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.

[quote CuriousPanda]@PhiRhoSigma
If your suggestion is that humans can actually change their biological sex, then you really have gone down the flat-earther rabbit hole.

Yes, they can. Humans can change their biological sex. Sex is merely a sum of physical components, and many of these components can be altered with HRT or surgery.

It's not a "full switch" or anything like that, but as medical technology advances, there are more and more things we can change.[/quote]
Hilarious

It’s this pernicious ideology that insists the only possible way is total redefinition for everyone of what it is to be a woman or a man

It’s a completely toxic ideology that insists that people are only ‘valid’ to the extent that their perception of self is endorsed by others.

@CuriousPanda

Here's a "national treasure" Grayson Perry talking at length about his transvestism.

This is a quote from him.

"Does he still find it sexually exciting? “Oh yes,” he shouts excitedly. “Yeah!” But there is a problem, he says, with being a very public tr*. You mean, you couldn’t be seen at the Royal Academy in a nice frock and a stiffy? He nods enthusiastically. “You couldn’t do it. If I could manage it, I’m sure I’d be thinking how to do it. But I can’t.” He pauses. “My days of a spontaneous erection are long gone, anyway,” he adds a little sadly.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/04/grayson-perry-dress-tranny-art-who-are-you-tv

That's a link title, not my words.

He's been given a gong by the Queen and went in his fetish wear. I do think you are projecting your discomfort with cross dressing into women here, it's actually your "shame" issue, not ours.

@Secondbellini

Male teachers are not comparable to trans women in women’s spaces because male teachers go through a prolonged vetting and recruitment procedure, as do female teachers.

Exactly - DBS checks.

Only read about half of the thread but where I've got to it's yet again back to words.

The word woman means adult human female.

'what it means to be a woman' is an age old male preoccupation. How do they think? Why are they so unknowable? Are they sexually voracious or cautious? Are they both at the same time? Why do so many not do as they're told? Why are so many mentally unstable? Etc etc

Feminists have commented on this as well, a lot. About how men are what men say they are and women are what men say they are.

Feminists go with woman is adult human female which is the way it's generally used in day to day life.

The OP and others use the second ie woman is a set of behaviours and stereotypes which change through time and history and at the root are applied by men for what they think women should be in that place at that time.

Using the second leaves no word for the adult human female half of the world. And redefines the word woman to mean massively different (around the world) male imposed expectations as what we are full stop.

casts anything other than total capitulation as an act of unjustifiable hatred.

This is it. It's quite an unhinged way of considering others and their needs and rights.

@chickenyhead

So is lolita wear now mainstream? I mean I see it in public, but lolita is erm...

I am left with the impression that the hideous frock might actually be popular in China? Maybe most of their customers are actually men and they didn't realise till that fella posted his photos!

I'm frequently seeing GC feminists applaud statements like "dresses are for girls, not for men",

No you're not.

Example.

In some countries it is not the norm for women to cover their hair but if they wear a veil that does not make them not women.

In some countries not wearing a veil is seen as immoral and could result in various consequences from raised eyebrows to enforcement via other citizens, the police, the law. (Depending on where you are).

So which is correct for a woman? To cover hair or not? If woman means social role then is one of these women not a woman? If a woman goes to a country where hair covering is a fundamental expectation does she stop being a woman? If she covers her hair but doesn't actually want to, is she a semi woman? I suppose, non binary or similar?

To take our words and change the definition to such a varied set of expectations. And leave us no word.

Sounds like the men who decide what we are have won big time.

@ScreamingMeMe

I'm frequently seeing GC feminists applaud statements like "dresses are for girls, not for men",

No you're not.

You've got us mixed up with religious fundamentalists of various types.

Easy mistake to make

Well yes, screaming, the use of ‘girls’ is an interesting choice.

Well done, everyone who has courteously continued replying to the OP's increasingly wild assertions. I'm signing off now because he'll continue till he falls asleep, with no sense, no evidence, just regurgitated dogma and an unshakeable belief in magic.

And to draw a comparison between the FACT of the oppression our sex has been subject to all over the world and all over history. Through various means. That results in the injury, torture and death of women and girls around the world every day

With the changeable ideas around how women should behave and act which are forced on us. And punishment for but confirming can and too often does result in injury, torture, death that I just mentioned.

To support an argument that the roles violently enforced are all that women ARE.

is cheap and callous.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Well done, everyone who has courteously continued replying to the OP's increasingly wild assertions. I'm signing off now because he'll continue till he falls asleep, with no sense, no evidence, just regurgitated dogma and an unshakeable belief in magic.

I think 'thought-rape' was my favourite new atrocity. I know yepyes used it in jest but it's frightening how quickly and unironically OP adopted it.

If she covers her hair but doesn't actually want to, is she a semi woman? I suppose, non binary or similar?

And what is the effect of the veil on her need for contraception? Endometriosis? If she isn’t wearing a veil how does anyone know that she should be wearing a veil? Would anyone care if she said she wasn’t actually a woman?

@NiceGerbil

And to draw a comparison between the FACT of the oppression our sex has been subject to all over the world and all over history. Through various means. That results in the injury, torture and death of women and girls around the world every day

With the changeable ideas around how women should behave and act which are forced on us. And punishment for but confirming can and too often does result in injury, torture, death that I just mentioned.

