Pregnant trans men Guardian article

I see what you are saying. I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.

EXACTLY.

Peter Rankin, a neuropsychologist & Hillsborough survivor has said, "If your most significant experience is invalidated… and… not believed by the rest of the world, then you have to fight for that to be corrected otherwise you don't really exist as a person."

Disbelief drives people crazy. These people are fighting for their existence. If we stopped denying it the whole time they would probably calm the fùck down.

Sorry, I meant not exclusively a social construct. The "gender is exclusively a social construct" belief strikes me as ideologically motivated.

Rat,

So you are wondering whether a more complete affirmation might lead more trans people to relax and drop the ultra-girlie stuff?

I see what you are saying. I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.

In all honestly Rat I do struggle with this. I don’t understand it.

That's totally okay, it's not too obstructive a difference of opinion in the grand scheme of things :)

For me, I just imagine what it must be like to be trans and to feel very strongly that you're a man (for example), feeling that people aren't going to believe you if you tell them; that they might try to convince you you're just a masculine girl, or gender non-conforming or whatever, but really truly believing you are in fact a man. Knowing you won't be happy with anything less than pursuing a life as close to be accepted as a man as you can achieve, and likely a body as closely resembling one too.

Then I think yeah, in those circumstances I would probably try and put as much weight behind my claim to be a man rather than just a masculine girl as I possibly could, because so much would depend on it. I'd probably ape all the stereotypical behaviours I possibly could for fear of not being believed. That seems logical to me.

Then I imagine if I were trans and I were quite a lot more confident that I would be believed, and that I would be accepted. And I imagine I wouldn't feel the same need to ape behaviours beyond my normal self-expression. I might feel like I could retain some of my more stereotypically "girly" preferences because I'd have less fear that they'd be used to evidence me not really being a man at all.

Honestly it's so complex, there's so much to consider, I'm just trying to come at it with empathy - not saying others aren't, just that this is my own personal thought process.

What empirical findings would convince you that gender is a NOT social construct?

Well that's not going to work is it, because I think gender is a social construct... AND perhaps something innate to a person as well.

AFAIK the marker of verifiable fact vs ideological belief is not endless confirmation but falsifiability. Until then it's just a hypothesis.

What empirical findings would convince you that gender is a NOT social construct?

“I'm not sure though how you work this out; do you have the book on exactly which behaviours relate to nature and which to social construct? Can you see no reason why a trans person might choose to ape the stereotypical behaviours as well as anything they feel they have innately? “

In all honestly Rat I do struggle with this. I don’t understand it.

“I'm pretty sure a whole load of transwomen feel much the same as other women about random men with penises.”

For fear of being attacked? Especially if they reveal their status to a man who has desired them? Yep I get that.

"Gender is a social construct" is useful shorthand but too simplistic (as is the "nature vs nurture" dichotomy).
Some "gendered behaviours" probably do originate in biology... while others probably don't

This is exactly it, I completely agree. I do feel that the mantra-like repetition of "gender is a social construct" so disregards the "nature" aspect of behaviours, putting it down entirely to "nurture".

It's pretty clear that the aspect of gender that TIMs embrace is exclusively the social construct. They are probably incapable of understanding the biologically based behaviours. And this includes fear of random males with penisis.

I'm not sure though how you work this out; do you have the book on exactly which behaviours relate to nature and which to social construct? Can you see no reason why a trans person might choose to ape the stereotypical behaviours as well as anything they feel they have innately?

I'm pretty sure a whole load of transwomen feel much the same as other women about random men with penises.

Agreed.

But why does it matter if Stillscreaming tends a bit more towards the nature argument whereas I tend to nurture?

It doesn't.

Unfortunately the problem is far bigger that somebody on the internet believing something questionable.

This is an extract from a leaflet produced by East Sussex Council, with the endorsement of the head of Children's Services. (In which 'trans' is defined as: Transgender, Transsexual, Cross-dresser, Neither male nor female, Androgynous, A third gender, Or who have a gender identity which we do not yet have words to describe)

Scenario 1
My daughter doesn’t want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks at her body?

For example, in this scenario it would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans person. A Human Rights response would be to state that although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a girl and as such have the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls and to be treated fairly as such.

The legal advice here is questionable - the equalities act still recognises sex as a protected characteristic, self ID is not yet law, but what on earth does 'in every other respect a girl mean?' What is the head of children's services (a middle aged man, by the way), trying to tell girls about what it means to be a girl and their rights to set boundaries?

Here is another example:

Scenario 2
It’s not fair that he enters the 100 metres race for girls when he is a boy/Or Won’t she get injured playing rugby with boys?

Similarly, pupils or students who feel that a trans* child should not be involved in certain sporting activities may themselves need to be supported to do a different activity.
This kind of support acknowledges that some individuals may struggle to understand trans people or initially feel uncomfortable around them, but does not support the idea that trans people should be treated any differently to cisgendered people. The responsibility lies with the individual who has the problem to deal with that problem, not with the trans* person to accommodate for that person’s insecurity around them or their child.

