What is Gender-Critical Feminism? (And why is everyone so mad about it?)

[@ruthless2096]

having spent a while watching videos whoch critique 'TERFs' I can't help but think this is about intellectual laziness and dishonesty. You will never see such an unbiased and objective run down on those sneering, smug videos. thanks for this x

[@hollylawford-smith]

thank you ruth!

[@13e11even11]

I believe gender critical feminism to be more about the protection of women and feminism’s desires then about trans people. In fact I believe that the insertion of trans argument to be a distraction, in order to push a misogynist agenda, against women, and feminism.

[@UteHeggenTranswidowHeals]

as ex wife of M2F, who is finally starting to recover from narcissistic abuse, I very appreciate this analysis. I have literally been told that I must stop telling my own personal history with accuracy. My own autobiography is being stolen from me.

[@hollylawford-smith]

i'm really sorry to hear that. what country are you based in? if it's australia feel free to email me, i might be able to interview you. solidarity!

[@UteHeggenTranswidowHeals]

@@hollylawford-smith I don't have your email. Here is me: [e-mail]. I am willing to go on record, be recorded. The narcissism of Trans Rights origin needs outing.

[@tonidunn3149]

I resent being called anti trans because i want to protect my rights as a woman and my 8 year old grandaughters rights. I dont want to push my views onto others so why am i having trans rights put before my rights. And the word identify is not biology

[@DerLiesl]

I really appreciate your work and your courage to stand up for real-world feminism from a philosophy perspective. I love your work!

[@houndnobleman876]

I actually work at the University of Melbourne and have studied gender and sexuality for years, but I only heard of you today due to posters. Keep up the great work!

[@hollylawford-smith]

oh amazing! we should connect sometime (after the drama dies down and that wouldn't put you at risk...)

[@houndnobleman876]

@@hollylawford-smith Good idea. I've only just started a postdoc research fellowship. I shall try to reach out to you sometime.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@houndnobleman876 please do! and i hope this doesn't put you off, unimelb is great in so many respects!

[@pseudonamed]

Thank you for the great history lesson, this makes a lot of sense.. it's clear that in the past most feminists were GC (though that term didn't exist yet because very few people conceived of themselves as trans and most were not demanding to be accepted as exactly the same as the opposite sex, so it wasn't really a big topic within the movement). I think a lot of younger feminists have never actually learned about past feminists or read their work and are missing out on a lot of the feminist ideas that were developed through their hard work for years.

[@hollylawford-smith]

I think so too! I've actually started another channel with a colleague trying to reintroduce some of their ideas, I think it would help so much if young women just knew a bit more about them, and the long history of women's oppression. (the channel is 'feminist heretics', in case you're interested!)

[@pseudonamed]

Holly Lawford-Smith cool, will have to check it out

[@ekkso5630]

You're right, it's not like ideas are refined and improved over time or anything.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@ekkso5630 there's a big difference between ideas being refined and improved, and ideas being completely abandoned, demonised, caricatured, misrepresented, etc. which is what has happened to radical feminism. and it's sad, because this erases a lot of important and interesting work done by women.

[@meelatdavis]

Thanks this is a great primer! It's been difficult to find a good descriptive overview of Gender Critical feminism.

[@hollylawford-smith]

glad you found it helpful! i had the same problem when i first joined the debate!

[@rooruffneck]

This is outstanding and very helpful. Saw you chat with Mr.Girl. Great conversation.

[@hollylawford-smith]

glad you found it helpful! thank you!

[@victormonteiro2024]

Hi Professor. If you don’t mind me being very straight to the point, I struggled with two moments in the lecture. At 41:40, you said that gender-critical feminism would argue that a trans person claiming to be a woman is actually not a woman by saying “that is not what female means”. But then what means to be female? Similarly you argue at 43:52 that trans people should differ female experience as this is a women-only experience. I know that at ( 35:34 ) you demonstrated that there is an overdertermination of what defines woman/female - in your argument about membership. But wouldn’t that contradict what is said later? Have I misunderstood the concept? Thank you 😁

[@estelaluciau.v3450]

You are a brilliant speaker and this is truly a great lecture. Thank you for your work. Take care, Estela. :)

[@hollylawford-smith]

thank you so much, estela! i'm really glad you liked it!

[@pseudonamed]

You make some really good points about intersectionality. I’ve always felt that if we are truly intersectional, we must admit that sex and gender (by “gender” here I mean gender expression/identity/attraction) are 2 separate, but overlapping areas of oppression. So female born people are oppressed in sex-based ways, and all people who don’t conform to gender roles/expressions are oppressed in gender-based ways. So.. a lesbian could experience oppression based on being female, as well as based on being homosexual. A trans woman could experience oppression based on bigotry against her gender non-conformity, OR if she passes as female would experience SOME sex-based oppressions due to being read as female, but not experiencing for example oppression based on reproduction. There are oppressions that only trans people experience, and others only female people experience, and any individual could experience some things from both spheres. But they are NOT the same and therefore need all types of oppression to be fought against in a way that doesn’t prioritise any one oppression over others.

[@hollylawford-smith]

completely agreed! i don't know why some feminists are so keen on erasing these very important distinctions.

