Page 2 | I think we should use the word 'personality' more

ThisIsJeopardy · 2022-04-24T14:03:22+00:00

As the whole sex / gender discussion has had so much more public discussion lately, not least because of male athletes in women's sport, and because of JKR, I've found myself having conversations in real life which I've been wanting but have felt unable to have for years now. And in doing so, I've had to articulate my position on what I find objectionable about genderism, why I won't describe myself as 'cis' etc. I just want to share the explanation that I have found to be most effective in helping people who are new to this discussion to grasp why it's so problematic to feminists. I think we've adopted too much of the ideology's language, and we talk in terms of the difference between sex and 'gender identitiy'. People assume that gender identity means something true and proven and profound. I find it more helpful to talk in terms of bodies and personalities: ^So, I have a body, and I have a personality (all my thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of humour and intelligence and aptitudes and weaknesses and attractions and aversions).^ ^My body is female. My personality isn't male or female... It's just a human personality and it's unique to me. Sure, it's been shaped by my experiences and some of those experiences have been related to having a female body. But my personality itself isn't female, because 'female' isn't a type of personality. It's a reproductive sex class; a type of body. When people talk about 'gender identity', they're talking about having a male personality or a female personality, and whether the sex of their personality matches the sex of their body. And if they describe me as 'cis', they're saying I have a female personality to match my female body. I reject that description of myself.^ ^I think back to all of the work and the struggles of feminists before me and I can't accept that we're sliding back into an acceptance that our personalities are either male or female, and we're supposed call that progress. That's the same assumption that was used to justify women not having positions of leadership or even the vote, and men not having caring responsibilities or being allowed to show emotion other than anger. Or that gay men and lesbians weren't 'proper' men and women respectively. It's so sexist and undermining of so much progress to assert that there are male personalities or personality traits and female ones. Calling it 'gender identity' instead of 'personality' doesn't change how regressive and sexist that is.^ ^People who consider themselves non binary are saying that their personalities are neither male nor female, and that that's a condition specific to 'NB' people. But that just puts all the rest of us more firmly in the 'male personality' and 'female personality' boxes that feminist has been trying for hundreds of years to free us *all* from.^ ^I fully accept and empathise with the fact that other people have different beliefs about their own bodies and personalities and they can describe themselves how they like. But the movement to enshrine in law and in education and in society, this idea that our personalities are male or female, is not something I can support or participate in.^ This is the kind of framing that has helped the penny drop for a few people in my life. I would love to know what has worked for others.

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 14:28

The idea that the existence of two sexes entails there MUST be genders is anti feminist. Radical feminists have always maintained that natural facts about biological do not necessarily lead to gender.

First, gender exists because we have two sexes and it is a fact of life, it’s neither feminist nor anti-feminist. And what radical feminists have always maintained is that one’s sex does not determine one’s natural abilities, as in gender stereotypes are just stereotypes there is no biological determinism that says for example, all women are better at nurturing and all men are better at leading. Radical feminists have never denied the very existence of gender.

Saying gender is inevitable because we have two sexes is like saying racism…is inevitable because we have different races.

No thats not a valid analogy. Racism is a completely different type of concept from gender identity.

WeeBisom · 25/04/2022 14:07

The idea that the existence of two sexes entails there MUST be genders is anti feminist. Radical feminists have always maintained that natural facts about biological do not necessarily lead to gender. Gender appears inevitable because we think it is “natural”. This is false. Now, if you think gender is natural and inevitable then I can see why you would scoff at the “utopia” of abolition and instead try to play around the edges… maybe say that some men can become women if they adopt the female gender. But this is pretty conservative.

Saying gender is inevitable because we have two sexes is like saying racism and slavery is inevitable because we have different races. In fact , it’s a social construct which we can change. Feminism has had enormous success in showing that gender is make up and not natural - women were thought to be physically and mentally incapable of being lawyers less than one hundred years ago, and now women dominate the legal profession.

I remember seeing a video where contrapoints mocked the idea of getting rid of gender, and quipped that it would be a boring world if they didn’t get to wear makeup and acrylic nails. I sometimes think that is a big reason why trans people are so invested in gender. They don’t see it as a source of oppression but of enjoyment. Now that’s a fine view to take, but it certainly isn’t feminist.

