FridgeMagnet
Administrator
"Gender critical" is like "climate sceptic". We all know what it means.
International Mens Day
- Thread starter Kesher
- Start date
CRI
Registered Chooser
That's not what happened here though. It wasn't about navel gazing.
Absolutely agree.
Absolutely agree. However, folks who are subject to hatred because of say their ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability, etc. etc. are constantly expected to field quite intrusive questions about their lives, their identity, etc., and it must get pretty tedious. With the internet, there isn't that much excuse for most people to be ignorant, or expect someone to use their lives as a case study to help you learn. They know they can invest hell of a lot of time only for someone to turn around and go, "nah, I don't think so."
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
I'm posting this in two parts cos it's over the character limit.
Part 1
If one defines gender as a hierarchical tool to oppress the female sex-caste, much like slavery is a tool to oppress certain classes, then it stands to reason that there would be some females who do not question it, much like there were some slavers from ancient Greece to colonial America who did not question it and were comfortable with the system. It doesn't follow that some people never questioned their gender roles because they are "cis" there could be a number of reasons for it eg: being entrenched in a class system, being socialised to accept it, not knowing enough about it. It *could* be it's because these people are cis, but it could be a number of other things which actually already have been written about in various types of sociological literature (including books about class systems not just feminism).
LOL. This is SUCH a bullshit question. "Why do you hate women? (see how this sort of bullshit works? - totally unnecessary)
Part 1
If one defines gender as a hierarchical tool to oppress the female sex-caste, much like slavery is a tool to oppress certain classes, then it stands to reason that there would be some females who do not question it, much like there were some slavers from ancient Greece to colonial America who did not question it and were comfortable with the system. It doesn't follow that some people never questioned their gender roles because they are "cis" there could be a number of reasons for it eg: being entrenched in a class system, being socialised to accept it, not knowing enough about it. It *could* be it's because these people are cis, but it could be a number of other things which actually already have been written about in various types of sociological literature (including books about class systems not just feminism).
LOL. This is SUCH a bullshit question. "Why do you hate women? (see how this sort of bullshit works? - totally unnecessary)
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Part 2
1) not one single human fits neatly into a gender box
2) cis has its roots in latin meaning "on the side of", this indicates that gender is a strict binary on a horizontal axis, rather than a hierarchy on a vertical oppressive axis with masculinity lording it over femininity.
2) also I have an issue with the linguistic aspect summed up in a picture, but the rather wordy detailed explanation is written below if you can be bothered.
A lot of these discussions become very heated and I believe a lot of that is to do with the language uses surrounding the subject, and in particular the lack of definitions surrounding the language we are using). I work with languages so the how we use it is a particular interest of mine, as well as how changing definitions of words or new words can impact on certain classes abilities to organise.
In this case I'll be talking about definitions of and conflation between "gender identity", "gender" and "sex".
I've found that in these types of discussions these concepts seem to be interchangeable, and are sometimes in my opinion, deliberately conflated by all positions within the argument dependent on exactly what they are trying to argue. Words need to mean things for any sort of reasonable discussion to take place.
I'm going to list the definitions of gender identity that I've heard from various trans voices, it seems to me no one, not even in the Trans, community can actually agree on one but here goes:
Gender Identity is:
i) Wikipedia defines it as "One's personal experience of one's own gender", but I've also heard it described as "The gender which you believe yourself to be" or "the identity you have of your gender",
ii) "Feeling more comfortable with masculine or feminine things"
I have a big issue with all of i) and absolutely zero problem with ii). The definitions in category i are all circular, so without defining what exactly gender is there really isn't much we can do about it, and this is where people get in bun fights. "A gender identity is a gender identity" is quite frankly not good enough.
