Legal gender and sex - confused

[jellyfrizz]

Gender has nothing to do with biological sex (other than stereotypes). Most transgender people will agree with this and indeed argue that gender has got nothing to do with what is between your legs.

So why then are people allowed to change their sex on their birth certificate and erase their past? How you present or what you do to your body has nothing to do with biological sex. Why would you want to do this if gender is unrelated to sex?

I'm guessing it's because historically people were classed as transsexual rather than transgender but once it became transgender surely 'changing' sex legally should have been stopped rather than the two being conflated? I'm told gender is a spectrum so what are you transitioning from/to?

The whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing is a lie, only women are being told to change. Men can do what they want without criticism.
Thats how you know its an offshoot of the MRA movement. Thats why they wont ever tackle male violence.

I'm told gender is a spectrum so what are you transitioning from/to?

The whole ideology has spawned 50 or 60 ridiculous 'genders', but from what I can tell, transpeople somehow still manage to maintain only two and that's how they magically manage to conflate it with sex .

A man will say 'I've been female from birth'. Never, in a month of Sundays, will you hear him say I was a boy until about say five, then fairly gender fluid for 2-3 years, then I was gendervex at school, then agender for a while, and finally female. Because that doesn't fit in with the 'born in the wrong body narrative'.

The whole thing is illogical to a teeth grinding degree.

jelly " I'm told gender is a spectrum so what are you transitioning from/to?"

this. Exactly. If it is a spectrum, if it is fluid, then why the need to transition, you'd be more likely to set up points along a scale.

I think the scale is nonsense too but increasingly I find people believe it. But even if there is a scale, what does it matter? It's all just a lot of stereotypes isn't it?

We all know that gender is made up bollocks to keep women in their place a social construct but I don't think it is helpful to dismiss it entirely in discussion with someone who has based their entire identity on the premise. It obviously means something to them.

What I think I am going to do is start with the area that I agree with trans people, help promote the idea that 'gender has nothing to do with what is in your pants'. If we can separate the two ideas enough then 'becoming' a woman makes no sense.

The more I think about it, the more truly transphobic I think the current transitioning process is. Encouraging people to transition legally It is literally erasing trans people's experiences and putting them into nice neat gender boxes with their past neatly erased too.

The whole puberty blocker thing is saying that being a feminine man/ masculine female is not acceptable. You must take puberty blockers or you might not 'pass' later in life - as if being a gender non conforming man/woman is a terrible thing.

I am going to start discussing this more and try to find ways to challenge current processes from a place of common ground and compassion.

I have been pondering exactly what you say in your OP and my head is about to burst.

Are sex and gender two completely separate things or are they related?

I am wondering if the whole transgender illogical rabbit-hole is because for some purposes they are taken to be the same, and for some purposes they are taken to be different in trans ideology. I am going to try to think of some examples to see if this is the case.

Also, thinking back, when did we start talking about "gender" and when was it "accepted" that it isn't the same as sex (or is, depending, as above)?

Yes Wrong, I think transactivists are quite happy to encourage the conflation of sex and gender when it suits them.

Please do excuse me if I am stating the obvious, or indeed, tripe, but I find this conceptually very difficult.

Is this true?

In the past the definition of "woman" was based on sex.

At some point (and I really would love to know how and when) the definition of "woman" ceased to be based on sex and became based on gender.

Problems arise because 1) lots of people thing gender is made up nonsense and

b) even if it isn't, all laws, protections, rights etc were made on the basis of woman being defined by gender, and are now either overtly (Gender Identity Bill) or covertly (nonsense on the internet) being turned into being on the basis of gender.

The problem is compounded because people use sex and gender interchangeably.

Wrong Trouser Hope these help

Definitions:
Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Gender: Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. (Oxford English Dictionary) i.e. a social construct

Social Construct: A construct devised to aid in the analysis and understanding of social phenomenon. It is a deliberate abstraction from reality which focuses on particular aspects and ignores others in order to open up new lines of thought and new areas of investigation. Its function is heuristic, not descriptive. Examples include status and role (Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought)

Construct: Names given to a term or concept which is thought that there is nothing corresponding in reality, so that it is merely a useful fiction. (Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought)

Are sex and gender two completely separate things or are they related?

I think they are completely unrelated. One is biology, the other is made up nonsense to keep women in their place a social construct.

I cannot understand why the law says you can change sex. It's crazy that people can change their birth certificate from male to female. They haven't changed from male to female, their biological sex is still male. It makes no sense. Sex and gender are not the same thing.

