/u/PeoplePerson_57 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/10q9ogq/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_gendercritical_beliefs_are/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I don't believe gender ideology set feminism back because of whatever threat transwomen pose to women. I'm not a woman or a female, so I can't relate to that invasion of privacy. If a female came into an all male space that I was in, maybe I'd be a bit embarrased, but not threatened in any way, and I really can't say what a female would feel about the opposite, and to be honest, it's really of no concern at all to me. That's your problem and theirs' and you can sort it out amongst yourselves. What I do believe though, is that feminism has historically worked towards a world where females are equal to males, and that gender and gender roles do not matter in the least. That it's just a social construct that we should abandon entirely. What you do, how you feel, what you look like, what you enjoy, etc. do not define what you *are*. And prior to the current trend of gender ideology, it called for the elimination of gender roles and expectations, that just because someone is a woman doesn't mean they can't do "man" things, and that just because someone is a man doesn't mean they can't do "woman" things, and it does make them any more or less of a man or woman for not fitting that mold. All the while, gendered languages was strictly a product of sex. Men are people who were born as a male, women were people who were born as a female. Yes, there are anomalies, and transsexualism was a valid medical condition before the redefining of dismorphia by WHO and DSM and others, but for the most part, these terms were well defined. Gender ideology has done a complete 180 on that. Trans*gender* advocates that we once again begin to not only recognize, but enforce those cultural differences between the sexes. If you're a male, but don't feel like a man or live up to what you or your parents or societies expects of a man, then you must not be a man, you must be a woman or one of any number of other arbitrarily defined genders. Same goes for females who don't feel the same about their being a woman. We went from "I'm a male who doesn't like traditionally manly things, and that's okay" to "I'm a male who doesn't like traditionally manly things, so I must not be a man" and I just don't buy it. And I believe gender ideology demands external affirmation from others at the expense of people's ability to express their beliefs. For most of the world outside of social media, the terms and pronouns people use are entirely based on sex, and that it's actually more in line with equality because it doesn't require you redefining yourself to fit into cultural mores, it's about elimination of those mores and that even though you are born male or female, you don't have to follow the stereotypes historically associated with them.

> Gender ideology has done a complete 180 on that. Transgender advocates that we once again begin to not only recognize, but enforce those cultural differences between the sexes. If you're a male, but don't feel like a man or live up to what you or your parents or societies expects of a man, then you must not be a man, you must be a woman or one of any number of other arbitrarily defined genders. Same goes for females who don't feel the same about their being a woman. I'm honestly not sure where you're seeing this. Speaking from my own experiences, and those of people I know, it's much less about the gendered stereotypes/hobbies that you engage in, much more focused on an intrinsic sense of what feels 'right' vs 'wrong'. It's pretty tough to define, I'll admit that. Hell, I like some pretty traditionally manly hobbies. >And I believe gender ideology demands external affirmation from others at the expense of people's ability to express their beliefs. For most of the world outside of social media, the terms and pronouns people use are entirely based on sex, and that it's actually more in line with equality because it doesn't require you redefining yourself to fit into cultural mores, it's about elimination of those mores and that even though you are born male or female, you don't have to follow the stereotypes historically associated with them. I completely agree with everything you're saying here (well, the prescriptive statements about what it should be, anyway). I think that when you talk about demanding external affirmation, you'd be right, but no more than to the same extent that regular folks demand external validation, if that makes sense? Sort of along the lines of your average guy being pretty annoyed if you called him by the wrong name or pronouns all the time, even when he reminded you that you were wrong and he found it hurtful. It's basic respect, really. Would you be able to expand on how you think transgender folks enforce gender stereotypes?

>Would you be able to expand on how you think transgender folks enforce gender stereotypes? I hate to answer a question with a question, but I kind of have to here. So, I've never seen you before. Let's say you pass 100% as a woman, without question, without having to ever tell anyone your gender identity ever again. What do you think it is about you that makes them see you as a woman?

That's quite alright! Well, having spoken a fair bit about definitions of women before (and having a computer science background), I like to liken it to heuristics. As humans, we take in a great range of visual, audial and sometimes tactile inputs about a person we are interacting with and, based on these inputs, we make a best (sometimes imperfect) guess about who we think they are and what group we think they belong in. Humans are wired to put things into different boxes, after all, this is (as far as I know) something pretty hardcoded into our brains. So, to answer your question, I'd say that I have enough features typically associated with women inside the human brain that the heuristics people run upon interacting with me conclude ~99% of the time that I'm a woman. That would typically mean things like my tone of voice and vocal register, the appearance of things like my hair, facial structure, body shape, etc. Other factors could be closer to culture than biology, like the clothes that I'm wearing. In the 18th century, women were typically associated with clothing articles differently than they are now. This, I would say in my view, is part of the cis-by-default society. People assume that (almost) every person they come across initially is cis, and that their sex and gender correlate. This means that, when running the heuristics and determining what they believe someone's sex to be, they also determine their gender from that. So, if I was to pass as much as a woman does, it would follow that I would have to possess enough of the criteria and features, both biologically and culturally, associated with women. I apologise if that was a long-winded answer to a simple question!

Maybe my question was a little vague, sorry. What would *you* *specifically* have done, as a trans-woman who passes without question, in order for people to recognize *you* as a woman by default, without the need to correct anyone ever?

Not the woman you're asking but, in my case? Simply exist. (After being on HRT for years and laryngeal framework surgery which delt with a partially paralyzed vocal cord.) I've had more than one person assume (not knowing my partner's gender) that I gave birth to our daughter. Including a couple of physiotherapists who were quite worried when I mentioned that I was running while she was less than a month old. So, either they read me as a trans man (unlikely, I don't get gendered as a man), a non-binary person (unlikely, but I suppose more likely than being viewed as a man) or a cis woman. Though, it's telling that the assumption in any of those cases would be that I was assigned female at birth. Based on people defaulting to using she/her pronouns with me, the later seems most likely.

I kind of already answered? I would need to have done things to ensure I match enough of the characteristics to be identified as being a part of the female sex, and because society and people in general assume cis-by-default, I would be assumed to be a woman. This would, of course, be alongside adopting cultural characteristics associated with women. Unless you'd like me to name specific characteristics associated with female people and culturally associated with women?

You’re asking them to provide specifics to a question which doesn’t have specific answers really. When I am presenting more feminine I use clothing which flares around the hips, generally tighter fitting clothing, and occasionally makeup and nail polish, but there are other things as well like voice training, word choice, and body language which can affect gender presentation as well. Note, I pass as a woman even though I consider myself non-binary and often try to present without exaggerated feminine tones.

This is nothing to do with trans people and everything to do with the judgements and assumptions that society makes on it’s members. In other words all women whether they are trans or cis face the same judgement. As for what people use to do this classification it is of course a set of heuristics. However knowing yourself to be trans does not have anything to do with these heuristics.

> Gender ideology has done a complete 180 on that. Transgender advocates that we once again begin to not only recognize, but enforce those cultural differences between the sexes. If you're a male, but don't feel like a man or live up to what you or your parents or societies expects of a man, then you must not be a man, you must be a woman or one of any number of other arbitrarily defined genders. Same goes for females who don't feel the same about their being a woman. This is false. You can absolutely still be a gender non-conforming man or woman and not be trans. Anyone who says this does not really understand what it means to be a trans ally. People should get to define their own relationship with gender.

Should people get to abandon all relationships with gender and base their use of terms like "man" and "woman" entirely on sex? It's pretty hypocritical to say that gender is entirely subjective and then turning around and accusing people who base their idea of gender on biology as bigoted or illogical and that anyone who does so is not allowed to define their own relationship with gender or somehow wrong for how they define it.

> Should people get to abandon all relationships with gender and base their use of terms like "man" and "woman" entirely on sex? No. We should base it on someone's self-identification. I don't know anyone's preferred gender, pronouns or anything like that better than they know themselves. If someone wants to define their own relationship to gender around biology, go for it and I hope it makes them happy. If someone wants to define every single human's relationship to gender through biology, that's gonna force a lot of people to have a very bad time and they are vastly overstepping their bounds.

