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

I don't need to take it up with the Olympics committee. There are plenty of other official bodies that have defined biological sexes, or it would be impossible to record it on birth certificates.

I don't think that is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

Likewise, having had two kids go through the education system, they have been examined on the definitions of biological sexes, and so definitions must exist for those answers to be marked.

It is also a matter of fact that you cannot carry out a scientific study of a variable you cannot define.

I don't think you refusing to answer a question over and over again is going over old ground. If I asked what a Quaker was and somebody just kept saying a Quaker was anyone who felt like a Quaker, I would think they were being really rude and evasive. Whether or not you are being really rude and evasive, that is a matter of opinion.

Both genders can be interested in gardening, but flowers are "feminine" and vegetables are "masculine"

If I had to assign a gender to them , yes probably. A flower is feminine in French and German but a bunch of flowers is masculine in both.

Vegetable is masculine in French and neuter in German. Individual vegetables are all over the place.

Re being a Quaker, actually "a Quaker is anyone who feels like a Quaker" isn't far off although they would have to behave like one too.

www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~bmaurus/howbecomequaker.html
" How Does One Become a Quaker?

Traditionally there are two manner sof becomng a Quaker. The first is to be  "birthright" Quaker. This means that one had Quaker parents and grew up under the care of a Quaker meeting, which takes the responsibility of spiritually educating young people quite seriously. This method is becoming preogressively less popular, but still exists.

The other method is to become a "convinced" Friend. Convincement means that one has converted to Quakerism, as other religions and denominations might say. Being convinced means that one feels an inner conviction that in Quakerism one has found the best spiritual path for oneself, at least at one’s present stage of spiritual development.

Convincement does not mean that one has been convinced that certain doctrines are true. Quakerism is non-credal, which means that there is no set of beliefs made into a compulsory creed for all to believe. Practically speaking, though, it would be somewhat pointless to become a Quaker if one did not believe in the Inner Light and find sustenance in the Quaker semi-silent meeting for worship"

slug

^I can't find a legal definition for woman - apart from adult human female. And female is undefined (so I am unclear if its gender/feeling or biology).
Suspect that is a large part of why these conversations are so circular^

Thanks for looking, yeah looks like the law isn't actually all that clear. I thought is was possible to legally change your sex in the UK.

Female is a biological term (not legal) that is used to denote animals belonging to the sex that can make eggs/ova and bear young.

And woman is an adult human female. It is what we call the female of our species, just like cow is a female cattle and hen is a female chicken.

It is legal to change one's legal identity (from male to female, from Japanese to American etc) but that does not mean that their physical reality is also magically changed because a court said so. Just like Chinese people taking up Zimbabwean nationality does not change their Asian features and make them black.

yes cote changing from make to female will not change your body.

I think slug made an excellent point when she said the law might need to define female more closely.

I personally think a non binary system in law might be a good way forward. So you could have three sexes
-with men reassigned as women legally and via versa being an option. But there could be an intermediate sex for those starting reassignment or baby born with ambiguous genitialia.

Lass, yes, I agree that pretty much anyone who feels like a Quaker is a Quaker!

But the starting point if I was asked that question would be that I would explain it was being a member of a kind of religion, that there were particular beliefs and practices, that it had a particular history and so on.

I mean, I have teenagers. I am asked all the time what particular things that people can be are, and have been all through their lives. I've been asked to explain what a gay person is, what a Gnostic is, what a feminine person is, what a socialist is. And all those could be answered that an X person is anyone who feels like X! And that would be true, but it wouldn't answer the question in a spirit of trying to genuinely explain to a person who didn't know what you meant by the word.

And I do think we should be answering these questions in a spirit of trying to gain common understanding.

Like I get that Jazz Jennings says she knew she was a girl by mentioning liking barbies and pink things. I don't agree. In my house boys and girls played with Barbie. But it is part of living in a pluralist society that some families follow gender expression stereotypes and I don't get to dictate otherwise even if I disagree. Just as their are religious families who believe women are more nurturing. Some people do believe in femininity as an innate gender identity for women.

But it is, (bringing on a cliche here) Orwellian to insist a group of people are women and not explain what that even means.

Slug, legally someone is female in the UK if it says they are female on their birth certificate.

This is based on an individual baby appearing to have female genitalia and no male genitalia. This is based on the definition of females as having a vulva. It isn't based on gender because you can't ask a baby what their gender identity is or observe gendered behaviour in newborns.

An exception is made for people who experience sex or gender dysphoria who can apply for a gender recognition certificate.

Great first I'm rude now I'm Orwellian. jenny I'm sorry if you find me rude, I've found this a very civil thread. Everyone has put forward their point of view but I don't think anyone's been rude.

I'm sorry if you find me evasive but I'm not about to suddenly make up a definition of what is a woman just because you've asked me for the 6th time.

Have we really reached a point where there are people who say that they genuinely don't know what a woman is, or a man? That a person will say "oh I don't know what a woman is, I'm not prepared to offer a definition"?

That when a baby is born, and 99.9999% of the world, almost all the time, are able to say (and do say) "it's a boy" or "it's a girl" that this is not comprehensible to them?

So statements like "In Swat Valley, many girls's schools have been burned down" or "Under ISIS, girls and women are being sold for rape" or "In Chad, many young boys have been forced to fight and kill, while many girls have kidnapped and forcibly "married" to their captors", are now meaningless. People hearing them, would have trouble understanding which groups of human beings were being discussed, what characteristics they had that had led to them being treated in these specific ways?

Yes it is orwellian.

And is is very important. If you remove our ability to describe the group of people who generally have the potential to bear children, and the group of people who generally have the ability to cause impregnation, which happen to the the reason for the oppression of the former group by the latter group for as long as anyone can find out, the you remove the tool with which to identify and describe this situation, and then how on earth is anyone supposed to do anything about it.

