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"?

Pre 2025 history begs to differ except of course for young boys accompanied by their mothers…

As long as people think identity politics, be they around race or disability or anything else, are a positive or coherent ideology, they are going to struggle to challenge gender ideology.

Those people so worried about inclusion on the identarian left need to understand that there are other ways to think about civil rights and accommodations, and id pol is not the only gig in town. They'd also be better off if they grappled with the fact that the right has proven better at inclusion than the left in many cases as well, and why that might be.

Trying to hand on to id pol and reject it's favourite child, gender ideology, is just a losing game.

I don’t like it either. I understand why people are using it but I think, as a feminist since my teens, that I’m going to stick with gender critical in the true sense of the term.

That is men being given access. I can tell you that these men have got more entitled and bolder in recent years, the majority of them don’t pass as female and yet I’ve never come across them in women’s spaces all over the world before a few years ago.

Going to get hated on here but I have no problem with trans people existing.

god that type of opening is annoying.

Most people here have zero problem with trans people existing. We do have an issue with trans people not staying in their (correct sex) lane.

If you build it, they will come. Men who in the past might have satisfied themselves with fantasisiing about invading women's places have surely been emboldened by the current social climate, toilet signage, etc.

I think the biggest with the term issue for the majority is probably that they consider sex and gender to be interchangeable words. That usage has been very common for 30 years, probably more common than using them to mean separate things, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that it's incorrect as such.

I've come to think the whole idea of creating a word "gender" for things related to sex but not biological was probably a mistake, it doesn't really express what the phenomena of culturally expressed sex divisions are about very well, and it leads people to think of them as some sort of thing in themselves.

My point I suppose is to lament that the left has embraced TI under the umbrella of its traditional support of the marginalised.

I think that in practice 'supporting the marginalised' is actually a rather old fashioned conservative concept - give charity to the poor because noblesse oblige, but don't upset the hierarchy.

If a group - women for example - appear to be upsetting the apple cart with their demands they should be put in their place.

And we can always rely on Wikipedia being used as a source...

Your sense of superiority is as baffling as it is hilarious.

There's a big difference between supporting people with charity, which basically amounts to disadvantaged people keeping their fingers crossed that the wealthy are feeling generous and consider them deserving, the conservative approach, and the old school left. The latter seeks to address the inequalities that make people marginalised at a societal level and via policy and law. A fairer distribution of wealth and equality of opportunity by right, not by gift of the advantaged.
I agree entirely with your last paragraph. Conservative policies will always strive to keep women (and others) in their traditional stations as that is where we are most useful to those who hold the power.

Exactly.

So you're in essence saying that someone like me needs to 'pick a side'? This is entirely my point.

No, I'm saying several things., none of which is that you need to pick a side.

One is that id pol isn't the only game in town as far as supporting the marginalised goes, even on the left. I would go so far as to say that id pol, EDI, and that way of thinking has really completely fucked the left up, and may end up being the cause of it being sidelined for a long time. If the left wants to avoid that they are going to have to eject all of that from their thinking and figure out what it was that made it seem to fit into their thinking so seamlessly.

I'd also say that your need to pick a side comes out of your assumptions that there are sides, with one being baddies and one goodies. Politics isn't actually anything like that linear, there are a ton of overlaps as well as combinations and permutations.

Your idea that people on the right, unlike the left, are racists/sexists/etc is also simply incorrect and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

So no - no one needs to pick a side,when they assume they do they end up in a political dead end.

What on earth do you think self-ID means?

You think no one has suggested it? It’s been actual implemented policy in many places for a decade plus.

You are so utterly out of touch with even basic uncontested facts of this debate it’s extraordinary.

I won’t use “gender critical” or “sex realist”. I prefer to use the term “bigot”.

That's really interesting - thanks for posting, as I'd not considered that reading of it before!

What do you understand the basic tenets of GCism to be?

Because you're dishonest. Got it.

As a pp asked, I would bet money you can't articulate the GC position in a way that a GC person such as I would agree is accurate.

You can't, you won't, and you prefer to put others down for something you haven't understood.

You are misrepresenting my comments and jumping to inaccurate conclusions. Firstly, I at no point described the right as racist or sexist. Nor have I used the concept of goodies and baddies. I dont think in child like terms and I'm capable of nuanced thinking.
My point was simply that my views align with the left not the right. What you dismiss as identity policies no doubt includes many elements that I would agree with. For example that people can be at a disadvantage because of their sex, race, disability, class, sexuality, and that actions should be taken to level the playing field.
We don't need to debate this, as this isn't the point of the thread.
My point was that I hold views, 'identity politics' if you please, and STILL remain entirely convinced that people can't change sex, that a person born male is not and never can be a woman, and has no place in women's spaces.
Yet you are telling me, no, no, you can't have 'identity politics' AND reject TI.
That is what I meant by being told to pick a side

Male led uprisings
The fact that ‘women led uprisings’ has a specific topic tells you that they’re not the norm.

Absolutely, demonstrated that in recent employment tribunals the defendants have said every time that no one complained so they didn’t think there was a problem.
It amazed me that people can stand up in a tribunal brought because of complaints being unresolved and say ‘no one complained’. In an employment tribunal brought because of complaints being.

Women were complaining long and loud but the the powers that be dismissed it ‘what’s that? Squeak squeak? Mutter whisper..? Oh, nothing I need to actually listen or pay attention to!’. Bloody chauvinists so uninterested in the opinions of women they couldn’t even register a complaint when it had been made. And still can’t hear it despite being in a tribunal over it!

It amazed me that people can stand up in a tribunal brought because of complaints being unresolved and say ‘no one complained’. In an employment tribunal brought because of complaints being.

Exactly!!
This is one of my favourite recurring themes of tribunals. It's becoming almost a punchline.

Women tend to have better things to do than stand in the streets pouring piss over themselves. Or hanging off buildings. Or shouting in people’s faces playing loud music to drown everyone else out.

Not that they want to. And of course let’s not forget, disabled women have been arrested and held late into the night, before being dumped back on the street with no power left in their mobility scooter for that appalling protest…. Stickering.

So no, you may not have seen hordes of women screaming, pissing and being aggressive in the streets. Just another example of men failing to hear women complaining because they aren’t doing it properly aggressively and using piss.

Because we won’t pretend men are women? Sure, you do you, no one is interested in changing your mind.

Anyone who lets male criminals self-identify into a women's prison is either as thick as two short planks or a filthy sadist. And you're calling the ones who oppose that wicked stupidity "bigots".