Please help me untangle why gender is such an issue

Indeed OldCrone.

Part of me thought about how it might improve things if gender was recognised in law as a belief/religion rather than what it is now. Thats still problematic though and doesn't resolve the issue of where you have sex / religion / gender / sexual orientation / disability / age / race as protected beliefs which have competing issues.

The fundamental problem is the failure to recognise the fact that there are conflicting interests and that they impact on each other, even if thats not malicious / does no harm.

The most basic principles of Human Rights Law is to a) recognise where these conflicts occur and to acknowledge this may cause an issue b) to identify situations or issues which may cause harm to particular groups c) to identity the most vulnerable / powerless group in that dynamic and to act to give them power / properly represent their real interests on their behalf d) to balance the interests of both whilst seeking primarily to do no harm (where this is possible, otherwise to do as little harm as possible). Basically your safeguarding 101 but under the 'Human Rights' tag. (I note here that 'safeguarding' as a phrase/movement is deeply unfashionable whilst Human Rights is something that everyone wants to get on the bandwagon of. The great irony being they are infact the same thing and can not be separated. Human Rights can not exist without proper safeguarding.)

Since both the left and right in this country have taken leave of their senses and forgotten these underlying principles, I think we are in a world of trouble whatever happens in the next 5 to 10 years. And probably a lot longer than that into the future. The path is already set.

We are already facing a review of the Human Rights Act. And we are likely to then see a review of our membership of the ECHR. This isn't a good thing.

As it stands the Equality Act 2010 already is failing in practice because its not being properly implimented due to the influence of various lobby groups and trying to get it properly enforced is prohibitive because of the cost of legal action and the fact that the most vulnerable are not really in much of a position to take up the charge with legal challenges anyway (for a number of reasons).

In reality it should be politicians who take the lead on protecting the most vulnerable in society and upholding safeguarding. What we are seeing, however, is either rather cowardly dodging of contensious issues because public image and party political lines are more important (because The Culture War) OR politicians actively forgetting the principles of human rights and in the process failing the most vulnerable in society.

That it takes a court ruling to get the fact recognised that we are experiementing on children with drugs and worst still without proper oversight and monitoring over a long time period, and WE STILL see people shouting and screaming about how the human rights of these children are being violated, is deeply disturbing. And rather illustrates the point.

Until we have a renaissance in thinking and support for human rights and what underpins them then we are going to have serious problems.

Its possible (though I think highly unlikely) that a review of the Human Rights Act will spark a proper adult debate on the subject (I think its more likely to pan out as people shouting abuse at each other and generally not being civilised human beings on either side).

Unfortunately though I think that the only thing that will properly spark the renaissance is multiple mass scandals / a major abuse of human rights in this country that outrages and shocks the majority into a state of true horror on a scale that blows your mind. (War and genecide has been the catalyst in the past so thats your bench mark).

None of this is pretty and its much more likely we will see 'low level' patterns of abuse being tolerated / facilitated / enabled for a very long time to come. With lots of 'well meaning' politicians and activists feigning deep regret and surprise (as if they haven't been warned of the possiblity of these abuses and the poor standard / lack of safeguarding) along the road.

I really don't see any meaningful level of countermovement at present coming from anywhere really. What exists is still very much fringe, and often framed in a negative manner by those with vested interests in power. Instead what we are getting is just a slow erosion of the underlying principles of human rights.

TBH it one of the things thats really getting me down about MN at the moment, because I can see it playing out across the board on just about every major political issue going - not just this section. People just don't get the complexity and difficulty in balancing competing interests and have no interest in doing so. They only see things through the echo chamber mentality and via very narrow thought processes.

Its very depressing that we seek so many simple solutions and explainations to everything. They do not exist. And thats what makes this a dangerous time, especially if you fall through the cracks in society.

if I were to be referred to as "he" for example it would make me very uncomfortable

I got referred to as "he" a lot as a young teenager. The act of being called he in itself didn't bother me, what did bother me was the obvious difference in treatment.

I remember going with my mum and brother to set up his first bank account, the man at the back was going on about how he'd enjoy being financially responsible and sensible like his big brother. Once he was told I was a big sister instead, suddenly the talk was about spending sprees in fashion shops. Because its silly little girls can't be trusted with money, we'll just spend it on makeup and shoes.

(I guess thank you to that man for setting me on the path to feminism?)

So what is it about being called he that would make you feel uncomfortable?

