical description, they could just be people like everyone else.

I think that is the only way we can be free. Men and women stop being the only two ways people are primarily defined. It becomes insignificant. There will be people who become pregnant, people who impregnate people. People can love and fancy anyone they want without it defining them or placing them as 'abnormal' Vs societal norm. People can decide if they will stay home after the birth of their baby, unrelated to having given birth themselves or not.

Male or female is only relevent medically. Like whether you have risk factors for X,y,z. It actually doesn't need to have any place in society.

Prisons and sports may need separate handling.

I'm still thinking it all through but why do we need male/female at all?

Re a thread about smears, certain people would indeed consider it exclusionary for you to say that only women need smear tests. They would say trans men or non-binary females do too.

I would hope that even TRAs know that trans women do not need smear tests, but actually there are plenty of examples of trans women infiltrating things like menopause support groups, so there may be no limit to their >

I'd genuinely like to discuss all of those things as I think they impact on more weight lifters than what is currently a single trans woman competing at an elite level which the overwhelming majority of athletes will never reach. @Potteringshed the usual response to that is "How many women is enough?" The woman who got pushed out of contention WOULD have reached that level if were not for Hubbard! And others who did not compete in other categores/levels also lost out. because they were told not to put their hat in the ring because Hubbard was entering. One man and how many New Zealand women? One man and how many women across the sport?

One man and a precedent set and cemented. How many others? How many more women losing out?

I am a sports scientist, I could bore the hind legs of anyone who wants to discuss physiology and biomechanics

@Imcatmum

I want to see gender as an identifier of people gone altogether. It serves no purpose other than to classify a group of people into something oppressable. I understand why trans people are fighting so hard to be classified as they feel correct but with gender relegated to simply a medical description, they could just be people like everyone else.

I think that is the only way we can be free. Men and women stop being the only two ways people are primarily defined. It becomes insignificant. There will be people who become pregnant, people who impregnate people. People can love and fancy anyone they want without it defining them or placing them as 'abnormal' Vs societal norm. People can decide if they will stay home after the birth of their baby, unrelated to having given birth themselves or not.

Male or female is only relevent medically. Like whether you have risk factors for X,y,z. It actually doesn't need to have any place in society.

Prisons and sports may need separate handling.

I'm still thinking it all through but why do we need male/female at all?

We really do need male and female categories. Head over to the Sex/Gender board for some examples of why.

@Imcatmum if genders are only relevant for medical reasons there's a handy way to define those... chromosomes.

@jellybeansforbreakfast

You were the perfect person to ask- because, gently and respectfully, you answers tend toward disowning responsibility.

There are so many great resources to explain why colour blind mentality upholds WS, and that is very connected to your point that history is esoteric.

May I recommend the Recent BBC podcast Human Resources? It digs into UK history and the impact of slavery on ALL parts of the uk and current culture brilliantly- I had so many lightbulb moments listening to that.

Male or female is only relevent medically. Like whether you have risk factors for X,y,z. It actually doesn't need to have any place in society.

It does due to male violence and safeguarding of women / females

Is this chat or debate who knows

@Imcatmum Exactly! Gender (I.e. societal expectations, labelling of personality, pink/blue boxes etc) is bollocks. There are a few specific circumstances where sex matters - and where it matters, it is definitely sex, not gender, that matters. So it is always unnecessary and oppressive to reinforce gender.

But presumably some non-GC feminists here will be able to argue the opposite case...

(For the audience of doubt I am including calculations of risk, violence, reproduction, general medical things, sport, etc - not only things that are directly down to physical difference but also statistically, demonstrably associated with sex and necessary for protection or safeguarding.)

So on one hand...

People can decide if they will stay home after the birth of their baby, unrelated to having given birth themselves or not.

but

Male or female is only relevent medically.

I'm sick of maternity leave being painted as some jolly where a woman has a nice break from work, rather than the reality of recovering perhaps from a difficult birth that's resulted in ongoing medical conditions. You say it's only relevant medically but you're failing to acknowledge it in that exact example. A denial of why being female and female biology matters.

And it matters in so much more than just medically.

I think that is the only way we can be free. Men and women stop being the only two ways people are primarily defined.*

I also think it's really sad the the suggestion for the only way we can be 'free' is to suggest that sex only matters when it comes to medical matters, rather than to continue to fight for equality for women, who let's face it are the group who aren't 'free'.

Sex really matters in risk assessment. And in criminality.
It's not just a medical issue, though as a medical issue it's huge and impacts so many other areas.

You were the perfect person to ask- because, gently and respectfully, you answers tend toward disowning responsibility.