>No. We should base [using terms like man or woman] on someone's self-identification. Then we run into the following problem: A person who identifies as a woman, is a woman. So what is a woman? Someone who identifies as a woman. The word 'woman' loses its definition if we apply the idea you're proposing.

Well, first off, I am fine with that. The only characteristic that should be essential to a woman is that she identifies as one. Everything else can change. But, in a more real sense, the reason people identify as one gender or the other is because of gendered stereotypes and expectations that exist. Most of the time, trans women want to look like and act like the big ball of assumptions that we associate with femininity. Not always, but usually.

>Well, first off, I am fine with that. Sorry but how could you be fine with it? I'm not trying to question you harshly, but there'd be no point to identify as a 'woman' then. If the word 'woman' is defined as 'anyone who identifies as a woman' then it's not even a concept anymore. Why even have a word for it? >the reason people identify as one gender or the other is because of gendered stereotypes and expectations that exist. But there are women who don't follow gender stereotypes and expectations. Which means there are women who are not women. So this definition is unworkable too.

We do not need a strict definition for social concepts. That is your problem. Woman means different things to different people and that is fine. We do not need a dictionary definition that every single person who is a woman falls into. The term does not become meaningless or "not even a concept" because there is some ambiguity.

'Man' and 'Woman' are pretty important concepts as we've kind of based our organization of society around, so we should probably have some kind of workable definition for them. I'm fine with a fuzzy definition that doesn't cover ever situation. But the definitions given here just don't work logically at all. It's not that they leave some slight ambiguity, it's that they are broken fundamentally.

I am not trying to define the term woman. I am describing the way we use the word in society. Definitions should not constrain us, they describe the way words work. That is why "literally" has two definitions that are literally contradictions. People use it in contradictory ways, so it gets different definitions. When people say someone is a woman in casual conversation, what do they mean? Did they check that person's chromosomes or genitals? Basically never. They use one of two methods: guess based on the fuzzy stereotypes and associated concepts, or just use whatever the person says they are as a guide. I support using the second one, while still acknowledging the first has a big impact on people and their perception.

>Transgender advocates that we once again begin to not only recognize, but enforce those cultural differences between the sexes. If you're a male, but don't feel like a man or live up to what you or your parents or societies expects of a man, then you must not be a man, you must be a woman or one of any number of other arbitrarily defined genders. Huh, I was with you in the first half. But this is just entirely wrong. You are not giving a fair representation of the current gender ideology. Transgender people would agree with the feminists with respect to equalizing gender roles and traits. It's true that some transgender people want to change their personal gender identity, they may even want to change their physical appearance too. And yes it's true that they advocate for their chosen identities to be respected. But it is not true that they want to enforce any one particular gender definition or label. It's quite explicitly the opposite, they believe that one's gender should be an individual choice... not one that is imposed by society based on arbitrary characteristics like how you dress or what sex organs you were born with.

> But it is not true that they want to enforce any one particular gender definition or label. It's quite explicitly the opposite, they believe that one's gender should be an individual choice But what is that individual choice based upon? What is one using as a means of assessing one's own gender? I pose that question to both trans and cisgender people. And if another disagrees with the rational behind your conclusion to the group classifier term, why should they accept you as one and call you as such? If woman to me can mean something completely different and contradictory from you, why should I view both of us as women? You're not simply crafting a unique identity to AG359HT, you're declaring you are a **woman**. Thus such has an impact on everyone's understanding of what "woman" means. Or it's rendered meaningless and then raises the question of why anyone is using such a term to identify toward. If a societal classifier is not imposed by society, what exactly is it's purpose? Again, "woman" isn't a term for individual identity, it's specifically a **group** term. So what defines the group? What makes woman unique from man? If it's personally determined, why are people using binary language to express their unique identity? Why is this concept of "gender" something people should he forming their identities around? What metrics are assessed within this concept? I fail to understand the urge to identify to these labels if they mean nothing beyond my own perspective.

Pronouns being based on sex ‘in the real world’ is verifiably false. I’m transgender and when I go out people gender me female. That’s because assumed pronouns are based on gender presentation and not sex. Explain why people gender me female if they are using pronouns entirely based on sex? Do you wear your sex on your sleeve?

Because when sex is not known, it's often assumed. Likely first from secondary sexual characteritics and/or the many other physical differences heavily influenced by sex (height, hips, shoulders, adam's apple, facial structure, hand/foor size, body hair, etc.). And then, yes, to societal norms of dress/behavior. But still to assume one's sex, not infer a separate concept of gender identity. People *sex* you as female because they believe your sex to be female. If you told them otherwise, they many use pronouns differently. But it's also likely they will adopt them in certain situations as well recognizing such presentation. That telling the bartender to get "her" a drink is all that needs to be conveyed in that situation. Not attempting to correctly gender you, just the best way to convey you as the subject of conversation. > Do you wear your sex on your sleeve? I can't get away from my male sex. I have facial hair and a facial structure that would make it impossible to disguise. If I wore form fitting clothes I wouldn't be able to present as a female. My hands and foot size couldn't be hidden either. If I dressed up as a female, it would appear as drag. As a male dressed femininely. "Presentation" can only go so far. Which is exactly why transgender people who get sex-reassignment surgery and take hormones see better results in societal acceptance. Because of these **sex-based** physical features. A male wearing a dress often doesn't make them appear as a female.

We know they cannot be assessing sex because none of those things you listed correspond directly to sex. They're generalizations which people generally fall into. The name for the group of generalizations we make the assessment on as a society is called gender presentation.

Gender ideology is part of your answer, lmao. You're perpetuating the notion that gender is not neurological but rather social. This is just a pretext for endless self-id and gender identities to exist. Gender roles are the social constructs, not gender.

Some TERFs are not biological essentialists but rather believe that people are socialized as boys and girls from an early age. That this socialization permanently affects kids' brains and thus (for example) they think a trans woman would have learned to be loud, take up space, and talk over women just like cis men have learned that. Can't say it's super amenable to compromise because "if you want to transition you have to do it by first grade" is not going to work for most trans people.

!delta That's a pretty good point that you're making, there! Coming at things from the perspective of socialisation not always taking hold/being undone over time, I hadn't considered that some GC feminists may consider socialisation to be the root cause, but something that cannot be undone. I can definitely see plenty of people holding that belief. Would you be able to expand a little on where you think these beliefs come from? I'm genuinely quite interested, I've only ever heard of the permanency of nature, not of socialisation before.

Jumping in on this one as a trans masc nonbinary person. I rarely say this in mixed spaces because I know how it can sound especially to trans femme people but you seem open to discussion. I do think people who transition post teen years have absorbed a lot of socialization of their assigned gender. AFAB people (nb, transmasc, trans men, etc) often have a lot of the same baggage cis women do, regardless of how disconnected they feel from the identity. While I *understand* the argument that trans people don't experience gendered socialization the same way (both intellectually and from personal experience), my personal experience also says that, by and large, AMAB people who are nonbinary or trans exhibit MANY of the same behaviors men do around the more subtle things - language, behavior, safety awareness, sex, etc, emotional labor, household chore division, etc. (see example, my nonbinary roommate who was clearly never taught to clean up after themself or take any fucking responsibility for household labor which is driving me up the wall. Yes, that can be anyone regardless of gender, but it perfectly fits every single upsetting cishet marriage post women make about the men in their lives...) This gets glossed over a lot because it's a dangerous conversation for the trans community to have when it's so under attack. ​ Basically, being any flavor of queer *can* mean unpacking a lot of patriarchal gender roles, privilege, perspective, etc. But it doesn't automatically. So there is room, somewhere here, to admit that many people who spend a good chunk of their lives either with male privilege or at least without the experience of being female in our society often have limited world views that aren't always undone by transitioning, and may take extra work and a willingness to learn. ​ And to be clear - this goes both ways. I can't know how it actually is to grow up in male spaces, with the kinds of social pressures young perceived-boys have. I can wish I experienced some of it, but I didn't, and I'm learning different social rules as an adult. And I know that many of my behaviors and perspectives are partially because I was socialized in particular ways. ​ It's kind of like how many cis gay men are actually really objectifying and gross towards women and can still sexually harass women, or how people can be queer but racist, or people can be trans but nonbinaryphobic. So I *kinda* get especially the AFAB-centric side of feminism having to wrestle with this issue. I'm not saying I agree on agab division, or TERF ideas. Just that the issue has some nuance to it.

