Times leader: The Gender Trap

[Burru]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-risks-of-gender-self-identification-the-gender-trap-bmb3r00vn?shareToken=3eb564c267dc646c823cbcadc74c2462

👏👏👏

'Somebody has suggested that bringing up clownfish in a discussion about the immutability of sex should be called Nemo’s law

Michelle, I have just read that, it’s hilarious. I love the bit about ‘misogynist child’ reporter on a left wing paper. And ‘literal violence.’ Brilliant!

I've found it's much harder to talk about this to left leaning Americans because they're mostly in a sort of tribalistic bunker mentality at the moment, partly due to Trump.

Disclaimer: I'm American, living in the USA.

I'm fiscally/economically moderate, environmentally liberal, and used-to-be socially liberal (from US perspective) now socially moderate I guess (because I'm evil incarnate and won't capitulate and worship at the altar of TWAW). The issues I find to be paramount are significantly different to those of a conservative but differ just as starkly from what is now considered liberal (far-left) important issues. The far-left and far-right exist in the same space and are untouchable IME; they each have gone so far to either side that they are in the same place from different perspectives. As an American woman I get pushed to accept either that: the right owns me or the left can offer me up as public property... that I accept masculine male men on the right will define me or accept feminine male transwomen on the left will define me. Ultimately, I am a thing or property to be defined to suit whatever male perspective is considered to be sacrosanct at the moment.

I've found talking to left-leaning friends, right-leaning friends/family, and moderate friends/family about this subject at hand to be pretty easy TBH. I avoid most interactions with people occurring on the extreme spectrums as extremism is cult-like IMO.

I try to avoid any convos on Trump with anyone as pro-Trumpers are vehemently mouth-foamingly in support with anti-Trumpers being vehemently mouth-foamingly opposed. Trying to communicate about anything in relation to Trump is futile. I'm not a fan of his nor did I vote for him (Pence is fucking terrifying as an added bonus) but I can't deal with the bitch-fest that ensues from either side as it is all so disingenuous, emotional, and lacking in any objectivity whatsoever.

Friends I've talked to about the thread subject start from "live and let live/be nice" etc. But because I keep myself aware of current events as well as read proposed legislature and stay up on the outcomes of said proposed legislation presented in our state and federal bodies my friends listen to me. Because I'm part of the LGB and presented in a masculine or neutral way when we met way back 20+ years ago. What helped most of my friends 'get it's was reminding them of my childhood/teen abuse, my desire to be a boy (in appearance for ease of access in life and due to abuse causing rejection of all that is considered female/feminine), and the fact that as an adult survivor I don't want men in women's spaces with me or any other women/children for safety reasons. Not because TW are bad but because males proveably pose a threat.

The UK seems to be the vanguard of the fightback and I suspect that what happens in the UK will have ripples internationally.

My friends/family are quite amused by my following of the UK's journey through this minefield... but I stay up on it (as much as possible) because I hope that by being aware and by sharing your parliament activities it will shine light on the possibilities (bad and good). FWR is what set me on a path to research self-ID here and for the most part it was enacted state-by-state quietly hidden in other agendas.

Keep fighting the good fight 💪 we're watching, learning, and refining our approaches in part based on your successes and letdowns.

Seriously? What about Ancient Greece and Rome?

The men would have engaged in homosexual acts but apparently didn't consider themselves to be homosexual as we know it.

It was the modern/capitalist/colonialist phenomenon of defining men who engaged in same sex acts as homosexuals which created this separate category that was posited in opposition to 'heteronormative' behaviour. Or something like that.

in TimeLady’s link to Whittle’s piece on the GRA, he seems to think by replacing sex with gender, biological sex will cease to exist.

Welcome to postmodern gobbledygook.
Reading about it makes my head hurt, honestly.

Jazz hands, ladies, jazz hands! That's how you fight oppression, by making performative gestures at it.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Never ceases to amaze me that people actually think you can fight oppression like that!!

Stoptheplanet I did read an American article earlier this week from perhaps a year ago (tried to find it just now but couldn't, sorry) discussing the UK feminist movement in this space. It was a pink news sort of article and was talking about the dangerous () politics that prevails here.
Trump did abolish Obama's gender neutral toilet legalisation didn't he? Would be really good to hear what else he has done to support the LGB and women on these matters btw (although I doubt his reasoning is noble at all)?

