Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Bloody hell BBC

563 replies

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 05/03/2019 07:06

Reading the BBC news online this morning and there is not one, but two stories about transgender people. One promoting the transition of a small child, and the other promoting sport for transgender athletes. The latter in particular looks like a direct attempt to counter the news discussion over the last few days in sport.

This isn’t news, it’s wartime propaganda.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
R0wantrees · 19/03/2019 18:17

DadJoke perhaps you might be interest in Prof Rosa Freedman (expert in human rights law) summary given in a recent speech:

(extract)
"In international human rights law the word ‘women’ has been defined as referring to biological sex. This was the definition in various international human rights treaties and discussions, including recently in 1998 in the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court where it makes it explicit that the word ‘gender’ refers to the two biological sex classes of male and female."

Gender has been defined as social constructs based on the different ways that the two sexes are viewed and treated in societies, including laws and practices. Some forms of discrimination against women might be based on their sex – for example denying access to reproductive rights, or child brides. Others may be based on gendered constructs, such as denying girls the right to education based on society viewing the two sexes differently, or violence against women against girls. The international human rights law framework and mechanisms focusing on women provide specific
protections for women to access their fundamental rights based on the long history of violence and discrimination against women.
(continues)

In 2006 the Yogyakarta Principles were created by a group of international human rights law experts. Those principles set out rights to which SOGI minorities ought to receive and have protected. But the key issue that many people have with those principles is that they talk also about self-identification of gender – not sex – as being key to trans people’s ability to realise their fundamental rights. A second issue that is problematic is the definitions, or lack of definitions, of terms such as gender identity and sex characteristics. But we must remember that those Principles were aimed at kickstarting conversations and discussions – they are not international law, and they were not being promoted as anything other than a starting point for developing much-needed protections for SOGI minorities.
It is important to remember that then, and indeed now, there is very little likelihood of creating specific mechanisms to protect sexual orientation or gender identity minorities given that more than 77 countries out of 193 UN members criminalise LGBT persons. The Yogyakarta Principles from 2006 were created by a self-selecting group of human rights experts, which is how many human rights initiatives begin, but have hardly been discussed by UN member
states and hardly gained any traction, thus leaving them somewhat dead in the water. While there have been some occasions when they are referred to by academics, or even very rarely by a court, they are not discussed even as soft law, but rather as a set of principles developed by a small group of human rights experts. And neither the Principles nor those who refer to them have set out a definition of gender identity." (continues)

forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Rosa-Freedman-FWS.pdf

R0wantrees · 19/03/2019 18:21

Nothing illustrates more vividly the subordination of women than men deciding who can be one.

From thebewilderness 'Rules of Misogyny',

"8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are."

www.reddit.com/r/Gender_Critical/comments/6kkeni/the_rules_of_misogyny/

DodoPatrol · 19/03/2019 19:11

Having brown eyes and knowing I have brown eyes doesn't also give me a brown eyed identity.

It's more like 'Having brown eyes and knowing I have blue eyes' in this case, though.

Helmetbymidnight · 19/03/2019 19:54

It's utterly galling to be told you have a gender identity when you don't believe it - and when you ask what it is no one will tell you.

It's even worse to be told you are perfectly happy with your gender identity (whatever it is) and this therefore makes you a cis.

CaptainMarvelBunting · 19/03/2019 20:02

I think it's this insistence that I am cis because I don't know what a gender identity is, too. That I am compelled to accept a label and actually, my rejection of the vague, incoherent description of it is cited as the reason why I actually have a gender identity.

"If you weren't cis, you'd know what your gender identity was. The fact that you say you don't feel the special, indefinable, inner sense of gender proves that you are cis. Trans is for local special people who know they are very special. Cis is for the rest of you normies."