Discrimination against women (and men) is currently clearly based on sex, not "gender". Pregnancy/maternity is a separate protected characteristic but it is also part of sex discrimination.

I'm talking about the laws in the UK. Other countries may use different wordings and categories.

I don't think you'd be able to claim sex discrimination as a woman as a transwoman. I think you'd need to claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. I think a lot of these legal concepts haven't been fully tested yet in court.

Discrimination against women (and men) is currently clearly based on sex, not "gender". Pregnancy/maternity is a separate protected characteristic but it is also part of sex discrimination.

But there is no legal distinction between sex and gender when, on paper, a male 'becomes' a female and all past records are erased.

Of course back in the real world sex discrimination is purely due to biology.

Sex and gender, of course, are not the same thing but the discussion amongst trans people has moved on. They realised it had to with the explosion of 50 different genders (which I think is now just reserved for special snowflakery teens), diluting their ideology.

They are now insisting that sex itself is a construct. The theory being, for a man say, that he was always and forever female. That the perception that he was male at birth, was 'constructed' without his permission or knowledge. And when he finally had a voice of his own, he was able to tell everyone how wrong they were.

This separates sex and gender on an even more surreal level. It dismisses gender entirely (good), but makes sex an identity rather than a biological fact (bad).

Everyone has been delighted to challenge gender roles and considered that the trans movement might help that. This is not what they want. They don't want to be told that they are their biological sex and can just present as the opposite sex. Therefore they have distanced themselves now from the gender part.

I don't think you'd be able to claim sex discrimination as a woman as a transwoman. I think you'd need to claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

But the law pretty much erases transwomen (as well as women as a biologically unique entity) as if they have a GRC they are legally female. Gender and sex is conflated in law.

Interesting article about the abuse of female journalists: journal.georgetown.edu/a-threat-to-free-speech-the-online-abuse-of-female-journalists/

This has become even more heated after two feminists talking about male privilege. Transwomen deny utterley that they have it. As they were always women, they absorbed misogyny, not male entitlement. Completely disregarding that it is how you are treated and perceived, not how you feel. They maintain they took no notice of being treated as male, and only personally absorbed society's mistreatment of females.

And when tomorrow someone raises another objection, they will weave another fantasy to justify why they are women misogynistic fetishists.

They are now insisting that sex itself is a construct. The theory being, for a man say, that he was always and forever female. That the perception that he was male at birth, was 'constructed' without his permission or knowledge. And when he finally had a voice of his own, he was able to tell everyone how wrong they were.

Woah! Headfuck. Are they denying biology exists?

Absolutely they are.

But, but surely everyone rational just says no, that's complete nonsense?
There can't be many people believing this?

Scuttles off to google

Gender is hugely connected to sex, in the sense that people born male are socialised as males, with the blue brain and innate preference for serious important areas of life such as mechanics, lego and sport.
Females are raised as females, with their automatic and innate preference for pink. Fanciful things like sparkly flying ponies and cake decorating.

This is what feminists (and all rational social analysts) have been pointing out for years and feel driven to change although this seems impossible.

Look through history, and how high heels were invented for men, makeup was worn by men (Egyptian pharaohs and pre-French revolution).
The invention of blue for boys pink for girls came about after Vogue began writing articles about this in the 1920's. Before that all infants wore white. Secretarial work was originally a male profession.

So it's not impossible. The ideas surrounding what makes female and what makes male will be subject to change over time, the only thing that will never change is biology.

This link is the very first hit on Google when I typed in is sex a social construct. It's obviously completely barmy. Nonetheless, the same premise is trotted out everywhere by transactivists.

www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/

jellyfrizz
There's a load of goody FUCK erstwhile and narcissistic adolescents out there pelting out that BS but no. Most rational people do not believe it BUT they are no-platformed, slurred, in danger of losing their job if they speak out so most ppl just STFU.
Most reach peak trans very quietly.

What? Goady fuckers I meant not whatever that says above.

patodp

Exactly. You wouldn't think that there was anyone on earth who could give this even the smallest headroom, but they bloody well do.

I am so desperate to see even a mildly articulate person take on this ideology on TV. A 10 year old could wipe the floor with it.

The problem is, once you accept the 'born in the wrong body' narrative, which many, many rational people do, the logical conclusion is that they have always felt that way.

Having some neurological blip which causes gender dysphoria, has been thrown out the window.