Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Male and Gender Critical

311 replies

Letmespeak82 · 04/07/2023 20:32

Anyone else find being associated with some of the male Gender Critical activists a bit…well embarrassing? I’m not even going to deal with the dumpster fire that is Glinner (though it seems many on this board love him). But now we have James Esses who is hyper focused on what this woman is wearing. What difference does it make if she wears revealing clothes or not? Typical gross male attitude.

Male and Gender Critical
Male and Gender Critical
OP posts:
ThePM · 05/07/2023 11:37

villou · 05/07/2023 10:56

Wow this thread is a real lesson in framing. Pretty sure if OP had come on and said ‘should young women be able to wear what they want without being told they are asking for/up for sex’? - most women on this board would agree. Because it’s been seen as an attack against the GC group then instead there’s all sorts of weird arguments being made that wearing shorts and a crop top (even leather ones!) means you are up for sex and can’t define yourself as not wanting any. I think asexuality is basically silly, but it definitely is misogynistic of James to be going round commenting on what women are wearing and using phrases like ‘scantily clad’ to ‘prove’ a woman’s sexual desires.

I also think it’s true that being a GC man isn’t the same as being a feminist ally, and some display very male behaviour incl. misogyny. But there are also men who’ve done a lot to push back on this stuff and who aren’t attention seeking or trying to make it all about them.

Seriously?

I don’t buy that shallow of an analysis for one second.

LonginesPrime · 05/07/2023 11:50

Wow this thread is a real lesson in framing. Pretty sure if OP had come on and said ‘should young women be able to wear what they want without being told they are asking for/up for sex’? - most women on this board would agree. Because it’s been seen as an attack against the GC group then instead there’s all sorts of weird arguments being made

It's a lesson in not falling into the traps set by gender identity ideologues, as that's what's happened here.

OP didn't start the thread to debate whether James Esses is right or wrong about what women wear - she had already concluded that she didn't agree with him and was troubled by what that meant for gender critical women in terms of Esses' promotion of gender critical views.

The accusation of guilt-by-association (or association fallacy) is a well-worn silencing tactic and has been used against women for a long time to counter arguments for women's rights. In my opinion, it works especially well on women because we tend to be more empathetic and take these accusations very seriously (even though we shouldn't, logically).

Gender identity ideologues pull this one all the time, pointing to Nazis attending rallies, etc as meaning something that it does not mean - this serves two main purposes - (1) to prompt infighting within a group to achieve a 'divide and conquer' effect and (2) to distract women from the actual argument and to redirect their attention to other issues they care about that aren't actually the issue being addressed.

As villou says, just look at the energy that women have spent on this thread trying to reconcile their perceived guilt-by-association with their gender critical beliefs unnecessarily. The answer to gender identity ideologists when they say "oh, but this person also believes x" should be something along the lines of "well, they also believe the sun is hot - are you saying it's not because this person thinks it too?".

It's easier to spot this kind of accusation when it's about outright Nazis, as people don't go on to defend the Nazi position. But when it's something that seems like it's a controversial opinion but debatable, it's very easy to get drawn into defending that person's random views on another topic without noticing the logical fallacy involved. Which is exactly what gender ideologues want, because the more time and energy women spend debating whether some gender critical person is also a misogynist is time and energy that isn't spent monitoring what's happening, writing letters, challenging policy, researching and sharing information and lobbying the government and other organisations to recognise that biological sex matters.

Association fallacy - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

JanesLittleGirl · 05/07/2023 12:24

LonginesPrime · 05/07/2023 11:50

Wow this thread is a real lesson in framing. Pretty sure if OP had come on and said ‘should young women be able to wear what they want without being told they are asking for/up for sex’? - most women on this board would agree. Because it’s been seen as an attack against the GC group then instead there’s all sorts of weird arguments being made

It's a lesson in not falling into the traps set by gender identity ideologues, as that's what's happened here.

OP didn't start the thread to debate whether James Esses is right or wrong about what women wear - she had already concluded that she didn't agree with him and was troubled by what that meant for gender critical women in terms of Esses' promotion of gender critical views.

The accusation of guilt-by-association (or association fallacy) is a well-worn silencing tactic and has been used against women for a long time to counter arguments for women's rights. In my opinion, it works especially well on women because we tend to be more empathetic and take these accusations very seriously (even though we shouldn't, logically).

