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"?

To be fair, that's a lot better than had they asked her if one would be enough.

I think something like your husband's POV is by far the most common.

Sex is real and unchangable. But there are patterns of behaviour that have their origins in biology, some directly, and some indirectly. As well as social customs and constructs that are build around reproductive role.

I think most understand that these behaviours have large areas of overlap, and also know that social constructs can be damaging. But they still think the patters are there and biologically driven, and they don't think all social constructs related to sex are bad.

I'd make a guess that that cover something like 80% of the population.

Bearing in mind there are no kindly TIMs in space to generously hand them out in the space toilets

You would struggle to find anyone on the right, or a conservative, who would agree with this, or indeed believes it.

There are of course selfish people who look for their own advantage, but they are fairly well distributed across political views. Because they find advantage wherever they are. History shows this quite clearly.

But am I misremembering you saying earlier that you did NOT have a baddies vs goodies idea of left and right? Because that sounds exactly like baddies vs goodies.

And that this is possibly the origin of the disinclination people who are really wedded to the idea of themselves as leftist to be in any way associated with the right. Of course if you think being right wing is fundamentally about some kind ideological selfishness, you would not want to get on board with that.

But that's a fairly crude caricature of the political right. I'm not sure how you could engage with that world at all and maintain that perspective.

There are three fairly clear main ways you could do this in a more academic sense I think.

One would be to measure the characteristics in question across cultures. Something that has zero connection to any inherent biological elements of sex is very likely to have some, if not quite a lot, of variation.

Another would be to go much smaller scale and investigate things like the action of certain parts of the brain or hormones, in a lab kind of setting. Some of these could be affected by socialisation, but there would be many that couldn't as well.

A third would be to look across the animal world, particularly at other mammals. Do we see similar patterns and behaviours across many species? Are these associated with similar reproductive patterns, of physiology? Why do we think we see these behaviours in these other species, and would the same logic apply to humans?

On a more personal scale, ime one of the best , because you have a front row seat, ways is to look at how your own personality is affected hormonally. It's noticeable just through the menstrual cycle for many, but changes can be very powerful during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause.

I think the idea with this for most people is a bit fuzzy, but goes something like - if gender - which is not biologically defined - becomes the main way we think about people, then their physical characteristics will not be such a focus. A 'man" or a "woman" could both get pregnant so we would see more equal treatment of both.

It mainly works I suspect if you think reproductive role has only a very small inherent, direct effect on people's lives. Which many people think is true, largely because in modern society we can control reproduction fairly well and many people only have one or two kids.

For accuracy, once again, its actually you saying something here, not I.
This time, its you imposing a morality on the concept of wishing to retain the status quo and describing it as 'selfish'. I merely described it.
Many right wing people would argue that the status quo should be preserved because it exists for good reason. That people in modern societies have (broadly speaking) equal opportunity to rise to the highest positions and accrue wealth on the basis of their merit. Hence those occupying the positions are the most deserving of them and best to fulfil them. So no change required.
If you think that makes you selfish and a 'baddie' then that's something to wrestle with your own conscience I suppose.
Personally as I said, I don't tend to think in terms of heros and villains when it comes to my politics. I'm more interested in how society can be structured to be as functional as possible for as many of its citizens as possible.

One would be to measure the characteristics in question across cultures. Something that has zero connection to any inherent biological elements of sex is very likely to have some, if not quite a lot, of variation.

The thing is, indirect elements of sex can inform behaviours across all cultures even if it's not an "inherent" cause of the behaviour. Perhaps women make certain practical choices because they tend to be smaller or because of risks from men. The motivators and disincentives might arise from biological sex indirectly, and it doesn't necessarily mean that without those, the same choices would be made.

Eg you might assume that women are predisposed to not like running in the dark, but when you look at the motivators you woul see that that isn't a choice made in a vacuum.

I think this is exactly what the argument it. Which is why women who support GI tend to say they're not 'defined by their uterus/genitals'. They don't want to be reduced to merely their biocidal function, and think the solution to this is to discount biology altogether when it comes to defining and classifying human beings.

The "reduced to" really is a sign of lack of critical thinking! (I know it's not you saying it! )
No-one else considers describing something about them as claiming that is the only relevant thing about them. "Do you like chips?" "Yes" doesn't mean anyone is solely a chip-liker and nothing else matters about them. Oh no, I've been reduced to a chip-liker.... I'm defined by my enjoyment of fried tubers, I will never escape these shackles...

I'm starting to think you are being disingenuous. Are you really saying you don't see that as a a moral statement - why would you not want to be associated with that idea then?

Regardless, it's still not accurate. Which is the point.

