Do you think the term "Gender Critical" is why some people won't engage?

[Brefugee]

What i mean is, "gender critical" must put the backs up of people who are on the fence or are already some level of TRA? Because it sounds "critical" and that has negative connotations.

Do you think that if we'd adopted the term "sex realist" it might have worked a bit more in our favour? Especially with people who don't spend any time at all in this "discussion"?

I was thinking about it while perusing this article

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/media/article/bbc-trans-ideology-childrens-programmes-chq292hfz

http://archive.today/iDMMq
(archive link)

Maybe the minions at the BBC would feel more able to engage in a proper discussion about all this if they didn't hear "gender critical" but "sex realist"?

Good clarification point - I think I'm meandering into, why specifically don't people engage with conversations on the FSG board on here, not why don't they engage with GC topics per se.

The 'you' I was referring to, is the group of people across the conversations that seem to take it upon themselves to police feminism.

There is of course nothing stopping me identifying as a gender critical feminist anyway.

Something I hadn't considered is that there are plenty of people that believe that sex is immutable and cannot be changed, but that gender and sex are also inevitably and inextricably entwined. In that regard, they are not gender critical. My husband is one of them. Violently rejects trans ideology AND the idea of gender being an identity or a role. (We cannot talk about it because it boils my piss - I am not biologically composed to 'be kind', be a nurturer, or take on caring roles). He therefore doesn't connect with the phrase 'gender critical', but would with 'sex realist'.

I took the OP to mean engagement generally, not here. Maybe the minions at the BBC would feel more able to engage in a proper discussion about all this if they didn't hear "gender critical" but "sex realist"?

The reason bbc employees arent able to speak up at work isnt because of MN. I would say they are in an environment where the EqA and DEI is pushed and safeguarding takes a back seat.

When trans was first discussed on mn, EqA and DEI werent considered. There was still debate where some saw these men as part of LGB culture, a small minority and not a threat, others talked about children and safeguarding. Theres always been a tension here between more 'academic' feminists and feminist mothers.

The safeguarding isnt talked about that much anymore - how is it possible to promote trans ideology as valid and ensure that children dont believe they can change sex and they raise the alarm when men are in female spaces?

Its those threads that dont get the engagement from the people who aren't hardliners.

We could have endless threads where we are polite to each other, and discuss if we respect pronouns or not, but threats like thats are never going to get to the heart of the safeguarding holes in trans ideology.

Yes, I also read the OP as being a general one rather than specific to MN.

I must ask the question though, and this is a general question and not aimed at any poster, about how feminist is to feel that just because you don’t have a problem with male people being in what should be expected to be a single sex provision that people shouldn’t challenge that as a feminist principle? Isn’t it closer to the feminist aim to acknowledge that just because you (again a general you) don’t mind, knowing that even a small group of female people do need that provision to remain single sex means that is what should be supported?

Also, why should a movement has to spend so much time going back to defend its position to newcomers who feel they need to be heard and that their position is the right approach, instead of focusing on its aims? (I do mean position and this is not a reference to the label adopted by the movement)

I do understand that the description of believing sex is immutable as a belief sounds fucking bonkers. But those who believe that sex can be changed is a belief and they have described established science as a belief so, here we are. Some people argue that sex being immutable is a belief because one day it might be proven to not be immutable. How many times do we see that?

It is news to many people I speak with that sex cannot be changed is a ‘belief’. So yes, I can imagine that it is part of the issue.

I am sure it has been mentioned already, but whatever label women use to describe the feminist movement to prioritise sex where sex matters will be undermined by the continued looping of being referred to as transphobic and ‘anti-trans’.

I remember having two separate discussions with friends from another country which keeps referring to women as ‘anti-trans’ and they were both adamant that they disagreed with ‘those’ women. They both aimed to be tolerant etc. So, I just discussed what it was that the women were campaigning for and both of them individually agreed with every single issue.

They just believed the way it was represented in the media. There was absolutely no going beyond yet.

the heart of the safeguarding holes in trans ideology.

