What is your least GC belief and why?

[PermanentTemporary]

Just thought I'd start this thread for no particular reason. The range of views interests me.

I have a few that may or may not be typical. I suppose they are summed up by believing that transition is always going to exist, that it's part of the human condition, and also that what sex we are is much less important than it used to be in daily life (I think this is a good thing).

'We can always tell' - this as a blanket statement is obviously not true, and worse, it's unprovable - if I can't tell, then I'm not going to know. Voice training can be remarkably successful for some male people (I'm a speech therapist). There are also quite a lot of stories by posters on here referring to people they know where they didn't realise they were trans for some years.

Public toilets are self policed and will be used based on someone's self perception. Making them a battleground doesn't help anyone, least of all women. Conversely, I do think awareness that abusing unaware women in public toilets by use of cameras is a specific perversion/porn category needs to be much greater.

Use of neutral pronouns (they/them) and using Mx as an honorific are perfectly reasonable things to do and fit in happily with my feminism. I think this will end up spreading, in fact they already are.

If I think of some more I'll add them.

Eunuchs were used to oversee harems weren’t they? They are mentioned in the karma sutra - forceably castrated to act as male guards for the ruler. There was a Caesar (can’t remember which) who referred to his castrated boy sex slaves as his ‘minnows’ who had to fellate him underwater. And castrati were picked for the misfortune of being beautiful singers. It was generally powerful men castrating less powerful males to suit their own purposes. I think the Hijra in India sometimes choose to get ritually castrated though.

It is not possible to change sex.

I do too and was amazed to find some feminists assert (without any kind of compelling evidence, because obtaining such evidence is impossible) that it is all down to socialisation.

But then we accept it when it comes to behaviour changes during PMT, menopause, pregnancy, basically anything that affirms female behaviour but not male.

Given that the demonstrable difference in levels of violence (sexual and otherwise) between men and women is, afaik, observed across all human cultures over all recorded history, it's improbable that this is just down to socialisation.

Yes to this. I think for me, experiencing the weird and powerful drives of ‘nesting instinct’ when I was pregnant - suddenly having all this energy for DIY and the like - made me realise that some behaviours are most definitely biologically driven. I think this is my ‘least GC’ belief - it sharply contradicts a lot of my pre-motherhood radical feminist beliefs - which were more ‘blank slate’.

I think in a case like that I would say the issue is the whole point is mocking women's bodies. And usually in these kinds of scenarios what is notable is that it's not very on the nose, so the humour is not there.

But lots of comedy sketch artists cross dress because they are performing a variety of skits. You see the same thing with women who do sketch comedy. And sometimes the incongruous appearance is part of the humour, but it actually has to be effective all round for that to work.

On the female end, Mary Walsh is a comedian who has a character called Dakey Dunn, Male Corespondent, who is quite hilarious. He does make fun of men in a way, but also you can't help but see truth in it. His very stereotyped appearance is part of the humour.

I think social media has a lot to answer for with lighting, filters and carefully posed photos meaning people can 'pass' very well online, but in the cold, hard light of day it's a different story.

I was idly wondering with a psychologist friend what the legacy of the Covid isolation years would be, especially the effects of everyone learning to rely so much on online communcation and social media.

I didn't say this to my friend but I do wonder if part of the legacy will be an almighty post-Covid spike in gender dysphoria as people try to transfer their carefully constructed online identities to the real world.

Two thoughts:

I think the passing phenomena is a case where there is a differernce between dealing with the general case and then a specific instance.

In the general case, biological sex is pretty evident.

In the specific case, there are times when it is not. And those specific individuals will be in situations where they have to navigate, and it may not always be clear what the best option is.

Just as an example, I know a transwoman who passes. That wasn't always the case, at one time it was more ambiguous - though it was always an ambiguity, people could see it was either a masculine woman or feminine man, but often did not know witch. But this individual is now very elderly and of course many very elderly people look very similar. I suspect if she went into a men's toilet people would think she was demented and had made a mistake.

So what to do? In this case it doesn't matter much, practically, but following a strict rule could potentially be more complicated for everyone than not doing so.

Oh - I also wanted to add, sometimes in the ancient world the penis was removed on eunuchs. A lot dies though. They have them a lot of water so it would, if they were lucky, force it's way through the scar tissue that was forming.

Yes, I also think the gc insistence on this is very ideological and totally unevidenced. And has a lot to answer for in terms of creating other bad ideas.

But this individual is now very elderly and of course many very elderly people look very similar.

Do you want another go at wording that without being ageist?

@MangyInseam I find your post insightful because it assumes that being the childbearing sex automatically puts women at a disadvantage, in societies from the stone age to now.

I don't disagree that men and women are different, what I'm pointing out is that men organise society according to their needs, and women are expected to fit in, with a few concessions like maternity leave.