[@youcantdiealonewithcats]

I disagree with calling trans women "trans women", whilst calling women "female people"; I also believe "female born people" is a bit of an unnecessary term because all female-born people are female, and thus "female people" or "women" is sufficient. Saying "female born people", while I'm sure not intended, could suggest to some that there are other ways to "become" female, beyond just being female, which is a material fact of reality for women. That said, I agree with the majority of what you've said here, and you've made some great points. Sex-based oppression and gender-based oppression are two very different things, although they can and often do intersect because they are founded on the same beast (misogyny;patriarchy). Many trans or gender activists wish to erase the distinction between women and trans women, though we do not see the same thing happening between men and trans men. I believe this has everything to do with the fact that we are still living in an extremely misogynistic and patriarchal world, and attempting to solve gender expression discrimination (based entirely on sex-based oppression and misogyny) BEFORE solving the actual misogyny on which it was based, is futile. Because of this, we see female language being targeted with such force, but not male language. We see a policing of women's speech, not men's. We see men still being called "men", but women being called "uterus havers", "cervix bearers", "menstruators", "bleeders", "non men". We still have male-exclusive prisons, and male-exclusive sports, and male-exclusive bathrooms; but fewer and fewer female-exclusive prisons, sports, and bathrooms. Further ensuring that those who need sex-protected spaces the most of all, do not have them. I think the reason everyone is suddenly so quick to solve gender discrimination is precisely because it CAN affect males. That is far more worthy, apparently, than correcting thousands of years worth of women's sex-based oppression, which most males (straight, gay, trans or not) generally can't be bothered to care about. Anything that doesn't include or center males is deemed not only unworthy, but bad, "bigoted", "mean".

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@youcantdiealonewithcats on the language thing, i agree with you, but in public stuff i try to use language about which there can be no confusion, rather than use language that different groups understand in different ways. i guess i'm valuing clarity over politics in this respect. but i personally think woman = female, and where i have the space to explain and defend my usage, i use it that way. thanks for your thoughts!

[@miriamlana833]

@@youcantdiealonewithcats I never heard cis men exclude trans men from anything. Where do you see such things, or even think trans men are not accepted as men by cis men generally? I also have never seen anyting anti trans men in the MRA movement, such a thing as TEMRA (trans exclusionary men's rights activism) doesn't exist at all.

[@amyashlyn9293]

@@youcantdiealonewithcats i am a trans women and I am a female person

[@pilar2929]

You're one of the bravest people I know. Thanks.

[@dimcgee1726]

Thank you for the great lecture, Holly! And for the cracking debate in the comments! Both were extremely enlightening, not to mention entertaining! Subscribed.

[@hollylawford-smith]

thanks so much! glad you enjoyed it all!

[@euanmacleod3738]

Really really interesting and well articulated video - thanks so much for taking the time to make it, and braving the inevitable fragile, insecure anger that it sadly invites. It must get tedious getting straw-manned into oblivion the moment you dare to speak, by people who never had any sincere interest in hearing a single word you uttered to begin with, but massive respect for your enduring patience and rational discourse on the matter despite all the heat. I'm curious what your views are about how gender ought to be dealt with or introduced when raising a child. By that I mean, to what extent early conceptions about gender/gender roles/gender identity/gender expectations are informed by things like the clothes we give children to wear, or the toys we give them to play with, or the designs we put on their curtains, lunchboxes and so on. It seems to me this stuff plays a meaningful role in laying the foundations for things like ideas around gender identities, even if by accident, but it seems like stormy waters to navigate ethically. Maybe this is an unwieldy question to even unpick... even if there's any credible reading material on the subject you could recommend, I would be grateful.

[@hollylawford-smith]

thank you! i don't know of anything about socialisation and gender identity in the trans (subjective identity) sense, but there's heaps about socialisation and gender norms & stereotypes, one book that's great because it surveys a lot of different empirical literature is cordelia fine's delusions of gender. in short, those things do make a difference - they send kids into gender tribes, and the tribes build up their own practices, which entrenches differences. her conversation with julia gillard on gillard's podcast is also excellent, they talk a bit about the book. cheers!

[@euanmacleod3738]

@@hollylawford-smith Thanks so much, I will definitely check out both. That certainly makes sense as an outcome, and jeez doesn't that make parenthood a minefield of constructing, prescribing, or modelling gender norms, almost no matter what we do! But I guess parents can course correct the entire time, and check the child's budding world view if they ever voice a needless gender stereotype/expectation, and continuously offer them alternative options to things that play to those stereotypes.

[@blueislandgirl_]

Is this written anywhere? There is a lot here! I'd like to read it, not just hear it. Thx!!!!

[@hollylawford-smith]

hello! sure thing, i've just posted it to medium for you! here's a link: medium.com/@aytchellis/what-is-gender-critical-feminism-and-why-is-everyone-so-mad-about-it-b21d8f006614?source=friends_link&sk=4b82824a8c7ddef33695f7ffae78be1e

[@blueislandgirl_]

@@hollylawford-smith Thank you so much Holly!

[@NeoDiscoBall]

@@hollylawford-smith People are so mad about it that medium placed your account under investigation & won't allow readers access to it

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@NeoDiscoBall haha yes. so, quite mad. all the essays are available at my website though! at least...

[@etanaf]

Unfortunately..... ERROR 410 This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules. Is it posted elsewhere?

[@Susanmugen]

Thank you for fairly representing your opponents and participating in good faith. I appreciate hearing the perspective, appreciate the focus on feminism instead of transphobia. I don't know if you're exclusionary type, and I transitioned as a teen, so I won't say more here in case my input is unwelcome. I'm coming at things from an intersectional feminism perspective.

