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.

"man", "woman", "he", "she", "mother", "father", etc.

All sorts of gendered words and terms.

This is your confusion. These terms are describing people's sex plus being an adult, a parent etc simultaneously. None of these words has an relevance to arbitrary gender stereotypes. People have managed to understand this in language for thousands of years before the general population had any education whatsoever so your fake bafflement about it is rather bizarre.

@CuriousPanda

Simply put, learn basic set theory, I'm begging you.

White women are women, this doesn't mean all women are white.

You don’t seem to understand sets at all.

If ‘woman’ refers only to to sex, it includes some trans people, but not those whose sex is male. It is impossible for anyone whose sex is male to be a subset of this group.

On the other hand you are describing a set of people who believe they have a female gender identity. You have failed to explain what that means, (so why the set is relevant and who is outside the set) but you also inexplicably lump in people who don’t identify with a gender.

The fight for women to get the vote, be able to own property, to have themselves and their children not be property, to have male people raping their female spouse illegal (early 90s in England).

If only women had realised that all they had to do was explain that they were actually men.

There is language set in stone, there's literally the terms "cis men" and "cis women".

It's not set in stone if a large number of people either don't know the term cis or don't agree with it's usage.

Because there are notable physical differences from cis women, no trans person is denying that. The point is that these physical characteristics should not dictate one's identity

Yes quite. Which is why those physical differences are denoted by ones sex. A persons sense of identity includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman or a man as well as relationships with each other. As it's a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time, which as a result can't be moderated, litigated or enforced.

The TRA movement is both insistent and dependant social regression. It must moderate the movements of a sex class, to legalise the classification of men as women and to enforce society to accept a single definition of gender. Which is why it's not successful.

The TRAs need an entirely more progressive stance to achieve what is really at the heart of Trans needs. They are failing the group entirely.

It's not set in stone if a large number of people either don't know the term cis or don't agree with it's usage.

Indeed.

Well, reading through this thread is a portion of time in my life I’ll never get back.

In the tidal wave of offensive homophobia and gynephobia, this jumped out at me:

Nope, there are many different ways to be a woman, gender identity is simply identifying with a particular set of terms, labels, and pronouns, that's it. Anything else is optional

Optional? Optional?! My endometriosis, adenomyosis, multiple laparoscopies, menstrual pain, infertility, decades of bludgeoning with hormonal interventions, hysterectomy, early menopause, were optional?

Wish I’d known that sooner, I’d have noped the fuck out of all of it.

This is patronising,, ill informed, dangerous sexist nonsense. Useful only to the extent to which it illustrates the utter callous dismissal of the physical reality for women living in female bodies. Just your common or garden misogyny and here it is, in pride of place on a feminist chat board, because the 2020s are just so damn progressive.

White women are women, this doesn't mean all women are white.

White women are indeed women. But look, who is different from that group? White men.

@Blibbyblobby

And that there are women who are different from you in many ways.

All humans are different to each other in many ways.

However, we use labels to capture ways in which we are the same. That’s kind of the point.

So under your concept of womanhood, what is it that all women have in common with each other but not with men? Not just “what are the labels they chose to use?” but the actual commonalities that the labels denote?

I would love to get a clear explanation of what characteristics women and transwomen share, that women don't also share with men.

But of course, you hate that, because it normalizes trans people as being part of a larger group that you don't believe they "deserve" to be considered part of.'

It's not about 'deserving': this is such emotive language. It's about reality and how that reality affects our lives. Womanhood isn't some exclusive club that we're trying to gatekeep because we're big meanie bigots.

Because there are notable physical differences from cis women

Why is that? And what differences are they? What's the main distinguishing feature?

There is always this failure to distinguish between words for “what” and “who”.

Woman is “what” I am. It describes my physical reality. It says nothing about “who” I am, because I’m a feminist and I don’t think that your sex should dictate your life choices, your interests or anything much about you.

To a transwoman, the word “woman” is used to describe “who” they are, not “what”- it can’t describe a physical reality, because they don’t have it, so they have to use it as a “who”- it describes their interests, their life choices, their preferences etc.

We never get to agreement because the foundational use of the word is diametrically opposed. It can’t do both. Trouble is, if you use it as a “who” word, you exclude most females, so that meaning absolutely can’t be used as any basis for civil life, law etc. So the answer is no.

We never get to agreement because the foundational use of the word is diametrically opposed. It can’t do both. Trouble is, if you use it as a “who” word, you exclude most females, so that meaning absolutely can’t be used as any basis for civil life, law etc. So the answer is no.

This is the problem I have with the whole movement. It's so individualistic. All the many reasons women and LGB people need to organise politically and have clear terms and boundaries but no, "that is not validating to me and everything must revolve around me".

CluelessPanda, there was a clue at the end of my post as to how serious I was being that you seem to have missed, but like most who come here on a mission of education you either lack or have overwritten with mantras and dogma, you do miss a lot on purpose. If you have anything to teach, it's patience, and the regulars learned that long ago.

