Defining Gender

[MsBeaujangles]

I am starting a new thread that I hope will be a single issue thread that focuses on definitions of 'man' and 'woman' for those that describe themselves as such because of their identity rather than biology.

I know that there are lots of important and related issues to discuss in relation to this, but these are covered in other threads and attempts to explore this often gets lost. It is often said that this is because there is no definition that works, but perhaps this thread might encourage those that view transmen/transwoman as men/woman to discuss this on this thread.

The sooner we have a definition to work with, the sooner we can start to address concerns from both sides about spaces, gender stereotyping etc.

I know that threads have a life of their own, but I really hope that this one can stick to definitions. Even if it means it has few posts!

The link that ItsAll posted (thanks!) identified a difference between those who wanted to be the difference sex and those that felt they were. I came into the first category as a child because I liked climbing trees and boys got better bikes! It's the insistence that they are the other sex though that is incomprehensible to me, although having said that I suppose I can imagine a man wanting to present more femininely and being scared to (I wonder whether there's a class/ethnicity dimension to this) or being scared to come out as gay or bisexual - though I can't see how coming out as trans is easier.

The thing is, the term 'woman' within the sentence 'transwomen are women' must have meaning/ a definition for those that use it, otherwise they wouldn't say it or be able to believe it or not (even if this belief is akin to a religion).

(Oooh, digression opportunity! Hello Spiders. Why do some - or indeed most - languages have genders but a few do not? Off the top of my head English and Farsi, as I am told by my Iranian colleague, do not. And, barring the obvious case of German which has a neuter gender, do you get words which are one gender in one language and another gender in a different one? Especially if those languages are "close" to one another.)

Glad you're not offended 53rd - I used to be religious, but lost my faith. I find it particularly interesting as an analogy in the light of the so-called god region of the brain. On MRI scans a few years back neuroscientists found there was a region of the brain which became active when the subject reported having a religious experience (and conversely, religious experiences could be induced by stimulating this part of the brain). But not everyone had it. And as the scientists in the study pointed out, it tells you nothing about whether there is a god. It is equally consistent with the claim that experiences of god are delusions caused by faulty brain wiring, and with the claim that some people, but not all, have a 6th sense that enables them to experience the presence of the divine directly (though it would, I think, be a somewhat contrary god who created human brains so that only some people had the ability to experience the divine - shades of the extreme presbyterian division of humanity into the damned and the elect).

I feel the same way about the minority of (usually statistically flaky) studies which claim to have found that there are sex-based differences in the brain and the brains of transwomen are more like those of women than of men. Even if true, they don't establish the ontological claim that transwomen are women, they just show that some natal men have brains that in some statistical sense are a bit more like the brains of most natal women than most other men.

@spiders, interesting point about religion. Interestingly, Oliver James has written quite a bit about the benefits of religion to emotional and mental well being.
Linked to this, the 'transwomen are women' issue seems to be underpinned by a desire to belong to the group 'women'. However, doing so requires a shift in traditional understanding of the term/category 'women'. Some women, as traditionally defined, object and some don't mind and others are unable to decide without a new definition being proposed.
I would love to discuss this with those that are happy with the definition change.

As far as I can tell, from forays into tumblr and the like, those who are happy to redefine woman buy into the "gender is in your brain, not between your legs" school of thought. It leads (in my experience of engaging with women with those beliefs) to a topsy turvy world in which they seem to think that admitting to obvious physical differences (men are bigger and stronger) will lead to feminism as we know it collapsing, so we must put all such differences down to different socialisation (if only women were encouraged to do more sport at school), but curiously advocating a belief in gendered brains seems to pose no threat to feminism in their minds. I would love to have someone try to explain this apparent contradiction.

The "gender's between your ears, not between your legs" theory also fails to explain why every single society across the world at pretty much all stages of history has treated women as lesser beings to some degree or another. There are extremely bad cases (Boko Haram, Isil) and fairly manageable cases (most modern western societies, so long as you don't have an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland, or want to inherit your father's estate as the daughter of a member of the peerage in this country, and so long as you don't mind the fact that equality on paper - e.g. the equal pay act - doesn't always translate into equality in practice). But there are no societies I'd say where men and women are genuinely treated equally (and again, harking back to my anthropology prof friend) no reputable historical sources for any such societies having existed in the past.