[@hollylawford-smith]

your input is welcome!

[@Susanmugen]

@@hollylawford-smith I already watched the video and I'm not watching again to go point by point, but I remember we agree on a heck of a lot. Some things I remember wanting to say... A few minutes in you said something like "they don't sincerely think that's what GenderCritical is..." or something. It totally IS how it's perceived. Not a political move to try and persuade the public, like all that stuff quoted at the start is the perception. I'd note that forums like TERFISAFETISH and GenderCynical are still up, but GenderCritical is not, so that creates a particular selection bias in how GenderCritical is remembered. I noticed you didn't go out of your way to misgender or anything like that, but when we hear "tim" for women or "tif" for men, we definitely feel the whole point is to misgender and do transphobia. As if short for Timothy and Tiffany. If anything, the rep is worse in other feminist circles, like people saying "TERs don't deserve the F since they gave that up to go right wing". I'm totally down to destroy the patriarchy. Burn it. It has been unkind to me and so many sisters. The trans men are not especially keen to sacrifice newfound male privilege, tho some do. But having seen both sides, it's hard not to be some kind of feminist. I remember the video spend a chunk of time discussing sex as a caste. An employer in lake Tahoe told me at my second job that I was passed up for a promotion because "it's not appropriate for a woman to make more than her man". I couldn't claim male privilege by whipping out a penis, tho I had one back then. Whatever the "caste" system is at play, trans women are subjected to it. Passing ones like me are treated like property, because cisnormative society assumes us cisgender, but ones that don't pass are subject to the same value judgements, but treated like crap. Saying some cringe inducing trans woman is "not a woman" will not make her accepted by cis men. If she instead said "oh male pronouns please, I'm just a man who crossdresses" that person would be told, "be a man!" or "you're not a real man" The gender role and right to change our body to match our brains matter to us. But we totally get the sexist bullshit. So much focus on trans women, but trans men they're less focused on, in part because of philosophical gender essentialist ideas that would paint all cis women inferior. Example"oh no REAL woman could ever compete with a trans woman, because women are inferior to men". = Sports bans. Oh no REAL woman has the intellectual capacity to compete with a trans woman. So trans women banned from World Chess Federation and if a person presumed cis female comes out as trans later, the trophy is taken back. Because they'll consider a trans man chess champion a man, if it means they can say women are inferior. It's completely inconsistent, because it's about saying women are less capable in all ways. On my body my choice, we want protection back for abortion and also our hormones and surgery protected the same. I had other stuff to say but forgot. Definitely best GenderCritical I've ever seen in KZbin. Very informed. I learned some stuff. Keep up the good work (tho there are areas of disagreement I'm sure) When it comes to

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@Susanmugen thanks, i'm glad you got something out of the video! just to follow up on one thing, for now: you said "whatever the "caste" system is at play, trans women are subjected to it". i'm curious about whether you think this is true for the entire spectrum of transwomen, from passing transsexuals to merely self-identifying transwomen who present as men ("transwomen don't owe you femininity"). i can't see how it could possibly be true that obviously male transwomen are subject to what women are subject to. do you just mean that they're subject to gender policing, as "inadequate" men? if so, i would agree with that. but then i wonder whether we could agree that there are two distinct movements, one broader and one narrower, the former about gender norms for everyone, the latter about the impact of feminine gender norms on women (which is what i think feminism is, even though most of the mainstream now think it's the former project)...

[@katyjean862]

@26:17 If you're wondering, "Why does there need to be a women's movement."

[@etanaf]

I went to the link on Medium and it was an error page. Is the text posted online anywhere else?

[@hollylawford-smith]

oh good reminder. i got banned from medium, so it's now at my website under 'public essays', hollylawford-smith.org. i'll update the description.

[@1ClassicLady1]

Thank you so much for your work on this.

[@GeneralArmorus]

What are the practical consequences of all this complicated theory?

[@hollylawford-smith]

hello! i would say, that people see that the gender critical opposition to self-identification for legal sex has a solid theoretical basis (i.e. can be argued for with many persuasive reasons), and that they understand the history of the position as it relates to the wider feminist movement. ultimately with the aim of shifting some people's perception of the gender critical position as an 'extremist' or morally unacceptable view to a normal view that we debate in a normal way.

[@slydogamigo2303]

The practical consequences are conservative social policy in regards to transgender rights. So-called "bathroom bills" that limit restroom access based on sex as determined at birth are supported by conservatives and Gender Critical feminists for largely the same reasons. The same can be said for restrictions on legal self-ID more broadly or the accessibility of transgender healthcare to minors. Because GC is such a minority on the left, the only way they have of meaningfully affecting change on this issue is voting for Tories and Republicans, who also want to limit abortion access, curtail sex education, and oppose paid maternity leave (things that almost all feminists agree are bad). This is the real reason why the left sees Gender Critical as a threat - their political agenda necessarily involves electing candidates whose policies will negatively impact ALL minorities - trans people, female people, the poor, immigrants, Jews and Muslims, and the rest.

[@GeneralArmorus]

@@slydogamigo2303 sounds about right

[@fX-rd3dn]

@@slydogamigo2303 no, you’re in fact mistaken..the only people seeking to legally regulate restrooms are conservatives and transgender activists.