Here are the varying ideas of gender I have heard or read about:
Some people believe that there is an innate feeling of maleness and femaleness (1) which is closely tied to 2a and 2c (nature not nurture). Other people say there is no evidence for innate masculinity and femininity and it can be explained far more easily by personal preferences and social conditioning (nurture not nature). Many antifeminist-trans (yes they do exist!) people argue that gender is innate because of sexual dimorphism, you might hear it paraphrased as such: "Women do women things because they are female and have female brains". "Men do men things because they have male brains, and if their innate feeling doesn't match they don't it's because their brains are the wrong sex for their body". There's also a lot of dodgy pseudoscience out there regarding "hormonal washing of the brain in the womb. Most feminists will dismiss innateness of gendered behaviour as well as most neuroscientists. Meta-analysis of scientific studies has shown that the brain doesn't have a gender, but it is often conflated with sex of DNA markers and hormone regulation, size of the hypothalamus etc. Certainly, if we're talking about cognitive capability there is little evidence to show it exists. It's a biologically deterministic argument and in my opinion sexist.
In more left leaning circles arguments between 2a (gender as a hierarchy) and 2b (gender as a spectrum/binary) are where the bunfights happen because both parties view gender as fundamentally different things.
If gender is a spectrum of behaviors (or a binary) which allows self expression of one's innate gender identity then gender cannot be oppressive in itself, rather society is oppressive and oppresses you based on your gender (expression) and not your sex. In order to believe this you have to believe that gender identity is innate in some way and that any sex oppression is directly caused by gender oppression (as most females identify with the female gender). This group says that gender roles will always have to exist because there will always be an need for humans to express their innate genders so the solution is to do away with sex identification, and concentrate on liberating the "female gender" from societal oppression.
If gender is a hierarchical tool to keep the female sex-class subjugated then gender in itself is oppressive based on your biological sex. In order to believe this you would have to reject gender identity as innate. Sex identification will always exist as a material reality but have nothing to do with gender roles, and because gender roles have no function other than to oppress the female sex-class the solution in this case would be do abolish gender roles and liberate the sex-class.
One can see the problem here.
The problem is you can't have both. Ether gender is innate or it is learnt. Either it is a spectrum or it is hierarchical. Either sex matters when it comes to opression or it doesn't. (and I would argue it matters, not just for the female sex clasx, but for homosexuals - which is not and identity but an orientation - who rely on sex as a category in order to organise politically).
The way gender is conceptualised is different in these groups and people end up talking past each other. If you were to believe gender is a learnt hierarchical tool, it's not a jump to say some of those people would say female gender expression is seen as aping the oppressive roles of women and therefore similar to blackface and horribly sexist. This would be a conclusion in very specific circumstances and would entirely rely on the individual's subjective view of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" mimicry (which I believe is what Camoflage was getting at. Cultural appropriation is a huge thing right now and there are various opinions about what is and is not acceptable. What is appropriation? What is borrowing? And what is appreciation? Can appreciation ever be non-appropriative etc etc.
I don't think I have an innate gender, I just have my personal preferences and the idea of "feeling/knowing a woman/a man inside" honestly baffles me. It seems it can't be described without using stereotypes - which have hurt me and I reject, but if anyone can define "a woman" or "a man" without using biological sex OR awful stereotypes then I'd honestly love to hear it.
If it can't be defined outside horrible gender roles then I have to reject the notion of Gender Identity and as a consequence "cis" because it relies on innate gender identity in order to be viable.
The very binary notion of cis is a problem. If cis means "not experiencing dysphoria" and trans means "experiencing dysphoria" then by definition I am not cis (becuase I suffered huge disphoria as a teen). So am I trans? According to that definition, yes, but I think most trans people would say I am not.
There are also many trans people that say you don't need dysphoria to be trans at all, in which case I'm not cis but what does cis even mean?
If I have no right to label others then others have no right to label me. All the above is something I'm uncomfortable with saying because I know that will upset a lot of people, but if it gender expression is based on something that can't be explained to me, or on an improvable feeling which can't be tested for then it's no different to God, and I reject God too.