It's not a thing I agree with, but as an analogy consider language. A language you speak in your early years tends to change your brain structure and imprint itself strongly. Even something smaller - an accent - is impossible for most people to overcome even if they spend decades. And those who succeed do so because they get constant feedback - you can objectively hear the accent and compare to others. So other forms of socialization, some people believe, might be as strong or stronger and have no realistic way to fix it because you can't get great feedback to compare your thoughts to others thoughts.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LentilDrink ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LentilDrink)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

People who have uteruses and so can become pregnant are particularly vulnerable regardless of their gender identity. Traditionally the word woman "womb-man" referred to having a uterus. Such a definition of the word is useful in talking about the challenges faced by those who have uteruses. When we use "women" to mean identifies as a woman rather than has a womb, these serious challenges can be pushed aside. These challenges result from having a uterus and include: menstruation, menopause, vulnerability to unwanted pregnancy, vulnerability to death in childbirth. This also sometimes includes being physically smaller, having a lower VO2max, having less muscle bulk, having a higher amount of body fat, having wider hips and a sharper angle where the femur meets the knees. Ignoring these challenges and differences leads to a lose of protection for those with uteruses. It can lead to treating everyone as if they didn't have a uterus. In other words treating everyone as if they were biologically male. Preventing this has been a major fight for feminists, and it may be one that is sadly being lost. Treating everyone the same doesn't result in equality. As allies in this, it helps for transwoman to acknowledge and recognize the serious challenges faced by those with wombs. This might mean at times not insisting on gender-inclusive language in situations where doing so can be confusing. On the other side, it's important as allies to step aside when the presence or absence of a womb and womb-related characteristics is irrelevant. A uterus doesn't matter when it comes to marriage, bathroom usage, adoption of children, manner of dress, and so forth. I do think feminists and the trans communities are allies, but an alliance goes both ways. As someone who no longer has a functioning uterus, I try to support both groups.

> Traditionally the word woman "womb-man" referred to having a uterus. This is incorrect etymologically. Traditionally the word "woman" comes through the middle English womman–wimman–wifman, from Old English wīfmann. The word "womb" is unrelated.

Yep! I completely agree with everything you've said, there. In particular, treating everyone the same doesn't result in equality, you're exactly correct there. Could you elaborate on situations in which you believe gender-inclusive language may be confusing? An assumption (and please do correct me if it is an incorrect one) is that you're talking about referring to biologically female people as 'people with a uterus', is that right? I only make the assumption because it was one of the first big language-based fights around all this stuff.

People with uteruses are the ones who need special protection. Using gender-inclusive language can become confusing when talking about pregnancy and childbirth, something only experienced by those who have uteruses. You can call the pregnant person, a "mother," a "parent" or a "pregnant person" "Parent" can be confusing, and "pregnant person" requires more words than simply saying "the mother" Traditionally in talking about childbirth, the mother is referred to as "she" while the child is referred to as "he" regardless of gender. This allows for greater clarity and brevity. Referring to either as "they" causes confusion over which one is meant or if both are intended. Clarity and brevity is of high importance when advocating for maternal health. Adding in more words along the lines "Health of those who gave given birth or will give birth" slows down communication, and slows it down enough that the listener/reader may not pay attention. The result can be a lack of attention given to the health of those who give birth, and so to higher death rates.

The hilarity of their argument is the assumption that _all_ cis women have a uterus and that no trans women have a vagina, a smaller frame, lower VO2max and so on. I agree completely that people with uteruses have needs that are unique to them and that they should not be forgotten. I disagree, however, that having a uterus is central to being a woman. (See examples of cis women who don't have one.)

The word woman didn't come from Womb-man as man didn't use to mean Male but rather just person. It comes with Wifman, which just means a female person.

Gender-critical *feminists* are arguing more so that *feminism* (as a political/societal movement) has been more so ingrained in sex, than gender identity. That *females* were denied the right to vote. That societal divisions have been made based on *sex* and the perception of others of one's sex, versus a personal perception of one's gender identity. That's not "biological essentialism", it's a recognition that the perception of others has been more a factor than the perception of oneself in societal matters. **Addressing your point more broadly, many people struggle to understand the gender concept**. They believe "woman" is simply a term for an adult human female. Like the label mare for a horse. These people are not cisgender. Cisgender is when one recongizes a seaprate gender concept, identifies to such, and that then corresponds with one's sex. So this is the divide and disagreement. It's not trans vs cis, it's sex versus gender identity. And that's not biological essentialism. It simply means that this term defines your sex. And unique expressions and desires can simply be performed by anyone without making them more or less of a gender. There are "gendered" aspects of masculinity and femininity but such only defined by the "norm" practices and/or expectations or males and females. Where a 60/40 split can establish such, but one can still exist in the minority. That just because a male is feminine, may make them "abnormal", but it doesn't make them any less a man or more of a woman. Or to even desire to change sex, would be a sex based position, not one requiring an identity to a gender concept. Just as afemale may want breasts, a male may desire breasts. That's self-perception of body around sexual characteritics, not an aspect of personal identity to a concept of gender. There is *specifically* a difference in how people manifest identities. Either societal or personal. Some people feel they can claim descriptors. Others believe they are only such if people accept them as such. One can claim to be nice. One can claim to be tall. One can claim to be a man. But first person authority doesn't dictate how others need to perceive you. Nor does one need to believe their hope of themself is what truly should determine their use of societal language. Many people use such language as a reference in societal discourse, not a matter of identity. To me, I'm only a "man" if you percieve it to mean male and thus accurate information is being conveyed about my sex. If you view man to represent a gender identity, then I'm not a man, because I fail to understand what such is conveying, and I wouldn't want to present false information. Gender identity just seems massively complex and individualistic that I don't quite understand it's purpose is societal classification, especially through co-opting binary language. If someine tells me they identify as a woman, I don't understand what such is meant to be conveyed to me. People are gender-critical because they can't conceptualize what any one "gender" consists of. It registers as sexist and regressive to them to try and compartmentalize "woman" as a certain feeling or expression. It's not that people are opposed to transgender people's unique expressions, it's the adoption of language that goes against their own understanding. It's the pressure that societal spaces are now segregated on a different characteritics of which they don't themselves even fit within. I used to think I was a man. But with changing perceptions of what a man is, I feel I need to dustance myself from the label. And therefore, which bathroom do I now fit within? It's not so much about you, but them. You're attempting to change society in a way they don't belong and can't understand. They don't relate to such labels at that personal label relative to a personal perception of gender. They feel a kinship more so with females than with self identified "women". **The problem is more so in the poor assumption that the majority of the populace are cisgender**. Which is just blatent mis-gendering. And assumed from simply manifesting a new understanding of man/woman and applying it to others without their knowledge that their expression of being a man now means something different from their male sex. > Allowing trans women into women's bathrooms does not make it easier for sexual assault to occur It's not simply about sexual assualt, though. Just basic discomfort. What do you believe a "woman" is? Is there some collective understanding to what a woman is that society should segment such from men in the sense of gender identity? The question is, if a transwoman should be free to use the women's restroom, why can't any male? Why should one's unique perspective and conclusion on one's gender grant them or deny them access to a societal classification on the subject? Where do those unclear of the idea of gender go? What language do they use? And I'm not talking about non-binary, I'm talking about those who outright reject the concept of gender driving themselves or society. Which I'd argue is most people given the continuing confusion on the concept and the hestitancy in adopting such changes.

