Trans sibling in law

I think it’s reductive because, IMO, women have spent decades fighting against objectification and essentially being seen as “just a pair of tits.”

Why then would we take the approach that actually, we’re just adult human females. Just a uterus, that’s me. That’s not all we have in common, and it’s not the end of the definition of woman. I don’t actually want to be defined by having a womb.

Sex absolutely exists, and is a biological fact, but it’s not the start and end of who we are.

The reason it’s difficult to find common ground in gender identity is because it’s different across different groups, but actually I think that’s right.

I’m not in the same group as every woman ever, because we happen to share biological fact, we’ve had different lives, different experiences and live in different bodies.

Woman isn’t universal, because how can it possibly be. I’m not the same as an Afghan woman, any woman of colour, any lesbian, any biological mother.

If society uses the biological fact of female to oppress women, through socially constructed gender stereotypes, it’s being classified by sex we should be rejecting, refuse to be limited because you happen to have certain chromosomes.

The reason I believe that I have a gender ID that is shaped by those ideologies is because I find “adult human female” really reductive.

It's the least reductive definition that is out there because all it requires is to look at the type of gametes someone makes during the fertile stage of their life. Nothing else matters for it to work. If you try adding other characteristics to the definition you are introducing restrictions.

"The reason I believe that I have a gender ID that is shaped by those ideologies is because I find “adult human female” really reductive."

Why is it reductive? I am like other mammals because I am female. I am fundamentally different to other mammals because I am human. Unless you don't think that women are human in the same way that men are, why is that reductive?

Being female to me, is simply about biology. I have no control over it and it's not a virtue and it doesn't define my value. I might as well identify with my blood type. It has had a profound and unavoidable influence on my life, but I have no way to identify out of being female. Sex is a meaningful and necessary category, but the thing that makes me me is not my reproductive organs, but my human brain.

On the other hand, if identity is shaped by gendered expectations, which vary across cultures and over time, it doesn't follow that 'gender identity' is a coherent, stable, universal category. It also doesn't explain what it means to feel that you do or don't identify with those expectations.

Exactly @TheKeatingFive

Just because things are being taught in universities doesn't mean they have solid, factual, evidence based foundations - unfortunately.

There are clearly aspects of the social sciences that have gotten carried away with post-modern analysis and Judith Butler-esque convoluted word salad, convincing some people that this is searing intellectual thought, but in reality, is Emperors New Clothes.

If we cannot even define what we mean by a gender identity - (and on the basis of this and every other thread on the topic, we absolutely can't) - then we shouldn't be using it as a basis for anything, let alone laws that impact women's rights, safeguarding, dignity.

“Informed” opinions can still be incoherent and empty of any real insight. There’s a whole conveyor belt of largely worthless academic study.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

The reason I believe that I have a gender ID that is shaped by those ideologies is because I find “adult human female” really reductive. I think it implies that’s all woman is - a set of parts, and that’s got to be a bad thing.

Literally no one on here is saying that ALL a woman is is a 'set of body parts'.

But those body parts are the defining characteristic that all woman have in common. Not a 'feeling' or an affinity with social/cultural stereotypes or anything else the TRAs have put forward.

Within their biological classification, women can be anything they want. Adventurous, security seeking, individualistic, caring, into fashion, into DIY, etc, etc. And all of this rich tapestry of womanhood should be celebrated.

Absolutely no need to throw our material, biological reality out the window while we are doing that though. There is no way to be a woman other than biologically.

I'm afraid I do disagree, emphatically, that there is 'more to being a woman' than just the fact of existing inside a biologically female body.

Partly because that inevitably starts to fall into metaphysical and quasi religious terms, which certainly not every woman will share, and because it destroys the entire diversity of the sex class.

But mostly because the only real point of this nebulous essence stuff is to serve one purpose only, which is to allow biologically male people to convince others that they could in some way be women, and therefore can use, wreck, destroy and trample female people's rights and spaces and bodies on a fully binary basis. I'm not going to enable that.

Good for you. It’s just incoherent nonsense though. A woman is simply the name for an adult female person, it’s not “reductive” because it implies nothing else other than the sex of an adult human.