I'm not going to lie to people including Stella. I have to be convinced, and I'm not. Having said that, people, as with religion, are free to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want to - but I should not be expected to validate anyone's deep interpretation of one's self. It's not my or anyone's job to validate a Christian's belief in God, and it's not my job to validate anyone's Gender Identiy - I'm not stopping anyone from practicing or doing whatever it is they do, they can swing their arms about as much as they like as long as they don't hit me. And if there's a clash of rights, then I expect to have a reasonable conversation about it.
The truth is no one will ever fit into a gender box and I believe it's damaging to ask people to fit neatly into them. From experience it can cause an awful lot of psychological problems and self harm as it does nothing but reaffirm gender stereotypes. I'm also aware that in some circles it is sometimes used as a pejorative to shut out any alternative viewpoints. I'm all for breaking down those fucking walls though becuase I reject biological determinism. There's no proof there's such a thing as a "gendered brain". Brains regulate sex hormones but that is different to gender. My view is that gender is tool of sex- subjugation which people internalise with socialisation to varying degrees, and reject to varying degrees, and can result in gender dysphoria (as it did with me). I think that rejection of sex-linked gender roles will be liberating for everyone females, but also males who find their roles far too constraining.
And that leads us nicely back to International Mens day. Men's problems are caused by their gender roles.
1) not one single human fits neatly into a gender box
2) cis has its roots in latin meaning "on the side of", this indicates that gender is a strict binary on a horizontal axis, rather than a hierarchy on a vertical oppressive axis with masculinity lording it over femininity.
2) also I have an issue with the linguistic aspect summed up in a picture, but the rather wordy detailed explanation is written below if you can be bothered.
A lot of these discussions become very heated and I believe a lot of that is to do with the language uses surrounding the subject, and in particular the lack of definitions surrounding the language we are using). I work with languages so the how we use it is a particular interest of mine, as well as how changing definitions of words or new words can impact on certain classes abilities to organise.
In this case I'll be talking about definitions of and conflation between "gender identity", "gender" and "sex".
I've found that in these types of discussions these concepts seem to be interchangeable, and are sometimes in my opinion, deliberately conflated by all positions within the argument dependent on exactly what they are trying to argue. Words need to mean things for any sort of reasonable discussion to take place.
I'm going to list the definitions of gender identity that I've heard from various trans voices, it seems to me no one, not even in the Trans, community can actually agree on one but here goes:
Gender Identity is:
i) Wikipedia defines it as "One's personal experience of one's own gender", but I've also heard it described as "The gender which you believe yourself to be" or "the identity you have of your gender",
ii) "Feeling more comfortable with masculine or feminine things"
I have a big issue with all of i) and absolutely zero problem with ii). The definitions in category i are all circular, so without defining what exactly gender is there really isn't much we can do about it, and this is where people get in bun fights. "A gender identity is a gender identity" is quite frankly not good enough.
Here are the varying ideas of gender I have heard or read about:
1) An innate feeling of maleness/femaleness/masculinity/femininity that is separate from the body
2) A behaviours attributed to males and females:
a) due to sexual dimorphism
b) used as an hierarchical tool to keep the female class subjugated
c ) a spectrum/binary (I'm still not sure which) between masculinity and femininity which allows people to express their gender identity.
2) A behaviours attributed to males and females:
a) due to sexual dimorphism
b) used as an hierarchical tool to keep the female class subjugated
c ) a spectrum/binary (I'm still not sure which) between masculinity and femininity which allows people to express their gender identity.
