Your age is your age, your sex is your sex. Neither can be changed.

[WindyTown]

After reading about the Allison Bailey case today, I was thinking about how someone simply saying they identify as their non biological sex was to be accepted as such without question and how crazy this was.

And it came to me how this could be compared to age. So please hear me out and tell me if it makes no sense. And apologies in advance for going off on a tangent.

There are some people who say that they do not feel their age and feel older than they are or younger than they are etc. And of course that is fine. People can feel how they want and dress and behave how they want provided they are not hurting others.

So an example: A person might say they still feel like they are 20 years old and wish to still go out partying every night; however their age is actually 70 years old. Just because this person “feels” they are 20 years old and demands others accept this as a fact, should everyone accept that their age is 20 despite the fact that their biological age is actually 70?
The answer is no; no one would ever accept their age is 20. Their age is what they were born with, it is a scientific, biological fact. It cannot be changed.
However, no one would object to the 70 year old going out partying every night should they wish to.
But the fact is, a person simply cannot claim to be a certain age based on how they “feel” and demand that others accept this as their age. Their age is a biological truth which cannot be changed and it is what it is. But of course, the 70 year old is free to act as if they were 20 years old should they wish to and no one would give a damn. Just don’t say you are 20 years old when you aren’t.

Just like if a 40 year old biological male demanded to be allowed in to a children’s play centre because he “feels” that he is 10 years old and therefore should be accepted as a child. