all 40 comments

[–]censorshipment 14 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

https://real-feminist-history.com/2016/12/25/gender-critical-feminism/

Gender critical feminists believe the definition of “man” and the definition of “woman” should be based solely on biology, rather than on “masculine” or “feminine” personality traits or an innate sense of gender identity.

They recognize those with XX-chromosomes, ovaries designed to produce large egg cells, female genitalia, and a relatively high level of estrogen and progesterone as biologically female. They define “woman” as an adult human female.

They recognize those with XY-chromosomes, testes designed to produce small sperm cells, male genitalia, and a relatively high level of testosterone as biologically male. They define “man” as an adult human male.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This was very informative, thank you!

So, Gender Critical is short for Gender Critical Feminist/Feminism, but Gender Critical Feminist aren't always Radical Feminists.

It irked me when I read the "Cigender Privilege" part. How the hell are biological women considered "privileged" compared to these trans males who've grown up and were conditioned as biological men. I get so confused on how people who aren't trans drink up this culty koolaid.

My former female "pansexual" coworker drank up this ridiculous shit, it's embarrassing.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah, if we stick 100% to the above definition, I think we're all 'gender critical' here.

Several years ago, when I read the definition and rushed over to join all the gender critical subs on Reddit, I was really confused. I'd been all ready and eager to gather round and circle-jerk about how we all hate forced gender roles and how 'pink is for girls/blue is for boys' type nonsense is both ridiculous and harmful, but instead, nobody wanted to talk about that stuff at all! The main topic was anti-trans... Which is... Okay, yeah, fine... But then also 'All men are scum' which is... Um... fine... okay... I guess I can just skip those posts... But then also 'Let's shit on all these other types of women who aren't as radically feminist as we are!' which is... well... I didn't sign up for any of this, really... Like there'd be people raging on there about how women are gender-traitors for putting on lipstick or shaving their armpits. And I get it (if you want me to explain it's going to be long and annoying) but what they didn't want to get is that WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY and sometimes, some women need to conform to some degrading shit in order to eat food and live indoors and not fucking die. And some women actually enjoy that stuff. You can't just sit around judging everybody all day long and demanding that the reality we actually live in magically turn into the feminist utopia you wish you could live in.

These women are basically the feminist equivalent of the type of trans identified men who screech 'suck my girldick!' They are living in a delusion and ruining everything for the rest of us.

[–]censorshipment 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

Calling out women who aren't feminists, who are anti-feminists, or who are liberal feminists is far more important than talking about gender roles 24/7. Women of the patriarchy need to be "dragged for filth". GC mods (on Reddit and likely on Saidit) considered that misogynistic though. I'm a "man-hating" lesbian, and I tend to avoid men both irl and online, so the majority of TRAs I come across are women, and they need to be called out for enforcing bullshit.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh absolutely! I just wanted the 'gender critical' sub to be about only gender critical stuff, and for 'man-hating' and 'calling out handmaidens of the patriarchy' and also the anti-trans posts to be on some other sub. It was annoying that there was basically no 'literally criticizing gender' posts at all on the sub literally called 'gender critical,' I think mainly because by the time I found it, the movement had evolved to the point where those women had had the conversations I wanted to have so many times, and they'd moved on to the what you're talking about in your comment. And also because the trans and gender people were acting out so much by that point that they were sucking up all the attention.

BTW? Is there a good sub on here to join about dragging handmaidens?

[–]ColoredTwice 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On Ovarit they have more strict rules about topics in subs, so GC is about abolishing gender in general, but because trans movement is so agressive and active - most topics are still about it.

[–]nuhuhno 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks!

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But then also 'All men are scum' which is... Um... fine... okay... I guess I can just skip those posts... But then also 'Let's shit on all these other types of women who aren't as radically feminist as we are!' which is... well... I didn't sign up for any of this, really... Like there'd be people raging on there about how women are gender-traitors for putting on lipstick or shaving their armpits

This is pretty much why, even though I label my views as gender critical, I just can't associate with the GC crowd on Reddit or even here. So many radfems/gender critical types are just as pathetic as the TRA's and ones who aren't are so busy stringing together excuses for why each other's hatred is fine and justified, the toxic attitudes are never called out.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, Gender Critical is short for Gender Critical Feminist/Feminism, but Gender Critical Feminist aren't always Radical Feminists. Others say GC == radfem.

