To think that the vast majority of people do not feel they have a gender identity?

[Galvantulang]

My company has recently started suggesting that we can record our gender identity and preferred pronouns (these would be publicly displayed on the intranet) on our HR record system. It's optional for now, but almost everyone I asked at work when the email came out went "eh?".

Apart from the data protection issues of collecting all this extra information, AIBU to think that the majority of people don't consider themselves to have a gender identity, just their sex?

i.e. you don't identify as a man or woman, you just... are one?

Watching laws and amendments to bills being proposed (especially in Scotland) based on recognising gender identity rather than biological sex, seems somewhat unreal.

Um...

Yabu = I feel like I have a gender identity.
Yanbu = I do not feel like I have a gender identity.

My sex is female. As I'm a human and a legal adult, I am therefore a woman.
Incidentally, I wasn't born in a hospital, I was born at home surrounded by people who didn't have a O Level (or any secondary education, for that matter) between them. Yet, SOMEHOW, they were able to discern that I was a female baby. Which was very useful for knowing who to keep home to do the cleaning and have the babies.

I am not, I would say, stereotypically feminine. I am, among other things, married to a woman, something which- as has been pointed out to me in various ways over the years- a very male thing to do. My job is male dominated, my wife's even more so. A lot of my hobbies and interests are considered "male". The majority of my friends are quite conspicuously male.
If someone had offered me, as an older teenager, the chance to be male, I- a fairly mature teenager- would have jumped at the chance.
Because, at that point, I'd seen two of my cousins (who I was then living with), one of my friends and two other girls in our year leave school, having gotten pregnant.
And I'd been through a very uncomfortable puberty.
And, having taken up running, I was sick of being outperformed by boys with much less practice. I wanted their body, their height, their musculature, their ability to eat loads and not put in weight, their relationships with women. I did not want my breasts or my body fat or my stomach cramps or my being resigned to future uncomfortable, unhappy relationships with men.

I wanted what, in my view at the time, was unique to men. And, to get that, I'd have probably ignored the fact that, short of magic, I could never actually BE a male. And yet here I am, a few decades later, happy as a woman, just not as a stereotype.

I wonder if part of the difference here is generational hope vs sceptcism. The younger generation who are experimenting with being non-binary for example might expect to avoid the 'female' experiences that Tigger85 so movingly writes about by identifying as non-binary. Older women (like me) are a bit sceptical about whether that is possible (for female-born non-binary people anyway).

Maybe it's a kind of experiment that we should be open to the results of? Do you think non-binary people will have a pay gap for example? Or maybe not?

@Northofsomewhere

Gender might not seem important to most of you judging by the poll but I bet the majority would be pretty unhappy to be called "sir" or "Mr" which is why getting the correct gender pronoun's is important to helping people feel included and respected. Obviously this is a simplistic view of gender and gendered pronoun's but it gets the point across as to why they matter.

On account of being one of those pesky immigrants, and many people not getting my name, I get called Mr a lot. 25 years of it. I've never cared. Neither has DH who gets called Mrs Charlieparley on occasion.

Honestly when people you speak to cannot pronounce a perfectly normal name and cannot keep their opinion about it to themselves, getting called Mr doesn't even register.

Also, on account of being a native speaker of another language and having learned a few more, I also know that some languages don't even have pronouns. So some of my fellow immigrants are accused of transphobia for using the wrong pronoun, when they're only doing so because of L1 interference (ie something that is a well researched phenomenon in non-native speakers).

I am female, I don't feel like femininity - whatever the fuck that is outside of its own performance - is a core component of my personality.

In fact, femininity is a bit of a mugs game really, it's an aesthetic of learned helplessness and rainbows, it seems entirely counter to the core trait if most women which is largely getting shit done.

I would be ok being called her/she or he/him by most people . Do get a happy feeling when I get him etc online /common mistake when working in the international community

I would object to being called she/her by someone who allocated pronouns based on an interpretation of gender identity

I wonder if part of the difference here is generational hope vs sceptcism.

Not just age, also the experiences of parenthood.

Do you think non-binary people will have a pay gap for example?

How would we know, if the statistics become hopelessly muddled? If only 'gender identity' was recorded, the female NBs would be lumped in with the male NBs.
In the real world, it's a pound to a gooseberry that employers can still discern sex and apply biases.

I don’t ‘identify’ with being female as I am 100 percent female.
I have always felt this way and enjoy being feminine.
I have never wished to be anything other.

**OldCrone

jj1968

@DeaconBoo Some trans people want to abolish gender. Contrary to some people's assumptions trans people have a range of different opinions and sometimes even disagree.

