welcome to the fest

Hello to anyone who read this !

I'm an old timer of Sinfest but a pure newbie on this forum and I've recently discovered the point of view of radical feminism on society.

While I find it rather interesting, there some things that fall out of my grasp. Particularly on the notion of gender.

So while some current of feminism tend to go on such views as "there may be more than 67 genders", from what I've understood the radFem line is closer to "there is no gender".

So... (and I'm sorry if I offend someone with the following question, I like to push ideology to their boundary the understand them better) if there is no such thing as gender, but there is such things as wbw and that transgender female are not women, why using terminology such as "Man" and "Woman"?
Is this pure biological attributes? Is it men and women as defined by the role of the patriarchy? Or is it just pure semantics to be understood by all?

And if 'I'm allowing myself to push further, what about Hermaphrodite people, I.E. not men thinking there are women, but people with no clear biological sex, both sex (although I admit pure Hermaphrodite is extremely rare) or just some feature of one biological sex and some of the others. This person is by default outcasted of the "men" by the patriarchy, but if women as a social cost denied their existence as women too isn't it oppression too?

Anyway, thank you to those who may take time to enlighten me.

P.S.: Sorry for any spelling or grammatical error, I'm already struggling to write correctly in my native language

When people here use "man" and "women" they mean biological male and female people. I imagine because some intersex people are surgically "corrected" early in life they are then socialized male or female, and some have complex upbringing. Intersex/hermaphrodite people are such a small percentage of the population people here just don't talk about them. The word oppression in this forums context means men extracting resources from women. This is done by one huge group to another.

Intersex is such a small population that oppression would be the wrong word, but I think most people here would say that individuals are for sure treated terribly as a side effect of gender.

Think about racism: slavery and imperialism and war were the primary systems of resource extraction for racism, the social construction of whiteness, to justify. It would be silly to ask questions like "what about mixed people?" to those working to abolish whiteness today because that's not the point-- though we can learn about the oppessor class by looking to how it relates to the idea of people who can't easily be identified as human vs. exploitable object.

Ok, that make sense in deed. Thanks for the clarification.

But what about the multiplicity of gender that some people are talking about? Is a gender thing (sorry I'm reeeeeeeaaaaaally not documented in this subject ^^). And if not, then... Is there something "in stead" of gender? Or is biology should be the rule of thumb?

I'm having trouble to associate the dichotomy of "gender is not a thing" and "gender hurt". I understand that it's because I don't understand it but still ...

Sorry if some of my questions may seem stupid, although the blue pill has been swallowed a long time ago, I've literally discovered radical feminism and their view a week ago.

betterway wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:23 am

When people here use "man" and "women" they mean biological male and female people. I imagine because some intersex people are surgically "corrected" early in life they are then socialized male or female, and some have complex upbringing. Intersex/hermaphrodite people are such a small percentage of the population people here just don't talk about them. The word oppression in this forums context means men extracting resources from women. This is done by one huge group to another.

Intersex is such a small population that oppression would be the wrong word, but I think most people here would say that individuals are for sure treated terribly as a side effect of gender.

Think about racism: slavery and imperialism and war were the primary systems of resource extraction for racism, the social construction of whiteness, to justify. It would be silly to ask questions like "what about mixed people?" to those working to abolish whiteness today because that's not the point-- though we can learn about the oppessor class by looking to how it relates to the idea of people who can't easily be identified as human vs. exploitable object.

I agree.

I think some people here think they know what is going on when others talk about "my gender identity" and some people here think they can't know what each individual actually is referring to or doing. A personality that doesn't conform gender roles or conforms strongly to the gender role meant to the opposite sex; trauma; and mental illness are three ideas many will look at trans people and conclude are happening. The analysis varies from person to person! But I think most people here would agree that there's no such thing as an "authentic self" or magical soul that has an inevitable personality, masculinity or femininity. We are constantly changing. The perception is that people of current feminist and LGBT politics are moving themselves and others in and out of boxes, on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Gender roles, and the male violence that they enable and are enforced with, is the iceberg being ignored.

tl;dr answer: Gender roles hurt, gender identity is not a thing.

Trans politics says "some people are non-binary, some people are men and women, masculinity, femininity and ambiguity comes from within. That's gender." The counter is that "masculinity and femininity came from men exploiting women, to justify and continue it. That's gender" The first "gender" idea what poeple here see as delusion, the second is the oppression.

The rule of thumb for what? It's ok to ask questions but it's hard without more details. They aren't stupid questions!

betterway wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:53 am

The rule of thumb for what? It's ok to ask questions but it's hard without more details. They aren't stupid questions!

Hi,

what I meant by that is, when considering an individual, his/her/its (or any other gender neutral pronouns I don't know) gender is bound to be the same as his biological sex. That meant a trans woman is a man in regard of his "position" on the scale of gender, but we still can be polite call him a she? Am I correct in this interpretation? (I do understand that we could not be polite and call him a he but I like to be polite)

"Gender identity matching biological sex" is an idea that won't make sense to a lot of people here. Gender identity is not considered real and even if it was, what would it mean to "match" one's sex?

I think some people who imagine a world without gender (like Judith Lorber's essay "Imagining a World Without Gender") think the only pronoun anyone would sensible be called would be "they". Imagine if pronouns were split between white people and non-white people; it would be weird because race shouldn't be important and whiteness is socially constructed anyway...

Calling transwomen "he" is done as a defiant act by women who feel they were brought up to be politely compliant in the face of all of men's demands. It's to say "actually this is a male person who was raised by his culture to exploit women." If they are male, even liberal, progressive, gay, bi, or otherwise nonconforming people can't be trusted because of so much sexual and other abuse they do in feminist work and spaces.