That is what some say but not what others say. It's a little confusing to me why there is that variability.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

Gender Critical is more or less another word for "Radical Feminist."

Radical Feminists believe that all women are oppressed by everyone else, even if they are inherently privileged (ie: White middle class women claiming that homosexual males in poverty are "oppressive and predatory" to them), they believe that non-radical feminists are misogynist man-worshippers and "cocksucking handmaidens", they believe everything they don't like is "mental illness" and that mentally ill = sexual predator/narcissist/trans. They also have a lot of other strange conspiracy like beliefs and are generally, in my opinion, dangerous radical leftists. They are also very anti-intersex which is something I cannot respect.

I am "anti gender" or against trans ideology, but I am not "gender critical" because I don't believe everyone with a dick is inherently evil, I don't think that "homosexual transsexual" fetishists are innocent, I don't think all women are innocent victims (unless they dare to have different political views) and I don't think that us intersex people are the same as "autogynephilic" trans women who exist solely to harm women.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Radical Feminists believe that all women are oppressed by everyone else, even if they are inherently privileged (ie: White middle class women claiming that homosexual males in poverty are "oppressive and predatory" to them),

Nope. We believe privilege is situational. Meaning people can be oppressed on the basis of poverty, or of having a female body in a sexist country, or race in a racist country, and those oppressions can sometimes overlap situationally. It's a fact that homeless females are at higher risk of rape (and its consequences like pregnancy and STDs) than homeless males. That doesn't mean homeless males aren't oppressed, it just means that they aren't oppressed for being female.

I don't believe everyone with a dick is inherently evil, but it's a fact that men (as a class, half the human population) are a physical danger for women. That's not picking out individuals, that's acknowledging patterns, Mr. Reptilian.

I have never met any radfem who was anti-intersex but I'm sorry you met some, apparently. That's wrong and nobody should oppress you for that.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can you also clear up some stuff for me in regards to radical feminism? I made a comment to Repitilian in agreement to my experience to radical feminism--I have not had good experience with them in particular.

((I'll reply to your other insightful comment a bit later, it is getting a little late here where I live.))

Originally, I was very interested in feminism, particularly radical feminism, seeing as they are gender critical (didn't realize that gender critical is actually its own branch of feminism and not necessarily a descriptive adjective, if that makes sense?)

Anyways, I read up on many things and can agree with most topics but...

After awhile, I see many negative comments about "all men are terrible" and to not have kids because there is a potential to "raise an oppressor" and we already have "too many oppressors in the world" and how all men are nasty predators. It bums me out to read things like that considering I have a son...And originally wanted to raise him with some feminist ideals.

Also, I feel radical feminism is for people who aren't brown/minorities(which is something I am)...I've seen some rather...interesting comments to say the least. It makes me uncomfortable in general when race/ethnicity is involved. And I know that being brown/minority doesn't mean we can't be racist-we can too! I just hate the oppressive olympics games some people play instead of helping each other and looking at the real issues to fix.

Lastly, I am a GNC women, but...I do like feminine women and I don't mind if she wears makeup, high heels, etc if it makes her happy---would that make me part of the problem in the eyes of radical feminism?

Anyhow...

I guess my questions are:

  • What are radical feminists general view on men? Can men be considered radical feminists?

  • What are important issues that radical feminism tackles?

  • How do radical feminists confront libfems, anti-feminists, and others?

  • What are radfems thoughts on women who shave, wear makeup, dye hair, wear heels, etc? Is it possible for women to do those things out of liking it or is it considered patriarchal?

    • Also, once women receive complete liberation, would doing those things mentioned prior be seen as a choice the woman makes or is it still patriarchial in a sense? (sorry if I did not word question right---basically, I am curious why men get a pass on wearing makeup,heels, etc but women--not really).

If I have more questions, I will edit post or make another comment. It is getting rather late here. Once again, I really appreciate your responses, /u/GoValidateYourself. You're very level-headed.