But if you abolish gender, won't transgenderism cease to exist? How can you be transgender if there is no gender?**

I may be wrong about this but I think some trans identifying people might want to abolish gender because they don't want to be perceived as simply assuming the stereotypical behaviours of the opposite sex but rather be perceived as actually having changed their physical sex and being what they would consider to be " cis" of the sex they wish to join.

But if you abolish gender, won't transgenderism cease to exist? How can you be transgender if there is no gender?

If gender was abolished, surely we would revert to male and female. And a tiny few TW would pass as female. And the rest are obviously male. There would be no way to validate yourself as a "woman", unless people genuinely thought you were one. Which is unlikely.

In the real world, it's a pound to a gooseberry that employers can still discern sex and apply biases.

Exactly.

Tigger

I think that younger women may not be able to envision the emotional (and physical) toll the reality of being a woman can take.

I think they understandably don't want to. It's sort of like a version of the just world fallacy, it's rare, it won't happen to me, women are equal, these things happen to other people, I am not defined by my female body.

There would be no way to validate yourself as a "woman", unless people genuinely thought you were one. Which is unlikely.

YY, given that even those who proclaim TWAW usually have a 'but' following that - but people can't change sex, but not in prisons, but not in sport, but not for relationship purposes etc. etc.

They don't believe it, they just believe they are being kind.

The way gender was explained to me was a bit of an eye-opener.

It was quite simply that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Due to things like inheritance, men wanted to control women's fertility, pregnancy and offspring. And of course, their sexual availability to only one man to ensure the lineage.

So women needed to be controlled (oppressed) on the basis of their sex.

And that's where gender steps in. Because you have to find the means to do it.

So women are too uneducated to vote, too unintelligent to be educated, they need to stay in the home, not get involved in business, cant be independent and own their own property, can't have a bank account. And they need to be sexually available to the man who owns them.

And of course, this is all true. Rape within marriage was legal. We couldn't own property or get a mortgage. We weren't accepted into university. And our abuse at the hands of men was not recognised.

I'm not sure exactly how far we've come, to be honest!

But that's the way it was explained to me.

And although some gender roles might seem positive, they still appear to serve a purpose. So women are 'nurturing and caring'. Which just means they are going to put men and everyone else, ahead of themselves. It still keeps them down.

Hence the absolute explosion of rage when women don't conform to this. Strong, articulate women in business, get called mouthy or a ball breaker. Women who don't nurture or care are called unnatural.

Whore, tart, etc, for women who have lots of sexual partners. Of course, no such slur for promiscuous men, because it doesn't serve the purpose).

So when people say sex role stereotypes, that's exactly what it means. The stereotypical roles that are imposed on women. And of course, men have some too. That probably accounts for a lot of the homosexual transsexuals, who weren't too keen on conforming to strong masculinity or toxic male sex roles.

So feminists want to abolish gender. Because it's a patriarchal tool of control.

And hence why I don't believe in a gender identity, because the roles comes from without, not within.

Anyone who does, to my mind, is cementing gender roles as innate.

That's how it was explained to me. And as a framework, so far, it's been infallible. It fits every scenario I can think of.

Gender identity as some kind of inner neurological, or religious feeling that you're the opposite sex, is, to me, a made up term to explain why some men don't want to be men. (Or women, women).

@Datun

The way gender was explained to me was a bit of an eye-opener.

It was quite simply that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Due to things like inheritance, men wanted to control women's fertility, pregnancy and offspring. And of course, their sexual availability to only one man to ensure the lineage.

So women needed to be controlled (oppressed) on the basis of their sex.

And that's where gender steps in. Because you have to find the means to do it.

So women are too uneducated to vote, too unintelligent to be educated, they need to stay in the home, not get involved in business, cant be independent and own their own property, can't have a bank account. And they need to be sexually available to the man who owns them.

And of course, this is all true. Rape within marriage was legal. We couldn't own property or get a mortgage. We weren't accepted into university. And our abuse at the hands of men was not recognised.

I'm not sure exactly how far we've come, to be honest!

But that's the way it was explained to me.

And although some gender roles might seem positive, they still appear to serve a purpose. So women are 'nurturing and caring'. Which just means they are going to put men and everyone else, ahead of themselves. It still keeps them down.

Hence the absolute explosion of rage when women don't conform to this. Strong, articulate women in business, get called mouthy or a ball breaker. Women who don't nurture or care are called unnatural.

Whore, tart, etc, for women who have lots of sexual partners. Of course, no such slur for promiscuous men, because it doesn't serve the purpose).

So when people say sex role stereotypes, that's exactly what it means. The stereotypical roles that are imposed on women. And of course, men have some too. That probably accounts for a lot of the homosexual transsexuals, who weren't too keen on conforming to strong masculinity or toxic male sex roles.

So feminists want to abolish gender. Because it's a patriarchal tool of control.

