Re ContraPoints: Gender Critical

This is a quick initial response to the ContraPoints video uploaded two days ago, titled Gender Critical. As with her usual videos, there's a lot to get through, so I will do a more detailed and thought out response later on. From my perspective, the video provided a good answer to many Gender Critical Radical Feminists' critique of the trans movement, but as usual with ContraPoints stuff, there is quite a lot I disagree with. So let's go through this video from my perspective, as a trans woman with a very different worldview.

Theme 1: Why Don't You Just Be A Feminine Man?

Natalie attempted to answer the common Gender Critical suggestion to trans people that we should just be feminine men. Natalie countered with her own experience, saying something along the lines that she felt like she had to be a woman to be happy. In other words, she had gender dysphoria, and living as a feminine man won't solve that problem. Of course, Gender Critical Feminists have a hard time understanding that, because they don't believe that there is any biological component to gender. If gender is purely a social construct, then it wouldn't make sense for anyone to have gender dysphoria. This is why Gender Critical Feminists often imagine trans people to have bad social motivations in transitioning.

The trouble is, Natalie didn't even argue this point. It seems to me that she would rather argue on the very grounds that validate Gender Critical beliefs and invalidate gender dysphoria, by giving into the 'gender is a social construct' ideology. Perhaps she is so deep into the sociological theory that is taught in the humanity departments, that she doesn't recognise the limitations of radical feminist ideology. For this, I'm glad that I have a biological sciences background instead. It means that I see things from a more or less medical science perspective. And yes, while brain differences between men and women are averages and those studies don't prove a lot, there is a strong evolutionary biology based argument for certain gender behaviours being biologically hardwired, as I had explained in my previous video on gender dysphoria.

The hard facts of biology and nature always trumps any ideology. Therefore, Gender Critical feminism's insistance that gender is not innate must objectively yield to the fact that individuals with gender dysphoria exist, that it is a well founded medical condition. I guess this would be enough to argue against most Gender Critical arguments, had it been presented upfront.

Theme 2: Solidarity of the Oppressed?

From what I understand, Natalie aimed to argue the case for solidarity between biological women and trans women, on the basis that both face some oppression from society. Maybe this is an appeal that Gender Critical Feminists are likely to appreciate, because they are very left-wing in their philosophy. But in the wider world, this argument simply holds no weight. For example, on the issue of gay marriage, it is white people who tend to support it and non-white people who tend to be opposed. There is no linkage between suffering from racism and supporting gay marriage, indeed it is the opposite that is true. The solidarity of the oppressed is essentially an academic idea, and it has very little acceptance in the wider world. If trans people want better treatment from other people, we must learn to argue on grounds that most people will accept. Like compassion for the inborn condition of gender dysphoria. Let me tell you, gender dysphoria is very real and is very terrible, I have suffered from it since before age 3, and I can tell you all about it one day, but there's no time for this now.

Theme 3: Trans People Changing the Language?

As Natalie noted, Gender Critical feminists have been angered over attempts to change language that has been in long-standing use, like saying 'pregnant people' instead of 'pregnant women', but she didn't have too much to say on the matter. In fact, many people, including those who aren't feminists, have been angered by these moves, and they have set trans acceptance back by years. Let me say that I am as uncomfortable about these changes as everyone else is, because we should all stand against top-down linguistic changes that probably originated in an ivory tower somewhere. A liberty loving people will be rightfully suspicious about this. Throughout history, language only changes to reflect changes in our collective understanding of reality, that is, linguistic changes normally lag behind changes in understanding. If this order is reversed for whatever reason, there is a justified fear of social engineering and potential tyranny.

In fact, I have been a part of the trans community for nearly 20 years now, and I know that everyday trans people have never been part of this Orwellian Newspeak campaign. Instead, it is elites from academia, armed with their postmodernist philosophy, that are responsible. For some reason, postmodernists believe that language is power and oppression, and that's why they insist on changing our language. But I can assure you that everyday trans people have nothing to do with this madness. No actual trans people I know are offended by the assumption that women usually have certain reproductive anatomy, or that pregnant people are generally women.

That's all I have time for today. I will have much more to say about this particular video, and also other ContraPoints stuff and trans stuff in the future. Subscribe if you are interested.