Edit: format

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm sorry to hear you also had bad experiences with them. Yeah some are very hardline, and that pushes a lot of people away. Keep in mind a lot of the women who go hardline radical feminism have been sexually assaulted or abused by men in some way. That is usually what's behind their fear and hatred of men (which is logical; an experience that extreme changes people's lives in horrible ways). Not saying their attitude is correct, just giving it some context. Even though some radfems hate men, you almost never see radfems advocating for the murder or harm to men, like you see in groups of men who hate women. The extreme end of radical feminism is separatism, which is buying land and setting up male-free villages and towns, and sending their male children away from the town when they turn 18. Which is a fucked up, but they aren't committing mass-killings of men, or supporting it, they are removing themselves from society. Compare that extreme ideal to someone like Elliot Rodger, and all the men who supported him. Those men are basically the horse-shoe counterpart to the extreme radfem types; the only difference is they (the male version) is extremely fucking violent to women. If they genuinely "went their own way" (separatism), and set up their own towns and villages for only men, slept with only other men for political reasons (LOL), they wouldn't be considered a public danger. But I'm digressing.

For your questions: I am a racial minority and naturally tomboyish/gnc, and know of other gendercritical feminists who are too. I think that's a stereotype that it's all privileged white women clutching their pearls. There are racial minority women, de-transitioned women, and women with disabilities who consider themselves gendercritical feminists.

I ranted above (LOL) that some extreme radfems hate men, I think that is true. Not all do though, and some just want safety and freedom of women from violence. I don't personally care what people call themselves, or if a man wants to call himself a radfem. But I can't see any wanting to. There are some that consider themselves "Radfem allies" which I think is reasonable. You can ally with a group without necessarily being part of it. But it doesn't matter. The policy and societal changes are what matter imo.

Important issues include: ending domestic violence, ending marital rape (achieved in U.S.), single sex women's shelters, bathrooms, and prisons, ending FGM, ending acid attacks, ending female infanticide, access to legal, safe abortion at all terms, ending restrictive/harmful female dress codes (ex. requiring high heels and makeup at work). This is not an exhaustive list, just some issues that come to mind.

I don't know anything about confronting libfems or anti-feminists. I just usually try to talk to people and change their mind. If I can't do that, I aim to impart some perspective to help them understand the "other side". Libfems, when they hear the argument, almost always turn LOL. Antifeminists, not so much, but they see that I'm not a screeching harpy that wants to lock them in cages and steal their sperm. Radfem issues are quite reasonable when you get down to details, but the reputation precedes the movement.

I don't care if women shave or dye their hair. I shave my underarms to reduce BO, and shave during my period for personal hygiene preferences. I don't shave my legs b/c it is January. I've been called a "brainwashed libfem" by some hardcore radfem who was probably a teenager online, but I don't give a fuck. I believe mandated heels, skirts, makeup, should be eliminated. Heels wreck your spine and feet if you wear them too often, and makeup is full of carcinogens. Neither of those things should be required in a workplace. Skirts vs pants should be personal option, and it should be normal for women to choose pants and men skirts if they feel like it. Neither should be seen as "unprofessional".

I don't think any personal clothes choices are inherently patriarchal, I just don't want them mandated. Feminism has also gained amazing progress in this area. My mother and grandmother had to wear skirts to school, even in -15 winters. They walked too. They wore 2 layers of tights, underneath pants, underneath the skirts, and removed the pants when they got to school. I never had to do this, and neither did my sisters. That was b/c of feminists in their generation!

Also no prob, I am happy to give some personal perspective where it can be helpful!

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I most definitely want men, particularly heterosexual/female-partnered white men, to suffer/struggle in life. I don't understand why women don't want men to go through what women have gone through... why women want everyone to be okay, healthy, and happy after thousands of years of misogyny. Why aren't women vengeful?

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, I feel radical feminism is for people who aren't brown/minorities(which is something I am)...I've seen some rather...interesting comments to say the least.

Piggybacking off of this-- some are remarkably hostile towards and dismissive of people with mental illness, as well. Or even LGB people.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I noticed they're not particularly nice to femme lesbians or doe bisexual women(both of which I'm attracted too--- I'd be considered GNC or a tomcat bisexual). Saw a thread recently about makeup and people talking crap about it, one femme lesbian talked about liking it and not doing it for the male gaze and people argued about that... They're also rather rude about gay/bisexual men due to them being, well...men.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was curious about radical feminism at one point and joined Ovarit and checked out tumblr radfem blogs but...

