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.

He's been using ladies' loos again, at the Labour conference.

Obviously the “social role” of women does exist, that's what gender is.

It's the way women and men are treated differently on all the occasions when their sex shouldn’t actually matter.

I don't hate Eddie Izzard.

If he was selected in my local seat which would most likely change to Labour if they were to win an election, I would probably vote for him, because I think the Conservatives are still more damaging to woman, despite Labour's stance on this issue.

In a safe Labour seat - probably not.

The issue I have with Eddie at the minute, is the using Ladies loos. Eddie is clearly not female, Eddie has been male and famous for most of my life.

Eddie, having such a high profile using the ladies loos when he is clearly male, shows such a lack of respect or consideration for females. It will also consider many other similar males to do the same thing.

It does sound as if there are good strong local candidates.so hopefully they will win out (I don't have a good MP at all and I yearn for a good local MP fighting for what matters in the constituency).

The Green candidate looks good too. If KjK stands that may take votes for her and ultimately benefit Eddie. But I guess it will stay Labour anyway.

The good thing about Eddie being selected is it raises the issues to the wider public. He is using Ladies toilets. He is using Female pronouns and saying he is a woman. Get that message out there. Make it clear. There are still so many people that do not understand that males with penises think they have a right to female spaces.

Eddie might be the perfect high profile candidate to get that issue out there and get Labour actually having to answer the questions.

Sorry for the ramble

It's the way women and men are treated differently on all the occasions when their sex shouldn’t actually matter.

So we can make TW happy by talking over them at meetings, is that the sort of thing?

Ps i didn't deliberately commit the worse crime known to man, by misgendering Eddie.

I used the pronoun that I have always used for him without thinking. Also it may be he's on a boy day anyway.

Especially if he has an acting job - boys make more money you see!

Although considering transitioning is literally life or death, I am surprised its so easy to change between the 2!

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.

Jolly good. Since someone mentioned Eddie Izzard, will you be welcoming Eddie Izzard into the women's changing rooms and showers at your local swimming pool along with yourself and your daughters? Or do you assume his "self policing" is good enough to keep him away? What if it wasn't? Or rather (since I assume Eddie Izzard does have some sense) what if someone else's wasn't? What if someone else took their local council's statement that "trans women are women" very literally and decided, "that's me, right now"?

And if you noticed someone at a similar physical state of transition to Eddie Izzard in the ladies changing room, or maybe someone who's even been taking hormones for a couple of months, claiming TWAW and the right to be there according to their own self perception, are you going to fight that battle, with your daughters, right there on the spot? You want your own daughters to be the battleground? Or are you expecting the attendant to fight it for you? Or the police?

Or do you not think it really might be safer for the people who make the rules to fight the battle first?

Use pronouns, preferred names and don't comment on their appearance basically! It seems pretty minimal to me but also seems inflammatory to lots of GC feminists!

Obviously the “social role” of women does exist, that's what gender is.

I think you have turned a collection into a thing.

In really oppressive regimes or very religious conservative societies where people’s whole lives are set around the mandatory observation of rituals you could call ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ‘roles’.

But in our society (UK) it’s only traditional ritual situations like ‘bride and groom’ at a wedding or doing certain steps and moves in dancing that you would use the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ to refer to roles being played.

I can’t think of any other situations I’d be playing a woman role.

A friend of mine goes to her in-laws for Christmas and she really resents that her husband lounges around eating chocolate and watching the TV, while she feels compelled to go to the kitchen to help her MIL and SIL clean up in the kitchen.

If her husband joined the women in the kitchen to help clean up, would he be playing the social role of woman? If she thought ‘screw it! I am going to lounge around and eat with the men’, would she be playing the social role of man?

What I am driving at, is that the ‘social role’ of ‘woman’ you talk about isn’t actually a ‘thing’, it is a linguistic shorthand for lots and lots of things that happen to or are expected of women.

Whereas social roles that are actually things are roles like ‘master of ceremonies’, ‘usher’, ‘leader’, ‘guest’.

Use pronouns, preferred names and don't comment on their appearance basically!

OK, so does that apply to causal acquaintances only, or does that also apply in court to someone who raped you, and to someone you were married to for twenty years, and to someone with an erection in the women's changing rooms?

The court thing is kind-of fixed now, because the new guidance to judges is that women don't have to call their rapist by a female name or pronoun. The rest is still a concern for feminists. Or not even that - it's a concern for women who have been in those situations even when they are not remotely feminist or GC. What usually makes women feminist and GC is thinking either "hm, I could be in that situation myself one day" or "hm, I care about other women who find themselves in that situation".

Still, nice for you if you never have been and never will be in any of those situations. You can right carry on being "minimal". And GC feminists will keep on worrying about the difficult stuff.

does that also apply in court to someone who raped you, and to someone you were married to for twenty years, and to someone with an erection in the women's changing rooms?
I wouldn't count any of those as social situations so no, in my opinion does not apply

Still, nice for you if you never have been and never will be in any of those situations. You can right carry on being "minimal". And GC feminists will keep on worrying about the difficult stuff.
I have been in one of those situations and hope never to be again. And I am a GC feminist. As I said in my first post, I'm literally answering the question. There is no need to be hostile to me.

