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.

It’s not that gender critical people don’t accept that desire, it’s that the change of language forces changes which erode the right of woman to fairness, safety and dignity.

By including fetishistic men into the umbrella of womanhood we erode our right to enhanced safety in public spaces.

By including men who have gone through male puberty into womanhood we allow men to access sporting opportunities which they generally out perform the natal woman.

By including men into the word ‘woman’ we allow men into spaces previously occupied by woman in vulnerable positions such as hospital wards where their dignity can be compromised or for care where a woman can no longer guarantee her carer is a natal female.

Can’t you see that?

You can call yourself what you like. Doesn't mean everyone else has to believe it. Nor can you enforce that belief on others if it causes them distress

@Soontobe60

Since time immemorial human beings have been categorised into 2 distinct groups - male and female. What beliefs people hold doesn’t change that fact. The only times that the incorrect sex has been noted is with babies born with a DSD but luckily for us all, genetic testing is now able to determine without a doubt if a baby with ambiguous genitalia is male or female. You’re welcome.

And? Since time immemorial we've lived in a patriarchal society, this doesn't mean that the status quo should not be challenged.

As I was asking, exactly what is "gender critical" about endorsing gender categorization "as it has always been"?

Ah, well, those are terms that refer to someone's sex.

You can call yourself what you like and use whatever labels you feel like, but you cannot compel other people to use those labels when talking about you or agree that they are correct or agree that using those labels now gives you access to rights and protections reserved for those who the label correctly applies to.

Gender critical recognises that our sex in no way dictates our feelings or outward expression or identity or character.
But it does recognise that people of a particular sex are more often discriminated against and oppressed because of their sex, and also because of the way people expect them to behave and act too - societal gender stereotypes. So being critical of gender means dismantling stereotypes for both sexes but also ensuring that women & girls have the rights, freedoms & protections they need, and that their voices are heard & respected.

@AssassinatedBeauty

Ah, well, those are terms that refer to someone's sex.

You can call yourself what you like and use whatever labels you feel like, but you cannot compel other people to use those labels when talking about you or agree that they are correct or agree that using those labels now gives you access to rights and protections reserved for those who the label correctly applies to.

And this brings me back to the question in the OP. What is "gender critical" about strictly assigning these labels based on someone's genitals?

And why can't I also call myself whatever I like?

You can.

We only insist on separate facilities based on sex where it had been proven important

It's not random, it's not arbitrary

In an ideal world with greater respect between male and female we would expect fewer places with such restrictions, but some will always remain

Unfortunately for gender believers, there is no evidence that their group behaviour reflects anything other than their sex group

And as it happens the vast majority of gender critical people wouldn’t take issue with using preferred pronouns and the like, it’s when the performance of gender starts to impact the actual lives of woman that we take notice.

I suspect I am a lot older than you, I’ve spent years knowingly sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with transwoman (old fashioned transsexuals as they’d have called themselves) without issue, it’s only the recent militant branches of activism that have us standing up and refusing to play along anymore.

@Ihaventgottimeforthis
Gender critical recognises that our sex in no way dictates our feelings or outward expression or identity or character.

Numerous people here have said, countless times, that being born "male" makes people inherently more dangerous and predatory purely by the virtue of their sex.

Sounds to me like many of you do believe sex dictates character.

Think of it like this - people have brains and bodies. Their bodies have a physical sex (male or female) in 99.9% of cases. Brains have no sex - they have personality and strengths and weaknesses.

For a lot of things in society (jobs, exam grades etc), your brain matters and your body is not relevant. Feminists fight against stereotypes and for equal treatment in these areas.

But for a few things, the physical body matters. This includes sport, changing rooms, medical care. Here it is important to classify by sex.

Woman means adult human female and man means adult human male.

Those words to refer to biological sex. When you use the words in any other context it is only possible to use the language in that way and for you to be understood because you (we) actually do know what they mean.

We are sex realists.