Girls, don't compete to win! Your problem isn't that you don't want to compete against people with male bodies! You are just insecure! Find something else to do!

Ideology is dictating policy, and deliberate attempts are being made to silence politicians and academics who question the ideology. It's as though after the MMR controversy the government decided they weren't just going to ban all vaccinations, they were going to prescribe homeopathy instead.

Borntobequiet,

Yes, whilst I disagree entirely re dolls (I never played with mine because as an isolated youngest child I never saw an admired adult interacting with a baby)but I take your point

“It's pretty clear that the aspect of gender that TIMs embrace is exclusively the social construct”

So can’t we agree on that and move on.

Yes, I understand Merry.

But why does it matter if Stillscreaming tends a bit more towards the nature argument whereas I tend to nurture?

I don’t see the big need to fall out.

But does it matter if we, like the rest of the human race, can’t be totally sure that no aspect of gendered behaviour is innate/hormonal driven?

This isn’t about hormones. Hormones influence behaviour, but people who identify as trans don’t necessarily have different hormone levels to anybody else of the same biological sex. Hormone levels vary within men and women and women with higher testosterone levels are not men.

(Separately, some people have intersex conditions, but that is not the same as being trans. People who have given birth or fathered several children are not intersex)

It matters when you are encouraging people to believe there is something wrong with them if they don’t conform to stereotypes.

It matters if the government is endorsing restrictive gender stereotypes.

It matters because gender stereotypes have oppressed women for so long and now it seems that we are going backwards.

"Gender is a social construct" is useful shorthand but too simplistic (as is the "nature vs nurture" dichotomy).
Some "gendered behaviours" probably do originate in biology (caring, playing with dolls) while others probably don't (liking pink, being compliant).
It's pretty clear that the aspect of gender that TIMs embrace is exclusively the social construct. They are probably incapable of understanding the biologically based behaviours. And this includes fear of random males with penisis.

genderidentitywatch.com/how-to-file-attorney-grievance-complaints-against-lesbian-lawyers/

Also what is the big deal with the Cathy Brennan thing in a nutshell. Is she in litigation?

Are we agreeing that biological sex is innate? (I haven’t seen an argument against this).

But arguing (rather strongly) about whether any aspects of gender might have an innate/interior quality due to hormones?

I appreciate that the question of where the burden of proof lies is political. But does it matter if we, like the rest of the human race, can’t be totally sure that no aspect of gendered behaviour is innate/hormonal driven?

The gendered behaviours in the “might plausibly be innate” category are not the ones that the TRAs are demonstrating.

Presumably Stillscreaming doesn’t hold truck with ideas that maintaining an extreme-stereotype appearance in the name of femininity could plausibly be innate?

I imagine there are more sophisticated arguments to be had about things like “nesting instinct” in late pregnancy, etc.

about whether

Re coal mining I think in the UK female working underground seems to have stopped around 1840.

www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/the-scandal-of-female-miners-in-19th-century-britain/

Here are female miners today.

www.100daysinappalachia.com/2017/02/27/miner-matriarch-coal-mining-women-west-virginia/

I'm still not sure why this fatuous, self- indulgent article requires any more attention paid to it than any of the other fatuous, self - indulgent life- style articles which feature so prominently in the Guardian.

Coal mining is an interesting example to use since the women went down the mines too, often with a baby at the breast.
There is photographic evidence.

In the South Wales mining communities at the peak of the coal industry the mortality rate was higher for Miner’s wives than for the miners.

(Source - exhibition at Big Pit Mining Museum, Blaenafon, part of the National Museum of Wales.)

It's p-a-t-r-i-a-r-c-h-y.

Petty, sorry, but it's doing my bloody head in.

Woman in pregnancy shocker! (Did her midwife advise her not to take testosterone whilst pregnant, do you think?)

Agree nooka

This is where I came in. Your truth isn't an absolute truth. By all means disbelieve what other people tell you about themselves but that doesn't give you a free pass on negating their experience or to be mean about it.

You are confusing opinion and facts. Facts are evidence based and objective. I am not negating experience. To produce eggs you have to be female. That is just what the word means. Jason might have all sorts of bad feelings about the word female and that is subjective. However it doesn’t change what a woman is.

I don’t want to be ‘mean’, and wouldn’t care about your opinions on gender if they weren’t harmful.

On the other hand I do appreciate that you are being honest. I wish a few Guardian writers would face up to what they are actually saying when they claim that gender exists but refuse to define it.

But Rat while I can't talk to fighting on the front line (although for smaller communities risking the lives of women of childbearing age would probably be a bad strategy), hard physical labour cannot be said to be 'a natural gender disposition across the globe'. In subsistence economies everyone works because that is the only way that the family survives and the majority of work is hard labour.