To think that the vast majority of people do not feel they have a gender identity? (Thread 2)

[Galvantulang]

I've made a second thread, thanks to all who contributed to a really interesting discussion.

With the vote as shown when the thread got full, it really does seem that the majority of posters match my RL discussion experience of "huh, what's a gender identity and why would we use it in company policy or law instead of sex?

Link to original thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4158457-To-think-that-the-vast-majority-of-people-do-not-feel-they-have-a-gender-identity

Thanks Galvantulang!

In response to the question on the last thread about an FOI to find out how many males are in women’s prisons, with or without a GRC - it’s an impossible question. Ridiculous as that is.

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/how-many-males-in-women-s-prisons

Lifeaintalwaysempty

Noting with disdain that the U.K. government defines sex as being ‘assigned’ at birth

This was about the ONS near the end of the thread. The fact they've been persuaded to use "assigned at birth" etc is mind boggling to me as well .

That is nuts Empress.

Even if they want to be as "kind" as possible and treat all inmates as if they are the sex they identify as to their face as it were. Surely having 'sex' as a data category as well as "gender reassignment" info would hurt no one and provide better quality information? Not just in prisons tbh, but one terms of any situation whether collected data is to be disaggregated to see the elects on men and women.

I'd not be able to stand by and watch the data become meaningless like that.

@Galvantulang

That is nuts Empress.

Even if they want to be as "kind" as possible and treat all inmates as if they are the sex they identify as to their face as it were. Surely having 'sex' as a data category as well as "gender reassignment" info would hurt no one and provide better quality information? Not just in prisons tbh, but one terms of any situation whether collected data is to be disaggregated to see the elects on men and women.

I'd not be able to stand by and watch the data become meaningless like that.

I couldn’t agree more.

I was relieved to see this:

gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself

That seems to remove any expectation that in order to identify as female (or male) you have to conform to all the outdated stereotypes of typical female (or male) behaviour.

I will continue to consider my gender identity female, as well as my biological sex.

Thank you for this excellent question Galvan - I think it was in the breastfeeding thread that someone mentioned that in many cases compulsion (threat of disciplinary action, social pressure etc) is needed to get people on board with the concept of gender identity because it doesn’t make sense.

Society develops thoughts, fashions and changes organically - people hear about something, think it sounds interesting or right and will gradually start to adopt it. We are individuals and tend to make up our own minds (to varying degrees) on things.

In this case, propagation of this ideology has required subterfuge, misinformation, coercion and outright aggression.

That doesn’t suggest to me that it is a good thing that most people are happy with.

Are they going to have non binary prisons?

Good question Googlemum!

Also can you move between prisons daily or weekly if you are gender fluid?

I suppose All Gender prisons are the only way forward...

YANBU. There’s no such thing as gender identity - there’s only biological sex. Which you cannot change.

Obviously, as male people are more often represented as full, complex human beings and women and girls more often represented as 2-dimensional creatures, many women reject gender as anything internal.

We tend to recognise gender as the combined effect of ongoing sexism and sexist socialisation.

The concept of gender identity cannot encompass feminists (by feminist I mean women who work against sexism and the oppressive nature of gender. I don’t mean the “why can’t we all just be kind” variety).

I considered very briefly whether “feminist” could then be chosen as a gender identity, which obviously makes no sense at all.

I think the only option would be “anti-gender”, but that still falls short of being innate or a magical essence contained deep within in your soul.

So no, there is no gender identity for women who are against gender.

So no, there is no gender identity for women who are against gender.

Gender-bollocks?

Maybe the 500 new places in women’s prisons will be for the gendered beings now it is well known that they pose a risk to women in prison.

I don't have a gender identity.

I understand that this is because I don't know my own mind- I'm so comfortable with my gender id that I don't notice it.

Hmmm.

So everyone gets to self ID apart from middle aged women who think it's all bollocks and have noticed and been angered by sexism/ sex role/ gender role/ stereotypes their whole life.

