You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘gender identity’ tag.
Funny sad really as the male entitlement that females have to deal with daily has begun to negatively affect those backing the whole gender identity hoopla. The truth as it was in the beginning as it is now – threatening male entitlement is verboten. I wonder how long it will be before the good doctor is called a T*RF.
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/166415122696/spencer-shayy-gender-critical-appspot-james
Miranda Yardley seems to understand the concept of material reality and the sex based oppression of females. In this snippet, they address some of the problems that arise when men pretend to be women.
“So far, so good. Yet at number 21, is our old friend Phillip ‘Pippa/Pips’ Bunce, who is “Head of Global Markets Technology Core Engineering Integrations Components” at Credit Suisse. You may remember ‘Pips’ from my piece ‘Drop The T and the Great LGBT Sell-Out’ where I commented:
I wish he would connect his own ‘gender fluidity’ to sexism, or even meaningfully address the structural sexism his own activism literally skirts around but again, this is just another missed opportunity which turns the potentially revolutionary into the properly reactionary.
In case you need reminding,
Pips identifies as gender fluid spending half her time as Phil and the other half as Pippa both at work and at home with her wife and children
What this actually means is described in ‘Mx matters as much as Lord, Prof, Ms and Mr‘ published by the Financial Times, where Bunce writes:
I like to be Phil one day and Pippa another, using different forms of dress and make-up to do so… I am straight… married for more than 20 years and have two children.
The citation given to Bunce is quite staggering, itself meriting its own dissectiom.
Pips took the conscious decision to be ‘out’ at work as gender fluid to embrace and advocate the importance of authenticity as well as to shine a light on the power and diversity of women in the workplace.
How does a man wearing hosiery, a dress, stripper wig and high heels ‘shine a light on the power and diversity of women in the workplace’? Rhetorical question: it does absolutely fuck all. It reduces being a woman in the workplace to the artificial construction of sex-based clothing, which itself is oppressive. I mean, seriously: if he is going to be a champion for women, he actually has to be a champion for women. Instead, he is rigidly reinforcing the very stereotypes women have fought against for centuries and reducing what it means to be a woman to a pantomime costume.
Multiple aspects of our identity, including gender identity/expression, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability and religion influence our experiences at work.
What is always interesting in transgender activism is the way that the nebulous and subjective thoughts and feelings of ‘gender identity’ (read: identification with sexist stereotypes) is leveraged and turbo-charged by equalising it to race, sexual orientation and disability. The material reality is rather different: racism still exists, homophobic attacks still happen and disabled people still struggle to find suitable places to go for a pee. And nobody anywhere has a non-circular definition of the subjective thoughts and feelings of ‘gender identity’.
But of course Bunce doesn’t give a fuck, because ethnic minorities, homosexuals and those of us with disabilities are the human shield that allows an economically advantaged, physically healthy straight white man to come into work wearing a dress and claim to be an oppressed minority, to be ‘a woman’ on those days and be the cuckoo in the nest which is supposed to be incubating, nurturing and inspiring a generation of female business leaders. What chance do these women have against the cross-dressing chameleon, the truculent transvestite, who appears happy to not only appropriate ‘woman’ but usurp ‘female’? What kind of intellectual idiocy allowed Financial Times and HERoes to fall for this transgender Trojan horse? Why is he one of forty nine women and not one of thirty men?
Our sex or gender may be the same, but our identities, our successes and our struggles are different and it is for this reason why Pips is proud to be a female champion in business.
I mean, seriously, I can’t even. This is a man, a straight man, who spends much of his life living as a man, claiming to be a ‘proud female in business’. To quote a phrase (thanks, Magdalen Berns), the minds of this lot are so open their brains have fallen out.
She is a member of the European Women’s Network/IT Women’s Council and had many external publications relating to gender equality published.