So much fuck off to that.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 19/03/2019 21:09

If having a gender identity is a thing

Then NOT having a gender identity must also be a thing

OldCrone · 19/03/2019 21:17

DadJoke

I've found where I debunked the idea of small children having a gender identity on this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3291326-Urgent-banning-gender-identity-conversion?pg=3&messages=100

I made quite a lot of posts on that thread, but if you read my posts on the page I've linked to, you'll get most of my argument, but if you need more clarification after reading them I can answer any questions you have.

Briefly, the other poster linked to this paper, as 'proof' that very young children have a 'gender identity' and know what their own gender identity is.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1b2e/c327885123e30c53f7ce47756f4b7f512549.pdf

children move through a series of stages: first learning to identify their own and others’ sex (basic gender identity or labeling)

What this means, of course, is simply that the child has an understanding of what sex they are, which is based on their genitalia. Their meaning is somewhat confused by the authors' habit of using the words 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably, but they are not talking about 'gender identity' in the way gender ideologists use it. What they actually mean by 'gender identity' here is sex identification. It's worth reading the whole paper, and thinking about what they actually mean when they use the word 'gender'.

One more thing on the subject of gender identity. Do you not find it odd that some very well-educated women are saying that they don't have a gender identity, and they don't understand what it is, yet toddlers supposedly know all about it, and all know what their gender identity is?

CharlieParley · 19/03/2019 21:17

DadJoke

It all comes down to gender identity. GC feminists think it's akin to a religious belief.

A lot of people who are not gender critical and/or feminists also consider gender ideology to be entirely faith-based (the clue once again is in the word - it's an ideology ie a system of ideas and ideals, a collection of beliefs).

Psychologists and most national and international health organisations and trans gender activists think it's a real thing, like sexuality.

Let's take this apart.

Yes, on the one hand, activists believe gender identity to be real. They describe it as an essence, a dis-embodied consciousness (if it wasn't, it couldn't ever end up "in the wrong body"). That's as clear a belief in a metaphysical entity as the concept of the reincarnated soul.

But on the other hand, psychologists, psychiatrists, health care professionals, paraphilia researchers and in turn national and international health organisations merely acknowledge the existence of people who have a genuine, earnest belief in the existence of this dis-embodied consciousness that inhabits "the wrong body".

They also acknowledge the existence of a number of associated medical conditions in those persons for whom there is a "mismatch" which can cause severe distress. Distress that can be alleviated by modifying their male or female bodies via cosmetic surgeries (including genital surgeries) and therapeutic hormone use in an attempt to resemble the opposite-sex body.

So far all of the existing research, including the most recent brain studies, has confirmed the existence of the medical conditions (ie the belief in the dis-embodied consciousness called gender identity and any resulting distress) and not the existence of the gender identity itself.

You can't point at it, but it's there.

You may refer to love here, or hatred maybe or any number of feelings. These are intangible yet real to those who feel them. They are also measurable in bodily reactions, in brain chemistry, in any number of ways, but they are not a basis upon which we make laws.

Because these are feelings and not material things, we legislate only to regulate the material consequences that may arise from these feelings, such as marriages or murders.

As is the case with gender identity. The state does not have to pronounce upon its existence in order to legally protect those who believe in this existence from being discriminated against because of this belief.

People who don't have disorders of proprioception don't even know they have it, and yet proprioception is real.

This is a bad analogy. Body space awareness develops as we learn through endless repetition in our early years what the body can do and how much energy and strength is needed to control it. Hence we go from having to focus intently on learning how to walk to being able to do a hundred other things while walking without being conscious of the process or mechanics of walking.

Deficits in body awareness in particular are caused by developmental delays and/or neurological disorders. There is no dis-embodied consciousness involved in learning to master one's body. On the contrary, mastery is only possible in a fully integrated, embodied consciousness. And deficits do not stem from a metaphysical problem, but from one rooted in our physiology.

And while many people have never heard of this and are wholly unaware of functioning proprioception, many others are conscious of body space awareness such as dancers, musicians, athletes or anyone who has ever consciously worked on their posture for any reason.

