Source
r/GCdebatesQT•
AnnaUndefind

A foundational problem with modern radfem philosophy

An underlying theme of radfem philosophy is that women are oppressed because of their biology, thus trans (natal males) cannot be oppressed as women are because they are biologically male.

A secondary theme is that gender does not, or should not exist.

Following from this is the assertion that because Trans (natal male) are male, they are easy to spot "in the wild", as it were.

However, for one to spot a trans (natal male) requires one to study all female appearing bodies, and sort them according to how "female" they look, the same with voices, as well as presentation.

This would require that one "police" other's bodies and presentation, looking for the "tell-tale traits" that would give another away for being a trans (natal male).

This enforces a rigid view of what a women's body is or should look like.

If all women's bodies were the same, this wouldn't be problematic, but biology isn't so clear cut. Women with PCOS might have deeper voices, more body or facial hair, more masculine fat distribution.

Women who have an intersex condition may also be more "male" appearing.

Women may just have genetics that predispose them to somewhat wider shoulders or Adams apples (a familial relation of mine who was AFAB has a large Adams Apple, would even be considered large by male standards, wide shoulders, and a fairly deep voice, and has been misgendered by children at a schoolyard.)

Thus, policing women's bodies in an attempt to determine who is or isn't a "real woman" will invariably lead to some AFAB women not making the "cut-off", thus one will see them as men until presented with incontrovertible evidence, which would require one to see their genitals, preferably with a Speculum, as only a visualization of a cervix would prove them to be female, except in the case of a total hysterectomy or intersex (such as CAIS), which would require them to provide those documents pertaining to said surgery.

The other option would require karyotyping, which also would reveal intersexed females.

All of this is to say that verifying someone is a "real woman" would require an abridgement of their right to privacy concerning their medical history.

In effect, rad feminism would actually discriminate against women on the basis of their biology, through rigid enforcement of what their biology should be, rather than a recognization of what it is. This is counter to radfems stated purpose and goal, that women are oppressed because of their biology, which radfeminism seeks to eradicate.

One could state that trans (natal male) are usually easy to spot, but however easy they are, this still, invariably, requires the policing of AFAB bodies. One still needs to compare different "masculine" traits.

Teal Deer, if it's racist to say "all/most black men have large penises", it's sexist to say "all/most 'real women' have X feature.". Biology isn't so deterministic.

Posted May 2, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

5111
herbinarybones_•

Also this

If all women's bodies were the same, this wouldn't be problematic, but biology isn't so clear cut. Women with PCOS might have deeper voices, more body or facial hair, more masculine fat distribution.

They still have vaginas.

And GASP they can even still become pregnant.

Crazyyyy.

27
AnnaUndefindOP•

And GASP they can even still become pregnant.

Not those who have had complete hysterectomies, not those who are XY AFAB, further those with PCOS can have a harder time conceiving. Not to mention any other number of biological defects or surgeries or hormone complications.

Or fucking menopause for God's sake.

Guess they aren't female though.

See, you have already proved my argument.

2†
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

Not those who have had complete hysterectomies

You need to have a female reproductive system to have a hysterectomy in the first place.

XY AFAB,

XY AFAB people are born with vaginas. They're AFAB because they are assumed to have uteruses and other female internal organs. Thus female reproductive organs still play a crucial role in determining sex.

further those with PCOS can have a harder time conceiving

The O in PCOS stands for ovary. So again, this is a condition you can only have if you are female to begin with. PCOS is proof of femaleness. And "harder time conceiving" doesn't mean "impossible to conceive".

Or fucking menopause

Only people who have female reproductive organs and who menstruate can go through menopause. Again, it's proof of femaleness, not evidence for a lack of femaleness.

Now, can trans women have PCOS, have a hysterectomy, go through menopause, or be XY AFAB? The answer to all of those is "no".

25
herbinarybones_•

The only reason you would need a hysterectomy is because you're female.

People with PCOS may indeed have a harder time conceiving, but they can become pregnant.

