Is the Gender Critical Movement Bound to Remain Rudderless?

[UtopiaPlanitia]

I came across a recommendation on TwiX for this interesting article and thought I'd post a link here (with a few excerpts to give an idea) for anyone who might be interested.

https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/is-the-gender-critical-movement-bound-to-remain-rudderless

'For all its apparent moral clarity and empirical grounding, the gender critical movement suffers from a deep structural weakness. It lacks a horizon, a vision to move toward. Though move it does, it is rudderless, hitting targets on its way to nowhere definite or well-defined.

And without any clear vision, it’s destined to remain merely reactive, the reluctance or inability to say what it’s for or what kind of world it’s attempting to bring into being likely to ensure its eventual failure to win institutional power or systemic reform.

Every transformative movement needs the vision of a future worth defending beyond merely resisting the course of events and the GC project is no different…

…As such then, the movement resists but doesn’t envision what its own success looks like, thereby confining itself to the conceptual and institutional boundaries set by the very ‘gender industrial complex’ it opposes.

…The ‘trans-activist’ (or ‘sex denialism’) side, in contrast - along with the wider techno-capital system in which we, and it, find ourselves situated does have a vision – a horizon toward which it’s heading. It imagines a future where everything about us is flexible, modifiable, and optimizable. A world where identity, bodies, and even ordinary life can be upgraded, medicalized, data-tracked, and endlessly redesigned, all framed as liberation or ‘becoming your truest self.’

But underneath the uplifting language a simpler logic is at work: turn everything into something that can be engineered, monetized, connected, or (ideally) all three.

…[gender identity] is the ideal entry point for a form of capitalism that now treats the human body and personal identity as further sites to extract value from.

This is why “gender” has become a privileged site of transformation. It isn’t uniquely ‘fragile’ (as some would so vocally claim) but it is viewed by the system as uniquely modifiable making it a space perfectly suited for ‘optimization’, where the ‘optimal’ is simply the continued expansion of the system itself…'

This is really important and key in understanding the success to date of this nonsensical ideology.

The much of the "left", particularly in the USA, have given up on economic socialism and have given in to neoliberal capitalism. However, in order to maintain their self-image of being "the good people" and "on the right side of history" they have swallowed whole the ideology of social justice instead, including 'trans rights' (but not women's rights obviously, as that is too old fashioned, so not 'progressive' and modern enough).
They are now thoroughly mixed up with, and largely indistinguishable from, those with right-wing economic views but who adopt a social justice mentality (in terms of believing everyone should have individual freedom to be whatever they want, without all that 'structural oppression' rubbish) to feel good about themselves and to 'be kind'.

The left is split between a majority who have taken this social justice line, and a small rump who are still in favour of economic socialism and feminism.
(This is of course a simplification, as there are male socialists who are misogynistic, and feminists who are oblivious to economics.)

The right meanwhile are split between the capitalists who know an opportunity for making money when they see it (and have no other ideology), and the traditional moralists who believe in sex-based-stereotypes, i.e. that women should be real women and men should be real men. The latter are not in favour of people 'transitioning' or cross dressing.

Thus gender ideology has support from the most powerful parts of the right and from most of the quasi-left.

In contrast, the gender critical movement has people from both the traditional feminist left and the religious/moralistic right (particularly in the US).
This does not form the basis for a functioning alliance.

On the bright side, the gender critical movement has cold hard reality on its side, plus the vast silent majority who have no interest in politics but who know that men in dresses are not women, and men should not go into women's toilets.

It is these no-longer-silent majority and non-alliance-but-same-side that are the not-a-movement that is making strides back towards reality and sane policy.

The GC movement needs a 'vision' in the same way a fish needs a bicycle. It's corporate wank. By people who can't do or process anything real.

This is about women's rights and equalities. That's it. The fact that activists can't understand it is because they don't see women as human or having a purpose beyond being male-owned resources. Women wanting rights is a stupid and pointless idea to them, so it cannot be what all the shouting is about.

It's like the bafflement that lesbians do not want to have straight sex with men, and that women don't want to undress or be strip searched by men, when the man has told them what he wants them to believe is going on between his ears at the time. I swear, some of these idiots honestly must think like they did when they were five about their teachers: that women just switch off and go into cupboards when not providing succour that an activist finds personally meaningful.