That’s the monstrous alien that gender ideology is, an adult planted parasitic incubus, devouring a child from inside and ready to destroy it.

“I remember having two separate discussions with friends from another country which keeps referring to women as ‘anti-trans’”

apologies. This should be “I remember having two separate discussions with friends from another country where media keeps referring to women as ‘anti-trans’ “

My husband is one of them. Violently rejects trans ideology AND the idea of gender being an identity or a role. (We cannot talk about it because it boils my piss - I am not biologically composed to 'be kind', be a nurturer, or take on caring roles). He therefore doesn't connect with the phrase 'gender critical', but would with 'sex realist'.

Interesting, and I don't get it, so would be keen to unravel this!

My go-to is "if that was the case, how would we go about finding out? "
But we are so bound up with cultural influences I think it's really difficult to untangle. A woman who isn't a natural nurturing kind type is no less of a woman than one who is, so I'd have thought that would discount a one-to-one direct correlation between the two?

I think as always people are prone to confusing class norms with individuals within that class.

whatever label women use to describe the feminist movement to prioritise sex where sex matters will be undermined by the continued looping of being referred to as transphobic and ‘anti-trans’.

Agreed

How were sex realist women undermined before 'transphobic' and 'anti-trans' took hold as slurs? 🤔

They were called ‘unkind’ and ‘not inclusive’ if I remember correctly. Just the same really.

Bloozie... what does your husband believe? What does he see gender as? Another word for sex?

Potpourree... "I think as always people are prone to confusing class norms with individuals within that class." 100%. It seems to me to be completely obvious that most women are better able to give their baby the pure, unadulterated love and attention that babies need than their husband is, but that says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether Mr Smith or Mrs Smith should be the SAHP, or which of them is the better nurturer.

I don’t believe the movement created by feminists to prioritise sex over gender identity should be pressured to simply accept anyone who agrees with some aspects of their movement. There are now different groups within the broad movement that will suit others while working towards the same broad goal.

As I said up thread, why should an established political movement have to take the time to have endless conversations with people who want to join the movement while wanting to change the goals of the movement to suit them?

There was a statement that I read once about a group of feminists who declared that the role of feminism was to fight for all oppressed people. My immediate thought then was that feminists are not there to mother the world.

But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe that is all women are ever to do, be there for everyone even if it causes harm to female people through lack of focus and allowing poor safeguarding policies to become widely accepted in society in the name of inclusion and kindness.

as soon you label something you give an easy way for it to be dismissed by others. i don't really like labels or need one that denotes the fact that I know what sex is.

Yes. While he understands the semantic difference between the words 'gender' and 'sex', he believes that difference is semantic, and that they can be used interchangeably. He doesn't see gender stereotypes as stereotypes. He sees them as evolutionarily baked in differences between men and women. Men hunted. Women tended the fires. And lo, we are where we are today. (Any evidence counter to this is rejected as outlying instances, exceptions that prove norms).

I agree with Potpourree that it is very difficult to unpick whether this is true or not, in our gendered society.

I suppose it comes down to is half an ally better than none? Is it better to embrace women who will join the fight for women only refuges, prisons and sports, but wouldn't challenge the occasional TIM in the women's toilets, or reject them?
Just as, is it better to embrace anyone who is absolute on the matter, regardless of the other harmful baggage they're going to slip in while the door is open?
I don't know the answers, but am interested in views.

How much choice does he think women had about becoming parents in the past?

exceptions that prove norms

That in itself is a logically false phrase - it's meaningless. Either there is a one-to-one correlation between sex and behaviour or there isn't.

If there isn't, then what on earth do class norms drawn from billions of humans tell you about any individual?

Well, quite. Why are women not allowed their own political and social movement, to fight for their own rights? Why is feminism seen as selfish if it tries to centre women in its own activism?

It's just another form of 'wheesht for (insert any other issue here)'.

I suppose it comes down to this.

