Non-binary: What do you understand it to mean?

[Bromptonaut]

Sorry, wot?

I believe Izzard now uses the pronouns she/her...

 

[theclaud]

I believe Izzard now uses the pronouns she/her...

I heard that, but Aurora's claim is a bit of a leap from there.

 

[PK99]

I believe Izzard now uses the pronouns she/her...

Wiki:
"Izzard is genderfluid and has said she prefers she and her pronouns, but "[doesn't] mind" he and him."

 

[AuroraSaab]

Does this mean you don't think feminism needs to concern itself with issues of race and class? Srsly?

I think femininism should centre women. It should concern itself with race and class but primarily in so far as they affect women.

If feminism widens its brief and becomes about race and class in general, then it's more humanitarianism or a civil rights movement. It becomes just a vague 'here's a movement for all the people who are marginalised and oppressed'.

Intersectional feminism was, quite rightly, intended to raise up the voices of black and working class women. It's obvious feminists should look at how the other axes of oppression affect women, but I think intersectionality has displaced women's oppression from the centre of feminism. It seems to say that there is nothing meaningful to be said about sex based oppression in itself.

You can talk about how different axes of oppression impact women differently; it's important to do so. But it's quite another to say that because of those different axes, there is nothing we can say about the oppression of women as a class. I think intersectionality obscures the material and sex based nature of women's oppression. It spreads itself too thin.

I think it's a sign of female socialisation that women are expected to look after everyone's needs and not just their own. And the patriarchy is pretty much kept in place by socialising female people to centre the needs of male people. I'm always struck by the fact that intersectional feminism is popular with men.

I don't think genuine intersectionality was intended to centre men but that's how it's gone.

If you include people who are not female in the centre of feminism, the political project of feminism will end up not challenging many aspects of the institutional mechanism of male power. Which is why much feminism today seems to support sex work and sees pornography as empowering.

I'm also struck by the fact that intersectional feminism is popular in the USA. And yet look at women's rights in the USA - way behind us on abortion and contraception, few maternity rights, and still has child marriage in some states.

I can't think of another movement that is expected to centre the needs of the people who oppress it. Black activism doesn't agitate for the needs of white people. Socialism doesn't campaign for the rich. No-one expects disabled groups to consider the needs of the able bodied. Heck, even The Dogs Trust don't look after cats.

 

[mudsticks]

I think femininism should centre women. It should concern itself with race and class but primarily in so far as they affect women.

If feminism widens its brief and becomes about race and class in general, then it's more humanitarianism or a civil rights movement. It becomes just a vague 'here's a movement for all the people who are marginalised and oppressed'.

Intersectional feminism was, quite rightly, intended to raise up the voices of black and working class women. It's obvious feminists should look at how the other axes of oppression affect women, but I think intersectionality has displaced women's oppression from the centre of feminism. It seems to say that there is nothing meaningful to be said about sex based oppression in itself.

You can talk about how different axes of oppression impact women differently; it's important to do so. But it's quite another to say that because of those different axes, there is nothing we can say about the oppression of women as a class. I think intersectionality obscures the material and sex based nature of women's oppression. It spreads itself too thin.

I think it's a sign of female socialisation that women are expected to look after everyone's needs and not just their own. And the patriarchy is pretty much kept in place by socialising female people to centre the needs of male people. I'm always struck by the fact that intersectional feminism is popular with men.

I don't think genuine intersectionality was intended to centre men but that's how it's gone.

If you include people who are not female in the centre of feminism, the political project of feminism will end up not challenging many aspects of the institutional mechanism of male power. Which is why much feminism today seems to support sex work and sees pornography as empowering.

I'm also struck by the fact that intersectional feminism is popular in the USA. And yet look at women's rights in the USA - way behind us on abortion and contraception, few maternity rights, and still has child marriage in some states.

I can't think of another movement that is expected to centre the needs of the people who oppress it. Black activism doesn't agitate for the needs of white people. Socialism doesn't campaign for the rich. No-one expects disabled groups to consider the needs of the able bodied. Heck, even The Dogs Trust don't look after cats.

I'd agree with the main thrust of this.

Although I would paradoxically also call myself an intersectional feminist too ..

I'm an educated white woman, so am aware that I've got extra uplift already.

But it's also important that feminism doesn't just become about everything, and everybody else before the rights of women.

Which is as you say, would just be falling into the same old patriachal rut.

Like most matters of social awareness, it takes constant noticing, and lots of adjustments.


I don't mind men being keen on intersectional feminism though really, so long as they actually put in the hard yards towards genuinely living it...

I do see it done well by the guys, from time to time..

Not just remarkable for being 'done at all'

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't think it's worth a new topic, and not intended as a derailment of this thread, but the International Olympic Committee have tonight issued their new guidelines on transgender inclusion. They reviewed the regs after the Laurel Hubbard controversy at Tokyo. Basically they have farmed it out to individual sports.

Summarised and discussed here. 'T' = testosterone:


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/seaningle/status/1460659291665453059


As an aside, not sure where this leaves athletes like Castor Semenya (obvs she is not transgender, but has a dsd). Suggests she can now compete as she won't need to take drugs to lower her testosterone.

 

[icowden]

I heard that, but Aurora's claim is a bit of a leap from there.

It's not a claim. It's from an article by ladbible.com based on a press release from OnBuy.Com

The study was performed by online store OnBuy.com, who asked 2,563 people to choose their favourite British comedians, before having 120 volunteers watch a random selection of those chosen whilst a microphone monitored every laugh of 60 decibels or more.
The results were taken from home-watching, rather than a live environment.
Interestingly enough, the only non-male comedians to feature on the list were Sarah Millican and gender-fluid Eddie Izzard.

This is *now* the quote on their website, but it originally followed the press release which called Izzard the funniest woman comedian. They have now edited it to upgrade Eddie to genderfluid and downgrade Sarah Millican to "non-male".

 

[icowden]

As an aside, not sure where this leaves athletes like Castor Semenya (obvs she is not transgender, but has a dsd). Suggests she can now compete as she won't need to take drugs to lower her testosterone.

Sex refers to biology, and gender refers to social role or self-identification. In sport, the definition of male and female used to be based solely on sex. This was assessed anatomically in the 1960s, then by biological tests such as the presence of a structure called a “Barr body” in cells (found only in genetic females), or the gene for testicular development.

Sex determination was abandoned in the 1990s in favour of gender. From the 2000 Sydney Olympics forwards, there were no tests of gender other than self-identification.

So she would not have been able to compete as a woman until recently when the Olympic committee moved to categorise by gender. Prior to that her Y chromosome and lack of Barr body would have categorised her as male.

 

[Pale Rider]

Is Eddie still on the go?

The lad/lass/somewhere in between has done well to have such a long career.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Re Eddie Izzard/Sarah Millican, I was thinking of an article I saw which put Izzard as the top selling woman comedian in terms of dvd's sold, and Millican second. Can't find the link atm.

Re Semenya: yes, it's now on self id but she could not get her testosterone down to the required IOC level (a level which is still higher than that found in biological women) without taking drugs. This test has now been removed.

It's having a body that has gone through male puberty that gives the biggest advantage so I'm not sure how much difference the getting rid of testosterone testing will make. I would have thought it raises an issue of female to male trans athletes now being able to take it without sanction though. If they remain in the women's teams it might give an advantage.