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.

@Createdjustforthis

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?

"fetishistic men" when applied to trans women is transphobic.

@merrymouse

But it does seem like trends might be present, and these could possibly help explain why trans people have a sense that they are the opposite sex

I think you are confused. Women are generally shorter than men. Using your logic that would indicate that tall women are male. Obviously that is not true because sex is not determined by height.

We could argue all day about what behaviours are in the normal range for men and women, but people who you outside the expected range just indicate that the expectation was wrong, not that sex doesn’t exist.

For comparison if England had won on Sunday, it would not have been evidence that the players weren’t English.

Thanks, but I'm not confused, and I'm very aware of how individual differences exist despite the presence of larger group trends. I'm not sure where you have got the idea that I think in absolutes.

The fact that those individual differences exist does not obliterate trends that are visible at a population level.

@DadJoke
"fetishistic men" when applied to trans women is transphobic

But that’s now part of the trans umbrella. Denying fetishistic men their status under the trans umbrella is also transphobic. That’s how it works, right?

Do you think Phil/Pips Bunce literally changes sex several times each week?

Stonewall list "crossdresser" as a trans identity. Take it up with them, Dadjoke. If that hasn't been done, I suspect there would have been less pushback.

I think I'm beginning to get some clarification on the possible mindset here.

Not really, no

So, for trans - related issues, especially those situations where a person is considering transitioning, then sex is the only thing that is relevant to GC feminists

"Gender" is for GC feminists a generally oppressive, regressive system of sex role stereotypes and expectations. It's entirely related to sex. It begins and ends there. So sex is the only thing that is relevant. Gender is a social construct, not an innate property, we generally don't believe it can end up in the wrong sexed body. "Trans-related issues" have nothing to do with it.

However, when it comes to things like access to spaces, GC feminists DO believe in gender over and above sex and whatever is between the legs, because they note that there IS more to it than genitals actually; there are characteristics and behaviours that seems to be associated with particular sexes, and it is important to recognise that and maintain separate spaces and treatment at times.

Based on physical sex, and differences in socialisation, not innate lady and man brains that can end up in the wrong sex body.

As pp have said, outlier traits do not change your sex. Men are on average taller than women, it doesn't make short men female and tall women male.

You have projected all your cognitive bias and assumptions about the world onto women here. Most of us do not share them, and we do not subscribe to your ideology and in fact think said ideology is about as progressive as the average organised religion.

I'm not sure where you have got the idea that I think in absolutes

Because you appear to think these trends are relevant to classifications of male and female.

You also appear to be using a definition of ‘trans’ which isn’t relevant to the current discourse. Trans ideology rejects all objective definition, hence self ID and the all inclusive trans umbrella.

The fact that those individual differences exist does not obliterate trends that are visible at a population level.

Well, exactly.

So trans identities are a variation within a sex class, not a refutation of the sex class.

If there were evidence that trans women as a group have the same population trends as female people rather than male and there were an objective test to confirm any specific male individual was indeed one of the female-aligned trans male group not the main male group, there would be no issue including those males with the female population (and vice versa for trans men).

But as things stand we have neither evidence for the assertion that trans woman are statistically different to other males in the specific characteristics that require male/female differentiation, nor a non-falsifiable test for trans identity,which means sadly trans women sometimes have to be classed socially as men.

It would be great for everyone if the research was started to address those two problems. I think it's such a lost opportunity that trans ideology has determined research to properly explain and understand trans identities is transphobic, because it traps us in this situation of one side demanding access based on their anecdotes of indivdual feelings and the other refusing based on lack of evidence at the population level.

The other point to make is that existence of a population difference today is not the same as existence of innate difference. I believe most of the reasons we separate male and female are socialisation and we could and should work to reduce them. That does not mean that here and now, as long as the differences exist, so must the protections.

You can think of GC feminism as the long term project to dismantle socially-constructed gender differences, the short term project to protect female people from those differences while they exist, and the residual project to protect female people from whatever innate disadvantages remain once the social stuff has gone.

I believe most of the reasons we separate male and female are socialisation and we could and should work to reduce them. That does not mean that here and now, as long as the differences exist, so must the protections.

Should read: I believe most of the reasons we separate male and female are socialisation and we could and should work to reduce them. That does not mean that here and now these protections are not needed. As long as the differences exist, so must the protections.

@Orangemochafrappacino

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

Social identities of "man" and "woman" that our society had constructed around sex, are gender.

GC feminists don't need to be blank slatists. Regardless of whether there are dimorphic or bimodal behavioural differences between human males and females, we can still be critical of enforced gender roles and stereotypes.