Original poster

ThisIsJeopardy · 25/04/2022 13:23

Hi @BelleTheBananas , to be fair I don't think either of us will have been the first to recognise that gender identity is just a sexist framing of personality... It's not a new revelation to me either, I just would like to see it make its way more frequently into the discourse on this subject.

@Discovereads you point out that gender non-conformity isn't new, and of course it isn't. But what it used to mean was: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, because those are just oppressive sexist stereotypes. I can reject them and live my life how I choose, and am no less a woman for that."

The ideology you are defending has changed the meaning of 'gender non-conforming' to mean: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, so that means maybe I'm not really a woman and my 'gender identity' must be transman or nonbinary."

Which just upholds the idea that "being a woman" (or man, as the case may be) actually does mean conformity to all those bullshit sexist limits and expectations.

That ain't progress, and it ain't feminism either.

OP posts:

SpringBadger · 25/04/2022 13:10

Further musings...

There seems something coy and teenage about the concept of gender identity - unsullied by association with earthly flesh yet requiring external validation. It shrinks prudishly from sex and reproduction. It puts me in mind of the young cyclist Emily Bridges saying "it sucks to race as a man when you're not one". Bridges, of course, was due to race world champion Dame Laura Kenny (just weeks after winning men's races), until a last-minute change of rules. Dame Laura recently shared her sad experiences of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. I don't know whether her timing was meaningful or coincidental (she also stuck up for women-only sport around the same time), but it very clearly illustrated the gulf between the gender identitarian view, and the material reality.

On gender abolitionism: as I said earlier, I personally have no interest in an androgynous world where men and women are entirely indistinguishable clothed. If individuals want to be androgynous, that's up to them (I just probably won't fancy them). However, one doesn't have to be a gender abolitionist to deplore gender ideology. I would liken it to discussions on appropriation and lived experience. E.g. if I enjoy the food, clothing, dialect, lifestyle typical of another culture, I think that's absolutely fine (and frankly have little time for most claims of cultural appropriation I hear of). However, if I go about saying that I am of that culture, that's clearly wrong, and potentially quite offensive to people of that heritage as I would seem to be saying that they are defined by liking curry or croissants, say, and that based on my stated tastes I have equal claim to their heritage.

SapphosRock · 25/04/2022 12:57

I think this is brilliantly articulated, thank you OP. Agree with everything.

hamstersarse · 25/04/2022 12:51

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178118312472 personality changes from testosterone for trans men - increased extraversion, decreased neuroticism

cpap.shahed.ac.ir/article_2922.html?lang=en propensity to experience gender dysphoria - high extraversion and high neuroticism

Here are just two articles outlining that personality is a relevant conversation in all of this (there are plenty more)

Firstly, your personality matters in how attracted you are to the trans, and your propensity to transition. High extraversion and high neuroticism is what this study found (neuroticism is always there, but other studies have shown it alongside agreeableness) and this tells us there are certain aspects of personality that are more likely to transition, nodding to the statement by pp that people are "just discovering their personality". It is a risk factor essentially.

But also, there is the thorny issue that there is more of a propensity of having certain personality traits if you are male or female, e.g. neuroticism. It gets complicated because clearly that hints at there being a 'female personality' and everyone here knows that is historically dangerous and a way in which to oppress women. But I am not sure it is good to ignore the fact that most of the kind & giving people you know are female, most of the very overly dominant people you know are male. We all know this, we see it every day (please don't say that you are not kind and are very dominant - yes, of course you can be as a woman, but if you look to your entire group of friends, families and acquaintances, you will see a pattern)

This leaves us with a reality that there is 'something' about a generalised female personality, and that some men (for a multitude of reasons combining their personality type and their experiences) may want to have this 'female personality' which means being more nurturing and less dominant. It may seem attractive psychologically and sexually (AGP).

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 12:23

@Discovereads if you state that 'some feminists are trans inclusive ', it is implicit that some are not, ie. trans exclusive.

I never mentioned, or implied, cosmetic surgery. I'm aware the vast majority of transpeople don't bother. Good thing too, far too many bad outcomes iirc. Talking of words going where words don't belong.

While getting rid of gender identities might be unrealistic and utopian the answer is more? Really? If you can't have a perfect world just give up? In fact, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Hyperbole for dramatic effect...but really.

Also, I think many feminists would take umbrage that they're supposedly fighting against the suppression of gi. That has to have been a typo.