[@just-so-were-crystal-clear5245]

@@slydogamigo2303 I can't speak for all GCF, perhaps some are dumb enough to vote tory/Republican. But i think the political agenda/the way they attempt to meaningfully create change is what you see Holly doing here: teaching and persuading on their position.

[@mbartmess295]

Incredibly informative, smart and articulate - thank you so much. By the way, once, a long time ago, I studied for a short while with T-Grace Atkinson when she taught at Fairhaven College and the U. of Washington. Interesting times. Brilliant woman.

[@hollylawford-smith]

oh wow! i'm so jealous, i would love to meet her!

[@just-so-were-crystal-clear5245]

I'm glad to have found content from a professional philosopher carefully dissecting these issues/ideas that have been steamrolled in the media. Thanks for making

[@nickofhelmet]

Great work Holly. Very good for teaching purposes!

[@hollylawford-smith]

thank you, nick!

[@courttttttt]

Omg thank you. I’m a woman but now that liberal/ modern feminism has such a chokehold on the world I don’t know how to identify anymore. Maybe radical feminists might be the group for me? Could you go over the modern views of radical feminists/ gender critical. And media and social to follow to learn more.

[@hollylawford-smith]

there's a bit more detail on the radical feminists in my book, which i'm happy to send you if you email me. i can also recommend some other books.

[@courttttttt]

@@hollylawford-smith omg yes. Your email isn’t in the description. Could you reply with it. If you’re uncomfortable with that you could do it real quick then delete it.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@courttttttt oh sorry, i figured you would google it. [e-mail]

[@courttttttt]

@@hollylawford-smith thank you

[@criso6681]

This talk needs to be heard by every teenage girl.

[@sarawalsh4660]

Well done! Thank you

[@youcantdiealonewithcats]

Thanks for this great summary of gender critical feminism. I've watched it before but keep coming back to it. I need to remember to share this link with anyone either confused about GC feminism, or those who misrepresent or slander GC feminists/feminism. I try to explain to trans activists (may as well read as "pro gender activists" at this point) that feminism has almost always involved critiquing or criticizing gender/stereotypes/roles/restrictions based on sex. The vast majority of feminists throughout history and modern times have been gender critical in some way. "Gender" is a (or THE*) structure/construct/social hierarchy/tool which has kept women oppressed, on the basis of sex. As many have said, "our sex is why we're oppressed, gender is how we're oppressed". Why on earth would feminists (women's rights activists!!) NOT be critical of the very system that serves to keep women oppressed?! That which is extremely harmful to women and girls? That which keeps us restricted in boxes-- ALL of us, but especially women/girls?? And yet I see trans activists who also happen to identify as "feminists" making youtube videos titled "how gender critical feminism is harmful to trans people". Okay, gender is harmful to *everyone*, including trans people, but especially women- HALF OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION...But...We should just be quiet, because criticizing this thing that is harmful to women, is in itself "harmful" to trans ID'd people, who make up a fraction of less than 1% of the population? I don't understand this logic. How does the perceived "harm" to a teeny tiny fraction of primarily male people in the west (on basis if their feeling or identity) outweigh the obvious, tangible, long documented and ongoing harm being done to half of the world's population, on the basis of sex/reality? I often wonder if trans activists either a) have no knowledge of feminist history and/or b) despise the feminists of history, since by their new queer theorist standards, are almost all "TERFs/swerfs/transphobes/literal nazis".

[@hollylawford-smith]

i think it's true that they just don't know the history, they think feminism started with judith butler and that her ideas were original. i have never seen a gender identity activist own up to what their ideology does to the earlier understanding of gender, or argue positively for why what it does is acceptable. i see a lot of them insisting there is no conflict of interest, only gains to trans people. i think this is the point we have to really work on getting across to the public: it is just not true that there was the gender binary (tied to sex) and now there's a new view, gender as identity. rather, there was already a 'new view', gender as socialisation (tied to sex), and it was a lot better and did a lot more important political work for a much greater number of people, than 'gender as identity' does. in a contest between these two views, gender as socialisation wins hands down, and we're giving it up when we treat gender as an identity!

[@XKenny77]

@@hollylawford-smith What we now call "transactivism" or "gender ideology" has literally no content at all. It's as if the entire thing is the fever dream of an 8chan troll. They argue that every word you use means the opposite of what it means. Everything they do, they accuse others of doing. (That's DARVO, but I'm not even sure they're clever enough to know that or to be doing it consciously.) They lie about literally everything. They employ literal doublethink at all times because they know their claims fall apart under the very slightest scrutiny. Anyone who says "transwomen are women" and means it should be regarded as either an idiot who doesn't know what words mean, a lunatic who doesn't know what reality is, or a cruel, twisted, misogynistic troll. There is no such thing as good faith amongst TRAs. There is only mocking laughter.

[@lucyyockey]

Could you explain which intersex individuals are considered by you to be women?

[@hollylawford-smith]

i think it makes the most sense to use 'woman' as synonymous with (adult human) female, so the intersex individuals who are women will be all those who have gone some way down the developmental pathway to producing large gametes. for most intersex conditions, this is unproblematic (it does not sort people in a way that clashes with their self-conception). the hardest case is individuals with CAIS, who come out as male on the understanding i've just given, and that does clash with their self-conception, and their lived experience (assigned female at birth, raised female, socialised / treated as female since birth, etc.) i don't know of any gender critical feminist who has any objection to considering such individuals as women. as you are probably aware, our interest is not intersex people, but rather self-identifying trans people, activists for whom weaponise intersex people in order to try to justify treating all/any males with 'gender identities' as women. needless to say, being observed male at birth, raised male, socialised / treated as male since birth, etc. but merely identifying as a woman bears no interesting resemblance to a CAIS individual. (which i assume is why you're asking). cheers!