Which makes sense because a woman who has spent 40+years noticing and angry about the limitations and assumptions made about them because they're female, is definitely so at home on their gender that they don't even notice....

I don't know, I think it rather depends on how you define it. But generally I would say, most people have a sense of themselves as male or female, in much the same way we have a sense of ourselves in other ways - as being a strong person, or a Londoner, or related to a profession. But our experience of our being a person of a particular sex in a particular culture tends to be more deep-seated and permanent.

A dog simply is a dog, in its own mind, it doesn't so far as we know have a abstract sense of itself as a dog. Which is why there is no dog art or literature. Human beings however do have a sense of themselves that is reflective and self-conscious.

If the census asks me what my gender is I will be putting down 'Jedi'.

Just dont get what all this means. Will their be a list of 100 different genders to choose from or will you have to make one up for yourself?

How does anyone know what sex they 'feel' like if they have never been that sex?

A number of points in discussions on gender identity seem to be focussed on how strongly ‘male’ or ‘female’ someone perceives their own behaviour to be.

This does not address one of the main features of gender identity which is that there are many more than just two. The BBC seemed to think there were 100+ and a trans support website had documented 371 including Tetrisgender and Skygender (they also had a section on ‘furries’ and seem to have deleted the whole lot for some reason)

Now supposing you can argue for the balance of male/female traits affecting your gender identity (I don’t believe you can but just suppose), how can that possibly fit with the idea of all these other ‘gender identities’?

Who defined and categorises them?

How could anyone meaningfully identify in themselves a set of firmly held behaviours and traits that are not influenced by society that they are Skygender as opposed to Tetrisgender other than using the descriptions in the same way that some people use horoscopes?

A quick Ecosia search (I’m off Google since they tried to game the GRA consultation with pre-filled mass submissions from all over the world) shows some claiming 15 genders, one says 61 etc.

And they want to make legislation based on this??

'But generally I would say, most people have a sense of themselves as male or female'

Well you can say that but no one knows if it's true.

It's been asserted by trans activists. Who will have that feeling by definition. I don't know that anyone who isn't trans has been asked, in any numbers statistically significant and with very clear definitions including what that means. For example I could tell you easily about the things i feel important to me and that are fundamental to me and why. My gender identity isn't there. Same as I have no spiritual feelings at all. Not there, not a thing, don't know what that feels like. I accept other people do. This insistence that gender is a core part of identity for the vast majority of people is untested though. It's an assumption.

That really gets on my tits tbh

Yes the idea apparently is that if you don't feel you have a gender identity, that means you are "cisgender" and your identity therefore matches your birth sex of course!

So we are told we have this identity and people who feel they are trans can self identify?

I think it's very telling that trans activists believe that every self-identity should be respected - except that of women who say that, after a great deal of reflection and investigation, they don't have a gender identity.

That was so obvious in the last thread. If someone posted here that they are trans, post after post saying "you aren't trans" would be deleted as transphobic. But multiple posts from some people saying "you DO have a gender identity, you silly women" is totally fine.

It does feel like that ArcheryAnnie.

I was also getting discombobulated with the assertion it's not to do with stereotypes. When so many explanations seem to hinge on it. :(

Even the flag design is kinda based on stereotypes. Thanks to a random link from my work intranet:

www.refinery29.com/en-us/trans-flag-colors-meaning-transgender-pride

This article by Lionel Shriver sums up a lot of the things that are annoying women.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/breastfeeding-is-now-chestfeeding-why-are-the-language-police-trying-to-wipe-out-women-wfqmws0j0?shareToken=ecb478cb5d69f660060d68e2433a12ee

I think most people have no objection to considering how things could make people feel better and more included, but many (most?) of these changes to policy only seek to consult trans groups for input. The effect on women or even on those who are not familiar with the 'new wording' seems to be disregarded.

It is the imposition of an ideology by increasingly authoritarian means that is worrying so many of us.

Changing names on signs, leaflets and webpages for two people? That is not about the rights of a particular group, it is about the privilege of an ideology and the adherents of that ideology.

It is a great article by Lionel Shriver.