This is a quote by James Morton of Scottish Trans, who were the main driver of the Scottish Prison Service's policy which allowed violent male sex offenders to be placed in the female prison estate -

'We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

Aside from the fact that, due to institutional capture, it's not been a case of 'toilets are fine but anything else is outrageous' but actually a concerted effort by lobbying groups to have no single sex spaces or services for women at all, but why would it be ok for trans identified men to be in toilets but not say, a domestic abuse refuge if he is seen as vulnerable due to being trans identifying? What if some women are ok with that? What if he's lying about being vulnerable? How do you tell? Why is he ok in the toilets but not other settings? If 'she' is allowed in some single sex settings, why is 'she' not allowed in others?

And then we get onto the whole SPS 'case by case' safeguarding nightmare. It's all lovely and kind to 'have a discussion' about safeguarding but that way lies loopholes....

I think the problem lies less with the 'be kind' feminists and more with the those who see the ability to move between sexes at will as in women's interests. Because if sex stops being a defining characteristic then it (in theory) can no longer be a source of oppression. A little like if we dismantled the class system and made everyone equal there would be no class oppression.
Through that lens, I can see why the idea has gained popularity amongst those willing to suspend their disbelief, read selectively and completely ignore biological reality.

Thank you. Thay makes sense. I agree.

Why should accepting some single sex spaces, now that we know that many female people need all spaces to be single sex, be considered the outcome we should aim for? Just to get some more women to support us, if that means pulling back on our aims?

Just because some women think a part measure is good enough so they can remain feeling like they are still inclusive and kind, why should an established group who does recognise the significant issues of not campaigning for all single sex spaces to be single sex change their direction and leave those female people who need their support behind?

If a woman chooses to be inclusive of men in female toilets, but draws the line at changing rooms, but supports the overall movement to campaign for female toilets to be included in the single sex provisions as well, sure. But if they actively argue against toilets while supporting all the other provisions, then this is a poor strategy in the long run. Because that person within the movement is then fighting against the movement. It is an incoherent strategy. And who knows what damage that does at that point depending on how much influence that person has gained.

And again, why block female toilets from being single sex when the same arguments can be used for other single sex provisioning? If it is because someone feels a group of male people are at risk- then address that risk head on without female people having to give up something important to them. If it is because some women don’t have an issue with it, well, why the fuck does that matter when clearly others do? If it because someone actually thinks well these male people are actually ‘women’, I just don’t want to share changing rooms, refuges and prisons with them but toilets are ok, then that is an unworkable incoherent belief (and it is a belief) that ultimately is not aligned with this particular feminist movement.

And other harmful baggage? Absolutely, a group needs to be careful about other completely separate political aims. However, if the main broad aim of the group is to protect women and girls and ensure they have equitable opportunity to achieve equality, then what other political aims should be checked for? If that is the purpose of the movement, that encompasses a huge amount of issues. Which require sex to be prioritised above gender identity, including in language.

Of course, people can support whether issues that they want and have varied opinions about it. And different groups of people contribute different things. Why should it be feminists who have to widen their focus so more people might join their movement ?

Thank you. Yes that makes sense.

Because if sex stops being a defining characteristic then it (in theory) can no longer be a source of oppression. A little like if we dismantled the class system and made everyone equal there would be no class oppression.

But these women should then question the men who want to dismantle one class - sex, and replace it by gender.

Ive not really come across many people who want to dismantle both sex and gender. Partly, i think, because those want to ignore sex completely are very invested in gender.

How the heck can sex as a class be ‘dismantled’? Structural sexism will possibly always exist because men are 100% useless at having babies.

That’s about knowing what sex is.
dismantling ‘gender’ is about knowing why sex isn’t. A person’s sex doesn’t define and shouldn’t limit anything except reproductive potential and the physical realities of being a dimorphic species. Sex doesn’t define what games little boys and girls should enjoy and be allowed to play. It doesn’t define what sort of academic aptitudes you may have, or your interests. It shouldn’t disadvantage or privilege you in your career (bar a very, very few niche roles where sex matters such as mammographers).