To wonder how many female Mumsnetters actually meet the definition of 'woman' according to BACP (the main professional body for counsellors and psychotherapists)

[PimmsnLemonade]

www.bacp.co.uk/media/2334/bacp-gender-sexual-relationship-diversity-gpacp001.pdf

2.6 Gender identity: woman
Definitions

Whether trans or cisgender, intersex or not, many people identify as women. However, what this means varies a great deal depending on their other intersecting attributes. It is important not to assume, for example, that being a woman necessarily involves being able to bear children, or having XX sex chromosomes, or breasts. Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.

However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression. As always an intersectional understanding is vital and we need to be mindful that what is culturally regarded as the epitome of femininity is white, middle class, youthful, non-disabled, heterosexual, cisgender, and thin. This strongly shapes all women’s experiences of womanhood.

It doesn't describe me but I'm northern and a lesbian so, from the second paragraph, I'm not sure if that means I get a pass on some of the characteristics??

So much bollocks.

So by those definitions, we're all non-binary

I think we probably are in these definitions, but I suspect that if we all start to say we are then they'll move the goalposts again. There's no point being a special flower if there's no boring mainstream default setting to react against.

According to these definitions in our family my DH is a woman and I’m only half man. And if you’re going to take into the account that I’m a SAHM and have tattoos, I might be a lad.

It defines the stereotypes and then emphasises the fact that women do NOT all align with these stereotypes.

To summarise what I’m saying here:

This document doesn’t say: “if you’re a woman you have to be xyz.”

It does say: “in our culture being a woman means being xyz, but it’s important to remember not all women are x or y or z.”

The only definition of woman it gives is a societal term to describe a collection of stereotypes. You can’t then say, it’s harmful to impose these stereotypes on women, because “women” as a group as you’re using the term doesn’t mean anything else other than these stereotypes.

That’s why having biological definitions isn’t just pedantic quibbling. If the only definition you’ve got is “people who share some or all of these gender stereotypes”, how can you present any kind of insightful critique of how those stereotypes are harmful?

"Cannot bear children" may be accurate in both contexts this morning, the school run was a little fraught.

This is the problem with a multigenderverse. I have full sympathy for trans issues, and suport a better environment for them - the suicide rates and crime rates against them are appalling.

Unfortunately, the way they are going about 'solving' this issue is having the opposite effect, and alienating people from the understanding they might have had.

I've never been especially feminine, but I'm not especially masculine either. I'm TheCats. That is and will always be the fundamental driver of my personality. Creating and defining gender norms and building expectations around them (whether that's for good ol' male and female, or demisexual, genderfluid, whatever) can only be harmful, and narrowing what a person can be/is. I do what I do MOSTLY because I am me, not because of my sex organs - though there's a few cultural expectations thrown in there too, I guess.

Telling me I'm a different gender because I never wear makeup, don't go squishy over children, do wear skirts more than trousers, am competitive, but really into art/home comfort and design = petty, reductive, and meaningless.

The problem would seem to be, that they are trying to define gender without referring to sex at all so are left with only being able to define gender with personality traits and stereotypes.

The only positive I see is that they didn't mention high heels and make up.

Emotional, vulnerable, caring and nurturing?

What the fuck am I now? Good thing I like makeup and pretty clothes, or I won't be a woman anymore.

Like all of you, I don't fit neatly into either presentation of male/female in a 'British cultural context'.

Have I just been told that I'm not properly culturally British?

Is shit like this just designed to create gender issues where there are none by reinforcing nonsense stereotypes and taking advantage of people who struggle with not fitting into them...?

This is such complete bullshit! If it means "culturally people often associate women with the following stereotypical characteristics" then it ought to say that.

Being a woman in a British cultural context means being a woman. Someone might say I have more stereotypically male than female traits but I cannot imagine anyone would ever say I am culturally a man just because I am career driven and have awful nails and hair. The way they have expressed this is incredibly ignorant.

I am so fucking sick of this woke bullshit.
Stereotypes do nothing but harm, yet here we are, 2018, freewheeling back to an era that feminists fought hard to drag women out of.
In my 20s I thought feminists were irrational man-haters. Now I'm in my 40s I understand why.

This is so offensive.

Fuck you BACP. We need to do away with gender stereotypes, stop pushing them. Oh and be the way, “femininity” was defined by men and used as a tool for men to force women to behave a certain way. Try asking women what being feminine is for a fucking change.

From what I skimmed of the document, this is one of many documents that the BACP has commissioned to help discuss 'good practice' rather than an actual standard being put forth and as this is Dr Meg-John Barker, it's possible it was just assumed they know what they're talking about with very little oversight before it was put out there. That they give themself as the top source repeatedly should have raised flags with someone. There is quite a bit of biology, history, sociology among other areas that appears to me to be badly mangled.

The section on sex shortly before what's quoted in the OP entirely misuses the source material (I'm familar enough with Fausto-Sterling's work to find Dr Barker's portrayal bizarre). Barker has also changed Disorders of Sex Development to Diversity of Sex Development - because we're all diverse! - which is beyond fucked up. That human sexual traits have a normal range does not put everyone within the intersex category. Organisation Intersex International in the United Kingdom's seems to once again have been misused to fit Barker's ideology and assumptions. Being against the pre-emptive medical model (cosmetic surgeries and dilators to conform to a standard) does not mean not seeing it as a medical condition.

So yeah, the whole thing is a mess. Hopefully, it will just get filed away though I agree with other posters that this isn't a represent British culture or man/woman within British culture but this one professional's grabbing things that they can twist to fit their ideology to suit and put forth as good practice.

I have short hair, tattoos and swear like a sailor. I wonder what I am 🤔

Oh, I know. I’m a Homo sapiens 😀

I thought the point of a definition is so that you can decide whether something fits into a particular category or not. These are unhelpful descriptions but as so many posters have shown by their inability to fit into one or the other - they are certainly not definitions.

Well that's me, with my 30+ BMI, out! Wonder if DH could pass as a man - he has tattoos, a career and goes to the gym, but will never be very muscular and is one of the softest, soppiest people I know

being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.

I'm only really nurturing to DH and my kids - I'm polite to everyone else.

I worked as a software enginner pre DC - only female one in that office though not in the company. I had another manager from other department in same wing try and dump his two girls on me. I was chasing a tight deadline for my boss - he complained to my manager about not being a team player and said to others I was odd.

i was early 20 no interest in or experince of kids and not there to provide him with childcare but in that mangers mind feamale meant just that.

Emotional, vulnerable or hysterical thus a reason not listening to women.

social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance

I don't think these apply to me at all - so despite being pg and giving birth to three kids even bf I'm not a woman .

These sterotypes aren't just misleading and not applicable they are dangerous and limiting.

Urggh why do women have to be described as nurturing , vulnerable and caring , it's so insipid and dull.

The whole thing is the biggest load of bollocks I've read in a very long time.

Psychotherapists are quacks so I'm not surprised

If I woke up and identified as a giraffe I'd be sectioned not given a bale of hay.

Sorry that was a quote fail

Pleased to see they’ve removed it! Hopefully the new version will have less stereotyping and gobbledegook!