UK universities have failed to protect gender-critical academics from bullying and career-threatening restrictions on their research
Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex.
My favourite tidbit however is this:
The latest report’s call for evidence received 140 responses, the majority from people agreeing with gender-critical views – defined as a belief that biological sex is unchanging and should not be conflated with gender.
It’s the “gender-critical” fucks that conflate sex with gender! That’s the whole point, they claim gender and sex is the same thing so you can’t change your gender cause you can’t change your chomosomes, etc.
It’s so incredibly dishonest to read “biological sex is unchanging and should not be conflated with gender” as support for gender critical views, I’m honestly speechless.
(Edit) I think what it really does is retconning the recent court ruling, as if it was always obvious that legal protections for women only apply to people who menstruate, and if trans women thought those protections apply to them it’s because they thought they can menstruate. It’s retrospectively saying, “it was never even debated whether those laws should consider sex or gender, it was always clear those laws are about biological sex and people who thought otherwise were conflating sex with gender”.
Astronomy Universities failed to protect flat-earth academics
History Universities failed to protect Holocaust deniers
Microbiology Universities failed to protect anti-vaxers
Hey, this is a super tiny point that in no way should take away from the rest of your post, but lots of people people absolutely can change whether they menstruate. I did, for instance, by getting my uterus removed.
It’s taking everything I have right now not to write a super long comment about how “biological sex” isn’t even a real fucking thing and gender is and always has been primary. Transphobes are wrong about everything, but trying to argue with them by saying “sex and gender are clearly different and should not be conflated” seems, to me, a losing battle. We have better (truer, more compelling) arguments at our disposal.
Thank you, I removed that mention. In the UK the discussion is mainly about excluding trans women from women-only spaces so that was on my mind, but of course it’s possible to stop menstruating.
I didn’t mean to say that “sex should not be conflated with gender” should be our primary argument, just that reading that statement as supporting gender-critical views is ludicrous because gender-critical means exactly opposite.
On the other hand, there is growing interest in trans women menstruating. The cycle of hormones for women is a monthly cycle where certain hormones spike & others fall, the “period” itself being a spike in a certain hormone that induces sleepiness & more acute emotion. This, in my non-scientific experience is true - as I personally have a rule:
“If I hate everyone around me, I’m hungry. If I hate myself, it’s time to shower. And if neither works, I’m on my period.”
Mainly because trans women might not bleed, persay, but they do go through hormonal cycles & it’s hard to tell without the telltale sign, as well as the lack of awareness around it. This can result in a monthly window where they experience menstrual symptoms. This includes cramping and physical symptoms as well.
There are a few studies about menstruation in transmasc individuals, but only about 2 or 3 on transfemmes menstruating. But those studies affirm the experiences that I’ve been having, along with talking with other transfemmes in my community.
Links to studies:
The Bloodless Period: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=cehsdiss
Do Trans Women Have Periods?: https://www.transvitae.com/do-trans-women-have-periods-understanding-hormonal-cycles/
“Just Because I Don’t Bleed, Doesn’t Mean I Don’t Go Through It”: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8040688/
Edit: Spacing & initial wording
Yeah, fair enough, the sentiment that sex and gender are totally different things that shouldn’t be conflated isn’t a gender critical argument (although I have seen gender critical people use it, cynically, of course), it’s a sentiment popularized by people who haven’t thought about sex and gender deeply enough to realize how meaningless it is. Many people who parrot it are supportive of trans people, even if they don’t really understand us very well.
I’m that well meaning person who doesn’t understand very well. :)
Do you mean that sex and gender are not the same thing but they are interconnected in our lived experience?
I mean something a little deeper than that. I literally mean that “sex” doesn’t exist as such. I know this is a strong claim, maybe unbelievable if you’ve never heard it before, but give me a second to explain.
What do we mean by “sex”?
Do we mean chromosomes? If so, there aren’t two sexes, there are a whole bunch, look at the list on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
Do we mean genitals? If so, again, there aren’t two distinct sexes, instead it’s more of a spectrum between “this is obviously a penis” and “this is obviously a vulva”. In fact, infants with genitals that can’t be neatly classified as a penis or a vulva frequently have surgery forced upon them and these (completely unnecessary) surgeries cause all sorts of issues later in life.
