How is it "gender critical" to impose rigid binary social categories based on sex?

[CuriousPanda]

For most of history, the whole point of feminism was to oppse sex-based segregation and restrictions that were imposed by patriarchal society.

So I don't see how supporting strict gender categories, and simply calling them "sex-based" instead, in any way leans itself to "gender abolition".

One might get impression that "gender" is simply being used to mean trans people existing, and "gender abolition" simply means restricting trans people from being able to transition and use different gender labels. And basically nothing else.

With "sex-based rules and restrictions" being basically just gender roles but trans-proofed.

@Ihaventgottimeforthis

Thought-raping trans people?

Somebody's on a wind up.

I believe someone is

@CuriousPanda I'm on the app, don't have pages. Timestamps for those posts would be helpful, or you could just simply quote the offending parts.

@NecessaryScene

Is Titania McGrath honouring us with her presence?

@Yepyes is the one who first use the utterly ridiculous phrase of "thought rape".

Also, what a revealing comment. Titania McGrath is a reactionary account persistently mocking feminists, progressives, anti-racists, primarily followed by right-wing conservatives.

What a fine company you have.

I’ve heard it all now.

thought-raping trans people

Let me get this straight…you mean imaginary raping imaginary identities?

Or imaginary raping real people?

Or imaginary raping….well, let’s just give up now, shall we?

Right now I could be imaginary raping all sort of things/people/whatevers. You might not be able to even tell if I was forcibly deflowering Boris Johnson with an imaginary vegetable. The horror! Arrest me now!

[quote Yepyes]@BlueberryCheezecake

But the panda said they wouldn't stop at disagreement.[/quote]
They said they'd continue to disagree with you. Which they absolutely have a right to do, and describing it as rape is disgusting and manipulative, frankly. I'm sure CuriousPanda would rather you stopped too, so by your definition aren't you thought raping her too?

Social identities of "man" and "woman" that our society had constructed around sex, are gender.

Yes. A social construct. That does not presuppose a woo world of gendered souls and innate feminine essences. It's just how humans make sense of sex.

@CuriousPanda
Ah c'mon, I'm just joining in with the 'ridiculous made up shit just to make some weird point that has no bearing in reality' shenanigans.

I just wanted to join in your fun, play nice.

Also, what a revealing comment. Titania McGrath is a reactionary account persistently mocking feminists, progressives, anti-racists, primarily followed by right-wing conservatives.

What a fine company you have.

Or a sense of humour when faced with absurdity and pomposity?

Let's try again. For SOME men, dressing in stereotypically feminine attire IS a fetish, and not an 'expression of gender identity' any more than any other kink is. is

It's Stonewall that has decided that they too belong under the 'trans umbrella'.

[quote CuriousPanda]@Yepyes
Someone pushing something you don't want on you when you've said no is though.

You are pushing unwanted gendered label of "man" and "woman" on trans women and men respectively.

Stop thought-raping trans people.[/quote]
🕴🦈

@Yepyes

Basically: The more you insist of "woman" specifically meaning "adult human female", the more we will insist on trans women being female

So.. thought rape?

@Ihaventgottimeforthis @irresistibleoverwhelm

Your pal here is the one who claimed that "someone pushing something you don't want on you when you've said no" is "thought rape".

Pushing the identities of "man" and "woman" on trans women and trans men respectively is doing precisely that.

Same way money and laws are a social construct, and thus in reality, they're a social construct?

"Money" and "law" are abstract concepts humans created. Biological sex is not, it pertains to one of two and only two reproductive roles for our species, as defined by two and only two gametes.

Blibbyblobby

No one is trying to restrict how people can dress or feel, but you are trying to restrict how people are allowed to identify themselves.

Again, what this individualistic trans ideology can't or won't see is that an individual's identity is not the sole yardstick by which everything must be measured.

When you claim membership of a group you don't just label yourself, you label everyone in that group as being like you.

So when a trans woman claims the label woman, she is asserting firstly that everyone under the label Woman shares some mental or emotional characteristics with her that are not shared with other males, and secondly that the physical body and the social experiences that come tied to it are not relevant to being a woman, which has the implicit result of taking all these things which are hugely significant to the lived experience of half the population, the root cause of female oppression, and dumping them outside the remit of feminism altogether.

And it is reasonable that people may object to being relabled without their consent with an identity they don't have.

A trans woman who says she is as woman, equivalent to me in all meaningful ways, has chosen to label herself with a label I already had. But that was only possible by changing its meaning. So in labelling herself she redefines me either as a Woman in her image not mine, or as not a woman at all.

What gives her the right to claim her identity by denying me mine?

