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?

Gender realist?

Women's liberation movement works for me.

I'd prefer feminist. But that's been appropriated.

Excellent post Bosky. I go through the same thought processes / circles. While it's now a position / belief in law (adjective? Adverb? I should know this; too tired today!) it's not a religious belief and I don't feel it's use as a personal label is useful for the reasons many have outlined.

I am critical of gender stereotypes as a feminist.

I was engaged in a twitter thread by the lgbt teacher where "gc = anti trans." The problem was that so many only understood it as "anti trans." Some pointed out it just means critical of gender stereotypes, which is exactly what it means.

I was saying that the TRA community calls us biological reductionists not recommending it ( or anything that gives the sane message )as a label

I do think there needs to be a label that is clear

gender critical is read by people as meaning we are critical of transgender people -it's ambiguous and works against us

Women's liberation movement works for me

Yes that works absolutely fine to describe feminists.

But what about a world to describe the much larger group of people who know there are 2 sexes and think gender woo is nonsense? So, including feminists but also including most of the general public.

What's a good word for this group of people?

Someone upthread suggested "pro-reality", which I like.

What would you suggest?

What about “overly simplistic”? would fit nicely

Sometimes we find people try to convince us things are 'complicated' in an effort to make us doubt what we know very well to be true.

@Itsanewdah

What about “overly simplistic”? would fit nicely

Relying on observable facts and scientific evidence is overly simplistic? Of course it is.

Bore off Itsanewdah.

But what about a world to describe the much larger group of people who know there are 2 sexes and think gender woo is nonsense? So, including feminists but also including most of the general public.

What's a good word for this group of people?

You've already said it: 'most of the general public'. I don't think there needs to be a specific term for 'ordinary people with bog-standard views'.

Lots of people who oppose gender ideology don't consider themselves feminists, though.

I dislike the term GC because within feminist it uses an unusual definition of gender that is at odds with other ways of using the word, for example sociological understanding of gender, which I think is problematic, especially if you are trying to describe a wide variety of people who may not accept that specific and unusual usage.

To me the crux of what people who oppose genderism are united in is that they feel it's at odds with the basic physical reality of sex and human biology.

That is to say, insofar as supporters of genderism claim that gender as they understand it is biologically based and separate from sex, those who oppose it claim that it isn't. There is no scientific basis for that claim, no good evidence.

Where the discussion gets off the rails is that actually, most genderists do believe that it is also scientifically true and that evidence exists or at least will be forthcoming. They do not recognize it as an ideological position, and that is the basis on which they say we should all accept it.

So it really is about a competing view of what is a true belief and what is an untrue belief.

The only response to my mind is to keep saying, we want evidence based science, we want robust philosophical discussion on this, because it is clearly revealed that the genderist position does not have these things. So I would just say, rationalist and evidence based.

This bussiness of facts vs belief is really barking up the wrong tree, IMO. People who believe odd things like the earth being flat consider that to be a true fact, not a belief. People with philosophical beliefs like belief in God, or a Marxist view of historical progress, also believe those things are true facts, and would argue that people who do not believe those things have false beliefs.

Even the claim that true facts can be discerned through empirical observation only is a belief system, (and one that can't be demonstrated empirically.)

@ErrolTheDragon

But what about a world to describe the much larger group of people who know there are 2 sexes and think gender woo is nonsense? So, including feminists but also including most of the general public.

What's a good word for this group of people?

You've already said it: 'most of the general public'. I don't think there needs to be a specific term for 'ordinary people with bog-standard views'.

There does, though. It would be a useful word. It would be a word that people who are getting involved in the debate but who are not feminists could use to describe themselves.

What's a good word for this group of people?

Firstly, Whatever name is suggested on this thread, in fwr on mn, will be labelled "anti trans." Any term suggested elsewhere will also be anti trans.

Secondly, Is there a label that all the people who "support trans rights," even those who aren't trans and aren't hugely active in discussions, give themselves? Apologies if I've missed it, it's been v busy.

The other issue is that terms such as "reality" and "biology" are also used by those "supporting trans rights" thanks to the "neurotrash" science papers purporting to provide scientific "evidence of tranness" from a biological POV, and the coopting of differences of sexual development. There's sleight of hand that many fail to see.

There's clearly a lot of confusion floating about.

I don't particularly like labels as stereotypes quickly become associated, though I do understand their function, especially in for eg, diagnostic and treatment and also in law.

And so, despite not liking the term, I come back to recognising that GC views are now recognised in law and so perhaps they have to be used. Any group of people can hold these. So it's about routinely clarifying what that ruling said.

It may be that at some point in the future this term has to be taught and clarified correctly in schools? Not sure if that's actually helpful or not. Good biology teaching and smashing gender stereotypes feels like the better option.

My dh would say "sensible."

