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.

crikey. I'd missed that among the stream of nonsense.

Yes. We all did notice the language trip down a cul de sac.

Abrupt change.

Well yours doesn't, apparently, so why would anyone else's?

The law refers to the identities of woman and man to be part of gender rather than sex.

No. Somebody with a GRC should be treated as their acquired sex in some but not all situations. ‘Gender’ is sometimes used synonymously with sex in legislation, but has no separate legal definition.

I think one of you should correct them on the legal definition of woman.

I have done this previously, but as a that I will again be ignored. So please, provide the actual definition for any lurkers. OP won't get it, but someone with a brain will.

@NiceGerbil

Now 'female people' in scare quotes!

And "male people" as well.

It's funny how selective you people are being, pretending that trans people are specifically "targeting" women by calling the label a gender identity when the very same thing is being said about men as well.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Well yours doesn't, apparently, so why would anyone else's?

Fact

This person has pushed this nonsense across multiple threads. When refuted, they just pop up with it again on a different one.

And yet the UK Equality Act (2010) also defines a woman as "a female of any age" eg a sex (biology) term.

We're also had patriarchy for thousands of years, does that mean it should stand unchallenged?

We HAVE patriarchy, and it remains enforced by men who want to reduce, remove and exploit women's protections to fulfil their own needs.

Identify however you like, and respect that needs require priority over wants.

Let's say for a moment that man and woman are social identities only and nothing to do with sex.

I'd appreciate your answers to s couple of questions.

1. Sex based oppression is and always has been a massive global issue. Given that statements like 'women in Afghanistan were subjected to extreme Oppression under the taleban' are incorrect in this context. What words should be used to describe which half of people were subject to that oppression?

1. When there is an elevated risk to half the population in specific circumstances, from the other half, again due to sex. Why should members of the other sex gain access based on the word they call themselves?

Men Would tell you where to get off more bluntly

Hope youve got someone looking after you tonight gum, or someone you can talk to at least

where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender

"See themselves as". So it's only your own perception of your self. No one else's.

That really hasn't converted the word woman into anything at all. It's simply acknowledging your perception of yourself. One that no-one else has to share and actually can't see either.

We're also had patriarchy for thousands of years, does that mean it should stand unchallenged?

This shite is the patriarchy. It has reached new giddy heights of control of women and girls.

The UK law, the one you frequently refer to as the ultimate authority on the meaning of words, refers to "woman" and "man" as being part of gender.

You aren’t quoting legislation there. You will be aware that there is no legal recognition of non binary identities.

There isn’t really recognition of any identity - just a GRC which is a work around to protect privacy. Why would the government need to categories identities?

@NiceGerbil
1. Sex based oppression is and always has been a massive global issue. Given that statements like 'women in Afghanistan were subjected to extreme Oppression under the taleban' are incorrect in this context. What words should be used to describe which half of people were subject to that oppression?

How is it incorrect? Trans women being included in that category does not make that statement false...

And do you think the Taliban doesn't oppress trans people?

2. When there is an elevated risk to half the population in specific circumstances, from the other half, again due to sex. Why should members of the other sex gain access based on the word they call themselves?

Do you think being of a particular sex makes someone inherently a danger?

Where the word female and woman are used in association with things that affect one sex clsss

www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-call-for-evidence-to-improve-health-and-wellbeing-of-women-in-england

GC people have shown themselves time and time again to be completely unwilling to cede "woman" and "man" to refer to social categories.

Yes, because they already have definitions.

If you redefine 'woman' to mean 'anyone who identifies as a woman', which seems to be what you want, there are two problems.

One, what is a woman? You need to know what a woman is before you can identify as one.

Two, there is no longer a word for the class of humans with a female reproductive system. What word would you use for the class of humans which is currently known as women?

[quote CuriousPanda]@midgemagneto
Law is currently written with the implicit assumption that the word refers to sex
So it's a lot cheaper to keep it as it is

Actually, it doesn't. The law refers to the identities of woman and man to be part of gender rather than sex.[/quote]
Oh what a short memory you have OP, luckily I’m still awake to remind you

It is true that not all seagulls can fly. For instance, a seagull that has sustained a wing injury cannot. Learn not make uniformed universal generalizations, and what "all" means.
"An injured seagull can't fly. I can't fly, therefore I am an injured seagull"
Is that how this works?

No.