Intersectionality and being female

[Blibbyblobby]

Intersectionality is the analysis of Feminism recognises that women as individuals suffer oppression due to membership of more groups than just Women, in particular race, and that not only do women suffer alongside men as members of marginalised groups, but also that the sexism they suffer as women is shaped by the intersection of those groups and so takes a different form to women not in those groups.

As I understand it, the gender ideological view is that humans are men or women (or other genders) because of something in their mind rather than their body, and therefore male bodied people with a gender identity of woman are “real” (whatever that means) women and should be treated as women in all ways, including having their experience of womanhood included within feminism.

And that analysis of intersectionality is extended by some to include trans women as women suffering oppression in the intersection of woman and transgender, while so-called “cis” women do not have that additional oppression due to being trans.

But so-called “cis” women are by definition female-bodied. And whether you believe that biological sex is a real thing or just some colonial construction, you cannot deny that culturally it has been extremely significant whether ones body is female or male, to the point where the female half of the species has been seen as literal property of the male, body and soul, disempowered in law and in practice.

So given that history, surely even those feminists who see trans women as women with an intersection of oppression must also recognise that women with female bodies suffer the intersectional oppression of Woman and Female, and therefore Feminism that is truly intersectional must recognise the needs of female-bodied women as valid and not always aligned with male-bodied women.

It simply is not valid to say you care about intersectionality when it comes to trans women but ignore it when it comes to the huge axis of historic oppression that is physical sex.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly and have made this argument before with people proclaiming 'intersectionality'. But they are so immersed in the framing that being 'cis' = having privilege, that they have not been able to acknowledge that being born with female reproductive biology is its very own axis of oppression. It's maddening.

Yes, there seems to be a valuing of certain types of oppression over others. Consideration of class is frequently omitted altogether which I find unfortunate.

It very common these days to see the gender identity ideology pushed on the grounds that it's "intersectional" and no strand of feminism is valid unless it's "intersectional". But the way "intersectional" is used looks to be a simple adding up of the oppression points, and because trans people are the most oppressed of all, then this gets them a default position of coming first.

"Intersectional" is yet another terms that's been stripped of (much of its) meaning.

I think many people use 'intersectional' when they mean 'inclusive.
The modern interpretation of intersectionality seems so far removed from the original, I feel its an insult to the woman who first described the issue and named it.

Intersectionality originally described the place women stand when they have two characteristics and as a result are not protected by the equality legislation designed for either characteristic.

It simply is not valid to say you care about intersectionality when it comes to trans women but ignore it when it comes to the huge axis of historic oppression that is physical sex.

Agree and like Jeopardy I've also made this argument, but I think most people claiming to be "intersectional" in a general sense are just using it to prop up either a sort of vague #bekind "inclusivity" or actively weaponising it on behalf of the TRA agenda.

Good read here.

reneejg.net/2017/06/intersectionality-with-your-honey-bumbles/

Yeah. I know I’m preaching to the choir a bit, but I think it’s useful to get away from whether or not the core assertions of gender orthodoxy are valid and highlight that even measured entirely on it’s own assertions it doesn’t hold up.

Fundamentally, if “women” didn’t used to include male people and now it does, everything that existed for women before that change has to be revised to take account of the group now being mixed sex.

All of this relies on you accepting that make people can be women. If you just stop accepting this as a fact then you don’t need to bend over backwards to make woman/female intersect. They’re already the same thing for anyone who is critical of gender as a concept. Making is do linguistic gymnastics to name our own oppression is frankly bullshit. I know what you’re saying, but I just think that it gives weight to the idea that a male person can be a woman, when my own belief system, which is a protected characteristic, says that isn’t so.

Ffs male - stupid phone

Ironically when people say ‘my feminism is intersectional’, what they often mean is ‘I prioritise inclusivity at the expense of intersectional analysis’.

Exactly merrymouse.

UK based personal viewpoint (Woman, English, City)

No matter where in the world you go: everyone recognises, and understands, Female and male.

To commit good, or evil.

For good actions, and evil actions.

Acting in such a way that others may perceive you as the opposite sex is as old as time.

It has been a (heartbreaking) necessary action for females: so that they do not get raped, or killed or #metoo

Let's have it real.

The non-reciprocality of pretty much everything is one of the hallmarks of this political position.

ie:

It is wrong to label people in ways they do not choose for themselves or to enforce your language upon them.

But it's fine to call female people (as opposed to all women) 'cis' even when they have repeatedly expressed that it is offensive and they don't choose to identify as such.

No one can say what someone's identity or sense of self is but the person themselves.

But it's absolutely unacceptable for a female person (as opposed to all women as recognised by this political position) to state that their sense of self is female homosexual or sex based.

Be kind and do not criticise or argue with other people's beliefs.

Unless they're a female person disagreeing with you.

Intersectionality is very important.

Unless a female person's intersectionality prevents one of this political position's key agendas; then them and their particular needs should just get in the sea/in the bin/other bit of adolescent rudeness.

Inclusion is crucial and exclusion is wrong.