Of course, we are also not aware of travelling at huge speeds through space or of the electrons in our bodies and yet these are material things, too.

So you are right, in a sense, that human awareness or the lack of it, have no bearing on whether something does or doesn't exist. What matters is material reality.

We are talking about something however that is purported to be a dis-embodied consciousness and that has no externally quali- and quantifiable aspects to it. Nor does it have a coherent definition independent of arbitrary social sex stereotypes and sex roles that are known to vary both across the globe and human history.

How can you then assert that this indefinable dis-embodied consciousness exists in all of us and doesn't just manifest in those who suffer from sex dysphoria?

Only by resorting to a wholly faith-based position that asserts without proof or reason.

If your gender matches your sex at birth, you won't feel any conflict between your gender identity and sex, and because of that, you will know you are woman without any conflict. That sure and certain knowledge is your gender identity.

My gender doesn't match my sex. It never has. I was - as a great many of us here on FWR - gender-non-compliant from a young age. Not merely in gender expression (by which I understand appearance and mannerisms), but in the way of having "a male brain" as they used to call it back then, "male preferences", "male feelings", "male hobbies" etc. Not that I subscribe to such biological essentialism (ie the belief that our sex determines even those things for us that have nothing to do with biological functions).

But the fact is that the sex roles and stereotypes associated with my sex were and are wholly alien to me. Unacceptable, maddening, offensive and nonsensical. Worthy only of being rejected.

To hear you insist that if I don't identify as trans it means that I am not conflicted about gender, the tool our patriarchal society uses to oppress female people, is so far removed from the reality of my life as to be worthy only of scorn and contempt.

You know nothing, DadJoke, nothing at all, if you think that I would ever willingly embrace the tool of my oppression.

I am a woman because I was born female and survived to adulthood. Nothing more, nothing less. My female body, its functions and the experiences arising from being born female in a male-dominated world are the only things I have in common with all other women. How well I conform to or defy sex stereotypes and sex roles is a matter of personality, not gender identity.

Psychologist think that gender identity is established at a very young age - less than four.

This is incorrect. Early years research has established that children become aware of their sex and of the opposite sex by around age three or four. If you do not impose sex roles and sex stereotypes on them, they will happily and freely express themselves according to their personal preferences, not society's expectations, well into their teens at which point external influences exert a much greater power over our children (this is why interest and attainment in STEM subjects drops off amongst girls at this age).

And contrary to your assertion that gender identity is established by age four, what psychologists and in particular gender dysphoria researchers have found is that a child's "gender identity" is plastic and elastic, that means it can be shaped by outside influences and it can be changed (often well into their late teens).

That's why internationally, watchful waiting remains the best practice approach to treating children who suffer from sex dysphoria.

Now, if you think that gender identity is just a belief, then you might be angry at me for saying that you have one. I can't really help that.

No more than I am angry at flat earthers or the Jehovah's witnesses who like knocking on my door. The faith-based ideology that you espouse would be as irrelevant to me as the former, were it not for the fact that trans privilege activists and believers like you seek to impose this belief in a dis-embodied consciousness that inhabits the "wrong body" onto my life.

That alone is abhorrent enough to this third generation (militant) atheist. No one, not even the state has the right to impose a religious belief on me, no matter how much it disguses itself as a progressive ideology. But trans privilege activists seek to elevate this entirely faith-based ideology to an unshakeable truth, cemented in law, with all of the consequences this is already having on the rights of female people. That's what makes me angry.

And yes, you can help it. You can stop proselytizing, you can stop imposing your metaphysical belief in a dis-embodied consciousness onto unwilling disbelievers. I wouldn't ever tell you you're not allowed to believe in sexed souls in opposite sex bodies. But you have absolutely no right to tell me that I must believe in this nonsensical, regressive bullshit, too. And that you and your ilk think this is okay, that's what makes me angry.