Do we mean hormonal profile? Again, it’s not as straightforward as testosterone = male, estrogen = female. The endocrine system is wildly complicated and the ratios of sex hormones people have can vary wildly. A person’s hormonal profile is also extremely changeable, which is something shitty right-wingers don’t want “biological sex” to be.
Do we mean size of gametes? This is the only option that even remotely makes sense, because it is true that in humans there are only two kinds of gametes, small gametes (sperm) and large gametes (eggs). Furthermore, there has never been a case of a human who produces both eggs and sperm, every human produces at most one of the two. But lots of people are completely infertile, producing no gametes. So if by “sex” we mean the size of gametes someone produces, then there are a whole lot of people who are sexless because they produce no gametes.
But ok, size of gamete produced almost works as a definition of “sex”. So maybe we could look at the gonads in people who don’t produce gametes and make a determination of their sex that way. Well, it turns out that doesn’t work either, because there are people with both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue, and sometimes these tissues are even mixed together in the same organ (called “streak gonads”).
So what are we left with? Nothing. There’s nothing to “sex”, it’s a meaningless term. Listen to any shitty right-winger try and define “biological sex” and you’ll hear them eventually say something like “a male is someone whose reproductive system is geared towards producing sperm”. But what does that mean? Fuck all, I’d say. What shitty right-wingers mean is “a female is someone who I think is a woman”. They’re all of them, to a person, talking about gender every time they say “biological sex”. They’ll deny it, but ask them about intersex people, or people with ambiguous genitalia or streak gonads, and you’ll get nonsense in response.
I’ve whiled away many a hilarious hour reading terfs (on ovarit, before it shutdown) arguing about which particular intersex people count as women. They never agree, there is no “party line”, it’s all vibes and always has been.
Does this make sense? Is this helpful?
This is immensely helpful, I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this.
If you don’t mind me asking, I’ve heard people say sex is a spectrum and what you described kinda sounds like that to me, why do you say sex is a meaningless term?
Sex as a spectrum is easier for me to grasp than the idea that biological sex just doesn’t exist at all.
I don’t like calling it a spectrum for the simple reason that it’s not clear to me that there’s always a sensible way to say someone is “more female” or “more male” than someone else.
Like, if someone is born with a penis and ovaries, are they closer to the “male” side of the spectrum or the “female” side? How do they compare to someone born with a vulva and testicles? Which of these people is more male? Which more female? Do we give primacy to what we can see outside the body (the genitals) or to the gonads, which we can’t see, but are much more important to gamete production than genitals?
I know these hypotheticals are rare, it’s extremely, extremely rare to be born with a penis and ovaries, or a vulva and testicles. But it is possible, and I just don’t see how we can reasonably say which is “more male” or “more female”.
Thank you so much for the patience!
The chromosome thing is so stupid since chromosomal males developing as female is literally a documented thing, and it’s not even that rare. How fucking stupid do you have to be to eat this shit up
They’re so worried about academic freedom that they’ll defend pro Palestine academics then right?
The article could pinpoint that Sullivan is a longtime member of an anti-trans group, or that her review was heavily criticised, but they didn’t. Fuck the Guardian, and fuck Terf Island
the privileged media class sees which way the wind is blowing and in their usual cowardice side with the fascists
many such casesIf we are to fight transphobia, we also need to understand what is gender-critical feminism and what is transphobic rhetoric disguised as feminism or activism.
It’s the “gender-critical” fucks that conflate sex with gender! That’s the whole point, they claim gender and sex is the same thing so you can’t change your gender cause you can’t change your chomosomes, etc. It’s so incredibly dishonest to read “biological sex is unchanging and should not be conflated with gender” as support for gender critical views, I’m honestly speechless.
No, they don’t. Gender-critical theory divides categorically sex and gender, which coincides with some folks in the TQ+ communities (not all). They believe that human brains are unisex, all brains. Therefore, for them, genders are just mumbojumbo (hence the name: critical of gender, of the idea of them even existing outside our imagination and conviction).