To support an argument that the roles violently enforced are all that women ARE.

is cheap and callous.

Like the whole thread.

Still no proof that woman legally means gender, not sex.

Ho hum.

Not sure why the OP is here tbh, other than to enjoy arguing. There's about 0% chance they will convert anyone here to their way of thinking/ The points are so poor I assume we're dealing with a teenager who is getting their kicks telling women to bend physical reality to suit their beliefs or ideas.

@merrymouse

Well yes, screaming, the use of ‘girls’ is an interesting choice.

Indeed.

TRAs love to spin the idea that anyone with GC views is a right wing conservative Kinder, Küche, Kirche type. It's so desperate. Obviously nobody wants to be that sort of person. TRAs assume all otherwise disinterested people will hear is that accusation. They won't hear the "it's fine for someone with a dick to be in a woman's changing room/prison/woman's healthcare group/sport. Or that most males who get a GRC keep their dicks.
But they will hear it.

'I got that idea from the fact you insist on using masculine and feminine labels and pronouns on people who very much do not wish to be referred to that way'

I don't want to be referred to lots of things based on my physiology, I don't want to be diabetic, or overweight, or short sighted but I just am. That's the body I was given. Shall I try telling my GP that I'm identifying out of being diabetic and I don't need insulin anymore because I find it offensive

Why do you call yourself a woman.

I don't. I know I am one and that is what anyone who saw me would say I was if asked... Because woman means adult human female.

If someone (an alien?) said what are you I'd say a person. A human being.

If they said what sort then it's goes into other facts and identity I suppose. I'd say I'm middle aged, I live sci fi, I have 2 kids, I live in London, I've got a disability which means I can't do X and y, I love music and going out to gigs and clubs.

Girl/ woman were never and are not things that I have as part of my identity. It's a fact I was a girl and I am a woman because of my sex.

I've been a trans ally since 1996, when my colleague transitioned M-t-F and travelled to Thailand for surgery. And then again in 2010, when another colleague transitioned to M-t-F but opted for no medical intervention and chose to just dress and live as a woman.

Both of my colleagues acknowledged that they hadn't suddenly become biological women. Why would they? They knew they were still biological men.

To be honest if anybody is refusing health checks based on their biological sex, then that is their look out and it is their health they are putting at risk. If you've got a prostate or a cervix please, regardless of how you identify or what your pronouns are, get it checked out. But you have no right to expect the NHS to go out of its fucking way to pander to you and your requirement to have a smear test for the cervix you don't have.

The NHS is desperately underfunded. Critical and key services have been cut to the bone for both adults and children with significant and life limiting conditions. So I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for prostate havers who now identify as women being called in for mammograms because the NHS records gender rather than biological sex.

In the past, non GC posters used to come on the FWR boards and even if you disagreed with them, would make a sensible argument which might make you consider things from a different aspect. Miss Barbary was a good example of this - you might not have agreed with her, but at least you could appreciate the arguments she put forward.

There have been posters over the past few months whose arguments are so beyond any understanding of reality that they cannot possibly believe what they're saying. It's complete nonsense. It just means we spend pages and pages arguing about definitions which are obvious to anyone of the human species.

@BelindaBumcrack

I've been a trans ally since 1996, when my colleague transitioned M-t-F and travelled to Thailand for surgery. And then again in 2010, when another colleague transitioned to M-t-F but opted for no medical intervention and chose to just dress and live as a woman.

Both of my colleagues acknowledged that they hadn't suddenly become biological women. Why would they? They knew they were still biological men.

To be honest if anybody is refusing health checks based on their biological sex, then that is their look out and it is their health they are putting at risk. If you've got a prostate or a cervix please, regardless of how you identify or what your pronouns are, get it checked out. But you have no right to expect the NHS to go out of its fucking way to pander to you and your requirement to have a smear test for the cervix you don't have.

The NHS is desperately underfunded. Critical and key services have been cut to the bone for both adults and children with significant and life limiting conditions. So I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for prostate havers who now identify as women being called in for mammograms because the NHS records gender rather than biological sex.

This. ^^

And this is where I get really frustrated.

Some people obviously have an internal gender ID. Trans people by definition. What that means to them will vary massively. For some it's sex dysphoria, about the sex of their body feeling wrong and I understand this would be really difficult to experience. For others it could mean other things. To do with feeling more aligned to sex expectations (gender role) that is associated with the opposite sex. I don't know. This is why it's undefined. It's an internal feeling and likely to vary massively between individuals.

So far so good.

But then then those who agitated for trans people to be more accepted/ understood.

Claimed that.

1. Gender ID is something the vast majority of people have a strong internal sense of, and that it's core to who they are...

But there's never been any major studies I don't think? Reliable ones where the question is clear. That it's not about sex or clothes or anything but about the core components of your sense of self.

1. The majority of people are cis. Another massive assumption.

And then it really shows what's going on when...

1. Those who say. I don't have an internal gender ID. And are also saying no to stated gender being more important than sex.

Are called Cis anyway. All the time. That's misgendering. A no no. Unless you disagree. Then you lose any right to self define. The label is imposed anyway.

So the whole thing is based on assumptions which need to be made to support the arguments made in favour of dismantling everything single sex. And there needs to be a large cohort of cis people in order for those with trans IDs to make their arguments powerful. As if in fact most people are not cis. That fucks the whole thing up.