Just for clarity, are you using gender as a polite synonym for sex? I don't think so, but jic.

BelleTheBananas · 25/04/2022 12:19

I came up with this theory a few years ago (sorry @ThisIsJeopardy 🤣) and have been using it with the children in school.

So when a child approaches me with a gender identity statement, I usually reply with ‘it’s great that you’re discovering your personality!’.

JoodyBlue · 25/04/2022 12:17

It is a very attractive idea, but I think at core it is utopian and thus impossible to actually implement. Why? Because humanity is divided into two sexes. Gender is the social result of this biological reality, which cannot be changed.

But of course we can change society. It is the one thing we CAN change. And the thing that feminists working since the 70s have been trying to change. It is not utopian, there is a lot of pushback. Sadly that push back has come from younger feminists in recent years. But as you highlight with the word "utopia", it IS the ideal.

SpringBadger · 25/04/2022 12:08

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:41

@JoodyBlue ,@IcakethereforeIam and @SpringBadger

sorry to reply to you all at once, but you’ve individually raised a good point which I will sum up as best I think I understood. It is why have any gender identities at all. Get rid of them and the gender labels and we all just live as unique humans, free to be ourselves.

This is the core belief of gender abolitionists and I think it is a good point. Gender has been used for millennium as a tool of oppression on both sexes, but almost exclusively to oppress the female sex. So the gender abolitionist likens it to a sort of forced indenturehood to gender stereotypes and expectations that for society to progress, we must abolish gender entirely.

It is a very attractive idea, but I think at core it is utopian and thus impossible to actually implement. Why? Because humanity is divided into two sexes. Gender is the social result of this biological reality, which cannot be changed. If we only had one sex, then there would be no such thing as gender.

This is so full of holes, though. Social roles have sprung from biological reality, agreed. Obviously, in a technologically-advanced modern country, where most jobs are not physically demanding and reproduction can be controlled, we are less tethered to these social roles, but they won't disappear overnight. Also, most people fancy the opposite sex, and therefore there will always be the urge to play up the differences between the sexes to kindle attraction. i.e. if I were to go out on the pull, I (personally) would be accentuating my feminity and womanliness, to a degree. I personally have no desire for androgyny - sometimes I revel in the feminine, mostly I just wear something fairly neutral and get on with my day (sadly going on the pull doesn't actually feature, work, errands and parenting do).

So where I depart from you is - why does claiming affinity to a sex-derived social role make someone, in any real sense, a man or a woman? Basically, so what if a man is a SAHD or a woman does whatever it is that is considered unwomanly?

And furthermore - is that what is actually going on with trans people? Because none of the SAHDs or Domestic Gods that I know have the slightest desire to be women. They tend to be utterly uninterested in their "identity" or aesthetic presentation - they are too busy looking after their kids and the house! Yet we see TW who enjoy typically male pursuits, careers, and (dare I say it) personalities - other than wishing to dress to the nines with miniskirt, manicure and high heels in a way that most women over the age of 23 don't.

And likewise, the "trans boys" - are they typically out there playing rugby, hanging around grunting in a pack of lads, drinking beer? Are they more likely than any girl to enter male-dominated fields of study or work? Not as far as I'm aware (do correct me if I'm wrong). The pattern seems to be that they start playing with masculinity after they've been convinced by social media that their feelings of difference stem from being trans. The TM I'm aware of all seem to be going into the caring professions, in fact. So, what does this have to do with traditional social roles based on the two sexes?

MoltenLasagne · 25/04/2022 12:04

Some of these examples are just bizarre to me - like the expectation that women should sew as a hobby. Sewing has had a revival of interest in maybe the last 15 years as a hobby with things like the sewing bee. Growing up in the 90s there was no way an expectation - that feels more like something from the 1950s which was 70 years ago so not exact a current thing.

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:54

RoyKentsChestHair · 25/04/2022 11:43

No man has ever been called a cocklodger for deciding to become a sahd. That word is used for a man who stays at home but does none of the work of a sahd.

Yes they have. I know several SAHDs and they have been called “deadbeat dad” “cocklodger” “sugar baby” “waster” “kept man” etc.

Are you seriously suggesting there is no social stigma towards stay at home dads?

The word cocklodger is also used for a male partner who doesn’t have a job and contributes zero £ to the family finances regardless of how much child care and household work he does.