The right in the US is not good on this issue - they are against trans people because they don’t gender conform - so really it’s the opposite of the feminist position. The righties believe that male and female naturally leads to sex stereotypes and anyone who doesn’t follow gender roles is basically trans and immoral. Also women are naturally bad at math and science and great at cleaning up after men so why fight it?Some Think gay people are “just as immoral” as trans people.

For example when the Trump administration rescinded the dear colleague guidance they, like Obama’s guidance, conflated gender and sex. Stating eg “gender is biologically determined”. Then the left came back with “no sex is, trump is dumb” (accurate) but then also, “trans women are female anyway / there’s no such thing as a woman” (not accurate).

It doesn’t help that trans identity and gender nonconformity without gender identity (which we all engage in to some extent) is being hopelessly entangled on the left. Makes it very hard to separate these issues in any kind of nuanced way.

There’s a great Venn diagram on this somewhere showing overlap in beliefs between the three views (radfem / libfemqueer theory / religipus conservatives), I can never find it when I want to repost

Trump did abolish Obama's gender neutral toilet legalisation didn't he?"

He did

Would be really good to hear what else he has done to support the LGB and women on these matters btw (although I doubt his reasoning is noble at all)?

I doubt his reasoning for doing anything is noble on any level however, there are some benefits to his posturing for maintaining base alignment. And I don't think his objective has anything to do with supporting LGB or women to be honest (unless they are potential Trump voters) but it does benefit us as far as I can tell at the moment.

He is attempting to basically rollback all Obama-era guidance with regard to gender identity as covered under sex as a protected class. I just hope the Equality Act continues to stay dead in the water until it is edited/refined/redrafted to consider LGB only - T is a separate issue and should be dealt with in law as such. Lumping LGB in with T does immeasurable damage to LGB in society as it conflates sexual orientation with ideology that rejects material reality and laughs in the face of same-sex attraction defined by sexed bodies. It is completely illogical for LGB and TQ+ to be protected by the same Titles in regard to the Civil Rights Act of '64 under the protected class of sex.

Right now basically you're for restricting women's reproductive rights or you're onboard with TWAW (if you believe the media). Most everyone I know (except the Christians, Catholics, and Baptists) are against restricting abortion, no one I know who has actually thought about it believes TWAW (regardless of religion, faith, or lack thereof). I'm willing to bet that the above is the general consensus of the majority of Americans and that most of the people claiming TWAW (1) don't believe it and (2) are more interested in how they appear to think rather how they think. Virtue signalling is a disease of the ego IMO and leaves most with no genuine position on anything above their superficial wokeisms.

There’s a great Venn diagram on this somewhere showing overlap in beliefs between the three views

The righties believe that male and female naturally leads to sex stereotypes and anyone who doesn’t follow gender roles is basically trans and immoral.

That's the right of the right a hop-skip-and-jump from far-right territory. The right is just as nuanced as the left. Your statement refers to a specific subset of the right, not the right as a rule.

My parents voted for Trump, DH's parents voted for Trump. My mother and father as well as stepmother are polar opposites in most instances but are all considered 'right wing' as a result of their votes even though they voted him in for different reasons. The same goes for DH's parents (also divorced and remarried). My mom is spiritual but not religious or affiliated (gave up religion when excommunicated from Catholicism for divorce), my dad and stepmom are super religious. DH's parents are atheists. None of them are in a similar financial situations - their incomes and savings vary so much that they are in disparate tax and asset categories.

My mother was a single parent and brought us up in diverse communities with many LGB individuals in our lives (including me) - she is mostly moderate but is fiscally conservative and finds the economy to be the priority above and beyond everything else. While she and I disagree on a great deal we both agree that (1) TWANW, (2) women are not property, and (3) female reproductive rights are up to each individual woman and the government should not have skin in the game.

My father and stepmother are dedicated and incredibly active parishioners at their Christian Church (they teach Bible lessons to children and teens, go to services 2x week, act as taxi service for those with disabilities, volunteer when help is needed) and are undeniably conservatives but they believe all people deserve love and respect. They recently served as a personal reference for a gay couple's (from their Church) adoption proceedings and have been named as the child's godparents. They don't think LGB people are immoral. They are both opposed to transwomen in female spaces/sports/etc. as they believe dignity and safety is important for all people. They do not see LGB and TQ+ as the same group. They express compassion for trans individuals (MH perspective) but disagree that God would put a soul in the wrong body. They don't agree with abortion as BC but aren't anti-abortion.

