Gender Identity Explained(77 Posts)
Endorsed by Trans-Youth and Mermaids. No surprise there.
'This is a story about you') and goes on to define sex (a guess based on body parts observed at birth)
A middle section features a number of illustrated clothes, toys, and accessories accompanied by the question, 'What do you like?' A removable 'Gender Wheel' that students can turn to complete three sentences ('I have,' 'I am,' and 'I like') using a range of terms/expressions ( gender neutral, trans, not sure, etc.)
I am going to investigate further.
Also endorsed by this group.
Who are hopelessly confused about gender. Claiming it is an inner feeling on the one hand, and socially imposed on the other.
Gender identity is our internal experience and naming of our gender. A Cisgender person has a gender identity consistent with the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, a child whose sex was assigned male on their birth certificate and who identifies as a boy is cisgender (you may hear this term shortened to “cis”). A Transgender person has a gender identity that does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. So, a child who was assigned male on their birth certificate and who identifies as a girl is transgender (sometimes this term is shortened to “trans”).
But still socially imposed:
Norms around gender expression change across societies and over time. One need only consider men wearing earrings or women having tattoos to see the flexibility of social expectations about gender.
They talk about gender identity not being related to clothing, but give no example of it, other than clothing.
And talk about girls who look masculine and boys who look feminine.
All of it's based on looks. Despite looks not being the criteria!
A person’s gender is the complex interrelationship between three dimensions:
They call these
So STILL no actual definition of the word gender. Only expression and identity.
I would love to know what feeling masculine or feeling feminine actually bloody looks like.
Jeans? Power tools? Frocks? Baked goods?
They NEVER say so. Because then it is potently, blindingly obvious that these are (hopelessly old fashioned) stereotypes.
The problem with all this, is that people can genuinely imagine having internal sense of whether you are a man or a woman, despite not actually having it.
Because when you ask, they can't describe it. Without relying on how their body feels and what stereotypes look like.
I think I would alter the definition to say this:
A transgender person likes to present themselves in a way they perceive the gender identity of the opposite sex to be. This gender perception is effected by social norms and personal beliefs.
(I have said as much to my DC)
And as for gender 'it is a social construct'. It is how men and women are expected, in society, to behave and look. It can involve sexual stereotypes but not conforming to them does not change your biological sex.
And that people disagree about how men and women should be expected to behave and make themselves look. Ultimately is up to the individual's choice and not determined by their biological sex.
The American version has a website.
Maybe someone should create a gender identity resource, for children, compatible with feminism. Anyone know of one?
How the fudge is a child meant to understand that nonsense? I can barely comprehend it and I'm doing a PhD in literature!
"I have a body that made adults guess 'girl'", from that "gender wheel", is total nonsense. In nearly all cases, adults (i.e. doctors, midwives or other HCPs) correctly identify your sex. Nothing to do with gender. Just a simple fact, like your birth weight.
Oh this 'guess girl' stuff will really come undone when trying to teach sex ed.
One of the first lessons is (biological) physical sexual characteristics. No guessing. No room really for labels saying this 'maybe male or female' has these reproductive organs. It would not be very informative. People are the sex they are according to their physical characteristics.
How people present themselves, make themselves look and behave is their choice.
It would be useful to tell children that clothes and personal grooming can conceal what someone's sex is. That people can cover up any of the physical characteristics that would reveal their sex.
And that it is because we can choose how to make ourselves look, behave and tell people what name to call us the only way of knowing a person's sex is through their physical characteristics and official identification papers which detail this (currently).
Unfortunately when someone has a GRC, it enables them to get a new Birth certificate in their chosen sex. They can then destroy said GRC and not have to tell anyone, even Doctors etc. Over 3000 men and almost 1000 women in the UK have a GRC, so could still have the genitals they were born with but a birth certificate that says the opposite. So we have official documents that are an out and out lie and you would have to lie to a child who can tell that a 6 foot bloke with a beard is a woman because his official ID says so.
