16
CattitudeMarch 26, 2025
“Women’s clothes don’t belong to women,” I once said to my now ex-husband Jamie when he began to crossdress. “So I don’t care who wears them.”
I didn’t have the relevant vocabulary yet, but that position was known as “gender critical.”
That put me off immediately. That's not remotely how I understand gender critical. It comes across as feeble liberal wishy-washiness. Of course I'm viewing it from a decade-odd of seeing what AGPs are and loathing them and not seeing any male crossdressing as remotely innocent. Gender critical to me is about not only knowing transvestism ("transgender") is male dominance and sexual perversion, but looking at the oppression of women through sex-role stereotyping in all areas. This is just the most depraved version of it, and it's not even new - men have been doing this for millennia.
DeeMarch 27, 2025
The wording leaves some space for interpretation. I read it as "Women did not create the norms around what women's clothes should look like. Men did that. Therefore, I don't care who wears them." In other words, women's clothes are designed to sexualize and objectify women for the benefit of men. They are part of sex-role stereotyping.
That's not how I understand gender critical either, but it could be part of it.
CattitudeMarch 27, 2025
Could be. I can't avoid looking at it with the eyes of disgust for AGPs though. "What's seen cannot be unseen" stuff.
Finally, someone saying the quiet parts out loud and I hope more will join in.
They aren’t critiquing sex stereotypes. They’re critiquing transgenderism.
Exactly.
Neo gender criticals don’t want sex stereotypes abolished. They want them re-assigned to the appropriate sex.
Exactly.
Interesting. What do you think of this argument made by one of the commenters?
Nope. We are not “neo” anything. Having good boundaries doesn't equate to being conservative; it just means we are normal and healthy. We are people who have had enough of the naive pandering to adult male groomers who crossdress. Your argument is akin to saying it’s perfectly fine for Martina Big to walk around in blackface full time and wear dashikis. You are like the white person telling black people they shouldn’t feel offended, that it’s just colorful clothing and Melanotan injections to darken skin. It’s this kind of gaslighting that undermines the boundaries and instincts of a marginalized group to allow an offender from the dominant group (e.g. a white person or a man) to get their way. When we are discussing sex, we are situated within a historical and ongoing framework of oppression of women and girls by men: that’s the context. To say “it’s just clothing, what’s the big deal?” is to pretend not to see the racism and sexism (intentional or not) behind an act of appropriation; the pretending itself is racist/sexist and oppressive; it silences women from speaking up and erodes the boundaries of children.
UnderstandersonMarch 26, 2025
Yeah--I get what this woman is saying. The reason TIMs adopt "feminine" stereotypes is because they are permeated with centuries of female performance. I don't think they differentiate at all between things like head tilts, makeup and heels and female realities like breastfeeding and domestic violence. It's all fodder for the fantasy. For that reason, I don't want them appropriating any of it.
SaladSparklzMarch 26, 2025
This nuance is important too and this commenter is also correct. The difference imo is gender criticism attacks these points and radical feminism attacks these points at the root of the problem which is: patriarchy. Both are necessary approaches to abolish gender and race as tools to oppress.
Ovarit proves that both GC's and Radfems can coexist but ultimately our paths are slightly different.
MythimnaMarch 27, 2025
What do you mean by abolish gender though?
SaladSparklzMarch 27, 2025
I mean stop feeding the patriarchal designed capitalist hierarchy with stereotypes attached to the sexes.
I think the comment is odd and taken to extremes.
Has "gender abolitionist" been ruined too, because I'd go with that if not.
FeminismIs4WomenMarch 26, 2025
It would be better if the term 'sex realist' becomes more widely adopted to describe people who oppose gender ideology but are not feminists.
notsofreshfeeling [OP]March 26, 2025
That seems fair, although I suppose for conservative men the meaning will likely be, "I'm a sex realist, so you do the dishes."
That would be a misunderstanding of the phrase because sex realist simply means that you belive biological sex is real.
Anyhow, I don't think men like that are scared to openly say "women should do the dishes."