@prickly English did have genders, but they died out with the case system. There are many words that are differently gendered in different languages. Girl is an apt example. In Spanish and French, for example, girl is feminine, in German, it is neuter. The reason it is neuter is German is simply because the word Mädchen ends with ‘chen, a diminutive suffix that dictates the gender.

A more interesting example also shows how the arbitrary terms, masculine and feminine can actually form people’s opinions on the subject matter. Bridge is feminine in German but masculine in Spanish. Asked to describe a bridge, a German is likely to use words such as beautiful, elegant, fragile, or slender, a Spaniard is more likely to use towering, sturdy, dangerous, or strong.

Thanks @PricklyBall.
That gives me something to work on......following that line of thinking, a person has a set of thoughts/feelings/senses/experiences that leads them to categorise themselves as 'women'. So, what is needed now is an explanation of the thoughts/feelings/experiences etc.
For those that feel they are often shouted off these threads - I am genuinely interested in this - I'm not looking to shout you down!

Hello, I am Beyond’s DH. I promise I’m not mansplaining!

That's fine but you need to avoid agreeing with her at all costs.

helenmn has made that clear!

I can't agree anyway, it goes over my head!

I’m not sure it’s something with which somebody can agree or disagree to be honest.

That's great you guys. Beyond isn't even right that she thinks you're wrong. You're doing really well on this.

I might report your posts so HelenMN can give you a

OP, you might find some useful stuff about feelings here:

www.reddit.com/r/ask_transgender/
www.reddit.com/r/MtF/

A more interesting example also shows how the arbitrary terms, masculine and feminine can actually form people’s opinions on the subject matter. Bridge is feminine in German but masculine in Spanish. Asked to describe a bridge, a German is likely to use words such as beautiful, elegant, fragile, or slender, a Spaniard is more likely to use towering, sturdy, dangerous, or strong.

That's fascinating. I did some historical linguistics at uni and I speak Spanish (but not German) but I have never noticed this!

That's a really sexist cartoon ItsAllGoingToBeFine and inaccurate as well. It was "real science" that created the eugenics movement, gave women lobotomies, and added in a cosmological constant to the theory of general relativity.

Science is science, irrespective of the field. While data collection may be different, analysis is often similar (e.g. uses similar types of statistics). If anything, social science is harder because bacteria in a culture, or wheat in a field, or neurons in a brain don't purposely try to stuff up your results.

Oooh, very happy to see FWR stray into linguistics.

Spider 'Die Magd' (f. 'maiden') or 'die Maid' (f. 'wench') + suffix 'chen' (turns nouns n.) = das Mädchen ('little wench'). So the neuter word for girl, 'Mädchen', is thought to have feminine roots. Which makes more sense for such a commonly used word, as male beings are usually m. and female beings usually f. in German. I'm sure you already know this. Just want to flag it up, in case the German word for 'girl' being neuter pings the genderfluid-dar of someone reading.

But as Prickly said, linguistics is unlikely to be helpful here. I'm sticking with 'man' and 'woman' as meaning biologically male and female. Have not yet seen research or evidence to convince me to do otherwise. But would be genuinely delighted if somebody from the transgender theory side came along with their definitions and supporting research. Defining terms means that we can move along with the discussion.

A more interesting example also shows how the arbitrary terms, masculine and feminine can actually form people’s opinions on the subject matter.

If you're up for it, please do start a thread on this!

There’s no such thing as a “trans woman” or “trans manl. No amount of cross-dressing, cosmetic surgery or artificial hormones can change someone’s sex. It’s a delusion at best, a mental illness, and with most of the men, it’s a particularly nasty cluster of fetishes and personality disorders, with massive lashings of narcissism. Just as importantly, it’s a wholly misogynistic and homophobic ideology. “Gender” is the feeble word for sex roles, and those are not something one “feels”, they are the hierarchy imposed by men to subordinate women for millennia, the requirements and attributes of which change across time and cultures. There should be no pandering to this crap.

That's a really sexist cartoon ItsAllGoingToBeFine and inaccurate as well

Apologies, I didn't really analyse it - I thought it was a good illustration of how TRAs try to twist reality to fit their story - how it is innate, and how there has always been trans people, and sex is a spectrum etc.

(I should have just pinched the text and left out the cartoon, and the dissing of social science)

Thanks, ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

I think with the TRA claims, the fringes of both the biological and social sciences are being used, along with the TRAs torturing the data until it confesses.

