The Gender/Sex Compromise

submitted by subtlearray from self.GenderCritical

Gender cultists want to reframe biological sex (e.g., male, female) and "transphobic" sexual orientations (e.g., lesbian, bisexual) around the social construct of gender. Doing this would allow them to blur the line establishing hard fought sex-based rights and spaces, justify giving children irreversible puberty blockers, and normalize the homophobic demand that lesbians accept "girl dick", and that bisexuals can be attracted to more than two sexes.

When I engage in discussions on these matters, because it's considered cruelly insensitive to even question the validity of trans people now, I go along with their gender/sex framing, with gender (man, woman) referring to personal identification, and sex (male, female) referring to biology. I find it easier to make the case that while someone may, for example, "identify" as a woman, they remain biologically male, hence trans and natal people have different needs and experiences that don't always overlap, and should be respected as separate groups.

But is using any of their framing a mistake? I've noticed that some fellow gender critics don't like considering gender and sex as separate categories. Men are male, and women are female - period. However, given the current social climate, I don't see how leeway can be made without some compromise. Personally, I'd rather stick to reality, but I don't want to hurt too many feelings, and I want reality to win.

What are your thoughts?

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

Fuck feelings. Men don't consider women's feelings and how much this hurts US. I will start being compassionate when TRAs stop using violent language aimed at silencing women who want to talk to each other and in the public square about things which pertain to FEMALES. And, no, a transidentifying male is not female. Full stop.

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

I do like gender and sex being separate categories, because it's useful to differentiate between sex (which is biological) and gender (which is a socially constructed role grafted atop biology). Sex differences are more or less constant, whereas gender roles change across time and space. That's why Spartan women were trained with spears and Victorian women were not.

One huge problem with trans ideology is that it essentializes gender as innate. What's a "woman"? Under the old regime, it was someone born with XX and a vagina who, by virtue of gender roles, is socialized to be submissive. Under gender essentialism, a "woman" is someone who feels or is submissive (or giggly, or clumsy, or whatever other traits the "egg"/AGP crew fetishizes).

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

Definitely a mistake. I remember having this convo somewhere (r/GC?) years ago: OK we'll agree to "woman" being a gender designation as long as we can always call ourselves "female" because sex is different from gender. In the years since I've seen TRAs insist they too are female, some even call themselves "ciswomen" if they assert they've transitioned "enough". It doesn't matter how we distinguish ourselves, TRAs will insist they should be included in that appellation eventually. I absolutely will not cede the concept of "women" to male people anymore, and even "transwomen" is suspect for me. Personally I consider them "hyperfeminized males". It's the most descriptive, yet simple. Doesn't get into the quicksand category of "identity"; it's an objective observation like sex. Instead, it's observing/noting behavior rather than anatomy, physiology, and genetics.

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

I go along with their gender/sex framing, with gender (man, woman) referring to personal identification, and sex (male, female) referring to biology. I find it easier to make the case that while someone may, for example, "identify" as a woman, they remain biologically male,

I personally use 'dysphoric man/male', 'trans-identified man/male', or 'man with GD', and at worst, 'trans woman' if it means moving a conversation forward but always qualifying it mean man with GD. Never 'woman', because it already frames you as the bigot for othering a kind of woman (which he's not), and capitulating that he is factually a woman and, consequently, a female (which he's not) which is definitely the end objective, to the detriment of women's rights.

The point is 'woman' has always meant the biological sex class, under the realm of science and law. For example, women were deprived of rights not because of her inner gender identity, but because of her biological identity as a woman. Science has always referred to humans with the female anatomy, including leaving this entire sex class behind in terms of research. It is absurd to suddenly re-classify the label like a social occupation you can id in and out of... especially while females are STILL CURRENTLY experiencing oppression based on her body.

Linguistically, it is stupid that we have doe/deer, goose/gander, cow/bull-- but suddenly man/woman must be relabelled as 'adult human with testes'/'adult female with eggs'. Like how do you re-label 'women's health research' when in this case, women means anyone with a uterus, anyone with a uterus and identifies as male, AND anyone with a penis-- so 'people's health research'?