And again, you only go through menopause if you're female. These are horribly thought out arguments you're making.

It's like saying "I guess if a man has testicular cancer and has to get his balls removed, he's not a man" when the only way he was able to even get it was because he IS a man.

Try again.

18
herbinarybones_•

Teal Deer, if it's racist to say "all/most black men have large penises", it's sexist to say "all/most 'real women' have X feature.". Biology isn't so deterministic.

All people born with vaginas have vaginas and are different than those born with penises.

Why are these two groups the only things that mustn't be named?

26
PaleCornflowerBlueGender Critter•

Better analogy would be "it's racist to say that most/all black people have dark skin"

16
AnnaUndefindOP•

Except most People don't walk around with their genitalia exposed. If you want to create a "woman's only" space, how do you expect to "police it"?

-1†
herbinarybones_•

Do you think we need to see someone naked in order to know what kind of genitalia they have?

If a trans woman actually passes, people will assume they have female genitals. If a trans woman doesn't pass, then it's obvious they're male.

I've seen plenty of butchish women and I can still tell they're female. Amazing isn't it?

17
AnnaUndefindOP•

Do you believe that there are no butch trans (natal male) people? How do you know? Gasp You haven't taken them into the bathroom to check have you?

Further, a woman can be butch while still having all the biological markers one might associate with "female". Performative gender is only part of what I'm discussing. There are women who will still appear more "masculine" than others because there is no single, unified female body, regardless of their performative gender.

Of course, the fact you "know they are women" actually bolsters my argument. You looked at them, compared them to your internal idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, her various biological markers, et cetera. My point is, this is inherently sexist, you base your definition of what a woman is on common biological markers that might occur on most AFABs but not all. It's not just that they have a vagina, I seriously doubt you invite people into the bathroom to "verify" their "bonar" fides, or lack thereof. Therefore you are making your judgement based on other biomarkers that themselves aren't present on all AFAB women.

1†
herbinarybones_•

Do you believe that there are no butch trans (natal male) people? How do you know? Gasp You haven't taken them into the bathroom to check have you?

lol what

My whole thing is that butch trans women look very much like typical males.

Further, a woman can be butch while still having all the biological markers one might associate with "female". Performative gender is only part of what I'm discussing. There are women who will still appear more "masculine" than others because there is no single, unified female body, regardless of their performative gender.

Butch women still have vaginas, and omg, they still look female. Sorry your sexism won't work here.

Of course, the fact you "know they are women" actually bolsters my argument. You looked at them, compared them to your internal idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, her various biological markers, et cetera.

You're amazingly trying to tell me I'm the bigot for acknowledging that females exist while also trying to join a group that is not from the one you exist in. Clearly you know the differences as well unless you think it's restricted to regressive stereotyping.

My point is, this is inherently sexist, you base your definition of what a woman is on common biological markers that might occur on most AFABs but not all.

A woman is a adult human with a vagina. What's sexist is a natal male trying to reduce our existence and the cause of our oppression to negative feelings in their head.

It's not just that they have a vagina, I seriously doubt you invite people into the bathroom to "verify" their "bonar" fides, or lack thereof.

Again you're the one claiming it's sexist to notice these differences as you yourself felt some level of discomfort within your assigned group enough to where you sought out a way to change your physical body to resemble a sex that you claim doesn't exist.

17
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

Of course, the fact you "know they are women" actually bolsters my argument. You looked at them, compared them to your internal idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, her various biological markers, et cetera. My point is, this is inherently sexist

Is it sexist when newborn human infants are able to discern male from female people from their faces? Are baby monkeys sexist for also possessing this ability?

15
BoozeBabe•

Use our eyeballs?

16
thundersassBecoming more and more invisible•

That worked out well with Nasim Aghdam.

2†
BoozeBabe•

Hmm?

11
herbinarybones_•

Okay so why are you worried about the mens bathroom?

Maybe they're all women and you don't know it because they're too busy peeing to tell you.