I started to notice many hateful comments after a while. There was one saying that ALL men are predators by nature and another post telling women not to have kids because then they might accidentally give birth to an "oppressor" and that apparently we have too many in this world. Also, some biphobic comments etc.

That turnt me away right away after reading that many times over. How the hell do these ladies think they were born in the first place?? It's like the people who complain about sexist men and say "Is that how they treat their mothers, sisters, aunts, or wives?" but then... they're really doing the same thing, is that how they treat their fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands?

I grew up mostly around boys/men in my life, so I don't see how hating them would help them change their views on women. I educate(buzzword, shoot me) them on women's issues and have been explaining to my brothers how the TRAs affect women and also give them some dating advice...(I have experience in both worlds as a bisexual...and well, being a woman).

It looks like some are saying gender critical feminism is different than radical feminism---that all radfems are gender critical but not all gender critical feminists are radfems.

Edit: spelling

[–]censorshipment 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

My black American, 60 year old, bisexual radical feminist mom believes that all men, most white women, and most straight women are oppressing the rest of us in the USA. She doesn't talk about trans people... only men and white women, tbh.

[–]SkinnyVanilla 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender Critical means that you don't believe that personality is dictated by gender or vice versa, that "gender" is a set of social roles rather than an innate and immutable quality, and that biological sex is an innate and immutable quality that has far-reaching implications

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Gendercritical feminism believes gender is separate from sex. They believe gender is a set of stereotypes imposed upon the sexes (male & female), that are purely socially constructed, and have no basis in inherent biological reality. They are critical of transgender as a concept, but also of the inherent ideals of masculinity and femininity. So their goal is the complete societal destruction of "gender" meaning those stereotypes, and everyone dresses/acts however they choose without thinking about masculine or feminine traditions. It's basically radical feminism. Some radfems are very hostile toward men (which is why a lot of people on Drawp the Tea distance themselves from radfem ideology). I am a gendercritical feminist, but a pretty mellow one, LOL. It's b/c I believe feminism is for the liberation of females as a class, and that getting rid of gendered stereotypes could benefit everyone, not just androgynous/gender non-conforming women and men.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I have a couple of questions regarding Gendercritical feminism:

  • Do you feel it's possible for transsexuals/transgender people to be gender critical?

I've read from some saiditers/youtubers that it's possible because the transgendered person is "aware" of biological differences (two sexes, male and female) and are aware that they were born as whatever sex but then they say their gender is different(i.e. Blaire White acknowledges being born male sex-wise but also advises of being woman gender-wise).

  • Are there different levels of gender critical or are those people who consider homosexual transsexuals(HSTS) not gender critical as well as the HSTS not being gender critical?

  • How do you feel about different types of feminism(i.e. radical feminism, libfem, marxistfem, ecofeminism, etc)? Do you feel you can relate to them or are they drastically différent? Do they help or undermine gender critical feminism?

I have been curious about feminism but I cannot call myself one. I don't really label myself anything, because I feel most ideologues become too extreme. For example, I don't believe in supernatural deities, and normally, those people are called "atheists", but the term has turnt political to mean liberal, TRA, 'anti'-theist(that's not what it means but there are some extremist) , so I opt for just saying not religious or saying secular or whatever.

  • How do you feel about the label of Gendercritical feminist?---just the label, not the movement. What misconceptions do you feel people have about it?

I want to see this from a gender critical person's perspective. If I step out of line at all, please let me know! I mean no offense.

Edit: format

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not a problem, and questions are cool! I personally feel it is possible for trans-identified people to be gendercritical. In fact, Miranda Yardley and Buck Angel are aa transwoman and a transman, respectively, who acknowledge the reality of biological sex, and that sexual orientation is based on sex. I don't know if that is gendercritical so much as common sense, but we shouldn't take allies for granted, as they are being brave in speaking out. I think some people (for many different reasons) will feel more comfortable dressing/presenting as highly feminine or masculine according to society's current standards. Whether it's dysphoria, or simple nonconformity it doesn't really matter. If they acknowledge the reality of sex, the fact that it's immutable, and that it impacts women very harshly, I'd consider them a gendercritical feminist. But again, I am quite mellow.

I don't know about different levels of gendercritical, but there are different levels of radical feminism. Most are pretty chill, but some are very bitter, like the women at r/blackpillfeminism. I don't even know if they are radical feminists at all, but they are cynical as fuck, and I consider people like that to be emotional vampires, ideology irrelevant.

