What the gender critical movement is trying to achieve

[NotTerfNorCis]

Someone on Twitter has asked what the 'end goal' of the gender critical movement is.

Mumsnet is a better forum for discussing it (you can write as much as you want, and abuse isn't allowed) so I'm setting up this thread.

Personally I'd say the goals were broadly:

1. Transsexuals who are cognitively mature and persistent in their belief deserve to be treated with tolerance and kindness. They shouldn't suffer discrimination in jobs or housing. They shouldn't suffer abuse because of their transsexual status. The NHS should support them. People should respect their chosen name and pronouns, unless there's a very good reason not to.

2. It should always be possible to acknowledge a person's biological sex. That is what makes someone a woman or a man. For example, in media reporting of a sexual crime, or referring to a sex offender, the person's biological sex must be acknowledged. No rape victims should be forced to call a male attacker 'she'.

3. Where necessary, biological sex will be taken into account, and women's rights will be based on sex rather than gender identity. For example, sports should be separated into male (or open) and female, not 'male-identified' and 'female-identified'. Same-sex attraction should be respected. If need be, males should be kept out of female spaces.

4. Biological sex should also be taken into account in larger studies and surveys, like the census. Otherwise the data is misleading.

5. The spread of gender ideology needs to stop. Kids shouldn't be taught that 'woman' is defined by stereotypes, and if they don't feel comfortable with the social stereotypes associated with their sex, they must be the opposite sex (or 'non-binary', 'gender fluid' etc). In other words, as a society we need to stop elevating 'gender'.

6. Transitioners shouldn't be accepted without question, especially young people. Otherwise we end up with tragic cases like Milo: The prescription of puberty blockers should be reviewed. Clinics should carry out careful checks to make sure that the person's trans status isn't a manifestation of something else, like a repressed sexual orientation, or reaction to abuse.

7. Families affected by a member transitioning should be given any support they need, rather than being dismissed. That includes if they have a negative reaction to the transition.

8. The sense of being in the wrong body is an agonising mental health condition, as transsexuals like Buck Angel acknowledge: https://twitter.com/BuckAngel/status/1676398204412387328 There should be research to find out if the condition can be alleviated from a mental health perspective, without needing surgery.

9. (Ideally) any awards given to males competing in female categories should be retrospectively reviewed.

10. It should be valid to say that transwomen are not a subset of women and transmen are not a subset of men, without being discriminated against or abused. Gender critical beliefs (which are actually pretty mainstream) should be respected.

In short: genuine transsexuals should be respected, but sex is the ultimate marker of whether someone is a man or a woman and must be taken into account. Elevating gender stereotypes is anti-feminist. Genderism is a fad that kids need protecting from.

Yes it's gender ideology that is the movement. Gc is just reality. And tw are not a subset of women even without a penis.

I don't speak for the movement but for me,

Women and men to be defined biologically ie sex is immutable
No issue with transpeople living 'as if' they are the opposite sex so long as they realise they are still a male/ female and not equivalent to the sex they want to be.
Leave under 18s out of it
Leave intersex people out of it ( unless they choose to identify as one sex or the other due to being truly ambiguous, very rare)

Basically, allow me and others to define ourselves by what's between our legs, not what's between our ears. Afford me the same respect to define myself how I wish to, that trans activists demand from others.

Where do you want to draw the line when it comes to single sex public toilets?

For me being gendercritical means no ridiculous thought-limiting language, biology sex is real and keep it that way in law (apply it to sport, women shortlists, shelters, vulnerable places), question gender-affirmative care for kids.

But exchange between Maya Forstater and Robin White left me uneasy because the focus came to public toilets - it made me wonder if they really want to start policing public toilets too? Given practical implications...

I will not mouth religious views I don't believe in. I consider that a respectful stance to the followers of that religion as well as myself.

So - no, thank you to 'respecting pronouns'.

No one is suggesting 'policing' toilets.

But allowing natal males in to a (until recently )women only space changes the social contract.

No one knows what is expected, women can't challenge people who make them feel unsafe and dodgy men can take full advantage of this.