Imagine if it was the other way round!

It’s also reflected in the ridiculous and churlish responses you get on here sometimes, particularly when somebody is discussing whether their unborn baby is male or female:
’Why do you want to know? So you can buy pretty pink bows if it’s a girl?’
’It’s SEX not GENDER’ (although I totally understand why people don’t want to throw ‘sex reveal’ events)
’Why do you want a girl? My boy is so cuddly and loving but my girl plays rugby and hates hugs’

Men only get a good rep on here when they’re unborn fetuses.

So what to do? In this case it doesn't matter much, practically, but following a strict rule could potentially be more complicated for everyone than not doing so.

In the past, men as boys were taught to respect women’s boundaries. The idea of walking into a woman’s toilet or changing room was seen as majorly transgressive. A no no. They’d be horrified and ashamed, being profusely apologetic if they went in the wrong sex room by accident.

I do wonder where this idea blossomed in male folk law, that if they perform certain rituals, they are no longer transgressing female boundaries when they go into private spaces for the opposite sex.

i imagine that if this misconception had never blossomed in the first place, there would be next to no people with your friend’s dilemma.

Now that we are finally having this conversation and women are squarely rejecting this idea that a performance of certain rituals allows males to waive the need to obtain womens’ consent (and even if they do ask us, the answer is still no), perhaps the numbers will naturally decline because this dilemma is an inconvenient limbo to live by.

@Cuppasoupmonster that outburst seems a bit 😱for a feminist board!

Eeek. I mean, I’m all for the word ‘sex’ being used in lieu of ‘gender’ but I find it churlish to interrupt a woman’s excited thread about her pregnancy to lambast her for it. And the flat denial that there is any reason a woman would be more apprehensive about expecting a boy, followed by threads about how awful men are etc.

I consider myself a ‘relaxed’ feminist but there has to be a coherent argument that doesn’t shy away from inconvenient truths and biology.

But then we accept it when it comes to behaviour changes during PMT, menopause, pregnancy, basically anything that affirms female behaviour but not male

Isn't it usually the genderists that want to pretend there are no physical or biological differences between women and men with who claim to be women?

The behaviour changes in your examples are down to hormonal changes. We think we are a superior species but we are still just mammals.

No amount of hormones will ever turn a man into a woman though.

@Whatsnewpussyhat no, the genderists like the ‘pink sparkly brain’ myth that says that, rather than the sexes simply having a greater propensity to act in certain ways, it is those behaviours that make you the relevant sex.

Whereas I believe that while the sexes have propensities, not following your sex based behavioural norms doesn’t mean you’re the other sex. There’s outliers and non conformists in everything, they’re still male or female.

Whereas some of the more hardcore feminism on here believe that the physical body has no bearing on behaviour, temperament, propensities etc and that is all the result of societal conditioning.

I'm not GC or a feminist. I think feminism is anti-mother, and often anti-woman in general.

I think it's impossible to change sex. Men should not be in women's spaces, even if they really do 'pass' as female.

Men and women are different - physically, emotionally, personality-wise, behaviourally. There's nothing wrong with being either male or female - we're just different.

Agree 100%.
And it bears repeating.

There are such 'hardcore feminists' (or maybe were a few decades ago) - I don't think they're at all common on MN FWR.

Start a thread about the differences between men and women and you’ll get some angry responses!

Gosh. Lots of ill feeling towards feminists and feminism on a feminist board.

I’d say the most hardcore feminists would be separatists- and I doubt they’d be so keen to shun all males if they thought the only differences were the socialised ones.

The way I see it is that we have certain biological drives which relate to procreation and our role in it. I wouldn’t really call those things ‘personality’. When I think of personality it would be more things like whether someone is a bit of a joker or serious or sentimental or outrageous- where their personality sits among others in a group and I don’t those traits are found more in one sex than the other.

As someone who never really liked supposed ‘girls toys’ and always had much more fun playing with boys as a kid, and even now I feel uncomfortable with the level of intimacy and invasive questioning that is expected in female company compared to the detached discussion of ideas and stupid banter that’s accepted amongst men (and feminists actually), I am pretty gender non-conforming. But then again so are most of the men (as well as the feminists) I associate with.

In my opinion, socialisation can help to temper and train males out of destructive behaviours stemming from their innate urge to dominate and get lots of sexual gratification, but it can’t stop those urges. Socialisation can also temper and train females out of self-negating impulses to appease dominant males and preserve the status quo, but it is a process which is never over.

I think feminists should still be extremely sceptical about what is innate, when there is so much socialisation to unpick. Getting the nesting instinct when you are pregnant is one thing, badgering your daughters, but not your son’s to do housework is something else.