And hence why I don't believe in a gender identity, because the roles comes from without, not within.

Anyone who does, to my mind, is cementing gender roles as innate.

That's how it was explained to me. And as a framework, so far, it's been infallible. It fits every scenario I can think of.

Gender identity as some kind of inner neurological, or religious feeling that you're the opposite sex, is, to me, a made up term to explain why some men don't want to be men. (Or women, women).

Thank you for this, it makes the whole concept of gender very understandable.

It also defines me as an unnatural, mouthy slut in the eyes of some men. These men have taken issue with me answering back (in their eyes), returning to work rather than take full mat leave and not shying away from the fact I wasn't bothered about one night stands.

It also defines me as an unnatural, mouthy slut in the eyes of some men. These men have taken issue with me answering back (in their eyes),

Me too.

Refusing to nurture male people who want me to care for their feelings and sense of self instead of say I want privacy and don't feel safe with male people in single sex spaces and it disadvantages other females.

Mouthy, unnatural bitch!

All the rhetoric and demands of the TRA lobby towards females are based on this. Get back in your box, do your job, Be Mummy.

Or else.

It also defines me as an unnatural, mouthy slut in the eyes of some men. These men have taken issue with me answering back (in their eyes), returning to work rather than take full mat leave and not shying away from the fact I wasn't bothered about one night stands.

Well quite. You're not upholding the patriarchy, so I'm afraid you're not doing your job properly.

And it's quite obvious that many people genuinely believe in gender.

Hence when women talk, is it 30% of the time? in meetings, men think they have dominated it.

Hence JJ, genuinely thinking that women do not have the right to say no. To men in their own spaces.

Which is why JJ has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to convince them that they are wrong.

Jj, doesn't accept that no is no, if a woman says it.

Statistics is an interesting point. I’ve just finished watching Its a Sin about the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and was thinking whether STD clinics still use the category ‘MSM’ for high-risk individuals because it’s completely biology-based and not really in keeping with ‘gender identity’

I know, it's extraordinary really. I've recently been accused of being 'deliberately contrary', by dint of having a different viewpoint (over something really quite superficial).

I couldn't possibly have a different opinion, I must be 'doing something'.

😁

@Datun

The way gender was explained to me was a bit of an eye-opener.

It was quite simply that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Due to things like inheritance, men wanted to control women's fertility, pregnancy and offspring. And of course, their sexual availability to only one man to ensure the lineage.

So women needed to be controlled (oppressed) on the basis of their sex.

And that's where gender steps in. Because you have to find the means to do it.

So women are too uneducated to vote, too unintelligent to be educated, they need to stay in the home, not get involved in business, cant be independent and own their own property, can't have a bank account. And they need to be sexually available to the man who owns them.

And of course, this is all true. Rape within marriage was legal. We couldn't own property or get a mortgage. We weren't accepted into university. And our abuse at the hands of men was not recognised.

I'm not sure exactly how far we've come, to be honest!

But that's the way it was explained to me.

And although some gender roles might seem positive, they still appear to serve a purpose. So women are 'nurturing and caring'. Which just means they are going to put men and everyone else, ahead of themselves. It still keeps them down.

Hence the absolute explosion of rage when women don't conform to this. Strong, articulate women in business, get called mouthy or a ball breaker. Women who don't nurture or care are called unnatural.

Whore, tart, etc, for women who have lots of sexual partners. Of course, no such slur for promiscuous men, because it doesn't serve the purpose).

So when people say sex role stereotypes, that's exactly what it means. The stereotypical roles that are imposed on women. And of course, men have some too. That probably accounts for a lot of the homosexual transsexuals, who weren't too keen on conforming to strong masculinity or toxic male sex roles.

So feminists want to abolish gender. Because it's a patriarchal tool of control.

And hence why I don't believe in a gender identity, because the roles comes from without, not within.

Anyone who does, to my mind, is cementing gender roles as innate.

That's how it was explained to me. And as a framework, so far, it's been infallible. It fits every scenario I can think of.

Gender identity as some kind of inner neurological, or religious feeling that you're the opposite sex, is, to me, a made up term to explain why some men don't want to be men. (Or women, women).

YY all of this.

Thanks Datun that was really clear.

It can be hard to explain why you dislike the stereotypes, but that really lays it all out.

I haven’t seen seen any understandable explanation of gender identity that doesn’t rely on stereotypes.

I am totally intrigued as to how the various proponents of gender identity go about identifying and defining these identities. I came across a trans support website that claimed to have identified and named 371 gender identities (and also explored the realms of ‘furries’). They have now deleted those pages so does that mean they have found evidence that they were wrong?

The BBC was teaching children both that there are over 100 gender identities and there may be infinite identities.

What does that mean???

