Gender critical

[sam]

These are the opening posts to a thread I tried to start on Yet Another Cycling Forum as an antidote to the other trans thread. (Unlike some sites I could name, apparently they've only got the one.)

My thinking is that it could give both sides a little space, not so much to draw lines around ourselves, but to perhaps encourage a more free range of expression.

(My extremely lapsed Catholic wife still has the reflexes to do that in record time)

Gender critical
The stance that it is sex, not gender, that should categorize people as men and women. It denies that trans women are actual women, and trans men are actual men. Gender critical people consider sex to be more important than gender in most contexts, especially when talking about female oppression.

Gender from their POV only consists of sexist stereotypes that should be abolished, not encouraged. According to them, anybody can be as feminine or masculine as they want, no matter what their sex is. It does not change whether they are a man or a woman. They usually don't believe a person can "choose" their pronouns, but that they simply refer to a person's sex.

They are often called TERFs by others, but consider this a slur and inaccurate. TERF implies that their feminism excludes all trans people, which is false - it actually includes trans men.



That Urban Dictionary definition is a good one. If you disagree, just scroll down (assuming this one doesn't eventually get down-voted into the cellar). I'm not 100% gender critical, and am not even sure how much I like the label, but it'll do.

I'm also not 100% sure what my plan is here, other than to provide links, preferably with contrast.

My chief ambition for this thread is to not flee it.

. . .

Virginia Woolf has been drafted into service as a graphic element because of Orlando,



with that exquisite closing scene, Jimmy Somerville's voice soaring into the sky.

[sam]

TAKE 1

TAKE 2

TAKE 3

Half a lifetime ago I worked at Bank Street College of Eduction in NYC, where I didn't mould the minds of children, but did sell their parents books at the bookshop. With my hair well past my shoulders, I was quite a sight.



I wasn't Sam then; I legally changed my name [details on application] a little while after moving to the UK. I liked the new one because it incorporated the initials of the old; that someone who sees only the name won't know what sex I am also tickles me.

Anyway, Bank Street was my reintroduction to children's books after devouring them as a child. I can't say they did much for me, and can only imagine what it's like for a parent rereading Goodnight Moon at bedtime until they're ready to howl. It was only later that I developed an appreciation of their creation (and creators) and aims.

After I left that job, Harry Potter's mother likely would have mostly flown below my radar. Even moving to the UK didn't make me take much notice of her. The movies don't appeal either. It was only after she started her second act (I'm not referring to her books under her nom de plume) that I developed an interest in what she had to say.

Hers has been a case study in genuine misinformation.



I'm frankly astonished she continued to put herself through this when she saw which way the wind was blowing. At the end of the day it's not money that counts, but legacy. Has she forever trashed hers, or will herstory end happily ever after?



They like things the way they are. That explains a lot.