DiscussionWhat does Gender Critical mean?

submitted by PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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!