Fawcett Commission on Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood: let MNHQ know what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

As some of you have spotted, our founder Justine is one of the commissioners for the recently announced Fawcett Commission on Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood.

We at MNHQ are pleased to be on the panel: over the years Mumsnet users have spoken a lot about how gender stereotypes affect children (and indeed adults), leading to independent campaigns such as Let Toys Be Toys and Mumsnet campaigns such as Let Girls Be Girls. This feels like an opportunity to dig deeper into the issues and hopefully contribute to some policy recommendations that will change the way we (as a society) approach gender expectations for children.

For more info on the Commission from Fawcett's Chief Exec Sam Smethers (including her thoughts on why the commission is concentrating on gender rather than sex) take a look at her recent guest post and discussion.

In advance of the Commission's first meeting, we'd love to have your thoughts on the following:

this outline of 'Eight Things You Need to Know About Sex, Gender, Brains, and Behavior' (co-authored by Prof Gina Rippon who will be presenting to the panel);

the Commission's literature review; and

the Commission's call for evidence.

Look forward to hearing what you think - the meeting is on Tuesday 21 May, so please let us have your thoughts before then.

Thanks
MNHQ

Nothing here proves that the entire group of trans people are that way due to gender stereotypes.

So if they're not identifying with stereotypes, what are they identifying with?

This does not enable you to deduce that trans people are only trans because of stereotypes.

I've never seen anyone ever arguing or suggesting that stereotypes were the sole driver for all people becoming transgender.

Sex based stereotypes are signinificant though as identified in this BMJ letter by medical professionals:

(extract)
"Regulated medical practitioners should follow a framework of evidence, not simply respond to client expectations. Creating that evidence to inform quality standards is an ethical imperative. We need research to explore the interplays between gender identity, mental health and neurodevelopmental problems, sexual orientation, autogynephilia, and unpalatable gender roles" (continues)
www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4490.full?ijkey=6lX93kQA0lz5YoB&keytype=ref

Sex-based stereotypes inform the 'unpalatable gendered roles' and the presentation of self as 'woman' in autogyephilia.

Remembering of course JAPAB that the definition of ‘trans’ does not require gender dysphoria but also includes eg cross-dressers according to stonewall, and many others who seem rather fond of their sexed body.

You can argue the point that they shouldn't use stereotypes to provide evidence that someone has GD, but all this means is that a particular medical body are doing things wrong. This does not enable you to deduce that trans people are only trans because of stereotypes.

What do you think gender dysphoria is? Should a cross-sex identity always be affirmed? And is being transgender something that should be 'celebrated'? If it's a natural state that should be affirmed and celebrated, why does it need medical treatment? (leaving aside for the moment the fact that it's only children who apparently 'need' to be medicated, whilst adult males are free to love their 'lady penis')

he definition of ‘trans’ does not require gender dysphoria but also includes eg cross-dressers according to stonewall,

Cross dressing is specifically the deliberate act of presenting in an extremely stereotypical manner but associated with the opposite sex.

Tara Hewitt (Co founder TELI, NHS Diversity manager , prominantTrans Rights activist) made clear that cross dressing is a specifically male sexual fetish in NHS HCP training:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD3RfsVu73Q

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc

Why is everyone arguing with JAPAB instead of focusing on RowanMN’s request in the OP?

*the symptoms of something and the causes of it are two different things.

That a particular medical body would use someone acting in a way that is common (in a particular society) for one sex to act, to support a diagnosis of GD is not the same as declaring that the stereotypes caused that initial inner sense of self as being "the other sex".*

Yes, sorry if I was unclear, I'm not suggesting that being GNC causes "trans". My point is that I don't think being GNC should be considered a symptom of anything. Any way of dressing, thinking, interests, social roles etc should be considered normal and healthy for every adult and child, they should not be pathologised or considered symptoms in any way. I don't deny that GD is a thing btw, and the other symptoms the NHS lists are specific ad relevant. If transition really is the best treatment for adults with GD then they should be supported and enabled to do that. But I think it's really awful that as a society we'd rather tell an extremely effeminate man "yes you're really a woman, have some surgery" than tell him "you're perfect as you are, you don't need to change a thing, your personality is completely normal" and work on changing societies attitudes to that.

This does not enable you to deduce that trans people are only trans because of stereotypes.