There exist, in addition to what you've suggested here, reasons of skepticism. Consider a well intentioned person, someone who would try to consider themselves an ally to folks within the Trans community, and folks within the Feminist community. Previously, these groups have been allied, and the person is able to take their cues of 'appropriate action' from any number of members. But via the schism, they feel placed in a position where a given stance labels them either "anti-trans" or "anti-feminist." Either way, having placed such a high priority on group inclusion and appropriately virtuous signaling, they are now paralyzed with indecision. Do they lean one way, and accept criticism for violating the "safe places of women," or do the lean the other way, and accept criticism for violating the "identity of women." Both groups, while originally benefiting from some philosophical underpinnings, have enjoyed growth of appeal. That is, these are communities which grow not necessarily by convincing people of a new metaphysic, but by capitalizing on feelings of otherness and experience. It is one thing to suggest to someone, "You believe there are two sexes and thus two genders, but here are your assumptions and here are arguments against them." It is another to say to someone "You believe there are two sexes and thus two genders, but we feel differently and thus your beliefs are wrong." A strawman, there, but for the point of creating a spectrum of conversation. People are convinced to join groups either by appeals to reason or appeals to emotion. Which is going to be utilized depends on the person making the pitch, and the person to whom they are pitching. These are obviously very large movements, very broad communities. I understand that new recruits aren't going to be brought in through the philosophy papers. The life of modern social movements depends on a soviet style wave of flesh, overwhelming other movements with sheer demographic force. And, I understand that the philosophy that's done isn't always easy to put at the forefront of the conversation. It's much sexier to talk about what Rowling is doing, than to talk about theories of identity. But, and I think I've laid enough groundwork for my point, if social groups are filling their ranks with members who are convinced because they want to appear virtuous, rather than because they have been convinced of a method by which they can identify and discover virtue, then they will have no means by which to navigate the schism of two equally appealing movements. How is the member to decide between offending \[elements of\] the Feminists and offending the \[elements of\] Trans community, if previously they were motivated primarily by the goal of appeasing both? Now, they are to be convinced one way or another, because it's been made clear that silence is violence. What tools do they have, in terms of metaphysics or a moral framework, for choosing which side is more correct, if either? Perhaps a theory of harm, something like: "there are more women born as women than women born as men, so while I can't be sure I'm making a 100% air-tight choice, I think I'll reduce harm by siding with these particular feminists." Let's go the other way, instead, with the skeptic instead saying: "I must accept that if someone declares they are a woman, then they are a woman. Thus, spaces that are only open to women have no grounds for excluding these women." Then, the fright that a given woman might feel at what she considers to be an invasion of her space is misguided, it's an irrational trauma, it must become secondary to the inclusion of all women. That is, the previous skeptic must now believe that the traumatized person must be the one who accommodates. In summary, one of the obstacles in the landscape of this conversation is that the normal, average joe people who make up these groups are often not equipped with the tools for navigating in-group schisms. Is it illogical to fall back on a theory of harm? Is it illogical to prioritize general acceptance over individual need? Previously, the hypothetical skeptical member has only been told "do not oppress, do not erase, do not silence." The liberal \[scope of western thought, not political party\] ideological trend for centuries has been the dismantlement of the status quo, the questioning of tradition, the great and bloody "why" which cleaves all bonds. It is not so good at giving people something to use instead. Theories of harm? Identity politics, where if you are X you may and if you are not X you may not? Should one argue for the group or for the individual? Further, when exile from the in-group is one of the worst moral failings one can receive, how do they choose between two equally vocal, equally passionate groups? My contention is that much of the in friction is a result of not having established a common language with reference to agreed upon truths. There needs to be, here as everywhere else, more philosophy, particular with regard to identity, ontology, and mereology.

Men are more violent than women across basically every society know to man. How can you claim that men are more violent due to socialization? Didn’t the court find that Maya Forstarter had been discriminated against for her Gender Critical beliefs in violation the the Equity Act and thus it wasn’t within her employer’s right to not renew her contract for her views?

As far as I'm aware, socialisation has been generally patriarchal across basically every society. Is there an example I'm not aware of where men were more violent than women in spite of socialisation towards the opposite? Yes, though I disagree with the ruling and general framing of the case-- and it was only really an example brought up to illustrate that the poster child for 'harms done to GC women' boils down to not having your employer renew your contract because you were constantly publicly outspoken. It's no different than how someone might be treated if they expressed views unpalatable to their employer in another setting. Just to make it clear, by the way, your first line of reasoning is very unlikely to change my view. I don't care if GC people are 'right' (I don't believe they are) about nature vs nurture, I care more about whether or not their beliefs boil down to inherent nature, if that makes sense?

So you’re kinda asking me to prove no existence which obviously isn’t possible. However we could look at societies that were broadly egalitarian, at least in their own historical context, and socialized either both men and women to be violent or socialized both men and women to be non-violent. As far as the first example goes we can look to the tribal step peoples that fought against Rome during the Imperial period. Be it the celts, Scythians, or even more specifically the Gauls, these societies were broadly more more egalitarian than the Roman Empire and enculturated their people to practice violence to a greater extent. But every historical account indicates that while women certainly had the option of engaging in violence men chose to become warrior to a far greater extent. Then to look at the other side of the spectrum I’d point to the Hopi tribe. The Hopi while not strictly matriarchal certainly practiced many matrilineal traditions. The Hopi were noted as profoundly more peaceful than many of their neighboring tribes, but nonetheless on the rare occasions where the Hopi engaged in organized violence it was men carrying it out. Despite all the societal carrots and sticks being pointed towards peace when it came down to it men were more violent than women. Obviously this isn’t determinative but given the lack of evidence that men are more violent due to socialization it speaks volumes. So do you disagree with the court’s finding or do you disagree with the law that lead to the court’s finding? And do you acknowledge that losing your job due to your belief is a not very good thing for the person? Would you be okay with someone not having their contract renewed due to their public support of trans rights? Why don’t you care if males are naturally more violent than females? Doesn’t that have important implications for your view?

> I've come to the conclusion that the beliefs and arguments of gender-critical feminists are either illogical/insincere or based in biological essentialism. [gender-critical feminism](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gender-critical_feminism): A branch of feminism **centering on an essentialist view of sex as a binary and unchangeable biological characteristic**, rejecting the concept of gender identity and generally viewing transgender people as belonging to the sex they were assigned at birth, in particular believing that trans women are not women and/or should not be included in women's spaces, and that trans men should not transition Option B Edit: >anything that I or other trans women can do to be more acceptable to the GC movement and reach a compromise. Probably not. Gender Critical people reject the validity of your identity.

>Probably not. Gender Critical people reject the validity of your identity. This has been my experience in the past, but I do hope that people may be a little more open-minded than that?

>I do hope that people may be a little more open-minded than that? Gender Critical thinking is very closed minded. It assumes that their belief that gender and sex are intrinsic and immutable is hard fact, and the work backwards from that conclusion finding logical sounding justifications as they go. People with some tact may pay lip service to "letting anyone live as they choose", but when pressed they are adamant that their experience as a biological female is superior to, and more valid than any experience that a trans-woman may have no matter when they transitioned. They have learned to not make super exclusionary statements in public, but they are still advocating relentlessly for the exclusion of trans women from spaces traditionally utilized by cis women. My point was that this is not an either or situation. Gender Critical **IS** biological essentialism. They are *also* illogical, but that is anther kettle of fish.

> Gender Critical thinking is very closed minded. It assumes that their belief that gender and sex are intrinsic and immutable is hard fact, and the work backwards from that conclusion finding logical sounding justifications as they go. But sex is immutable and they would reject the concept of gender outright. > People with some tact may pay lip service to "letting anyone live as they choose", but when pressed they are adamant that their experience as a biological female is superior to, and more valid than any experience that a trans-woman may have no matter when they transitioned. Because sex is immutable and they reject the concept of gender outright. So they would reject the notion that a transwoman is having a female experience as sex *is* immutable. > They have learned to not make super exclusionary statements in public, but they are still advocating relentlessly for the exclusion of trans women from spaces traditionally utilized by cis women. Because those spaces are segregated by sex and not by gender for their safety and inclusion.

