Evan Urquhart

I’m a journalist. If I write about radical feminists who exclude trans women, the general public understand “Ok, so they’re feminists and they have some kinda issue with trans people.” It gives a sense of what we’re talking about. Not perfect accuracy, but we’re in the ballpark.

If, on the other hand, I write gender critical the general public is no closer to understanding than if I wrote oogity-boogity. “Critical of gender? Whose gender? What does it mean? Probably just means they hate men, like all feminists” It’s so euphemistic as to be meaningless.

OK, ... 2 points. As a journalist you’re introducing a natural bias by writing about feminists “who exclude transwomen” rather than feminists defending their sex based rights, including the right to self determination. But that’s really not the point here. /1

Given GCs use that phrase because they are literally critical of the concept of innate gender and the stereo types it relies on ... is it not part of your job as a journalist to explain what it means to the uninformed (agreeing or not as u see fit) /end

To the best of my knowledge, every trans person in academia is also "literally critical of the concept of innate gender and the stereotypes it relies on" as are non-TERF feminists/rad fems, so that's not really a distinguishing factor.

Hang on ... assuming you expouse TWAW/TMAM ... how can you not adhere to a belief in innate gender? What makes you trans if not a gender that is innate and separate to your sex ?

I am a humble journalist, not a scholar of either trans studies or feminism. However: You can reconcile these in many ways. The easiest to write briefly would be to say, gender is performance so the performance is the reality. By performing "man" one becomes "man".

Yea, I don’t buy that....