R0wantrees · 19/03/2019 21:44

CharlieParley thank you, Wine

TheCuriousMonkey · 19/03/2019 22:35

Great post Charlie.

On the analogy with proprioception, dadjoke, please don't use people like my son, who has ASD and serious issues with proprioception, as some kind of "gotcha*. His autism, and his impaired sensory processing (including proprioception) are measurable and observable against agreed definitions. There is no agreed definition of gender identity so how on earth can we determine that someone has something 'wrong" with their "gender"?

I am fed up with the appropriation of the challenges faced by particular groups (lgb, disabled, BAME, etc.) to support gender ideology.

I do accept that some people experience sex dysphoria in relation to their sexed bodies. I believe that these people should be treated with absolute compassion and offered appropriate evidence based treatment to resolve their dysphoria as far as possible. A fair analogy is other forms of dysphoria such as anorexia or BDD.

.

Knicknackpaddyflak · 19/03/2019 22:52

Brilliantly explained Charlie I agree with every word.

WarpedGalaxy · 19/03/2019 23:51

CharlieParley I was going to say exactly what you said, only, I couldn’t. I couldn’t articulate even half of what you said there half as fluently or with half the clarity. Bloody brilliant, thanks.

Btw that post should be stickied somewhere because it’s about as comprehensive an encapsulation of the issues as I’ve seen anywhere.

CaptainMarvelBunting · 20/03/2019 01:08

Best.

Forum.

Online.

Because of posts like that, CharlieParley

DadJoke · 20/03/2019 10:00

Thank you so much for engaging with me. I have a lot to read and take in here. In particular CharlieParley's post is amazing, and thank you OldCrone for taking the time to dig out that link.

One point to ponder while I do.

Gender identity is so well defined and established in medical literature, and accepted around the world by the national and international bodies which represent the medical and psychological professions, that if it is unscientific and untrue then there has to be a Great Global Conspiracy for it to be recognized as scientific and true. I know the trans lobby has become more vocal and powerful over the years, but this seems a little unlikely. While I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems a little like climate change denial.

So, it could be my premise is wrong (it's accepted by the medical establishment), or it could be that they they are all wrong (gender identity is like a religion despite their studies and practice), or it could be that you are wrong, or it could be a global conspiracy (these bodies are too frightened to take on the all-powerful trans lobby.)

Is there an option I have not considered?

R0wantrees · 20/03/2019 10:11

Gender identity is so well defined and established in medical literature, and accepted around the world by the national and international bodies which represent the medical and psychological professions, that if it is unscientific and untrue then there has to be a Great Global Conspiracy for it to be recognized as scientific and true. I know the trans lobby has become more vocal and powerful over the years, but this seems a little unlikely. While I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems a little like climate change denial.

Its not well-defined.
It may be oft referenced in relatively recent years.
The two are different things.

R0wantrees · 20/03/2019 10:12

While I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems a little like climate change denial.

Please don't do this, its a pattern many women recognise.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 20/03/2019 10:13

Gender identity is so well defined and established in medical literature, and accepted around the world by the national and international bodies which represent the medical and psychological professions

No, you have misunderstood.

The fact that some people believe in a gender identity is accepted by medicine and law. This correctly allows those who follow that belief to have freedom of their beliefs where that does not impinge upon the rights of others.

The idea that gender identity is real is not accepted by medicine and law any more than the idea that souls are real are accepted by those establishments. Christians are still able to freely practice their beliefs though.

That's literally what a number of the posts above have been laboriously trying to explain to you DadJoke.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 20/03/2019 10:15

I do find the 'jaxing off' posters quite helpful in inspiring excellent posts like OldCrone 's and CharlieParley 's

nothing is wasted here

DadJoke · 20/03/2019 10:18

OldCrone That is a hell of a thread. This will take some time.

