Gender critical viewpoint as explained by a bloke

[FrontEndLoader]

Morning all,

Was browsing reddit last night whilst sitting around on the evening shift. Ended up going down a bit of a rabbithole and reading some discussions on AskTransgender as was curious to see what the response to the recent supreme court ruling was.

Ended up reading a thread asking why so many cis women are 'not accepting of trans women' and one of the first responses I read was the below, which appeared to be written by a man. I'm still getting my head around the various arguments as tbh I've not really given much thought to the whole discussion the past few years - I don't think I've ever actually seen a trans person in real life aside from a few non binary looking schoolgirls who could also have been lesbians, and I work in the construction sector where all this woke stuff is pretty non existent.

Curious to see if people agree with the below. Sounds pretty logical to me and quite surprised it hasn't caused an epic shitstorm on there tbf lol.

Some people are just bigoted no doubt, but I think it's reductive to suggest it's all down to transphobia. I think more often it's a fundamental disagreement on a few key aspects.

Typically, the discussion focuses on trans identity and the refusal of gender critical women to accept said identity. However, I think in some cases the resistance might actually stem from the GC women feeling that their own identity is being challenged.

For example, if you've been accepted as 'a woman' all your life and somebody you perceive as male suddenly tells you that they're a women now and you're a cis woman some people aren't going to like that. Perhaps even less if that person is younger than them or of a demographic that would've been considered male in traditional societies.

That would perhaps explain why a lot of GC women tend to be middle aged - they've had years of being a woman and then suddenly a 20 year old 'male' (in their eyes) tells them he's a woman and biological women are now just a sub category of womanhood. Whether or not the GC woman is justified in feeling this way, some will no doubt argue that it's like telling a pre-op trans woman that she's now going to be called a 'pre-trans' rather than just a 'trans woman'.

Another common theme seems to be women's safety. I'm not going to try and define biological sex as there is much disagreement on what constitutes it. However, we know for a fact that 98% of recorded sex crimes are committed by individuals with a penis. This seems to be a big part of GC women's resistance to being alone in a state of undress with individuals that have penises, or facilitating a situation where said individuals could be around their daughters unsupervised whilst both are unclothed. Same for women who are rape survivors and experience trauma responses when alone with unfamiliar males, especially when naked and feeling vulnerable, or women that can't be naked with 'male bodied' people for religious reasons.

This isn't strictly about trans women from what I've read. The argument seems to be that we don't want to normalise the situation where a male paedophile can just claim to be a woman and follow the girls swimming team into the changing rooms. Many would say this is the entire reason we have sex segregated facilties in the first place and the reason behind the recent Supreme Court judgement.

Unfortunately, there have been a few high profile cases where some pretty vile sex offenders (e.g. Barbie Kardashian) have transitioned and been sent to women's prisons, which has fuelled the flames. Many people would argue that a male sex offender shouldn't be able to get sent to an institution full of vulnerable women just by claiming to be a woman shortly before the sentencing date, which appears to be what happened.

These aren't necessarily my own views. I'm just explaining what I understand to be the common GC arguments as somebody who has tried to understand both sides of the debate.

I don't really agree with this explanation because the first point being made is this:

Typically, the discussion focuses on trans identity and the refusal of gender critical women to accept said identity. However, I think in some cases the resistance might actually stem from the GC women feeling that their own identity is being challenged.

As far as I am concerned, this comment completely misses the point.

Gender critical feminism isn't grounded in acceptance or non acceptance of trans identities.

This is a really common misconception by people who are so obsessed with their own gender identities that they literally cannot imagine what it is like to be someone who doesn't believe in or care about gender identity at all.

They're approaching it in terms of, "these women don't accept that my gender identity is the same as theirs and that this makes us all women", when the reality is more like, we don't care about gender identity at all, and whilst we accept that it is very important to those people who believe that gender identity is real and that they have one, it couldn't be less relevant to the rest of us and we don't believe law and policy should be made on the basis of it.

You're never going to convince someone who doesn't believe in gender identity at all that gender identity is what makes someone a woman.

