Page 4 | Why conflate 'Gender Critical' and belief in immutable sex?

Beancounter1 · 2021-06-11T19:25:09+00:00

I'm confused about why the term 'gender critical' is conflated with the belief in immutable biological sex. To me they are not necessarily the same thing. I believe it is not possible for someone to change their sex. Would you say this is a 'gender critical' stance? My belief in immutable sex doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe gender exists. Maybe someone can change their gender, if not their sex. Sex seems a really clear-cut biological characteristic, but I am on the fence about gender - I am inclined to think it does actually exist and that it is not 'all society's influence', that some of gender is nature not nurture. But I don't have a definition of gender. The situation is not helped by the fact there is, in common usage, only one set of words, 'woman' or 'female', to signify both gender and sex. Language does not help here. Please could someone who has put a lot more thought into this help me out here?

smithsinarazz · 11/06/2021 22:15

@necessaryScene - can I just say, that's perhaps the most lucid and ordered exposition of the gender-critical position that I've ever seen. Thanks.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 22:12

@Beancounter1

Hi Necessary,

"The gender critical stance can be summarised as:

sex is immutable (in humans)
sex matters
gender identity (pink/blue souls) don't exist - that's a religious belief
gender stereotypes are harmful

But the specific concept "gender critical" comes from the last two points, which build further on the first two."

This is really helpful - the concepts are related but are distinct. So for example it is possible to believe that gender doesn't exist whilst simultaneously thinking that sex doesn't matter, or vice-versa, or that sex is immutable and also gender stereotypes are harmless.
There isn't a classic logical chain here.

"But we still wouldn't say that men and women are the same, statistically. They're very much not. There are sex-correlated characteristics and behaviours, some of which are the grain of truth within gender stereotypes."

This is probably what I mean by believing gender exists, but what I actually mean is that gender is rooted in, and a consequence of, real sex differences.
Thanks

okay I'm requoting myself quoting poster 'Necessary' here because I wasn't intending to focus the thread on how or whether gender exists.

I'm more interested in how the four bullet points above relate to each other.
I agree with 1 and 2, probably disagree with 3, not sure about 4
Is this a consistent and defensible position?

OP posts:

OldTurtleNewShell · 11/06/2021 22:04

Gender critical is that sex is real and affects your life, but gender stereotypes aren't.
e.g. if you are female, you may lose an opportunity at a job if an employer doesn't want to hire someone who may become pregnant
Under gender critical thinking, this passes no value judgement on you and says nothing about your personality or whether you may be more masculine or feminine, but does recognise that female biology is often used as an justification for discrimination in a patriarchal society.
Curiously, I'm always fascinated by the prevalence of 'cis' as mentioned upthread, a term that effectively glues gender stereotypes to sex, and insists its natural for women to fit in into a 'female' gender box. Pure bloody sexism.

LolaSmiles · 11/06/2021 21:51

There was also an interesting study where a baby was dressed in stereotypically girl clothes and again in stereotypically boy clothes and it found that the adults played with the baby in very different ways, even though it was the same baby. The only difference was the clothing.

The extent that stereotypes are woven into socialisation shouldn't be underestimated.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:50

@BlueBrush

This helped me:

This is great - a succinct summary of the politics

OP posts:

FemaleAndLearning · 11/06/2021 21:50

I think that is socialisation again. People treat baby girls differently to baby boys.

PlanDeRaccordement · 11/06/2021 21:47

@MrsTerryPratchett

I don't think GC is thinking it doesn't exist! Rather thinking it's mostly sexist drivel designed to keep women (and to a certain extent non-conforming men) in their place socially.

I believe it exists and people have preferences. But that ultimately it's sexist shite. Also capitalist.

^This Except for the capitalist part. Gender has nothing to do with or any influence on what economic system is in place.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:46

@lazylinguist

Maybe things related to hormones? Boys have more testosterone-fuelled agression/physicality, girls are better with language?