As we can see, to Bunce ‘gender equality’ means to raze to the ground the rights that women have, as women, so that men like Bunce can have rights, ‘as a woman’. This is not about equality, this is all about power, and it is oh so clear who is wielding the power. How dare this MAN have the audacity to sit on a women’s council in an environment dominated by males.”
Well said, indeed.
I’m sometimes asked why I give such serious side-eye to the term identity politics. This isn’t some sort of dogwhistle like the freezepeach moniker that gets affixed to people who want to say racist or sexist things and then hide behind free speech. Gender IDPOL is a systemic denial of the reality women face and an iron scold meant to silence and shame women who dare to speak out against the arguments IDPOL make.
The good news is that despite the abuse from the ‘progressive’ left and the usual abuse from dudes, brave women are speaking out against gender IDPOL, precisely because of its insidious nature and the implicit erasure of the female experience from the public sphere.
Ms. Sanchez writes a cogent essay that appears on the Feminist Current, I suggest going there and reading the entire work. However, I wanted to highlight this section in particular as it speaks to the material situation women face in society, and how IDPOL is obfuscating that struggle. Also highlighted are some of the rhetorical dodges genderists use to muddy the water when it comes to the reality of sex based oppression.
“This is because there is an expectation that women are inherently nurturing. Being forced into the position of caretaker translates to women having less savings, being promoted less, and accumulating less money in their pensions.
But gender identity politics reduces this reality — and womanhood itself — to a trivial, malleable identity. It is baffling that in a world where women and girls face structural oppression due to their biology, gender identity politics has thrived.
Susan Cox argues that: “The non-binary declaration is a slap in the face to all women, who, if they haven’t come out as ‘genderqueer,’ presumably possess an internal essence perfectly in-line with the misogynistic parody of womanhood created by patriarchy.” There’s a twisted, neoliberal cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.
When confronted with evidence that, historically and globally, women’s oppression is sex-based, gender identity politics simply claims that sex itself is an “invented” social construct.
BUT male/female as two distinct categories is a system we made. bio sex is a classification we invented. these aren’t inherent in nature.
— Riley J. Dennis (@RileyJayDennis) July 9, 2017
In an article at Quartz, Jeremy Colangelo writes:
“Sex and gender are much more complex and nuanced than people have long believed. Defining sex as a binary treats it like a light switch: on or off. But it’s actually more similar to a dimmer switch, with many people sitting somewhere in between male and female genetically, physiologically, and/or mentally. To reflect this, scientists now describe sex as a spectrum.
Despite the evidence, people hold on to the idea that sex is binary because it’s the easiest explanation to believe. It tracks with the messages we see in advertisements, movies, books, music — basically everywhere. People like familiar things, and the binary is familiar (especially if you’re a cisgender person who has never had to deal with sexual-identity issues).”
But feminists don’t argue that sex is real because it is “the easiest explanation to believe” or because of what the media tells us. We argue sex is real because from the moment an ultrasound reveals a baby is female, her subjugation begins. And though “gender identity” is presented as an issue feminism must contend with, it is, as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper explains, completely at odds with feminist analysis of biological sex as an axis of oppression:
“Women’s historic and continued subordination has not arisen because some members of our species choose to identify with an inferior social role (and it would be an act of egregious victim-blaming to suggest that it has). It has emerged as a means by which males can dominate that half of the species that is capable of gestating children, and exploit their sexual and reproductive labour.
We cannot make sense of the historical development of patriarchy and the continued existence of sexist discrimination and cultural misogyny, without recognizing the reality of female biology, and the existence of a class of biologically female persons.”
Far from fluid, the realities of sex-based oppression are strict and enforced through violence — this is particularly true for women of colour and women in poverty.”
If gender identity is so amazing why are not females in large droves identifying as Men to escape their oppression?
Canadian bill C-16 passed.
“The bill updates the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The legislation also makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression. It would also extend hate speech laws to include the two terms, and make it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender.
