So ... Does this indicate that you CAN be 'born the wrong gender'?

whirlpool some researchers think about 1 in 100 have disorders of sexual development.

This thread was started to talk about trans issues so it's hardly inappropriate to talk about those that don't fit into the 99%

If you want to give me a definition of woman that's fine but I doubt it will apply to all women.

And is is very important. If you remove our ability to describe the group of people who generally have the potential to bear children, and the group of people who generally have the ability to cause impregnation, which happen to the the reason for the oppression of the former group by the latter group for as long as anyone can find out, the you remove the tool with which to identify and describe this situation, and then how on earth is anyone supposed to do anything about it.

And that is the point where it's not to do with helping individuals get on with their lives as best and safely as they can, and all about adding further layers of complexity and push-back for the 50% + of the world who are having all sorts of different shit done to them, to a greater or a lesser extent, in every single country in the world.

Have we really reached a point where there are people who say that they genuinely don't know what a woman is, or a man? That a person will say "oh I don't know what a woman is, I'm not prepared to offer a definition"?

That when a baby is born, and 99.9999% of the world, almost all the time, are able to say (and do say) "it's a boy" or "it's a girl" that this is not comprehensible to them?

So statements like "In Swat Valley, many girls's schools have been burned down" or "Under ISIS, girls and women are being sold for rape" or "In Chad, many young boys have been forced to fight and kill, while many girls have kidnapped and forcibly "married" to their captors", are now meaningless. People hearing them, would have trouble understanding which groups of human beings were being discussed, what characteristics they had that had led to them being treated in these specific ways?

Yes it is orwellian.

Great first I'm rude now I'm Orwellian. jenny I'm sorry if you find me rude, I've found this a very civil thread. Everyone has put forward their point of view but I don't think anyone's been rude.

I'm sorry if you find me evasive but I'm not about to suddenly make up a definition of what is a woman just because you've asked me for the 6th time.

Slug, legally someone is female in the UK if it says they are female on their birth certificate.

This is based on an individual baby appearing to have female genitalia and no male genitalia. This is based on the definition of females as having a vulva. It isn't based on gender because you can't ask a baby what their gender identity is or observe gendered behaviour in newborns.

An exception is made for people who experience sex or gender dysphoria who can apply for a gender recognition certificate.

Lass, yes, I agree that pretty much anyone who feels like a Quaker is a Quaker!

But the starting point if I was asked that question would be that I would explain it was being a member of a kind of religion, that there were particular beliefs and practices, that it had a particular history and so on.

I mean, I have teenagers. I am asked all the time what particular things that people can be are, and have been all through their lives. I've been asked to explain what a gay person is, what a Gnostic is, what a feminine person is, what a socialist is. And all those could be answered that an X person is anyone who feels like X! And that would be true, but it wouldn't answer the question in a spirit of trying to genuinely explain to a person who didn't know what you meant by the word.

And I do think we should be answering these questions in a spirit of trying to gain common understanding.

Like I get that Jazz Jennings says she knew she was a girl by mentioning liking barbies and pink things. I don't agree. In my house boys and girls played with Barbie. But it is part of living in a pluralist society that some families follow gender expression stereotypes and I don't get to dictate otherwise even if I disagree. Just as their are religious families who believe women are more nurturing. Some people do believe in femininity as an innate gender identity for women.

But it is, (bringing on a cliche here) Orwellian to insist a group of people are women and not explain what that even means.

yes cote changing from make to female will not change your body.

I think slug made an excellent point when she said the law might need to define female more closely.

I personally think a non binary system in law might be a good way forward. So you could have three sexes
-with men reassigned as women legally and via versa being an option. But there could be an intermediate sex for those starting reassignment or baby born with ambiguous genitialia.

Female is a biological term (not legal) that is used to denote animals belonging to the sex that can make eggs/ova and bear young.

And woman is an adult human female. It is what we call the female of our species, just like cow is a female cattle and hen is a female chicken.

It is legal to change one's legal identity (from male to female, from Japanese to American etc) but that does not mean that their physical reality is also magically changed because a court said so. Just like Chinese people taking up Zimbabwean nationality does not change their Asian features and make them black.

slug

^I can't find a legal definition for woman - apart from adult human female. And female is undefined (so I am unclear if its gender/feeling or biology).
Suspect that is a large part of why these conversations are so circular^

Thanks for looking, yeah looks like the law isn't actually all that clear. I thought is was possible to legally change your sex in the UK.

Both genders can be interested in gardening, but flowers are "feminine" and vegetables are "masculine"

If I had to assign a gender to them , yes probably. A flower is feminine in French and German but a bunch of flowers is masculine in both.

Vegetable is masculine in French and neuter in German. Individual vegetables are all over the place.

Re being a Quaker, actually "a Quaker is anyone who feels like a Quaker" isn't far off although they would have to behave like one too.

www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/howbecomequaker.html
" How Does One Become a Quaker?

Traditionally there are two manner sof becomng a Quaker. The first is to be  "birthright" Quaker. This means that one had Quaker parents and grew up under the care of a Quaker meeting, which takes the responsibility of spiritually educating young people quite seriously. This method is becoming preogressively less popular, but still exists.