Took me so long to compose that several others have said similar things!

In many ways it's better not to have a "them and us" stand point. The us can sing from many different song sheets and in many ways this could be stronger.

Many dislike affiliation to one label and actively try to avoid it.

Pro-safeguarding feminist. Who like most women on the Clapham Omnibus isn’t cis thinks gender is absurd and knows humans can’t change sex.

@WarriorN

What's a good word for this group of people?

Firstly, Whatever name is suggested on this thread, in fwr on mn, will be labelled "anti trans." Any term suggested elsewhere will also be anti trans.

Secondly, Is there a label that all the people who "support trans rights," even those who aren't trans and aren't hugely active in discussions, give themselves? Apologies if I've missed it, it's been v busy.

The other issue is that terms such as "reality" and "biology" are also used by those "supporting trans rights" thanks to the "neurotrash" science papers purporting to provide scientific "evidence of tranness" from a biological POV, and the coopting of differences of sexual development. There's sleight of hand that many fail to see.

There's clearly a lot of confusion floating about.

I don't particularly like labels as stereotypes quickly become associated, though I do understand their function, especially in for eg, diagnostic and treatment and also in law.

And so, despite not liking the term, I come back to recognising that GC views are now recognised in law and so perhaps they have to be used. Any group of people can hold these. So it's about routinely clarifying what that ruling said.

It may be that at some point in the future this term has to be taught and clarified correctly in schools? Not sure if that's actually helpful or not. Good biology teaching and smashing gender stereotypes feels like the better option.

My dh would say "sensible."

"Secondly, Is there a label that all the people who "support trans rights," even those who aren't trans and aren't hugely active in discussions, give themselves?"

I think that they would be amongst those who refer to themselves as "Trans Allies", many of whom are not hugely active but say that they want to "do better" and "educate themselves".

There are materials and training programmes for employers to use to set up schemes for "Trans Allies" and to encourage all employees to "show their allyship" (I swear I have seen that word!) by wearing pronoun badges, putting pronouns in emails, accepting that "cis" is a reasonable self-descriptor, etc. etc.

The correct word would be "allegiance" but that would be saying the quiet part out loud. "Ally" is so much more cuddly and #bekind to those poor, uniquely vulnerable and marginalised folx.

In the USA, GLSEN has established "GSA" Groups in Schools ("Gender and Sexuality Alliance" - I don't know if this is a relabelling and redirection of GSA = "Gay Straight Alliance"?)

Any member of an "alliance" = "ally".

(The "LGB Alliance" is the most obvious Gender Critical counter-movement, including as it does both straight and trans "allies" as well as L, G & B people.)

WarriorN I think your question gets to the heart of one of the problems we have in promoting a "Gender Critical" position to the General Public.

The tack from the "Gender Identity Ideology" lobby has been to focus on reflex #bekind support for people: people who are portrayed as uniquely vulnerable and marginalised, and children in particular.

All of the messy, illogical, self-contradictory, un-evidenced theory is just so much "small print" that can be ignored. Up front is the big, bold, heart-warming "just #bekind !" message.

So any criticism of the "small print" is swiped away as bad-faith cover for #benasty! bigotry towards those uniquely vulnerable, marginalised people.

That's not to say that we should abandon all efforts to counter the magical-thinking nonsense underwriting the #bekind message.

However, this means that to mirror "Gender Identity Ideology" campaigning, the "poster children" for the "Gender Critical Position" do need to include:

• the growing ranks of detransitioners and the "sex-change regretters" who have gone too far to be able to find a way back

• the minors in the USA and elsewhere who are paraded freshly post-op by "gender surgeons", their scars on full display

• the multitude of post-op TikTokkers and YouTubers who, despite demonstrating and explaining their surgeries that "went wrong", have not detransitioned or expressed "transition regret"

(Exulansic has taken a deep-dive into some tragic examples:
www.youtube.com/c/Exulansic/featured )

I am not not not suggesting that this should be the only focus of "Gender Critical" campaigning, nor that this is not already happening.

I am merely suggesting that this sort of campaigning is the most obvious mirror to Gender Identity Ideology propaganda that weaponises sympathy for children in order to recruit casual, reflex "Trans Allies" operating on auto-pilot.

The term for people who know humans can't change sex is-

99.9999999999999% of the world's population
All humans on the planet. Those who don't are so few as to be statistically irrelevant.

The general population.

Everyone in society bar a number so small as to be negligible.

Etc.

If we need new terms, I think we should have a new term for bodily-sex or physical-sex, to try to get away from the coy refusal to use the word sex and then the muddle when people say 'gender' because they don't like the word sex.

So what about bex = bodily sex? you would say that someone could dress as any gender they like but can't change their bex.