In consequence, they believe the word “woman” should only serve the purpose of identifying humans born with female biology or majority of it, and “man” should identify the male ones or with majority of it. That’s why they believe a male-body (AMAB to us) cannot be a “woman” in any relevant sense (for them, a female-body or AFAB to us), and that their acting or feeling as the “feminine” gender is just enacting that said mumbojumbo not understanding its need to be eradicated instead of performed and replicated. They are not against males or AMABs or “men” (for them) expressing their identities even if outside current societal expectations, but if gender is some kind of ghostly category and only sex exists and matters, then there’s no meaningful change there, they would still be males or AMABs or “men” (in their nomenclature) with no right to claim the female or AFAB or “women” (synonyms for them) spaces. That’s why they are always saying “sex-based and not gender-based [whatever]”.
In short, they are critical of the idea of gender and are in favor of abolishing genders, in our daily lives, in stores, in sports, etc. To them, brains are unisex and the only differences we have as humans around these topics are those around the sexes, so those are the ones that should dictate divisions (such as bathrooms or sports), if any (because some GC feminists want less divisions too, while others are okay with regular sex-based divisions).
So… they start very NB friendly and even TQ+ friendly (depending on the TQ+ because some trans folks do believe in gendered brains via intrauterine discharges of hormones or other theories). They are on a similar page to a lot of TQ+ with the unisex only-human-not-genders brain. The difference is that they believe we should eradicate genders instead of living a diversity of them or a classification or reclassification of them. They are okay with we would call “gender non-conforming” and any “gender expression”, but to them that’s just unisex humans being themselves, with only sex being important.
This is me speaking: I believe they won’t validate or give too much importance to others’ “gender”, only sex, and that’s the real collision with most of the QT+ folks.
That’s the real GC feminist theory. Then you have the transphobic and hateful people that hide their conservatism and gender essentialism behind a supposed GC feminism. Or the ones that start as GC and end up full on the hate wagon, I guess because they start hanging out with the wrong people (I think that was the case for J. K. Rowling).
This is me speaking again: I believe you can doubt someone’s gender is ontologically important, without disrespecting their personhood, their f+$ humanity. I mean, not that similar, dumb analogy, but I do not believe that my aunt is really feeling a god and really being chosen to live forever as she thinks she is, and I do think the world would be better without those religious beliefs, but I still respect and love my aunt and share time (even if it’s to listen to a Christian podcast). Sorry for the terrible analogy. I’m just trying to say that different ideologies can coexist, and choosing hatred instead of dialogue and understanding is a poor choice in my book.
As you can imagine, I concede to the article something: I am not in favor of banning real GC debates in universities. But transphobia? Get out of here.
Thank you for correcting me, I thought gender critical and TERF are the same thing.I’m struggling to understand some points though.
They believe that human brains are unisex, all brains. Therefore, for them, genders are just mumbojumbo (hence the name: critical of gender, of the idea of them even existing outside our imagination and conviction).
I’m sorry, I don’t get this. I thought gender is a social construct which by definition doesn’t exist outside human imagination and conviction… Also I haven’t heard e.g. trans women saying “I am a woman because I have a female brain”, I’m not sure what that would even mean.
What’s the difference between saying “there’s no such thing as gender, there’s only sex” and “gender is the same thing as sex”?
I believe you can doubt someone’s gender is ontologically important, without disrespecting their personhood, their f+$ humanity.
I think knowing the harm misgendering does, the pain of not being able to live as yourself reported by so many trans people, the violence they are willing to risk and the constant struggle they have to go through… I think knowing all that and still “doubting someone’s gender is important” is disrespecting their personhood and humanity.
(Edit) Wait the more I read your comment the less I understand. The quote below is shortened for readability:
They are not against “men” expressing their identities even if outside current societal expectations, but they would still be “men” with no right to claim the “women” spaces. To them, sexes should dictate divisions such as bathrooms or sports (some of them are okay with regular sex-based divisions).
OK so that’s blatant transphobia. Transphobes nowadays are generally not calling to murder all trans people, they “only” deny their validity, deny them access to gendered spaces, and so on.
