First time poster - question about GC beliefs

I've been very careful, since i became aware of what gender stereotyping is, to treat everyone the same and to be aware of what language i use. So if someone says "my doctor doesn't like that i'm too heavy" i'll say "oh, what does she suggest?" rather than the default "he". And i try always to talk about police officers, firefighters etc etc and not to assume the sex of someone if i'm not aware (because i know the specific person) or they're standing in front of me.

I don't flirt with women or men in a business setting. Or in a shop. Or anywhere unless flirting is something that might conceivably happen in that setting. And i am not above using my feminine whiles to get, say, the person in the car-parts place to replace my headlamp bulb, or windscreen wipers if they'll do it for free. Or to clinch a sales contract by acting the dumb woman on occasion (where the male counterpart has been patronising me). But outside of actually flirting with a man - nope, how i talk to someone isn't affected by their sex.

Exactly. If I fancy women, and that's who I flirt with, I'm not going to fancy and flirt with Eddie Izzard or other transwomen, cos they're very clearly not women.

I asked for things that were not about (a) stereotypes or (b) sexed bodies. Flirting is about sexed bodies, 'awareness of their maleness or femaleness' is about sexed bodies.

I do indeed relate to men and women differently in various situations because they're actually men or women. Not because of an invisible idea in their head

Your post was about men 'living as a woman'. In situations where I would relate differently to men and women, I would relate to a man 'living as a woman' as a man.

There is, sadly, a reason why female people learn early on in life to be cautious and highly aware of context before smiling at or giving eye contact to an unknown male, and how innocently nice social contact can lead swiftly to a direct sexual threat. I think I was about ten when I found that one out the hard way. I'd already several years past learning by then that being alone and away from observers while in possession of female biology was an incitement to some males to take immediate advantage of forced access for personal use.

This is the bottom line in all of it. Sexual threat. Which includes excitement at control, power and causing fear, and creating embarrassment and anxiety in females. Boundary breaking.

Maybe I am missing something, but "Whether you chat with a stranger or tend not to because the meaning is different if it is a man or woman" is all about the fact that men and women have different sexed bodies... and if they didn't they would all be "humans" and the meaning would be the same for all?

Your reply seemed to reflect my intended meaning, but I misstyped so posted again to clarify / double check!!!!!

I am not talking about stereotypes.

Do you not relate to men and women differerntly, based on your awareness of their maleness or femaleness?

One simple example might be flirting. Or the kids of friendships you are open to. Whether you chat with a stranger or tend not to because the meaning is different if it is a man or woman.

I think it's very naive to pretend people's sex is actually irrelevant in our social interactions, or if it isn't, that must be bad.

Though frankly, what if it is stereotypes - all that means is generalizations, which may be statistically true, or even almost ubiquitous, which we aren't aware, yet, if they are relevant to an individual. We all, when interacting with others, have to start somewhere. If we are making small talk with a 20 year old we might try different subjects than if it were an 80 year old. Sometime it turns out 20 year olds are big John Denver fans, but it really isn't negative when it turns out they are, and we guessed incorrectly.

A lack of great mental health care in no reason to give non-evidenced surgical and hormonal interventions

Quite. It's about as useful as saying, 'Sorry, no penicillin for your infected leg ulcer. But have some tooth veneers and a crash course in Cantonese.'

My point is that where men and women need to be segregated it ALWAYS needs to be done by sex, and never by gender, because sometimes (eg public toilets) sex matters, but there is no context in which separating men from men who present as women is necessary.

Yes, I agree. I thought this was what I had said but obviously not typing properly!

Sorry, I meant - Surely the whole point is that in some contexts sex DOES matter, and in other contexts sex DOES NOT matter? There are precisely zero contexts where sex DOES NOT matter but meaningless gender identity claim DOES.

My point is that where men and women need to be segregated it ALWAYS needs to be done by sex, and never by gender, because sometimes (eg public toilets) sex matters, but there is no context in which separating men from men who present as women is necessary.

A lack of great mental health care in no reason to give non-evidenced surgical and hormonal interventions. And indeed if less money were being wasted on wrong sex hormones etc there'd be a bit more for mental health support.

Surely the whole point is that in some contexts sex does not matter, and in other contexts sex does not matter? There are precisely zero contexts where sex does not matter but meaningless gender identity claim does.

Not sure I fully understand but I'm talking about where sex matters vs where it's not relevant. I can't think of many situations where GI matters and don't think it "trumps" sex - it's usually irrelevant.

I agree re highest quality mental health care but show me a place where that is accessible to those who need it...

“And obviously they need to be old enough and capable of informed consent.

If they are not capable of understanding that gender identity means nothing to most people, and that changing some characteristics of sex does nothing to change sex, then they are not capable of giving informed consent.”