I guess the point I keep butting up against is that I don't understand what a gender identity is or in what way we should expect it to align with our sex. If "female gender identity" means "a desire to live according to female sex role stereotypes (such as being nurturing, dressing a certain way, providing the bulk of domestic and emotional labour, choosing lower paid socially conscious career paths etc) then I strongly oppose the idea that people born female should be expected to happily align with this. It's offensive, harmful victim blaming. Women are not born with an innate desire to be oppressed. If "female gender identity" means "an inner sense of woman-ness that exists without reference to biology, expression, or social stereotypes" then I don't know what that means. What experience is being indicated here? How does this feeling manifest itself? I'm not trying to be a twat, I seriously don't understand.

And FWIW I agree that some are far too quick and are jumping the gun when they immediately infer trans/GD from the slightest atypical behaviour.

Thank you. At this point any common ground is a good thing. For my part I agree that female oppression can be due to gender expression as well as biology (blonde = dumb, butch = lesbian, revealing clothes = sexually available for example) and that transwomen who use gendered markers such as long hair and dresses to encode as women will also experience some of this oppression (such as sexual harassment). I'd really like us all to find more common ground to move forwards in the areas where compromise is possible (I'm sure there are some) as I'm horribly afraid that while we're distracted by fighting each other our common enemy (the far right) is making serious strides in harming both women and LGBT+ rights.

Anyway, that's all I'll say because EmpressLesbianInChair is right that we've derailed the thread.

Empress the problem is the OP request doesn’t make sense “how are sex stereotypes affected by sex stereotypes?”

article by BabyCentre apparently confirming some sex-based stereotypes & 'gender identity' as inherent whilst completely missing the impact that adults will have already had on babies & very young children with their gendered expectations, behaviours, socialisation etc:

'Boys and girls: developmental differences'
(extract)
"Children do develop slightly differently depending on their gender. But there's more variation amongst girls and boys than there is between them. Every child is unique and will develop at his or her own pace.

Gender identity
Toddlers may know their gender by the time they are three years old. However, toddlers live in the present, and may not realise that their gender now will be the same when they grow up.

Until toddlers are about three years old, they will just choose the toy to play with that they enjoy most. Whether it’s a doll or a toy lorry will make no difference to them.

It’s difficult to avoid your toddler being exposed to gender stereotypes. Between three years old and four years old, children may start to choose the toys that they think are appropriate for their gender. " (continues)

Getting dressed
On average, girls learn how to do the fiddly things, such as dressing themselves and scribbling, earlier than boys.

Both dressing and scribbling with crayons involve fine motor skills. These are the small actions that toddlers make with their fingers and thumbs.

Making friends
Girls tend to develop social skills, such as the inclination to play with other children, earlier than boys.

Physical activity
Generally, boys are more active and restless than girls, but it's a small difference. All toddlers love to keep busy by running, jumping, and throwing things. And all toddlers need at least three hours' activity a day.

However, there is evidence that boys are slightly more likely to let their anger show when they are frustrated than girls are. " (continues)

www.babycentre.co.uk/a1038526/boys-and-girls-developmental-differences

Just to add this part from the article above:

"Potty training
Girls do tend to be potty trained about three months earlier than boys.

We don't really know why this is. Perhaps girls are more interested in feeling dry than boys are. Or maybe it's because boys tend to like being on the go more of the time, so they may be less happy with anything that prevents them from doing this, such as sitting on a potty. "

I read a great study last year about the way parents mould their children's stereotype preferences, but for the life of me I can't find it now. It measured parents being actively engaged, apathetic, and actively discouraging towards certain play and recorded apathy as negative rather than neutral. Parents apparently became visibly bored or ended play sooner when their children were playing with the "wrong" toys. The study was done on children under 18 months. It also showed groups videos of newborn babies crying and asked adults to say why they were crying. Most adults decided the newborn girl was crying because she was scared, while the newborn boy was crying because he was angry. I'll try and hunt the study down later.

My daughter is 6 months old and I dress her almost exclusively in her brothers old baby clothes, which are themselves pretty neutral (no slogans etc). People always assume she's a boy and treat her so differently to when they realise she's a girl. When they think she's a boy I've heard her be called "wicked", "cocky", "go getter", "future lady killer" etc. People who know she's a girl have cooed over how "girls are just easier/ quieter/ more gentle", described her as "bossy" when she babbles, "coy", "shy", "delicate" (she's easily twice the size her brother was at that age), and even accused her of making "bedroom eyes". It makes me absolutely seethe to think this bollocks is seeping into her perfect little mind when she's only just been born!