Some people believe that there is an innate feeling of maleness and femaleness (1) which is closely tied to 2a and 2c (nature not nurture). Other people say there is no evidence for innate masculinity and femininity and it can be explained far more easily by personal preferences and social conditioning (nurture not nature). Many antifeminist-trans (yes they do exist!) people argue that gender is innate because of sexual dimorphism, you might hear it paraphrased as such: "Women do women things because they are female and have female brains". "Men do men things because they have male brains, and if their innate feeling doesn't match they don't it's because their brains are the wrong sex for their body". There's also a lot of dodgy pseudoscience out there regarding "hormonal washing of the brain in the womb. Most feminists will dismiss innateness of gendered behaviour as well as most neuroscientists. Meta-analysis of scientific studies has shown that the brain doesn't have a gender, but it is often conflated with sex of DNA markers and hormone regulation, size of the hypothalamus etc. Certainly, if we're talking about cognitive capability there is little evidence to show it exists. It's a biologically deterministic argument and in my opinion sexist.
In more left leaning circles arguments between 2a (gender as a hierarchy) and 2b (gender as a spectrum/binary) are where the bunfights happen because both parties view gender as fundamentally different things.
If gender is a spectrum of behaviors (or a binary) which allows self expression of one's innate gender identity then gender cannot be oppressive in itself, rather society is oppressive and oppresses you based on your gender (expression) and not your sex. In order to believe this you have to believe that gender identity is innate in some way and that any sex oppression is directly caused by gender oppression (as most females identify with the female gender). This group says that gender roles will always have to exist because there will always be an need for humans to express their innate genders so the solution is to do away with sex identification, and concentrate on liberating the "female gender" from societal oppression.
If gender is a hierarchical tool to keep the female sex-class subjugated then gender in itself is oppressive based on your biological sex. In order to believe this you would have to reject gender identity as innate. Sex identification will always exist as a material reality but have nothing to do with gender roles, and because gender roles have no function other than to oppress the female sex-class the solution in this case would be do abolish gender roles and liberate the sex-class.
One can see the problem here.
The problem is you can't have both. Ether gender is innate or it is learnt. Either it is a spectrum or it is hierarchical. Either sex matters when it comes to opression or it doesn't. (and I would argue it matters, not just for the female sex clasx, but for homosexuals - which is not and identity but an orientation - who rely on sex as a category in order to organise politically).
The way gender is conceptualised is different in these groups and people end up talking past each other. If you were to believe gender is a learnt hierarchical tool, it's not a jump to say some of those people would say female gender expression is seen as aping the oppressive roles of women and therefore similar to blackface and horribly sexist. This would be a conclusion in very specific circumstances and would entirely rely on the individual's subjective view of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" mimicry (which I believe is what Camoflage was getting at. Cultural appropriation is a huge thing right now and there are various opinions about what is and is not acceptable. What is appropriation? What is borrowing? And what is appreciation? Can appreciation ever be non-appropriative etc etc.
I don't think I have an innate gender, I just have my personal preferences and the idea of "feeling/knowing a woman/a man inside" honestly baffles me. It seems it can't be described without using stereotypes - which have hurt me and I reject, but if anyone can define "a woman" or "a man" without using biological sex OR awful stereotypes then I'd honestly love to hear it.
If it can't be defined outside horrible gender roles then I have to reject the notion of Gender Identity and as a consequence "cis" because it relies on innate gender identity in order to be viable.
The very binary notion of cis is a problem. If cis means "not experiencing dysphoria" and trans means "experiencing dysphoria" then by definition I am not cis (becuase I suffered huge disphoria as a teen). So am I trans? According to that definition, yes, but I think most trans people would say I am not.
There are also many trans people that say you don't need dysphoria to be trans at all, in which case I'm not cis but what does cis even mean?
If I have no right to label others then others have no right to label me. All the above is something I'm uncomfortable with saying because I know that will upset a lot of people, but if it gender expression is based on something that can't be explained to me, or on an improvable feeling which can't be tested for then it's no different to God, and I reject God too.