You are confusing sex and gender. So many people do and that's what makes the whole 'debate' so circular and vicious.

exactly what is "gender critical" about endorsing gender categorization "as it has always been"?
If you cannot comprehend or will not acknowledge that gender =/= sex then this just becomes circular and pointless.

Strict "sex-based" categorization and segregation, i.e. insistence on calling people "men" and "women" strictly based on their physiology, and forcing them to use separate facilities according to that categorization.

Categorising and segregating people by sex is only necessary in certain very specific situations, not as a general rule in all of society, which is what you seem to be describing. The reason that sometimes separating people by sex is necessary is that sometimes people are vulnerable as a result of their sex. Particularly because one sex has a vastly higher rate of committing sexual and violent attacks on the other sex. We also know that when people are vulnerable due to being undressed they generally prefer being in a space with others of the same sex for reasons of dignity and comfort. Feminists would support additional mixed sex facilities for those who would opt to share space with the opposite sex in those circumstances. It isn't for those few people to throw away the option of single sex spaces for those that need them.

How someone presents and their internal feeling of gender identity doesn't change their sex.

Numerous people here have said, countless times, that being born "male" makes people inherently more dangerous and predatory purely by the virtue of their sex.

That isn’t just made up by “people here”, it’s a fact that men are more dangerous and predatory than women.

As I was asking, exactly what is "gender critical" about endorsing gender categorization "as it has always been"?

You're mixing up sex and gender again. It's not gender categorization it's sex categorization. Do you really not understand the difference between those two words?

You seem deeply confused, OP. So much so that I conclude you’re just amusing yourself trying to make people explain the difference between sex and gender over and over.

On average men are stronger than woman

There is an open question about wether men are innate more violent or if that's just societal ... clearly given the differences in violence world wide, some is cultural. Some does appear to be driven by male hormones

Women can become pregnant , men can't

Within our society, a large percentage of women have been subjected to sexual assaults that leave mental trauma , ptsd etc.

Putting those facts together , keeping make sex offenders out of women's prison makes perfect sense, keeping men and women's changing rooms separate makes perfect sense,

OP you can call yourself whatever you like, you can identify with whatever socially constructed gender you like - of a fluid mix of any of them i fact.

Honestly go for it. You can “feel” anyway you like and you can present any way you like.

But you cannot claim to change sex. And sex is what defines the rights and laws and legalities.

So if you are biologically a woman you will require female focused health care - ie smear tests, monograms, contraception etc etc.
Identifying with the male gender as a biological woman is fine but it doesn’t change the health care you will need.

That’s the difference isn’t it.

Gender critical means we don’t want to be defined by gender - that labels don’t need to exist.

But sex and gender are not the same thing.

So whilst I reject the idea of society placing traits upon me based on my female appearance, I appreciate that I am a woman biologically and that makes me different to biological male.

Gender can’t replace biological sex.

You can’t change biology.

You can identify as female if you wish but you are not female by nature / biology / actual literal physiology / your internal and external body parts and therefore will be restricted in the extent of how much you can “live” as a woman.

I don’t know why gender labels are such a big deal to people who say labelling is restrictive? It’s literally a contradiction isn’t it?

God I’m too old for this argument

And I should add that trans women have the same pattern of criminal behaviour, including sexual crimes, as men.

Finding out more about feminism should help you to understand it better. Try not to think of it as smoothing out differences, but more about smashing the patriarchy, that should give you more insight.

OP seems to think that women all retire to the parlour while the men smoke in the drawing room after supper.

Almost all such social segregation no longer exists. If it did, then you could argue about who should be allowed in which spaces, as the separation is arbitrary and social/conventional. But we've dispensed with the arbitrary segregation. Men and women are NOT expected to play different societal roles.

The very little sex segregation. that remains is for reasons of fairness, or safeguarding, or privacy. And as such it's not arbitrary.

Do you get it? Either the segregation/discrimination doesn't make sense to be sex based, in which case it already has or should be abolished. Or it should remain and be sex-based for rational reasons.

The alternative is fully private facilities for everyone.. single wards with security cameras over the door, separate toilet cubicles with basins and san bins snd electronic sweeps every day

Expensive