If we are to fight transphobia, we also need to understand what is gender-critical feminism and what is transphobic rhetoric disguised as feminism or activism.
I am not in favor of banning real GC debates in universities. But transphobia? Get out of here.
From your description, gender-critical feminism is transphobic rhetoric disguised as feminism. I’m getting an impression you’re not a comrade.
I’m quite… uh… there’s must be a term in English. Like those kind of people that do not raise their voices enough, that do not do enough. In my case, not out of laziness. I’m too skeptical of ideas, to the point of knowing what the parties say, but not taking a stance. I marked the opinions I do have.
I believe that there’s like a theoretical field that should be open to speculation and investigation, and a daily life that has to be lived with the best ethics we can find and the suspension of judgement around the rest. Like I wouldn’t really know if gender exists as a biological reality or only a social construct; if the latter, I don’t know if it’s a social construct we should change, not change, abolish, cherish, etc. I’m kind of gender fluid or that’s what I think I am, so maybe I’m biased because I do not experience any attachment to my gender. And I do not see a problem in questioning these things because I do not think these questions should translate to how we treat people.
For example, you say that their belief that gender is not important is invalidating their identities, and I partially agree, but I believe GC people should respect pronouns and stuff because that’s just being respectful. It’s no different to someone asking a change in nicknames, or a joke not being made. It takes zero effort and it means a lot to the trans folk in question. It’s like “I do not believe gender should be a thing in our society, but to you it is important and I will acknowledge it as that in my treatment of you because I care for you”. And not in a patronizing way, but in a good faith way. And I would expect the same from other sides like how non-binary people can chat with binary trans folks (those who believe only in two genders). At the end of the day, we do not have the final answer, so trying to get solutions that serve us all should be our aim.
I understand the frustration that the trans community must feel when GC tell them, for example, that sports shouldn’t be gender-based but sex-based. And probably GC feel the same when others tell them that sports shouldn’t be sex-based but gender-based. It’s inevitable that they feel very strongly about this, but my naivety tells me that we need to make an effort to breath, to pause, and to find alternatives that makes the majority of us happy. Maybe sports based in something different (not sex and not gender). Bathrooms not divided by sex or gender either, maybe divided by something more functional (and something that helps with the disproportionate capacity given to one bathroom over the other nowadays).
Philosophy and science will continue to advance and change. In 300 years, people might look at us like we look at the “rationalists vs empiricists” debate or something like that. Just primitive frameworks that thanks to discoveries and better interpretations of the topic through the centuries are now obsolete and replaced by something in which we all had little points of truth and little points of nonsense.
We live so shortly, we know so little… I guess that’s where I’m coming. Like I’m not taking a firm stance on the theoretical because I honestly believe we are in a very difficult position, with little knowledge and little possibility of action. But on the practical, I would always defend people, from transphobia or otherwise. I wish for people to see their wills fulfilled as much as possible (and as long as they are not hurting others). In this case, I believe gender-based rights and words can exist alongside sex-based rights and different opinions. The major obstacle is not ideological but monetary, material. How can we have an AFAB-only club and a women-only club at the same time if capitalism is making it difficult to have even a single club? So I do not know if I’m a comrade in the communist sense, but I definitely agree with anticapitalism and I hope I do not affect the fight if I’m not actively helping it.
In Spanish people from all sides would call me «tibia» (warm, not quite cold and not quite warm). It’s an insult. I guess many would think that I cannot try to reconcile these kind of disagreements or contradictions, but that’s just what my insides tell me is correct and worth trying. I’m also like this in things like violent revolution (I’m hoping it’s not necessary like the standard Marxist believe) or veganism (in which animal suffering is not negotiable, but I think lab-meat or other alternatives might be a solution, temporary or permanent, while some vegans think it just incentives people to see animal meat and therefore animals as products still, but that’s why I’m open for it to be temporary).
Lol. Sorry, that’s a lot of text. I just wanted to present who I am honestly. As for the GC points, I do not know if I’m the correct person to try to explain it further, but I’ll try in another comment. I feel like I will distort it, but it’s a fun exercise at the same time (to try to be true to their texts).