I am not super well-versed on the different types of feminism, but I know liberal feminism is the pretty, bow on top commodified form of feminism, that they use in marketing. It doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, and it doesn't really challenge anything. It's more about "girl power", "yaaas queen", "I'm with her", very shallow platitudes. It also is very corporate, in my opinion. All focused on upper class women breaking the glass ceiling, representation of strong women on TV (which is important, don't get me wrong), but it isn't as important as women's DV shelters, ending FGM and banning the burqa, guaranteeing abortion at all terms (even late term). The last 3 issues particularly make a lot of people extraordinarily uncomfortable, but they all represent life or death issues for vast numbers of women and girls. None of those are sexy or fun, but they are possibly the most important feminist issues today.

I can't speak really on eco and marxist feminism, b/c I don't know much about them. I think any type of feminism where people work together for women's rights (like the above 3 issues) can work together just fine, as long as they keep the bigger picture in mind, and put aside disagreements. I am fine with calling myself a gendercritical feminist.

That's okay! You don't have to call yourself or identify as anything. It's what you do, and how you treat others that matters.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the only reason burqas haven't had a widespread ban is because some women would then never be able to leave their houses due to the pressure of their husbands/community, despite living in a western country. Authorities wouldn't be able to make sure that these women were leaving their homes and honestly wouldn't care anyway.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Authorities wouldn't be able to make sure that these women were leaving their homes

Social services exists for reasons like this, to check up on vulnerable community members, to check on the safety of the home. Services exist for this purpose. The problem is that social services is likely afraid of retaliation from some communities, or physical danger to the social workers. The police who know abuse is happening (not letting someone leave the house is false imprisonment btw) need to crack down on these practices. If every person is equal under the law, then the law needs to be enforced equally. No religious exceptions. I think a lot of them are afraid of being called "racist" or "Islamophobic" if they crack down on that practice, b/c the left (and libfems) would rather defend a warlike, misogynistic religion than the women it harms. What I mean is that if there was widespread social pressure to change the norms with regard to how those women were treated, the change could happen. But it won't happen if activists are largely ignoring or passively supporting it under the idea of "religious freedom". Rightwing activists care more about stupid conspiracy theories, and the leftwing activists care more about not offending anyone, and being politically correct when issues like women's rights and minority religious "rights" clash. Hence why no grassroots movement has emerged to genuinely stand for the rights of minority women from persecution from their own communities. The women themselves usually can't start this movement, b/c they get fatwas (look at Ayan Hirsi Ali, or Malala).

[–]hetisachoice 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It means you are smart enough to realize that externally imposed social customs do not override human physiology.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

To me, sex == gender. The radical feminist claim that "gender == sex stereotypes" makes no sense to me-- if you want to say "sex stereotypes" why not just say that?

I believe that biological sex is real and sexual orientation is based off of same-sex attraction, not attraction to sex stereotypes i.e. "gender" as trans rights activists would have you believe.

I do not describe myself as "gender critical" because:

  1. I believe gender == sex and I am not "critical" of sex/gender, it's just something that exists. I am critical of sex stereotypes.

  2. Many people conflate "gender critical feminists" with radical feminism. I am not a radical feminist.

I don't think a person should have to call themself a radical feminist, a gender critical feminist, or even a feminist at all (although I do have feminist views myself) in order to oppose transgender ideology, oppose sex stereotypes, and acknowledge the reality of biological sex in humans..

edit: The name of s/ThereAreTwoGenders reflects the belief that gender == sex and I suspect it might be a little less popular with some GC/radfem people because that goes against the radfem definition of "gender".

[–]SillyMoneyGoose 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Gender doesn’t only refer to sex stereotypes, but also to female/male socialisation. So a person’s gender is sexual stereotypes (ex. pink and high heels for female humans/blue and short hair for males)+the way they are socialised (ex. females to be more ‘submissive’, kind and accommodating, males to be more assertive) based on the sex they are born with. That’s how I see it at least

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Gender doesn’t only refer to sex stereotypes, but also to female/male socialisation.

I think that one ought to use the phrase "sex socialization" to refer to sex socialization, not "gender"-- and not lump sex socialization in under one term alongside sex stereotypes. They are separate concepts, anyway; it is more helpful to be specific.