You did not say that conservatives believe in preserving the status quo. That would be, let's say less inaccurate, through still not really a great description.

What you said was that they want to "preserve the traditional order with regards to who holds the wealth and power in society."

Is it wrong to think you mean by this that people are trying to maintain their own power base? Or are you saying that conservatives are looking to make sure power and wealth are distributed in a just way? If it's the latter, why be worried about being associated with it?

It is certainly true that most conservatives would agree with some sort of Chesterton's fence principle, where social structures have often evolved for useful or important reasons. Which may or may not be useful in the present, but it's best to know what they were before doing away with them.

But what you've said is not that.

Yes, that's an indirectly biologically motivated behaviour. You could also say something like, you might get a higher than usual concentration of female scientists in the civil service, compared to academia, because the hours and benefits are better for someone having pregnancies and small children. (That's an anecdotal observation, not sure if it's borne out statistically, but you get the idea.)

So you might expect to see that pattern, to some extent, follow in differernt cultures. Though in such cases the social environment can also make a huge impact - things like, do people live in villages, what kind of work sustains the community.

But for example looking for personality differernces, or differernces in interests, aggression, and such? If these are fairly consistent patterns across cultures, that would be a good clue that there could be some kind of innate element. Especially if you could support it with other methods. So, say, cross cultural study on aggression and nurturing behaviours - plus study in a lab environment on hormones, plus animal observations.

I don't know, I do feel kind of shackled by my feelings about fried tubers....

I'm really not being disingenuous. You think I am because you have me in a box you associate with being left wing, whereby my views are based in what's 'morally superior' imo. They're not. They're based on the sort of society I think is practically and functionally best.
For example, I don't support IP because I want to be kind to POC, working class people, women and disabled people. I support it because my common sense tells me that white MC able bodied men can't possibly always be 'the best' so our society is overlooking a huge pool of potential talent that could make it a better place, and I'll benefit from that.
I don't support measures to redistribute wealth because I'm kind to poorer people. It's because I see the way poverty damages the society I live in, how it strains services and costs a lot of money.
As for why I 'don't want to be associated with the right, again you have me in a box and are making assumptions. This time that my politics is about how I'm viewed, a performance I don't want tarnished by people thinking I'm right wing by association. It is not.
The link with the right doesn't bother me on some imaginary stage. It bothers me at the ballot when I'm unable to vote for a GC candidate without also voting in policies that are the antithesis to what I believe.
It bothers me when discussions like this stray into left versus right rather than focusing on common ground.

Why should the needs of some women and children be ignored because another woman doesn’t care enough about the situation declares their neutral voice should be heard with the same priority as those who do need the space to remain single sex?

This is a really good point.

Carol and Sue are being asked to state their views on whether a shared meal should contain peanuts. Carol is allergic to peanuts and says so. Sue says that she doesn't mind peanuts. We don't give Sue's opinion the same weight as Carol's.

Now Jo comes along and she loves peanuts. We don't give Jo's opinion the same weight as Carol's either. And if Jo and Sue tried to tell Carol that she's outvoted, we'd tell Jo and Sue to get tae fuck.

Using peanuts in a meal is not a situation that is properly resolved by a majority vote of all the diners, but by allergic people being regarded as the stakeholders with the only voices that matter and being granted a veto.

Robust safeguarding for public single sex provisions is set at the standard of meeting the needs of those people who do need those spaces to be single sex to ensure the maximum number of female people are protected as well as a publicly open provision can be.

This. If you are OK with males entering women's spaces, you are either privileged enough to have never needed to fear a man or you are very naive about how some men will behave in these spaces. Either way, you aren't amongst the women we need to heed here. The stakeholders with the voices who matter are SA victims, disabled women, and children. Just one of those stakeholders, or the parent or carer acting on their behalf, saying "no" is enough to keep that space female-only.

As Hella said in her following post, girl children cannot consent to men in female spaces, so that ought to force most public female spaces to stay male-free regardless of what any of the adults say.

No indeed. Fortunately if you like chips no one is going to think that's the most important thing about you. They won't know you like chips the minute they meet you and treat you in a special way thats different from the way they treat people who like mash. People who like chips don't get paid less than people who like mash and people who like mash are not dangerous to people who like chips. If that were the case, then you could understand if people mashed up their chips and said ,"nothing to see here, it's all just potatoes!"

But why do you care if people think you are right wing, if it's just a pragmatic position? What about that would be "tarnishing?"

You do understand, don't you, that right wing people (apart from the odd Ayn Rand type) don't think poverty is good either, don't think that black people should have fewer opportunities, etc?