I'm not going to lie to people including Stella. I have to be convinced, and I'm not. Having said that, people, as with religion, are free to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want to - but I should not be expected to validate anyone's deep interpretation of one's self. It's not my or anyone's job to validate a Christian's belief in God, and it's not my job to validate anyone's Gender Identiy - I'm not stopping anyone from practicing or doing whatever it is they do, they can swing their arms about as much as they like as long as they don't hit me. And if there's a clash of rights, then I expect to have a reasonable conversation about it.
The truth is no one will ever fit into a gender box and I believe it's damaging to ask people to fit neatly into them. From experience it can cause an awful lot of psychological problems and self harm as it does nothing but reaffirm gender stereotypes. I'm also aware that in some circles it is sometimes used as a pejorative to shut out any alternative viewpoints. I'm all for breaking down those fucking walls though becuase I reject biological determinism. There's no proof there's such a thing as a "gendered brain". Brains regulate sex hormones but that is different to gender. My view is that gender is tool of sex- subjugation which people internalise with socialisation to varying degrees, and reject to varying degrees, and can result in gender dysphoria (as it did with me). I think that rejection of sex-linked gender roles will be liberating for everyone females, but also males who find their roles far too constraining.
And that leads us nicely back to International Mens day. Men's problems are caused by their gender roles.
Last edited:
yeah, so I'm gonna go do some really important shit and I might come back to this a bit later
yeah skimmed it - theres a lot to deal with, til I get back tho heres some advice - stop reading feminist texts. it's bad for your health.
need more weed brb lol
yeah skimmed it - theres a lot to deal with, til I get back tho heres some advice - stop reading feminist texts. it's bad for your health.
need more weed brb lol
Last edited:
Absolutely agree. However, folks who are subject to hatred because of say their ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability, etc. etc. are constantly expected to field quite intrusive questions about their lives, their identity, etc., and it must get pretty tedious. With the internet, there isn't that much excuse for most people to be ignorant, or expect someone to use their lives as a case study to help you learn. They know they can invest hell of a lot of time only for someone to turn around and go, "nah, I don't think so."
am acutely aware of this having been in the position.
toggle
wobbly
it's entirely possible to have that conversation in some detail without veering into transphobia.
it's also entirely possible to have that conversation with stella without getting accused of transphobia.
I've done so on a fair few occasions. this is the kind of thing i was refering to above when i said that the debates she was involved in were interesting in enabling us to look at our own views of gender.
you need to stop gaslighting stella when she calls out transphobia.
Yea but most women enforce these gender roles equally FabricLiveBaby!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point.
It's possible if you end up agreeing with her. I'd be very surprised if you could find an example of someone disagreeing wth her conception of gender who wasn't labelled a transphobe.
I'm not. I'm saying that she often accuses people of transphobia as a deliberate and dishonest way to stifle legitmate debate.
CRI
Registered Chooser
^ This
Folks at the sharp end of bigotry are constantly being told they're over-reacting. Maybe it's well-intended, but in reality the, "don't take it that way/so hard/seriously . . . " says more about that person's discomfort than about genuinely trying to make shit better for the person at the sharp end.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
If the gender system is a self perpetuating power distributor through socialization of the sexes, women would of course enforce and perpetuate those roles too. Not for the sake of power though.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That is not what identity politics means, even in the derogatory sense.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
A lot of what?
CRI
Registered Chooser
Um, what about white women who can use their proximity to benevolent, privileged white men to maintain or achieve power?
CRI
Registered Chooser
Surely class politics is just one form of identity politics.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
I'm talking about women as a class. Not individuals.
