Should gender critical people actually be non-binary?? Or should non-binary people actually be gender critical?? I'm struggling to see the difference

[FusionChefGeoff]

After watching the 'thought experiment' video at the American Uni (sorry, can't remember the details!) I was struck by how the student who identified as non-binary basically presented the gender critical view - ie I do not agree with the gender stereotype associated with women, it's regressive and pointless, so I'm rejecting the stereotype by identifying as non-binary.

So why can't that person instead identify as 'gender critical' instead??

Or are there nuances that other non-binary people would explain that sets them apart from gender critical feminists?

I'm just struck with an 'if only' moment that if all the NBs had instead just used the GC 'label' that would give a lot less power to the rest of the movement!

They can’t - anymore than people can feel their age. Do 38yr old people wake up their birthday and think “OMG, I don’t feel 39! I must be trans-age or non-age!”?

Of course not. Age is a fact, as is sex. So, someone can’t ‘feel neither male or female’ because their sex is a fact. What they can do is refuse to be defined by the gender stereotypes associated with their sex - ie be gender critical.

The NB people at the workplace above (sorry I forgot the poster) still have a sex, and calling them “they” doesn’t remove their sex nor does it guarantee them freedom from sexist expectations. Personally I find it extremely sad that they can’t just be a woman or man and wear whatever they like. What they’re actually doing is reinforcing gender stereotypes: “Dresses are women’s clothes. If I wear a dress I can’t be a man anymore.” “ I wear a waistcoat and tie, so I’m not a woman” So regressive.

Interestingly, you say your other colleagues are ‘different’ because they wear the clothes associated with their sex and, by implication, therefore aren’t NB. Saying this just reinforces the fact that it’s largely about appearances. However, presumably none of those colleagues conform to gender stereotypes about behaviour, work choices, likes or whatever, so they’re equally as ‘NB’ as a woman wearing a suit or a man wearing lipstick. The difference is they don’t feel the need to announce this, and/or understand that other people feel the same as them.

When I was a teen, many male peers wore make up. I wore ‘men’s’ clothes and had short hair. How we laughed at our parents who found it shocking. How old-fashioned we thought they were! Now the world has moved totally backwards as Gender Ideology seeks to reinforce those stereotypes again and dress them up as progressive.

It’s really basic first year at uni women’s studies stuff (haha bet it’s not called that anymore). Helene Cixous outlined the binaries which are stereotypes based on sex split into male and female. So male is sun, female is moon, male is active, female is passive, male is self, female is other. It was a way of exploring how patriarchy forces women into the object rather than the subject role and submissive behaviours to support male domination over women. The binary was always an artificial construct, it was always meant to be fought against, it was never meant to define the sexes. It’s a manifestation of patriarchal stereotypes we are supposed to subvert, and do naturally within ourselves. Non-binary types like Laurie Penny just don’t understand this very basic feminist theory. It’s embarrassing tbqh.

And you know there won’t be. You certainly can’t explain it, you just think it’s whatever they think is reasonable enough. The only difference between you and the rest of us is you’re accepting of illogicality despite knowing deep down, whereas the rest of us aren’t. You know it makes no sense but think it’s decent to just shrug and go along with it. Which is your prerogative, I guess.

YY.

I’m another one who isn’t a fan of sex-based pronouns in most circumstances. I would rather keep them for when they are relevant (“she needs a mammogram”) and not lampshade people’s sex when it isn’t relevant (“they will have the draft ready next week”). We know that emphasising women’s sex is harmful in a professional context, so why not do less of it. I’ve noticed a few people recently giving their pronouns as she/they or he/they who seem to have a similar philosophy, rather than declaring themselves as having a special magical non-binary identity that’s somehow different from other people. I’m happy for people to use whatever pronouns they like about me in my absence - I don’t want to compel peope’s speech - but I also tell people my view on pronouns if they ask.

I agree that GC is not NB and I wish there was a “I have a sex but I reject gender as an oppressive hierarchy” option on forms asking for gender. I usually put Other and write that in.

We’re all different, in exactly the same was as each other! Look at my purple hair, cartoon avatar, pronouns in my bio and socialist politics!

Yes, exactly this!

Helen8220 · Today 00:45

There seem to be a lot of assumptions and generalisations being made here about what non-binary people are like. So, for balance - I have two non-binary colleagues. They are, I would estimate, late twenties/early thirties; both professionals (lawyers); perfectly sensible, likeable, intelligent people. They just want to be referred to as they/them, and not to be subjected to hostile comments or abuse regarding their gender non-confirming appearance. It doesn’t seem to me an unreasonable ask.

(1) So they want me to abandon MY sex-based pronouns that I use to describe the SEX of others, and they want to force me under threat of shame and accusations of bigotry to pander to their narcisstic nonsense-language.