Critically, the bill also amends the sentencing principles section of the code so that a person’s gender identity or expression can be considered an aggravating circumstance by a judge during sentencing.”
As with much of queer politics, defining terms is pretty much up to who you happen to ask, or what day it is, or really how you feel about it at the time. So, let’s grab some terms from some lazy searches on google. These two categories are now included in the the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
Wikipedia – Gender identity – is one’s personal experience of one’s own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it completely.
“Merriam Webster – Gender expression – : The physical and behavioral manifestations of one’s gender identity People vary greatly in the extent to which they hold and convey gendered thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Gender expression refers to the way people convey their gender through mannerisms, behaviors, or expressions. — Robert C. Eklund and Gershon Tenenbaum (editors), Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2014 For most people, … gender expression occurs so naturally it’s unnoticeable. Except when gender expression doesn’t match traditional notions of the gender assigned at birth. — Will Dean, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, California), 12 June 2015″
Perhaps we should try one more source. Another definition of gender identity this time from Canadian Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who introduced the legislation –
“Gender identity is a person’s internal or individual experience of their gender. It is a deeply felt experience of being a man, a woman, or being somewhere along the gender spectrum. Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. It is an external or outward presentation through aspects such as dress, hair, makeup, body language, or voice.”
Luckily I also found a feminist response as well – Meghan Murphy responds –
“But these statements show a deep misunderstanding of what gender is and how it works. Gender is a product of patriarchy. Ideas around masculinity and femininity exist to naturalize men’s domination and women’s subordination. In the past, women were said to be too irrational, emotional, sensitive, and weak to engage in politics and public life. Men were (and often still are) said to be inherently violent, which meant things like marital rape and domestic abuse were accepted as unavoidable facts of life. “Boys will be boys,” is the old saying that continues to be applied to excuse the predatory, violent, or otherwise sexist behaviour of males.
The feminist movement began back in the late 1800s in protest of these ideas, and continues today on that basis. The idea that gender is something internal, innate, or chosen — expressed through superficial and stereotypical means like hairstyles, clothing, or body language — is deeply regressive.
Beyond misguided language there is the fact that we are very quickly pushing through legislation that conflicts with already established rights and protections for women and girls.
Women’s spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn’t men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence.”
So here we be – enshrining more patriarchal norms into our laws – big surprise right? This legislation potentially represents a large step backwards for women.
“As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry? Is the onus on women to suddenly forget everything they know and have experienced with regard to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and the male gaze simply because one individual wishes to have access to the female change room? Because one boy claims he “feels like a girl on the inside?” And what does that mean, anyway?”
So which is more important male gender feelings or female safety? I would like to advocate here for gender neutral washrooms/changing area as the beginning of a compromise in this area. We still live in a patriarchy and sex segregated facilities are still necessary for the protection and safety of females in our society. The choice whether to co-mingle with men in washrooms or change rooms should be up to all those involved.
“We live in a time when women and girls are killed every day, across the globe, by men. Things like rape, domestic abuse, and the murder of Indigenous women and girls in Canada are still not considered hate crimes. Yet we have managed to push through legislation that may very well equate “misgendering” to hate speech.
Women are protected under the human rights code on the basis that we are, as a group, discriminated against on account of our biology. Employers still choose not to hire women based on the assumption that they will become pregnant. Women are still fighting to have access to women-only spaces (including washrooms and locker rooms) in male-dominated workplaces like fire departments, in order to escape sexual harassment and assault.”
I have serious misgivings about this legislation. The concerns raised by radical feminists such as Meghan Murphy, have mostly been brushed aside, unsurprisingly as her concerns focus on the female experience in society and how this legislation is going to impact females (thanks again patriarchy).
Critical analysis and more debate is necessary on contentious topics such as the now passed bill C-16 – I hope more discussions can be had and that so we can ensure the safety and security of females in our society.
“I understand the desire to be inclusive. The feminist movement has historically not been super inclusive or intersectional, particularly for women of color and lesbian and bisexual women. I think the third wave has been doing a much better, albeit not perfect, job of being more intersectional.