You are free to think being a woman is "more than a set of body parts" but in doing that you are denying that unfeminine women are, in fact, women.
Because there is literally nothing else that the fashion model, the baby girl, the butch lesbian trucker, and the teenager with autism who doesn't like her breasts have in common.
They don't have the same likes and dislikes or the same presentation or the same personality.

That’s exactly what it is, it was essentially 3 years of discussing how women are represented and affected by gender ideologies, specifically in media.

The reason I believe that I have a gender ID that is shaped by those ideologies is because I find “adult human female” really reductive. I think it implies that’s all woman is - a set of parts, and that’s got to be a bad thing.

I don’t think it’s insane to think that the way our society is set up affects who we are, and I believe we have to accept that to be able to challenge the flaws in it.

It’s not about whether I wasted time learning about feminism and/or gender, I was saying that everytime I post here and say I believe something, people respond with “you’re confused” or “there are intelligent women here” (ie, you’re not one) - like those who have a different belief must be stupid. And like I said, different opinions can still be informed ones.

It is possible to both think that gender is a societal set of stereotypes AND not think individuals "have" a gender. HTH.

I guess if you redefine "woman" you can live in a complete lack of reality all the time and not even know it.

Exactly

and the OP asked for opinions…which she got!

The truth is, no-one lives in them fully. Not Rambo, not Ruby Gillis in the Anne of Green Gables books. Even the stereotypes are variable, and the ones some trans people seem to be basing their presentation on are their own understanding of how their "gender" looks. So why take any notice at all of gender?

Like every other thread on Mumsnet, you mean?

The thing i find with this board is that within the ‘sex is immutable’ group of posters there is actually a fairly large range of views

people come on to the board and say GC posters all say A,B and C and that is just not the case at all

I like all the different posts, as long as people aren’t rude or honestly stupid (and you can’t deny there have been posters that are either very stupid or pretending to be) then I like all the different views even if I might not agree they are an opportunity to clarify my views

I don't see it as different. She identifies as male now and whether or not you agree with her she is an adult who has agency and the right to make her own mistakes. Maybe this is her for the rest of her life. Maybe she will regret it in 10 years. It doesn't matter.

What I might do is express some anxiety about the specifics of how she wishes to transition, in Germany etc, but you have zero rights to try to interfere in whether she wants to.

If you feel very strongly about it you can try to skip around gendered pronouns I suppose. But it's not for you to tell her she cannot or should not identify as male. It doesn't have to make sense to you. Any more than if she was converting to Buddhism you would tell her it's all bollocks.

I think Gender Studies degrees may have changed out of all recognition

My bacon butty this morning is epic.

For all I know you are all truck drivers hanging out at a caff, but from what I understand a degree in gender studies is a degree in criticising gender.

I am baffled that somebody could complete a degree in the subject and believe that gender identity is a good way to categorise people or that societal expectations of gender can easily be separated from other societal and family influences. Happily, nobody in the U.K. is forced to define themselves by religion, even though that is central to many individual perceptions of identity.

Meanwhile boring, messy, sex specific things like miscarriage, cancer, pregnancy, breast feeding, menstruation and menopause carry on with no regard to identity, personality or choice of university course.

Ten years time?

My first reaction to reading that sleepless had done gender studies was 'god what a lot of time and money to waste'.

(I did a whole module in women's studies. Do I win a prize?)

But yeah there a) a certain type of person who is going to choose to do gender studies b) there is a self investment in maintaining the idea you didn't do a degree in utter gibberish that's noted worthy.

Of course. Being transgender isn't a choice, but one's belief (I use the term loosely) in the reality of biological sex definitely is... 🙄🙄🙄

Ah.

Is is possible, that having done a degree in gender woo studies, you are somewhat invested in it not being exposed to be complete and utter bollocks?

Because in ten years' time you don't want to have a CV that reads as if you did an entire degree in "why the earth is flat"?

Feminism includes all female people, even the ones who undermine the goals of feminism. It doesn't include any male people, even the really nice ones.

HTH.