Gender identity ideologues pull this one all the time, pointing to Nazis attending rallies, etc as meaning something that it does not mean - this serves two main purposes - (1) to prompt infighting within a group to achieve a 'divide and conquer' effect and (2) to distract women from the actual argument and to redirect their attention to other issues they care about that aren't actually the issue being addressed.

As villou says, just look at the energy that women have spent on this thread trying to reconcile their perceived guilt-by-association with their gender critical beliefs unnecessarily. The answer to gender identity ideologists when they say "oh, but this person also believes x" should be something along the lines of "well, they also believe the sun is hot - are you saying it's not because this person thinks it too?".

It's easier to spot this kind of accusation when it's about outright Nazis, as people don't go on to defend the Nazi position. But when it's something that seems like it's a controversial opinion but debatable, it's very easy to get drawn into defending that person's random views on another topic without noticing the logical fallacy involved. Which is exactly what gender ideologues want, because the more time and energy women spend debating whether some gender critical person is also a misogynist is time and energy that isn't spent monitoring what's happening, writing letters, challenging policy, researching and sharing information and lobbying the government and other organisations to recognise that biological sex matters.

Perfectly put. Many thanks.

YouAreNotBatman · 05/07/2023 12:24

villou · 05/07/2023 10:56

Wow this thread is a real lesson in framing. Pretty sure if OP had come on and said ‘should young women be able to wear what they want without being told they are asking for/up for sex’? - most women on this board would agree. Because it’s been seen as an attack against the GC group then instead there’s all sorts of weird arguments being made that wearing shorts and a crop top (even leather ones!) means you are up for sex and can’t define yourself as not wanting any. I think asexuality is basically silly, but it definitely is misogynistic of James to be going round commenting on what women are wearing and using phrases like ‘scantily clad’ to ‘prove’ a woman’s sexual desires.

I also think it’s true that being a GC man isn’t the same as being a feminist ally, and some display very male behaviour incl. misogyny. But there are also men who’ve done a lot to push back on this stuff and who aren’t attention seeking or trying to make it all about them.

I was going to add that what really got people fired up, was the fact that she’s asexual.
This place really can’t stand asexuality, for whatever reason.

Sad to read on that you think small group of people being who they are is ’silly’, not a whole lot they can do about it and they are allowed to speak about it.

DarkDayforMN · 05/07/2023 12:27

It’s like if she was wearing football kit - I would think she played football.

I love this analogy. And I would just like to point out that someone marching around in protests complaining about how society discriminates against football haters, yada yada Equality Act, would deserve to be laughed at whether or not they’re wearing football kit. But wearing football kit would add an extra edge of self-important absurdity to the proceedings.

(Society does discriminate against football haters! Sports small talk is a lot more universal than sex small talk. Yet no one’s out there with placards and posturing about asportuality.)

Witchorama · 05/07/2023 12:41

I was going to add that what really got people fired up, was the fact that she’s asexual.
This place really can’t stand asexuality, for whatever reason.

It's not asexuality that's the problem. It's asking for it to be included in the EA. What rights don't asexuals have? Please enlighten me.

YouAreNotBatman · 05/07/2023 12:46

It's not asexuality that's the problem.

Yes it is. And it’s been on going thing around here.
People been rude, condescending about it, denying they exist for quite some time now.

I’ve never understood it at all, I’ve asked why that is - no answer.

RoseslnTheHospital · 05/07/2023 12:52

Who are you asking? There's no hive mind or group responses here. You need to engage with specific posters who you think are doing those things and challenge them specifically.

DarkDayforMN · 05/07/2023 12:53

I’ve never understood it at all, I’ve asked why that is - no answer.

That is because you're misunderstanding at a more basic level than you realise. It's okay not to be interested in sex, I doubt you'll be able to find a single comment on here suggesting otherwise. But expecting your lack of interest in sex to be significant in some way to other people, let alone to the government, is self-obsessed and silly.

TinselAngel · 05/07/2023 12:53

I'm happy to be on the record as saying asexuality is a problem.

I find it both chilling and rapey, that it's being pushed at a time when many young people are being medicated/ operated on into having no sexual function.