MsBeaujangles wrote - "the term 'woman' within the sentence 'transwomen are women' must have meaning/ a definition for those that use it, otherwise they wouldn't say it or be able to believe it or not"

"Transwomen are women" is a political slogan and a political propaganda tool used by people to support the patriarchal oppression of biologically female women and girls (who are now a subset of legally female women and girls).

Slogans do not have to be true and slogans do not have to follow logic, e.g. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery" in George Orwell's book 1984. The meaning is not the point of a slogan. Some slogans are actually meaningless. Slogans are mainly intended to create a feeling in the the people who read or hear them. Then the propagandist can exploit and manipulate their target people through that feeling, rather than wasting their time and effort on explaining the meaning of the words in the slogan.

Linked to this, the 'transwomen are women' issue seems to be underpinned by a desire to belong to the group 'women'.

They don’t want to belong to the group women. They want to belong to a cherry picked part of the group. They don’t actually want to become housewives and support the family, take care of elderly people, drop the kids off at school and struggle at work.

People who are actually accepted into the group women are genuine transsexuals. Because they empathise with women.

The ones who shout transwomen are women do not empathise with women.

I have asked this of genuine transsexuals. And had a variety of answers. One said that it helped him to express himself better, because he felt it was more acceptable to act in a feminine way if he said he was a woman.

Another said it made him feel more ‘vibrant’. (Although it took half a day to produce an answer).

A third, who had been transsexual for the best part of 40 years couldn’t explain it.

But there is no answer which does not refer back to stereotypes.

With the AGP individuals, the ones who shout the loudest, the sexual motivation is incredibly compelling.

They spend a disproportionate amount of time imagining themselves as a woman. Not an actual woman, a fantasy woman, hypersexualised and compliant. Apart from it demeaning woman, it is, yet again a stereotype.

MsBeaujangles

It’s an interesting question and quite a natural one to ask in the spirit of compromise.

You might be interested to read the thread below. These are women who are married to transwomen. Their experiences are all remarkably similar. (That is, if you are truly interested...)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee

OP, if you are genuinely interested in how a transwoman feels like a woman, read the stories of detransitioners.

They are not clouded by any political agenda or promotion of the cause.

They are searingly honest and take you through the journey from start to finish.

Lily Maynard has written about her daughter. And her daughter also writes about it. You can google them.

Or Walt Heyer, if you want a man’s perspective.

"Gender” is the feeble word for sex roles, and those are not something one “feels”, they are the hierarchy imposed by men to subordinate women for millennia, the requirements and attributes of which change across time and cultures.

This exactly.

I wonder how the day to day living of trans women compares to women in relation to caring duties, housework and other wife work activities and leisure time. My guess would be that it would be more like men's than women's experiences.

Many thanks for all the replies and questions. To answer/address some questions/comments posed to me......

My interests lay in policy and practice achieving the following: a reduction in gender stereotyping, protecting spaces and services for women (based on biological definitions of women) and in supporting people who are gender non conforming (GNC). I recognise that the first two interests mean that not all people who are GNC will be happy with what I am hoping for, but that doesn't mean I either (i) would seek to compromise these aims or (ii) resent GNC people for not being happy that this is what I am seeking.

I am less interested in hearing what being a 'woman' means for natal males who identify as women than I am in hearing definitions from policy makers and those who influence policy makers.

As a psychologist I work with people who identify themselves as being something that objective measures would refute (e.g. fat). I work with people who are full of self loathing regarding subjective things such as being 'hateful', 'wicked' etc. Telling them they are not these things or trying to prove they are not has little effect. They also find it very hard to provide coherent or convincing explanations as to why they class themselves as fat, hateful, wicked etc. Therefore, I don't expect a GNC person to justify their identity as a woman.

What I do want to demand is that decision makers come up with a definition that enables sex to remain as a meaningfully protected characteristic and that minimises the negative impact of gender stereotyping.

I understand why @perfectlywretched and other posters do not want to undermine transpeople's identities through focusing on definitions of 'woman' and 'man'. I understand comments made about 'denying their existence' to be about denying them the identity that they choose. I don't wish for either of these things and think it is important to emphasise that this is not what underpins the motivation to define the terms.

think it is important to emphasise that this is not what underpins the motivation to define the terms.

Have you come up with any thoughts about how you can define terms?

Because that’s an interesting and useful exercise.

Do you feel as though you can brain dump, here? And let other people see whether they can help navigate the thought process with you?

Despite my profound disagreement with the ideology, I can easily set that aside in the interest of actually being able to nail down some definitions that would work.