We don't believe woman is an identity and we don't believe that we are women because of our identities. We believe that we are women because of our sex. And yes, the idea of a man believing he identifies as a woman IS offensive to us. Not because it threatens our identity in any way. Just because he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, and we're sick of him trying to mansplain what it means to be a woman to people who actually are women.

Fair point. And the work and sacrifices are still happening. I can't belief that even after the SC ruling it looks like FWS might have to take the Scottish government to court AGAIN for not obeying the law. Insanity that the people have to force the government to obey the law. We are living in upside down times.

Yes, get it.

women: I think, therefore I am. And I’m a woman
transwomen: I think I’m a woman, therefore I am. And so should you.

I think he is a missing a vital part of the argument. If you are a middle aged woman you have been suffering from stereotypes, forced sexuality, infantilisation all your life. You are then going to really resent someone that says these a necessary condition of being a woman

Particularly if that someone is an male adult human.

It's written from the pov of someone who thinks TWAW and is trying to explain why women (actual biological women) object to the perfectly ok term 'cis' and being a subset of their own sex, by suggesting it is because the idea a man can be a woman is new - and cis-women just have to get used to this (die off) and all will be ok.
Doesn't understand biology and has bought into the 'it's complicated' theme.
Nails one reason why all men must be kept out of women's spaces: men of ill-intent (that's any man who goes into a female only space, of course).
Not worth my notice. It's poorly argued trite rubbish.

This was actually mentioned by another poster in that reddit thread, unless I'm mistaking it for another one, but pretty sure it was the same one.

I think it meant challenge as in telling women "you're not a woman, you're a cis woman".

Such as the truly odious Charles Edward Lord, a privileged, privately educated man, who looks, acts and presents like a man, uses they/them pronouns to claim membership of the "LGBT+ community", has a finger in an absolutely ridiculous number of pies and uses his considerable influence as an elected politician within the City of London Corporation to try to stop women from having single sex spaces.

He has over 45 posts listed under "experience" on his LinkedIn profile, a quick perusal of which reveals that he has worked for numerous sporting bodies such as GB Hockey, the British Basketball League, Middlesex Cricket, the Football Association and Swim England, and held policy roles within the City of London Corporation, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (where he is currently a lay member, or part-time judge, in the Employment Appeals Tribunal), the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Local Government Association, the City of London Police and various universities and NHS Trusts. He's also worked for many other organisations including a breast cancer charity.

I'm pretty sure he's behind the Kenwood Ladies' Pond's continued determination to let trans identifying males swim in the women only pond (despite them also having access to the men's pond and the mixed pond) in clear defiance of the Supreme Court judgment. Obviously they will lose in court (nothing could be more clear cut) but no doubt it will be the taxpayer and not Edward Lord (they/them) who picks up the bill.

Where the fuck does this man get off trying to stop women from having single sex sports or any spaces where he and his penis are not allowed to go? This dude needs to be strapped to a rocket launcher and blasted into outer space.

And, jokes aside, he is a prime example of why the DEI industry needs to be regulated. People in the kind of roles he has should be required to hold specific qualifications and undergo regular training, and if they are found to be promoting their own version of DEI rather than following the actual law, they need to be barred from holding any similar roles in the future. Getting rid of people like Edward Lord would go a long way towards stopping the rot.

Edward Lord also had to recuse himself (the second conflicted interest TRA judge in the case) from the appeal hearing of Kristie Higgs v Farmors School (she was ultimately successful in both the EAT and the Court of Appeal).

It's not a terrible summary of some of the reasons people resist gender ideology, but he does seem to think you have to be a woman to hold those positions, whereas in fact they are just as reasonable for men to hold.

Yeah I got that feeling too, if it was a man and a tradesman type explaining in language used in a general pub type situation, I actually think he would be someone with some understanding and seems a bit perplexed at the ignorance and their lack of thinking/understanding (they don’t do/have either) of others points of view, of the TRA.

Telling someone they’re cis is telling them they’re perfectly happy with and accepting of all the stereotypes which have been imposed on their sex by society. Stereotypes - whether feminine or masculine - are what gender is. They are by and large reductive, restrictive and in many cases degrading. Every time a woman or girl has been told she can’t do maths or must do the housework it is gender and every time a man or boy has been told they mustn’t cry or must like football it is gender.