[@lucyyockey]

@@hollylawford-smith So may I ask then, because I don’t believe you ever explicitly covered it in the video, why you feel trans women should not be considered (at least those who do have dysphoria as diagnosed by a psychiatrist, opt to treat it with hormones/surgeries, and assimilate into society in the “woman” gender with conventional behaviors and presentation, so much so as to be indistinguishable from women to the point that they’re treated as women by virtually everyone in society and experience female oppression)?

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@lucyyockey i'm not actually sure that i don't think they should. it's more that there's no principled way to distinguish those people (e.g. early transition gender dysphoric transsexuals who pass as women and so have experience in being treated as women) given the current massively broad understanding of 'trans'. (i am not committed on this point - maybe early childhood sex socialisation plays a significant role and so this creates a difference that feminists have reason to worry about). but in any case, what gender critical feminists are most opposed to is legislation that treats self-identification alone as sufficient to legal status as a woman / female, and that opposition comes from the fact that the gender identity activists are pushing for inclusion literally on the basis of identity regardless of body or experience. i think if it were only the kinds of people you have in mind here, we'd be having a very different conversation (evidenced, perhaps, by the fact that this has really only become a huge issue *since* the shift from actual transition to mere identification. feminists in the past were not having this conversation, because there were only small numbers of trans people and they were more like you described).

[@lucyyockey]

@@hollylawford-smith I see! I think this position is perfectly understandable and as a trans person myslelf, I’d just like to say that the majority of us completely agree with that sentiment. I think the disconnect between the general public and this ideology is that they believe it completely denies transgender identities altogether, rather than simply urging people to understand the nuances of gender and the psychiatric conditions that constitute one’s gender, and how these affect women societally. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Thank you!

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@lucyyockey that's good to hear! it's quite hard to get a grip on how much of the trans community actually accepts the more extreme (identity only) stuff, so it's interesting (and positive, to me) that that's your impression of the majority. when you say 'this ideology' you mean gender critical feminism, right? if so, then yes, i think i agree with that. i think the public still think trans means transsexual (roughly the person you described above) and so they think gender critical feminists are denying that those people are / can become women. and then this denial is demonized so much that they don't hear any of the nuance and never get to the questions that probably everyone would agree are really challenging, like, should a male-appearing merely self-identified transwoman doctor really have the right to do an intimate medical exam on a woman who requests a female doctor? or a similar security guard perform searches on females? or a similar patient be treated in a women's single-sex hospital ward? etc. etc. and if so, how is this not just blatantly preferencing the interests of males (with gender identities) over females, and assuming that accommdation of identity claims should trump women's safety, privacy, etc. (thanks for the chat!)

[@IceQeen1011]

Thank you! Very beautiful talk

[@slydogamigo2303]

While I'm glad you strayed far from the overt disgust and contempt in which some feminists like Greer describe trans women, I still have yet to see a GCF source that accurately represents most pro-transgender positions. The intersex argument isn't "intersex people exist therefore trans people are valid" nor "trans people derive their validity from being intersex (which many are not)". This argument, as trans activists would argue, is that there is no definition of either "female" or "woman" that can simultaneously include everyone GCFs want to include (who don't/can't bear children, who have had a hysterectomy, who are post-menupausal, have paused menstrual cycles or never started menstruation, have CAIS or otherwise present abnormal genotypes, or who have undergone any manner of sex reassignment to become trans men) while simultaenously excluding everyone they want to exclude (trans women, including those undergoing any manner of sex reassignment or the small minority who are actually intersex). It's also inaccurate to portray trans activism as in any way denying sex. They believe in a delineation between sex and gender, a position developed by liberal feminists and sociologists, almost none of whom were trans themselves and whose work predates the modern transgender movement. Trans activists and individual trans people are keen to the ways the realities of biological sex affect their lives, which is why you see calls for, say, hygeine product dispensers and wastebins in men's washrooms. It's why the medical subfield of trans healthcare exists, examining the complex interplay between HRT and both male and female bodies, and using that knowledge to improve care. While you do seem like a sincere academic honestly searching for truth, I've seen more than enough gender critical content to have trouble believing that these characterizations of trans activist positions are made in good faith.

[@hollylawford-smith]

but there is a perfectly good definition of female (and male): having gone some way down the developmental pathway to produce ova (or sperm). sex is a biological concept that has been crucial in human evolution. it's not a problem that there are some difficult cases at the margins; there are for virtually every definition! and i have to say: while you say you have yet to see a GC accurately represent the trans activist position, this made me laugh, for i have _never_ seen a trans activist get even close to a fair representation of the GC position. (including across all the popular media where feminist academics attempt to explain what's so bad about our view).