But you’ve just proved my point. It isn’t just about women being in positions of power is it? And when they are it doesn’t mean they’ll change things for the better, as men just ‘select’ women sympathetic to them. Look at Liz Truss.

The mumsnet idea of feminism seems to be all about ‘rejecting gender stereotypes’ ie conforming to male social norms, doing ‘manly’ jobs, neutral clothing etc. What we should be doing is ensuring all women are respected whether they’re Mary Beard or a miniskirt wearing beautician.

Yes @AmaryllisNightAndDay this is so true.

I have been wondering how “Use pronouns, preferred names and don't comment on their appearance basically!” could mean anything other than ‘indulge, play along and pretend you haven’t noticed’. I don’t see how this is ‘treating’ someone ‘like the opposite sex’, because a member of the opposite sex doesn’t require that treatment at all.

So basically “treat as though” = “pretend to believe” - which is not minimal is it? It’s completely allowing someone else to dictate your own relationship with reality. It’s an unacceptable ask imo.

I doubt transition will always happen as it isn't happening now. Unless you really mean cross dressing etc.

Perhaps it will happen in some hellish future dystopia. I'll be long dead of course. Actually it makes the prospect of reincarnation a bit depressing.

I don't have a GC belief.

I know human beings do not change sex

I know transwomen are men

I know transmen are women

I know that Stonewall, Mermaids etc etc are harmful to the very people they profess to help

All the rest if just people trying to justify their thoughts.

I don't bother with that because I know that my thoughts on this are facts.

@adamryan. Why would you treat a woman any different,y than you would a man? Surely you would give both sexes equal respect?

No I haven’t. Perhaps ‘positions of power’ will look very different than this current male-defined model after a long time of women changing the system from within, to better suit the needs and lives of women.

You have a prejudiced idea of what a position of power and authority can look like. It doesn’t have to be the sort of thing that fits men like a glove. I imagine something much more woman-centred, but I don’t want to experience the total upending of society - a violent, sweeping revolution, to get there. The future I envision is one where women can have huge social clout without needing to forgo, or outsource, their mothering to get there.

This is such a sweeping generalisation:

“The mumsnet idea of feminism seems to be all about ‘rejecting gender stereotypes’ ie conforming to male social norms, doing ‘manly’ jobs, neutral clothing etc. What we should be doing is ensuring all women are respected whether they’re Mary Beard or a miniskirt wearing beautician.”

I don’t think it deserves a response.

That’s fine @EndlessTea but it’s my opinion. All I see there is a lot of word salad but very little in terms of how that could actually be implemented.

Hark at you @Cuppasoupmonster! The Queen of Sweeping generalisations thinks anything less than a detailed implementation plan for a century and a half of widespread societal change is “word salad”. Righty-o.

Maybe you are one of the majority of people who just like the status quo as is and dislike feminists who question and challenge it (whilst being happy to reap all the benefits of a century and a half of feminism of course)? You really aren’t alone if that is the case.

There has always been criticism of women ‘being like men’ when they’ve fought for any improvements to our lot. Having the vote is a bit manly - as is the option to wear trousers isn’t it?

The change is happening, albeit very slowly and sometimes it seems ‘one step forwards and two steps back’.

This whole threat to our reality as women, is part of the massive backlash against the second wave.

I know.

But I
1/ don't think that was as bad as the CHANGING in the park loos, and shouting at the lasses that complained.
2/ I'm actually personally not that bothered about toilets. I think the all in together unisex "solutions " are gross but that's about it.

Yes, I know, that's just me. Yes, I know almost all on these board would disagree but I've been terfing for 5 years now and that's the way I feel.

That's my second most 😱😱😱😱 non gc belief and actually that's the one I think the majority of the public would not be gc on either. Don't shoot the messenger....

Fair answers.
I still think, though, that a) loos are one of those canary-in-the-mineshaft things – if that's the right phrase; I mean things that may not seem huge on their own but signify or let in other bigger issues
and b) an obvious and high-profile man using them makes it seem more OK/acceptable/not to be complained about. Which goes to your point about 'that's the one I think the majority of the public would not be gc on either.'

I wouldn't and I'm not sure why you think I would treat them differently

I guess this is kind of it
So basically “treat as though” = “pretend to believe” - which is not minimal is it? It’s completely allowing someone else to dictate your own relationship with reality.

Although I don't think its about me pretending to believe. Its about me respecting their belief in gender identity.
Rather than insisting on using their sex based pronouns as I won't compromise my own "relationship with reality".

I really do see it as equivalent to supporting colleagues who want celebrate Easter even though I'm not religious, for example. Or going to their church wedding. It isn't about me at all. It's about them.

Thanks for saying this. I haven't got involved because I think the OP is a wind-up, but yes — gender ideology is a belief system that falls down, like religion, when you ask for evidence. Whereas the gender atheist/ GC point of view stands on material reality and reproducible science. It's not a belief, it's a rational opinion based on observation.

But celebrating Easter and going to church weddings isn't being pushed as a 'kind' and somehow quite obligatory thing to do in e.g. a work context, like using pronouns on your emails or using the 'correct' gendered pronouns for others is.
And you're much less likely to attract censure/trial by social media if you don't celebrate Easter and go to church weddings than if you use the correct/sex but wrong-gender pronoun for someone.

Exactly. Where I work it is perfectly acceptable to be an atheist, not believing in gender identity on the other hand.....