Thank you for reading.
I’m quite… uh… there’s must be a term in English.
“Liberal”
I’m too skeptical of ideas, to the point of knowing what the parties say, but not taking a stance.
In 300 years, people might look at us like we look at the “rationalists vs empiricists” debate or something like that. Just primitive frameworks
We live so shortly, we know so little… I guess that’s where I’m coming. Like I’m not taking a firm stance on the theoretical because I honestly believe we are in a very difficult position, with little knowledge and little possibility of action.
So cool, so detached, and yet so wise.
I believe that there’s like a theoretical field that should be open to speculation and investigation
I believe GC people should respect pronouns and stuff because that’s just being respectful. It’s no different to someone asking a change in nicknames (…) And not in a patronizing way
And I would expect the same from other sides
I understand the frustration that the trans community must feel (towards) GC. And probably GC feel the same
At the end of the day, we do not have the final answer, so trying to get solutions that serve us all should be our aim.
I don’t have it in me to comment beside: free marketplace of ideas, enlightened centrism, tone policing, both sideism.
Calling for GC people to treat trans identities like nicknames but not in a patronising way takes the cake.
And I do not see a problem in questioning these things because I do not think these questions should translate to how we treat people.
That’s great for you! Of course these questions do translate to how trans people are treated but you don’t think they should so that’s ok.
In this case, I believe gender-based rights and words can exist alongside sex-based rights and different opinions. The major obstacle is not ideological but monetary, material. How can we have an AFAB-only club and a women-only club at the same time if capitalism is making it difficult to have even a single club?
Yeah the condition of trans people in the UK is totally caused by scarcity. Damn you capitalism, if not for you we’d have clubs for everyone! Unfortunately, under capitalism we barely have enough for cis people so… Sorry trans folks.
In Spanish people from all sides would call me «tibia» (warm, not quite cold and not quite warm). It’s an insult.
I should hope so
As for the GC points, I do not know if I’m the correct person to try to explain it further, but I’ll try in another comment.
No I’m fine, thanks.
Being a binary trans person does not mean that you ‘only believe in two genders’, it means that you personally identify with one of the two binary genders. A binary trans woman is not a TERF, she is a trans person who identifies with womanhood and is comfortable with that role. But ultimately nonbinary people and binary trans people have more in common than they have apart, because we are all subverting the established gender binary, whether it’s to traverse from one side to the other or to break out entirely. (And, as I said in my previous post, “nonbinary” and “trans” are not two distinct things - nonbinary people are included under the trans umbrella by default, and plenty of nonbinary people physically transition. I myself started out identifying as a binary trans person and then felt less like I needed to conform to the gender binary as my dysphoria diminished.)
There is some friction between binary trans people and nonbinary (trans) people, but IMO it is no different than some cis gays being biphobic towards cis bisexuals.
GC debates are thinly veiled transphobia lol, just like the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”.
One more thing:
I believe you can doubt someone’s gender is ontologically important, without disrespecting their personhood
As a trans person, I am speaking from experience when I say no you can’t.
As a nonbinary trans person, I’m going to have to disagree with pretty much this entire post.
-
First off, yes, TERFs do conflate sex and gender. They view gender when expressed as distinct from sex as something to be abolished - but that does not equate to them actually being critical of the idea of gender. TERFs believe in a world where AMAB people are men and AFAB people are women. (And intersex people get to be whatever their doctors / parents want at that particular moment.) That’s why TERFS are fine with trans mascs & butch cis women (among others) being kicked out from women’s restrooms - it has never been about sex. Any form of gender non-conformity is the enemy. “Sex-based differences” is a smokescreen for what TERFs actually want to do, which is return to an era where there was no difference between gender and sex.
-
The nonbinary and trans communities are not two distinct things. They can, and very frequently do, overlap. TERFs are fundamentally not NB friendly because they view all forms of non-conformity to one’s assigned gender as indicative of mental illness. They may humor nonbinary folk who are fine with being treated as woman-lite / man-lite, but it is only to weaponize them against the trans & nonbinary people they hate even more.
-