I don't think anyone is saying that if we could achieve a return to the time before GI took hold, everything would be OK. Well, some who are coming at it from a position of overall conservatism may, but most would not.
I think its more about seeing the removal of GI as a logical first step and foundation for the other work that needs to be done.
Its been said many times before, but if we can no longer have clarity about who is within the group 'women' how can we hope to identify and address issues faced by women?
I think there's a great deal to be said for a clear focus on redressing this 'interruption' to our progress before we can go any further. A little like prioritising changing a flat tire before we carry on our journey.

When the you know what hit's the fan, and we're reduced to a bankrupt, dystopian, dog eat dog country, enslaved by the CCP, they'll be no money or time for self indulgences like the genderwang. So problem solved.

I wholly agree with your setting out of the political division of labour, but disagree that the "apolitical middle" will make a difference, either on the streets or at the ballot box.
I've lost count of the number of normies whom I've brought up trans related scandal stories with, who've bothered asking me any follow up Qs. Tolerance on the subject is really limited.
Sure, there may be some unanimity that putting men in women's prisons or sports is wrong, but broaden things out, and the conversation goes hazy, if anything I get some blowback that I'm "obsessed" or "should get a new hobby".
Even free speech incursions (like the Green candidate in my area being cancelled by the party for expressing GC opinions) gets little traction from so many when I inform them.
I fear the TRAs may be right that the subject is just not on the radar for many (most?) voters, certainly most men on the Clapham omnibus, and thus the middle will not push the extreme back to sanity.
Case in point, let's see how many women voters abandon Labour at the next GE, especially if the PB trial goes ahead fully, and Phillipson/Starmer go cold on rolling out clear advice re the SC ruling, or even worse, give advice that muddies the water.

@GKG1 says : I think there’s a more utopian vision - is certainly my vision but I’m not sure it is that of many GC people - a world where sex stereotypes are dismantled. We no longer have boys/girls toys, clothes, activities etc and children don’t grow up with restricted ideas of how to perform male or female. In some ways this objective is shared with a lot of sex deniers, so this vision has to come with respect for the realities of our sexed bodies and doesn’t promote the idea that there are no differences between men and women.

@Niminy says: Every single wave of feminism has found ultimately that merely seeking rights is not enough to enable women's flourishing. It's necessary but not sufficient. In my view the writer is correct that simply demanding a return to 'the way things used to be' isn't enough, because it implies that the way things used to be was ok. It wasn't. And it is essentially a reactive and defensive move. I don't see anything (apart from Harrington) attempting to sketch out what a future in which we inhabit our human bodies in the way that we were meant to, but in a world which is increasingly technologised, and where our infrastructure, life choices and economic system are fully subordinated to technology. What do we want for men and women in this world? That is what is meant by 'offering visions of victory rather than prohibitions'.

Both really interesting comments on the question of having a 'vision' for where we want our 'movement' to go.

But the thing is we are not a unified movement with a single vision.

I for one think a technologised world in which we are fully subordinate to technology sounds like a dystopian hell (and it won't happen anyway, due to lack of oil - but that is another topic).
Many other sex-realist, anti-trans proponents would not be at all happy with a world of gender-neutrality, and very much want girls to wear nice dresses and to grow up to be good wives.

Men can wear nice suits and be good husbands, lol.

I think you get the same reaction of 'get a new hobby' from the apolitical when you bring up almost ANY political discussion, on any topic. Most people don't want to know and can't be bothered to think.
You get regurgitated sound-bites from the tabloids and dumbed-down media, but if you try to engage in discussion, they have nothing else to say, except more sound-bites, and quickly get fed up of the conversation.

But even so, some people from this apolitical mass can stumble on the gender issue when it affects them personally, and that is when they think "what the fuck has been going on?"

either on the streets or at the ballot box
Neither of these are the front where this war will be won. It is the courts. Because (unlike politics) law has to be based on material reality and precise definitions.

I knew I should have trained as a lawyer, lol.

I don't think it is a movement as such, nor should it be.

It's a one issue political coalition that is centred around political action and policy.

It does not, and could not, provide a whole social, political, or ideological system that could organise it beyond very limited goals.

This is a strength, not a weakness. Ideological programs are limited in terms of building a broad enough base for political action.

There is nothing wrong with being oriented toward rational and effective policy and social goals in a limited sphere, and then ceasing to exist when those goals are achieved. There is no need for a rudder or leader or infrastructure beyond that.