Point is, neither the right or left are homogeneous. If I accept that all on the right subscribe to right-of-the-right perspectives then I have to accept that all on the left subscribe to left-of-the-left perspectives which isn't reality in either case.

Clear language, integrity/honesty, actual science, and compassion in regards to all women's issues are the bridges that can join us and pave the way to ensuring the safety/dignity/autonomy of all women and children. Appreciating our differences through respecting and acknowledging boundaries is key to productive discourse regardless of political leaning.

Stop

You’re right of course and I don’t disagree. Everyone is an individual and I didn’t at any point refer to “trump voters”.

I’m referring to the right wing of those who which absolutely is strongly influenced by the far right evangelical strain of moral conservatism in the us. This is very similar to how wacko trans activists / postmodernists have a strong influence on the left here.

Even though

Ugh “the right wing of the republican part which absolutely...”

I’m referring to the right wing of those who which absolutely is strongly influenced by the far right evangelical strain of moral conservatism in the us. This is very similar to how wacko trans activists / postmodernists have a strong influence on the left here.

Ah ok gotcha. Agreed!

Both sides are heavily influenced here in the US... evangelicals are extremists and TRAs/pomos are extremists and each do damage to the perception of their right/left aligned sides. If each side of the extremist coin would just stop trying to redefine women (adult human females) to suit their agendas and acknowledge that we are fucking autonomous humans that have a right to personal boundaries we might get somewhere. Ah but that is a pipe dream because we've never and never will wield penises. 😭

I don't think it's really very common for American conservatives to think that going outside of gender roles is immoral. Many may think that there are differences in males and females, as groups, in terms of behaviour tendencies or psychology. Some feel strongly about things like daycare as the norm for children which tends to impact roles of women in particular. But that doesn't at all translate to thinking that women who wear boots or play rugby are somehow immoral because they are crossing innate gender roles. I would say that tends to be limited to some weird religious sects, like the one the Duggers belong to.
The men would have engaged in homosexual acts but apparently didn't consider themselves to be homosexual as we know it.

It was the modern/capitalist/colonialist phenomenon of defining men who engaged in same sex acts as homosexuals which created this separate category that was posited in opposition to 'heteronormative' behaviour. Or something like that.

Yes, this is true, and in fact there was a lot of emphasis on the masculine role, taking the feminine role for pleasure was considered very degrading and there were some complicated social conventions surrounding avoidance of that.
The idea of homosexuals as a class of people didn't exist, and this is actually an important point when we consider what is going on now with different groups making rights demands or claiming discrimination, because you can't make that claim unless you are recognised as a sort of natural group. In many countries for example the SSM question was tackled by the courts as a rights issue, where there was discrimination against a named group who were excluded from a particular legal construct. But if you have no group, you could have no claim of that kind This has been a big factor IMO in the way TRAs have approached political lobbying, and actually it's adriver in identity politics in general.

When I was first starting to look into Queer Theory and social constructionism about 2 years ago, I came across the website of a historian called Rictor Norton, who specialises in gay history.
He seems very critical of Queer theory and the social constructionism / Foucauldian view of homosexuality.

I don't know much about him but he has a wealth of info online. I would love to find the time to read all his essays one day.

rictornorton.co.uk/index.htm

I did read the entire section of his critique on social constructionism and the Myth of the Modern Homosexual as he calls it.

rictornorton.co.uk/extracts.htm

rictornorton.co.uk/social13.htm

I found it fascinating and interesting and I think I'm starting to agree with him that many who are into the Queer Theory angle have a very limited understanding of world history and other cultures as all their viewpoints come from a very American or Western European perspective, instead of a much broader spectrum.

Note: His essays use very strong language / gay terms that might be considered rude or even homophobic by many today but I like that he doesn't shy away from historical descriptions.

have a very limited understanding of world history and other cultures as all their viewpoints come from a very American or Western European perspective, instead of a much broader spectrum

Nonny, thank you so much for that, I will check him out. Funny, I was just thinking about the Euro/Anglo centricity of this. There is something so insular about the reference points cited in the article by Whittle and he makes historical assertions which seem completely unsubstantiated. And not credible....,

I found it fascinating and interesting and I think I'm starting to agree with him that many who are into the Queer Theory angle have a very limited understanding of world history and other cultures as all their viewpoints come from a very American or Western European perspective, instead of a much broader spectrum.