Asexuality seems no longer to mean that you don't want to have sex ever, but that you are willing to have sex but not particularly enjoy it.

TinselAngel · 05/07/2023 12:56

As ever, the idea women should have sex but not enjoy it is a feminist issue and only serves the interests of men.

NotHavingIt · 05/07/2023 12:57

villou · 05/07/2023 10:56

Wow this thread is a real lesson in framing. Pretty sure if OP had come on and said ‘should young women be able to wear what they want without being told they are asking for/up for sex’? - most women on this board would agree. Because it’s been seen as an attack against the GC group then instead there’s all sorts of weird arguments being made that wearing shorts and a crop top (even leather ones!) means you are up for sex and can’t define yourself as not wanting any. I think asexuality is basically silly, but it definitely is misogynistic of James to be going round commenting on what women are wearing and using phrases like ‘scantily clad’ to ‘prove’ a woman’s sexual desires.

I also think it’s true that being a GC man isn’t the same as being a feminist ally, and some display very male behaviour incl. misogyny. But there are also men who’ve done a lot to push back on this stuff and who aren’t attention seeking or trying to make it all about them.

Nobody has said that what you wear automatically means you are up for sex. Reducing the nuance of dress, presentation and social social perception to such thought terminating cliches is not very helpful.

Ther is nothing "weird" about being conscious of the signals you are sending in the way you behave, how you talk or present yourself or what you wear. We are always signalling to others, whethere we are conscious of it or not.

Your conception of misogyny seems simplistic and confused to me.

MavisMcMinty · 05/07/2023 12:59

This place really can’t stand asexuality, for whatever reason.

People been rude, condescending about it, denying they exist for quite some time now.

Dunno about the rest of “this place” but I really don’t care what consenting adults do or don’t get up to in private. They have no impact on my life, nor anyone else’s. People who don’t have sex have every human right that is afforded to those who do.

NotHavingIt · 05/07/2023 12:59

Justnot · 05/07/2023 11:13

Wear what you want but shouldn’t we be questioning why some teen girls want to look like, as pp said up thread, sex dolls? Do we really think that women/girls have chosen this aesthetic for themselves? How is running round in a pair of knickers empowering?

I argue with my teen about it all the time but these are the images she has grown up with on insta/TikTok/music videos - she’s not ready to have to rebuff the attention that comes with her clothes but the mantra is not to shame them about their clothes choices. Some of the stuff her friends post on TikTok etc are shockingly sexualised - I don’t see any agency in their choices. They want to be liked and desired before they even really know what it means cos that is the message society is giving them. I despair.

Yes, they just think they look nice and pretty and/or just like their friends.

NotHavingIt · 05/07/2023 13:03

'Asexuality' is just another identity label and another way to primarily frame a girl as being primarily sexual. everything has to be in relation to sex or sexuality/orientation.

That's Queer Theory for you.

NotHavingIt · 05/07/2023 13:04

too many 'primarilies'...... I type and post too quickly.

Summer2023hasarrived · 05/07/2023 13:07

@YouAreNotBatman
"I was going to add that what really got people fired up, was the fact that she’s asexual.
This place really can’t stand asexuality, for whatever reason.

Sad to read on that you think small group of people being who they are is ’silly’, not a whole lot they can do about it and they are allowed to speak about it."

WRONG. I got annoyed with a silly person who describes herself as "award winning asexual activist and founder of this is what asexual looks like" says she they are marching for "equal rights for asexual people, legal recognition and protection". Then people ask her 'what equal rights are you lacking?" or "why do you need different or more protection, than is available to everyone under the law?" and various other questions asking how people would know someone is asexual if they didn't scream and shout about it.... and the replies are along the lines of 'stop attacking us with your questions', or why are you making fun of us asexuals, stop picking on me.

other people may have become annoyed for a similar reason or a completely different reason. Maybe the sense of entitlement many in these new gender groups have. Many due to the 'look at us, but when you do, why are you looking at us'. The constant seeking attention or validation for whatever choice they make - really who would know she was asexual if she didn't keep shouting it all the time!

NotHavingIt · 05/07/2023 13:14

"A small group of people being who they are"

To define one's whole identity around your sexuality or lack of it, really does seem silly to me.

