Any recommended genderist writers?

No it doesn't. Did you even bother to look:

Gender
2
b
: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Mem Web.

Stereotypes are social expectations. Typical gendered behaviours are those usually associated with a sex. Big difference.

Are you suggesting there are no typical behaviours more associated with one sex than the other?

The dictionary says gender is stereotypes associated with sex. But we've been told repeatedly in the past that it has nothing to do with stereotypes. But an inner essence or feeling.

I thought we'd started getting rid of the stupid stereotypes anyway. With let toys be toys and so on.

I have facial and body hair. Am I a man?

I recommend Trans Britain: our journey from the shadows by Christine Burns:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trans-Britain-Christine-Burns/dp/1783528443

And The hidden case of Ewan Forbes by Zöe Playdon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Case-Ewan-Forbes-Establishment/dp/1526619148

The first is made up of essays by a number of writers, and the second is an account of the 1960s court case about a transman who claimed a peerage, interleaved with a history of trans over the last 100 years illustrated by reference to 'his' life.

Both are available at my local library.

Both brought me the closest I've been to an understanding of how trans people really see the issue.

When I read the Playdon book, I had no idea either Playdon or Forbes was trans, so the experience was rather more exciting for me than it would be for most readers, with the penny only dropping when it was sort-of-revealed how 'Ewan' managed to win the case. It would make a great movie or TV series.

Indeed. And what I find interesting is that they can't seem to see it. I have an acquaintance of many years who, as lovely as she is in many many ways, is also a raging TRA. Apparently she can't call herself a woman anymore because the "terfs" say she isn't feminine enough and because she's had a hysterectomy.
Which is exactly the opposite of what the terfs/GC women say.

We did start to remove all the gender stereotypes bollocks, but the regressive gender ideologists brought them back. Without them, their whole movement collapses.

The dictionary says gender is stereotypes associated with sex. But we've been told repeatedly in the past that it has nothing to do with stereotypes. But an inner essence or feeling.

I thought we'd started getting rid of the stupid stereotypes anyway. With let toys be toys and so on.

I have facial and body hair. Am I a man?

What are male secondary sex traits?

Voice changes, facial and body hair, musculoskeletal development, body fat distribution, skin and gland differences.

I don't believe in gender, how can I when no one can define it.

I'm sure you will find it in the dictionary if you bother.

What are male secondary sex traits?

I don't believe in gender, how can I when no one can define it. How do I know if I have one when I don't know what it is?

I said society goes secondary sex traits to distinguish sex so if a trans woman exhibits obvious male secondary sex traits they will be categorised as a trans woman rather than a cis woman. IE their reproductive sex is male.

You seem to be saying that we do not believe that people are who they say they are, but people are what others perceive them to be.

Again you are confusing two separate issues now which are sex & gender. Does society believe in gender & trans people when they say they identify more with the opposite gender associated with their sex that legitimises their trans identities? Certainly large parts do.

I said society goes secondary sex traits to distinguish sex so if a trans woman exhibits obvious male secondary sex traits they will be categorised as a trans woman rather than a cis woman. IE their reproductive sex is male.

You seem to be saying that we do not believe that people are who they say they are, but people are what others perceive them to be.

Again you are confusing two separate issues now which are sex & gender. Does society believe in gender & trans people when they say they identify more with the opposite gender associated with their sex that legitimises their trans identities? Certainly large parts do.

no, you said sex was reliant on how society perceived sex traits, so you’ve just confirmed all non passing TIM are male and will only be seen as male if they perform extreme body modifications. Wow! That’s rather a hot take and I think very transphobic of you. You seem to be saying that we do not believe that people are who they say they are, but people are what others perceive them to be. The exact opposite of self ID as you are relying on others to tell you what you are.

"chat them up" = find common ground

That's its always a perverse sexual twist is certainly quite the tell.

Yes, I recall Serrano was the one who moaned about lesbians not being sufficiently welcoming when he tried to chat them up.

From a trans person's perspective 'passing' matters for this reason hence the importance of access to body modification for societal acceptance. Ultimately they are just trying to fit their disposition into the prevailing societal construct.

Julia Serrano is a poor choice IMO (unless you want to strengthen Terfy feelings).

Maybe Em is a double agent?

But then what you’re saying is that society would see non passing TIM as male then. So you’re only a woman if you pass as one? Seems rather transphobic to me but you do you boo..

Look, you can dismiss how people socially distinguish females from males in practice all you like as being illegitimate but that doesn't take away from what actually happens. And what actually happens is most of the time people rely on secondary sex traits & presentation more associated to a sex that gametal & chromosomal tests. Definitions rely on social usage which includes all methods of usage.

But this is just a sloppy - or wilful - failure to distinguish being actually 'male' or 'female' from looking conventionally "masculine" or "feminine". A masculine-looking woman doesn't have two different sexes, she has one and looks rather like the other. "Looks like" isn't the same as "is". Nobody seemed to have any trouble in understanding the difference between those two concepts before.

You could tick all the boxes for bimodally masculine traits (deep voice, height, broad shoulders, strength, tendency to be hairy etc) and still be the female mother of five children. Anyone who mistook you for a man would simply be mistaken.

It just feels like a tendentious attempt to muddy the waters of something that isn't actually that complicated, in the interests of a few people who are desperate to be classified as other than they are. It's not sophistication, it's obfuscation. Like buying a cut-glass necklace and trying to sell it on as diamond. If you do manage to fool anybody, they don't suddenly have a diamond necklace; you have committed fraud.

Is this muddlemindedness why some people no longer seem able to get their head round the idea of a girl with short hair?

Because it does mean two different things that's a fact. Reproductive sex & sex traits are two different phenomenas that are both biological that both produce outcomes that distinguish males from females.

Let's not forget the 'sex' of an individual in essence is about what characteristics distinguish females from males & there are two ways.

Because it does mean two different things that's a fact. Reproductive sex & sex traits are two different phenomenas that are both biological that both produce outcomes that distinguish males from females.

Let's not forget the 'sex' of an individual in essence is about what characteristics distinguish females from males & there are two ways.

So, you are using the same phrase to mean two different things?

That's not confusing at all.

Sorry Em. Your argument is weak and unconvincing.

I recommend Trans Britain: our journey from the shadows by Christine Burns:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trans-Britain-Christine-Burns/dp/1783528443

And The hidden case of Ewan Forbes by Zöe Playdon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-Case-Ewan-Forbes-Establishment/dp/1526619148

The first is made up of essays by a number of writers, and the second is an account of the 1960s court case about a transman who claimed a peerage, interleaved with a history of trans over the last 100 years illustrated by reference to 'his' life.

Both are available at my local library.

Both brought me the closest I've been to an understanding of how trans people really see the issue.

When I read the Playdon book, I had no idea either Playdon or Forbes was trans, so the experience was rather more exciting for me than it would be for most readers, with the penny only dropping when it was sort-of-revealed how 'Ewan' managed to win the case. It would make a great movie or TV series.