There are two reasons why I don’t accept being called a cis woman: i) because gender is nothing but a harmful set of stereotypes, ii) woman isn’t an identity, it’s just a noun, a word for female humans who’ve survived to adulthood. There are no qualifiers needed, you either meet the criteria or you don’t.

That's kind of my point. I agree.

We're stuck with our sex in the same way we're stuck as humans. I can try to imagine how a man may think but I'm stuck doing this as a woman. There is no way to remove what our very being is.

Gender ideology is an extreme case of reification - the logical fallacy of treating an abstract idea or concept as if it were a tangible, concrete "thing" or entity with personal characteristics or agency - that I wouldn't have believed to be possible for the human intellect to produce if it hadn't been for the trans issue.

But when it comes to women we just seem to be a sitting duck which anyone can just insult any which way they feel.

It can all be summed up as a complete and utter disrespect to our living experience as biological females as we have to put up with yet another aspect of male behaviour which disregards us as female in our own right and reduces us to bad makeup and tacky clothes which has to be taken seriously and at the expense of everything women have fought for in the last 50-60 years.

Bad makeup and tacky clothes - often emphasizing particular sexual characteristics or associated traditionally with certain 'messages' - that conform to the broad category of what most heterosexual males find most desirable in those they would like to have sex with.

The '80s/ WI/ Practical hairstyles' are accepted as not part of that male gaze thing, by comparison to other hairstyles - so they've become 'Lesbian-coded or NB'.

Someone (whatever sex or gender) with an appearance that includes long legs and a slim figure in close-fitting, seductive clothes, fishnets, attention-grabbing makeup and hair - they are likely to 'out-woman' the older woman, the breastfeeding woman, the woman who so-say 'looks masculine' or is dressed neutrally under the "Judge me by the performance and the boxes I've ticked for male desirability" criteria. It should matter so much less, certainly on the question of spaces set aside for specific reasons that are affected very little by the large variety of items that people put on their bodies. I keep thinking back to the person who was in a solemn Forces parade, honouring an anniversary of those who had lost lives in combat, where all participants were in uniform. Well over 95 percent of those born as women were in smart uniform, and black tights - general conformity and nothing stand-out. One who was highlighted as a Transwoman was marching in the same uniform, but in fishnets. The visual message, at least to me as a natal woman, was one of instant contrast and right behind it, it rings a bell of 'performing'.

Im always struck by the comparison between scrubbed up eddie izzard and scrubbed up susie izzard. Eddie wore expensive suits, susie's outfit may cost a lot, but they arent as classy. Its not the same personality buying the clothes, if that makes sense. The only photo that looked comparible was his honorary degree one.

might actually stem from the GC women feeling that their own identity is being challenged.

Dude doesn't understand the first thing about GC.

I wonder if the post was trying to say its the redefinition of woman away from sex, to gender thats the problem. But used their language of 'identity'?

But identity is a funny word to use, even for TRA, because it suggest a choice. It make sense for someone to say, 'despite been brought up in london, i identity as irish because my parents are irish, but my sister identifies as english'.

'I identity as a woman' does suggest its a chioce, and TRA claim its not? The choice is usually when they 'come out', not that they are trans.

Of course it's a choice.

Only people who are not women can choose to identify as one.

Yes, it is. The human intellect certainly does produce and cherish them, though. Leaving aside conditions we call mental illness, religions are huge examples of abstract concepts becoming 'real' to their adherents. Millions of people believe in magic and the paranormal. Political movements can successfully reify abstractions, leading to discrimination and apartheid, even massacre. Lots of present-day 'positive thinking' depends on what amounts to magical belief.

You're right that genderism exhibits all of this - that's why critics often refer to it as a religion or a cult. It has every feature: a metaphysical human quality that can be born into the wrong body; attachment to the belief in altered reality with repudiation of material evidence that it hasn't changed; a priestly sect and perception of believers as superior beings; dehumanisation and abuse of critics; special language that distorts everyday terms to fit the cult's vision.

It will make a fascinating study, some time in the future when this is over.