[@miriamlana833]

@@hollylawford-smith you only think this definition is perfectly good because it matches best to your own desires to exclude tw. In fact, it's as arbitrary as any other definition. There is nothing to make it "more valid". A CAIS woman and a (by today's possibilities) full bodily transitioned tw are bodily so similar that you can't declare one "woman" and one "man" according to biological conditions. One is "nature made" and one is "human made", that's the only significant difference. In the future, maybe a complete bodily transition is possible, by biotech and nanobots, with chromosomes, ovaries, womb and anything else what makes up a "perfect biological woman". What will you say then?

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@miriamlana833 thank you for projecting mental states that you have no idea about onto me! that's fun. in fact, you may be shocked to hear, i do not have a desire to exclude transwomen. i simply care about sex-based rights, which gives me a reason to defend women-only spaces and services, and legal protections for women, against all/any men. it has nothing to do with being trans in particular.

[@miriamlana833]

@@hollylawford-smith that's what TERFs say all the time, "we only care about "real" women", nothing new. You cant't say "it has nothing to do with trans", it affects the everyday life of trans people in a very negative way. You don't want pragmatic solutions, you want war. Are you so shure you will win?

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@miriamlana833 all sorts of people want things they can't have and then are "affected" when they don't get them. i don't see how that's an argument for giving it to them. it all depends on what's at stake.

[@rein7015]

Thank you so much!

[@evan2173]

I feel the critique of Marxist feminism is rather weak, it is said it is "too focused on class and not sex", but there is no justification for how it's "too focused" on class and why this shouldn't be the case. It's strange, for those that put such an emphasis on a material analysis rejecting the realities of class or undermining it makes no sense. Feminism was always a class issue before it was corrupted by bourgoeis liberalism. "The liberation struggle of the proletarian woman cannot be similar to the struggle that the bourgeois woman wages against the male of her class. On the contrary, it must be a joint struggle with the male of her class against the entire class of capitalists. She does not need to fight against the men of her class in order to tear down the barriers which have been raised against her” - Clara Zetkin. The material analysis of exploitation is an essential ingredient to fight for the liberation of women, which, as all matters of liberation, is a revolutionary act.

[@hollylawford-smith]

i don't believe that if we got rid of capitalism we'd get rid of sexism. that's evident enough from simply looking at socialist countries. therefore i don't think class is the only or the fundamental axis of oppression, and so class analysis is inadequate to feminism.

[@evan2173]

@@hollylawford-smith Thanks for the reply! I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot get rid of sexism simply by abolishing capitalism and having an economy run by common sense and not profits. Sexism exists within the superstructure; rape culture and so on will have to rigourously educated out of existence, but without the material analysis of exploitation we won't provide proper solutions. And fighting for women's liberation without an organised mass agitating against capitalism... Well I can't help but get suspicious that the intentions of liberation are not so pure. If it is not a socialist movement and doesn't have a Marxist analysis, there will only be betrayal on the part of petit-bourgeois opportunists who are corrupted by capitalism. I would say class most definitely is the "fundemental axis", and it's not just "classism" (which puts it as though its a cultural matter like racism and sexism), but a material nuts and bolts analysis of exploitation, not merely snobbery or elitism etc. The woman of the bourgeoisie fights against the interests of the proletariat woman. If abortions were illegal in their country, like they were in Ireland they could pay to go to one where it wasn't like the UK etc, therefore not experiencing the oppression most women faced. I was a feminist before ever reading a word of Marx. It was purely a genuine desire for liberation that drove me towards Marxism. This desire will lead anyone I think to the same conclusions that Alexandra Kollontai came to, the same Clara Zetkin came to, the same Fred Hampton and Kwame Ture came to as well. That liberation is revolutionary act and class struggle is at the heart of it. This is a fantastic article outlining what we mean when we talk about class struggle and a class analysis :) www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/07/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-class/ You cannot (and I was going to say "in my view" but it's an objective fact as far as I'm concerned) say you're a feminist and not be anti-capitalist. mronline.org/2017/11/19/how-capitalism-uses-gender-oppression-to-rule/ Angela Davis on women, race and class :) classic! www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/davis-angela/housework.htm This is quite long sorry, just like to end with a quote from Alexandra Kollontai, “Nowhere in the world, nowhere in history is there such a thinker and statesman who has done so much for the emancipation of women as Vladimir Ilyich.” - Alexandra Kollontai, V.I. Lenin and the First Congress of Women Workers, 1918

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@evan2173 thanks! i'll have a read.

[@fefifofob]

Wouldn't it be grand?

[@hollylawford-smith]

hi fefi! wouldn't _what_ be grand?

[@fefifofob]

Oh,... If people know why they are mad, maybe they will get over it.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@fefifofob oh, yes i agree! it's amazing how much misinformation there is out there about gender critical feminism.

[@fefifofob]

Yes, there's a lot of misinformation. I'm surprised at the resistence to being informed. No one seems to be able to look at anything which may change their mind.

[@judycorbett4462]

What happened to Women and Men ???????????????????

[@nathat4250]

Finally someone with a brain! :D Thank you, sister.

