So ... Does this indicate that you CAN be 'born the wrong gender'?

[Garrick]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/im-girl-meet-twin-boy-6348318?

Summary: Twins Alfie and Logan, 4yo, are both boys. Logan has insisted on wearing girly clothes, doing girly things, and that he is a girl since the age of two. His mother, who sounds brilliant, reports him wishing his willy would fall off.

I'm somewhat flummoxed. When I were a lass, little boys like this were described as camp (behind their fathers' backs) and, as far as I know, mostly grew up to be camp and fulfilled their rightful destinies. Rather like Ugly Betty's brother.

But this is what some transwomen say they felt like as children, isn't it? And I have rubbished it because I find it hard to believe in gender as an innate feeling. I'm not sure whether I think little Logan proves me wrong

You're a great teacher, Buffy :) Thank you, too, shove.

Whenshewas, you've given various examples of humans who are in the group 'conscious and aware that they have a female body.' I don't think there's any confusion that all the people you mention usually fit in that group.

But you haven't explained what the category woman as a gender identity is.

And I'm not asking you to explain simply, objectively, in biological or other scientific terms, in psycho analytic terms, or in any other specific terms. I'm just asking you to be explicit.

I love mumsnet. Fantastic posts this morning (and yesterday but those two do stand out as having had a lot of effort put in :) )

BTW - did anybody notice Glosswitch's blog is blog of the day? >>>

Holly, thanks for explaining that. That was what I was trying to get at.

I'm not saying that any word has to have a meaning based on Science or the physical world to be objective. I mean in the sense you described, that words have meanings that are shared, so the meaning of a word is not subjective.

Thank you Buffy and Holly.

When, in your example of the SAHD, he is "defending" his masculinity because he feels it is lessened by the SAHDery, because patriarchy. In himself, I doubt he thinks his gender has changed to be some % woman, some % man but he is obviously concerned that might be the perception as he's performing a "feminine" role viewed as lesser, because patriarchy.

Again, that doesn't seem like gender identity.

Could you say that science is viewed as the most powerful sort of knowledge because it has traditionally been performed by men (particularly white men in more recent times)

I would argue mostly no (but I am a bit biased - I like science). It certainly was exceptionally male dominated but I don't think that is a reason to reject it.

At its essence the scientific method is

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyse Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results
• Are the results confirmed when others repeat the experiment.

That is why I personally value the scientific method as it requires evidence that your theory is true.

Unlike for example Freud's made up nonesence of the Oedipus theory. That's just done bloke thinking really hard about something and setting out his theory.
There's no proof it's true. I can't prove its not true but that's not being able to disprove it does make its true.

I did really like your explanation Buffy, as always you've given me loads to think about (and I'll be back later). hope everything is ok Buffy

Sorry yonic I'm obviously not being clear enough. The sahd dad thing is clear not gender identity, I didnt mean it to sound like it was.

It was just an example of a man feeling uncomfortable being a sahd because of gender stereotypes.
Like you said nothing to do with gender identity.

I've got a tonne of stuff to be getting on with at home. Back later.

I would argue mostly no (but I am a bit biased - I like science). It certainly was exceptionally male dominated but I don't think that is a reason to reject it.

I like science too(!) and did not mean we should reject it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

"It was just an example of a man feeling uncomfortable being a sahd because of gender stereotypes. "

Hooray, we agree!

I don't think anyone is advocating rejecting science!

^So going back to the chairs and tables again, yes they exist, we can all feel and use them. But who gets to sit in the best seats? And why those people? Who has to make do with the seats at the back, where they can't hear or see so well? Who has been excluded from the room entirely and what stories are told to explain and justify all these arrangements. And, for that matter, why chairs and tables, why a room?

From this perspective, if you use the science method to try and understand this reality, you'll end up measuring things like the volume of the lecturer's voice at the back versus the front of the room^

I'm not sure I agree with this analogy 100%, although the point you are making is excellent.

I would tend to think of this as a "hard" science and "softer" science issue.
Science is just applying a scientific method to a question.

Some questions are pretty simple, what happens when I mix sodium and chlorine - I get sodium chloride.

You can run that experiment a thousand times you always get the same result. There's no variables and it's a very simple system.

But then you have a social science like economics where the variables are massive. Billions of people, various governments, political systems etc.
So it's very hard to predict what the outcome will be in various scenarios. Eg you apply quantatative easing expecting it will achieve X but actually it achieves Y.

So while I agree that measuring people's hearing is not appropriate I still think you can apply the scientific method to social situations. It's just much harder to do the more complex the system is.

I think there are some more kind of things that get miscommunicated between the "sides" here, thinking about it.

One "side" takes the stance of people who are gender critical and / or say that a man can't literally become a woman in every way including biological, to mean that they are saying trans people can't don't shouldn't exist.

Speaking for myself, quite obviously trans people exist, it is entirely apparent that they genuinely feel that they are not in the body that they belong in, and this is frequently a cause of massive difficulty, turmoil, leading often to a terrible time and mental health problems and of course people who do act in ways that don't meet gender roles often get a shit time from lots of other people including violence and really serious harm.

The problem for me is not to do with individuals or even trans people as a group getting (correctly) protected in equalities laws and so forth. The problem is when the ability to talk about the people who when they are born everyone says "it's a girl" (or "it's a boy") is removed. And the insistence from some that trans people are literally and in every way the sex they feel internally, and that their experiences growing up are genuine experiences for their internal sex etc. Because then you have to start denying the biological realities of the problems that women face, the actual genuine shit that women and girls get because of their sex, and you get fucked up anomolies which put members of the group previously known as women and girls at risk.