This sort of thing is inevitable in a way, postmodernism is a reaction against modernism, that's what defines it. And while there are popular commentators like Pinker or Peterson who think we just need to get back to that modernity, rationalist ideal of the Enlightenment, I would say that it was very much the failures of the Enlightenment that created that response. (Not to mention those commentators often have a rather naive and simple view of Enlightenment thinking.) But modernity really ushered in the kind of individualism, the view of society as a contract, that is so problematic, and it's not a shock that capitalism as a means to capture power really got off the ground there, possibly as a way to avoid some of the developments slowly making feudalism more even-handed.

On the other hand, you can't have the identarian business coming out of queer theory if you don't already believe in the atomic individual. And that is so very western. People like this like to search around in other cultures for examples to show that our own categories of identity are wrong, but they usually fail to really look at them on their own terms or see their social function, or how they are socially determined.

You make some very good points, Goosefoot.

Reminds me of when followers of Queer Theory use the example of multiple genders in other cultures as some sort of proof of gender fluidity without understanding that these were very rigid gender roles. You couldn't just identify into these roles and they came with strict criteria to dictate your function within that specific culture.

I agree that the Enlightenment had and has it failings which triggered the postmodern pushback. I just worry at how far the pendulum might swing and what sort of era might usher in to take its place.

But modernity really ushered in the kind of individualism, the view of society as a contract, that is so problematic

Goosefoot, can you elaborate on this idea?

But modernity really ushered in the kind of individualism, the view of society as a contract, that is so problematic

Goosefoot, can you elaborate on this idea?

Maybe a little... It's really out of this period that the idea that we exist mainly as self-contained rational bodies comes, all living individually. You probably have heard of the way the deists of the Enlightenment thought of God as a sort of clockmaker - that was how they conceived nature really, and human society as well, with the caveat that they generally believed in some sort of free will.
This eventually dovetailed as well with ideas in evolutionary theory and social Darwinism came out of that. Capitalism and this sense of the free market as all these individual agents in competition also comes out of modernity.
Tis replaced a view of the human being which put a lot more emphasis on the relational, on being determined by relation to things like institutions, a social hierarchy, but also nature and God. So while there wasn't a modern sort of sense of many of the identities we talk about, there was a very strong sense of relation and also of free will being very circumscribed, whereas some moderns tended to give a lot of power to free will.

As for the social contract, the idea of society existing as a sort of agreement between all the people to live under the law comes out of this view. The classic idea is that under anarchy and nature life was pretty bad for everyone, so we all agree to come under the rule of a king in order to bring about some sort of order where individuals and civilisation can flourish, we all do it for our own final benefit.

This again differs from a view which sees society more as a sort of natural order which humans adopt because we are social, rather like a sort of extended family or tribe, which we are in by virtue of birth rather than some sort of choice.

You can somewhat see this distinction reflected in the USA vs the UK, the former sees the state as summed up in a written legal document with various signatories. The relation of members of the state to a document is by nature contractural, or possibly idealistic/intellectual in some cases. Whereas in the UK the state is represented by a person, who is part of a family, and in fact a tribe, and so the relation between the state and individuals is metaphorically a relationship between persons.

What I think is interesting is that of course most people even in states that take that contractural view never had any choice in the matter. So on the one hand they can feel as if they can legitimately opt out of parts of the contract they don't agree with. The state as a sort of extended family seems to fit the reality better, we really are stuck with family and our ancestral past for good or ill.

I've made some terrible generalisations here though about modernism, no doubt someone can correct them!

I know the thread has moved on a fair bit but I would like to thank @clitherow for this which really illuminated a lot for me.

If a tribunal should accept that male and female exist within one body - be that body male or female - and it is the inner gender identity that determines if the sexed body is male or female then this means that if a person feels like a woman then a penis is the outward expression of femaleness and if a person feels like a man then a vagina is the outward expression of maleness. Gender identity and sex become synonymous. There is no need for any surgery or hormone treatment.