And gently and respectfully, as long as you are not personally oppressing people of other races, it's ok for racial politics not to be your main focus. It's ok to think feminism is solely about women's rights and that modern theories such as queer theory and intersectionality aren't actually the last word on it.

I've said on many threads, the kind of people who boast about how "intersectional" are are often the kind of people who deny the importance, and sometimes the existence, of biological sex. If there are intersecting axes of oppression being born female is probably the largest oppressed group. The original concept was about being female and having that oppression compounded by other forms of oppression, eg black women falling through the cracks of affirmative action programmes benefiting white women and black men. It's been traduced. By holding males up as having an equal right to speak for and instead of females, even when what they say isn't in our best interest, it's lost its way.

And they could discuss that campaign in the new topic.
So Pumper you would post the thread , link to the campaign material and then tell us that we can't discuss it here?
How will that work?
If the removal of the word woman is relevant to the discussion about getting women tested for cervical cancers, why would it not be part of the discussion?

If the campaign

And once again, thus would never happen to another group.

Presumably includes transwomen?

I think MN has quite a few male readers, who can join in any of the threads. Obviously some threads are less relevant than others.

and just feel like I'm not well enough informed to have an opinion

In what sense? What do you feel you need to know?

Ereshki, well said.

This thread is about feminism. Feminism centres women. Other social injustice happens. Fight it. But do not call it feminism unless it centres women.

We have the right to fight for ourselves, without shame, without apology, and without helping everyone around us first.

@jellybeansforbreakfast - so, sure. Have those discussions over at sex & gender. Those are what you think is the single most important issue facing female weightlifting. But I'd really like to discuss these other issues which I've faced and which I see young women struggling with now, and I think it's a positive that there is a space now where this can be discussed without the conversation derailing and ending up exclusively focusing on the one woman who isn't on the NZ Olympics team.

And gently and respectfully, as long as you are not personally oppressing people of other races, it's ok for racial politics not to be your main focus. It's ok to think feminism is solely about women's rights and that modern theories such as queer theory and intersectionality aren't actually the last word on it.

Agreed. Feminism and women's rights, safeguarding children is my main focus. I'm a young single mum who has escaped an abusive marriage and needed the help of Women's Aid. As a result of my life experiences my focus is on VAWG and all issues related to feminism, and anything that threatens the rights of women, and as a mother, anything that threatens the safety, health and well-being of my children.

There are many, many women who would like to talk about other aspects of feminism but have no space to do so because you are loud, very loud.

Deathbypostitnote, I don’t understand this. Some others have said it too. But we are not jostling with each other for room in a confined space. Anyone can start a thread on any topic. The title can make it clear, if you wish, that this isn’t about gender. A glance down the board shows numerous different topics.

@Ereshkigalangcleg - I have a mediocre grade in GCSE biology. I have no fucking clue whether strength comes from testosterone or from bone density in puberty or whatever. So I place my trust in scientists and doctors on the relevant committees to have those debates.

I couldn't say much more except "I'm stronger than those men and weaker than those and have never competed against a trans woman". How does that help anyone?

@ifIwerenotanandroid

Pumper: that looks like the one.

I can’t see anything in there that says you’re not allowed to talk about smear tests.

Also I think some posters here are missing the point of the OP. You can think that trans issues aren't what you want to focus your feminist energy on, and that's fine. I believe that the world is round, I don't want to debate it endlessly, I want to talk about other things, even when I'm thinking about geography I don't want to only or mostly read threads that argue endlessly about the shape of the earth... but that's the basis of my approach, if someone asks how we should calculate flight paths or whether Cornwall should be on GMT I take it into account, because nothing else makes sense. If you're not a GC feminist - and by that I mean you don't agree, not that you just don't want to talk obsessively about it - what is your fight about? How do you define feminism if it isn't based on sex?

@Imcatmum

I want to see gender as an identifier of people gone altogether. It serves no purpose other than to classify a group of people into something oppressable. I understand why trans people are fighting so hard to be classified as they feel correct but with gender relegated to simply a medical description, they could just be people like everyone else.

I think that is the only way we can be free. Men and women stop being the only two ways people are primarily defined. It becomes insignificant. There will be people who become pregnant, people who impregnate people. People can love and fancy anyone they want without it defining them or placing them as 'abnormal' Vs societal norm. People can decide if they will stay home after the birth of their baby, unrelated to having given birth themselves or not.

Male or female is only relevent medically. Like whether you have risk factors for X,y,z. It actually doesn't need to have any place in society.

Prisons and sports may need separate handling.

I'm still thinking it all through but why do we need male/female at all?

How on earth does it become insignificant?

You don't think there's a chance that the new ontological category of 'people who impregnate people' might just carry on the status quo as they always have?