What does GC gender critical mean?

[Itsholly]

What do you determine the definition of this term?

Is it a relatively new term, my understanding is that it means you are critical of gender - so if someone is born male and identifies as a different gender, say a woman, then I would be gender critical if I was critical of this particular circumstance?

Is it against the law or rules at work to openly admit you are gender critical? I mean, I am, but can I outwardly say I am?

Also - is gender critical what a trans person may refer to as a terf? Like, is it the same thing?

Thanks

Imo being gender critical doesn't necessarily mean that you have a problem with people 'idebtifying as' belonging to the opposite sex per se, in the sense that they might change their name, dress as the opposite sex etc. Being GC generally means that you don't think that society and the law should categorise people according to gender (i.e. a bunch of stereotypes) rather than biological sex. And yes, that's what many genderists would refer to as a terf.

Feminists were always originally critical of gender stereotypes as they are oppressive, actually to both men and women.

That's where it essentially comes from.

Since gender has now become for those who believe, a reality; 'you are actually the sex that's stereotypically linked to what you like to wear or do,' those who don't believe this are called gender critical.

The term became set in law thanks to the Maya Forstater case.

”so if someone is born male and identifies as a different gender, say a woman, then I would be gender critical if I was critical of this particular circumstance?”

He can “identify as” whatever he likes and that’s entirely up to him. He can wear clothes designed for women, no objections from me. If he invades women’s spaces or demands rights that are women’s rights, I would be critical of his actions. If a company or body prioritized his desire to be in women’s spaces over women’s need to have single sex spaces, then I would be critical of that circumstance.

For me, gender critical partly means I don’t believe in some kind of magical “gender identity” that can be different from a person’s sex. But it also means I am critical of the whole concept of gender or more specifically gendered roles or behaviour when it is used to mean that women ought to behave in certain ways and men ought to behave differently.

I’m a woman, but that doesn’t mean I am feminine. Men should be free to express themselves in ways that are considered feminine by society.

He can never be a woman though, because the word woman refers to a sex class and I object strongly against the changes recently brought in following pressure from groups like Stonewall where “gender identity” replaces sex in that definition.

This was how Maya Forstater's core GC beliefs were defined in her ET and EAT decisions:

“The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in-between male and female; or that a person is neither male nor female. It is impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.”

In Britain, holding GC beliefs is protected by the Equality Act 2010. Manifesting such beliefs is also protected as long as it does not harass or discriminate against someone else. So the answer is context-dependent but usually it will be fine to say that you are gender critical at work.

I suppose in theory there may be situations where just saying you are GC could be harassment, like if you had a transwoman colleague who sat at the desk next to you and every time they spoke to you, you said "Did you know I am gender critical?"

Generally people seem to keep it quiet though for fear of colleagues' reactions even though it is legally protected. I know I am relatively covert about it, but raise issues related to biological sex and the immutability of that with senior managers and where appropriate (e.g. when discussing language used for women's health sessions etc.)

Gender critical means rejecting gender stereotypes. So liking pink has nothing to do with being female.

It is not against the law to be gc although organisations like Stonewall have misrepresented the law so many people think it is. See Maya Forstater.

Didn't we have this exact thread only a couple of days ago?

Sorry if I missed it, I'm not a frequent user of this board. Bit of a novice but know what I think.

Agree with the person that said they can dress how they like as long as they do not encroach on women's spaces.

I do feel this onslaught of 'what does GC even mean' is just trying to harvest screenshots of how mean those FWR women are.

Yeah the way it is worded just sounds like they know all the answers to their questions already, or definitely know enough about this area that they could easily find the answers themselves.

I do feel this onslaught of 'what does GC even mean' is just trying to harvest screenshots of how mean those FWR women are.

Maybe. Presumably with limited success though, since we all pretty much always say that we think that people should be left in peace to dress how they like and call themselves whatever name they like, and should (and indeed do) have the same rights as anyone else.

The way they use t*rf in the OP just sounds like a gotcha.

It's all too carefully composed.

As WarriorN says

Feminists were always originally critical of gender stereotypes as they are oppressive, actually to both men and women.

For me, this is an absolute given for feminists. Feminists have spent decades challenging the idea of what women can do, wear, express themselves- how we are.

it applies to men, but challenging male stereotypes is really something men need ownership of.

i don’t actual call myself GC, but I don’t believe women should be constrained by stereotypes. This seems to create a clash with those that believe stereotypes are symbolic and meaningful of some inner essences, or soul (I don’t believe in souls). And I think there’s an over lap between gender identity advocates and those who define gender roles very separately and wish to enforce those ideas.

