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 mean it's all very well saying it shouldn't matter what you have in your pants how reductive but unfortunately that is how the vast vast vast majority of the world operates and awful things are done to people based on it.

Whirlpool - couldn't agree more!

I think they mix the idea that it doesn't matter what's in your pants when it comes to what you do and how the world should think about you, with it doesn't matter what's in your pants when it comes to practicalities about interacting with the world and what you might need from the world.

There's a difference between asking someone about what's in their pants so you know what shape bed pan to give them, vs. asking what's in their pants so you know whether a skirt is socially acceptable or not.

TBH, I don't quite get the transwoman's problem with being asked about the reason for having a testosterone prescription (although, going to a nurse with a cold is a bit weird) - HCP need to know history in order to give a correct diagnosis - of course she asked about current medications.

"I think they mix the idea that it doesn't matter what's in your pants when it comes to what you do and how the world should think about you, with it doesn't matter what's in your pants when it comes to practicalities about interacting with the world and what you might need from the world."

Yes I have been struggling to articulate this to myself.

The suggestion is that feminists are hypocrites because we have always said women and girls should be treated as people and not just as our biology, and now this comes up and we say hold on biology.

Which is a good point on the face of it. But the idea is not that we stop treating women as nothing more than biology, it is suggesting that we totally ignore all of the realities of sex based oppression and the specific problems that the ones who are capable of bearing children face, and also remove the words for describing it.

In a world where all sorts of godawful shit is being done to girls right now, and our reproductive function is bringing countless women and girls untold pain and death, and our reproductive function is the reason that in some parts of the world women and girls are quite literally possessions, then removing the ability to even talk about it is extraordinarily cruel.

Yes Whirl - for years we've asked not to reduce us to wombs on legs, that we're people.

Rather than see that we are people who have wombs though, we only get to be seen as people by pretending that we don't have wombs.

Yet again - we'll listen to you, if you behave like a man.

I do personally find it difficult to tell the difference between a male MRA-type troll and someone like that. There are men online who make accounts where they say that they're black, female, trans etc and say offensive stuff to create a stir.

Also here are some MRA's talking about using trans identity to invade female spaces:
imgur.com/a/K9sBP

How am I supposed to understand who is saying weird and sexist things online because they believe that vagina cupcakes actually harm transpeople and who says things like that because they're just being sexist and trolling?

Strike that - not behave like a man - if you pretend that you are a man physically - that there is no difference.

Well I think we can all agree some utterly stupid things are said online about trans issues.

I'm still wondering what a good trans person would look like from a feminist perspective.

I can't talk for other feminists, but there's a lot of sense spoken by people like Miranda Yardley, and I read a very thought out and together blog by someone called transywansy.

They acknowledge who they are, how they're different, and how that's not a bad thing. Where our needs intersect, where they don't etc.

Rather than stomping feet and demanding that I erase bits of myself so they can be validated.

I'm still wondering what a good trans person would look like from a feminist perspective.

Well, not trying to shut up female discussions about female sex organs (be it vagina cupcakes or FGM) and feminism just because it isn't relevant to them. Understanding the biological differences and respecting women only space.

I don't think labelling people as "good" or "bad" is going to help anyone is it

There are plenty of gender critical transpeople who take these types of views as well.

And then of course there are loads of transpeople who are just trying to get on with their life as best they can and aren't vocal / interested / whatever about this at all. I mean, people are people aren't they and not everyone takes sides or is engaged with stuff and that's all fine.

I also think that saying the things said are "utterly stupid" is not helpful as to the people saying them (MRA shit-stirrers aside) they are genuine heartfelt expressions of what is right and best to help a group of people who are unarguably at huge risk of harm and discrimination.

Are you always this black and white, whenshe? While I violently disagree with some of the things said, I can understand or at least try to understand where they're coming from. Well not the death threats, but the disconnect from sex and biology and all people should be treated 100% as what they identify as in that moment stuff. I can see why people believe it, quite easily. It's not stupid, it's just not, in my opinion, the right way to approach reducing harm to trans people as it impacts negatively on, um, the people who used to be called women and girls.

As ever of interest is that I've still not seen any / much in the way of men's and boys stuff being changed, prostate exams, condom instructions, that stuff. I don't know. Maybe it's happening too.

I'm still wondering what a good trans person would look like from a feminist perspective.

Try Miranda Yardley or Aofie Assumpta Hart , or, if you go way back to the playbuzz quiz the comments from a transwoman on there. I can't recall the name but it should be obvious as she was so reasonable.

I know you weren't using "look" in a purely physical sense but Aofie "looks" like a dowdy, plain, but friendly and cheerful woman. If she wasn't open about her transition then from photographs I don't think one would assume she was a transwoman. Yet she has had what is deemed by the trans community to be the worst possible insults thrown at her by members of the trans community- namely she is a man and the use of male pronouns to describe her.

There is absolutely loads to read on all of this stuff from a wide variety of people if you google, whenshe.

I agree with Whirlpool. It isn't bad or stupid to believe those things, and I understand why people hold such beliefs.

