What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

Maybe that's what happens when you deny anything inherent or real in masculinity or femininity? People reinterpret those things, when they encounter them, as maleness and femaleness?

To be honest, I've never successfully followed the logic of people who believe in gender identity trumping sex, so I don't know if this is their line of thought. The idea that being feminine=being female certainly doesn't seem to follow logically from the idea that being female=/= being feminine, or that femininity is the result of socialisation.

Goosefoot thanks, I always find your posts interesting, but I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with you that there are statistical differences between men & women, and that these often get sorted into feminine/masculine behaviours. What I don't think is that femininity = femaleness, or masculinity = maleness. This is a conflation that the transgender movement makes, which is why I was drawing attention to Justhadathought's use of 'feminity/femaleness' and 'masculinity/maleness'. I'm pretty sure it was inadvertent, but I think it's a key error made by people who do believe that, for example, masculine women are somehow 'really' male'.

Yes, I agree, I think that is the mistake they've made, that maleness and masculinity are equivalent and the same for femaleness and femininity.

Maybe that's what happens when you deny anything inherent or real in masculinity or femininity? People reinterpret those things, when they encounter them, as maleness and femaleness?

One thing the trans movement has made me more aware of, is how you can't believe what you read online. Some people are openly dishonest, some circulate rumours that aren't true - and the more people are repeating the rumour, the more believable it gets.

The one I'm thinking of in particular is the 'purple triangle' rumour. A TRA called 12thGuelph made a facetious comment on Mumsnet that trans people should wear a purple triangle. The comment was deleted but not before it was screenshotted and circulated widely as 'this is what people on Mumsnet think'. Just the other day I saw a TRA on Twitter, who probably believed what they were saying, claim that 'Mumsnet wants trans people to wear purple triangles'.

Goosefoot thanks, I always find your posts interesting, but I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with you that there are statistical differences between men & women, and that these often get sorted into feminine/masculine behaviours. What I don't think is that femininity = femaleness, or masculinity = maleness. This is a conflation that the transgender movement makes, which is why I was drawing attention to Justhadathought's use of 'feminity/femaleness' and 'masculinity/maleness'. I'm pretty sure it was inadvertent, but I think it's a key error made by people who do believe that, for example, masculine women are somehow 'really' male'.

Mermoose

I'm not Justhadathought obviously, but I think I tend to agree with her on this overall.

I think that what we think of as masculine and feminine in many cases are composed of associations that get built up over time with maleness and femaleness. Human beings are good at recognising patterns amongst groups, even when they are weak patters, and sex is one of the most significant and most human class divisions we have. If we recognise a pattern of greater aggressiveness among men, for example, that sets a dichotomy of aggressive/gentle as part of masculinity/femininity. If we associate biological elements of motherhood like carrying a child or nursing and infant with women, that begins to associate a certain kind of protective and caring nurture with femininity. Some might be very biological, as in associating men with a greater height or more body hair and vice versa.
Some other associations may be more culturally determined, like clothing, but the fact that they differ may function simply as a way to notate an awareness of difference between the sexes. It doesn't matter f you associate blue with men or women, it still functions as a culturally recognised shorthand.

The women's movement has had some unexpected effects in trying to downplay these differences, I think, and even the awareness of the differences. The goal in part was to say that individual men and women don't necessarily conform to these patterns and shouldn't be held to them, but this was taken up into a denial that the patterns exist at all, and often a claim that the idea of masculinity and femininity needed to be completely destroyed in order for women to be free.

But who would have thought, for example, that you could have a large number of young women actually unaware that men and women have significant strength differences? Who would have thought that teaching that individuals should be able to wear what they want would lead to the idea that doing so was important to their self-actualisation - ie was an important part of their identity? Can we really just remove the associations of motherhood from the group women without also losing an understanding of the biological foundations of motherhood?

What it's come down to for me is that I do not think we can prevent the existence of cultural significance and understanding of sexual dimorphism, and if we try and suppress that altogether, the results are not great.

I do think a lot of people think that to be treated with respect and as 'equals' means you have to assert that everyone is exactly the same.

YY, equal does not mean exactly the same as. It means of equivalent value.

Of course we all exist along a spectrum of possible individual expression, and biological and natural impulses and tendencies can be modified to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual...but, still, some women are always going to exhibit at the extremes of 'femaleness/femininity' and some men likewise at the extremes of maleness/masculinity.The archetypes remain untouched and are rooted in biology

Justadathought I agree with you that some behaviours classed stereotypically masculine/feminine are rooted in biology (sexual orientation, for example) but I think that the conflation of femininity with femaleness and masculinity with maleness is foundational to the belief in gender. So I'm wondering if you intended to say 'femaleness/femininity'?

I'm also just wondering if you can explain what you mean by 'archetype' - do you just mean stereotype (possibly based on statistically correct traits) or do you mean it the way it's used in Jungianism?

The funny thing is, I think if I believed in Jungianism I'd probably be much more likely to believe in a gender identity, because it seems to involve a belief in male and female 'essences'. Maybe I've got the wrong impression? Just very interested in understanding this better because I've noticed a lot of gender critical people are into Jung, and I'd expect the opposite.

I do think a lot of people think that to be treated with respect and as 'equals' means you have to assert that everyone is exactly the same. Any differences that are highlighted automatically means you support sexism or racism, for example. Acknowledgment of differences is not the same as asserting that one category is superior to another.
We shouldn't necessarily base collective respect and good treatment of others on the assumption that we're always the same, but rather everyone deserves to be treated well and viewed as an equal even if we are different. Equality can be fostered by nurturing what we have in common, but it can also be cultivated in spite of our differences.