For me it clearly went down badly, but not because it didn't match my inner sense of self, it was that it made it apparent my worth was considered less when they knew my sex.

I have been told by a transwomen poster on a previous thread that they identify with women's submissiveness.

Reminds me of my ex, who is a self-described agp and very definitely not trans (as I won't let him identify as a transterf ). Very much porn-inspired in his case.

But the reason I highlight this one is it's evidence that the tw in question and I categorically do not share a "gender identity" - because my identity in relation to gender has been that of a hardline-resister since I was seven. That's when I realised I did not have to submit, and started fighting back.

As for "feeling your nationality" - interesting parallel. Those who were around in the days of the Spartacus threads may remember that common consensus was we only feel like women (as opposed to people) when people are treating us as lesser/other because of our biology and the associated stereotypes.

Just the same for nationality: I only really feel English when I'm talking to people of other cultures (particularly Americans who don't get the English national character); I only really feel Yorkshire when I'm talking to southerners (or anyone from the wrong side of the Pennines).

@Positrans I really appreciate you trying to explain and answering questions. Thank you.

I know others have already asked this, but it keeps coming back to me: you say you felt like ‘one of the girls’. Why? Because you shared similar interests? Because you didn’t identify with the temperaments of boys around you or their interests? Because you liked the way they played and interacted?

You said you realised that we were divided into Girls and Boys, and that you felt you were a Girl. But why? Perhaps it’s hard for you to explain, but any attempt would be gratefully received. I just don’t fully get it.

I hope you can explain more.

I suppose you’ll say that you had an inner sense of ‘being like them’? But how? If so, why did you think their inner lives were homogeneous and all the same? What was the element of ‘girlness’ you saw that you recognised in yourself?

I absolutely agree with this:
“ What I do care about in relation to people I don't know from Adam is how much of a threat they are to me or my children in a given situation. There is plenty of objective, verifiable data showing that people of the male sex carry out violent and sexual crime at an astronomically higher rate than people of the female sex. There is plenty of objective, verifiable data showing that people of the male sex are on average much stronger than people of the female sex. These two facts alone put me, a female person, at greater physical risk from make people than from other female people. Without getting into concepts of privacy and dignity, these are two significant reasons why female people and male people have been and are offered separate facilities and services in certain situations.”

If however, it is unanimously agreed and proven that sex is a spectrum and that the dangerous people fall in a certain part of the spectrum, and can be identified and segregated from the rest, then perhaps generations of the future might be safe enough and not feel uneasy about foregoing their single sex spaces, then that might be ok at that time in the future, but for now, it’s not.

if I were to be referred to as "he" for example it would make me very uncomfortable

It wouldn't me, I would assume they were on the wind up as I am very obviously female in terms of waist to hip ratio etc. Not a value judgement, just reality. I can understand how it might be uncomfortable, hurtful or offensive to a woman when it was in any way ambiguous what sex she was.

Knowing you're female when you are actually female is one thing. Knowing you're female when you're actually male is called something else entirely.

This is what is being conflated. As you say Datun, it's not the same thing at all. See also "autogynephilia in terms of males fantasising about themselves having sex as a woman doesn't exist because women fantasise about having sex as themselves".

I've never read anything that has persuaded me that gender identity is any more solid a concept than a soul. It's a matter of belief, and like so many religious people there's a real resistance to anyone who says they don't share the belief.

If someone says to me that it doesn't matter whether I personally believe in a soul/gender identity I have one because they say so? Especially if they claim their theory is a fact but a belief (but fail to provide evidence. I have no time for that Your faith is personal to you, glad it helps you, but I don't want a part of it, and I definer don't want laws written and enforced based on it.

This. With bells on.

I don't mind splitting by sex in some cases at the moment, but I see trans woman as female, so that's not a problem for me.

That's quite a preposterous statement. You have an ideological worldview that's about as flexible as the average Jesuit priest. It doesn't make any sense, unless you believe in some kind of disembodied soul.

Where this gets difficult is when one of two things happen.

One is when a religion turns into a cult, sucking in young and/or vulnerable people who are not given an opportunity to leave.

The other is when governments are captured by the belief system and it finds its way into law. Even more worrying when those governments don't seem to realise that they have unthinkingly adopted a belief system. This seems to be where we are now.