Why are we being ordered to participate in an ideology that we don’t understand or necessarily agree with? Why are people feeling that it is not safe or prudent for them to openly disagree?

@Datun

The way gender was explained to me was a bit of an eye-opener.

It was quite simply that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done.

Due to things like inheritance, men wanted to control women's fertility, pregnancy and offspring. And of course, their sexual availability to only one man to ensure the lineage.

So women needed to be controlled (oppressed) on the basis of their sex.

And that's where gender steps in. Because you have to find the means to do it.

So women are too uneducated to vote, too unintelligent to be educated, they need to stay in the home, not get involved in business, cant be independent and own their own property, can't have a bank account. And they need to be sexually available to the man who owns them.

And of course, this is all true. Rape within marriage was legal. We couldn't own property or get a mortgage. We weren't accepted into university. And our abuse at the hands of men was not recognised.

I'm not sure exactly how far we've come, to be honest!

But that's the way it was explained to me.

And although some gender roles might seem positive, they still appear to serve a purpose. So women are 'nurturing and caring'. Which just means they are going to put men and everyone else, ahead of themselves. It still keeps them down.

Hence the absolute explosion of rage when women don't conform to this. Strong, articulate women in business, get called mouthy or a ball breaker. Women who don't nurture or care are called unnatural.

Whore, tart, etc, for women who have lots of sexual partners. Of course, no such slur for promiscuous men, because it doesn't serve the purpose).

So when people say sex role stereotypes, that's exactly what it means. The stereotypical roles that are imposed on women. And of course, men have some too. That probably accounts for a lot of the homosexual transsexuals, who weren't too keen on conforming to strong masculinity or toxic male sex roles.

So feminists want to abolish gender. Because it's a patriarchal tool of control.

And hence why I don't believe in a gender identity, because the roles comes from without, not within.

Anyone who does, to my mind, is cementing gender roles as innate.

That's how it was explained to me. And as a framework, so far, it's been infallible. It fits every scenario I can think of.

Gender identity as some kind of inner neurological, or religious feeling that you're the opposite sex, is, to me, a made up term to explain why some men don't want to be men. (Or women, women).

Fantastic post Datun!

Yes all of this. Gender (and gender ideology) is oppression. Sex is an inescapable fact.

Why are we being ordered to participate in an ideology that we don’t understand or necessarily agree with? Why are people feeling that it is not safe or prudent for them to openly disagree?

Why does my female pattern recognition system make links to women's hard won knowledge of relationship red flags such as never having all the rules to never fully be able to understand what is going on, to remain permanently off balance and meeting the needs of a partner who is behaving abusively? And where one party is the sole arbiter of who is doing it right or wrong, does not permit questions or dissent, and demands things that are not reciprocally and equally given back?

Put that on the relationships board and you'll be told to LTB and Run.

Calling Women's Aid on your way.

I completely agree with @YetAnotherSpartacus I believe that gender is a social construct that has placed damaging expectations on women and men.
I don't understand the current trend to see it as innate identity, I think it's damaging and regressive.

I teach my children to question gendered expectations and to believe that their sex is not a determinant in how they feel, behave or what they try to achieve. It shouldn't set expectations of others or limit them.

The idea that you can escape gendered expectations by changing sex is in my opinion quite dangerous.

@MissingLinker

My sex is female. As I'm a human and a legal adult, I am therefore a woman. Incidentally, I wasn't born in a hospital, I was born at home surrounded by people who didn't have a O Level (or any secondary education, for that matter) between them. Yet, SOMEHOW, they were able to discern that I was a female baby. Which was very useful for knowing who to keep home to do the cleaning and have the babies.

I am not, I would say, stereotypically feminine. I am, among other things, married to a woman, something which- as has been pointed out to me in various ways over the years- a very male thing to do. My job is male dominated, my wife's even more so. A lot of my hobbies and interests are considered "male". The majority of my friends are quite conspicuously male.
If someone had offered me, as an older teenager, the chance to be male, I- a fairly mature teenager- would have jumped at the chance.
Because, at that point, I'd seen two of my cousins (who I was then living with), one of my friends and two other girls in our year leave school, having gotten pregnant.
And I'd been through a very uncomfortable puberty.
And, having taken up running, I was sick of being outperformed by boys with much less practice. I wanted their body, their height, their musculature, their ability to eat loads and not put in weight, their relationships with women. I did not want my breasts or my body fat or my stomach cramps or my being resigned to future uncomfortable, unhappy relationships with men.

I wanted what, in my view at the time, was unique to men. And, to get that, I'd have probably ignored the fact that, short of magic, I could never actually BE a male. And yet here I am, a few decades later, happy as a woman, just not as a stereotype.

This really bears repeating, really nicely described. Women don't have the luxury of "identifying" our way out of the discomforts of being female