But sex hormones are about sex, not gender . And girls are better with language? I'm female and a linguist and I don't believe that's true. Well, not as any kind of inherent trait. Girls are certainly socialised in ways which might make them better with language.

I am yet to hear of any gender identity attributes that aren't either a) stereotypes or b) nonsense.

Hi lazy linguist, I don't have any references, I'm just a casual reader of all sorts of stuff, but I am sure there have been studies that show there are real sex differences between babies. They are not blank slates. Given that, the way those differences express themselves, typically and on average, give rise to what we call gender stereotypes. Yes, you could say that therefore these are sex differences, not gender differences, but I think it is useful to make the distinction. When the babies grow up into adults, the original sex differences have interacted with society and become gender differences. Is this a plausible explanation?

OP posts:

OchonAgusOchonOh · 11/06/2021 21:44

I do agree with you op to an extent re nature and gender. I think nature has helped create some of the stereotypes of gender. Men and women evolved differently due to the skills that were of benefit to them. So the sex who bore children tended to raise and nurture the children meaning characteristics such as cooperation with others in the same role had an evolutionary advantage. Likewise the sex who did not bear young were in a position to protect and hunt so characteristics such as aggression were an evolutionary advantage.

What all that means is that women tended to have the more nurturing characteristics, men the more aggressive ones so stereotypes of what it means to be a man or a woman evolved. People were expected to fit into the appropriate stereotype which further reinforces the stereotypes.

So basically, nature contributes, nurture reinforces and power allows those with power to subjugate those without and further reinforces and expands the stereotypes.

I read an excellent book years ago called A Mind of Her Own about the evolutionary psychology of women. It had a lot of this stuff in it.

RedToothBrush · 11/06/2021 21:42

@MishyJDI

What we need is genital inspectors at the entrance to every male and female sex segregated venue. Everyone has to flash their genitals to ensure they are right to enter. You can never be too sure when someone who looks CIS is actually not and who looks trans is actually CIS.

The only answer, is genital inspections. Just to be safe!

I think that if you are being admitted to hospital / prison / refuges / other single sex accomodation then your records should reflect your sex. For your own safety and the safety of others. There are various ways this is important and can be used to ensure that discrimination doesn't occur.

The fact that documentation doesn't do this is the problematic bit.

No flashing would be necessary then.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:39

@MidsomerMurmurs

Lots of sensible discussion here of “gender” as a set of sex-based social stereotypes. Just to point out the obvious, “critical” means something along the lines of “an analysis of the merits and faults of a particular idea”. It does not mean expressing disapproval. Being a film critic does not involve hating films.

Very helpful. I assumed it meant critical of the idea gender exists, which to be fair is how it seems to be used as a term. But it could mean 'interested in analysing gender'.

OP posts:

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:35

@MishyJDI

What we need is genital inspectors at the entrance to every male and female sex segregated venue. Everyone has to flash their genitals to ensure they are right to enter. You can never be too sure when someone who looks CIS is actually not and who looks trans is actually CIS.

The only answer, is genital inspections. Just to be safe!

You might not be able to tell, but generally most women can tell. It's like the old 'gaydar' concept. It is a kind of instinct. People very, very rarely 'pass' as the opposite sex after the first quick glance. Besides which, those who are genuinely trying to 'pass' are not the people causing all the furore. The aggressive "in-your-face look-at-me-I'm-a-real-woman" people often want to be noticed and identified.

OP posts:

lazylinguist · 11/06/2021 21:35

Maybe things related to hormones? Boys have more testosterone-fuelled agression/physicality, girls are better with language?

But sex hormones are about sex, not gender . And girls are better with language? I'm female and a linguist and I don't believe that's true. Well, not as any kind of inherent trait. Girls are certainly socialised in ways which might make them better with language.