Maybe the man stick figure on the door looks like a woman in jeans to them and they're all wearing jeans so it makes sense to use that facility.

If women and men don't look too different from one another, why is there a need to be recognized as either, if either group can have penises, like masculine hobbies, and be attracted to either sex?

24
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

Follow up: If women can look like anything, what exactly are trans women dysphoric about? Who exactly are you trying to emulate by giving yourselves breasts, vaginas, shaving your trachea, getting electrolysis, etc if women can have penises, be flat chested, have large adams apples and beards?

If, supposedly, women can have all those features, and yet trans women still feel the need to surgically alter themselves to appear as close as possible to the kind of woman they projectively accuse radfems of privileging, how is it then not instead trans women who are enforcing a rigid view of what a women's body is or should look like?

34
herbinarybones_•

Why are trans women allowed the ability to have spaces away from men, but cis women must accept males in their space, even when those males look just like the men trans women want to get away from???

28
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

Would love it if I could get a response to the points I made in the above comment, u/AnnaUndefind.

12
AnnaUndefindOP•

Well, my argument is not that you are privileging AFABs, but rather the opposite. By arguing that trans (natal males) aren't women, by necessity you would create a system that also disadvantages some AFABs, who might not pass your "shit" test. A slim minority would fall into the margins on the page of your calculus.

As much as we like to think of sexual dimorphism as a perfect binary, it really isn't.

There is an argument to be made that some trans individuals do reinforce the binary. Part of this is due to the history of trans people within Western culture, due to the early gatekeeping of institutions such as WPATH (formerly HBIGDA), that enforced a rigid binary on trans people. The other part is due to the nature of Western society only recognizing a binary in the first place.

My ideal isn't entirely far off from yours. I do want to deconstruct gender. I also want to deconstruct sex, race, and any other number of mostly meaningless qualifiers that serve to separate people into distinct subgroups.

To some extent, I think that trans itself is destabilizing to the concept of gender. If everyone identified as their own gender, gender itself becomes meaningless, and with it, gender roles, stereotypes, etc. Gender would become, to some extent, like a name. As a concept it would lose any categorical weight, because, as a category, it would extend into infinity.

2
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

This comment doesn't really address any of my points at all. In your OP you wrote:

If all women's bodies were the same, this wouldn't be problematic, but biology isn't so clear cut. Women with PCOS might have deeper voices, more body or facial hair, more masculine fat distribution. [...] Women may just have genetics that predispose them to somewhat wider shoulders or Adams apples

So if women can have wide shoulders, large Adams apples, deep voices and facial hair, why are these all traits that trans women feel dysphoric about and wish to change? Since these are all supposedly female traits, why aren't trans woman with these traits perfectly fine with them? Why does it make them feel better to get FFS and breast implants and tracheal shaves?

Going even further, how can people claim that dysphoria is innate (and possibly the result of a "body map") when they're dysphoric over traits that actual female people innately have? Any "innate" female body map would necessarily be okay with "masculine" female traits that occur naturally, correct?

The fact that trans women experience dysphoria over these traits, despite the fact that AFAB/female people can also have those traits, means that they're dysphoric over not embodying themselves the ideal cultural notion of what a woman should look like. In essence, they're dysphoric over stereotypes.

gatekeeping of institutions such as WPATH (formerly HBIGDA), that enforced a rigid binary on trans people

It is not gatekeeping organizations that makes trans women feel dysphoric about all of the above features I mentioned.

The other part is due to the nature of Western society only recognizing a binary in the first place.

And you're perpetuating this binary by demanding to be included as a "woman" despite not being born female/AFAB.

By arguing that trans (natal males) aren't women, by necessity you would create a system that also disadvantages some AFABs,

Not at all. It is very easy to define "woman" in a way that includes all female people and AFAB intersex people and does not include trans women. If I say "women == AFAB" then that in and of itself is enough to cover all those edge cases. I could say "no woman is born with a penis" and "no woman needs to take HRT and get FFS to appear as women to society" and again, the only group that gets "excluded" is trans women, not butch women nor intersex women.