Good point.

Yep. And the way convents attracted recruits was by targeting girls in their susceptible and idealistic teen years.

“There are precisely zero contexts where sex does not matter but meaningless gender identity claim does.”

Turning it around in this way is a really useful way of thinking about it.

@lovelycosyslippers

If so many secondary school kids are now identifying as trans then where are the equivalent people from my school year (in the 80s/90s) who are trans?

I don't know about the boys, but the girls were anorexic and / or cutting themselves. Unhappiness with ones developing female body (and the ways adult males respond to that development) isn't new, it just manifests itself in different ways. A couple of generations before that, in Ireland and other Catholic countries, many of them became nuns.

There is a lot to think about for sure! But you'll find that there is both a range of opinion on here and lots of us enjoy discussing, questioning, or challenging our own views.

I believe a small proportion of people genuinely want to be the opposite sex from a young age, and many lead happier lives being treated as the opposite sex.

I believe that no evidence exists that medical transition and trying to live your whole life as a lie leads to better outcomes than the highest quality mental health support would.

I don't really have a problem with this as long as where sex genuinely matters, there is no dishonesty.

Surely the whole point is that in some contexts sex does not matter, and in other contexts sex does not matter? There are precisely zero contexts where sex does not matter but meaningless gender identity claim does.

And obviously they need to be old enough and capable of informed consent.

If they are not capable of understanding that gender identity means nothing to most people, and that changing some characteristics of sex does nothing to change sex, then they are not capable of giving informed consent.

And not coerced or influenced by others (this is where it gets hard to differentiate).

We live in a world where lots of people think it is homophobic if say that homoSEXuality is real and matters. Anyone who supports the TQ+ is coerced and influenced (or worse).

It is heartening to hear that your relative was able to consider the issues more deeply and change their position.

Alas, I do not see this happening for my DC. Too many GNC friends who think (know, experience the wider impacts of) no further than it’s ‘just’ being kind. The thinking stops there. When gently pushed, the heels dig in. Still, I live in faint hope of carrying on the conversation another day.

I believe a small proportion of people genuinely want to be the opposite sex from a young age, and many lead happier lives being treated as the opposite sex. This has nothing to do with "having a true gender" and also probably in many cases arises from things like wrong perceptions of what it means to be male or female (or gay or straight).

I don't really have a problem with this as long as where sex genuinely matters, there is no dishonesty. And obviously they need to be old enough and capable of informed consent. And not coerced or influenced by others (this is where it gets hard to differentiate).

I also believe that in a less sexist society these numbers would be very small.

I care more about the redefinition of man/woman as mental states of being, because that affects everyone and is not coherent.

I'm not sure whether it was in this thread or another one, but yesterday someone posted a link to an interesting blog post about how "trans is something we made up".

It talks about how anxiety is a normal human thing but it manifests itself in different ways across different cultures. So there are cultures where no one is trans but some people are utterly terrified of becoming cannibals, for example.

I think it's a really relevant point, especially when comparing and contrasting the LGB with the T. We know that there have been same sex attracted people in every culture and every era of history, so we can surmise that being same sex attracted is innate and not caused by any kind of social contagion, although there may appear to be fewer same sex attracted people in cultures where this is still illegal or frowned upon and where people are afraid to admit, sometimes even to themselves, that they are not heterosexual. But the concept of being trans, in the form we currently know it, is not actually a universal human truth. Despite what trans activists would have us believe, there are plenty of cultures where being trans is not a thing, and no real evidence to suggest that trans people in those places are just in the closet.

Not all languages and cultures have a concept of gender identity, or specifically the concept of having a gender identity which either matches or conflicts with your biological sex.

I find it entirely plausible that for many people, particularly young people, "being trans" is actually caused by the widespread belief that these clothes/hobbies/interests are woman things and those clothes/hobbies/interests are man things, and if you don't fit in this box it means there is a mismatch between your gender identity and your biological sex.

If this idea did not exist in our culture, would all these people be feeling this way?

I strongly suspect not.

It's almost back to the old argument, that if 'trans kids' is such a universal phenomenon as they'd have you believe, where the hell were all the trans kids 40, 50, 100 years ago? Brutally suppressed, like Joan of Arc and Liz I, they'd have us believe? Yeah, right. 🙄

SM, porn, anime, avatars; it's a different universe now for kids (especially girls) than one most of us grew up in.

@LoobiJee and @RebelliousCow agreed.

So yes, fair point on the "social construct" @RebelliousCow I hadn't been looking at it like that but it makes perfect sense summarised in that way now.

And decades of lobbying by the gender identity wing of the men’s sexual entitlement movement, promoting the concept throughout the media, including children’s programmes on the state supported national broadcaster, and across social media.

Spot On.