We have a rule that all toys are communal unless they're very specific "precious" items like bedtime soft toys/ comfort blankets. And with clothes my personal rule is that if I wouldn't buy it for my son I won't buy it for my daughter, and vice versa. Sadly I live in an area that is very stereotype heavy - we had planned to move to Wokeville next year to combat this, but now I'm afraid that'll be damaging in different ways.

The bloody Disney Channel is the worst, with dozens of ads for pink play kitchens and babies marketed at girls. Even toys and shows which supposedly redress the balance are so needlessly gendered - like, why does Doc McStuffins have to be covered in pink glitter? Can boys not enjoy female doctor toys? To quote another poster, we're like the fish who don't realise we're wet. The stereotyping is so entrenched in every aspect of life.

Girls tend to develop social skills, such as the inclination to play with other children, earlier than boys.

Probably because we insist they play social games like dolls, tea parties, role play! Plus anyone who's ever worked in schools will have seen the way girls are forced into friendships - the number of girls I've seen kept in at break time to "work on their friendship group" while boys are just told "well just ignore him and play something else" if they aren't getting along, makes me so mad.

And breath...

I think I was one of the last cohorts to take a Women's Studies option at university c1990
I remember there was an abudant number of accepted studies of the impact adults had in speaking/playing with baby girls differently to baby boys.

"Probably because we insist they play social games like dolls, tea parties, role play! Plus anyone who's ever worked in schools will have seen the way girls are forced into friendships"

Yy, and all of this is partly why autism is so under diagnosed in women - because they're taught to mask and socialised differently from a very early age, and other girls are encouraged to include and train them.

Biology determines one’s sex, so if a male believes he is a girl/woman, contrary to biological reality then, as someone previously said, it must be one of the following:

Stereotypes: thinking his personality traits and/or clothing/fashion choices make him a girl/woman. (Which is sexist.)

Sexual fetish (AGP): getting sexually turned on by the thought of himself as a woman, lesbian or being ‘emasculated’. (Which is also sexist.)

Body dysphoria/dysmorphia: thinking parts of his body are wrong and should resemble females. (Which is a mental illness.)

There is no other explanation.

However, many men would rather convince themselves and/or others it is something else, such as an inner feeling or the result of having a ‘female brain’. The fact is girls and women don’t believe/know we are female because we have some inner feeling of being female, because we have a ‘female brain’, or because we are happy with our bodies, we only know we are female because we have female biology.

Transgender ideology is a deeply sexist ideology at its very foundation, if an organisation accepts it as legitimate then they cannot at the same time uphold female rights, because transgender ideology is in direct opposition to female rights at its core. So if this organisation accepts trans ideology as legitimate I don’t see how it can be of any use to females.

Stopthisnow There is no other explanation.

Firstly 'I can't think of any other explanation'' is not the same as 'my explanation is therefore proven, so I am now justified in asserting it as if it is a done and dusted deal, and this won't be prejudice'.

That said, even the three options you offer include two that are not based on gender stereotypes.

Ergo you, at least, ought not to agree with statements that assume your first explanation as being THE explanation for all trans people. Which is of course exactly what happens frequently.

No, I don't know the causes of why some people just have an inner sense of themselves that is other than what it "ought" to be, the causes of gender or body dysphoria.

And while it is rare, you hear tales of boys who get raised as girls because they lost their penis and people thought it would be best to raise them as girls. Yet something within them told them that this wasn't right, that they weren't girls (I think such a case was discussed on FWR a while back). No I don't know what caused that either.

But my point remains that the people who decide that it is all based on gender stereotypes don't know that either. It is an unproven blanket assumption. And given your post, you ought to agree when this is assumed of all trans people, when the whole thing is made out as equalling stereotypes.

That said, even the three options you offer include two that are not based on gender stereotypes

you tghink AGO is not based on gender stereotypes? it is you know.

Gah!

you think AGP is not based on gender stereotypes?

damn you fingers!

you hear tales of boys who get raised as girls because they lost their penis and people thought it would be best to raise them as girls. Yet something within them told them that this wasn't right, that they weren't girls

Just for reference, as it might prove useful to some, being physically female is not just a case of 'having lost a penis'. Therefore a male who had lost his penis and was raised according to feminine stereotypes knowing 'something wasn't right' would prove nothing at all about an inner sense of gender because he would still have a male body.