You're incapable of doing the reverse though. You're incapable of coming up with a definition of woman that includes AFAB people and trans women, but does not include non-trans men, without falling back on a circular definition of woman ("a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman).

To some extent, I think that trans itself is destabilizing to the concept of gender. If everyone identified as their own gender, gender itself becomes meaningless, and with it, gender roles, stereotypes, etc. Gender would become, to some extent, like a name.

You can't simultaneously claim to want gender to become meaningless while arguing tooth and nail for the ability to be included in the group "women".

As a concept it would lose any categorical weight, because, as a category, it would extend into infinity.

Gender will not go away based on self identification. If everyone identified tomorrow as non-binary, will things actually change? No. The AMAB non-binary people will still go on enjoying structural societal privilege and oppressing the AFAB non-binary people.

18
susandeathQueen Blerg the Second•

I bet no one asked all those baby girls found in a mass grave in Pakistan if they identify as girls. They were killed because of their SEX!

6
AnnaUndefindOP•

Except, I never argued to be included as a woman. My argument was that, by necessity, if you want to define AFAB = Woman, then by necessity you need to police people's bodies. By necessity you would need to bring back vice squads that take people into a bathroom and check their genitalia. That by necessity this will capture non trans people, especially those who are otherwise GNC. That by necessity, your need to control how other people define themselves will lead to greater authoritarianism, it will lead to more police interactions between gender non-conforming individuals like butch women. It will lead to men, cis, straight white men, having say over what a woman is. Not you. Not me. We aren't making the laws.

Gender will not go away based on self identification. If everyone identified tomorrow as non-binary, will things actually change? No. The AMAB non-binary people will still go on enjoying structural societal privilege and oppressing the AFAB non-binary people.

I don't think you or I can effectively make that argument, because that's silly. It's not going to happen overnight.

If there a no words for man or woman, how can man, or woman, be considered better inherently than the other?

If it happened tomorrow, yeah, the current power structure wouldn't change, man and woman are still recognized as modern concepts. It's too recent, but over a generation or two, no gendered language, no man, no woman, just person.

Imagine, could Susan B. Anthony have been denied a vote if there was no woman? Hauled before the "honorable" Ward Hunt, (if you aren't familiar with the story, please do check out when SBA voted "illegally") and what's he going to say? Your guilty of the crime of voting as a woman? Can't do that, concept doesn't exist. Your guilty of the crime of voting as a person? That makes no sense. Your guilty of the crime of voting while in possession of a vagina? Maybe, but dubious. We know that language shapes our understanding of the world. Russians have no word for blue. Blue, as a concept, doesn't exist. They have голубой (goluboy, lighter blues), and Синий, (siniy, darker blues) and this does affect their actual perception. Source

Which is fucking wild!

But that's my point. If you want to create an apartheid state, you call people black and white. You make them a distinct category within the culture. You build "race conscious".

-4
Missi-AmphetamineSpectre of Queen Blerg the First; literal serial killer•

...And natal females would still be oppressed as a sex.

10
ImmaNotDrnk•

However, for one to spot a trans (natal male) requires one to study all female appearing bodies, and sort them according to how "female" they look, the same with voices, as well as presentation.

Most of 'em don't pass due to secondary sex characteristics no amount of surgery can fix, and most people can't afford even close to that. Of course it isn't bloody clear cut, it more of "95% of the time" thing, only the sith deal in absolutes, like you guys are trying to do. Your "feminists are the body-policing femininity-enforcing mean girls" is false narrative, and also trans issues, which concern what, 1% of the population? aren't at most at the periphery of radfem ideology, you aren't exposing "the rotten core". Try harder.

21
AnnaUndefindOP•

Even if it were "95% of the time", (first, this is silly because if someone were to pass so well you didn't know you couldn't formulate such a statistic, since you wouldn't be sure if it was only 5%, 50% or any other number) that doesn't change the fact that you have some "ideal biological female" that you compare other living female appearing people too, otherwise, how would you know at all?