However, radical feminism is about females. We acknowledge the power structure as being male people oppressing female people. A trans woman can change her name, get surgery, do everything to try to become like females, but she will always be male, which comes with implications in three major areas: sex-based oppression, privilege, and socialization.
There are specific issues which only affect female people like menstruation, pregnancy, reproductive rights, and female genital mutilation. While not every female person is affected by these things, ONLY female people are affected by them. A trans woman never has to worry about pregnancy. A trans woman doesn’t have to spend money on a box of tampons every month. (Which are taxed as a luxury item in some states, by the way.) A trans woman from a culture where female genital mutilation is practiced will never be a victim of that practice. I recognize and understand that trans people are an oppressed based on being transgender and these things are complicated, but there are such things as sex specific issues and there is nothing wrong with having a movement to address those issues.
TL;DR radical feminism is about the liberation of the female sex and transwomen are biologically male. It doesn’t apply to “gender identity”.
May I just mention how effing pissed off I am that the effing backlash was so effing successful that people in the year 2017 don’t even know that Feminism is a political movement for the liberation of women.”
“Transgender is an anti-gay, anti-lesbian, homophobic and sexist movement. Their aims are to roll back the visibility and pride of homosexuals and undo the scant gains made for women in the female equality movement. The Kennebunk High School administration is perfectly clear: Gay Pride should go back in the closet.”
Fascinating stuff. I’m wondering how long the LGB community will cater to the whims of these individuals. I mean it’s okay for females (obviously) to be marginalized, claims about their bodies and realities erased, and their boundaries ignored – par for the course. But really LGB community, what now?
[Source]
The Feminist Current is a bastion of “not the fun kind” of feminist discourse – Meghan Murphy steps up with this bold article and describes the challenges that women face when fighting for the radical notion that feminism should centre women in its practice.
“Women who challenge discourse around “gender identity” have been largely isolated on the front lines for the past decade. Liberal feminists and progressives have chosen identity politics over feminism many times over and this is no exception. Those who are not invested in women’s liberation are well aware that the power they seek cannot be gained from supporting the independent women’s movement, and most haven’t bothered to think hard enough about the roots of patriarchy to understand what it is we are fighting in the first place. But even many of those whose politics are otherwise rooted radical feminist principles have felt afraid to publicly question the dogma of gender identity discourse. We are only too aware that refusing to accept and parrot back commonly accepted mantras places you on the wrong end of a modern witch hunt.
I don’t deny that I felt afraid, for many years, to take a firm position on discourse surrounding gender identity and trans politics, despite my opinion that women-only space and organizing is central to the feminist movement and to supporting women recovering from male violence.
In fact, for many years, I wasn’t quite sure what my position was, and worried that speaking out against the naturalizing of sexist gender roles that has come hand in hand with support for what is called “trans rights” would distract from my fight against the sex industry and violence against women. Punishments for questioning trans politics include losing one’s job, censorship, blacklisting, being physically and otherwise threatened and attacked by transactivists, and social ostracization — all things that prevent women from speaking out. (I have suffered many of these punishments already, of course, for failing to toe the party line and for allying with women labelled “TERF” or “transphobic.”)
We live in a time wherein basic feminist ideas have become unspeakable, while anti-feminist slurs and smears are widely accepted and even celebrated by those who claim to be social justice activists and progressives.
Regardless of the risks, I cannot, in good faith, support the neoliberal, individualistic notion of “gender identity” — not as a feminist who understands how patriarchy came to be and continues to prevail or as a leftist who understands how systems of power work. I do not wish to be silent in the face of regressive and anti-feminist discourse, because I know that my silence does not help empower other women to speak out. I do not wish to abandon my sisters who have already suffered immensely for speaking out.”
-Megan Murphy
Go read the rest of this article at the Feminist Current, it is an important powerful work.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…