Toilets are the go-to gotcha for gender ideologists. It is simple to police access to the women's prison estate, female hospital wards, refuges and shelters and VAWG support services as the access is controlled. Nobody controls access to public toilets and we rely on the social contract. There are people who refuse to accept the social contract and force their way in by main force. If we can solve this then we've cracked it.

They police themselves if the social contract is recognised and respected.

The problem now is that it is not, and some will wilfully transgress boundaries even when other provions are available. That is because transgenderism as we now know it is about transgression and the wilful erosion of boundaries.

Boundaries are seen outdated and personally restrictive, and uphold old power structures. Curious though, that a whole new set of boundaries has been erected aroun d what is and is not permissible to say - and woe betide anyone who trangresses this type of boundary.

What the GC movement is intent on achieving is the maintenance of appropriate and healthy boundaries - in the face of a movement which seeks to negate and deny such boundaries.

I'm another one who thinks that the framing you are using doesn't represent what is actually going on OP.

I am probably the sort of person that you would describe as "gender critical". But it's not how I choose to describe myself. I would describe myself as a feminist and a women's libber. I want girls and women to be liberated from the oppression of patriacrchy and I want us to have equal rights and socio-political status in the world.

I've held those views since teenagehood and I'm still on the same path of resistance as the one I started out on. In the 80s and 90s if seemed like things were improving and thanks to the brave and brilliant work of the feminists who had gone before me, things were really changing.

Then the backlash came. It came in various forms and guises; pornography, queer theory, the redefining of prostitution and sex trafficking as "work", neo-liberalism, etc, etc. And transgenderism was another prong of that backlash and therefore something to be resisted as, like the other elements, it was founded on sexist, misognyistic, male supremacist ideology. It was all part of the same thing and based on the same set of beliefs (men as default human and women as "other", boys and men as having superior status and girls and women inferior status, girls and women existing to be exploited by boys and men, the normalisation of male violence and rape culture, etc, etc[.

One of the main pillars of patriarchy is the idea that it is the natural order rather than an ideology and a socio-political system. And the bedrock of patriarchy as natural order is gender. Gender is the socially constructed notion that sex should determine social role and status. This complex, extremist and oppressive notion is simplified, packaged and presented to us "femininity" and "masculinity".

Another age old pillar of patriarchy is that boys and men are human and self-defining and girls and women are not boys and men and are defined by boys and men.

The tenets upon which transgenderist ideology are founded are ancient and deeply ingrained. Transgenderism has simply picked up these ancient tenets and run with them in ways that are new. And because the ways are new, lots of people have been hoodwinked into thinking that there is something progressive going on. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth; it's just a case of old dog new tricks. The tenets are exactly the same as before and are deeply regressive.

So, personally, I'm still trying to achieve what I always have been - the liberation of girls and women from patriarchy and thereby gender / sex castes / male supremacism. Nothing has changed for me. I am resisting gender just as I always have because it is a tool with which to subjagate girls and women. What we call transgenderism is actually just plain old fashioned genderism. It is genderism mixed up with queer theory, social media, experimental medecine, pornography, fetishism, lesbophobia and homophobia, woman hating and the tedious god complex that men seemed to have had since forever.

You might as well ask "what is the feminist movement trying to achieve?". Or an even better question would be "what has the feminist movement always had to resist?".

I would say that the NHS should treat transgender people the same way they treat everyone else.

There should be a NICE review of the evidence behind the various interventions for people with gender dysphoria. The NHS should provide the best treatment for these patients, according to the evidence, and bearing in mind the cost of the treatment.

(As a doctor, I believe that proper evaluation of the evidence would suggest that treatment with cross sex hormones and surgery does not improve mental health in the long term, and definitely harms physical health, so is unlikely to be a worthwhile use of NHS funds).

People who identify as 'transgender' who do not have gender dysphoria can pay for their own body modifications, like anyone else.

The concepts of 'gender affirmation' (ie, allowing patients to diagnose themselves) and 'informed consent' ( by which they mean allowing a patient to choose whatever treatment they want as long as they sign a form to say they know the risks) should have no more place in Gender Clinics than anywhere else in a healthcare system funded by taxpayers.