While I think this kind of bias is inescapable, since it's socially conditioned and nearly autonomous, it's clear from reading even a small sample of GenderCritical, that this bias is conscious, and well heeled in such circles.

It represents a fundamental conflict. To create a biological category of female and enforce it, one needs to build "sex consciousness". This is oppressive for all the same reasons beauty culture is oppressive. It enforces a normative view of female biology that might exist for a good portion of AFABs, but not necessarily all.

To address a real world example, how do you expect to enforce "woman's only" places? If I can legally change my gender marker on my license or birth certificate, that doesn't work for you. So then you need some kind of "sex enforcer", who's likely to pull women aside and "verify" they are female. Either this is applied to all women, or applied only to women who look "masculine".

Even if you were to manage to roll back my ability to change my gender marker, how would you enforce bathroom usage? It's the same foundational problem that arises out of a normative view, and even if trans people are evil, those who aren't trans but don't easily fall into the normative view, will also be targeted. We already did this, it brought us Stonewall.

1
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

Even if it were "95% of the time", (first, this is silly because if someone were to pass so well you didn't know you couldn't formulate such a statistic, since you wouldn't be sure if it was only 5%, 50% or any other number) that doesn't change the fact that you have some "ideal biological female" that you compare other living female appearing people too, otherwise, how would you know at all?

If you took 1000 people at random from the general population, and showed me only their faces and nothing else, I could accurately tell you what genitals over 995 of them were born with. The ability to do this has nothing to do with any culturally constructed notions of the "ideal female".

14
AnnaUndefindOP•

That's a completely different argument.

According to recent statistics there is estimated to be 1.4 million trans people in the US. That's .6% of the population. Out of your sample size of 1000, that's six people.

In other words, by your own omission, you are wrong .5% of the time, which, arguably, covers trans people. In other words, it could be argued that you can't tell trans people apart from non trans people.

Regardless, your statement is inherently unscientific. You don't know if a person you meet is trans or not.

My point is, the way to tell that is floated within the GC community, waist vs shoulders, Adams Apple, voice, etc, will probably miss some trans people, but will probably catch some non trans individuals. It is policing women's bodies.

2
BenderRodriguez9Kill All Humans•

That's a completely different argument.

Your argument is that being able to correctly discern a person's natal sex/what genitals they were born with relies on sexist stereotyping and socially constructed notions of what an "ideal woman" looks like.

My argument is that no, the ability to correctly deduce a person's natal sex/genitals at birth does not rely on cultural norms/sexist stereotypes, which is made evident by the fact that I can correctly guess a person's genitals at birth over 99.5% of the time, by only looking at the person's face, without any help from cultural gender signifiers like clothing or makeup. This is an ability virtually all humans possess.

According to recent statistics there is estimated to be 1.4 million trans people in the US. That's .6% of the population. Out of your sample size of 1000, that's six people.

You're assuming that 100% of trans people pass, which is false. Out of those 6 people, how many do you think I wouldn't be able to tell their natal sex, 1? maybe 2?

In other words, by your own omission, you are wrong .5% of the time, which, arguably, covers trans people.

I said over 995. I gave myself a little wiggle room. I also specifically said this was only if you allowed me to look at their faces and nothing more. If you also include their voice and their bodies + secondary sex characteristics, the number of people whose genitals at birth I can accurately guess easily goes up.

Regardless, your statement is inherently unscientific. You don't know if a person you meet is trans or not.

My statement was not about "determining if a person I meet is trans or not" since "transness" is just a self-applied label. My statement was about determining what genitals a person I meet was born with. Danielle Muscato is trans, but I can easily tell you what was in their pants at birth.

My point is, the way to tell that is floated within the GC community, waist vs shoulders, Adams Apple, voice, etc, will probably miss some trans people, but will probably catch some non trans individuals. It is policing women's bodies.

