3 questions for GC women

[ChirpyFinch]

As the title says, three questions for the women in this chat.

1. Do you think the majority of people are gender critical, and why/why not?

2. Globally, the right wing is more vocally gender critical than the left. They are also far more likely to be regressive on a range of women’s issues like abortion and anti-gay. Why do you think they agree with GCs on this one issue but disagree on so much else (if you think they do?)

3. How many trans people do you estimate there are globally?

I think Elle doesn't see biological sex as male or female, the words male organs had the word male in quotation marks, indicating Elle doesn't see that word as correct.

Elle sees male and female as innate feelings someone has about themselves.

So for @ElleWoods15, what words would you use for the binary biological sex developments paths as it is not 'male' and 'female'? Or do you consider that not worthy of words of its own?

No it's not a different opinion.

You want to define sex via something other than sex.

That is illogical and nonsensical.

Language, words, scientific principals all have to mean something for us to have meaningful conversations.

Sex means something. You don't get to change that because it suits you and expect everyone to accept your position as valid.

But surely you realise that claiming an "inner knowledge and conviction" is the basis for declaring someone male or female is an extraordinary claim? With no evidence for it. Whereas biological fact about mammalian reproductive categories of male and female are objectively known and proven beyond doubt.

So the many, many women with female bodies but no feeling of being innately female aren’t women? Because I’m going to hazard a guess that that’s going to come as news to lots of people on this thread.

Can 'inner knowledge and conviction' overturn other physical traits do you think.

Like how tall you are? Skin colour? Eye colour? Weight?

Or is physical reality what matters here rather than 'inner knowledge and conviction'?

I think age is a good comparator. There are of course people who identify as a different age than their biological age.

I kind of get the argument from gender dysphoria, of feeling that deep down you are really the opposite sex - although why now, why the exponential rise in dysphoria amongst teenagers and young adults.

But non binary blows my mind. I don’t understand it; it popped up incredibly recently as a concept. It also feels very generational; I’ve never felt particularly female but if I told people I was non binary no one would take me seriously.

Oh dear.

1. Why are transactivists so sexist, homophobic and racist? Why is transactivism so authoritarian and controlling forcing people to tell untruths?

2. Doesn't it bother you that these beliefs align with the far right and authoritarian regimes?

3. Why are transactivists incapable of critical thought and instead seek solace in mantras of being kind and shouting bigot whenever there are difficult questions?

4. Why don't transactivists understand safeguarding? Does it concern you that this is a feature of transactivism not a bug?

5. Why does transactivism favour males from top to bottom including turning a blind eye to an acute medical issues that only affect trans identifying females?

6. How many fingers am I holding up Winston?

But these people don't really feel they're the opposite sex though? How could they know what that feels like?

They feel uncomfortable in their own body, or attracted to some social roles they associate with the opposite sex, or different to their same sex peers.

But non binary blows my mind. I don’t understand it; it popped up incredibly recently as a concept. It also feels very generational; I’ve never felt particularly female but if I told people I was non binary no one would take me seriously.

I've said before, it would kill "non binary" gender identity stone dead within weeks if a mass group of middle aged women all "identified" as such.

Interesting.

But if you asked them to try and explain what they mean I expect it would come down to, there are some stereotypes identified with my age which don't really fit me (lack of energy or physical fitness or mental acuity for old people).

And we would acknowledge that stereotypes after often wrong and they should live their best life.

We would not try to scrap the entire linguistic structure that describes biological age and accuse people of being prejudiced if they thought that was wrong.

To add, I do agree with you that non binary is a much more head wrecking concept 🫠

Apologies @orangejuggling meant to quote you there.

I could kind of see myself as non binary. Not identifying with stereotypes of either sex.

People believe all sorts of things. It’s not unheard of, for example, for people to be absolutely convinced they’re adopted when they’re not. It doesn’t make it true.

So the biological reality of the body and how it functions is an irrelevance. Interesting.

I suspect the many women and girls in Afghanistan will be cheered to hear that they are not being horrendously treated and oppressed because of the biological reality of their bodies but because they have an innate sense of femaleness. I wonder do the Taliban ask them whether they have this innate inner sense of femaleness and whether they are identifying as girls/women or living as girls/women prior to silencing them?

I could kind of see myself as non binary. Not identifying with stereotypes of either sex.

I always ponder the logical paradox - if this system got embedded, and most or even all actual females decided they were "innately non-binary", what then would it mean for a male to declare themselves "innately female"?

This is a kind of definition game that only really works if there aren't that many active participants. Otherwise it's totally unstable.

It’s this level of ‘debate’ that makes it impossible to even try and engage in an explanation of one’s views. It’s just offensive.

I’m out.

You were never in.

Why can't we turn the OPs question on its head?

Sometimes when we do this, it reveals a totally different way of considering the entire subject.

It's always worth considering things from alternative perspectives to the one we are told we should belief to establish whether what we are told holds up to scrutiny.

Yes. The new definitions only work when understood in relation to the system they profess to be undermining.

Indeed that reply just demonstrated point 3.

I'm interested to see what happens with all the activists as this whole thing tumbles down. Here in Scotland, we've got MSP's who've made fools of themselves by simpering over activists (Alec Cole - Hamilton as just one example), political parties who've utterly destroyed themselves from within by allowing student politics to dictate policy (SNP and Scottish Greens as the most obvious examples) and numerous public bodies who are having to roll back on policies which they allowed lobby groups and individuals with am agenda to set (SPS as an example).

And all these activists have made utter fools of themselves. They're going to have to clutch onto another cause to follow the money/get the attention they want.

It was obvious to everyone else that your post was aimed at the OP Red.