I’m wondering whether this “feeling of being a woman” is like “feeling” your nationality, it has nothing distinct or any set definitions, you just presume that what you’re feeling is it, because you feel like you feel and you are that nationality. You don’t know if feels any different to be a different nationality and you can only approximate that feeling by living in another country and experiencing a different way of life/culture. You can even become a naturalised citizen of that country but you still won’t have the same feeling of those people and indeed, each one of the citizens of that country may have totally different feelings of being that nationality.

“ I really try to understand, if I were to accept that sex is a spectrum, what the implications and results of this would be.

If it's all one spectrum then the implications are horribly offensive, because it results in fertile women being considered more female than infertile women.”

I was wondering whether it also included breast and penis sizes - the smaller they are, the nearer you are to the opposite sex or something. Which also doesn’t really make any sense, I’m sure smaller breasted woman have gotten pregnant and lesser endowed men have fathered children, although I’m not saying that you are less of a man or woman if you haven’t.

I don't object to people being gender believers any more than believers in any other religion, at least on an individual basis. But they shouldn't be trying to force the rest of us to believe and push through laws which affect us all which are based on their beliefs.

Stereotypes affect us all even though they aren't law. If enough people believe in them on an individual level its problematic, especially if there are not laws to actively protect non-believers and these laws where they do exist are not enforced on behalf of the most vulnerable.

We know that fashion models for example had a significant influence back in the 90s over society as a whole in terms of how women were supposed to look. To the point that eventually the industry had to stop using models who were under a certain BMI because of how it was connected to promotion of anorexia.

If we are saying that we don't mind individual transgender beliefs we still may need to manage media representations and enact laws which protect non believers from things like workplace dismissal.

None of this would be 'anti-trans' but it sure as hell would be framed as such. It would be more like a secular thing.

I'm short. It's part of my identity. The clothes I chose, the type of sports I do, my sense of my own body.

If I were to wake up tomorrow in a tall body I'd feel weird and wrong.

That doesn't mean I have a short identity that luckily happens to match the body I happen to have, it means the identity I have is a function of the body I am.

Similarly I would feel very weird if I woke up tomorrow as a man. I don't see that as proof of that gender identity exists separately from the body.

The thought experiment of changing the body of an existing personality only proves that humans know who they were yesterday and will notice if that changes.

Sorry that was addressed to Types:

Yes, I was pointing out that the things you highlight that are associated with women and girls ARE stereotypes. I have been told by a transwomen poster on a previous thread that they identify with women's submissiveness. The very criteria by which children are judged to be trans involve a tick box exercise of gendered toys and clothes. It's not me imposing the stereotypes, I'm asking for a definition of what it feels like to be female that doesn't involve them.

I'm still yet to see or hear an explanation of what is is to feel 'female' that is anything other than a list of restrictive stereotypical views of women and girls. Gender ideology is fundamentally sexist and regressive.

It's a belief system like a religion. Asking a believer for an explanation of how they 'know' they have a particular gender identity is like asking a religious person how they know their god exists.

It is a sexist and regressive belief system, and people who believe in it should stop trying to pretend that there is anything 'progressive' about an ideology which wants to push women back into a box labelled 'decorative support human'.

I don't object to people being gender believers any more than believers in any other religion, at least on an individual basis. But they shouldn't be trying to force the rest of us to believe and push through laws which affect us all which are based on their beliefs.

I really try to understand, if I were to accept that sex is a spectrum, what the implications and results of this would be.

If it's all one spectrum then the implications are horribly offensive, because it results in fertile women being considered more female than infertile women.

If it's two spectrums (spectra?) - a male one and a female one - then I'm fine with that. Cos everyone on the female spectrum is as female as all the rest. Transmen included.

if I were to be referred to as "he" for example it would make me very uncomfortable

I find it mildly uncomfortable - because in my experience it's so often intended as an insult and a reminder that 'you're not womanning right'. Nothing to do with "feeling female", everything to do with not liking being insulted or having my appearance shamed and policed.

I don't know what the feeling is but it's there. I feel like a woman

I’m a woman too. Do you feel like I do? How would you know?

Are your feelings of womanhood totally independent of your your knowledge that you are female? Are they separate from your lifetime of experiences and memories of being female? How would you know?

e.g. gentler, more passive, liking pink etc I'd really like to know what female attributes your gender identity aligns with?

Again with the stereotypes.

How about breasts, vagina, female facial bone structure? Or alternatively facial hair, broken voice, completely flat chest for trans man?

Ok well I feel like a person inside

That's why I was a feminist before I knew the word

YY