[@expedition346]

TL;DR: the only meaningful, practical distinguishing factor of women as a sex caste is NOT in the invisible essence that is chromosomes or “potential” for biological processes, BUT RATHER gender presentation and legal sex …except chromosomes aren’t treated with suspicion as with the potential to get pregnant, nor is it ever factored into reasoning for differential treatment of women (women are given lower wages not due to their XX). this is because it is quite unlikely that anyone knows the sex chromosomes of themselves, much less the sex chromosomes of anyone they meet on the street, in contrast to legal sex (in institutional matters) or gender presentation. any argument that sex chromosomes are more determinative of experience of misogyny than gender presentation or legal sex is, in my view, unsubstantiated. i would love to see evidence otherwise and even on the “potential or capacity” thing. this is ONLY potential, i.e. not happened and therefore NOT empirical fact. meaning whether or not the woman will ACTUALLY get pregnant at some point (thus proving the “capacity”) does not matter, but rather how the woman is perceived (again, legal sex or gender presentation), and the stereotype that women have gotten/will get pregnant. while stereotypes and statistical inference (“potential” and chromosomes) are useful, there are more useful features (legal sex and gender presentation) that can explain misogyny overall just an animistic, prescriptive definition of women leading to exclusion of those perceived to be non-women, instead of realizing the social nature of meaning (a la witgenstein) and thus of discrimination and oppression lastly, and this is less founded, but i do dislike the monopolization of radical feminism and so-called SWERFism by “gender critical feminism”. devoting a whole third of the video going through the supposed history of “gender critical movement” and the pedigree it inherited from radical feminism seems more like an attempt at virtue signalling ideological purity than anything. so here is where i attack the analogy the author made between SW and trans women: some SW support legalization etc. on the grounds that they have experienced the “more civil” prostitution, but trans women DO NOT claim that their experience represents all OR EVEN A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION of CIS female experience. this is a strawman. no trans woman is going around pretending they know what it’s like to menstruate or get pregnant etc. The most “female” experience they claim is due to their gender presentation or legal sex. so it was a bad analogy :(

[@happynjoyousnfree]

Great video and I subscribed to Feminist Heretics too! Thank you!

[@hollylawford-smith]

glad you enjoyed it!

[@cinnamongirl5410]

Thank you for this

[@ekkso5630]

The problem with GCF is the jump to the practical and exclusionary outcomes of the ideology: No trans women in women’s DV shelters, no trans women in women’s bathrooms etc etc. If GCFs were happy for trans women to be included in women’s only spaces, pretty much nobody would have an issue. Even if GCF isn’t trans-exclusionary in principle, it seems to invariably be trans exclusionary in practice.

[@hollylawford-smith]

sure: if women were happy to be doormats who concede their rights without a fuss and never assert any boundaries, "pretty much nobody" would have an issue. GCF is female-centred, not "trans(women)-exclusionary". calling it the latter centres men in something that just isn't for or about them. not everything is for or about men!

[@ekkso5630]

Holly Lawford-Smith By excluding trans women from women’s spaces, GCF tramples on the rights of cis women who want trans inclusion in such spaces. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond, and your video was genuinely interesting in terms of your overview of radical feminist history.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@ekkso5630 thanks, i'm glad you got something out of the video! i don't think not getting what you want means your rights are trampled on, that happens all the time in a democracy. what matters is that we all get to have a say. one problem at the moment, i think, is that there's a false sense of the majority - that most women support trans women's inclusion in women-only spaces. but look at what happens to women who dissent! we can't be confident, under those conditions, that we really have any kind of grip on what women want. the arguments aren't being heard and considered, and disagreement is being shut down.

[@ekkso5630]

Holly Lawford-Smith I agree that civil and respectful discourse is very important. It’s just striking how much overtly anti-trans vitriol there is within the GCF community (I’m not saying you’re guilty of this). I used to sometimes dip into the GC Reddit thread before it was removed, and if there wasn’t already one at the top, it would literally only be a maximum of three posts down that you would see the most horribly cruel transphobic comments. Misgendering, deadnaming, terms like “girl penis,” jokes about their vocal tone, their surgical results, etc. The same patterns can now be seen on alternative GC fora such as Twitter. For a movement for whom trans issues are secondary, maligning trans people sure seems to dominate a LOT of the discourse.

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@ekkso5630 i don't deny that there's some nasty commentary online, and i think twitter in particular is really bad for it, on both sides. (if you don't believe me, just search 'TERF' and look at some of the abuse and vitriol that comes along with it). i don't personally think that 'misgendering' can be a GC crime, because GCs don't accept gender identity ideology's understanding of gender (as a subjective identity), and so don't think sex/gender words and pronouns go along with it. for GCs, using 'man', 'male', 'he/him/his' just means that person is biologically male. as all transwomen are, or they wouldn't be trans. to misgender is to deny someone's gender identity, or call him the wrong gender terms, but we don't believe in gender identities, really, or think there are gender terms separate of sex terms. also, for what it's worth, transactivists themselves use 'girldick'. i agree that it's unkind to joke about the poor results of transition, or someone's appearance in general. but i can understand women's frustration in dealing with men who make some superficial adjustments and then claim to literally be the same as them. it's disrespectful and trivialising of what it actually means to grow up female under patriarchy. so i wouldn't myself be too hard on those women's unkindness, even if i wish we could all be more civil and constructive with each other in this debate.

