Can we be "Sex realist" now? Not "Gender critical"?

[DiamondThrone]

I feel like we've been boxed into a corner. Being defined by "gender", when what we are actuall defined by is "sex", not womany feels.

They actually think they are changing it.

And they are saying that, and deciding they are now biological women.

Thank you. You get it. I think that manhy MNers are maybe used to the odd TRA coming over here and fighting, and haven't been watching the way things are changing.

Don't let's be caught on the back foot.

Are you new to this? We've been discussing it for years 😂

In order to think they have 'changed sex', they have to believe in sex, yes?

So they are sex realists as in they recognise the male and female sexes.

Even non binary people recognise this by referring to themselves in relation to the 'binary' of sex.

That’s pretty rude. I’m well aware of what they’re doing - this isn’t particularly new.

Some people prefer sex realist, others gender critical. I don’t think an internecine dispute over this is worth much myself.

Off you pop then!

I happen to believe that we are being outmanouevred.

I may be new to it, but why aren't we changing our terms?

They are now taking biological sex. What have you got to offer?

'Gender Critical' was a handy short-hand term a few years ago.....in trying to describe what the movement was opposing...but I certainly feel it has had its day and has now just become a pejorative; and one which most of the public do not understand the relevence of, anyway. It's a bit esoteric. Because it presumes one understands the difference between 'sex' and 'gender' to start with.

Most people have just accepted the conflation of 'sex' with 'gender' that they have been fed...and if you asked them the difference between the two terms I'm not sure many would be able to fully articulate what was meant by 'gender'. So, as a term, it is a little bit alienating for most people.....it comes across as just some kind of ideology that 'feminists' and gender ideologues/trans rights activists battle each other over, but which has nothing to do with them.

So, if you had to have a label......and I'm not sure one is now really needed as the argument is so far advanced......'Sex realist' would be more meaningul and more easily understood.

Well, if biological sex is good enough for the Supreme Court.....

We sort of got stuck with GC because it's written into Forstater. But I'd be happy to summarise my beliefs as TWAM/TMAW.

I'm also a TERF, should anyone want to get into all that....

That's interesting. With just three statements (and their opposites) that have a simple agree/disagree response, I thought everyone would fit in somewhere.

What are your responses to the statements?

Do you think sex is nonphysical/changeable or that sex is physical/non-changeable? (I think I know your answer to this as you call yourself 'sex realist'.)

Do you accept or reject gender variation?

Do you think gender is oppressive/constructed or that gender is edifying/innate?

I too prefer to call myself a sex realist.

I think it was Julie Bindel who rejected "gender critical" because she believes gender is purely imaginary and should therefore be rejected, not "criticised".

One of the big problems for us is that many people still see "gender" as a synonym for "sex", which allows the TRAs to get away with many layers of deception.

My response is always to point out that sex is a physical reality, "gender", as used by the TRAs, is role-playing fantasy.

I see what you are saying. The use of 'gender critical' is like having to play the opposition on their home pitch.

As I suggest above.....i think it was useful in earlier days when the issue had not become so public and so visible...when individuals were battling away in the courts trying to explain why they opposed the imposition of gender ideology...but now it has become too esoteric and does nothing to help the public understand the crux of the issue.

Look. You choose what you want to call yourself. You're being quite pushy about other people's choices. Which I'm against.

I believe in the concept of gender. I am critical of the concept of gender and it's attempt to restrict who I am and the choices I make in life.

I do not believe in the belief system of gender ideology which says that performance of gender stereotypes is the most important thing about me and defines my sex class.

Race realist is someone who uses crap science to justify racism, so 'sex realist' is probably not far off. Certainly 'gender critical' implies a critique of the concept of gender, which nearly none of you do.

I use 'anti-trans' as it covers all bases and is more honest.

They say a lot of nonsense, I grant you.

They love a label, a slogan, a badge and a flag. When one tactic doesn't work, they just try another.

Things that didn't work. No Debate. Acceptance without exception. TWAW. Non binary people. More of a woman than you'll ever be. TERFS. Nazis. Far right. Christian - you name it, they've tried it.

None of it works because sex is real and they know it.

Beeeee you’re back! Collecting more screenshots for Bluesky??

You forgot rights hoarding dinosaurs

This is how I feel, the term centres gender ideology in describing us.

My belief is that biological sex is real and very important in certain situations, I don't care about trans people at all if they abide by the rules applicable to their sex and stay away from children.

Also, conspicuously law abiding women.

I’m with @FlirtsWithRhinos - I’m critical of gender, because it is regressive and oppressive and reductionist. I’m also a sex realist in much the same way as I believe in gravity. And in the Venn diagram I’m definitely in the green circle.

You sound very confused. I think the problem is that it is you that cannot clearly articulate what it is you mean by 'gender'...without resorting to sex based stereotypes.

The whole gender movement is predicated on cofusion and conflation. Clarity is the death of it.

Of course some do but this is just more anti women stuff.

TBH, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, or how you label a movement. What is important is the truth and the clarity of your argument. People know bullshit when they hear it and common sense is the most realistic currency available to all.

But I don’t think it helps us to pretend that there are no physical differences, or pretend that men can also give birth. Women give birth; we should also be able argue that we don’t have to choose to do this, or be defined by it, but obscuring reality helps no-one.

For me it is about not judging women by a male-calibrated yardstick. Not valuing physical strength over other kinds of strength, or wisdom, or intellectual capability. Because physical advantage is all men really have.

We are on average not as large or strong. It’s why we have the ability to insist on single sex provision at times.

Rather than say, “Don’t acknowledge that only women can give birth because it will be used against us,” I would rather say “Yes, only women give birth, which means every human was born of a woman, and we are actually amazing and you should value women for all their bloody brilliant skills, rather than devalue us because we are not able to physically defeat a man in a fight.”

It’s only something to be ashamed of if we are trying to pretend to be men in the workplace.

When discussing some of the issues/cases with colleagues I do describe myself as a biological realist. I am more of a “gender incredulist I suppose. I don’t feel female I just know that I am.
How do I know? The being noted to be female at birth, the female features developing during puberty, the first period, and all the other periods 🙄 The pregnancies and breastfeeding were definite giveaways too!

It is true that only female give birth and breastfeed, and only someone who devalues the female and can only see success in aping the male would want to deny that. Being female has its own integrity and its own kind of strength.