The other method is to become a "convinced" Friend. Convincement means that one has converted to Quakerism, as other religions and denominations might say. Being convinced means that one feels an inner conviction that in Quakerism one has found the best spiritual path for oneself, at least at one’s present stage of spiritual development.

Convincement does not mean that one has been convinced that certain doctrines are true. Quakerism is non-credal, which means that there is no set of beliefs made into a compulsory creed for all to believe. Practically speaking, though, it would be somewhat pointless to become a Quaker if one did not believe in the Inner Light and find sustenance in the Quaker semi-silent meeting for worship"

I don't need to take it up with the Olympics committee. There are plenty of other official bodies that have defined biological sexes, or it would be impossible to record it on birth certificates.

I don't think that is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

Likewise, having had two kids go through the education system, they have been examined on the definitions of biological sexes, and so definitions must exist for those answers to be marked.

It is also a matter of fact that you cannot carry out a scientific study of a variable you cannot define.

I don't think you refusing to answer a question over and over again is going over old ground. If I asked what a Quaker was and somebody just kept saying a Quaker was anyone who felt like a Quaker, I would think they were being really rude and evasive. Whether or not you are being really rude and evasive, that is a matter of opinion.

This is a post from one of the blogs mentioned a while back. It's by the mother of a transgender child.

gendermom.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/the-binary-blues/

I'm finding this fascinating because it's just not what I expected to find. The impression that I get from trans activists or supporters is a very strong idea of what gender roles are, and yet this mother repeatedly talks about resisting that. Although equally she does seem to have a very clear idea herself of what things are "masculine" or "feminine" (even though she fully believes that men and boys can do or like feminine things and women and girls can do or like masculine things, she definitely ascribes activities, styles and items into these categories.)

I thought this post was interesting because it makes a very good point, that it does somehow seem more difficult now to cross things over. Some things have evolved and changed and that is good, like we don't tend to think of careers as being "for men" or "for women" any more, but in personal expression and likes and dislikes it does seem increasingly gendered, especially for children. Both genders can be interested in gardening, but flowers are "feminine" and vegetables are "masculine". Just to give one example. It feels like every time we identify a gender neutral activity it splits into a "girl" version and a "boy" version.

The idea that there is not a clear definition of biological woman is ridiculous really

Then take it up with the Olympics committee. Sorry but we have kind of covered this already.
You and I aren't going to agree on it, that's fine people have different opinions.

I find this topic quite interesting I find it interesting discussing it on mumsnet, but we are just going over old ground now.

How can you feel like something if there is no explanation of what something is?

The idea that there is not a clear definition of biological woman is ridiculous really. There is obviously at least a clear definition of biological female infant or our sex wouldn't be recorded on our birth certificates.

Sometimes that definition may be wrongly applied, or some people might not agree with it, but the definiton does exist.

Unlike the definition of what a woman is as a gender identity...

I am simply asking you what a woman is in terms of gender identity

Feeling that you are a woman/girl, would need to be consistent and long term.

What's "progressive" about that?

You would need to ask the Guardian journalist who wrote the article. It's a quote from the article, not my opinion.

I'm not asking you to critique the concept of biological sex. Anyone can critique it because it is explicitly defined, complex and has a degree of variation. Part of the purpose of defining concepts is so that we can critique them and pay ethical attention to the consequences for people at the boundaries of any category.

I am simply asking you what a woman is in terms of gender identity.

Internal gender identity is not what legally defines most women as women, so you still haven't defined it by mentioning the law.

jenny
But you seemed to be claiming some kind of scientific definition of woman based on people feeling like women, which is at odds with the legal definition, which is based on sex for over 99% of women

We've been here before. Once again in my personal opinion. There is no clear definition for what constitutes a biological woman.
I've said it before but the Olympics committee don't have a clear definition of biological woman that works for everyone.

Yes, different countries in the world have different laws, and in some cultures there are more than two genders.

None of that changes the shared understanding in our culture (and most others) that a women are the people who has female reproductive organs, and that trans women are males who want to be seen as being part of that group.

That is not the same thing as gender identity, except for the trans women.

What's "progressive" about that?

jelly not every country uses the UK definition.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/ireland-transgender-law-gender-recognition-bill-passed

The legislation, which will be signed into law by the president shortly, contains a number of other innovative features, including permitting the recognition of a person’s gender of choice based on self-determination, making Ireland only the fourth country in the world to adopt this progressive approach.

During the Scottish /British debates many Yes voters were dismissive of the idea of being British because they saw it only as a legal construct.

"Scottish" (despite Scots law being different from English law) is not a legal construct but for many Yes voters "being Scottish/feeling Scottish" was more concrete and real than "being/feeling British"

Although I honestly don't know how that can be applied to what you are debating here.

Well in law the definition of woman would be:

People whose sex was female on their birth certificate and haven't objected to that fact.

People whose sex was male on their birth certificate, who have been diagnosed as having sex dysphoria and got a gender recognition certificate.

Which means the vast and overwhelming majority of people in the UK who are called women are called that based on their biological sex, and their legal status as women has nothing to do with them experiencing any form of gender identity.

But you seemed to be claiming some kind of scientific definition of woman based on people feeling like women, which is at odds with the legal definition, which is based on sex for over 99% of women.