Should we dispense with the word gender critical and just call ourselves biological realists?

[Stopsnowing]

Just that really. If sex matters and gender is mainly irrelevant shall we just stop referring to being gender critical?

I'm afraid that sounds too close to 'race realist ' for my liking.

Hmm. I definitely get where you're coming from! How about Spitting Facts 😅 SF's

I’m tired of all the labels and flags. I’m just an atheist of all religions ~ including the new ones.

I do think that maybe gender critical isn't the greatest word unles syou are specifically talking about second wave feminists who have a very specific view of gender as constructed, and always damaging. There are lots of people who are critical of gender ideology who don't agree with that. Some of them are feminists who differ in some other way, some are women with totally different perspectives.

But all believe that physical reality is, you know, real. And that the science just doesn't support gender ideology or that it's philosophically incoherent.

We could maybe say that what we all want is evidence based science on this? I think most would agree that is an important starting place. And coherent and consistent use of language.

I too don't like the phrase; the word critical (as used by most people) immediately puts us on the back foot, in the wrong, the nasty baddies. Many (most?) of us have no problem with a minority choosing to live how they wish and recognise that for some that means believing in gender but that does not mean they should dictate how the great majority live. Not sure how we change it now but something more affirmative would be good.

I prefer 'Gender Atheist'

It's a simple description. It simple says 'I don't believe in your ideology'. As Exuslansic says - "keep it in Church"

Never used it. Don't like it.

Loads of people are unhappy with the whole pushed into small box, men/boys are like this women/girls are like that stuff.

I have never seen myself as or called myself gender critical.

Anyway really doesn't matter. The label is never the point- it's what it represents that's the real issue. Changing labels just gets same associations as old label.

What have we been called?

T*RF. still used a lot but other labels and one seeing a lot at mo.

Um.
GC obv.
FARTS.
Sex essentialists
Anti trans activists
Transphobic bigots/ extremists
Gatekeepers/enforcers of femininity/white feminine ideals
Etc

So doesn't matter what label is. If called cuddly tiny hamsters, would mean same thing. Evil etc.

In the end 99.9999% of the world's population know full well what men and women are, what's the difference, what that means in terms of expectations etc.

IRL how many people actually use woman man girl boy to mean anything other than sex? How many people think yep prison sport, internal ID, not sex and never was anyway?

Proportion of whole population? Zero basically.

That's an awful lot of 'GC' (misnomer readily taken as meaning critical of all trans people, handy!) about. Millions and millions and millions.

Even people and orgs who say people with vaginas etc. Hypocritically and very very tellingly use woman/girl for sex when it suits them. Eg women in Afghanistan...
So even THEY don't actually believe it.

Funny then how 'GC' are a tiny group who sock puppet a lot. Are almost all female. With high proportion of women who are most definitely feminists of the really disliked variety....

Back when the Internet were all fields and the big debate was about Young Earth Creationism promoted by US fundamentalist Christianity, some non-religious biologists even objected to labels like "Atheist" because the word itself incorporated the very thing we didn't believe in, and that in a way it was just as accommodating of a worldview we didn't acknowledge, as if we'd accepted "heretic" or "heathen".

One could make similar arguments against "Gender Critical" and "Gender Atheist."

In the Creationism debate, some people therefore used "Reality-Based."

But, TBH, I'm with Cheese that the adherents of this pseudoreligious ideology will remain convinced that unbelievers are evil, whatever label we use.

Should have reclaimed the T word tbh.

I don't mind GC because the point is that there are plenty of people who like gender but think it's sex-linked. Even i think it's quite difficult to separate the two in practice.

What about the SWVs the Stereotype Wiper Vipers

Majority of people who know sex> gender ie pretty much everyone, they are not radical feminist in any way shape or form!

Using a term which includes a fairly niche, very important branch of feminism reinforcing the already widespread view of such an important thing ie looking to the root of the issues (radical- root not extremist) generally not a great thing imo

The words critical and phobic immediately make you the bad guy. Intolerant etc.

I'm not phobic about anything except maybe mice and I'm not critical of any whole group, about everything about them.

Gender realist is much more sensible.

@NotTerfNorCis - can you explain your objection on the grounds that it sounds like 'race realist'? The term race realist has no meaning for me but I get that it must be objectionable.

Biological feminist?

I don't know what "wave" I am.

I think biology can't be changed.

I agree that there are a few intersex folk.

I don't give a rats arse for being constrained by societies ideas on what someone of my sex should do.

I think clothes are just clothes - dresses, pants, whether someone feels better in fake boobs, whatever. I just don't care - whatever makes them happy.

What wave of feminist does that make me?

Sounds like a washing powder. We're all biological.

I quite like gender atheist but more accurately its gender ideology atheist. Could be shortened to GIA but not exactly catchy.

It's a tricky one. Anything sex-centred sounds wrong too.

This thread has completely done my head in, and I don't understand any of it. I am actually weirdly relieved to get back to my HM Revenue &Customs overdue penalties form...

Well, I don't respond to any label anyone tries to hang on me, so biological realist works for me as a woman/adult human female/mother/scientist.

I've never heard of a "race realist". Biological realist seems reasonable to me, and focuses on something far less tenuous than gender.

I would be happy to use that phrase.

The word critical does automatically put a negative slant on it

A bit of google tells me race realist is a person who believes racial differences exist and sometimes use that to support racial discrimination

Although I don't think it's common in the uk

I think labels are powerful and important. Gender critical is a terrible term because (a) It sounds negative (b) few people understand what it means.

Because of (b) we are throwing away our biggest advantage: that 90% of the population agree with us. But they don't know that they do, because they don't know who we are, or what we stand for.

"Biology realist" would be a great term if it wasn't for race realism - @NotTerfNorCis is spot on about that. It would be an own goal to align ourselves with a bunch of racists (race realism basically argues that the races are genetically different and, surprise, surprise, that the ones with white skins are better).

How about 'Biology believers'?

@Funnylittlefloozie

I've never heard of a "race realist". Biological realist seems reasonable to me, and focuses on something far less tenuous than gender.

Honestly, biology realist would be a disaster. It would be handing the perfect ammo to our enemies. Maybe not so much in the UK but certainly in the US. We have to think globally because TRAs are a global movement, drawing most of their power from the US.

Gripper - Grounded In Physical Reality.