FloralBunting perhaps the explanation is that despite such males being raised as and told they are female, the male innards still have an influence on the mind. They whisper 'you are male', 'you are male'.

Well, we could sit here and speculate whatever explanations we like about this, just as we can with anything else. Probably best to hold off on making insulting and prejudicial assertions though if they remain unproven. Especially when it is against an entire group.

And while it is rare, you hear tales of boys who get raised as girls because they lost their penis and people thought it would be best to raise them as girls. Yet something within them told them that this wasn't right, that they weren't girls (I think such a case was discussed on FWR a while back).

Presumably you're alluding to the tragic mistreatment of David Reimer & the damage caused by Dr. John Money?

"David Reimer was one of the most famous patients in the annals of medicine. Born in 1965 in Winnipeg, he was 8 months old when a doctor used an electrocautery needle, instead of a scalpel, to excise his foreskin during a routine circumcision, burning off his entire penis as a result. David’s parents (farm kids barely out of their teens) were referred to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, home of the world’s leading expert in gender identity, psychologist Dr. John Money, who recommended a surgical sex change, from male to female. David’s parents eventually agreed to the radical procedure, believing Dr. Money’s claims that this was their sole hope for raising a child who could have heterosexual intercourse—albeit as a sterile woman with a synthetic vagina and a body feminized with estrogen supplements.

For Dr. Money, David was the ultimate experiment to prove that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation—an experiment all the more irresistible because David was an identical twin. His brother, Brian, would provide the perfect matched control, a genetic clone raised as a boy." (continues)

slate.com/technology/2004/06/why-did-david-reimer-commit-suicide.html

the male innards still have an influence on the mind. They whisper 'you are male', 'you are male'

which innards? kidneys? Large intestine? what do you mean?

Yeah, it would be instructive for proponents of an innate sense of gender that is not based on stereotypes to be really open about the basis of their 'tales of innate gender' being unethical and abusive experiments on mutilated children like David Reimer.

Just so we can be really clear about the unethical and abusive basis for encouraging harmful interventions based on fantasies about innate gender stereotypes...

If transgenderists (those who believe in transgender ideology) had any other explanation they would be touting it from the rooftops. However, no male has ever said he feels/believes he is a woman/girl without resorting to stereotypes, talking about body dysphoria/dysmorphia, or a APG fantasy. When this is pointed out they claim it is not due to these things, and claim it is a inner belief/feeling that they just cannot define (that is not shared by actual females). That makes transgender ideology, at best, a faith based belief system, more akin to a religion, and its followers believers in a faith. People are of course free to adopt any belief system they choose. However, non-believers who reject transgender ideology, and who instead use the science of biology to define males (boys/men) and females (girls/women) are not being ‘bigots’, the same way as atheists are not bigots for rejecting christianity or other religions.

As others have said APG is based on stereotypes and clearly comes from sexist men’s views of women.

Body dysmorphia is a mental illness, and the suggestion many make that women and girls should pretend that a male who suffers from this in relation to his sexed body, is actually a girl/woman so that we do not hurt his feelings, are actually the ones being unreasonable. It is the only mental illness where we are expected to go along with someone’s delusion, the reason for that is sexism.

Your example of the male child who lost his genitals is again a round about way of trying to argue that a sexed brain exists. It is another example of how sexist the transgender ideology is, that it has to fall back to regressive sexist ideas like this. I also agree with Flora’s excellent post, a male who looses his genitals is still a male, females are not a male without a penis.

I am saying that those who adopt transgender ideology: the idea that someone is or can become the opposite sex (which is contrary to biological reality) and we all should pretend they are the opposite sex, are in reality indulging in sexism. It is plain as day that transgender ideology erodes female’s rights.

Presumably you're alluding to the tragic mistreatment of David Reimer & the damage caused by Dr. John Money?

I don't think that was the one I specifically had in mind. I'm afraid I cannot remember the name but it was someone who didn't discover the truth until they were in their 20s. It was on FWR maybe two or three years ago.

But to get into a detailed discussion on a specific case is beside the point. Like I said, we can all speculate on why some people have that inner sense or dysphoria. I don't claim to know the answer, but then I am not the one making assertions about an entire group as if I did.

I don't claim to know the answer, but then I am not the one making assertions about an entire group as if I did.

Nonsense & projection.