Sexual dimorphism arises out of evolution and evolution doesn't magically stop at the neck. The human body and mind have evolved in response to our environment as well as the selective pressures on our species, including sexual selection by women on men and men on women.

The body is not just a costume one assumes, or which one may attempt to disguise. It is not, I believe, without internal connection, significance or effect. The physical manifestations of sex are outward significators of deeper programmes.

Of course we all exist along a spectrum of possible individual expression, and biological and natural impulses and tendencies can be modified to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual...but, still, some women are always going to exhibit at the extremes of 'femaleness/femininity' and some men likewise at the extremes of maleness/masculinity.The archetypes remain untouched and are rooted in biology.

How so

One of the big points for reflection, for me, arising out of the whole trans issue, has related to the claims or suggestions that there are no inherent differences between men and women/ between the sexes...That every behaviour is socially constructed......if they relate to behaviours associated, in general, with sexes. That given generous enough paternity leave, men are just as likely to choose staying at home with young children, as women, for example.And if they don't it is because they are misogynistic and selfish, or haven't been trained or taught properly.

I simply no longer believe, if I ever did at all, that biology, hormones & genetic programming do not play a part somewhere in certain traits and tendencies, preferences, when expressed by males and females.

I spent a good amount of my younger years celebrating goddess type feminism/being grounded in the earth and in the natural world.....certainly for me it was never the sexed body that I wanted to reject at all.

That is not to say that we must follow our deeper drives, tendencies, impulses etc....They can be modified or even repressed.......but that does not mean they do not exist. ( See earlier discussion on the thread: 'Do women already have equal rights in the West).

The trans agenda is a confused one. On one hand it goes along with the idea that being born male or female makes no difference to one's identity;; even suggesting that sex, itself, is socially constructed; and that the only real difference is one that is internally identified.

Of course this 'felt identity' relies on stereotypes of the two sexes.....one's felt idea about what a man is like, or what a woman is like.......and so on.

But my feeling is that people instinctively intuit a difference between the sexes, that goes deeper than just the physical body.We intuit maleness and femaleness, or male and female qualities; and the reason is that maleness and femaleness are not just socially constructed, but arise from deep archetypes..both biological/natural as well as cultural.

A generation of younger people are now brought up to think and believe that equality effectively means sameness...than men and women, given socially constructed conditions of 'equality', will make the same choices....and that the only difference between people arises out of individuality rather than out of one's sex.

This goes to the heart, as well, of the whole transgender ideology -which has in many ways arisen out of later stage feminism; and which could also be seen as an unfortunate consequence of it.

Recently published articles by Dr Em
"explores how the founding fathers of ‘scientific’ research on transgenderism/transsexualism were motivated by sexist beliefs."

uncommongroundmedia.com/sexist-science-transsexualism-part-i-benjamin-ihlenfeld-money-ehrhardt/

uncommongroundmedia.com/robert-stoller-true-trans/

Feminism generally doesn’t elevate men.

..the whole transgender ideology -which has in many ways arisen out of later stage feminism.....

How so?

The issue of nature versus nurture. I don't believe all behaviour is purely socially conditioned. It is certainly interesting to look at twin studies - of those separated at birth and brought up in quite different cultures. the similarities remain. I think likewise for sex.

This goes to the heart, as well, of the whole transgender ideology -which has in many ways arisen out of later stage feminism; and which could also be seen as an unfortunate consequence of it.

That's not to say that biology absolutely determines individual destiny, and in a liberal democracy is certainly doesn't. although sexed differences do remain and are influential in an individual's life.

It is also why men are not women, and women are not men, and cannot become so, no matter how many plastic tits or prosthetic penises are created.

I did not take the cookies. Wasn’t me. Nope. I wasn’t even there. The cat did it...

That some people really will argue black is white in order to try and shut women up and deflect attention.

Bit crap for any biological woman who doesn't look "womanly" enough for you (whatever the fuck that is.)

I've been missexed on numerous occasions. I need only speak a few words for the misunderstanding to be resolved, because my voice gives the game away no matter what I'm wearing or doing nor how I've styled my hair. Unlike trans privilege activists, I welcome being challenged in a toilet or other sex-segregated space. Women and girls who challenge me have firm boundaries and the confidence to defend them, reducing their chances of a molester succeeding to harm them. Women's and girls' boundaries are infinitely more important than my feelings about how others perceive me.

I read about a country, I forget which, which had a particular problem with groping on trains.

It's Japan. Some of the trains have female-only carriages to give women a chance to get to work unmolested.

Strangely, the handsy male commuters have no difficulty knowing what a woman is.

Good point Melroses

Now you've got me thinking, interesting timing too. Like as the safeguarding walls went up, new ways through need to be found...

What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

Safeguarding.

From putting children's interests first in the Childrens Act to all those safeguarding courses that everyone did in the late 90s/early 2000s.

For some reason, the core of safeguarding and children's interests has been quietly dropping off the agenda, replaced by the needs and wants of interest groups and leaving only a shell of soundbites and lipservice.

The power of language.

I mean I know it is used to influence all the time, but I appreciate even more what Orwell was saying about the power of controlling language. The sheer depth and extent of control that words and language in and of themselves have on our thought and behaviour and what happens to our very thought process and ability to reason, analyse, organise and fight back when certain words aren't permitted, don't even exist, or when we are compelled to use others.

I see much better now how words are what enable a foggy sense of unease and injustice to be sharpened into pinpoint focus, enabling clarity of thought on an issue, so as to realise exactly what you are dealing with.

Also of course how they are used to obfuscate and mislead.

It's gotten worse, I think.

I don't come on very much anymore so I forget the dynamics of MN FWR section nowadays.

Well given that Mumsnet allow it, I think you're right Kitten.

Which is why I keep saying that when that pattern becomes obvious it's best just to not engage.