What you are talking about is a difference in opinion, not even about the things like fairness and good economic outcomes for people, but simply about the kinds of policies that might best create those outcomes.

Refusing to engage pragmatically where there are shared political goals on policy because you think it might look bad to... who? ... seems very strange.

That's how political change happens. Pragmatically.

I don't understand your comment about the ballot box in this context. That's not what the thread is about and hasn't been the discussion here. Everyone weighs things when it comes to voting in an actual candidate, whether that means compromising or maybe not voting or picking some sort of protest candidate.

I'm starting to think you are being disingenuous as whatever I tell you, you are choosing to stick stubbornly to your preconception that this is about optics and percieved morality and answer me as though it were.
Why are you saying "refusing to engage....because it might look bad..to who? seems very strange" ...to me, when I have explained as clearly as I am able that I do not think it 'looks bad'?
How can I answer you when you're asking about something you have invented and ascribed to me?
Please try to focus on my actual words rather than those you expect to see, or we have no hope of shared understanding.

I don't care if people think I'm right wing.

Thats entirely your assumption.

My reasons for disliking links with the right are entirely relevent. Because these are the things that may prevent me engaging in a meaningful way with GC aims.
They won't stop me 'joining the conversation'. Though when it results in being challenged on other left wing views as has happened here, it makes the conversation harder as it doesn't stay on track.
They will likely stop me voting for a candidate that will further GC aims, which is extremely important when it comes to turning conversation into action.
I don't 'blame' right wing people for this. I blame the left for embracing GI.

@TempestTost
You seem at some pains to convince me that right wing people are not bad, immoral or selfish. I didn't say they were. Some are of course, just as some left wing people are.
Its perfectly obvious to me that not all right wing people want to maintain the traditional order for what you term 'selfish' reasons. Because if that were the case, you wouldn't get any support for conservatism in any form from those without privilege, and in any society where the poor outnumber the wealthy you would only ever see left wing administrations.
Clearly right wing views are held amongst those for whom they appear counter to their personal intetests, and are presumably rooted in those peoples ideas of what is best for society as a whole.
My point, you don't need to convince me that you are good and kind AND right wing or try to persuade me I'm wrong about my left wing views for us to discuss GC together.
I responded in agreement to a post you made on the subject. You didn't acknowledge that, but again choose instead to pursue the left versus right conversation to tell me right wing people could also care about others.
Which I have never disputed.

The safety case for single sex spaces even existing is, to be completely blunt, to give women a means of avoiding unwanted motherhood forced on us by a rapist.

Throughout history, women have had very little choice about whether to become mothers. Establishing single sex spaces was one of the first practical steps towards giving women that choice.

The restrictions on women are not just that we have to gestate any children that we want whilst men don't, but a raft of other physical stuff that goes with that reproductive function. Caroline Criado-Perez did a whole book called Invisible Women explaining why women are more likely than men to get a back injury at work and why you struggle to use your smartphone one-handed but your husband doesn't. Women are slower and weaker and smaller and fundamentally a different shape right down to our bones.

If sex is mutable, you can take testosterone and magically not keep dropping your phone, right? If sex is mutable, you'll be able to get a cheap rucksack that fits from Mountain Warehouse (whose female-specific range is tiny compared to their men's range) without having to pay Osprey prices to get a female-specific rucksack in the size and type you need.

It's no coincidence that gender ideology has ascended at the same as transhumanism, which is the idea that we can use electronics and other technologies to augment ourselves and perhaps one day even transfer our minds to machines and so escape our flesh.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5444221-do-you-think-the-term-gender-critical-is-why-some-people-wont-engage?reply=148559493

This belief is much more commonly found amongst left wing people.

And yet the Tory party, not the Labour party, have appointed female and Black leaders. I'm not convinced that the left are as committed to EDI as they claim to be. Especially as the bulk of the (unpaid and not considered as contributing to your workload) EDI committee work at my majority left-wing higher education employer falls to the women.

That's not accurate.

Right-wingers often challenge the status quo, quite vocally. I've encountered nationalists who describe the Royal Family as German immigrants who should be deported and replaced with a presidency open only to candidates who hold British citizenship from birth. This is an extremely right-wing stance, rooted in xenophobia, yet it challenges the existence of the British monarchy.

If you look deeper and identify the principle behind the desired outcome, it's still the same. Hatred of other nationalities is about maintaing white Btitish supremacy, which is the traditional order as they see it.
There's a difference between change and progression. Right wing people often support backwards change that returns society back to the old order.
Extremists will advocate for extreme change, such as the criminalisation of things that have been around for some time, but nevertheless sit outside their view of where power should lie. The erosion of women rights by the US right wing being an example.