Tap335 · 20/03/2019 10:31

Awesome, CharlieParley, beautifully argued. Nothing to add, except that this forum keeps me sane.

DadJoke · 20/03/2019 11:03

The fact that some people believe in a gender identity is accepted by medicine and law. This correctly allows those who follow that belief to have freedom of their beliefs where that does not impinge upon the rights of others

I know you think it's a religious belief, and other posted have conflated the scientific study of religion with religion itself. Science has not position on the truth status of religions. This is not like that at all. It's not saying "some people believe they have a gender identity," it's defining what gender identity is. You disagree that it is a useful concept, and you'd prefer it wasn't applied to you, but that does not make it a religious belief.

I have pointed at definitions from the NHS. Here are a bunch more from the vast majority of major national and international medical and scientific bodies. These are not religious definitions. The NHS for example does not have a definition of a soul, nor do they dispute that gender identity is real and applicable to everyone. You can argue that it is like a religion, but medical and psychology organisations don't agree in any instance I've seen so far.

I'll start with Mosby's medical dictionary:
"the inner sense of maleness or femaleness. Differentiation of gender identity begins in infancy, continues throughout childhood, and is reinforced during adolescence. Also called core gender identity."

McGraw Hill medical dictionary: "Core gender identity 'The inner conviction that one is male, female, ambivalent, or neutral.'GI is a major personality trait, that develops in the first 2 yrs of life, and is 'fixed' by the 3rd yr."

Collin's medical dictionary " The inherent sense that one belongs to a particular sex. In almost all cases that sex corresponds to the anatomical sex, but for a small minority, the gender identity is for the opposite anatomical sex."

The American Association of Psychiatry defines it as "(the psychological sense of being male or female)" alongside sexuality and social gender role.

The APS defines it as "to one’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else."

Nowhere that I read leads me to believe any of these bodies think this is anything other than a real thing, like sexuality. Do you know of any scientific bodies which differ from the view?

DadJoke · 20/03/2019 11:12

CharlieParley

A lot of people who are not gender critical and/or feminists also consider gender ideology to be entirely faith-based (the clue once again is in the word - it's an ideology ie a system of ideas and ideals, a collection of beliefs).

Please can you point at any national or international medical or psychological body which shares the view that gender identity is akin to religious belief. Just one would be fine.

Yes, on the one hand, activists believe gender identity to be real. They describe it as an essence, a dis-embodied consciousness (if it wasn't, it couldn't ever end up "in the wrong body"). That's as clear a belief in a metaphysical entity as the concept of the reincarnated soul.

Here you are conflating activists with scientists and psychologists. The definitions, evidence and research I've seen treat gender identity as real in the sense that sexuality is real. Again, if you can point me a single reputable medical of psychological body which treats it in the same way as it would the belief in a soul, please do point me at it.

That's why internationally, watchful waiting remains the best practice approach to treating children who suffer from sex dysphoria.

This, I agree with. When gender identity is finally established is still a matter for study. In much the same way, some people's sexuality can take time to be established.

DadJoke · 20/03/2019 11:24

If we put aside whether gender identity is real or not for the moment, can we address the point as to whether the scientific and medical establishment agree that it is?

I am more than happy to be disabused of the notion. I am not trying to be difficult, and it could be that I am delusional - I just can't find, after extensive research, any evidence that there is a dispute over the term amongst those bodies.

welshgendercrit · 20/03/2019 12:27

CharlieParley thank you for this superbly-argued post. It encapsulates what I think on this subject far better than I could ever have expressed it. Now bookmarked for further use.

Ereshkigal · 20/03/2019 12:50

any evidence that there is a dispute over the term amongst those bodies.

Why would there be a dispute? Gender dysphoria is a recognised psychological medical condition. In the DSM-5.

"Gender identity" is a politically correct acceptable term to describe what a male person who identifies themselves as a woman (or vice versa a female person) feels themself to have. Plus a lot of other more dubious ideological baggage.