Well said @Mixedberrygenderfluidmuffin

100% agree.

Personally, I just want that we stop pretending gender is something that anyone has to care about much less something that should have 'rights'.

People who identify as 'transgender' who do not have gender dysphoria can pay for their own body modifications, like anyone else.

Mixedberrygenderfluidmuffin I agree with you whole post, but especially wanted to single out the above as it's an excellent point (and because I hope that the Cass review will address some of the evidence-base concerns over time, at least for minors).

The fact that being transgender has been de-pathologised to such an extent that doctors now allow patients to diagnose themselves and to demand body modification surgery on the NHS is contrary to everything the NHS stands for.

As you say, if there's a genuine medical need for intervention, then there should be a clear evidence-base for this to receive NHS funding. And if, as many gender identity ideologues claim, this is not a medical condition at all, then the NHS shouldn't be funding any of it.

I find it so odd when trans people assert (usually with a loud sigh and an exasperated eye roll) that being trans is not a medical condition but that it only happens to need doctors to be involved because their "gender affirmation" often requires certain steps such as expensive life-long hormone treatments and complex cosmetic surgeries, often requiring copious revisions.

It feels like such a huge financial scam to compel the NHS (or insurers, in the US) to fund this stuff as if it's a medical condition while simultaneously stating that it's definitely not a medical condition and that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are trans and whether they want to receive expensive interventions for free with no questions asked.

I think the world would be a better place without gender. Take away all the tired old social stereotypes & just distinguish by biological sex when that’s necessary.

Its not a movement as such. Its just a name for a viewpoint. I find it useful to say GC but it's a broad church and I think there are different views such as about the extent to which men can be in women's spaces.

I will never ever refer to a man as ‘she’, even if that man calls himself Mary and has decided to have his penis amputated.

I completely agree. It's your body so I can't comment on what you do with it if it's legal. Wear what you want, take a different name, all fine. But only a misogynist will expect to be called 'she' when they're a man and I am not an ally for anti-women actions and you're still a man if you were born a man and men get called 'he'.

I was gender critical long before I had considered where trans people/ ideology might figure in all this, which I think is something that TRAs don’t tend to be able to comprehend.

This.

And the bedrock of patriarchy as natural order is gender. Gender is the socially constructed notion that sex should determine social role and status. This complex, extremist and oppressive notion is simplified, packaged and presented to us "femininity" and "masculinity".

Another age old pillar of patriarchy is that boys and men are human and self-defining and girls and women are not boys and men and are defined by boys and men.

And also this.

Being GC is, for me, part of feminism. Sex is the basis of female oppression. Gender stereotypes are part of that oppression - and therefore to be resisted.

The goal of feminism is for women to be recognised as full humans, with full and equal human rights.

Feminism is not about men (although in a shared society it will have some knock on effects on them). Being gender critical is not about trans people (although in a shared society it will have some knock on effects on them). In both cases, those people incidentally affected are not part of the goal.

Because there are biological differences between men and women, part of ensuring women's fair and equal participation in society involves recognising and accommodating those sex-based differences. Just as ensuring disabled people can be a full and equal part of society involves recognising and accomodating their specific biological needs - but nobody would start a conversation about disabled rights with the fact that some non-disabled people like stairs, or prefer to watch TV without subtitles. It's arse about face.

It feels like such a huge financial scam to compel the NHS (or insurers, in the US) to fund this stuff as if it's a medical condition while simultaneously stating that it's definitely not a medical condition and that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are trans and whether they want to receive expensive interventions for free with no questions asked.

Totally agree with you @LonginesPrime

Transgenderist ideology is full of contradictions like this. Which is no doubt the reason for "NoDebate" - because none of it stands up to debate or scrutiny.

I agree that the position that people require surgery and medication to be their authentic selves, and that these interventions are a basic right, is just bizarre.

I also think we should resist the creeping narrative that ‘gender critical beliefs’ are some new thing - a ‘movement’. The intention is to pretend that gender ideology is the standard and the long-standing societal position. But it absolutely is not.

