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.

OP wants to use woman solely as a gender term.
OP presumably has no problems with Ruby here (accused of sexually assaulting a 6 year old boy) calling themself a woman.
Should the 6 year old boy have to describe their terrifying experience to police and court as carried out by a woman?
Presumably OP thinks Ruby should go to a women's prison if found guilty?

This is the consequence of using woman as a gender based term.

It is only logical to use the word 'woman' solely to describe the reproductive sex class of adult human females.

No matter how much anyone pretends that the definition is contested, everyone knows what a woman is, because each person on the planet who has ever lived was born from one.

Doesn't matter how long or short her hair was, how tall or short, how strong or weak her body was, how masculine or feminine her thoughts were, how big or non exisistent her boobs were, how uncomfortable or not she felt in her body - all of them women, female, mothers.

Women are resisting the hijacking of their word and turning it into a gender term. It is is emphatically NOT a gender term, it is simply a way to describe our sex.

female pig = sow
female deer = doe
female horse = mare
female chicken = hen
female sheep =ewe
female human = girl/woman

Sows, does, mares, hens, ewes, girls and women are not gender terms, they simply describe the female sex class of a species, distinguishing them from their male sex class counterparts: boars, bucks, stallions, cockerels, rams, boys and men.

So a position that 'woman' is a gender term is ontologically incorrect. Otherwise a person believing this would need to argue that animals have a gender identity...

Transwoman/transman are gendered terms, feminine and masculine and their derivatives are gendered terms.

But a position that asserts that "transwomen are women" and that "transwomen are female" is illogical because of the fallacy at the heart of transgender ideology where simultaneously sex =/≠ gender.

In have however said if you will give us alternative words I will consider giving you woman
But you refuse it seems
You don't want to reuse the word woman
You want to hide what it stands for

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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 belief that women are fragile delicate flowers, inherently weaker than men and thus in need of constant sheltering, is the patriarchal belief, actually.

Why do you think patriarchal conservatives are backing "gender critical" stances on this issue? It's because your arguments line up with their beliefs 100%.

In UK law, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, with a person’s legal sex being determined by what is recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a GRC. A trans person who does not have a GRC retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for legal purposes.

Taken from here...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

@ANewCreation
No matter how much anyone pretends that the definition is contested, everyone knows what a woman is, because each person on the planet who has ever lived was born from one.

So, womanhood is defined by the capacity to give birth.

Yes

The capacity , if nothing is broken

Women are inherently weaker than men

Unless of course you are using some as yet undefined version of the word women

@midgemagneto

Yes

The capacity , if nothing is broken

So, where does that put women who cannot give birth? By your definition, they're either not women, or "broken" women.

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

Being of a particular sex where one presents a significantly higher propensity to impose threat and harm to he other.

Yes.

@midgemagneto

Women are inherently weaker than men

Unless of course you are using some as yet undefined version of the word women

Which is exactly why this thread is so long.

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

Again with the individualism.

No, being of a particular sex does not make someone inherently a danger. However statistically, males are more likely to be dangerous than females. So in circumstances where unknown males (as in, males about whom nothing is known other than that they are male, and therefore no additional data is available to rule them out of the risky category) can encounter unknown females in states which have statistically proven to increase the risk for females eg undressed and/or unobserved and/or imprisoned, males must be regarded as a risk to female safety.

Incidentally males are an even bigger risk to male safety, but again since we can’t identify which are the dangerous ones until they are dangerous, we can’t do much to separate them. However since the danger between males and females is split along simple sex, it is possible to manage it by managing male access.

[quote CuriousPanda]@ANewCreation
No matter how much anyone pretends that the definition is contested, everyone knows what a woman is, because each person on the planet who has ever lived was born from one.

So, womanhood is defined by the capacity to give birth.[/quote]
I suppose you could put it like that, because that is what a female reproductive system is for. And the class of people with a female reproductive system (whether complete and working or not) are called women.

If you were born with a male reproductive system, you're not a woman.

Trans women being included in that category does not make that statement false...

It does if you insist that trans women are women, but then refuse to explain why or even explain what a trans woman is. The category becomes meaningless.