This seems like a good place to quote AssassinatedBeauty:
You "educate" people by making reasoned arguments and providing evidence to back up any specific claims. Then you listen to people's responses to that, questioning any weaknesses or illogical reasoning, and then respond with further clarifications or thoughts to counter. And so on until an understanding of each other's viewpoints is reached.

I don't think you came here for an understanding of a viewpoint you disagree with, but for the usual reason. Here's another clue.

Oh grief
Not the we can. Have CIs women

No they does not work because it's implying that the gender is aligned to the sex

Neatly Excluding al women with no gender or a gender misaligned with sex, who nevertheless know that they are women

Creating a group "woman" that is not easily defined , has no common features and so pointless in law as others have said

And then the point of having a unique term is to enable distinctions to be mage

Are you saying that the toilets should be relabelled CIs women and cis men. Where would trans people go? Isn't that horrid ?

"Because there are notable physical differences from cis women, no trans person is denying that. The point is that these physical characteristics should not dictate one's identity."

Who cares about your identity?

Why do you feel any individual's identity needs to be catered to and validated by strangers, by society as a whole? Why do you feel a subjective claim by an individual should hold that much power, that much importance, while objective, biological reality is completely irrelevant?

"physical characteristics should not dictate one's identity" - ok, so what? Identify away, but what does that have to do with any other human?

I do sometimes wonder if the words "woman" and "man" will be completely lost as sex descriptors and used as gender descriptors. It would be a shame to butcher our language that way, but equally XX or XY is easier to say than natal woman or cis man or any of these other terms which have sprung up out of our trying to use the same terms for both sex and gender. In a way it would be a lot easier to not lose the meaning. It would make dating a lot simpler too. You could state "XX Female seeking XX Female" instead of 'lesbian' for example and there would be no chance for misunderstanding. We can't disappear biological sex, we can't change it it's fixed. Or at least right now it is! You can change all the external parts of yourself, and fill your body with hormones, but you can not change the XX/XY. And as is stands there are massive inequalities which effect one biological sex over the other. Being gender critical is saying well, that doesn't need to be so. There's no reason it should be this way. But it doesn't fix the problem overnight. We don't change problems by erasing the language. Just as we can't end racism by erasing the words "black" and "white" so we cannot erase the patriarchy by erasing the words "man" and "woman" the words aren't the point, they just make it easier to describe the problem.

And regarding my earlier question, yes, I understand your points, I am still surprised you can bring up the effort for so long. If I am talking to someone like OP on e.g. Twitter, at some point I would just block them and move on.

You can't block them here, and if I'm on a thread I still want to read the replies. So I understand why people respond to some of the outrageous goading that often happens in FWR.

I would love to get a clear explanation of what characteristics women and transwomen share, that women don't also share with men

Same…not holding my breath though

Plus there is no way you are gonna get a clear explanation on this thread

And as is stands there are massive inequalities which effect one biological sex over the other. Being gender critical is saying well, that doesn't need to be so. There's no reason it should be this way. But it doesn't fix the problem overnight.

I don’t foresee a time when we will ever be able to stop talking about the impact of sex on equality. The world changes and men and women experience it differently because of sex.

Look at the effect of the pandemic on access to the MAP, maternity care and IVF.

Equally, I imagine that the pandemic will have had specific effects on trans people. Unless ‘trans’ can mean absolutely anything and has no objective definition. Just a club you can join to seek individual validation.

@CuriousPanda

As a person who clearly cares about injustice, autonomy and the right to self-definition, answer me this.

There is a group of people without a name. A huge group, hidden in plain sight. You see them every day. You owe your life to one. You may even be one. You are so used to seeing them around you probably never stop to think about what their lives are like.

This group has suffered horrendous oppression across history and across the world: at various times and places, by law and by custom, even still today, this group has been denied bodily autonomy, denied the right to work, to own property, to vote, to hold positions of power, denied choice of sexual partners, denied contraception, denied education, denied their choice of who to associate with, denied leadership, denied religious freedom, treated as spoils of war, used as free labour, and so much more. To some, it is better to kill a child before it's born than have it be one of this group.

It used to have a name, but that was taken away and with it the laws, rights and protections the group has fought so hard for.

But while the name has gone, the group, its oppression, its lived reality and its common experiences still exist.

Doesn't this group deserve to be named, to have its own label to capture its lived reality, under which it can rally, name their oppression, share their experiences and fight for their autonomy?

Now that women is a mixed-sex group, what is the group noun for adult humans with female bodies, that single-sex group that used to be called women? Now that you have seen fit to give their original name in every language away?

@RedDogsBeg

Suggestionsplease1: People often talk about the law on these boards but sometimes I think there is a complete lack of awareness as to the impact of social isolation and alienation for a person. To my mind, at the point we are in this country, at this point in time, the real harm is not coming from how legislation is enacted or applied - it is coming from the social shame, the harassment, lack of respect, lack of support, the isolation, the alienation - you can not underestimate the impact these things have on lives.

All of this paragraph applies to women. Your lack of awareness is astounding.

If you think this is happening at the same rate and to the same severity for women that it is happening for trans people in the UK right now, you need to live in the real world.