You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender Critical Feminism’ tag.
Another common charge against Gender Critical Feminists or really, Radical Feminists in general is that they are just a small outspoken subset of Feminism, soon to be forgotten with the passage time..bla bla bla. Apparently, as demonstrated by publication in the US newspaper of record, gender critical thought isn’t going away soon, and if anything is gaining more popularity and momentum as time passes.
Lisa Selin Davis, in her opinion piece ‘My Daughter is Not Transgeneder. She is a Tomboy.’, writes the following (pardon, the formatting, these are screencaps):
Wow. :) Identification of gender as the problem, correctly assessing the role of socialization, and realizing the power of gender stereotyping – all in the same article?! I highly recommend going to read the full article on the NYT.
Acknowledging reality, is what this about. Prioritizing women’s struggle against gender or glorifying the concept that enslaves women in patriarchy. Women who dare to speak out against patriarchy, as always, are singled out and laid bare for threats and abuse. Thank you to the brave tenacious women who dare to soldier on with their ‘heretical’ messages and disagreements. Telling the emperor that he has no clothes, speaking truth to power, addressing the root problems of society – this is the wheelhouse of radical feminist politics and ideology.
This is an excerpt from The New Statesmen that describes the power of the ‘newspeak’ gender identity movement and how it is attempting to silence debate and discussion of gender politics and ideology.
“Another thing we are supposed to deny is the differences that now exist among self-identified trans women. The category has broadened over time to encompass more biologically male individuals who have not modified their bodies, and who in some cases do not live permanently as women, but alternate between male and female identities. Their status as women is based on a combination of performative declarations that they are women, and surface features of ‘gender presentation’ like the names they use and the clothes they wear. Nevertheless, they invoke the ‘trans women are women’ principle: if you identify as female then you are female, and should be treated as such by others. In some circles it is considered transphobic for women to question the presence of people with openly displayed male sexual organs in spaces like communal female changing rooms, or for lesbian women to refuse to recognise those people as potential sexual partners (a resistance sometimes referred to as ‘the cotton ceiling’, a phrase which smacks of misogyny and male entitlement). It isn’t just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too. Is that really just irrational bigotry?
During the debate on the Observer letter, a man who had finally grasped what the trans v TERF dispute was about tweeted (I paraphrase for his own protection): ‘So, you’re saying we have to pretend to believe lies to be nice. Like saying I think cats can fly’. To avoid giving offence to a minority group — or to avoid persecution by its most extreme and vocal members — it’s as if we have all agreed to live in a fantasy world where reality is whatever certain people say it is. My penis is female. It is exclusionary for feminists to talk about female bodies. Cats can fly. Ignorance is knowledge.
A TERF is not someone who disputes trans people’s right to exist. What s/he disputes is the right of a small subset of trans extremists to impose their definition of reality, and their political agenda, on everyone. A TERF is someone prepared to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Though I understand their fears, it troubles me that we have got to the point where people like Mary Beard and Peter Tatchell feel obliged to throw the TERFs to the wolves rather than stand up to the Emperor and his court. ”
Amen to the last two paragraphs.
Well it is most comforting to watch someone take a stand against the doublespeak that seems to permeate most of transactivst rhetoric.
Transactivist: Aint nothing radical about your “movement”…. you’re reactionary. You’re all bigoted and transmisogynistic. Step ya pussy game up.
RF: do u even know what “radical” means lol, it means “getting to the root”, as in getting to the root of women’s oppression which is male desire to control women’s reproductive capacity
TA: Trans women are women too….. if you wanted to get to the root of the problem you would include trans women as well…
RF:the root of the problem, and by problem we obviously mean misogyny and female oppression, is sexism and sex-based oppression (sex-selective abortion, forced pregnancy, female genital mutilation, stigma against periods, lack of reproductive rights, etc) and guess what transwomen face literally N O N E of those things because they have penises so i don’t know what benefit would it bring to include them when they aren’t even affected negatively by the same things we are? why don’t transwomen just create their own separate movement to address their own separate struggles instead of trying to hijack the women’s rights movement?
RF: It’s like the transgender advocates are out in the middle of a lake in a canoe with only one paddle. They’re trying so hard to figure out how to get to shore, but they won’t pick up the other paddle, which is actually lying in the bottom of the canoe. They won’t touch it, and so they keep spinning around and around, far from shore … making the same leaky arguments that get them nowhere.
RF: I used to think if they grasped the fact that feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women they would then realize what women are fighting to be liberated from.
Hint: As to what women are fighting to be liberated from, it starts with a ‘P’. :/
Yet more evidence that identity politics is bad for women.
“Pregnant woman” is not an identity. It is a social reality. A pregnant woman’s ever-contracting rights – whether she can choose to end this pregnancy, whether she will risk imprisonment for drinking too much, whether she will lose her job, whether she will be murdered by her partner – can only be seen through the filter of her inferior social status: that of woman. She neither chooses nor identifies with this status and it matters that the restrictions it places on her and others be fully acknowledged. Hundreds of women died today because of the way in which pregnancy intersects with their political and social status as women. The term “pregnant people” denies them the specificity of their deaths and masks the cause.
What gender-neutral pregnancy campaigning has achieved is wholly negative, making it impossible to articulate why there exists a class of people who are not granted full sovereignty over what lies beneath their own skin. It has located the abortion debate (which should not be a debate at all) back where conservatives want it: on the status of the foetus, not that of the woman. It has allowed the misogynist left to consolidate their definition of woman as “passive fantasy girl with tits” as opposed to “person with independent physical functions, emotions and needs.” Above all, it has created the illusion of an opt-out to being placed in the inferior sex class. Well, there isn’t, at least not until you can be bothered to challenge the fundamental idea that half the human race is inferior (oh, but that’s so much harder than messing about with words!).”
Today’s Radical Feminist insight comes from Humble Kitten, reminding us that dudes will be dudes in whatever form they happen to come in.
“[…] Sex isn’t assigned. Socially constructed gender is assigned to sex. Here, let me offer you a visual aide I made a little while ago. (See above).
So we’re born female or male. This is because we’re an allogamous sexually reproducing species. This is easily observed and tested and well understood.
Our word for pre-pubescent and adolescent human females is “girl”, our word for adult human females is “woman”.
Our word for pre-pubescent and adolescent human males is “boy”, our word for adult human males is “man”.
With me so far?
So in human society behavioral expectations are imposed on girls and women, boys and men. This is called gender. And it’s bad because it tends to keep girls and women, the humans born female, in an inferior social position.
Beyond the expectations of behavior are social roles assigned to the sexes, these are gender roles.
Adopting the gender roles of the opposite sex and saying that makes one the equivalent of the opposite sex only serves to reinforce the idea that those gender roles are an inherent part of being that sex. All it does is continue to perpetuate them, and the oppression of girls and women, the humans born female, especially.
The solution then is to do away with gender, not further codify it. Then no one has to feel their sex is wrong because they don’t meet society’s behavioral expectations.”
And the above is the radical position that is causing so much anger. It is logical, offers a solution, and more importantly works toward a version of society that emancipates females from patriarchy – i.e. feminism.