To think that MN has become infested...

[BetweenDogandWolf]

...with people who don't understand the difference between gender and sex?

YABU because of your snotty opening post. Referring to posters who genuinely don't know a fact that you know with the term "infested" is deeply insulting. And snobby.

If you want to educate people don't call them an infestation first.

'Transgender, unlike transsexual is a multifaceted term. One example of a transgendered person might be a man who is attracted to women but also identifies as a cross-dresser. Other examples include people who consider themselves gender nonconforming, multigendered, androgynous, third gender, and two-spirit people. All of these definitions are inexact and vary from person to person, yet each of them includes a sense of blending or alternating the binary concepts of masculinity and femininity. Some people using these terms simply see the traditional concepts as restrictive. Less than one percent of all adults identify as transgender.'

Hope that helps

Every now and then I have time away from MN and then wander back to see what's going on.

Then I see a thread like this and wonder why I bother to wander.

It sounds like a sixth form conversation between kids trying to show how clever they are. I suppose it's better than "how many angels on the head of a pin" but just as unproductive.

Honestly - I'm struggling to care about this.

I get what you're saying, and will bear it in mind if the conversation every comes up but being deliberately goady about it was a greater crime.

merrymarigold

But in my thought process gender reassignment means changing someone's gender. I.e taking their gender and assigning it to their biological sex?

Surely it should be the other way round, sexual reassignment surgery? I.e changing the person's sex to match their gender?

"'Transgender, unlike transsexual is a multifaceted term. One example of a transgendered person might be a man who is attracted to women but also identifies as a cross-dresser. "

Surely that is just a man (since you say so in the statement) their interest in cross dressing and who they are attracted to is not part of their gender.

YABU in any case, language is a difficult thing, most people understand the difference you want to specify, but there is not a rigid definition to English words and in many situations gender is a euphemism for biological sex. It's not that they don't understand, it's just that they use the euphemism.

Exactly writer, I'm agreeing with you.

And for all those being a bit snotty about the thread, I found it quite educational! I have a 1st class degree from a Russell Group Uni and I didn't know the difference. I do now!

One poster once said she felt uncomfortable using the word 'sex' and that's she used 'gender' instead.

But I suppose that's a whole different thread....

I think that MN has become infested with people who refuse to put the full question in the thread title, because they like to play a little "guess the subject" click-tease with the rest of us.

Please stop it!

Trans theory is problematic and not necessarily as factually based as people like to state. The law recognises people's right to transition gender but there is no actual evidence that gender has any innate quality that would bear out the 'man trapped in women's body' trope.
Transsexual isn't really a meaningful concept scientifically as it's not possible to change biological sex. Transgender is meaningful in as much as people can change their gender presentation and identity but imo that's only because gender norms are socially constructed. Many trans activists would call me a transphobic for stating those views.

I believe this is all important stuff in the context of wider social change but probably not in the day to day.

I think mumsnet has become infested with those who want to lecture anyone dares to disagree with liberal opinions on gender and sex. That does not mean they do not understand your view on the issue.

I've always used initials on my signature so people could assume I was a man or not know. these are interesting issues. When I was dealing with my new lap top yesterday and being asked all kinds of pointless questions by microsoft before the thing would work I made sure I used the option of did not want to say when it asked if i were female or male.

I understand where the harm is in using language that contains a value judgement, even if the person using the language isn't aware. Like the 'gay = crap' thing, or like when people say 'crying like a girl' or whatever.

What I do not understand is where the value judgement is in sex vs gender. For me it is an incorrectness roughly equal with using effect instead of affect, or decimate to mean destroy completely. It's wrong, sure. But people usually know what you mean and it's not implying anything harmful. It'd be nice if everyone used language correctly all the time. But we don't. I mean, using a double ellipsis is not great practise, but I'm not personally offended by it.

MN has become infested with PC bigots who bully others. Can't be doing with all this bollocks tbh.

I'm with you Pepperpot.

MerryMarigold- I have a degree too (as if it matters in this context) and I still don't like being referred to as an infestation.

I thought this was Mumsnet and was a parenting forum. I did not think we would be labelled an infestation for not sharing an OP's bugbear.

Looks like the PO have landed.

(have noticed a resurgence of 'lighthearted' in thread titles of late. A habit I hate, but ripping into someone for choice of a word makes me realise why some feel the need of defensive shield)

Pepperpot I absolutely agree.

I too have a marvellous shiny Russell Group degree. Also a wonderful eye for colour and a loathing of spinach.

So what?

I still don't care.

The degree comment was just meant to show that it doesn't matter how educated you are, you can always be educated more. And this was one area I have been educated today.

I am not a part of the infestation as I have never used 'gender' on MN, even if I didn't know the difference!!

I am part of the overuse of exclamation marks infestation though!

And also missing words. Quite frequently.

The law recognises people's right to transition gender but there is no actual evidence that gender has any innate quality that would bear out the 'man trapped in women's body' trope

That's an interesting point (I mean genuinely interesting, not 'you're wrong' interesting). What kind of evidence might suffice? I mean, what could be sought? Are you saying that 'man trapped in woman's body' is meaningless when a 'man' should define himself as a 'woman' by, well, 'performing' as a woman.

Is there a circular argument here? Man wants to be woman - fine. Man feels he can only truly fulfil womanhood by mimicking biology. Which kind of means that transsexual people don't think gender is a social construct?

I hope I haven't offended anyone, genuinely interested but not necessarily proficient in navigating the subject.

Merry then I apologise for my snitty comment.

I agree and have many pressing things I feel I need to learn more about too.

However, I just really object to the terminology of the OP; its this humourless, hectoring diatribe from the moral high ground that has recently infected mumsnet. It has, for me, and others who have left, changed the tone of debate for the worse. The OP personified this inappropriate and smug new wave.

maidofstars basically, yes. There have been several really interesting threads on feminism chat about this recently which have really helped me to articulate what I think about this. Good reading!

And we all know how neutral feminism chat is on trans issues.

It's a bit like going to a UKIP forum to discuss immigration.