Jane_MerrydaughterMarch 26, 2025
Not so much when used in context, though.
If some bro rips and tells you to make him a sex realist sandwich, your sisterly responsibility is to advise him to make it himself.
The problem I have with it is that it sounds like 'race realist', which IIRC is a term used by actual racists.
EavaMarch 26, 2025
Yes, that is part of the problem. People are picking up language of right wing dog whistles without realizing it.
AngrySlothMarch 27, 2025
In my country there's a movement of climate crisis deniers that calls themselves "climate realists"... To me. "XYZ realist" has become en indicator of a conspiracy therorist
spinningintellectMarch 27, 2025
You're right that "realist" is a red flag, but "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean "wrong theory". We talk about conspiracies here often.
beingMarch 26, 2025
I use "trans-critical" to describe conservative opposition to trans ideology, but it doesn't seem like that's a common phrase.
I don't see the connection personally. 'Sex realist' is pretty clear and self explanatory: a belief in the existence of sexual dimorphism grounded in reality.
I have never heard of a 'race realist' before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
'The division of humankind into biologically separate groups, along with the assignment of particular physical and mental characteristics to these groups through constructing and applying corresponding explanatory models, is referred to as racialism, racial realism, race realism, or race science by those who support these ideas.'
I agree that it's not the same, but the language is the same.
I heartily agree re “sex realist.”
That’s what I’ve started saying of late.
“sex realism” “sex realist”
It hits and communicates precisely
It translates accurately into other languages
It feels good rolling off the tongue
It looks good in type
It presumes it does not exclude sex realist men / sex realism among men (vs gender critical feminist or TERF)
The text at the OP Substack link makes me wonder about the author’s desired effect of “neo gender critical.”
Is it to tar and scare sex realist feminists via association by hostile forced teaming with the often profound anti-feminism of sex realists on the conservative/right wing of the gender culture wars?
I’m noticing that rhetorical trend in the wild.
If so, let us draw a firm line and leave it there.
FeminismIs4WomenMarch 27, 2025
Yes, drawing even more lines amongst different groups of feminists won't solve anything and doesn't address all the people who disagree with gender ideology and have no interest in feminism.
The text at the OP Substack link makes me wonder about the author’s desired effect of “neo gender critical.”
Is it to tar and scare sex realist feminists via association by hostile forced teaming with the often profound anti-feminism of sex realists on the conservative/right wing of the gender culture wars?
100%
The way she puts Kellie Jay Keen, and her followers even, in the same sentence as Matt Walsh had my spidey senses tingling, which is why I was curious how Ovarit would respond.
To suggest KJK and her followers want every girl wearing pink and playing with dolls and every boy wearing overalls and playing with trucks is absurd. Kellie Jay Keen is a woman with healthy boundaries. Every time a man crossdresses/appropriates cultural signifiers of the oppressed sex that it's a form of provocation and dominance. Same as if I, as a white woman, slap on some blackface and say, "But I love black culture!"
SaladSparklzMarch 26, 2025
This is a super important article, thanks for sharing! I completely agree with the author.
It's why I'm cautious to saddle up to women e.g. Meghan Murphy who refuse to call themselves feminist. I can cheer on some of her efforts sure, but I want to abolish gender, I don't want it used as a system whatsoever. We live under patriarchal capitalism, that means gender is ALWAYS going to be the system that oppresses women, why would I want that and why would I feed it or support it?
assigned_terf_at_birthMarch 26, 2025
I can understand not wanting to call yourself a feminist... Most people I know, if they have and sense of what feminism is, they think it's about splitting bills 50-50, slutwalk, being a girl boss, and wanting "equality." So they come at me with ridiculous questions that aren't even wrong. It's tiresome being expected to defend things I don't believe.
But even ignoring liberal feminism, there's a real divide in feminist movements between the needs of mothers and women who are not mothers, and between the classes. I think KJK is "not a feminist" because she sees that divide. There's no unified 'feminism' that serves all women.