The gender ideologists are obsessed with who gets to use which labels, and the horror of being labelled with a name you don't accept. But they totally miss that when they redefine labels that others already have they are doing exactly the same thing.

☝️This.

[quote CuriousPanda]@MidsomerMurmurs
We are critical of gender ideology. A man can dress however he wants.

You've had people in this very thread supportive of shaming men as "fetishists" for dressing feminine. You are patently dishonest.

"Gender ideology" is just code for trans people existing. You just oppose the existence of trans people, you have no issue with gender norms otherwise.[/quote]
No.

Some males dress in stereotypically female clothes as a fetish. That doesn’t mean all males who wear stereotypically female clothes are fetishists. Logic 101. A->B does not mean B->A.

There’s loads of people with fetishes for things that are not especially sexy to everyone else. Gasmasks were a big one after the second world war but that didn’t mean everyone wearing a breathing mask was a fetishist.

And, because no man, woman or non-binary identity is an island entire of itself, there is also a very interesting side topic about the sexualisation of females in our society and how that intersects with both the gendered risks female-bodied people face from males and the social pressures that lead to male and female trans identities, but you don’t have the foundational awareness yet to even start thinking about that one. Maybe I’ll start another thread some time.

@CuriousPanda I’m really sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but “identities” don’t actually exist. They’re just narratives and stories we tell ourselves. Where is an “identity” in the world? How can one be pushed on anyone? They’re made up ideas in our heads.

You lost me at “thought rape” - you seem to have grown up with a male privilege that a woman would never use, to describe “hurt feelings” when the shocking, and very real denial of identity as even a human being, is the reality of rape. I couldn’t ask you to understand, as it’s something only a woman could do.

So you're saying sex is defined by reproductive function, correct?

Does that mean that infertile or sterilized individuals are sexless?

You really haven’t thought much about this have you?

You can only treat infertility or control fertility if you can identify the gamete that a human or animal has the potential to create. Specific medical conditions can interfere with the ability to produce gametes, but mammals cannot change sex.

Reasons for infertility - e.g. menopause, consequences of surgery - are sex specific.

[quote CuriousPanda]@AssassinatedBeauty
No one on this thread has shamed anyone for being a fetishist, or decided that a man is a fetishist for dressing in a "feminine' way. Quote it or retract.
Plenty of the people in this thread called a perceived male a "crossdressing fetishist" for wearing a dress. I won't retract shit.

Look up the posts made on the last 5 pages by @RedDogsBeg and @Wildgarlicpesto, starting with page 10.[/quote]
So, in case anyone else was wondering about this:

@CuriousPanda made an assertion that:

GC feminists frequently label perceived males as perverted fetishists for the mere act of wearing a dress.

RedDogsBeg only response that mentioned fetishism was -

There are men who achieve a sexual thrill from wearing clothes usually associated with women, this is not new it has been around for a long time.

This is a factual statement, and isn't implying any hint of perversion or shame. Nor is it suggesting that all male people wearing clothes usually associated with women are fetishists.

WildGarlicPesto said in response to your comment about the image you introduced -

You were shocked that women correctly identified it as fetish wear. Honestly are you really this naive?

You then made several posts trying to deny that the french maid's outfit worn by the man in the image was fetish wear. French maid's outfits aren't clothing that women typically wear, apart from in a fetishistic sexual context. It is incredibly silly to try to suggest that people are wrong to label a man in a sexualised french maid's outfit as fetish wear.

None of this in any way proves or shows that feminists typically call men wearing dresses "perverted" or fetishists or shame them for it.

Are you sure you won't "retract shit"??

We are not pushing an identity

Call yourself what you like

Judy don't push your identity on anyone else . It's your keep it too yourself

And don't get upset if people won't use words the ways you demand

If I define the word "love" to mean I'll murder you , I doubt the police would care if someone said love you to me . My delusion isn't anyone else's responsibility

Give over mate, you are sounding like a loon.

I showed the story of the 'woman' who assulted the child in Canada and all my colleagues jaws were on the floor.
One young woman said 'how come noone knows about this?'

Your movement has no support amongst the general population. It only survives due to secrecy. Does that no tell you something?

Your pal here

Oi! @CuriousPanda
I'm not their pal, stop mis-friending me

How dare you, that's literal violence!!

If I define the word "love" to mean I'll murder you , I doubt the police would care if someone said love you to me .

Exactly. Have used a similar analogy before. Words rely on a common understanding.

I think it was something like this. I've decided that "tickling" can include strangling. That's my reality and we are all entitled to our own. Tickling is a minor annoyance. So strangling someone is too. As is anything else I decide is under the tickling umbrella.

Sorry eresh , things do get repetitive and I don't always recall whose ideas I am echoing ( after giving them thought and approving )