As another poster already pointed out, nothing in this world is 100% absolute, but accurately being able to tell a person's sex is one of the closest things that comes to absoluteness there is.

11
ImmaNotDrnk•

If I can legally change my gender marker on my license or birth certificate

You still wouldn't pass like with 95% probability or more, which is enough, for those of us dwelling in the mortal plane, not in the High Astral Plane Of Philosophical Absolutes.

So then you need some kind of "sex enforcer", who's likely to pull women aside and "verify" they are female.

A butchiest of women still looks and sounds more female than most transwomen will ever be, die mad about it. And nice move, all that framing women worried about safety from sexual predators as sexual predators trough some mighty forced porny hypotheticals. Some naive souls might even buy it.

We already did this, it brought us Stonewall.

Curb your history revisionism.

13
flapyourwings•

The black butch lesbian, as in, female homosexual, who started the Stonewall riots by punching a cop in the face, Storme DeLarverie, is rolling in her grave at all these heterosexual white males claiming they gave gay and lesbian people Stonewall. Loooord.

12
Missi-AmphetamineSpectre of Queen Blerg the First; literal serial killer•

Lol, what? You're comparing a racist large penis stereotype, to sexed characteristics that exist because of sexual dimorphism?

One of these things is not like the other.

That aside, if one takes a moment and doesn't assume "short hair = man" (as many reactive conservatives who believe in gender conformity might,) there are a lot of differences between a superficially masculine natal female, and a natal male. It's easy to tell the difference in interaction with someone, in 99.9% of cases. Especially considering the norm is for trans natal males to think they pass when they don't.

19
griffxx•

Women's magazines, TV shows, movies, mothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, grandmothers, girls you were in middle school with, girls you were in high school, women you're were in college with, women co-workers and of course porn are all these images that have an influence the composition of the ideal woman that, each individual has in their minds.

And what ever your individual ideal composite is: the voice, the facial shape, the way you try to mimic the sway of the hips, the way you want to walk in heels, and all the other stereotypical rituals of femininity.

Radical Feminism seeks to eradicate these forced rituals of female socialization placed upon the imagination of girls. If they choose voluntarily to participate in the Industrial Beauty Complex, because it fits there developing personalities, who are we to judge. But we will critique the industry it's self. There are 2 major message of the Beauty Industry, is to hold up an impossible White European Standard of beauty, as the epitome of what all women should strive for; doesn't matter what race or ethnicity they belong to. The second message is that something is inherently wrong with you: weight, face, confidence level, body configuration etc., and you can fix all of your short comings. We have the blueprint and products, that will transform you into the beautiful, successful and much beloved, woman you CAN BE. It's the constant message, of not good enough. And yes we are well aware that women come in all shapes and sizes. But we aren't policing their bodies.

So the only people policing women's bodies are members in your community.

We are oppressed because of our perceived reproductive capacity. All the sexed-based oppressions flows from this. They are Patriarichal control mechanisms.

But what about infertility? Most women don't find out they're infertile until puberty or when they have difficulty conceiving. And out of the often quoted 10%, 50% will have been born fertile before, they lost it. The lost is due to suffering from undiagnosed STIs; asymptomatic gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia. The other 50% could have various causes, including including a bout with cancer. But men don't realize it, until it personally effects their lives. So they still will suffer sex-based oppressions to. It's always interesting, that a great % in community, seem to think that mastectomies, hysterectomies and menopause, suddenly cancels out being a woman's womanhood. I find this is a truly reductive concept. They still understand, that the Reproductive Rights Movement is still important to them, because it is rooted in bodily autonomy.

We can critique pornography. But we will not be able to stop it, because amount of money being made. When critique the sex work industry, we aren't critiquing the sex workers. And there needs to be a fundamental analysis of the intersection of class,race, sex, and CSA; when it comes to sex work. There is a fundamental difference between The Girlfriend Experience and someone without skills or education that is forced into survival sex work.