It's a fad! You don't need to go around advertising your interest in sex, or lack of it, to everyone. Who cares? Why does it matter?

RachelNoire · 05/07/2023 13:14

Thanks to glinner, Dennis and all the other GC men out there. We need everyone to help us show this disgraceful ideology up for what it is, it doesn’t care about genuinely dysphoric people at all. Just wants to sterilise, mutilate, medicalise for life. All our vulnerable young people.

as for the asexual stuff, of course it’s a Trojan horse for normalising yet another label/identity (not having any sexual or romantic attraction to others). people could quietly go about their business without having to divulge whether they fancy someone or not but no…

This will be the next big push now that “trans” has massively slipped up & stumbled on the way to the finish line. It’s like a relay but they’re not going to win.

Boiledbeetle · 05/07/2023 13:23

YouAreNotBatman · 05/07/2023 12:46

It's not asexuality that's the problem.

Yes it is. And it’s been on going thing around here.
People been rude, condescending about it, denying they exist for quite some time now.

I’ve never understood it at all, I’ve asked why that is - no answer.

It's, at least for me, not denying it exists. Of course it does. But as i carry out my day to day life i don't go round announcing my sexuality or religion favourite tv programmes and paint colour preferences etc to anyone that will listen I fail to see what her being asexual has to do with the price of fish!

There are no rights she is missing out on. She isn't being persecuted for it, or losing her job over it or not able to book a hospital appointment because of it. So why does it need broadcasting to all and sundry?

LonginesPrime · 05/07/2023 13:32

as for the asexual stuff, of course it’s a Trojan horse for normalising yet another label/identity (not having any sexual or romantic attraction to others). people could quietly go about their business without having to divulge whether they fancy someone or not but no…

It's not just that:

  1. setting asexuality as akin to gender identity issues is another way for gender ideologues to continue conflating sexual orientation and gender identity, as they did with the LGB and T thing and the countless times they compare "transphobia" (in all its many forms) with actual homophobia (obviously actual transphobia exists too, just not the Stonewall version), and

  2. it potentially opens the door for males accused of fetishising womanhood for sexual kicks to turn round and say "actually, I'm asexual and you can't prove otherwise" until you look on their social media

See - even I'm getting drawn into the discussion after having warned against distractions upthread - it's far too easy to get sidetracked when gender ideologues makes us feel we should be policing each other!

Letmespeak82 · 05/07/2023 13:35

Witchorama · 05/07/2023 08:36

I'm not sure, and OP will tell me if I am completely wrong, but I am under the impression that the OP doesn't approve of a lot of people who are fighting the good fight. Am I right, OP? What are your thoughts on Kellie-Jay, for example?

LoL did you read my username or look at the first thread I started 😂

OP posts:
Justnot · 05/07/2023 13:53

Nothavingit I think it’s worse than that - my teen and her mates want to be’ sexy’ ( bit of sick in my mouth just saying it!). They’ve been told they should be up for sex - why not it’s all good fun, adults love it, they want to be grown up and that’s what grown up looks like to them. ( obvs this a particular cohort)

when we talk about sex her 2d understanding of it is shocking - she’s told me of a friend who has had sex but didn’t kiss because it was too intimate! It’s performative

I am card carrying leftie feminist who has a problem with make up and heels so I suppose it was bound to happen……

Letmespeak82 · 05/07/2023 14:09

ThePM · 05/07/2023 05:30

I think you are being disingenuous.

Though of course the queer theory informed, wide eyed “They’re just clothes. You are obsessed” fools no-one.

Without seeing the photo. Would you be happy for it to be school uniform?

I don't think it'd be a good school uniform but that doesn't contradict my position.

All along I've said clothes have no inherent meaning but people read meaning into them. So a leather miniskirt school uniform would clearly lead to lots of gross men claiming that girls from school X are totally up for it, etc. I don't think that'd be great for the girls to be honest.

But the clothes have no meaning. The girls wearing the revealing uniform would be no more "up for it" than anyone else. It would be just a uniform. People would be wrong to think it has a meaning.

OP posts:
Witchorama · 05/07/2023 14:13

LoL did you read my username or look at the first thread I started 😂

No and no. I see blue for OP and I don't look at posting history. Some posters change their nn all the time so it's a bit pointless. I knew you'd let me know though if I was wrong.