[–]bopomofodojo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The word "gender" is/was used because having one word to encompass a number of related concepts ("sex socialization", "sex stereotypes", "sex roles", etc.) is a convenient one. That tends to be why words are created, especially in academia where this word came from.

The idea of gender == sex versus gender != sex is a complicated one and deals with a full 5 decades of the word's usage both in academic, popular, and slang usage. Everyone has a slightly different definition because the word is nebulous, almost by design. Given this, sticking with the academic definition is the most productive, and using more specific descriptors when they make more sense should be encouraged.

For a long time, in TRA speak because "we couldn't fully express ourselves", but in reality because this is some serious nonsense that most people didn't and wouldn't accept until it became the next "progressive milestone" or whatever, gender == sex existed because of the tautology that "you are female therefor your gender is feminine" and "you are male therefore your gender is male". But the word is useful to describe, especially, the idea of "gender nonconformity", that is "feminine men" and "masculine women" and any other combination. However, this did not, and should not, mean the same thing as "trans", and is in fact precisely one of the things that "trans" is erasing, along with homosexuality, conherent definitions of words like "man" and "woman", and women's private spaces. Hence they are separated in this discourse, and there is a lot of deflection away from "sex" and towards "gender" because "gender" is the malleable concept, while "sex" is determined by chromosomes and the reproductive realities of a sexually dimorphic species.

I hope this helps make some sense of the nonsense - it makes my head spin a lot too.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The word "gender" is/was used because having one word to encompass a number of related concepts ("sex socialization", "sex stereotypes", "sex roles", etc.) is a convenient one. That tends to be why words are created, especially in academia where this word came from.

Fair point, it seems like academia may be at least partly to blame for this confusion. I would not give academia a pass on conflating these terms either, though... those are all different phenomena and handwaving over them all as if they're the same seems unhelpful for parsing out findings that may be specific to only one of those terms.

Everyone has a slightly different definition because the word is nebulous, almost by design.

Lol. That seems like an utterly ridiculous way to do science, or communications for that matter-- ideally definitions ought to be made clear, in order to actually communicate meaning. Kinda reminds me of "gender identity" in that regard. (But I think your characterization of it is accurate, not trying to shoot the messenger.)

But the word is useful to describe, especially, the idea of "gender nonconformity", that is "feminine men" and "masculine women" and any other combination.

That's an interesting argument. I could see a legitimate need for a quick word to describe society's forcing sex-based expectations on people in accordance with their sex which is a category that "sex socialization", "sex stereotypes", "sex roles", etc. seem to fall into. But-- one would have to be very clear about what "gender" actually is... and what it is not. If one defines "gender" to be that word, then rights activists are literally trying to pretend that they are the sex that they are not, because they decide to conform to society's expected roles/stereotypes/socialization of the sex that they are not. That is, they are leaving one box in order to be put in another. That actually is a rather concise summary of the situation we see with transgender ideology.

I hope this helps make some sense of the nonsense - it makes my head spin a lot too.

It does, thank you for taking the time to explain. I have not seen this particular explanation before.

[–]Constantine 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It wasn't academia that conflated these terms (until recently with the TRAs, especially in Sociology departments). The term was originally a pretty straightforward one used as an umbrella for the cluster of concepts you are referring to here: socially constructed expectations based on sex, femininity/masculinity, socialization based on sex. The confusion came when lay people started picking up the term and conflating sex and gender when they were actually supposed to mean very different things.

Then the TRAs came along and completely warped what it's supposed to mean. They saw "gender" as "socially constructed" in the academic discourse and moved to sex as socially constructed, too. No, that's not what that means. They're related terms but have completely different meanings. We shouldn't cede the term gender to them; it's a useful term and letting them have it just validates some of their completely ridiculous points about sex and gender being the same. Despite their catchphrases about sex and gender being different, what they're saying is actually the very gender essentialism they accuse us of: we're sex essentialists, not gender essentialists. Gender essentialism, under the actual definition, is exactly what the TRAs are doing by saying feminine=female and masculine=male, regardless of sex. Equating the two terms cedes that ground to the crazies.

addendum based on original post topic: I don't consider myself a radfem or libfem. I agree with different pieces of both and sometimes neither. Radfems generally have it right on this issue, though, from my perspective.

