What does gender critical mean?

[Yarden]

Just that really. I’m not sure what “gender critical “ means anymore. I am not very critical of gender roles- I think they’re useful as a stereotype. does this mean I’m not gender critical? I guess I’m trans critical as I believe trans ideology is harmful as it encourages harmful interventions. What do others think? I’m so lost in this world now.

Sorry, didn't see that. That's risk assessment. You're trying to minimise the risk where you don't have further information.
Sexual assaults are proven to be carried out by men in the vast majority of the time.

Obviously that doesn't mean that any individual man is likely to be a sexual predator. But the stereotype would be "men are sexual predators" which is not the conclusion you are drawing - you're saying on balance there's significantly less risk if you approach a woman.

This is why i asked what your strategy was for determining when quick decisions based on stereotypes were acceptable vs seeking relevant information.

I'm not sure what he means by 'gender' in this context - it's possible that he means sex. However, gender stereotypes are not consistent across cultures and time, so if he is really studying societal expectations, it's not clear how he can account for changes and variations - FGM is not a universal practice and women can now become doctors.

'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, but 'gender critical' refers to the social construct.

OP, you seem to be thinking stereotypes and generalizations are the same thing. We can generalize from demonstrable facts. That’s not a stereotype. It’s not an ‘over simplification’ ( to use your definition) to say men are vastly more likely to be sex offenders. It’s simply true.

stereotype oversimplifications are the thinking behind the tediously common threads on here which go ‘I have to buy a present for a 50 year old woman. What will she like?’ You can’t really generalize as to what a 50 year old woman will like, but you can have stereotyped oversimplifications.

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/a-brief-history-of-gender/

Regardless of what individuals would like “gender critical” to mean, I think it has become shorthand for “anti-trans” in many contexts, or associated with Maya Forstater’s WORIADS outline, that sex exists, is immutable and sometimes matters.

For example, I explained to someone I was going to FILIA’s conference yesterday and pulled up FILIA on Google. FILIA’s own website link came up, and I didn’t see the words “Gender critical” anywhere, but on the right of the page was the Wikipedia link.

Its description immediately called FILIA a gender critical organization. Given that transactivists seem to patrol and control all parts of Wikipedia pertaining to women’s rights and organizations, I assume it’s likely a transactivist wrote that description and led with that, as whatever else FILIA do, it is tainted in their eyes by that one distinction, just as in the Porton Down case, the Nobel Prize winner could not be judged on her science, without insisting at all times, that her work be viewed through the blasphemer lens.

So however we choose to use and view it, I think we have to bear in mind that, to many it will be seen as a shorthand for anti-trans (in the views of those who believe that is what we are) or alternatively as sex realists who adhere to the beliefs set out in the Forstater case, by those reading through a different lens.

Thanks Merrymouse. That is. Good reminder of the origins. And good reminder of Money’s and Stoller’s actions and legacies.

wrt to the vile John Money, the sentence The case study he relied on most heavily to support this claim was later discredited and the description of the Reimer case it links to, blurs over the fact that it involved forcing reluctant children to have incestuous sex with each other in front of him. Ultimately (after the linked article was written) both of them killed themselves. In their 30s. Which is pretty discrediting.

John Money did evil things and crowed about them to gain academic fame.

Any debate that starts with regarding him as a respect-worthy academic is disturbing. His involvement with the development of gender theory is a major reason to criticise it.

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

Also, another example of verbal sleight of hand.

Feminists used gender to denote the harmful (to women especially) artificial and rigid separation of people according to sex stereotypes. Genderists conflate gender with sex and push the idea of gender identity. They now say that it is sex which is the harmful (especially to women) artificial and rigid separation of people according to stereotypes. From which gender identity frees us.
Bizarre.

Gender critical means rejectimg expectations that girls and women will conform to feminine stereotypes and boys and men will conform to masculine stereotypes. Basically means "Not a Sexist". And therefore intrinsically rejects the idea that a girl or woman who doesn't do so is somehow not female, and the idea that a boy or man who doesn't do so is somehow not male.

This doesn't mean that girls and women shouldn't do some of the things in the "feminine stereotype" list of behaviours if they want to or that boys and men shouldn't do some of the things in the "masculine stereotype" list of behaviours if they want to (in both cases, except if they are dangerous/damaging) - but there shouldn't be expectations for them doing so, or less favourable treatment if they choose not to.

Gender critical is therefore about being critical of the concept of gender - that personality and preferences are intrinsically linked to your status as a man or a woman and that certain types of personality or preferences belong firmly with one or the other, but rather that both men and women should be free to express their personality and preferences outside such shackles.

So however we choose to use and view it, I think we have to bear in mind that, to many it will be seen as a shorthand for anti-trans

I agree with this. And it might be why the OP is asking.

However (i'm not necessarily addressing this to you PriOn1, just generally), it's my understanding that gender criticism is a crucial cornerstone of feminism. And therefore it should not be allowed to become misunderstood.

I have a slightly foot in both caps approach, because I acquired what I call late on feminism, largely as a result of this board. And specifically, this board's fuming explanations of why it's wrong. And not just rapists in women's prisons. But the fundamental concept. Of gender - and transgender.

It was explained, at length, that the reason women are oppressed globally, is because of their sex.

And gender is the means by which it's done.

For instance, the stereotype of the expectations of women being, historically, that they are too fluffy to educate, the vote is not necessary because it is their husband's knowledge that is important, they are too irresponsible to have their own bank account, or mortgage, they should not be visiting bars without a man, or with other women, they should provide sex on demand, and they are there to be decorative.

There are loads more, obviously, but given that in my lifetime women were not allowed to hold bank accounts, get a mortgage, could be refused drinks, were legally raped by their husband and yes, almost exclusively support the skincare market, then I think you have your answer.

