Active discussions

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

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Sally Hines

133 replies

WandsOut · 20/09/2024 13:38

https://x.com/sally_hines/status/1836778288112370076?s=46

"I wish I knew whether the high profile GCs who have a political and policy background and a level of legal knowledge, and yet repeatedly use mantras such as ‘sex based rights’ and ‘GC beliefs as protected’ are wilfully engaging in disinformation practices or are wildly ignorant.

The first is shocking and the latter pitiful. I’m not thinking about the shock jocks and grifters such as KJM, but GCs with a policy, research and/or academic role. Do they make things up knowingly or get things very wrong?

I’m not talking about theoretical or political understandings or perspectives which are to be invested and believed in - or not. But substantive factors. For eg, whether or not there should be ‘sex based rights’ is an opinion, a normative question.

Stating that these rights exist though is wrong. And this is why there is so little GC research published in academic journals. It’s not silencing, it’s incoherence and falsehoods. The ideal public arena for GC thought is the shock, and tease, tabloid opinion pieces.

But if one wants to be active in research, policy…

You really can’t go around just making things up and get a reputable publication. You can fool the Tories and you can be used by the far right, but you can’t get past Reviewer 2"

Is she fucking stupid?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
ArabellaScott · 06/12/2024 14:29

Snowypeaks · 06/12/2024 12:26

I think she's saying (I'm cribbing from Arabella's summary, I haven't read the book) that if you like and feel comfortable wearing trousers and having short hair, have a traditionally masculine job and hate housework, then your GI is masculine. How masculine and how much of a man you are, depends on how much you embrace masculine-coded behaviour and presentation. Ditto feminine-coded behaviour and presentation. Hence the spectrum.

So it's not quite as silly as claiming that the mere act of wearing trousers etc turns you into a man, but it's a fundamentally flawed analysis nonetheless.

Edited

IANAA (I am not an Academic) and I haven't read Hines' book, I am just trying to parse out what she has said from her tweets. It could be that I'm missing something crucial, I don't have a big knowledge of feminist theory.

ArabellaScott · 06/12/2024 14:31

FlirtsWithRhinos · 06/12/2024 13:55

Honestly I'm 100% fine if people want to be able to label themselves based on how they relate to the ideas of gender. I don't feel any need to dispute the ever-more-freewheeling explanations of gender feelings and gender identifies, the manifolds and shifting constellations and so on (in fact I quite like them), because at the end of the day everything they describe is obviously a different thing to physical sex, and my concern as a femiinst is ending the disproportionate social and economic marginalisation suffered by female people because of their physical sex.

My red lines are simple:

  1. Feelings of gender are manifestly not the same as phyiscal sex so they should not use the same names as physical sex.
  1. Feelings of gender are manifestly not the same as phyiscal sex so there is no justiifcation to have a legal status of the opposite sex based on feelings of gender.
  1. A person's gender identity does not give them any particular insights into or commonality with the opposite sex and so we should not give their input into political, legal or social discussions about the opposite sex any more weight than those of any other person of their sex
  1. A person's gender, being not the same thing as sex, does not confer them access to any rights, support or resources where the intention is to segregated by sex. The accident of the same name currently labelling two separate things (see point one) is not justification to treat the two things as interchangeable.
  1. If someone believes feelings of gender are a more appropriate basis on which to segregate something than physical sex, they need to make that case explictly, explaining from first principles and without relying on the existence of a support based on sex, why it makes sense to replace that specifc sex-based support with a gender-feeling support, explainaing both why the gender feelings give rise to the need and why the sex-based need no long exists.
Show quote history

Yes, that all makes good sense to me.

In legal terms it would possibly work if it made very clear that sex and gender have different meanings - even if only in legal terms - and what each one meant.

Keep a GRC totally unrelated to biological sex. Then hand them out to whoever wants one.

Snowypeaks · 06/12/2024 15:20

ArabellaScott · 06/12/2024 14:29

IANAA (I am not an Academic) and I haven't read Hines' book, I am just trying to parse out what she has said from her tweets. It could be that I'm missing something crucial, I don't have a big knowledge of feminist theory.

Show quote history

Sorry, Arabella, I made assumptions!
I was so excited to see what I thought was a better explanation of what GI is than we normally get on these boards.

ArabellaScott · 06/12/2024 15:30

Snowypeaks · 06/12/2024 15:20

Sorry, Arabella, I made assumptions!
I was so excited to see what I thought was a better explanation of what GI is than we normally get on these boards.

Show quote history

I think it can be potentially a useful theory but the limitations need to be really clear. And what it can be used for.

It's a bit mad that law is trying to suggest that 'feelings/thoughts/ideas about sex stereotypes' are an exact equivalent to the state of biological sex.

That a man who has feelings/thoughts/ideas/belief about sex stereotypes and feels that he prefers the stereotyes generally loosely applied to 'female' could actually think that makes him female is mad in the first place; that the law suggests it can actually afford him the rights/protections afforded to women based on his feelings/thoughts/ideas/beliefs is ... I don't know. Meta-mad?

LetMeGoogleThat · 06/12/2024 15:56

You really can’t go around just making things up

Oh, the fucking irony 🙄

turbonerd · 06/12/2024 16:50

fromorbit · 05/12/2024 09:25

Here we go.

Oh how excellent!!!
😂😂
Jeez JKR is wiping the floor with this non-Gendered person, and the pet doesn’t even realise!!

RobinEllacotStrike · 06/12/2024 16:52

JKR replied to my comment on the X thread and she added a "x" - she sent me a kiss 😁

That thread is the gift that keeps on giving 😁💜

DiaAssolellat · 07/12/2024 14:39

LetMeGoogleThat · 06/12/2024 15:56

You really can’t go around just making things up

Oh, the fucking irony 🙄

🤣

New posts on this thread. Refresh page