(2) They want me to do (1) despite the evidence that to do so is to support an agenda that is homophobic and misogynistic and a woman and child safeguarding nightmare.

(3) If men or women get abuse for their appearance then that is obviously wrong.

But overall they are deeply unreasonable and do not appear to be sensible, likeable or intelligent, IMHO.

Helen8220 · Today 01:32

@NotBadConsidering
the main difference from an interpersonal interaction point of view (certainly in a workplace context) is pronouns. Personally i would much prefer if we didn’t have gendered pronouns at all - whether you believe they refer to sex or to gender, why can’t we refer to a person without bringing their sex/gender into it? Anyway, if a person is uncomfortable being called he or she, I’m not going to do it - it’s just common courtesy, like getting their name right.

I find it useful to be able to confer the extremely relevant thing in many many circumstances - SEX - when using pronouns to refer to others. And it is ZERO effort to get this information across - all you need to do is add or leave out the "s" in front of the "he". Fantastic when language can get vital things across with next to no effort. In contrast to pronoun demanders who force people to take more words to get less meaning across, and actually to deliberately mislead.

I sincerely hope to never ever mis-sex anyone again.

@drhf
We know that emphasising women’s sex is harmful in a professional context, so why not do less of it. I’ve noticed a few people recently giving their pronouns as she/they or he/they who seem to have a similar philosophy, rather than declaring themselves as having a special magical non-binary identity that’s somehow different from other people.

I've heard of this before (maybe it was you on another thread?).
I can understand the idea behind this, and somehow agree, but it has to be very clearly explained everytime you 'declare' your pronouns. Most people will understand something completely different if you say 'she/they'

I assume with no other context, ie blind, that a person with "she/they" is saying they are a "femme" non binary person of either sex.

Well I agree with you.

But isn't that the difference then between GCs and NBs.

GC don't really believe anyone has this inner sense of sex.

NBs believe people do have an inner sense, though of gender not sex. They use the terms man/woman and/or male/female to mean gender not sex.

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.
(Not my opinion BTW, but something I was told)

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.

It's the kind of thing people come out with after they read a few crap TRA blogs and Twitter threads. Sophistry.

I do see what you're getting at, OP. I'm GC but I think that if I were thirteen years old now I'd be taken in by the ideology and calling myself non-binary. I'm autistic, and I remember looking at what it seemed to mean to become a woman in my culture and not wanting it. I was looking at media representations of womanhood. Groups of characters in cartoons where there's only one female and her personality is 'the girl'. Women who exist in movies to be prizes for nerdy guys. Boring housewives who nag their likeable husbands in comedies. Adverts full of 'sex sells' - high heels and tight clothes and makeup. I knew I wasn't that. I didn't want to have to become any of that. I wanted to be a full human being, taken seriously, with my own unique collection of interests and talents and personality traits.

The problem was at that age (or possibly due to problems with theory of mind) I didn't realise that the same was true of every other woman. Yes, even the ones in high heels and makeup that I was so dismissive of. Media wasn't reality. There were no NPCs, no people who played supporting roles full of stereotypes. Everyone else was just as complex as I was.

Luckily, a couple of years later I started reading old second-wave feminist texts instead. There was nobody back then to tell me that some women were bad and had Wrong Opinions and even reading their work was 'harmful'. Young people today have to be much braver to go against the grain.

But yes, non-binary means that you believe in masculine and feminine brains - just that you're extra-special because yours is individual and doesn't fit in a box like everyone else's. 'You can't be non-binary, you're my mum!' exemplifies it, I think. It takes time for teenagers to think of their parents as real people, not just parents with no inner life beyond their children.

I wanted to be a full human being, taken seriously, with my own unique collection of interests and talents and personality traits.

There's an obvious response quip here about "then why would you go for non-binary"? And I wouldn't make it to such a serious post, except...

That's not just a quip, is it? To some extent this will fizzle because non-binaries will increasingly NOT be taken seriously.

Particularly female ones, I suspect.

At the minute it's still (just) running on the novelty factor to be a sort of "discovery" for the potential recruitee, a sort of "wow, I've never heard of this, and it's so freeing from the rest of society!"

That can't last, once it becomes too widespread. It won't be a secret, freeing thing any more, it will just be a label for normal boring people in normal society. (Including lots of non-binary mums - I imagine there will be particular stereotypes for those).

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.

I never understand this argument from transactivists as surely if we did the test we’d then find we’re male or female according to our biology. (for those who don’t have any other way of knowing this, like having been pregnant.) so if that’s how you’re meant to tell, then trans identity is irrelevant, except as gender expression/personality which the same as what the GC view thinks.

On the “how do you know you are male if you haven’t been tested ” facile question I’ve been asked before by an activist, it’s bizarre how easily a “gotcha” question like that can be answered; I’ve fathered children.