Women are silly, ignorant, need to be financially dependent, must not be allowed out to drink, should look pretty, and provide sex.

Oppressed because of their sex, and gender ^ is the way it's done.

And then a bunch of (sexist) men came along and said they have a 'female gender', and therefore that is why they are women. Because only women have it. So much so, that if you express it, you are legally deemed by the government to have actually changed sex!

Regressive, sexist nonsense, utterly relying on damaging stereotypes, and cementing them every step of the way.

Obviously, you have other people who totally uphold gender stereotypes, but still don't think men can be women.

But the term was originally called gender critical feminism. Feminists were the first people to spot what was going on, because being critical of gender stereotypes is baked in.

*late onset feminism

I don't know what late on feminism is. Maybe that's when I stay up all night trying to catch up on the Sandy Peggie case

I think I'm with you OP.

I think the sexes do behave in different ways in general. I am very dubious about claims from some GC feminists that artificial societal expectations are the main/only reason why women often wear make-up/why there are so few female engineers/why girls tend to prefer to play with dolls and are less likely to be interested in play-fighting etc. than boys. I believe that there are likely to be biological factors that cause these differences.

This doesn't mean that any woman can't be an engineer for example if she chooses, but it does mean that I am not surprised that the sex balance is not anywhere close to 50/50 in university Engineering departments, and accepting that may be in women's best interests rather than aiming for a 50/50.

I think we have to accept the differences in behaviour and work with them. We may have more women than men involved in childcare and more men that women as CEOs, but then the answer is to ensure that childcare is better paid and well respected rather than trying to force people to do something that they will dislike.

I am on the fence about whether it is helpful to have a separate word (gender) for the way sex impacts on social issues. I do think that some individuals don't behave in the ways that are more typical for their sex and it might be helpful to have the concept of gender and gender non-conformity.

I do think that sex is real without a doubt and that trans ideology of claiming that a man is literally a woman because he behaves in a manner more typical of women is really offensive. I suppose that this is where I see that gender and gender non-conformity may be useful - it would be better to describe transwomen as gender non-conforming men who may be at particular risk in certain situations (e.g. in prisons) without pretending that they have magically become women.

I'd probably say sex realist is a better term for my position, or maybe even gender positive feminism even though I know that will annoy most of the posters here!

You are correct, of course, Datun. So much of our language has been taken and bastardized so as to be used against us. We need to hold strong on our use of words and not concede them.

I also acquired feminism late, not because I thought women didn’t deserve to be equal to men, but because I wrongly assumed the battle was won. I now think perhaps the battles that were fought were not necessarily the best ones as women are now oppressed in different ways, rather than having been freed.

Still it’s a long path and we can only try to tread it as best we can, for future generations, even if they don’t want us to.

There is a huge lack of critical thinking around this area, as shown by those who are happy to guess about people and take it as fact.

Would the people happily doing this think it was fair if someone did that when making a decision about you?

why women often wear make-up

Do you think middle-class women in nineteenth century England wore no make-up because they were less female than modern women, or because there was a severe social stigma against doing so? Am I not female because I'm not wearing any make-up right now? Are nuns not women because they don't wear cosmetics?

I think some people need to check whether the advertising industry has sucked their brains, or at least the bits capable of critical thinking, out through their ears.

As for: I do think that some individuals don't behave in the ways that are more typical for their sex and it might be helpful to have the concept of gender and gender non-conformity.

You like sex-role stereotype conformity so much you want to enforce it by othering and labelling people who don't fit your arbitrary culturally-specific expectations. Will that involve sending us to re-education camps as well? Or wearing badges? or carrying permits?

It was men who used to wear make up. And a shed load of it too. And high heels. And had long hair.

Fuck all to do with biology !

"This doesn't mean that any woman can't be an engineer for example if she chooses"

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, women's educational choices were very limited because the societal expectation was that a woman's role was domesticity.

Women in Afghanistan certainly don't have a choice.

I do genuinely think this is one of the reasons why transgenderism has been allowed to thrive. Because people really do believe in sex stereotypes.

They weren't allowed to become doctors, one of the reasons for which was that they couldn't handle the sight of blood on a regular basis.

Hello periods!

The thing is, I'm absolutely certain that most people knew women could handle the sight of blood. Nurses, for instance. Abortionists.

Hence the necessity to impose the stereotype.

some people

some people believe a lot of shit

some people believe the most terrible stuff about race. That isn't a reason to encourage them by legislating on the basis of their ill-thought-out narrow-minded prejudices.

GC is misunderstood and mislabelled "anti trans" - both "sides" want to reject the idea that people should be constrained by sexist stereotypes. The difference is that the trans narrative requires the stereotypes to have a power and concrete existence in order that those who step outside them can define themselves in terms of how they live in relation to those categories, whereas the GC narrative wants to deconstruct and disempower the stereotypes and reduce their existence for everyone.

Yes, some people.

And another reason why I think this issue has actually created more feminists.

Some people who might uphold some stereotypes, will still baulk at the thought of rapists in women's prisons, mixed toilets in schools and not being able to ask for a female doctor.

So they go off in search of an explanation.

And find feminism

You can almost think of transgenderism as a recruitment drive

It's odd that women are stereotypically viewed as delicate and flowery, when so much of being female literally involves cleaning up bodily fluids.

To me it means to be critical of gender ideology - the idea that someone’s subjective and changeable feelings about themselves are a better basis for policy and law than the material reality of their sex. That you can be “born in the wrong body” and it’s kind to tell children their healthy bodies and wrong and can okay be fixed by medical interventions that leave them sterile, with increased risk of cancers, heart disease, brittle bones, reduced cognitive functioning and no sexual function as adults.