Is it ok to criticise someone for being gender critical?

[WookeyHole]

I'm rubbish at explaining this whole debate and whilst doing a bad job, a friend told me that being gender critical was not an acceptable position to take. It set me thinking... between her and me I'm ok with her saying that and we have healthy debates about our points of view. But IIRC it's been called protected belief? What does this mean for its use in a public forum?

Why should gc be beyond criticism?

Why should gc be beyond criticism?

It isn’t.

However you don’t seem to understand what ‘gender critical’ means, which is odd as it should be obvious.

Gender is cultural expectations of how people should behave and present, based on sex. Feminists criticise these expectations because of their impact on women.

This doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with trans people, although there will be an inevitable clash with people who do believe that people should be categorised by gender, whatever the reason.

If you want to criticise a belief without crossing into bigotry and abuse, it’s useful to understand what that belief is.

@anaily

Why should gc be beyond criticism?

What has that to do with anything anyone has said on this thread?

The equality act is for service providers and employers not to discriminate, it doesn't cover friends discussing stuff outside that setting.

If your argument for saying something to your friends is that it’s legal as long as you aren’t an employer or service provider, I think you might need to ask yourself whether what you are saying isn’t just a little bit dodgy?

what does she mean by its not an acceptable position? To her? She doesnt accept people having that position, or is she talking generally?

Its 'the social death warning' and its how women police each other.

@Branleuse

what does she mean by its not an acceptable position? To her? She doesnt accept people having that position, or is she talking generally?

Yes, what does she mean by unacceptable? Is she saying she doesn't want to be friends with you unless you shut up about it?

@anaily

Why should gc be beyond criticism?

Good to see you back. I replied to you on this thread and you never got back to me.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4356627-Womens-Wellbeing-in-Prisons?msgid=111045818#111045818

Believing in gender identity theory literally is like believing in a religion - rational argument won't get you very far. Believers know it makes no sense which is why they have to resort to just calling non-believers bigots.

If you want to preserve good relations but without necessarily trying to persuade the other person there are basically two approaches you can take.

1. Use phrases like "I'm afraid I just can't understand the logic behind gender identity theory. If being a woman isn't about the female body and it's not about stereotypes then what is it? I get told that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean but then why not just call yourself a man if it doesn't mean anything? I'd like to understand the position but I just can't make it make sense and I never find the answers I'm looking for." If the other person wants to persuade you then just ask them politely and non-aggressively to define their terms "what do you actually mean by that" on repeat.

2. Rather than labelling yourself "gender critical" stick to actual positions. "I believe female sports have to be for females only - males are not disadvantaged by trans inclusion so allowing this for female athletes means accepting that they should be in a worse position than male athletes. That's a terrible message to give to young females." Same with prisons etc. Don't feel you have to give an approved "GC" position on everything. I don't care much about toilets and don't pretend to.

I've generally kept good relations with people whilst still being honest with a mixture of the above.

What has that to do with anything anyone has said on this thread?

The thread "Is it ok to criticise someone for being gender critical?" So it has everything to do with this thread. It's ok to criticise gc, gc are not beyond criticism.

If your argument for saying something to your friends is that it’s legal as long as you aren’t an employer or service provider, I think you might need to ask yourself whether what you are saying isn’t just a little bit dodgy?

2 friends chatting, one linking employment laws has no relevance. Your friend is free to believe you are a bigot. Homophobic beliefs are protected, doesn't make it any more valid or acceptable, and your friends are free to think you're a bigot.

Glad to see you again.

Ah I see. I was trying to link that comment to what you'd said in your previous post and the replies to it, which I see you've chosen not to address.

Homophobic beliefs are protected, doesn't make it any more valid or acceptable, and your friends are free to think you're a bigot.

Again, if you are attacking a ‘friend’ in a way that would be illegal in the workplace, you might want to reconsider your personal relationships. Therapy might be useful.

Glad to see you again.

A reply to Potholes on the thread she linked would be ever so polite, or are you no longer interested in that discussion?

Glad to see you again.

I think there may be as much confusion about who is posting what as there is about gender critical views.

@merrymouse

Homophobic beliefs are protected, doesn't make it any more valid or acceptable, and your friends are free to think you're a bigot.

Again, if you are attacking a ‘friend’ in a way that would be illegal in the workplace, you might want to reconsider your personal relationships. Therapy might be useful.

