Some basic questions about sex and gender for progressives

1. Do you believe that being born with the kind of body that has the potential to gestate children – a body with a uterus, ovaries, and a vagina – is of any political significance? Does having that kind of body have any bearing on a person’s likely opportunities and outcomes?

2. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have historically been subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination? Have they historically been subordinated to the people with penises and testes?

3. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies continue to be subject to any distinct forms of injustice, oppression, exploitation or discrimination?

4. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies often suffer physical and sexual violence, abuse and harassment perpetrated by the people with penises and testes?

5. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies ought to have a label with which to define themselves? Does our language need a word to refer to the people with uteruses and ovaries?

6. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to organise politically around their shared experiences, and to campaign and work for policies to secure their own interests?

7. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies have a right to associate freely with other people with those kinds of bodies, and to have some separate spaces for their safety, privacy and dignity? Do people with those kinds of bodies have a right to some spaces where people with penises and testes are not permitted to enter?

8. Do you believe that people born with those kinds of bodies sometimes have a right to policies and resources designated towards rectifying their historical and continued marginalisation and oppression?

If your answer to any of these questions is “yes”, you should reject the ideology of gender identity, and policy proposals based on that ideology such as the self-declaration of legal gender.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Some basic questions about sex and gender for progressives

  1. Clarity. Made perfect sense. To extend this – surely in the 21stC if a man wants to ‘present’ as a woman then he should be able and not be discriminated against but actually at the end of the day he’s still a man. There is a huge spectrum of ‘man-ness’ and we need to recognise that.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It is possible to answer ‘Yes’ to all of these questions but still advocate that people should be allowed to self-identify as ‘women’. Language is a human construct and we can change the sense of a word and also its extension. The meaning of the term ‘marriage’ was changed to include gay marriages, and the set of married people extended to include gay married people. The term ‘women’ could also be extended to include those people with penises who wish to be included in the extension of the set of ‘women’.
    It may also be that those in the current set of women, who do not want to be included in this extended set of ‘women’ may then wish to invent another term for themselves, and use this term for creating spaces solely for themselves.
    Perhaps, this solution would satisfy all parties in this discussion.

    Like

    1. “The term women could be extended to include those people with penises who wish to be included…those who do not wish to be included in this extended set may then wish to invent another term for themselves”.

      So in other words, male people can invade and hijack womanhood, demanding it for themselves and reshaping its entire meaning and definition, and if women object to that, it’s up to us to cede the territory? Men get to decide what what woman means, and if women don’t like it, we can get out? Sorry to disappoint you, but I can’t see that satisfying many of the feminists I know.

      In any case, it wouldn’t satisfy the trans activists either. Whatever word you use to refer to the uterus bearers, it will only be a matter of time before some penis bearer comes along who claims to identify as it. Call the uterus owners Flargels and the penis owners Schnargels, and soon enough you’d get a Schnargel who claimed to identify as a Flargel, demanding the label for himself, and demanding access to Flargel only resources. The fact is, for those who seek to redefine womanhood, the aim is colonisation and domination. No compromise solution will ever be acceptable. You can see this from the fact that it’s not enough to call transwomen Women; we are not expected to call them female as well. For certain adherents to trans ideology, female people are not permitted to have any terminology at all with which to define ourselves as separate and different from them. So no, I can’t see any value in ceding ground, when what is wanted is the entire territory.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. If you extended the ‘women’ to “include those people with penises who wish to be included in the extension of the set of ‘women’”, then you would have to make up a new term to include those women who were born so.
      Better perhaps to widen the term ‘Men’ to include those men who want to present as women? Perhaps this is closer to hand and easier to achieve.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. No, the be-penised people are not and will never be Women. Maybe it seems ‘reasonable’ to you for Women to step aside and ignore our Biology and resulting oppression. I find it preposterous.

      Liked by 2 people

    4. Reasonable, that’s not a reasonable solution. Marriage is not a useful comparison. Better compare cow and bulls, cocks and hens: words that differentiate the two sexes. If some bulls decide they’re cows then what is a cow? If a woman isn’t a human adult female, how would you define the word? Come on, now! It isn’t rocket science.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I just wrote something and I need to clarify what I have just written as I cant edit my previous post:
    If you extended the ‘women’ to “include those people with penises who wish to be included in the extension of the set of ‘women’”, then you would have to make up a brand new term to only include those women who were born as women.
    Better perhaps to widen the term ‘Men’ to include those men who want to present as women? Perhaps this is closer to hand and easier to achieve.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “If you extended the ‘women’ to “include those people with penises who wish to be included in the extension of the set of ‘women’”, then you would have to make up a brand new term to only include those women who were born as women.”
    Been done: Cis.
    And I reject it wholeheartedly.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Redpeachmoon, we largely agree I think. I was pointing at what I see as deficiencies in ‘reasonable’s pov. From my point of view, women born as women are simply that – women. Men who want to present as women, are men. Men (and speaking from personal experience) cannot possibly understand, even with empathy, what its like to be a women. Some men may think that being a ‘Man’ is not for them and project that as a desire to be female in some way, but they will always see the world from their own point of view, even if they don’t realise it. No need to use the Cis prefix there’s a perfectly good word available.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s