Gender critical to me means that o find the concept of gender - the idea that there are none sex related traits that can normally be attributed to a specific sex - as unhelpful, restrictive

I don't want people to make assumptions about me - my likes , capabilities and personality based on my sex. I do want them to realise there are physical differences and they should be respected- a women should be able to get well fitting safety gear

Where I feel it overlaps with the transgender debate is that no one has yet described what it means to be transgender without reference to those stereotypes

I also feel that if there were fewer gender expectations there would be less need for people who don't meet those expectations to physically change themselves - they could wear the spangly dress or be a mathematical genius and keep their body unchanged - no ned for medicalisation of those who transgress the societal norm

I feel so sad that people who can only describe their problems in relation to an arbitrary social stereotype are being physically altered in ways that are harmful ( hormones that reduce bone density , surgery that sterilises )

I feel angry that people who buy into the artificial stereotypes are then making it harder for the physical realities of sex to be respected

Terf is a problem term though, even beyond its offensive origins. It assumes that transgender people being “excluded” from women’s single sex spaces are transwomen. Generally I would not have a problem sharing a single sex space with a transman, although it would depend on how far they had transitioned given the disproportionate impact of testosterone on women’s bodies compared to oestrogen on male bodies, and the distress of other women finding an apparent male person in a single sex space.

It would be much more accurate to describe myself as a “merf” instead. Male exclusionary not trans exclusionary.

Sex is real and sometimes it matters.

There is no such thing as a type of person/ character traits/ identity that 'matches' either sex.

Removing the current sex-based definition of "man" and "woman" (and refusing to provide any alternative) is problematic for any aspect of life that takes physical sex into account - people's sexualities are being redefined, for one thing.

This

it used to just mean you were critical of gender stereotypes and how they can damage people

others have changed this to mean what the OP said, even my 27 year old teacher future son in law thinks it, or rather he did until i explained the original meaning

its the reason I wouldn’t say I was gender critical until i know what meaning is being used in the conversation

so if someone is born male and identifies as a different gender, say a woman, then I would be gender critical if I was critical of this particular circumstance?

Not quite.

Be clear about when you mean sex, and when you mean gender (very loosely, not physical body but character traits that supposedly "match" being male or female).

If they were male then they are not female.

They can say they are a "woman" if they believe a woman is a male or female person with certain characteristics (again, never actually defined) but if you are GC you would disagree that your personality makes you a man or woman, so you are critical of that notion.

The term gender critical was, so I believe, actually a shortening of ‘gender critical feminist’. Gender critical feminists are gender abolishers, they are women and girls, female people, who believe that the only thing that is common between all female people is their sexed body and the oppression that women and girls suffer from around the world. All the rest is personality, and the interactions of society that has shaped that individual.

There is no one way to be a girl or a woman, except for having a body that was formed around the production of large gametes regardless of whether that production will ever happen or not. If your body was formed around production of small gametes, you will be male for your entire life.

However, then the term ‘gender critical feminist’ was expanded to fit other groups. The word ‘feminist‘ was dropped.

This is significant. It is a tactic allowing forced teaming in an attempt to silence feminists or to shame them into reframing their beliefs.

It works because the belief that sex is immutable in human beings is a universally believed, indeed proven and well established fact. But now, activists have dishonestly taken a term and changed its meaning as an act of derogation, of denigration to silence feminists and anyone sharing the feminist viewpoint.

To be clear, that feminist viewpoint is woman and girl are not labels to be assumed through application of stereotypes, and they are not costumes to don by any male person. Instead those words have meanings that only apply to human females with those sexed bodies. And no female person needs to define themselves by stereotypes in looks or actions.

So, now extreme trans activists have stripped the original meaning of the term ‘gender critical feminist’ and are applying ‘gender critical’ to a huge group of people who all believe the universally believed and established fact that sex is immutable.

But now they are applying it to people who believe in gender stereotypes and gendered roles.

It could be discussed also that extreme activists who want loosely similar (not the same) outcomes as feminists have also adopted the now chopped off label without understanding what it means not caring about the origins. Their goals and motivations are NOT the same as feminists. They might ignorantly use the term ‘gender critical’ because they don’t understand that it meant ‘gender stereotype critical’.

Therefore, like the word ‘woman’, and ‘tolerant’, the term ‘gender critical’ has been used in a way by a group of people to mean the opposite of the original meaning and intended meaning of the word. That same group of people who have forcibly attempted to change the meaning of other words such as ‘woman’ and ‘tolerant’.