I still think making a fuss about vulva shaped cupcakes is stupid. If you want to flame me for that I'm not really bothered.

I find it a bit odd that I can't have a black or white point of view regarding a cupcake. But earlier on in the thread I was expected to come up with a definitive description of a woman, one that would encompass 100% of women.

Like I said earlier the Olympics still struggles with a firm definition of what makes a biological woman.

"I'm still wondering what a good trans person would look like from a feminist perspective."

Well you can keep on wondering.

I don't believe anyone is good or bad because I am not 8 years old.

You see at this point I start to wonder where you are coming from with this.

You absolutely refuse to say that you can say what a woman or a girl is, but are simultaneously comfortable with statements that talk about these groups when it comes to items that are related to their biology.

You ask repeatedly for examples when a bit of googling would prove really informative on all of this stuff, and the different viewpoints (ie not just the ones on this thread) which if you are trying to understand the issues and arguments would be more helpful than asking for links from a group who you make it clear that you think are wrong or exaggerating or whatever it is, and then either deeming the "stupid" and from "trolls" or suggesting they are hoaxes and so forth.

If you want to know and understand what various people of lots of different types make of all this then the answers are all just there.

What are you trying to get to here - is there an end point? Have you found any of this useful? Will you be doing more reading or have you made your mind up on anything? Do you understand the concerns of either the women on this thread, or the more extreme trans views that have been linked?

all women college cancels vagina monologues production

stupid? hoax? good as it's not inclusive? it's up to you really, posters on here can only tell you what they think, not make your mind up for you, and certainly not tell you who is "good" and who is "bad".

Anyway

I was thinking earlier, and a lot of the more extreme stuff (as far as I am aware) and the instances of abortion clinics removing references to women, student unions cancelling stuff, and you know all of that, most of it seems to come out of the states?

(Correct me if I'm wrong - I know there are examples from elsewhere but the majority does seem to be US sourced and a lot of the blogs twitter stuff and so on).

Are we getting swept up in what is coming out of a massively different culture? The arguments around abortion - whereas here it's just a standard part of healthcare you can get (barring NI). The healthcare things generally (to do with cost). The general push for the individual (which as I understand it is a much stronger part of their national identity). Sort of, a lot of the people pushing for stuff only seem to be giving consideration to their immediate problems in their immediate locality - which is understandable - um

I'm not sure how to express this! In other countries there are loads of different set-ups, in some non gender conforming people are specifically recognised, in others like Iran where it is punishable by death to be gay there are results for "trans" around that, you have girls in Afghanistan being dressed as boys to go to school and then having terrible trouble when they hit puberty and are expected to step into submissive roles, just loads and loads and loads of stuff, so many differences and I just think that maybe so much of this conversation is focussed on one voice from one very specific part of the world IYSWIM.

Just a thought, don't know

I didn't ask you to do that.

I asked you to describe what woman was as a gender identity, because you made scientific claims on the basis of there being such a thing at the beginning of the thread.

I have no idea whether or not your description will encompass 100% of who you think women are because you have never said what you think a woman is. I don't need it to include any particular people who I might consider women and who might consider themselves women. I just want you to explain what you mean when you are talking about woman as a gender identity.

The Olympic committee, who have to make highly complex decisions about athletes who routinely take performance enchancing drugs that alter their bodies, isn't really about gender identity at all. I don't know why you keep bringing up biological sex and how that is defined when you have said woman is a gender identity.

You are right whirlpool. The section of this thread concerning gender identity was interesting.
People had different views but it was generally conducted pleasantly and was interesting.

Can't say the same for this past section.

I guess there isn't really an end point. I like discussing things and this topic interests me. My opinions aren't set in stone and it's interesting to see what others thoughts are.

Yes I will do further reading on this. I didn't bring up trolls someone else did.
And I'm sorry but I have looked at the MANA website and can't find anything suggesting pregnant women has been replaced with pregnant individuals.
Like you say maybe I've not looked hard enough. But don't get upset with me just because I looked into something and couldn't find what I was looking for.

I can tell people are getting seriously pissed off so maybe it's time for me to leave you to it.

jenny we don't agree on this. And that's fine.

My opinion on gender identity is simply that it is "feeling like you are a man or a woman, or indeed neither"

Now that lead to questions of "what is a woman"? And that's why this thread went down the biology line.

We are 22 pages in and we have different opinions on this. If I was to hang around for another 22 pages (which I don't have the time or energy for) we would still disagree.

Just been googling and I relate to a lot of what this woman says, I enjoyed it.

No. I asked you to explain what a woman was as a gender identity, because you claimed there was scientific evidence for it.

I am not asking what a gender identity is. Nobody disagrees with you that it means to feel like a particular gender.

I cannot agree or disagree with an opinion you won't explain. If you don't explain what you mean, then it doesn't mean anything!

Other people talking about biology is important and interesting, but it is pretty much a separate topic to your claims about woman as a gender identity.

At this point, I no longer think you are posting in good faith.