BBC 100 Women List - Gender is contentious

[highame]

I'm sure there was a thread but I can't find anywhere. Did it get deleted. Anyway, here's a good article by James Kirkup

www.spectator.co.uk/article/gender-is-contentious-the-bbc-is-pretending-it-isn-t

This is yet another fine article from James Kirkup
The continuation of this argument is that including transwomen in the category of women is harmful to natal women and against the interests of natal women. These harms can take many forms. In law and policy, the 'transwomen are women' approach can mean the erosion or removal of boundaries around single-sex spaces. In culture and society, 'transwomen are women' diverts attention from — and potentially devalues — the unique experiences that natal women have based on their female biology and socialisation.

And when finite resources are allocated, 'transwomen are women' means that some things that might otherwise have been allocated to natal women are given to people who were born male. It is a simple statement of fact that because the BBC awarded some places on its 100 Women list to transwomen, those places — and the status and acclaim they bring — cannot be given to natal women.

He has a fine way with words

@HelplesslyHoping

Ah another thread aimed to bash women who are more successful than the commenters. All 100 women deserve their place on the list, only men and misogynists seem to disagree

The trouble is that transwomen are male. It's not 'bashing' anyone to acknowledge this very simple and obvious fact.

The list was created to celebrate women.

RoaringtoLangClegintheDark

So 1 in 50 of the 100 women were born and raised male? What percentage of the population are transgender?

Oh dear, Arabella . You are now 100% responsible for the deletion of the entire thread.

Us wimminz (doddery or otherwise) should learn our place and STFU and whatever.

“The point is that by including transwomen on a list of women, the BBC is taking sides in a contested issue. Because not everyone accepts that people who are born male can become women. Some people argue that the male biology and male socialisation which — by definition — transwomen start their lives with mean they cannot ever truly belong in the category of women.“

Thanks for the article. I do like James Kirkup's measured way with words although his very understated ''Not everyone accepts that people who are born male can become women" I think is more likely in reality to be 'very few people accept' that people who are born male can become women in the way that we accept that everyone's mum is a woman.

Can we ever undo (fe)male biology and (fe)male socialisation?? By what mechanism could that occur?

The BBC list is full of firsts. First female pilot, first female prime minister of Samoa, first African female moto cross rider etc And I was glad to see the prominence given to Afghan women. Genuinely interesting to read about them. (Though, Vera Wang? Of falling models in impossible heels fame? Really?)

I was reading earlier today about the membership of the Académie Française, the body charged with protecting the French language. Founded in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu, a total of 732 members, known as “Immortals,” have been elected over the centuries. Only nine have been women, the first elected less than 40 years ago. Nothing caused by a disparity in physical strength - just pure sexism. There is still such a long way to go before women have full social equality with men.

3.5 billion women on the planet, many of whom, particularly those in Afghanistan, have experienced brutal sexism throughout their lives on account of them being female - and the BBC 'can't' find a full 100 to highlight.

We live in a deeply sexist world and the BBC list just contributes to and reinforces that, when woman becomes an identity label rather than biological reality. It's infuriating...

By the way, Arabella, it's been lovely seeing all your posts on here. Sadly, I suspect there are a few people who may not like you very much. I wonder who they might be? And how many of us they have forced to leave or namechange or otherwise be less effective in our posting?

I also wonder why on earth those reporting would want to get rid of knowledgeable posters, who raise issues about safeguarding and the rights of women and children (especially girls). It's almost as though they have some sort of agenda that we cannot understand. Bewildering the whole thing .

It's been nice knowing (most of) you.

Bump

Well done op. This thread has been up for 3 hours now.

It would be really useful if we knew what we can and can’t discuss.

Something similar was discussed a 3 years ago (Sept 2018) and we definitely were allowed to express ourselves more freely. Top 100 female executives.

(Though, Vera Wang? Of falling models in impossible heels fame? Really?)

I think the designer was Vivienne Westwood rather than Vera Wang.

Wow. Up for three whole hours! Blimey, the Monitors must have been distracted by stuff to fulminate about on Twatter. (Richard Dawkins, maybe?)

Or should older women be silent, kniow their place and not speak up?

I’d better really be quiet then as I’m approaching seventy. Poor old me.

Oh hello, thread still going!

James Kirkup is always a good read

It would be really useful if we knew what we can and can’t discuss.

I'd like to know this too. I fail to see what there could be that we can't discuss about this. Perhaps talking about individuals specifically, that's maybe understandable. But to discuss generally why people have taken issue with the BBCs decision? It doesn't seem at all fair to silence that discussion.

I thought we were all banished to the naughty corner to be able to have these discussions freely. Wasn't that the point?

In any case, I'm sure there have been many threads in the past on FWR discussing women's competitions and award shortlists in which transwomen were included. What's different now?

Did someone turn the heat on for MNHQ?

Bumping. I'm wearing men's trousers and socks as I type this,so hopefully that will render me unfeminine enough for my comment to not be deleted.

Oh I see there's a response on Site Stuff.

It's really helpful. Cleared that matter up. Cheers.

I'm older, and, a woman. Deary me

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant

(Though, Vera Wang? Of falling models in impossible heels fame? Really?)

I think the designer was Vivienne Westwood rather than Vera Wang.

Vera Wang too, though to be fair, it might have been the combo with the wafty dresses...

@TheFnozwhowasmirage

Bumping. I'm wearing men's trousers and socks as I type this,so hopefully that will render me unfeminine enough for my comment to not be deleted.

I hope that we have all sent in our complaints to the BBC?
(wearing son's old jumpers for the trendy whatever-gender look).

I shall express no further opinion on the make up of this list, as, every fine a thread about it is deleted, I feel a little angrier about it.

Every time.

A wee diversion

I’m completely bewildered why Barbara Smolińskav sugar reborn babies is included? I appreciate some women who have lost babies might find them helpful (I don’t myself obviously or I wouldn’t be mentioning it here) but that doesn’t seem like enough for a natal woman to make the list.

I confess I haven't read the whole list, but then again, what is the point? 3% this year, how many next year or the year after. How are we supposed to achieve equality if we can't even keep our small slice of the pie? (Desperately trying to make my point without getting the thread deleted)

Bizarrely you can say more on Instagram and Twitter than on here it seems.