[–]bopomofodojo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Glad to help. I agree a lot with your points, and that explanation is my own formulated from a desire to understand WTF all this gender stuff was about. I'm probably missing a lot of stuff!

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In my language, we use the words "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, not sure how it is nowadays in our country. But in English, I've heard it was the same too, that gender = sex---at least back in the day.

I feel you on the feminist bit, I do not refer to myself as anything---except for labels that are more innate(?). For example, I will say I am bisexual--which is an immutable fact that will never change. But with ideologies, many people can change that overtime...My younger brother was in a religious cult for maybe a year or two and now he's back to being agnostic again basically.

I mention this in different comment, but I don't like to use the term atheist anymore due to the political connotations now attached to it. Those who are atheist, tend to be liberal, TRAs, and know-it-all-assholes anti-theist(basically calling believers idiots and crude names).

There was an atheist channel I used to watch that tried to cancel another atheist youtuber for being "transphobic". All that atheist youtuber did was advise of biological sex---ironically, that atheist youtuber happened to be a "trans-ally". Not sure what his stance on trans issues are now, but I don't watch either channel anymore. Atheism has NOTHING to do with politics.

But anyways, I just say I am not religious or I'm secular or however it is said.

I used to like looking into philosophies like humanism, stoicism, buddhism, etc, but I wouldn't say I'm a "humanist/stoicism/buddhist". I just like some of the ideals---so I see where you are coming from.

Thanks for advising of that subsaidit, I shall check it out!!

Edit: spelling

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Gender and sex are often conflated on legal documents and stuff, mostly because people are uncomfortable with the work "sex". Interesting quote:

Despite this entire explanation, transgender people do not need to wait around for cis people to find them attractive.

Ok fantastic, this trans person doesn't care about who does/doesn't want to fuck them. But wait... actually the entire graphic is trying to convince "cis" people to fuck them. So by not waiting around to get fucked, this person actually means they want to fuck RIGHT NOW and are tired of waiting... Wow

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sorry, I'm a little confused what graphic and quote you are referring to.

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Geez I had a lot of tabs up at once and replied in the wrong section. What a buffoon I am.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're totally fine haha, I think I've done that before.

[–]ColoredTwice 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now gender critical have two meanings, because it became very public and spreaded.

Gender Critical Feminism is criticizing gender and gender identity as a whole and fights to abolish gender stereotypes alltogether. They believe that biology is real and that you can't identify out of oppression. Most of supporters were lesbians or gnc women.

And second Gender Critical group are Gender Identity Critical people - they believe that biology is real and you can't identify as other sex than you. However, people from this group may be not against strict gender roles or against gender stereotypes themselves - so sometimes here can be conservatives, for example. This group only appeared because trans people are going out of their way to harass&silence people and because of their authoritharian methods.

[–]bopomofodojo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you can sort of make a few combinations of the words depending on exactly who and what you're talking about.

Gender Critical: Someone who is critical of gender as a concept, or of gender roles/etc.; to anyone with a sense of logic, this pretty much necessitates a rejection of the notions of "trans" as being simply manifestations of those gender roles flipped onto the opposite sex ("what does it even mean to 'feel like a woman' as someone who has been a man for their entire childhood and adolescence?"). Basically what /u/censorshipment defined above, but with no Feminist sense attached. I'm pretty sure everyone in this community is this definition to at least some extent.

Gender Critical Feminism: A form of specifically feminist through with a Gender Critical lens, but generally on a more lenient, non-radical end. Think "He-For-She" feminism or "girlboss" feminism or such, but also being GC.

Gender Critical Radical Feminism: A form of radical feminism (this is a specific term that I'm not going to try to define here) through a Gender Critical lens. These are the "man-hating feminists" generally speaking, which is the radical bit (I said I wouldn't define it, but I just did, but it's a lot more than this - it's a deep rabbit hole).

The old /r/GC on Reddit was mostly a Gender Critical Radical Feminist space, though there were quite a few Gender Critical Feminists (not necessarily radical) in it, and it attracted a periphery of Gender Critical people to it, who may or may not agree with the Feminism or Radical Feminism part. Ovarit is also this way. The Saiddit GC is more Gender Critical Feminist than Radical Feminist, and has a lot more of the Gender Critical audience it seems from my perception.