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?

In my own head I think of myself as pro-biology but polite but not sure I would ever describe myself as that out loud, either in RL or online. Doh! I just did!

How about 'women's rights campaigner'?

Common sense feminism?

Biology-positive? Biology affirmative?

@Lovelyricepudding

How about 'women's rights campaigner'?

Yes - although that's only part of it. It's also girls' rights, and gender nonconforming kids rights. And gay rights too.

On a slightly different note, I was pondering whether, if women choose to embrace the term 'cervix haver' rather than fight it, but insisted that penis havers were so named too, the confusion would be over and male and female would have a new way of defining, as insisted upon by trans women.

@vdbfamily

On a slightly different note, I was pondering whether, if women choose to embrace the term 'cervix haver' rather than fight it, but insisted that penis havers were so named too, the confusion would be over and male and female would have a new way of defining, as insisted upon by trans women.

Prostate, as the penis is removed in a minority of cases.

But irl, that's never going to work.

Wasn't there a transwoman who declared he had a cervix? And the MP who thought tranwomen grew one on taking cross sex hormones?

It's a bit annoying being defined by what you are against, rather than what you are for, so another definition would be useful.

I think a Baroness wrote an article once (haha sorry so vague but I really can't remember exactly) defining what we'd call "gender critical" as "biological realism" and I thought it was a good term. Unfortunately "biological essentialism" and "race realism" are too similar (both are basically terrible ideologies linking oppressive stereotypes to biological features). So I'm up for a new phrase.

What would JKR say?!

LovelyRicePudding I think you're referring to India Willoughby, who claims to have a cervix, and who also claims to be female and a Cis woman. The confused MP is David Lammy.

(I'm not quoting your post as it's liable to be deleted for 'misgendering' ... the proportionality of that versus the claims of IW are worth pondering!)

“BusBusBus

Everyone I know thinks sex and gender are interchangeable. I used to work in market and social research and client after client would cross out sex and replace with gender when they looked at my draft surveys. They all said gender was 'polite'“

So much confusion has happened because of this confusion which is all down to an American euphemism.

Let's face it, whatever you call yourself you are essentially going to be framed as a bitch who won't put male people first and do what she's told. Many words for that over the years and we live in an age of insanely hyperactive word salad and labelling.

Atheist. Covers it. I respect other people's beliefs. I wish to live in a society where all beliefs are equally catered for and live alongside each other in peace. I am not genuflecting at anyone else's altar, and expect them to respect my beliefs as much as they expect me to respect theirs. And I am not supporting male supremacism, however nicely it's dressed up and argued for.

@vdbfamily

On a slightly different note, I was pondering whether, if women choose to embrace the term 'cervix haver' rather than fight it, but insisted that penis havers were so named too, the confusion would be over and male and female would have a new way of defining, as insisted upon by trans women.

Love it but obviously problems... first hysterectomies, then different contexts.

It seems to switch between "people with a vagina" or "people who menstruate" or "pregnant person" or "birthing bodies" or "people with a cervix" or "non men" so you'd only end up with a load of infighting between people who think women are "people who menstruate" and people who think women are "people with vulvas" and no one would ever agree.

@NotTerfNorCis - can you explain your objection on the term race realism

It's an American alt right term meaning racist, claiming that there are biological differences between races that are more than skin deep:

Some describe themselves as “race realists”, reflecting how they see the scientific truth as being on their side (and because calling yourself a racist is still unpalatable, even to most racists).

www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/18/race-science-on-the-rise-angela-saini

Have to admit I've heard of it almost entirely in the context of TRAs saying 'gender critical feminists are the same as race realists' - when in fact we're not. It's TRAs who believe gender objectively exists and is innate to people's brains.

Atheist. Covers it.

It doesn't work for theists who don't believe in 'genderism', which is an non-theistic dogma.

I'd say it was extremely arguable that genderism is very much theistic, believing that a person is born into the wrong body - which involves a separate thing from the physical self, a higher power making a mistake in inserting, not to mention the endless other parallels with a religion, including it being a faith based position, (TWAW), and based on an orthodoxy supposed to be too complex for ordinary people to understand and who must follow as they are told without question.

Genderism atheist if you'd like to be more precise perhaps. But the meaning is essentially: I respect the right of a person to hold unusual, faith based beliefs of their choice, and have my right to not participate or share in those beliefs.

'Atheist' also doesn't work for those of us with different religious beliefs

I think of myself as a gender atheist, but I don’t think it works as a term to harness public support. For one thing, it’s alienating to anyone with a religious faith.

TRAs have co-opted huge swathes of the population and Establishment with catchy slogans. We need something with broad appeal.

I am not so fond of ‘Atheist’ in this context, as I think not all people who are religious think in such simplistic terms that physical reality is denied. For example, the great physicist at Durham University, Carlos Frank, answered when asked on Desert Island Discs if he ‘believed in God’, ‘Yes. Physics and religion are looking for different things’.

I do understand why you suggest Atheist but think it would alienate some religious people who agree with you about the protection of women, and agree with physical reality.

I think this issue has come to the attention of women who did not think they were feminists before, and who may not agree that all things related to gender are entirely ‘socially constructed’.

I still think 'women's rights' campaigner is the way to go - along with 'gay rights' - as it makes it clear what we are for and what TRAs are arguing against which is women's rights. The public are confused by words like gender critical or even feminist. The message needs to be simple and clear.

'Gender' unfortunately, does exist - as in, societies imposing gendered roles and stereotypes. We can be critical of them and reject them, but we can't say they don't currently exist.

@SantaClawsServiette

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.

Yep. I'm not in need of any labels, thanks.

I'm just me, with all my various thoughts, beliefs, tendencies, histories, etc. And these are subject to change. I'm not attached to most of the things I believe - I've arrived at various positions after researching and considering the available evidence. If new evidence comes to light, I'll reconsider.

Tribalism and labelling are half of what's got us into this bloody mess.

Because of TWAW any ‘woman’ word is out, sadly.

@Jacaranda75

Biological feminist?

I quite like this one. Agree GC isn't clear enough.

@Mittenmob

What about the SWVs the Stereotype Wiper Vipers

Gets my vote!

Don't like GC but don't like any particular label tbh.

Women's liberation