Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

I think so rat.

can you please check this isn't just me going mad? I clicked the link in their report I think.

And the RCP is taking this view - largely because this view keeps many members of the RCP in business.

I'm all up for cynicism so totally open to seeing some truth in this.

I think one of the big problems with this whole debate is that we seem to use the same word to refer to both things sad people who think gender is or might be an innate sense don't think it isn't a social construct, they think it isn't just a social construct. There might be much less confusion if there were more than one word.

Sex - biological reproductive class
Gender - social system assigning behaviour to different sexes
Dysphoria - body integrity disorder
Gender identity - the religious belief that humans have gendered souls

There you go. The problem is not the conflation of two senses of gender. The problem is the misleading conflations of both sex and gender and dysphoria and gender identity.

Anyone is free to take a religious belief on this. What they are not free to do is impose that belief on the rest of us. And the RCP is taking this view - largely because this view keeps many members of the RCP in business.

by reference to wikipedia!!!!

Whaaaaaa?? I missed that!

Ah hang on, it's all fine!

they do define sex.

by reference to wikipedia!!!!

Interesting the difference in how quickly they've bought into this and validated it, and comparing how people with ME/chronic fatigue have been treated by this group over the years - that's easily thousands of people in every country each year. What is biological reality for them hasn't been nearly so swiftly or easily or uncritically accepted and sensitively handled.

Wonder what the difference is?

to quote Diane in the Good Fight, Orwell wouldn't know where to start today.

If sex was "assigned" at birth, then people would just ask the doctor "can this be a girl please".

I am so flabbergasted I don't know where to put myself!!

Someone's feelings are not evidence.

I think in the case of psychiatry they're basically the only evidence aren't they?

I suppose the lizard thing is different because psychiatrists, having examined the phenomenon of "gender" in numerous patients have come to the conclusion that it isn't simply a "belief", but something rather more fundamental.

they have a profound discomfort between their sex and their 'gender'

It still isn't evidence of the existence of an internal gender though.

Well it's certainly evidence that there is discomfort been their sex and something inside them, isn't it. And they call that thing a person's "gender"...

But it's not gender, is it? Gender is a social system imposing behaviour on individuals whether or not it fits their personality

I think one of the big problems with this whole debate is that we seem to use the same word to refer to both things :( people who think gender is or might be an innate sense don't think it isn't a social construct, they think it isn't just a social construct. There might be much less confusion if there were more than one word.

But their business is in diagnosing issues with how the brain works. They can’t deny biology on the basis of what people say they feel.

Sex, we know, is defined chromosomally. How and where is gender defined - for those that have it?

Just wanted to go back to these thinking about the difference between psychiatry and neurology; these people aren't looking for biological things - as in physical things - but the things they're looking for and talking about are no less real for being within the human mind, surely? The mind can only come from the physical body, after all.

So for example is "ego" a biological reality? Or sense of self, or "id"? There are probably loads more psychiatric phenomena, but it's not my area. They're obviously different to physical things like sex, but they're the terms describe equally observable phenomena.

No Rat it doesn't make it any clearer. Someone's feelings are not evidence. Did you read what I said about the lizards? How is that different? Do some people have a special "lizard detector" that enables them to determine whether a person is in fact a lizard? Because they really do believe it. Perhaps there is a lizard factor in some people's brains, and we shouldn't try to dissuade people from their belief in lizard humans.

I appreciate that for some trans people (transsexuals) they have a profound discomfort between their sex and their 'gender' and that is very distressing for them, and they may need psychiatric support and perhaps surgery in some cases. It still isn't evidence of the existence of an internal gender though.

(the former)

there appears to be a think within the human mind - an aspect of one's sense of self - that is related to one's biological sex, and that we call this thing gender

But it's not gender, is it? Gender is a social system imposing behaviour on individuals whether or not it fits their personality. The RCP is taking the view that it is up to the individual to reconcile themselves (or their bodies) to the demands of gender. The feminist view is that society should release individuals from gender's demands.

One could almost suspect that the RCP prefers the latter because it keeps them in business.

Spartacus and wheresmy, sorry, just read your posts; does my reply to Nosquirrels make it any clearer? Like I say it's just a suggestion.

They can’t deny biology on the basis of what people say they feel.

I don't think they're defining biology on that basis though are they, they're simply saying there appears to be a think within the human mind - an aspect of one's sense of self - that is related to one's biological sex, and that we call this thing gender.

And that for most people their sense of "gender" is unremarkable and may go completely unnoticed, probably because it is in alignment with their biological sex. And their evidence for this is that for a small but significant majority their sense of gender is very keenly felt as it is at direct odds with their biological sex, and this often causes profound discomfort.

And this would be their evidence for the existence of an internal gender, surely?

The workings of the brain are the sphere of neurologists rather than psychiatrists. I suspect as the work of the former advances the latter will become obsolete!
They appear to believe gender as something which has independent objective existence outside cultural ideas and practice. Without citing any evidence whatsoever. Rather silly.

They could easily have written "sex observed at birth", or "natal sex", or any number of similar words that state it is biology. They chose not to however - why?

Yeah, it does seem strange; clumsy and thoughtless at best, but I can't see what else it could achieve? Other than to placate anyone who might have as issue with an alternative wording I guess, and whilst I think that's silly and will clearly piss off those on the other side of the debate instead, I think it's pretty benign. Do you think it could be something more sinister?

I wonder if the evidence they're basing it on is the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide presenting to them with a condition that would strongly suggest it is a biological reality - for them, at least

But their business is in diagnosing issues with how the brain works. They can’t deny biology on the basis of what people say they feel.

That’s the whole point.

Spartacus your truck example demonstrates very neatly how these approaches tighten the gender straitjacket - the source of the whole damn problem.

So ratroly, are you saying that gender is a biological reality for some people (not all)? Your post is confusing but that seems to be what you’re saying. If it is, where does this biological reality exist? Sex, we know, is defined chromosomally. How and where is gender defined - for those that have it? (I don’t)

The RCP can't make policy on the basis of something being true because a number of people think it is true. Many, many people strongly believe that the royal family are actually lizards. Are the RCP making policy on that basis? If there is no evidence for something, the RCP should not take it as fact.

The phrase "two spirit" actually demonstrates something important. Surely this is the Royal College of Pyschiatrists are effectively saying this is a belief.

That's important because, no everyone is obliged to share a belief. Respect it yes, sign up to it no.

But all children should be allowed to be divergent. Are only children with a special "gender divergent" label to be allowed to be divergent? "No Susan, you can't play with the trucks, they are for boys. Do you identify a little bit as a boy Susan? Ok you can play with the trucks". I concede it might be my take on what they have written given the political nature of the discussion.

Re the "sex assigned at birth". The RCP must be aware of the political ramifications of what they are doing. I don't believe they aren't. They know that sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. Why use that language? They could easily have written "sex observed at birth", or "natal sex", or any number of similar words that state it is biology. They chose not to however - why?

is the word sex mentioned at all?

It seems fairly clear that the paper divides the population in two: the cis gender ( they’re not terribly goid at defining their terms but that seems to mean people whose sense of their own gender aligns with their sex) and the trans gender (ie those whose sense of their own gender does not align with their birth sex).
That’s surely a very simplistic approach. What about those of us who reject gender?
The approach also seems to assume that gender is something which exists independently of sex but which is not purely a set of cultural ideas about appropriate behaviour for individuals of each sex. I don’t accept that premise. Surely it is the notion of sex appropriate behaviour which causes the problem in the first place.