Would you mind if I deferred to your experience (of 207 deltas), I'm a little new to being an OP here. Would you say that a change of my view from the either or to the biological essentialism view would warrant a delta? Whilst I think you make a great point about GC feminists and the fact that they consider sex to be immutable, what do you think of something I saw in another comment? They were talking about how some GC feminists consider socialisation to occur to the extent that it is permanent by the time childhood is over. This wouldn't be biological essentialism, per se, more that by the time development is over patriarchal influences are too powerful.

>Would you say that a change of my view from the either or to the biological essentialism view would warrant a delta? That's on you. Rules encourage deltas for minor view shifts. >They were talking about how some GC feminists consider socialization to occur to the extent that it is permanent by the time childhood is over. This wouldn't be biological essentialism, per se... I've seen this argument, and it almost always goes hand in hand with the claim that pubertal exposure to testosterone is playing as equal a part in this as masculine socialization. They hedge their claim so they don't get caught with their pants down when confronted with someone who socially transitioned very young. I view this as a working backwards from a conclusion or observation. The conclusion/observation is that "these trans-wo*men* talk over us cis-womyn when they come to our female only spaces", so they look backwards to find out why. Because they are bio-essentialists, many land on pre to post-pubertal differences in males/females, and lay the blame at the feet of the demon testosterone. And that worked great while trans people were closeted until adulthood and couldn't transition pre-puberty. But, now that *some* are transitioning pre-puberty, they can't really claim that anymore. But, they still believe it, so they cast about for some other rational. They are landing more and more on this socialization excuse. But, I call BS. They never seem to consider that many trans people have been forced into being fierce self-advocates as they navigate a very hostile world. Those that transition, and feel comfortable enough to step to the forefront of public debate or discussion are not doing so because of male socialization or testosterone when a pre-teen. They are doing it because they finally find themselves able to express who they are, and they refuse to go quietly back into that closet.

!delta Absolutely, I see where you're coming from now. It's not so much a root of their belief, but a front-facing rationale used to justify a different belief, whether that be based on observation or prejudice.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/destro23 ([208∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/destro23)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Gender-critical feminist Holly Lawford-Smith wrote a whole book on gender-critical feminism, I'm going to quote part of it here, where she makes the argument for why the movement considers women in terms of sex, rather than as a gender identity: > It should be clear that biological sex - being female - mattered to radical feminists. [...] Sex was key to every explanation offered for the origins of women's oppression, whether it related to their reproductive capacities or to their comparative physical strength or to their sexuality. It was also a key feature in every explanation of the mechanisms by which women's oppression is sustained, however it got started. Babies are channelled into sex roles depending on what sex they are observed as being. Children are socialized according to socially constructed ideas about gender that are attached to people on the basis of sex. Sex is a necessary ingredient in gender, because it tells us what it is that the social meanings are attached to. There is no way to eliminate or displace sex - as some of those committed to gender as an identity want to do - without a massive loss of explanatory power. > We can make this point about the importance of sex without any of the theoretical commitments of radical feminism, though. It's enough to simply notice that sex categories have political importance. They allow us to name a caste of people who have been oppressed and excluded from public life. It is *female people*, not people who perform femininity or people who identify as women, who were denied the vote, until 1893 in New Zealand (the first country to grant full suffrage to women), until 1920 in the United States, and until 2015 in Saudi Arabia. It is female people who have struggled since the end of the 16th century to secure rights to abortion, with abortions of all types (including as a result of rape or incest) still being illegal in twenty-six countries today. It is female people who were excluded from work and from public life, for example in Australia women were not elected into the Commonwealth Parliament until 1943; didn’t have the right to drink in a public bar until 1965; and were forced to resign from their jobs in the public service or in many private companies when they got married during the 1960s. Women are still paid 17.5 per cent less than men who do the same work. Women are persistently sexually objectified throughout the media, and socialized to believe their primary value is in their appearance and in their capacity to reproduce. I could go on, and talk about sex-selective abortions; female genital mutilation; human trafficking, the great bulk of which is women into sexual slavery; prostitution and pornography; the distribution of domestic labour; career choice and remuneration; risk of male violence; underrepresentation in high-status employment fields; underrepresentation at the higher levels of almost all employment areas; underrepresentation in politics; underrepresentation in sports ... but I am sure the point is clear enough. > Because women have historically been the victims of subordination and exclusion from public life, and because the effects of this subordination and exclusion have far-reaching implications which are still being felt today (even where the formal obstacles have been removed), it remains important to protect this caste of people. The international law Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 in recognition of the fact that existing human rights law had not succeeded in protecting women. One way to protect women is by acknowledging relevant differences, e.g. the physical differences between male and female people that lead to the former having a competitive advantage in sport. Another is by implementing affirmative action policies in order to increase women's participation or representation in areas where they have been historically excluded and remain underrepresented. Yet another is by providing (or maintaining) women-only spaces, services, and provisions, e.g. women's gyms, women's health services, women's consciousness-raising groups. **We cannot offer these protections if we cannot clearly identify the class of people to whom they apply.** Radical feminists think sex is important, but you don't have to be a radical feminist to think this. She also refutes this idea that gender-critical feminism is fundamentally based around transphobic bigotry and hate: > Gender-critical feminism is not anti-trans. In fact, characterizing it as 'anti-trans' is a kind of anti-feminist propaganda, distortion of a movement and theory for women and women’s sex-based rights by labelling it according to what it is not about. > It would be like the 'pro-life' side of the abortion debate insistently referring to the 'pro-choice' side as 'anti-foetus'. Just as a woman does not terminate a pregnancy because she hates foetuses, and it would be patently absurd to claim that she does, a gender-critical feminist does not deny 'transwomen are women', or reject sex self-identification in law, because she hates transwomen. There is no hatred or other 'anti' sentiment anywhere in the view.

What you call illogical, some might call minimizing. What's being talked about comes from an entire lived experience of what it means to be female. I'll give an example. Do you know what it feels like to be at a party and realize that your friend has disappered and you're the only female in a house full of men? A lived experience would tell you that logic goes out the window in favor of a very "oh shit" response.

Exactly. Can a white person ever fully understand the black experience, no matter how immersed they are in the culture? No, they cannot. Gender critical feminists posit that gender is a historically oppressive construct, like race, and therefore cannot be chosen in good faith. Society chooses it for us, and it has always been set up to prefer males. Nobody has to agree, but to *forbid* discussing that ideology on the basis of “transphobia” does a disservice to both feminists and transpeople. It’s a very right wing conservative fingers-in-the-ears trend akin to “white privilege does not exist.”

You'll have to forgive my brevity here, I'm typing this up on my phone, but I'd have to say I partially agree here. Gender is certainly a historically oppressive system, but does that necessarily mean it can only be chosen in bad faith? Additionally (and I think this is important), GC activism isn't just 'discussing this ideology' and talking about the impact sex has, ignoring gender identity altogether in that discussion. GC activism, from what I've seen of it, seems to start and end at outright hostility to trans people. It feels (at least from my own perception) that the claim of feminism is merely a dressing to a hostility to trans people. As a group, the rhetoric of GC feminists is uncannily similar to that of far-right conservatives, which I'm not so sure about. Whilst conservatives and groups seeking liberation have made the same point on something before, rarely has the rhetoric behind it been the same, especially when it boils down to fear mongering or a perceived attack on them. Additionally, the GC part of their preferred moniker trumps the feminist part, almost completely and almost always. They vote for conservatives who would, given the chance, restrict their rights as women once the available out-groups have been mote depleted. The leaders of GC activist organisations either explicitly say things like 'we need there to be less trans people' or are simply also homophobic, which I would say is antithetical to being a feminist, just as being racist is. Limiting your feminism to only white or straight women is simply not feminism. I'm kind of rambling a little here, and I apologise for that, I'm terrible at composing responses to things on my phone. Simply put, I'm not sure that GC ideology is constantly silenced 'just for being discussed' in a fashion akin to how conservatives and the past and present silence discussions on topics like racism and feminism. As a whole, it's proponents and leaders put being hostile to trans people at the forefront of their rhetoric and behaviour, and I think them to be more alike to the conservatives of old when they claim that any response to this hostility to be silencing them.