I am yet to hear of any gender identity attributes that aren't either a) stereotypes or b) nonsense.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:28

Hi Necessary,

"The gender critical stance can be summarised as:

sex is immutable (in humans)
sex matters
gender identity (pink/blue souls) don't exist - that's a religious belief
gender stereotypes are harmful

But the specific concept "gender critical" comes from the last two points, which build further on the first two."

This is really helpful - the concepts are related but are distinct. So for example it is possible to believe that gender doesn't exist whilst simultaneously thinking that sex doesn't matter, or vice-versa, or that sex is immutable and also gender stereotypes are harmless.
There isn't a classic logical chain here.

"But we still wouldn't say that men and women are the same, statistically. They're very much not. There are sex-correlated characteristics and behaviours, some of which are the grain of truth within gender stereotypes."

This is probably what I mean by believing gender exists, but what I actually mean is that gender is rooted in, and a consequence of, real sex differences.
Thanks

OP posts:

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 11/06/2021 21:25

It is probably correct to say ' I believe X is a fact' until science has utterly settled the point and it is no longer contested.

Immutable, binary sex in humans is settled science and not contested. (Unless you would say the earth being an approximate oblate spheroid is a contested fact by flat earthers...)

OhHolyJesus · 11/06/2021 21:25

Something to help OP

twitter.com/menminlymen1/status/1403350328834150404?s=21

MidsomerMurmurs · 11/06/2021 21:23

Lots of sensible discussion here of “gender” as a set of sex-based social stereotypes. Just to point out the obvious, “critical” means something along the lines of “an analysis of the merits and faults of a particular idea”. It does not mean expressing disapproval. Being a film critic does not involve hating films.

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:19

@StealthPolarBear

Really good point. I've always assumed GC to mean critical of gender stereotypes, so the fact you have long hair and wear a skirt does not make you a girl or woman. As you say that's different from knowing that sex cannot change. And tbh that's not a belief any more than a belief in the earth orbiting the sun or that my ds is my ds, or that I live in the village I live in. Those things are usually called facts.

Hi polarbear, Yes I see it as a fact, though I said belief rather than fact because the fact is still contested - as was the earth's orbit in the time of Copernicus or Gallileo. It is probably correct to say ' I believe X is a fact' until science has utterly settled the point and it is no longer contested.

OP posts:

Original poster

Beancounter1 · 11/06/2021 21:16

@Soontobe60

You say that ‘some gender is nature not nurture’ - which aspects do you think are down to nature?

Hi Soontobe, Maybe things related to hormones? Boys have more testosterone-fuelled agression/physicality, girls are better with language? Not sure really. But babies of different sexes are not identical, I think there is research into this.

OP posts:

Whatsnewpussyhat · 11/06/2021 21:16

Gender isn't man or woman. Those are the words used to describe male and female humans based on their sex.

Gender is masculine or feminine and sex role stereotypes. Some people seem to think these things matter more than our sex.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 11/06/2021 21:07

OP - have you read the Break It Down For Me thread?

It's pretty helpful for a number of questions you're likely to have.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 11/06/2021 20:59

mishy I think you have posted on the wrong thread?

titchy · 11/06/2021 20:57

@MishyJDI

What we need is genital inspectors at the entrance to every male and female sex segregated venue. Everyone has to flash their genitals to ensure they are right to enter. You can never be too sure when someone who looks CIS is actually not and who looks trans is actually CIS.

The only answer, is genital inspections. Just to be safe!

Alternatively people could simply open their eyes! I know, right!

IGetOver · 11/06/2021 20:55

@MishyJDI

actually ...scrap that.... what if they have had surgery? Then a chromosome test is the only way. Everyone needs a chromosome test before they can enter or some sort of licence or goverment ID....you know for safety etc..... It's the only way!

Or people could just ya know use the toilet of their sex as they were designed, it’s never needed policed before 🤷‍♀️

Waitwhat23 · 11/06/2021 20:55

Ooh, I thought I'd seen my first Armitage Shanks law in action there! Not quite.