[@Anonimo-tb6ge]

Hi! :-D Just to point out: you're falling for the "duality myth" (body/soul or body/mind) false dicotomy. This is a pure *idealistic* coordinates (in opossition to material philosophical coordinates) which I've detectedA LOT during past years mostly from philosophers coming from countries with a prominent cristian protestant cultural background (USA & UK). I think the key is to start thinking the scientific approach (biology, antrophology,etc) and try to do philosophy from there (pure material coordinates) discarding the myth of the duality body/mind as "you're not your mind neither your sould" in fact, existence of "the mind" hasn't been proved so far (neither the soul :-P) meanwhile "you are your body" (with you own psicology ofc) has been proven since loooong time (indeed centuries). Democritus & Epicuro were on point as they discard the duality soul & body meanwhile Plato & Decart sadly fall for it. To be able to start approaching this matter from a proper philosophical material coordinates, the body & mind/soul duality must be discarded ... indeed, I would say that "an identity" as it is understood by most of critical philosophy approaches are a kind of analogy of "the soul" or "the mind".

[@hollylawford-smith]

i don't see anything in your comment that disagrees with anything i said in the video, so i'm not sure why you think i'm 'falling for' anything? gender critical feminists (i am one, and this talk is a defence of) do start from science, do think our bodies are ourselves, and do reject the nonsense dualism of gender identities / gendered souls. cheers!

[@waldemarmarwalde6817]

Amazing. You managed to speak 46 minutes about the impact of sex on society without mentioning reproduction. If you believe marriage, love, and families are oppressive ... perhaps. But they DO serve the function to enable reproduction. If you want to replace these institutions. You will need to have a plan how to replace them in that capacity. What is your plan for that? Do you have one? I am afraid seperatism or political lesbianism aint gonna cut it... Because if the society system of your dreams does not allow for reproduction. It is a failure. It does not matter how oppressive inhuman illogical the system of the other team is. If their system has a plan for reproduction and yours does not. The future will be theirs. They do not have to win any discusions with you. They do not have to fight you at all. They can just ignore you and watch you die out.

[@baguettegott3409]

You complain that the mischaracterization of GCFs centers men, and by that you mean transwomen, in the narrative about a movement by and for women, and by that you mean cis women. And then you wonder why people call this stuff transphobic... There's this dehumanizing way you talk about trans people in general. Like on your screen it says "Not 'about' trans" and I have to ask: trans what? Trans is an adjective, short for transgender, and it usually describes humans. You say gender critical feminism clashes with "trans ideology" that nobody on the left *dares* to argue against. But in reality, it clashes with trans *people*. Those are the ones whose rights you oppose, whose dignity you take away by continuously misgendering them, and who you want to exclude from spaces where they should be welcome. That is an integral part of the movement. So saying that it's not about trans people is just a lie. It's explicitly *against* trans people. And this "No we're just against trans *ideology*, trans people are fine, they just don't have a place in this specific movement :)" thing hold no water whatsoever. You're against self-id, against trans women in spaces like women's bathrooms etc, against inclusive language. You see trans women as men in dresses - which is fine to you, men can wear dresses. See, we're not anti-trans at all! :) But you need them to remain just that, in front of the law and in the eyes of society at large. And that is transphobic.

[@hollylawford-smith]

if your definition of "transphobic" is "rejects gender identity ideology" then yes i am transphobic. i think that's a silly definition. all other kinds of -phobic involve fear or hatred. i have neither for trans people. i just know that transwomen are men. cheers!

[@baguettegott3409]

@@hollylawford-smith Yes that is indeed part of my definition of transphobic. It's just plain bigotry - trans women are not men, and they are hurt demonstrably (both psychologically and in the discrimination and violence they face) by insisting on it. But you don't care about their wellbeing, you only care about your precious ideology. But sure, calling that transphobic is just silly...

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@baguettegott3409 i do care about their well-being, i just don't care about it *more than* women's. the ideology creates a conflict of interests and i am not going to be quiet about that. i stand for women. call that transphobic if you like. that's your choice.

[@amyashlyn9293]

@@hollylawford-smith Being trans is not about ideology. You always refer back to "trans ideology" so that you can pit it against "gender critical feminists ideology" to justify your discrimination. But being trans is a matter of innate self-knowledge, of where a trans person belongs in society. You "biological sex" fundamentalists rely on ideology and theory for your discrimination. It is wrong. Your biological arguments rely on a short term view of what constitutes male and female: modern biology that defines humans in terms of gametes and chromosomes is little more than 100 years old. The rest of human history refers to a more malleable understanding of sex/gender in terms of a combination of feminine and masculine factors and an understanding that nature provides variation from norms. What you refer to as "trans ideology" is an attempt to fight for fundamental rights of being and has only been cast in theoretical terms in an attempt to present an argument for those rights, but in reality, being trans is not about ideology, but only about self-knowledge. All gender critical objections to trans identity wrongfully obsess over trans identity positions only assessing them in terms of theoretical veracity rather than seeing trans people desperately seeking nothing more than acceptance free from discrimination and oppression. It's not about ideology. It's about being. Denying and erasing trans women's identity as women by gender critical theory is nothing short of the continuation of the age-old erasure and oppression of trans people's reality as human beings, a fruitless diversion that scapegoats male patriarchal misogyny on trans women. Shame!

[@hollylawford-smith]

@@amyashlyn9293 we can accept trans people and want them to be free from discrimination and oppression (something which i do, and want) without thinking that the best legal route to securing those outcomes is protection as the sex identified with, rather than protection as trans, or protection of gender expression. this is not a disagreement about trans people's right to be in the world as they are, it's a disagreement about the conflict of interests between sex-based rights and identity-based rights. identifying as a woman isn't the same thing as being female, it's really that simple.

[@nguunguuplahplah8257]

A oxymoron.