I'm happy with the term gender critical, because i think that the concept & use of gender is the main think I dispute as a feminist. something like biological-realist might imply that women are biologically driven to stay-at-home/have-lots-of-babies/be-submissive etc which is not the message at all. I want to destroy ideas that people should care about gender, while retaining a small number of necessary distinctions based on biological sex (bex!).

Yes it would be better to get rid of Gender Critical. Firstly it’s a negative being critical of something. Secondly nobody understands it. Thirdly it validates Gender, and equates it with sex which we absolutely do not want.

We need something simple, and positive.

The pro life V pro choice up is a very good example. And I spent years arguing that one.

Biological realist is much better, it’s positive, both words are understandable. It’s much simpler. Much harder to argue against as well. If anyone comes up with a better option than I’m all for it. Something catchy. To grip the public conscience with.

Too close to biological essentialist?

I'm happy with the term gender critical, because i think that the concept & use of gender is the main think I dispute as a feminist. something like biological-realist might imply that women are biologically driven to stay-at-home/have-lots-of-babies/be-submissive etc which is not the message at all. I want to destroy ideas that people should care about gender, while retaining a small number of necessary distinctions based on biological sex (bex!).

I don't think there's any chance of us replacing a word as fundamental as sex, and nor should we - it's in so many science books etc. But your other points are good.

Sex matters, for the things sex matters for. Anything where our dimorphic bodies or reproductive roles are involved. But not for how we dress, any other role in society etc.

Feminists and TRAlibans

Non-genderists?
Gender-free?

Sorr I haven’t RTFT, been looking after elderly relative over Xmas.

I like the suggestions of "pro-safeguarding".

I suppose Protect Real Women wouldn’t be acceptable.

Meanwhile, on another side of town, the men are embracing the term "Gender Critical" - as meaning the opposite of "Bullshit" . . .

"Reject the Bullshit - Be Gender-Critical"
West Side Story Bullshit

"Just F&CK OFF and take your rainbows with you"
Genderoids appropriate the pink triangle

"For the Sake of Women's Sport - Resist the Bullshit"
Pink Pravda

I do like "Genderoids"

Those are from a new Gender Critical YouTube Channel by Clive Simpson - excellent, short, punchy videos that started with three for "Gender Critical Coming Out Day"
www.youtube.com/user/FlamingFairy/videos

(Well it almost started that way. There is one earlier, unrelated video, "The attempted assassination of George III")

=======

And as if by magic, another relevant video! This one ties in with earlier discussions about the risk of "Biological Realism" being likened to "Race Realism":

"Is GC like Race Realism?"
28 Dec 2021

00:00 Intro
01:34 Surface meaning
03:05 Is Race Real?
09:48 What is Race Realism?
12:59 Gender Realism?
19:47 Other Differences
24:12 Actual GC Beliefs
32:13 What's the Motive?
35:30 Conclusion
37:13 Outro

===========

For reasons previously stated, I don't particularly like the term "Gender Critical".

However, at this stage of the game would it not make more sense and be more productive to work on making the meaning more accessible outside of the radfem-bubble and legal rulings?

There are lots of terms that make little sense at face value but they work their way into common parlance with broadly understood shared meanings.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "An update of 455 new words, from 'dad bod' to 'deplatform'"
www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/new-words-in-the-dictionary

"Gender critical" was submitted to Collins Dictionary as a "new word" on 10 June 2021 (the day the Forstater Judgement was published) with a proposed definition that is currently "being investigated":

"describing views that hold that transgender people cannot change their biological sex"

www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/23720/gender+critical

Other respectable Dictionaries already contain definitions of "Gender Critical".

If you do an internet search for "define: gender critical" a lot of the results refer to the definition in the Forstater Judgement, ie.

A Gender Critical Position

• The belief that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women.

• The belief that such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women.

• The belief that presentation and performance do not equate to literally changing sex.

• The belief that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

That is not some random "Tumblr definition", Urban Dictionary definition or, equally irrelevant, some snotty-nosed, anime-avatar TRA slur, ephemeral Mumsnet FWR thread-consensus that could get zapped on a whim, Pink News hyper-bollocks or self-important Stonewall pronouncement.

I really think we need to pay more heed to just how lucky we are in the UK, ie. that we can refer to and rely on definitions enshrined in primary legislation and in legal rulings:

"man" and "woman" are defined in the Equality Act 2010

Section 212 "General Interpretation"

“man” means a male of any age;

“woman” means a female of any age

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

"Gender Critical" is defined in the Forstater Judgement 10 June 2021

(see above)

This article by Peter Daly, a Lawyer involved with Maya's case, is really important to understand the significance of the protection in law for both Gender Critical beliefs and "Gender Theory" as a belief system:

"The Forstater Judgment: What Next?"
Peter Daly, 10 June 2021
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly?

(I might copy and paste that in another post so it does not get overlooked).