The other thing that bothers me is that any other trans existence is met with such a totally different reaction. Yet a man says "I'm a woman" and everyone is all "yup totally you are of course" what does this say about what society / the world views women as? It's still "not man" isn't it. Was it on this thread or another someone said "what would you call a person who has had the surgery and now has a vagina" and my response is, it's not a vagina. A vagina is a complex organ with various different functions. You can't "make" one. Surgery makes a facsimile of a vagina. This erasure or treatment of women and their bits and bobs as just, well you can make one of those easy, it really sort of undervalues? erm, reduces what we are and what we're made of.

Women's bodies have always been considered lesser, problematical, unmentionable, or as a selection of orifices and so forth. The idea that they are for show, rather than function, all of this seems to support that idea, somehow.

Sorry a ramble there.

Yes Whirlpool. I agree with all of that. And the same the other way around. If I am correct it is also impossible to create a fully functioning penis. From a very quick google (not at all in depth) it appears that various options are available to simulate erection but they must be operated manually.

It reminds me a little of the case recently in Ireland where a medically dead woman was kept artificially alive in order to continue her pregnancy, to totally mixed reaction, half revulsion, half interest in the possibilities. It's similar in that it's a gross oversimplification of what the body part in question actually does. It's extraordinarily arrogant of doctors to assume oh yes, we know what this bit does, we can recreate that no problem. It just seems obvious to me that we don't really know what we're doing in this respect, and if it wasn't happening to actual humans, or is without a doubt providing a better option than the alternative, then okay, but I can't get behind the idea that it is a better option.

Good post whirlpool.

YYY, Whirlpool. Also Bertie. A trans vagina just isn't a vagina. All it does is accept a penis during sex. It doesn't join up to anything, fulfil any biological functions or even stay there (has to be treated regularly to stop it healing over.) Thinking about this, which I try not to (!) makes me feel very angry - because the fact of the transwoman vagina reduces our organ - the very one that's been used as excuse to subjugate since forever - to a penis sock. Is that how medical science sees us, really? If so, it totally explains why transwomen (those who've had SRS, at least) believe they are women. Because a woman is a person with an extra hole for a penis to go in. That's all, folks.

I resent this. To clarify, as we keep having to, I don't resent the existence of transwomen or trans-anything people. What I mind about is the rapid redefinition of 'woman' with all the accompanying erasure of women's actual lived experiences as women.

Transwomen shouldn't insist on 'being women' in my opinion. What's wrong with being who and what they are? In as many shapes & forms as appropriate.

Massively agree with Garrick and Whirlpool. Thr reductivist medical view of surgically created "vaginas" is especially troubling

So we are back to "they aren't real women" and "it makes me angry."

I think I'll take a break from this thread, I've really enjoyed the discussion but I think this is the point where I do have a different opinion.

I just don't feel the same threat or encroachment that you feel. What's in someone else's pants isn't really any of my business.

Pointing out its not a real vagina over and over again. I don't really know why you would do that. You wouldn't say that about a woman who had been in some sort of accident and needed complete reconstruction. That's a matter for her and her doctors. No one else's businesses.

It depends on what you think of as a real woman, When - which is what we've been discussing for five pages so far. Being a (real) woman is pretty central to feminism, I'd say. What I was trying to point out were issues around patriarchy's idea of what a woman is, and my discomfort with seeing freshly-made women supporting it. I can't say I blame them; they lived as boys/men before changing their gender - and, while there are plenty of men who understand feminism, they aren't the majority. Some transwomen understand it too, and they also seem to be a minority.

I don't know of many other ways to say "I will call you Sheila and respect your chosen identity, but will you please stop telling women what a woman is".

You wouldn't say that about a woman who had been in some sort of accident and needed complete reconstruction.

Because that woman, having been born with the equipment (working or not) to drop eggs & grow babies from them, has experience of what it is to be a woman in her society.

You've so totally missed the point of why I mentioned the sock/vagina thing, there's nowhere else I can go with it.

Anyway, thanks for sticking around so long and being such a pivotal member of a rich discussion :) If it's mainly me pissing you off, come back in the morning - I'm rarely online then!

Garrick obviously you are a total star and are making a lot of sense.

I get frustrated with the 'a trans woman is a woman', retoric. BuI I would want to be respectful of trans people when I meet them on line and in real life. Being respectful of individuals and maybe being happy to use the pronouns etc people may ask to be used doesn't mean I agree with everything they say, nor does feeling uncomfortable about the way female spaces are compromised mean I don't feel a need for safety for trans women.

It seems very sad because I feel females could be allies of trans women and vice versa, and some are.

And it takes the focus off both trans issues issues and women's issues and puts the focus on semantics

Such a good point slug. I like this debate but it is just a talking shop.

Oops posted too soon.

I also want to know how to be a trans ally - beyond saying of course you're a woman

I find it really heartening that in the real world it's clear all of you would treat a MTF with respect and use the pronouns she wants.

Obviously in the real world (day to day living not a Drs office) you aren't able to tell what someone's genitals look like.
So you can't determine if a person can't enter a female space because "you still have your penis"

My dh would probably pass quite well as trans (he's quite pretty, short and petit). With a makeover I bet he could pass pretty well even with no hormones and still keeping his penis.
His best mate however (6 foot 1 and huge, massive jaw) would probably pass less than dh even after hormones and surgery.

All I'm trying to say here is that maybe genitals aren't a good practical way of saying who can and can't enter female spaces.