So you'd have to scrap the part about official documentation, then. Hmm and there are even operations so a person can look like their chosen sex. So people can disguise their sex pretty well can't they? I suppose that's why blood tests have be done to establish it.
I suppose this only matters when protecting safe single sex spaces and in sports competitions where a person's sexual characteristics can give them an advantage. It could also matter in establishing someone's identity as well.
I ended up involved in a conversation with someone on Twitter who was arguing that because they had a GRC, they were in fact a woman. I had to pull back from the argument because telling the truth was like torturing kittens and I had no desire to hurt the person.
But the pals soon turned up to troll me anyway and I had to block them
I suppose, as part of operating as you perceive the gender, which is opposite to your biological sex would, a person then decides to call themselves by the opposite sex label. As part of the transgender behaviour, it makes sense.
However, yes, it does render the biological terms rather meaningless, language wise. And of course it is problematic in terms of what a person's identity means legally. Society has used biological sex characteristics a part of the features which are used to identify someone, I imagine, since time began.
For centuries societal rules have distinguished between men and women and although many accept gender is a social construct, as it is different across history and different societies, men and women still behave differently, as groups of people. Is it believable this stops as soon as someone decides to act and think how they perceive the biological sex opposite to them does? Are their perceptions of the opposite biological sex equal to having a real lived experience of being the opposite biological sex?
The Coca Cola corporation is legally a person, doesn't make it an actual person
It is almost like a sector of society undertaking a big 'method acting' life experiment. But if this were really complete would they be so vocal about it? If you identify yourself as your biological sex, it does not tend to be such a conscious decision and spoken about as such. I have heard this termed a 'privilege'.If a transition, gender wise, were totally complete, wouldn't it be very quiet, not a feature? Wouldn't the person who is trans also identify with the 'privilege' of identifying as the sex they were born with, as the people who possess the opposite biological sex that they are identifying, gender wise, with, would?
I would like a transactivist to tell me what is the collective noun for people of, say 25, who are pregnant?
Girl doesn't work, it denotes childhood. Female doesn't work, it's not specific to age.
What is the word?
I think that it is unfortunate that the dissatisfaction some transgender people have, concerning identifying themselves with their gender perceptions of their own biological sex, should motivate them to deny, not only their own biology but also other people's, by objecting so vociferously to the accepted use of the terms which describe what sex somebody is.
The primary definition of woman is still:
An adult human female
Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
This, IMO, is at conflict with a complete transition to the opposite gender, as a person of the opposite biological sex, who identifies with their sex would surely be satisfied with the gender perceptions they attach to their own sex (otherwise they would seek to trans/ be non binary). Which is a sad irony because it creates conflict between some transgender people and the people of the sex they attach to the gender they identify with.
The above conflict, I think, creates difficulties in terms of inclusion. Inclusion cannot be reached if catering to the needs of one group excludes the needs of another. An inclusive environment suits the needs of all people within it. You cannot create inclusion by excluding people.
Seeking to deny the significance of biological sex, in terms of life experience, excludes the need to acknowledge the significance of biological sex, in terms of life experience.
If people want to be able to have a right to self identify, that needs to include the people who (self) identify with their biological sex as well as the ones who don't. Which means allowing them and others to acknowledge how their biological sex is significant to their own life experiences.
Absolutely. You can't be excluded from something that doesn't apply to you. Neither should you demand other people stop talking about the very specific things that apply to them and not you.
It reminds me of when my sons were small and the one whose birthday it wasn't, got a small 'unbirthday present'. So they didn't feel left out.
They were little children, driven by self interest and hadn't yet learned to put someone else before themselves...
Agree, Datun. You are not being excluded when something just doesn't apply to you. It would be like me saying a group who meet specifically to discuss home birthing experiences are excluding me because I didn't give birth at home. They are not, they are just talking about an experience I have not had. People having different experiences and sharing them doesn't exclude people without the same experiences.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.