Unless it's female people being excluded; that's perfectly ok and their fault.

No one should have to go into a bathroom/changing room/prison and be afraid of assault, or without privacy and dignity.

Except female people, whose needs conflict with bits of this political position's agenda.

All these values at face are ones few people would disagree with, but a few minutes of listening to all this makes it very clear this is mere lip service and marketing, nothing sincerely held at all. It's all purely and explicitly heads male people win and tails female people lose.

Excellent points, completely agree.

@CousinKrispy

Yes, there seems to be a valuing of certain types of oppression over others. Consideration of class is frequently omitted altogether which I find unfortunate.

It’s all a bit Top Trumps, isn’t it?

The idea of intersectionality is useful to explain that e.g. black women suffer from racism and sexism.

Transwomen suffer from discrimination for being trans and, where they pass as female, they may be subjected to sexism too. However they usually have been socialised into male privilege too, and may still receive it where they don't pass or are known to be trans too.

The problem with intersectionality for females is that it is often accompanied by the expectation that it is the job of feminists/females to fix all the various injustices in the world and that mere sexism is to come last.

E.g. the expectation that feminists rather than men say should be sorting out refuges for men affected by domestic violence, or transpeople affected by male violence etc.

Or that it's trivial for Western women to want greater equity whilst women in other countries don't even have access to birth control or adequate laws against male violence.

It's not that I don't think people shouldn't care about many issues, so much as it's generally used as a "shut up, you could have it worse, that's enough equality for now".

Sorry to add to what I said above, black women also suffer specific stereotypes and discrimination that black men and white women don't.

@MarkRuffaloCrumble

All of this relies on you accepting that make people can be women. If you just stop accepting this as a fact then you don’t need to bend over backwards to make woman/female intersect. They’re already the same thing for anyone who is critical of gender as a concept. Making is do linguistic gymnastics to name our own oppression is frankly bullshit. I know what you’re saying, but I just think that it gives weight to the idea that a male person can be a woman, when my own belief system, which is a protected characteristic, says that isn’t so.

Sort of / not exactly.

It's more about pointing out that even if someone believes that male people can be women that belief does not negate the need for female-specific support and provision.

On the contrary, as soon as you believe that a male can be a woman, you create a separation between woman and female that did not previously exist and therefore also create the possibility of female-specific provisions or analysis that are not "Women's" and therefore not open to trans women.

To me that's the effective challenge that Feminism should to be making to the gender ideologists. Arguing about who is or is not a woman, or even whether or not sex is real, means wasting energy on deflecting accusations of bigotry, and that's allowing the false accusations to frame the debate.

I think there is power in shifting the focus to the undeniable and observable fact that bodies like ours have been and still are oppressed regardless of how those bodies are labelled at any particular point in time.

If you look at it like that it almost doesn't matter whether someone believes TWAW or not. What is important is getting the provision and support that female bodied people need.

If you look at it like that it almost doesn't matter whether someone believes TWAW or not. What is important is getting the provision and support that female bodied people need.

I'd agree, except that the concept of gender has been used to deny women the chance to do things like vote. Definitions are important.

You are trying to use reason and logic to appeal to a belief system. It never works.

Plenty of transwomen insist they are not just women but female as well. And in the gender identity religion a woman with a male body is always more oppressed than a woman with a female body.

The intersectionality paradigm creates a hierarchy of victims or oppressed groups. The more oppression points you garner, the more you are respected and deferred to within this paradigm. Thus it provides a very tempting form of motivation for people to find more and more "intersections" so they can climb up the victim totem pole and claim to be more oppressed than others.

Human beings as a species seek status and importance. Most do it through accumulation of wealth etc. The intersectionality paradigm provides a form of status and importance if you follow the rules of the game.

You are trying to use reason and logic to appeal to a belief system. It never works

Not appeal to it so much as bypass it. I think getting pulled into the TWAW debate is allowing the gender ideology to set the terms of debate. I think there is power in saying "yeah, sure. So given that, how do we fix this?"

@Blibbyblobby

You are trying to use reason and logic to appeal to a belief system. It never works

Not appeal to it so much as bypass it. I think getting pulled into the TWAW debate is allowing the gender ideology to set the terms of debate. I think there is power in saying "yeah, sure. So given that, how do we fix this?"

I understand your angle, but from the gender believers point of view, there is nothing to fix. Only cis males are the problem. Any solution has to include ALL women including the ones with penises.

Not appeal to it so much as bypass it. I think getting pulled into the TWAW debate is allowing the gender ideology to set the terms of debate. I think there is power in saying "yeah, sure. So given that, how do we fix this?"

The problem is that when you are talking about concrete rights and protections, as opposed to theories of feminism, it's difficult to think of any situation where internal gender identity rather than sex is relevant. Obviously somebody can experience discrimination because of their perceived sex, but that will not be based on an insight into their soul.

You are always going to run into problems when a rights system designed to protect objectively classified groups regardless of their innate identity (It's illegal to sell alcohol to minors however grown up they feel) confronts a belief system that is completely invested in affirming innate identity.