BotCrossHuns · 25/04/2022 11:52

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:12

@JoodyBlue
I think you may be slightly confusing things. Gender nonconformance has always been and still is labelled and stigmatised. It’s not a recent change to society. As a reminder gender conforming in the past included things like women only being allowed to wear skirts, be a wife/mother, and their hobbies were limited to feminine assigned activities like sewing and cooking. The list was endless…proper women don’t smoke, don’t read literature, have no head for science or maths. Women who did not conform were harshly stigmatised. It is still present today in terms of how women who wear heels and makeup to work are viewed as more professional than women who do not. There is still stigma against mothers putting infants into nursery to return to work, because the gender roles dictate they should be home with baby. The same sort of stigmas exist for men, men cannot wear skirts and makeup and be considered hireable in any job. Any man who chooses to be a stay at home dad is stigmatised and called a “cocklodger” and other derogatory terms.

Its never (yet) been perfectly acceptable to be who you are gender identity wise without a label unless you are naturally gender conforming….it’s just that the labels then were derogatory. “tomboy” is a derogatory term with its male counterpart being “sissyboy”. For adults “butch” and “Nancy” also derogatory terms to reference women who are not conforming to feminine gender expression and roles and men who are not conforming to masculine gender expression roles.

Part of the gender movement is about getting rid of the derogatory labels for nonconformance by creating labels for different gender identities that are neutral in connotation and can be a source of pride instead of shame. That’s real progress imho.

I've never particularly thought some of the labels were derogatory - tomboy has always been a bit of an aspirational thing among some girls; so has the ability to break away from cooking/sewing/childcare etc. Yes in decades gone by, it might have been more stigmatised, but I'm not sure it has particularly for the past 50 years. Expectations might have been there that you should do those things (possibly as well as whatever else you might choose to do), but there hasn't been that much stigma as before, and even admiration for some aspects of it.

I don't recall feeling pressure to put a label on gender identity really. I was good at science and maths, but also at some stereotypically feminine things. It seemed fine to have a mix, and in fact I was very much encouraged not to just do feminine things.

I agree that we should get rid of the labels for non-conformance, and just let people be - but we can still use lables for sex, without confusing things. Yes it's not a situation that is easy to do yet, but I think aiming for that is a better aim than aiming to just get rid of the concept of two sexes instead. Personalities could be a perfectly neutral way of describing people, and a source of pride instead of shame as well.

RoyKentsChestHair · 25/04/2022 11:43

No man has ever been called a cocklodger for deciding to become a sahd. That word is used for a man who stays at home but does none of the work of a sahd.

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:41

@JoodyBlue ,@IcakethereforeIam and @SpringBadger

sorry to reply to you all at once, but you’ve individually raised a good point which I will sum up as best I think I understood. It is why have any gender identities at all. Get rid of them and the gender labels and we all just live as unique humans, free to be ourselves.

This is the core belief of gender abolitionists and I think it is a good point. Gender has been used for millennium as a tool of oppression on both sexes, but almost exclusively to oppress the female sex. So the gender abolitionist likens it to a sort of forced indenturehood to gender stereotypes and expectations that for society to progress, we must abolish gender entirely.

It is a very attractive idea, but I think at core it is utopian and thus impossible to actually implement. Why? Because humanity is divided into two sexes. Gender is the social result of this biological reality, which cannot be changed. If we only had one sex, then there would be no such thing as gender.

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:31

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 10:26

Sorry, I'm probably getting the wrong end of the stick but you seem to be agreeing that if someone has a gi that doesn't conform to sexist stereotype then they're in the wrong body. I don't agree that feminists of any stripe must be trans exclusive. Tm are still women and even if they, like some women, want to self exclude many feminists would still include them. I believe some feminists would also accept male, even tw, actual feminists. But not mra under a false flag.

Yes you may have wrong end of the stick as you’re putting words in my mouth.

Gender identity is only one factor contributing to whether a trans person may decide to have cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance or not. I don’t personally categorise or consider anyone as in the “wrong body” for their gender identity, whether they need gender confirming surgery or not is for each trans individual to determine.

I stated that some feminists like myself are trans inclusive so no idea where you got the idea I think feminists are trans exclusive from but appears we agree on that issue.