The forced teaming with the wider group is used to silence feminists because we are supposed to believe that neo-Nazis share the feminist goals. Therefore feminists = neo nazi. Leading to ‘feminists are Nazis’.

The term ‘gender critical’ is now meaningless. However, it is used in an attempt to shame and silence feminists.

Posters have attempted to use the ‘guilt by association’ and polarisation tactics for a very long time.

They do this by forced teaming. By pointing out that other groups who are extreme and who are hateful share the belief that sex is immutable. Therefore, surely if nazi’s believe it, it must be wrong to believe it. There is that polarisation aspect.

Of course, they neglect to also mention that the majority of the world also believes that sex is immutable. and that many people who are not feminists either also believe that gender stereotypes are to be rejected.

TLDR

Those who have dropped the ‘feminist’ from gender critical in an attempt to force team feminists with groups who have beliefs that directly conflict with feminism.

Because the majority of the world believes sex cannot be changed, it includes groups who embrace gender stereotypes for their own reasons. They are certainly not feminist but this is the forced teaming by activists keen to discredit and shame feminists for rejecting males who label themselves as ‘women’ or ‘girls’. These gender stereotype embracing groups have also been swept into the all (falsely) encompassing term ‘gender critical’ .

Hence the rise of the falsities that feminists are Nazis or supporting Nazis in some bizarre way.

Terf is such a (deliberately) preposterous term. Trans-exclusionary radical feminist?! It implies that it is somehow radical to exclude male people from the category of 'women', whereas in fact the vast majority of human beings on the planet do so. It's all part of the TRA tactic of scaring people into feeling they are being unreasonable for believing and stating what is a simple fact - nobody can change sex.

As usual, @Helleofabore nails it with this -
Gender critical feminists are gender abolishers, they are women and girls, female people, who believe that the only thing that is common between all female people is their sexed body and the oppression that women and girls suffer from around the world. All the rest is personality, and the interactions of society that has shaped that individual.

As a GC Feminist, I see gender as harmful external stereotypes imposed on individuals. We fight against those stereotypes to allow people freedom to live full lives - none of that ‘woodwork for the boys, domestic science for the girls’ nonsense.

To someone GC, sex - female and male - and gender - feminine and masculine - are distinct. The former is based in material biology, the later a set of repressive and reductive social expectations that damage women and men alike.

There are no right or wrong ways to be a women. All it takes is to be female. That’s the only thing we have in common across the centuries and across all cultures.

Feminists can be critical of male stereotypes because ultimately a lot of them also harm or oppress women.

That men never care for babies or change nappies. That men don't express feelings. That only men can be the wage earners.

TERF is also incorrect. Feminism is a collective movement for all female people. Even those female people who currently identify as men and boys will benefit from feminism.

The hatred of ‘TERFs’ is fed by male people being excluded when they demand inclusion. it is what highlights those who use the term ‘terf’ as a slur as having a high likelihood of being men’s rights activists.

It burns so badly that those male people are still excluded from feminism while female people with trans identities are still included. Biology is truly unforgivable, and sex remains immutable, so therefore emotional manipulation is the only thing they have.

Sex matters. It's not possible to change sex. Gender norms are cultural, local, temporary, and contingent. No-one should be forced to observe the gender norms of their sex, and if someone wants to adopt the gender norms of the other sex, then why not? But they haven't changed sex.

Women are less powerful than men physically, politically, and economically, because of sex-based differences, and this is mitigated by sex-based segregation (prisons, sport, etc) and affirmative action (all-women shortlists, women's prizes). Trans women do not need these mitigations (although trans men might) and granting them undermines their very purpose.

Trans people have their own problems and should be treated with sympathy and respect. But trans women can't call on feminism in their aid, because they don't belong to the interest group (women) that feminism seeks to represent.

Also, why are we talking about this again? Isn't the real problem that all of the above seems blindingly obvious to some people, but like vile bigotry to others. What makes 'the others' tick?

That is an excellent question, and one which I would like to hear answered. What does make the transgender people in my life tick? I am still waiting for them to explain it in clearer terms than “I’m not that gender” or “it makes me comfortable”. I think their transgender ‘identity’ is on an emotional level, and not on a practical or logical level. Society needs to consider the practical, and the law needs to be based on the logical, with a dose of compassion for those who struggle with their material reality. Basing the law and societal norms on some individuals’ emotion is a pathway to nonsensical laws and a chaotic society.