It doesn't matter if 99% of children who play with trucks are boys, as along as the 1% of girls who play with trucks can do so without detriment.

And additionally, it kind of doesn't matter what toys were chosen - just that there were 2 distinct types of toy, and there was play preference along sex lines.

This carries on into adulthood where men are the majority buyers and users of wheeled prams and pushchairs, showing a consistent and strong preference to push their babies around in them.

Or not.

@Avocadowoman

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

Language is used for people to communicate. For communication to work, words need to mean something and everyone needs to understand what they mean.

Do you object to calling yourself human?

Would you talk of yourself as being 80kg if you were 100kg?

Why do you object to the material reality of sex?

If you say 'from now on I will call myself a seagull. I can't fly, therefore not all seagulls can fly' how does that further anyones understanding of you or seagulls?

If you say 'I am a man' but you are biologically female, can you not see that a number of consequences flow from that, some of which are detrimental?

However - saying 'I am a woman but that does not restrict how I dress or feel' is absolutely fine and everyone can understand 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.

Trans women do not deny the reality of sex, they are well aware of the fact they were born with a penis, that their physiology is what it is. The point is that they do not wish to be referred to as "men" because of that.

No one is trying to restrict how people can dress or feel, but you are trying to restrict how people are allowed to identify themselves.

However, when it comes to things like access to spaces, GC feminists DO believe in gender over and above sex and whatever is between the legs, because they note that there IS more to it than genitals actually; there are characteristics and behaviours that seems to be associated with particular sexes, and it is important to recognise that and maintain separate spaces and treatment at times.

No, GC Feminists believe in SEX not gender delineating access to spaces. Spaces and services are segregated on the basis of sex for damn good reasons. Sex segregation is what it says on the tin, segregation on the basis of the biological, immutable reality of sex not on the basis of gender, stereotypes, characteristics, what clothes are worn, how tall they are, how short they are, their hairstyle, how they vote, what interests they have, etc.

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

GC feminists don't need to be blank slatists. Regardless of whether there are dimorphic or bimodal behavioural differences between human males and females, we can still be critical of enforced gender roles and stereotypes.

It doesn't matter if 99% of children who play with trucks are boys, as along as the 1% of girls who play with trucks can do so without detriment.

No one is saying anything about trucks or dolls. That has always been, and continues to be, nothing but a strawman.

Social identities of "man" and "woman" that our society had constructed around sex, are gender

No, they are damaging sexist stereotypes.

It is true that not all seagulls can fly. For instance, a seagull that has sustained a wing injury cannot.

Well I suppose that makes a change to appropriating infertile women.

@RedDogsBeg

Social identities of "man" and "woman" that our society had constructed around sex, are gender

No, they are damaging sexist stereotypes.

GC feminists frequently label perceived males as perverted fetishists for the mere act of wearing a dress.

I'm only seeing GC people enforce gender stereotypes.

Social identities of "man" and "woman" that our society had constructed around sex, are gender.

The terms "man" and "woman" are just basic, simple words to usefully describe the two main divisions of our species. One half can potentially get pregnant, the other half definitely can't. Our cave-dwelling ancestors knew this. One half may get testicular cancer, the other half may get cervical cancer. Hence we don't waste NHS resources inviting the other half to screenings. These words work perfectly fine, in all languages, across the planet, throughout our history until people insist that one word has to include the opposite. Then communication fails.

If you're interested in social identies, how about creating some new words that describe those who don't conform to culture-specific stereotypes?

@CuriousPanda
No one is saying anything about trucks or dolls. That has always been, and continues to be, nothing but a strawman

Mermaids did, repeatedly. www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/the-barbie-gi-joe-scale/

Why just lie about stuff? We can actually read you know.

No one is trying to restrict how people can dress or feel, but you are trying to restrict how people are allowed to identify themselves.

Identity on it's own is irrelevant, it's the imposition of it as more important than sex that we care about.

If KM wants to "identify" who cares?

We simply wish to have the full use of the exemptions in the Equality act which allow single sex, not single identity, an idea that very few accept.

And we would like the angry SJWs to give it a rest.

Trans women do not deny the reality of sex, they are well aware of the fact they were born with a penis, that their physiology is what it is. The point is that they do not wish to be referred to as "men" because of that.

No one is trying to restrict how people can dress or feel, but you are trying to restrict how people are allowed to identify themselves.

They are transwomen, they are members of the male sex not the female sex, a woman is an adult human female it is not an identity.