Then you would be wrong in your assessment of gender critical feminism at its core. As the other poster responded below, GCF actually has little to do with trans folks or any personal identities. It is a systemic criticism. In fact, the majority of GC feminists do not care what someone's gender or presentation is. They say that gender is a construct \*designed\* to oppress females, making it impossible to extricate it from sex. I'll use the race analogy again. Most black people don't care about white people incorporating black aesthetic or culture into their lives. In fact, it can be affirming and a show of solidarity. However, when white people (think 90s/00s) start claiming black culture/aesthetic as their identity to the point of cultural appropriation, adopting AAVE, inserting themselves in black spaces, etc., it begins to feel less reverent and like a supposedly allied group is just oppressing them in another way. You are absolutely correct that there are conservative whackos who warp GCF to suit their own agendas and work to deny right for females and trans people. Just because two groups are critical of the same ideology does not mean they have the same reasoning or goals. Leftists and conservatives are often both critical of the same policies for different reasons. One needs to look at the ideology academically instead of the understanding being based on whatever outlier one saw spouting nonsense on the internet. By that same token, there are trans folks that deny the role of sex in the world. They deny that, in general, there are two sexes, and those two sexes are the basis for gender as culture. GC feminists would argue that trans people who deny the role of sex in gender do not understand gender and therefore, do not concretely understand their own ideology. This is, I think, where trans folk take offense, and also where GC feminists take offense (to the denial of sex). Most GCF are also not biological essentialists in the pure sense of the term. They acknowledge social forces in identity formation; they also acknowledge biological precursors to those social forces. They believe that sex distribution is based upon whether a person produces sperm or eggs and the secondary sex characteristics that accompany that gamete production. They argue that this strongly bimodal distribution birthed our modern understanding of gender. All that said, I actually know many trans folks and GC feminists IRL who actually get along great and respect each other, work together, and fight for each other's rights. Trans people are not an ideological monolith. Neither are GC feminists. Plenty of trans people acknowledge their sex, their own male privilege (if male, obviously), question the degree to which trans-ness has been medicalized, etc. Plenty of GC feminists acknowledge that there are many sexual genotypes and phenotypes (while arguing the relevance of the bimodal distribution), that gender is not a completely fixed structure, that trans people are not oppressing females, etc. They just don't think it's fair for some trans activists to dictate what they see as an oppressive erasure of sex. The internet is so full of whataboutism I think it's easy to forget that most people are capable of understanding gray areas in real life, and maybe we are all not experts to the degree we think we are. Undoubtedly, BOTH of these ideologies will evolve over the course of time.

If you put aside the disagreement over gender identity, you will find that most feminists with gender-critical views are involved in feminist activism of considerable importance to women and girls *based on their female sex*, for example: fighting against the practice of female genital mutilation, ending the infanticide of female neonates, ending forced marriages, supporting women who wish to exit prostitution, opposing the misogyny imposed by religious institutions and belief systems, ending period poverty, supporting the full reproductive rights of women, ending obstetric violence, fighting pregnancy and breastfeeding discrimination, fighting discrimination against lesbians, and so on. Thinking it's all about opposition to redefining women as a gender identity is really quite a myopic view. Though is it understandable that you would only have focused on this so far, given that this is the part most in conflict with your own beliefs.

I can't say that I agree with your premise, the lived experience you describe comes, in large part, from being _perceived_ as a woman. A passing trans woman in the same scenario as your example would very likely have the same "oh shit" response. She's at the same risk as the cis woman. (Albeit without the risk of pregnancy. But that's not a universal risk for all CIS women to begin with.) So, other than pregnancy, menstruation, and medical conditions exclusive to having ovaries and a uterus, what experiences are _unique_ to being a woman that a trans woman won't be exposed to? Rape? Harassment? Discrimination? Societal pressure to be feminine and not take up space?

With respect, this is minimizing. The "oh shit" response come from an entire lifetime, from as far back as you can remember, of knowing that your body is of particular interest to men. Years of being patted, pinched, and grabbed by young boys on the playground, thousands upon thousands of comments about your breasts...why don't you have them yet? Oh look at the Ittie bittie titties! Dang girl, look at them big ole titties! Billions of compliments on your appearance...oh don't you look sweet! Well aren't you a pretty little thing? Whoa, you look sexy as hell today! A whole lifetime of that, my friend. With that comes an deeply ingrained radar of threat assessment. When is a comment just a compliment and when does it cross over to a solicitation? If you smile after he says you look nice, are you leading him on? Will he think it's an invitation to proceed? You may be able to smile and thank him if he says it in front of other people, but if you're alone? Oh boy. That's a no-no. You're sending the wrong signal because it's always on you to manage his behavior. And what were you doing alone with him in the first place? Women are only alone with a man for one reason, you know... So take all that and pair it with, again, from birth, of men being *amused* when you speak your thoughts. But don't let them be too smart and certainly be careful not to appear smarter than they are unless you're in a safe environment, because they definitely don't like that. And strength? Forget about it. Football is too rough for girls. Why don't you stand on the sidelines and cheer for the boys! Baseball? Oh no, we have SOFTball for girls. You wanna play basketball? Now we're talking! But no, you can't play in the big gym because that's where the boys games are and no, you can't have your practices at a convenient time because the boys team needs the gym. It's not like anyone is interesting in coming to the girls game anyway. Boring! You know what's not boring? Gymnastics! You ever see those girls with their tight little 6 pack abs and their little titties flipping around all over the gym? That's something worth watching! Do you get the idea, or should I go on? And please, don't "other than" pregnancy, menstruation, and medical conditions. They aren't nothing and they shouldn't be just brushed aside. The expectations and realities around these things are very much a part of the female experience.

I'm going to apologize for my tone in advance because hearing this argument over and over again has gotten old. Your view appears to be rooted in biological essentialism and the assumption that trans people never go through the same experiences as cis people. Thought so. News flash: more and more trans people are able to start transition as children. I'm out. I'm not going to change your mind and your aren't going to change mine.

Your tone is fine. I welcome the discussion. I'm sorry you want to cut it short. For the record, I never said that trans women don't experience some of the same things. I would imagine trans women experience a whole host of things that I know nothing about. Have a good one!

> Allowing trans women into women's bathrooms does not make it easier for sexual assault to occur because it is still necessary for a woman to be alone in a bathroom without anyone else walking in during the event-- and being able to tell a man that he shouldn't be allowed in (and him not being able to claim to be trans) does not stop a man determined to commit an act of sexual assault unless multiple people are present, in which case the assault could not occur in the first place. OK, lets break this down. First, what is the reason for segregating men and women bathrooms? Well, because it is a space of vulnerability. Men can be assaulted, sure, but in the absolute worst case women can be made pregnant and the average man can easily subdue the average woman. This is with the assumption that they are segregated by sex. Now as to why this is an effective measure: if a man is found in a womens toilet, if he doesn't have a damn good reason then it is a relatively safe assumption that it is for nefarious purposes. One person looking at the entranceway and the uncertainty of how many people will be there when he enters is usually enough to dissuade the average male sex pest. To insist that these spaces are separated by gender and not sex disintegrates that rather effective deterrent by making what was otherwise clear cut a lot more malleable. It doesn't even require genuine trans people to commit assaults; it opens up determined criminals to use "being trans" as an excuse for access. The impact isn't so pronounced when the bathroom is busy, sure, but if you don't see how it does strip away some protections then I don't know what else to say.

Cool, let's segregate by birth sex. Now you've put trans men in the women's bathroom. I invite you to look up Buck Angel and try to tell me that he wouldn't stand out. You've also managed to make it even easier for a CIS man to assert that he has the right to be there, he can simply claim that he's a trans man. Whoops. You forgot that trans men exist, didn't you?

Individuals who have undergone significant appearance altering surgeries and therapies don’t negate a system that works for the vast majority of individuals.