JoodyBlue · 25/04/2022 11:28

But it is more than that. There is a stigmatising of anyone who will not accept a label. It is unacceptable!! Pardon pun. I need to get off mumsnet and do some work, so may come back later.

JoodyBlue · 25/04/2022 11:27

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 11:24

@Discovereads so real progress is accepting the relabelled labels and labelling people who don't want to be labelled. Everyone into your boxes!

Just get rid of the labels, don't lean into them.

Yes - this!

SpringBadger · 25/04/2022 11:26

Oh God, editing fail - the strike through button didn't work for me! My sentence about the New Atheist posters was supposed to end "There's probably no [begin strike through] God [end strike through] gender identity - now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

(I hated those posters, but seem to feel the same way about gender ideology as Dawkins and co feel about organised religion)

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 11:24

@Discovereads so real progress is accepting the relabelled labels and labelling people who don't want to be labelled. Everyone into your boxes!

Just get rid of the labels, don't lean into them.

SpringBadger · 25/04/2022 11:23

Surely there are two things: 1. Knowing what sex you are, and 2. Whether you feel at ease with that knowledge. We all know that feelings of unease may stem from social expectations, trauma and other factors. The only sustainable answer to that is for the person to accept that they are whatever sex they are, that there's nothing more to it than that, and that they can go ahead and live as they please. By that, I mean dress as they please, study and work and conduct relationships as they see fit, go by a nickname, etc. I don't mean develop a morbid obsession with their body being "wrong" and in need of medical intervention, or demand entry to facilities reserved for the protection and privacy of the opposite sex. This latter route is where a belief in "gender identity" is leading the young and impressionable. It's a belief I really think we could all do without. It makes me want to copy those annoying posters the New Atheists put up a few years ago "There's probably no
This is a sincere "thought experiment" question for those who believe: is there also a species identity? Is it a happy coincidence that as well as being biologically human, I also know and accept that I am human? If I became convinced that I was truly a giraffe, would that be indicative of poor mental health or not? If this is different to the idea of gender identity.... Honestly, why?

Discovereads · 25/04/2022 11:12

@JoodyBlue
I think you may be slightly confusing things. Gender nonconformance has always been and still is labelled and stigmatised. It’s not a recent change to society. As a reminder gender conforming in the past included things like women only being allowed to wear skirts, be a wife/mother, and their hobbies were limited to feminine assigned activities like sewing and cooking. The list was endless…proper women don’t smoke, don’t read literature, have no head for science or maths. Women who did not conform were harshly stigmatised. It is still present today in terms of how women who wear heels and makeup to work are viewed as more professional than women who do not. There is still stigma against mothers putting infants into nursery to return to work, because the gender roles dictate they should be home with baby. The same sort of stigmas exist for men, men cannot wear skirts and makeup and be considered hireable in any job. Any man who chooses to be a stay at home dad is stigmatised and called a “cocklodger” and other derogatory terms.

Its never (yet) been perfectly acceptable to be who you are gender identity wise without a label unless you are naturally gender conforming….it’s just that the labels then were derogatory. “tomboy” is a derogatory term with its male counterpart being “sissyboy”. For adults “butch” and “Nancy” also derogatory terms to reference women who are not conforming to feminine gender expression and roles and men who are not conforming to masculine gender expression roles.

Part of the gender movement is about getting rid of the derogatory labels for nonconformance by creating labels for different gender identities that are neutral in connotation and can be a source of pride instead of shame. That’s real progress imho.

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 11:05

Apologies my previous post was addressed to @Disco.....

JoodyBlue · 25/04/2022 10:45

@Discovereads I don't really agree. It is the tra ideology that is doing the stigmatising. Until very recently - last 5 years or so - it was perfectly acceptable to be whoever you are with having to have a label. Just look at 80s fashions and music if you need a reminder. The issue with accepting the ideology is it will change societal understanding very fast - as we have seen - with young people growing up incredibly confused and feeling they need to change their bodies.

IcakethereforeIam · 25/04/2022 10:26

Sorry, I'm probably getting the wrong end of the stick but you seem to be agreeing that if someone has a gi that doesn't conform to sexist stereotype then they're in the wrong body. I don't agree that feminists of any stripe must be trans exclusive. Tm are still women and even if they, like some women, want to self exclude many feminists would still include them. I believe some feminists would also accept male, even tw, actual feminists. But not mra under a false flag.