If I'm working and a colleague starts talking about anti lgbt stuff i would tell them not to talk to me and that I'm not interested in their bigoted beliefs, and I'd get on with my job. In my mind I'd be like they are a bigot and to bugger off. If the same friend said it out of work I'd do the same, I'd disassociate myself from them. Me not wanting to hear their bigoted nonsense is not illegal.

What is there to address? It's a bonkers position. Gc is anti trans

Women needing sex based rights, and having a problem with females being excluded from female spaces, and wanting equal consideration and extension of values to females as well as males is 'bonkers'?

Please do explain how, I'm all ears.

And logically, yes, if you are stating the equation of 'GC (meaning women's rights) = anti trans' then yes, you must mean by extension that trans = anti women's rights. If you're going to put it into those black and white terms that does appear to be what you mean?

It is again a great show of the degree of prejudice that some posters hold that they can twist this:

We aren’t clear enough in pushing back on the way GC is portrayed as hateful and dangerous. I read an article in the FT about Kathleen Stock and the BTL comments were focused on whether it was ok to hold ‘anti-trans’ views. This appears to be a mainstay of this debate, but, while it may be an interesting question, it isn’t really pertinent here. There is a much more fundamental question about why and how GC views actually are anti-trans. Is it really anti-trans to conceive of what makes someone male or female based on different criteria to gender?

into:

gc is just anti trans as it's sole focus revolves around the existence of trans people and their inclusion in society.

Maybe some posters actually need to work the logic through of their own arguments as other pp's have suggested.

However, I am rather surprised that someone who has had this patiently explained to them repeatedly over the past months, still has not actually understood past the incredibly superficial level.

If the claims to uphold the needs of females, ALL females, is considered 'anti-trans' and revolves around the existence of trans people and their inclusion in society.... what does that make 'trans' claims? If the two are in conflict, but the harm being perpetuated on females of all ages is continuously denied by trans people, while feminists have been asking to work to find solutions that work with all.... what does this say about trans activists.

And to be clear... I mean trans activists, I don't mean all trans people because that is very clearly not true. Many trans people wish to work to find a solution. But it is extreme believers that will always frame the needs to maintain single sex spaces, sports, short lists and opportunities for females as being 'anti-trans'.

Those extremists cannot see it though, because they lack the critical thought processes to think for themselves and rely solely on name calling, twisting and deflection to score points and never providing evidence for their assertions.

Maybe they honestly lack self awareness and believe that they have been elevated to be the righteous adjudicators of the world.

And yes, I think you could fairly say poc = anti kkk.....

What is there to address? It's a bonkers position. Gc is anti trans as kkk is anti poc/bame/blm (whichever takes your fancy). It does not mean poc are anti kkk or trans are anti gc, kkk are just bigots and no one panders or entertains their nonsense, gc falls into that nonsense.

I really am glad that posters have dropped by to give another live demonstration of the deep prejudice that they seem to have for women who are defining their boundaries to uphold their rights.

Maybe you have threads lately where lurkers have come out briefly to acknowledge just how much these examples assist them in their understanding. Please, do crack on.

What is there to address? It's a bonkers position. Gc is anti trans as kkk is anti poc/bame/blm (whichever takes your fancy)

So you think the KKK doubt the existence of race? That's... That's not what I've heard.

anaily perhaps you could try and describe the GC point of view in a way that GC people would agree characterises what they think. Do you think you'd be able to do that, or perhaps do you think you're wrong about what GC views are?

@Artichokeleaves

What is there to address? It's a bonkers position. Gc is anti trans

Women needing sex based rights, and having a problem with females being excluded from female spaces, and wanting equal consideration and extension of values to females as well as males is 'bonkers'?

Please do explain how, I'm all ears.

And logically, yes, if you are stating the equation of 'GC (meaning women's rights) = anti trans' then yes, you must mean by extension that trans = anti women's rights. If you're going to put it into those black and white terms that does appear to be what you mean?

Everyone has sex based rights, the right not to be discriminated against. That applies to everyone. It's not unique to only certain groups.

If I'm working and a colleague starts talking about anti lgbt stuff i would tell them not to talk to me and that I'm not interested in their bigoted beliefs, and I'd get on with my job. In my mind I'd be like they are a bigot and to bugger off. If the same friend said it out of work I'd do the same, I'd disassociate myself from them. Me not wanting to hear their bigoted nonsense is not illegal.

You really cannot help yourself, can you? And you simply cannot see the level of your intolerance in your posts.

So why is it bonkers to say that it's important to have provision as well that they can access, so that female people who cannot used mixed sex spaces are not excluded from female spaces and resources? Because inclusion matters doesn't it? And not discriminating against people matters? Even the female ones?