I agree that anyone perceived to be female can experience direct sex based oppression. However that is imposed externally and has no connection to personal feelings about identity.

Indirect discrimination e.g. restricting women’s ability to access employment by failing to accommodate pregnancy affects women as a sex. Again, there is no connection to gender identity.

If you care about rights rather than affirmation of ego, identity is always irrelevant.

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

Supposing for one second we did, then we chose another word for people born with XX etc and another for people born with XY etc, then what?

No she is not a broken woman

But some part of her is broken

A f typically because the person is woman we will try to fix that problem
( note also that capacity is availsble only for a period in the life of a woman, but the evidenced that is always available )

You hate it because you believe your state of being to be the only acceptable "normal", and refuse to accept trans people as equal
No, I do not accept the imposition of 'cis' as a label because I am not part of a subset of my own sex. Trans women are men and trans men, women.

Like we would give ivf to a woman
We would implant eggs in a woman
And not in a man
Because there would be no point

Trans people are normal and equal
But they are equal to their own sex bit the other one

Panda, maybe you are not in the UK to know, but the quote on gender you keep posting on multiple threads where people may want to call themselves women, men etc is not actually UK law but rather comes from the ONS in 2019. It really is not the gotcha you seem to think it is.

The ONS has been thoroughly Stonewalled - £35000 was paid by them/us the taxpayer to Stonewall in the years since 2011 - and Stonewall's controversial influence was evidenced around the judicial review where the High Court found the ONS got the guidance for the census sex question wrong in law and Fair Play for Women were awarded costs.

The High Court agrees that the ONS doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender so best not to keep posting it as it weakens your argument.

The belief that women are fragile delicate flowers, inherently weaker than men and thus in need of constant sheltering, is the patriarchal belief, actually.

Nope. The fact is that women are inherently weaker than men in some physical ways.

The patriarchal interpretation of that fact is that this means it is good and proper that men are the strong leaders who adopt the roles of power in society while women are relegated to support and/or property roles, that men are, if not sanctioned, then at least justified in using their physical power to dominate women sexually, and that women can only be protected from such men by keeping to private spaces protected by the men that own them.

The feminist interpretation of that fact is that a civilised society allows men and women equal status and access to power by putting support in place to manage the reproductive burden being unequal, by abhoring and punishing men who use their physical power to dominate women sexually, and by providing public protection for women which is not dependant on the patronage of individual males so they can fully participate in public , economic and social power.

Same fact, very different ways to structure society.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark
I tried three times to get an answer to this question.

CuriousPanda has declined to answer each time.

So I can only assume that Panda doesn’t recognise the oppression of female people by male people as a reality. And is therefore a misogyny denier.

I do not deny that women experience oppression, or that this oppression is largely based on whether the person is perceived as a woman.

Can I just say, thank you to the wonderful posters on this thread who have educated me, and inspired me. I have learnt so much reading through this thread regarding the equality act, women's definition in UK law. Thank you 💐

To the PP who's name escapes me right now, working in front line services for the protection of women thank you, I also work in a similar role and had to take a service user to the SARC today who had been horrifically attacked by a group of men. I feel and hear your pain, you are not alone. 💐

@theThreeofWeevils

You hate it because you believe your state of being to be the only acceptable "normal", and refuse to accept trans people as equal No, I do not accept the imposition of 'cis' as a label because I am not part of a subset of my own sex. Trans women are men and trans men, women.

Ah there it is.

Yes, you are a subset. Cis women are a subset of women, in the same way white women are a subset of women, straight women are a subset of women, able-bodied are a subset of women.

Accept that your is not the only kind of being. And that there are women who are different from you in many ways.

So, where does that put women who cannot give birth? By your definition, they're either not women, or "broken" women.

At least pretend you are reading the thread.

As discussed previously the reasons that a woman may not be able to give birth (age//hysterectomy/blocked fallopian/repeat miscarriages) are sex specific.

Treatment for infertility places a larger burden on women, and that is another of the many reasons that women need recognition of sex to enable equality/equity.