I found myself drawn to this board, despite being male and not previously particularly involved in feminist issues, because it was the only place I could find people actually talking sense about gender identity. Having read a number of threads, answered a few and followed a lot of links, I've come to the conclusion there are broadly three "camps" in this battle, not two:
1. Those who believe gender identity is a "thing" we are born with. That has its own discernible neurological reality (which science just hasn't quite caught up with yet); that most people are born with the one that matches their genitalia, but some with the opposite one. And some with one of any number of other possible genders.
2. Those who believe gender identity is a largely invented concept with no scientific evidence for its existence. That to the extent that it does exist it's largely just a result of social conditioning; that there's certainly no evidence of it being a neurological "thing" we are born with; and that the common discourse about transgender perpetuates and strengthens it to womens' disadvantage. (Broadly "gender critical" as I would consider myself).
3. Those who believe that of course there are only two genders, male and female. This worked perfectly well for millennia of human history so there's no reason it should stop working now. When people think they are the opposite gender from their sex it's usually just because of narrow outdated ideas about how girls should play with dolls etc, and all the stuff about other made-up genders is just millennial self-absorbed nonsense.
I call the last one "gender reactionary" because, while it at first appears to challenge a lot of the same things as gender critical thinking does, it actually rests on a reactionary assumption: that gender identity is real and everyone naturally "has" it. It doesn't reject gender per se, but only the idea that it is, or can be, separated from biological sex.
What concerns me is the blurring of lines between (2) and (3). I've seen comments, articles etc. that appear to start out apparently like (2) but then say something suggesting that they really just want everyone to accept their "natural" gender. I must admit that while gender critical and firmly (2) myself, I actually prefer (1) to (3). At least (1) opens up a degree of flexibility and choice about how people might live and behave, even if (IMO) it's overly reliant on definitions and categories.
Has anyone else found this? What does being gender critical mean to you? Are you critical of the very concept of gender, or just of recent attempts to broaden it and separate it from biological sex?