And that is the point where it's not to do with helping individuals get on with their lives as best and safely as they can, and all about adding further layers of complexity and push-back for the 50% + of the world who are having all sorts of different shit done to them, to a greater or a lesser extent, in every single country in the world.

whirlpool some researchers think about 1 in 100 have disorders of sexual development.

This thread was started to talk about trans issues so it's hardly inappropriate to talk about those that don't fit into the 99%

If you want to give me a definition of woman that's fine but I doubt it will apply to all women.

Adult human female is a perfectly fitting definition for all the women I have ever met.

Your problem is trying to find a definition for "woman" that covers transwomen and you're right, that's a bit mind boggling. And that is because...?

And is is very important. If you remove our ability to describe the group of people who generally have the potential to bear children, and the group of people who generally have the ability to cause impregnation, which happen to the the reason for the oppression of the former group by the latter group for as long as anyone can find out, the you remove the tool with which to identify and describe this situation, and then how on earth is anyone supposed to do anything about it

So the 1% or 0.1% of women who don't fit a standard definition of "woman" aren't an issue.
But the 0.1% of women who are transwoman do cause an issue because they don't fit the standard definition?

Oops that should read

So the 1% or 0.1% of women who are intersex don't fit a standard definition of "woman" aren't an issue.
But the 0.1% of women who are transwoman do cause an issue because they don't fit the standard definition?V

"So the 1% or 0.1% of women who don't fit a standard definition of "woman" aren't an issue."

Which women are you talking about? Intersex, Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY) etc are abnormalities. They don't change the definition of a woman no more than a baby born with one missing foot changes the definition of humanity as a bipedal race.

Whichever their physical anomalies, those women are still of the sex that can produce eggs/ova and bear young. They fit the definition of a woman because they are women.

"But the 0.1% of women who are transwoman do cause an issue because they don't fit the standard definition?"

They don't fit the definition for a very simple reason: they are not women, they are transwomen -i.e. they are adult human males who feel like women.

Right OK then I know exactly where you're coming from.

Please can you tell me how you would like statements such as:

"In Chad, many young boys have been forced to fight and kill, while many girls have kidnapped and forcibly "married" to their captors"

should be rephrased in a way that is acceptably inclusive for you.

Well the Chad statement is fine (obviously it's a horrible situation but from a sex point of view).

Some of those boys will be

• regular XY boys, normal genitalia and no dysforia
• intersex
• trans

Same for the girls.

Now obviously by far the biggest group will be the first group. There might well be no one from the last two groups. But I personally don't see why that statement only applies to the first group.

It's a very generic statement.

Like if I were to talk about boys hair colour in the USA. I'm not specifically talking about the last two groups but I'm not excluding them either. I'm just talking about all the boys in the USA - that's a lot of people.

OK then, so when it comes to children, you have no difficulty, it's just adults.

So, looking at Afghanistan under the Taliban, how would you rephrase:

"Afghan women were forced to wear the burqa at all times in public, because, according to one Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption"

Why would i have difficulty with adults.

Again if I were to talk about all the women's or men's hair in the whole world.

I'm not explicitly talking about group 2 & 3 but I'm not excluding them either. Just talking about women or talking about men.

Not really sure why it would be different for adults.

I'm still not sure though.

How are you defining "boys" in that group when you say it's fine as it's "generic". I'm not sure what that means.

The boys in that group who are trans - I assume you mean the ones who have an internal identity of girls? You should not be including them in under your definition of "boys" then, I wouldn't have thought. If you are talking about children with female bodies but who are male inside, when you refer to the boys who are trans, then I think you will find that your conversation becomes messy because their captors will not know or care that they are actually boys, and will have put them in the group to be raped, rather than the group to be armed and go out and kill.

xposts

"Again if I were to talk about all the women's or men's hair in the whole world.

I'm not explicitly talking about group 2 & 3 but I'm not excluding them either. Just talking about women or talking about men."

How are you defining women then? Are you including transwomen? Are you including transwomen who have not yet started (and may never start) any external changes to their appearance etc? Are you including transmen?

How does a statement like "women in Ireland are refused access to abortion" go over with you? Is it inaccurate and exclusionary?

If you are unable to say what you think a woman is, then statements from charities such as the fistula foundation become meaningless:

"Recent studies indicate that there are between 36,000 and 39,000 women living with fistula in Ethiopia, and over 3,000 additional new cases occur each year. This unfortunate reality is a result of multiple factors such as prolonged labor, practices like early marriage and teenage pregnancy, low socio-economic status and high illiteracy rate among women, scarcity of healthcare units in rural areas, and a low rate of skilled care during and after pregnancy and delivery. In fact, there is only 1 obstetrician or gynecologist for roughly every 350,000 citizens in Ethiopia! - See more at: www.fistulafoundation.org/countries-we-help/ethiopia/#sthash.NG3NIXZi.dpuf"

How does a statement like "women in Ireland are refused access to abortion" go over with you? Is it inaccurate and exclusionary

Well it's relevant to fertile females. So anyone past the menopause isn't going to need an abortion.

Now if there are any transwomen out there saying this statement somehow excludes them - then I think they are being idiotic.

You are using words like female and woman, in the context that they are normally understood, quite happily, but you refuse to accept that you know what a woman is.

Can't you see that that doesn't make sense? You can't simultaneously know and not know what something is, at the same time.

"I'm sorry if you find me evasive but I'm not about to suddenly make up a definition of what is a woman just because you've asked me for the 6th time."

But at the same time you know what a woman is, and say as much when you accept statements like the ones above.