And Meghan has just been kicked out of the "club" by radical feminists who don't like some things she says. What would it even mean to "saddle up" with her, and why wouldn't you want to? She has been speaking for women's rights - not just against gender ideology - for years.
SaladSparklzMarch 26, 2025
What would it even mean to "saddle up" with her, and why wouldn't you want to? She has been speaking for women's rights - not just against gender ideology - for years.
She is looking for endorsement as a PPC candidate and that is a political party in Canada which is against abortion, it wants to "open a dialogue about abortion and align itself with the rest of the globe" whatever that's supposed to mean...
I appreciate her efforts where it has served us but I am hesitant to go all in because she doesn't completely align with my values. I am a radical feminist.
assigned_terf_at_birthMarch 27, 2025
No, she's just looking for a nomination. That's not an endorsement.
And here's the funny thing about Canada that you might not know: we like to talk about how Canada does not restrict abortion, because technically we have no laws... But in practice what that that means is that Canadians don't decide what our abortion rights are; the medical establishment does. In practice, it's not a decision between a woman and her one doctor... Abortion is available pretty much on demand up to 23w6d (although it's hard to find a provider after 20ish weeks, depending on you are), but after that, you won't find any provider willing to do it. Doctors have just decided for all women, and the answer is no. I've seen it written that Canada is the model for abortion rights.... But I have also heard of Canadians going to the US to obtain a late term abortions in one of the few states where they are legal, because they can't get one at home. Kinda bizarre for a country that supposedly doesn't restrict access. I think if we had laws on the books outlining the specific exceptions for late term abortions, like other countries do, it could actually improve access for women.
And yes, some PPC candidates are pro-life. But the PPC has said on their website that their members can vote on their conscience/what their constituency wants. They don't have a party stance on abortion itself, only that they want laws on the books. So supporting Meghan does nothing to risk abortion rights. Besides, Canadians do not have an appetite for restricting abortion access. Double besides, lol, PPC is unlikely to win any seats at all, so it is kind of moot. Meghan is just pulling a KJK looking to start public conversations about gender ideology.
I'm curious though, is there another reason you think radical feminists shouldn't support her? I've heard her talk about being told she's not a feminist and responding "okay then, fine, I'm not!" but I've never heard what she actually said or did that was out of line.
SaladSparklzMarch 27, 2025
She's afraid to call herself radical feminist, I'm afraid to call myself a PPC supporter so I would say we are even.
notsofreshfeeling [OP]March 26, 2025
Would love to hear Ovarit's thoughts on this one...
EavaMarch 26, 2025
It is 100% on the mark. The term gender critical had been cooped by far right misogynists like Matt Walsh to mean "anti-trans". People say gender critical means knowing what a woman is and that you can't change your sex, but that is a misappropriation and redefinition of the term. Gender critical feminism (and it is inherently feminist) does not start from opposition to transgenderism, it starts from a criticism of socially constructed gender roles and expectations, and that leads to opposition to transgenderism, which defines being a man, woman "or both or neither" by conformity to those roles and expectations rather than by sex.
notsofreshfeeling [OP]March 26, 2025
Okay, thanks for your thoughts. I might disagree on some points but am very curious how others respond as well.
[Deleted]March 27, 2025
I think this piece overly simplifies trans-critical people who don't take the position that men should be able to wear whatever they want, and that merely doesn't make them women. I'm sure there are some TCs who are motivated to stuff men and women into the man and woman box respectively, but there are also TCs who see male crossdressing as offensive to women or who view male crossdressing as a sexual perversion (which isn't okay to essentially force on the non-consenting).
For my part, "allowing" men to crossdress (as if that's illegal in the West) is beside the point when it comes to TIMs. They're obsessed with being women and obligating the world to play along. If absolutely no one played along, I believe the vast majority of TIMs would take it back into the closet or abandon it entirely. They're not wearing women's clothes just because they like expressing their femininity; they're doing it for clout, for attention, or for sexual access to their desired partners. Most of that evaporates in a world where TIMs are not regarded as women in any sense by anyone else.