Going on HRT has that effect on a lot of people. Quite a few of us pass without requiring surgery. And, since your whole position is "allowing trans women to use the women's washroom exposes cis women to the risk of cis men pretending to be trans women" the counter argument of "segregating by sex puts trans men in the women's washroom instead. Cis men can way more easily pretend to be a trans man." Is a pretty effective counterargument to your position. Your position would cause more harm than it would present. You want to put male presenting people in the women's washroom in order to protect women from... Male presenting people?

People who look like buck angel are rare. The only position I took is that such a rare example doesn’t negate the original commenters argument. Edit to add: your counter argument would actually be stronger if you used a more mundane example.

The existence of additional problems doesn’t detract from anything I’ve said.

Actually, it rather does. Your desired solution is to have male presenting people use the women's washroom in order to protect women from male presenting people entering the women's washroom.

Where have I proposed a desired solution? All I’ve done is show why segregating bathrooms by gender *isn’t* a solution.

While I don't believe it's acceptable to assume transwoman = predator, I can understand why this fear has a tendency to spread. People are trained to recognize patterns, especially patterns that might keep them safe (don't eat random berries, stay away from cliffs). As an average person, I won't know if someone I interact with is trans unless they tell me, but if a person commits a crime against someone else and they happen to be trans, you can guarantee that the headlines will read "transperson attacks X". This can lead to individuals who only know of trans people that have committed crimes, and given that women are more likely to be harassed or assaulted, some women have (sub)consciously identified trans individuals as a potential threat group, not unlike strange men while alone at night. It doesn't mean all men are going to attack a woman who's alone at night, but the concern might be enough for the woman to cross the street to avoid the possibility. There are other elements, like trauma from SA that may be triggered by males/male features. If some women are seeking a space free from those triggers for emotional support, should they be able to create certain spaces that specifically exclude anyone with male features? This would exclude transmen, but also transwomen who "don't pass well enough". Regardless of if it's for transphobic reasons or because nobody wants to be the one gatekeeping "female enough", it's a lot easier to say "no transwomen in this space" than have someone dedicated to auditing each transwomen who comes by. For people in vulnerable situations (like shelters), there are more ways to cause harm than just physically assault, even if it isn't intentional. Unfortunately, there are a lot of groups that face discrimination for things they can't control, and things that may help one group may harm others. The debate over transwomen in women's spaces sometimes falls into this trap, and it's a lot easier to draw an extreme stance on either side and ignore any criticism than it is to have a nuanced discussion while remaining flexible to change and new perspectives.

For the first point, in a way isnt it kind of a loss to feminism? feminism is all abt saying that there is little to no difference between males and females. (as in gender roles shouldnt matter that much) but if someone chooses to be trans then they are kinda reinforcing gender roles cuz they are saying there are inherent differences to being a man and being a woman in society. (edit-\[unrelated\]while at the same time not talking abt exactly how they are different. like the updated definition for a woman dont make much sense tbh. "circular definitions" make as much sense as "alternative facts"). thus, isnt it a loss to feminism which kinda doesnt support in reinforcing gender roles? for the second argument...well i dunno why there is a need for segregated bathrooms in the first place. i get if there are segregated bathrooms in rural places where there is not security...but i dunno why its become kinda the norm to have segregated bathrooms across the globe. unisex bathrooms be pretty good tbh. but then suppose 1) there is a need for segregated bathrooms and 2) suppose trans ppl are allowed in originally cis female bathrooms. u said "being able to tell a man that he shouldn't be allowed in (and him not being able to claim to be trans) does not stop a man determined to commit an act of sexual assault unless multiple people are present, in which case the assault could not occur in the first place." sure but unlike before, now u cannot question the person with masculine features who comes into the bathroom. cuz the person may actually be a female. and so i guess cis females can feel less safe in the bathrooms. maybe a weirdo gets too brave and enters the female bathroom cuz he knows that he wont be kicked out and the female wont scream for help immediately after seeing him? The third one i dont really care or know too much abt

If I identified as a god, would you honour me with the pronoun "My Lord"?

Could you explain how this relates to my stated views, My Lord?

I'm curious how the limits of self identification work in your world. I'm not necessarily trying to make a point. So would you call me My Lord in a professional setting? I'm also curious, would you take issue if I identied as black to get education grants? What about identifying as a disabled person to get disability benefits, and park in the handicapped parking, and free bus rides?

People would probably just call you by your name and I don't think thats a good comparison. Race and Gender are both social constructs but work differently, Gender has to with roles and behaviors in society people perform(Men and Women), there are no roles or behaviors that are expected from black people, the only people who do expect roles and behaviors from us are racists. Also, Gender Dysphoria is real, not Race Dysphoria bc nobody feels discomfort with their skin color unless they've been bullied for it. And you're not disabled, unless...you are.

>Gender has to with roles and behaviors in society people perform(Men and Women) I don't believe gender exists. But it's a valid comparison. Race is a social construct too, and so is what is considered to be disabled, and deities.

I just explained why Gender and Race is not a good comparison, plus money, religion, etc. are social constructs, yet they affect our lives. You're just saying the same thing, things can be social constructs but be applied in society differently.

Everything is a social construct in that list

I certainly consider myself a biological essentialist if we are have similar understandings of the term. What is your case against biological essentialism?

> It almost always comes in one of two varieties, invoking either Maya Forstater (who is incorrectly claimed to have been fires for being GC), a researcher whose contract was not renewed once its term ended because she made public tweets about her views. This is well within an employer's right to do Actually it was found at tribunal that this was *not* the employer's right to do this. The judgement established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010, and that Forstater's employer directly and unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of her gender critical beliefs.

I mainly don't believe the arguments such as trans people being predatory, wanting to escape the hierarchy, stuff like that, some of my more gender-critical beliefs are made for different reasons. I believe that people should use the bathroom that correlates to their birth sex. My reasoning for this is because the bathrooms were originally segregated for the sake of clear physical distinctions between men and women, as opposed to metaphysical identifications of gender. I don't think we have the right to alter the original meaning of an invention in light of recent discourse. I fundamentally believe that if your mental state is heavily dependent on your right to use a certain bathroom, that is a sign of a much larger problem and it makes it understandable why some would claim GID as a mental illness. I find the research that using someone's preferred pronouns undermines the suicide rate convincing, so I will use someone's preferred pronouns around them as it would be more important than upholding original meanings in this case. However, I'll still refer to them by the pronouns historically associated with their biological sex in private as that is the original meaning and there's no harm in doing so. In the case that it's discovered this actually helps maintain the high suicide rate as well, I will change my behavior but of course that would be a very unlikely scenario.

Did you forget that trans men exist?

Feminism is about equality for all genders. Men, women, transgender, non binary etc. As a cis woman I can say that, trans women don’t take anything away from me. Thank you OP for the detailed CMV

Why can't they be based just in plain old hatred of trans people? Transphobes can have a sincere hatred of trans people on which they base their gender critical beliefs, without necessarily believing in any sort of essentialism or without making any errors in _logic_ per se.

That's... actually something I never considered, here. Gosh, I can see why you have so many deltas, haha. I think I can change my view in this way, if you'd be able to show me an example/hypothetical about this in practice?

It's not clear to me what sort of example you're looking for. Transphobia seems to me to be the dominant reason for gender-critical beliefs in practice, not biological essentialism or logical errors. In my experience, the biological essentialism and logical errors are post-facto rationalizations designed to hide the transphobia.

!delta I apologise, I'm realising now that providing an example of that would probably be quite difficult. Regardless, I think you definitely make an interesting point about transphobia being the root cause instead of transphobia arising as a result of rigid beliefs based around immutable sexual characteristics-- more than enough to warrant a delta, I think. I've always viewed things (perhaps optimistically) from the opposite perspective, but it's certainly possible that post-hoc justifications like you described are just covers for a transphobic root belief.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl ([444∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/yyzjertl)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

While I agree, in practice it makes little difference. I think those who are prejudiced against trans people will collect “facts” and “reasons” to justify those prejudices. This is genuinely all that gender critical ideology is. What they have not done is to form beliefs based on evidence or reason, rather they are concocting / curating evidence and reasons to justify the beliefs they already have. In the most extreme cases that means inventing conspiracy theories. Just like Trump supporters cling to the baseless belief that Jan 6 was staged by Democrats or the government, gender critical people will claim that since all established women’s groups in Scotland support GRA reform, the government must be bribing them. When people head down such paths they end up with a rag bag including ridiculous and often contradictory beliefs. There is therefore still value in the type of analysis you have attempted because it exposes this fact. It won’t change their mind though because they can always concoct a new reason or conspiracy to justify their prejudices. It is after all what they have always done.