CRI
Registered Chooser
Just as in most cases where the term "working class" is used, it really means the white working class, when "women as a class" is used, it tends to refer to "white women as a class," so the privileges afforded to white women under white supremacy can't be ignored any more than the privilege afforded to men under patriarchy can.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
personally I dont buy brain sex theory on the basis that no one is scanning newborn babies brains before any external stimulus has affected neuroplasticity. but also you cant rule it out as an impossibility.
re - the 'innate' thing - why do you care so much? why does it matter if it's nature or nurture? who gives a fuck about why someone is, do you ask why people are gay?
the hierarchical nature of the concept of gender has moved the fuck on why cant you?
thats called 'drag' darling.
that depends on what you define as experiencing dysphoria. do you mean hating your physical body or cringing inside every time someone uses a gendered pronoun you dont identify with? theres different levels of it, it can fluctuate, you can like yourself, it can range from self harming and feeling physically sick when looking in the mirror to a minor underlying thought that you are wrong in some way. either way it's more or less a constant feature in ones life.
no one said you have to lie to people about what you think, just know what you think is falling out of favour with what a lot of other people think. no one said you have to 'validate' anyone either (wtf does that even mean) by validation what do you mean? you mean respecting people and treating them with common decency? you dont treat everyone equally?
no one asks anyone to fit neatly into any box apart from the one in your head.
Last edited:
who cares as to reasons why? why do you give so much of a shit about other people? it's not about questioning roles it's about questioning the self, so fucking what if it's a mental illness? so fucking what if it's biology? so fucking what if it's learned?? no one else gives a fuck.
this life must be well sad.
questioning gender roles is not questioning gender.
Last edited:
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
Absolutely you are right. I don't rule it out as impossible, but I do think there are other more likely explanations.
pengaleng said:
Because the it's idea of innate femininity which has been used to subjugate women. It's the reason why we were denied rights and the reason why certain jobs routes remained closed.
I'm not sure it has to be honest. There's lots of different schools of thoughts on what gender is and how it's conceptualized. Also whether somethinghas moved on or not bears nothing on the truth of it. We moved from post war socialism to a neo-liberal hell hole, that doesn't mean we should all just give up fighting the capitalist system. One that no one seems to be offering.
I think you missed my point. You might call it drag but for others it's called gender expression. I'm not saying I believe it's harmful either way, just some people have an issue with "appropriation" of femininity as a costume. Camouflage somewhere upthread was eluding to something along the lines of 1940s sexist stereotypes. I was eluding to that. It's not my interpretation but an interpretation which I've heard from others.
Well when I was 18 it got so bad I was self harming. My mum drove to the doctor and demanded they cut out my womb, and the doctor told me to piss off back home and forget about it or he'd section me. I'd assume that counts. It took a long long time to get over it and I still feel pangs, but it took a lot of reading and theory to realise that I'd internalized a hell of a lot of misogynist signals from society.
Ok, well I don't usually like to open my mouth if I think I'm gonna fall out of favour. But I'd say it's dishonest and cowardly on my part really and akin to lying. Best I just say what I think really. Up thread I was accused of "denying identity", something I did not do, as if it's my job to go round affirming (or validating) anyone's identity anyway. Validation isn't the same as common decency, no. I think you know that.
Society boxes people in all the time. So does the Church (which is really strong here in Poland). Societal binaries do exist and if you don't fit into a category society will take the piss out of you or punish you. I experienced it though being mixed English/European. If you don't fit then you're fucked.
FabricLiveBaby!
Live Baby Fabric!
I'll copy and paste cos it's important.
Because the it's idea of innate femininity which has been used to subjugate women. It's the reason why we were denied rights and the reason why certain jobs routes remained closed.
With gays and lesbians it was the act of fucking someone else was the same sex as them that got them killed or sacked. In this way no one cares where it comes from, cos where it comes from isn't the issue, the issue was that who you fucked got you subjugated.
With females it's the very idea that femininity is unavoidably natural that gets you a pay freeze.
past tense...
'gender expression' of regular people is performed on stages with heavy make up, delightful gowns and pro lighting is it? shut up.
then you needed therapy. what your thoughts arrived at is not what others thoughts arrive at, you dont sound ok with differing experience.
no, tell me what you validating someones gender means please.
youre just excusing your own conforming there.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
What a cuntish thing to say.
Similar threads