Marxist Theory. There has never been any successful permutation of Communism, anywhere in the world. The only thing history has shown, is genocides and purges of the intellectuals, artists and writers. It can explain the failure of capitalism and the power dynamics of between owners and workers. The only true models that have seen to work, are the Co-operatives.

Taking down the Judeo -Christian, White Supremacist Patriarichy with it's settler colonization Capitalist system; with an operating system of pathopsychological greed, sexual depravity and genocidal/homocidal tendencies. Between the geometric progression of technology and the globally interconnected Financial Markets and Banking System, this is difficult to do realistically. We strive to make a more perfect society, by short circuiting the sex-based socialization process; which should lead to the reduction of some of the worst of the sex-based oppressions in the West. But they still need to be confronted in the present. But at it's most stripped down forms, the Patriarichal model has been with us, since the beginning of the creation of civilization.

Feminism has made great strides in the last 100+ years. But it has taken major shifts in society, starting in the 60s. The #Notokay, #Metoo and #SayHerName have caused a shift in thinking. The question is will it remain. Already we are hearing cries of going to far.

12
WeLikeHappy•

We have evolved to be able to discern sexual differences. When someone is “clocked” it may be due to a physical cue that we can’t even explain.

7
CannotIntoGenderFence-Sitting Loser•

This is silly. You don’t need to police any bodies to recognize that sex exists.

6
AnnaUndefindOP•

https://jezebel.com/police-refuse-to-believe-lesbian-is-a-woman-force-her-1773733431

I'm pretty much done talking about the subject for the time being, however the problem of trying to enforce "women's only" spaces will lead to incidents like this. This is my central point. I'm not arguing whether or not sex exists, I'm arguing that attempting to discern it as a means of forcefully segregating people will lead to the policing of bodies and expression, sometimes literally. If your goal is to deconstruct gender, while maintaining sex, enforcing sex segregation through law and IDs may not be within your best interests.

We already went down this road, anyone who's familiar with Stonewall should be familiar with the vice squads that "verified" people's sexuality. There is no way to enforce things like bathroom bills that won't catch GNC people, or people who happen to have bodies that may not fall along strict idealized versions of male or female.

Rather than free women, it will oppress them, rather than allow a person freedom of expression, it will, by fiat, force people harder into the binary.

2
K-1-K#PeakMasculinity•

Gender Critical Feminism hardly equates Radical Feminism.

3†
muthafuckigetH•

Gender critical is a radical feminist analysis of gender/sex role stereotypes. I don't know where the hell you're getting your information from.

4
K-1-K#PeakMasculinity•

Oh, mostly here and over at r/GC. Which I really should stop reading. It's either cringey or blood-chilling 90% of the time, with a handful of actual nice radfem threads. Though again, if one looks too much at the comments and it's riiiight back to transphobia.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
K-1-K#PeakMasculinity•

Hey I am sorry if transphobia gets you down but that's just how shit gets done there.

Yeah, that I got. Next, you'll have to explain how trying to punch across while allying with random misogynistic fucks is radical and feminist, because I'm still scratching my head over that.

1
AnnaUndefindOP•

Yeah, technically true. Radical/radix feminism is not entirely the same as gender critical feminism. If my memory serves correctly, radical feminism attempted to find the "common thread" that should unite all women, and during the second wave much good was accomplished by said feminism.

I may be incorrect in stating this, and I'm open to being corrected, but most modern "radical feminists" are also within the gender critical camp, mainly owing to their specific "common thread" being biology.

2
herbinarybones_•

Please tell me what unites all women that isn't related to our biology?

21
kallenill•

Did your mother give birth to you, or did your father?

0
herbinarybones_•

???

12
BoozeBabe•

There have been pregnant transmen who have birthed children.

GC says that these people are women, because womanhood is defined solely by female biology, and their having given birth is undeniable proof of their female biology.

TT says they’re men, because... they say so. The question is what unites all men as men if some men are capable of mothering children while most are capable of fathering them. (And vice versa for women.)

5