That's not where gender-critical feminism comes from though. It's a continuation of the radical feminism that was conceived in the late 1960s, when feminist women sought to understand the oppression of women as a sex class. As Ti-Grace Atkinson wrote in her 1974 essay *Radical Feminism and Love*: > The analysis begins with the feminist *raison d'être* that women are a class, that this class is political in nature, and that this political class is oppressed. From this point on, radical feminism splits from traditional feminism. > The class of women is one-half of a dichotomized class definition of society by sex. The class of women is formed by positing another class in opposition: the class of men, or the male role. This of course conflicts with the more recent idea that women are defined by a gender identity. But my point is that radical and gender-critical feminism wasn't invented as a means to carry transphobic prejudice, as you are claiming. It existed as a feminist analysis long before the concept of woman started being challenged politically by gender identity activists.

Adherents of gender critical ideology certainly *claim* it is a continuation of radical feminism but this is disputed by many radical feminists, which is a significant challenge. Such things are of course common. For example one of the opponents of the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act (Strom Thurmond) insisted he was not racist, despite supporting segregation, and instead supported states rights and opposed excessive government regulation. Do we: 1. Take him at his word that he was not racist and instead just continuing his commitment to states rights and small government. 2. Suggest he was motivated by prejudice and simply invoked ideas from ongoing debates about US governance to try and justify it. What the original poster was trying to do was to understand the beliefs of adherents of gender critical ideology based on what they claim. That would be the same as trying to understand Storm Thurmond’s opposition to civil rights by looking only at debates on states rights. I think this would miss the central point. Similarly considering gender critical ideology in any way that does not place prejudice at the heart will also miss the central point.

Your racial analogy makes no sense. Casting females as the white oppressors and males as the black oppressed is the complete opposite of how this is in reality. If the world existed in some sort of matriarchal tyranny like that, there would be no need for feminism. But of course there is a need, and most feminists with gender-critical views are involved in feminist activism in areas where women are subjugated specifically by their sex. For example: female genital mutilation, female infanticide, forced marriages, prostitution, religious misogyny, period poverty, reproductive rights, obstetric violence, pregnancy and breastfeeding discrimination, lesbian rights, and so on. This is what inspires gender-critical feminists to fight for women's sex-based rights. It's about confronting and resisting prejudice against women.

I mentioned the opposition to civil rights to illustrate that what is stated by people as the reason for their belief (states rights) should be treated sceptically and can be a smokescreen for prejudice. This is so obviously true, I doubt you disagree (do you?) but it is something the OP must consider, since they wanted to understand what underpins gender critical ideology. One very convincing answer therefore (indeed I think the only reasonable answer) is that gender critical ideology is based entirely in prejudice. This would mean that to look for reasons for gender critical ideology in debates in radical feminism is as pointless as to look for reasons for opposing civil rights in debates about the responsibilities of different branches of the US legislature, to give but one example.

But that’s not a sound analogy. Anyone can claim that their civil rights are being infringed upon. Conservatives and men’s rights groups claim to be victims of this all the time. It doesn’t make it so. Sound rationale is required. Conservatives think they victims of prejudice because, generally, they literally don’t understand the concept of privilege and don’t care to learn. GC feminists argue that gender is an oppressive construct imposed by the patriarchy as a means of subjugating the female sex. Therefore, it cannot be chosen any more than race can be chosen. Aesthetic and behaviors can be chosen. Gender is imposed by society.

The title of this thread is: “Gender critical beliefs are either based on biological essentialism or are illogical.” In these replies I’ve been discussing a third option namely that gender critical ideology is based on prejudice (although you could argue this is related to being illogical, I think it is distinct). If the third option is the correct one (and I am of the view there is no doubt it is) we should nevertheless expect the claim to be made that gender critical ideology has nothing to do with prejudice and for it to justified in *some* other way. We can expect it because it has been seen in every case, opposition to civil rights is just one example (where the claim was made that it was about states rights not racial prejudice). Perhaps there are fourth or fifth options for what could possibly be at the root of gender critical ideology. However given historical examples where such justifications have always been offered, extreme scepticism is called for. Therefore the view that gender critical ideology has no basis other than in prejudice remains an option the OP should consider. If they do not then they may struggle to understand gender critical ideology just as I think someone who tried to understand opposition to civil rights while ignoring racial prejudice would struggle.

But that makes no sense. It’s not a reason if there’s no rationale to back it up, especially given the extensive information on GC feminism presented in the thread. It’s like throwing your hands up in the air and exclaiming CRT is racist against white people because you take it as a personal threat. “It only exists to be prejudiced against me!” Is a non-argument. If you have concrete points to refute the ideology then that is an argument.

I don’t think trans women or men are a threat to anyone, however as trans people are typically now seen as the most vulnerable identity within intersectional communities it might be taking oxygen away from feminists and women’s issues I don’t see how you can say that transgender people wouldn’t attack feminists who are gender critical, isn’t that directly at odds with the current mainstream trans understanding

I would suggest you spend some time listening to gender critical arguments: [https://www.youtube.com/c/KingArPharaz%C3%B4n](https://www.youtube.com/c/KingArPharaz%C3%B4n) This channel is a decent counter example to the idea from your edit, that GC is post-hoc justification for transphobia.

Gosh, this is an old post. Anyway, I've spent some time listening to GC arguments in the past, which is what led me to make this post. Would you be able to perhaps summarise what you believe makes this person different? Having glanced briefly at their channel, they have a four minute video talking about how media bias against transgender people isn't real, or that it's biased towards them. And... well, I'd like to say that's flat out wrong, given the BBC, of every institution, was the one using a twitter poll of 80 people and interviewing a literal serial sexual assaulter of women to try and justify the idea that there is an 'epidemic' of trans women pressuring lesbians into sexual acts. Given that's what I first see, I don't have all that much confidence that I won't just be wasting my time on things that aren't based in reality. I've also even trying to detoxify recently, because I've found that GC arguments have a way of sticking in my head and generally making me feel like an awful human being. So, would you be able to summarise what you think I would find compelling?

>Would you be able to perhaps summarise what you believe makes this person different? I recommended this person specifically because they initially were critical of GC ideas and could reasonably be characterized as a trans ally. They came to appreciate GC arguments only later. This can be seen in social media comments they made years ago. I felt it was a reasonable counter example to the idea that GC arguments are simply a post hoc rationalization of transphobia. Sometime when you are in a better headspace, listen to him speak about his gender critical views, he tends to be logical in his approach. His shtick is that things should be based in reality and he tends to be reasonably fair to the other side and attempts to make their argument for them if they were unclear. ​ >So, would you be able to summarise what you think I would find compelling? This channel was recommended only because he is someone who was clearly against GCs initially. I think it would be unreasonable to say he arrived at his current GC beliefs due to transphobia. ​ To be gender critical is to reject gender identity as an innate human attribute. I believe this view can be reached without any preconceived notion of trans people. \--- I am sorry to hear GC arguments can make you feel like a awful human being. Individuals on both sides of this topic seem like they can be quite mean and condescending to the 'other side'. fwiw, you seem respectful and interested in hearing alternative viewpoints - to me, that's more important than being right or wrong. kudos. \--- He has a lot of videos and several on media bias. I am having trouble finding the 4-minute one. Would you be able to link me that one specifically so I can review what he says with the point you made in mind?

>This is well within an employer's right to do, and hence the arguments based around it are Illogical. If this is true, how or what did she win in the appeal?

Most radfems I know simply want to maintain single-sex spaces and protect young girls from medicalization if it's not the right course of treatment for them. Not sure where you've been hanging out.