The basic idea that biology, and biological difference between the sexes, can matter is the societal default and has been for a very, very long time. ‘Movement’ from that position has been the subject of various forms of activism for a long time.

Indeed, feminists have spent a long time arguing that biological differences between the sexes shouldn’t be viewed as mattering as often as they do - such that they manifest in sexist attitudes and outcomes. But, as we’ve come to learn, there most definitely are aspects of life in which the biological reality of sexed bodies does and should matter. These are often the situations in which women find themselves most vulnerable.

Meanwhile, TRAs have simultaneously entrenched really problematic ideas around ‘lady brains’ and are arguing that changing the physical shape of bodies is crucial to the authentic experience of identity. And apparently that’s progressive.

I also think we should resist the creeping narrative that ‘gender critical beliefs’ are some new thing - a ‘movement’. The intention is to pretend that gender ideology is the standard and the long-standing societal position. But it absolutely is not.

Yes, the gender critical view that regressive ideas about 'gender' should not govern how people live their lives has been a mainstream view for many years.

Gender ideology with its narrative of ladybrains, stereotypes, and 'feeling like' the opposite sex should have no place in a modern, progressive society.

I think there is a movement, but for everyone who is active (holding meetings, putting up stickers, writing books) there are many, many more who are gender critical without being politically active. Not believing in genderism is probably the default for most of the world.

Maybe in that respect genderism is comparable to atheism.

Even if they don't see themselves as part of a movement, someone who opposes genderism must have some idea of how they'd like things to pan out. For me for instance, media, police and courts referring to male offenders with 'she/her' pronouns is something I would definitely want to stop.

Not believing in genderism is probably the default for most of the world.

If only that were true @NotTerfNorCis !!!

Genderism is absolutely the default position all over the world. Genderism is sexism. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

Sexism is the idea that social role and status should be allocated according to one's sex and that that is the natural order of the world.

Genderism is the idea that one's sex naturally dictates one's value and ability at therefore one's social role and status.

Maybe in that respect genderism is comparable to atheism.

Hardly! Genderism AKA sexism is comparable to racism.

Or more simply put;

sexism: males as superior and females as inferior

genderism: males as masculine and females as feminine + masculine as superior and feminine as inferior

Genderism is the marketing and sexism is the product.

Genderism is there to obfuscate and package a clearly outrageous and indefensible socially constructed deeply political and unscientific notion as something normal, natural and inevitable.

Sexism and genderism have been around since forever - trans ideologists / queer theorists / etc didn't invent these concepts. Male supremacist society did.

And feminists didn't start resisting gender when transgenderism took off. We've been resisting it all along (because it is the marketing department of sexism AKA patriarchy[.

It's just more narcissism / lack of critical thinking / lack of self-awareness / navel gazing / dehumanising of girls and women / woeful ignorance of women's history on the part of the transgenderists that they seem to think that being "gender critical" is anything new and that it came about because of transgenderism.

Transgenderism is deeply conservative, deeply patriarchal, deeply sexist and deeply anti-woman; all things that feminists are deeply against no matter who is manifesting them.

And the above are all things that misogynists are totally into. Hence the success of transgenderism. It isn't because lots of people actually believe in it or care about it. It's because it's sexism / genderism on steroids packaged as progressiveness. It allows people to be ulta sexist and ignorant whilst simultaneously virtue signalling about how right-on, progressive, inclusive, enlightened, modern, intelligent and superior they are.

Win win for patriarchy. Lose lose for women. And juggernaut of support and veneer of acceptability for a regressive, sexist, homophobic movement which does terrible things to children, vulnerable people, the gender nonconforming and, of course, women.

About policing themselves if the social contract is recognised and respected would have led to next question - how do we expect passing transsexuals police themselves? I would have pointed Buck Angel where the mens' toilet is if I didn't know who Buck Angel is.

But yeah I agree this would have been more negotiatable if not for transactivism overwhelming all the social boundaries and treating toilet as slippery slope "but we have been using your bathroom for decades! Nothing bad happened, ha! Get over it!...So other spaces next!"

Not this time.