Transhumanist capitalism might be only a small part of the picture. By the end of the twentieth century, the world was ready for transgenderism. Medical advances meant that human consciousness was at its most distanced from the constraints of human physiology. Social attitudes were at their most sympathetic to minority rights. And the universal non-Kantian view of women as a means to an end remained, as ever, undefeated.

Against this background, a small group of self-interested men pursued a well-defined goal, using every political trick in the book. They succeeded in creating a nice shiny monolith, with a hard carapace of minority rights, and a shadowy Sci-fi interior of arcane medical knowledge. Irresistible! Even the Conservatives believed in it.

It embodies only a single idea, making it hard to attack without the appearance of extreme destructiveness.

By contrast, the harms that it does are diverse and affect many different interest groups, not just women, making the opposition appear scattergun, and throwing their motivation into doubt.

Because it's bombastic word salad, that as pp said, it doesn't matter - his main point.

Made my eyes ache trying to read it.

I think this is true - but it's much bigger than gender Ideology and I wouldn't really have put it in those terms.

But maybe it's fair to do so. I've often felt that GI won't really go away until id pol is dismantled, but that too means people have to see some alternative.

Transhumanism and the weird tech-utopia some seem to think is the future does seem to have been taken up by the uber-capitalists. And many normal people have vaguely fallen in line with that, they seem to see it as inevitable, almost like there is no other road. I've thought for a long time that the main reason the dominant feminism in the west is all about women in the workforce is similarly a folding in of feminism to capitalism.

Who will offer another vision? To be honest I don't see that coming out of gender critical thinking, I believe it would need to come from some wider vision of reality.

We define 'female' by our reproductive role. What if we, voluntarily or otherwise, lose that role?

I don't for one minute think that that is the future for most women, if for no other reason than expense.

@EuclidianGeometryFan

Neither of these are the front where this war will be won. It is the courts. Because (unlike politics) law has to be based on material reality and precise definitions.

It's so painfully slow, though. In the last ten years, apart from FWS, the GC 'movement' has won only on the grounds of protected belief discrimination. Nothing on direct or indirect sex-discrimination (despite good evidence).

A lighthouse doesn't need a rudder.

There are other visions of the future out there, in contrast to the techno-capitalist-utopia. They are on the fringes, but they are there.

They are often not popular, sometimes because they require giving up faith in the religion of "progress".

Mass production will make it cheaper. There will be some women who want to opt out of reproduction and some who won't and there will be women in countries that cannot afford the technology. However, if opting out becomes the norm in a country or culture then medical and financial support for those who opt in to bodily reproduction will fall away.

We are a long way from understanding infertility and miscarriages. This technology is not just around the corner.

And even if it existed, women and men would need different rights because women would still need access to contraception. Also, just look at what women have to go through during IVF now. Women's and men's bodies are different, so they rely on different rights. You would need a leap in evolution, not technology, to change that.

The technology may not be around the corner, but science is nibbling away at the edges. That is a sensible point at which to consider competing visions. If women's reproductive role becomes redundant in society, if even our ova aren't needed, then that is going to affect how our rights are viewed. No evolutionary leaps needed.

You think women's lives would be better without the invention of the Pill?

I agree there are negatives to it that have been downplayed too much, but I think dismissing any form of contraception as 'transhumanist' is too much. I'm not sure I'd agree Harrington is doing that, she's always very critical of the Pill & apparently contraception more widely, but it's unclear if she disapproves of IUDs, condoms etc. I know she promotes NFP but she must know that isn't an option for everyone (irregular cycles, PCOS etc)

It's very easy to dismiss contraception as 'transhumanist' and rhaphsodise about 'rewilding sex' when, like Harrington, you're comfortably middle-class, have only one child, a husband and childcare (despite her apparently harsh views on childcare, she herself has said she uses it).

I see what you mean : if sperm weren't needed, men would still be less at risk due to strength advantage.

What kind of visions?

Feminism focusing on women in the workforce is a folding in of feminism to capitalism? I see what you mean to some extent...

I think Harrington's point is that the Pill is a technology that changes the body to stop it doing what it is designed to do. I don't think she is saying it hasn't had good effects -- but that it has negative ones as well. It has certainly changed the rules of sexual encounters for women, and taking the long view, those changes have had profoundly negative effects.

But in any case, what she is arguing is that the Pill is an inflexion point. It's the beginning of all transhuman technologies which have changed the relationship between our bodies and technology. There's a direct line between the Pill and cross-sex hormones.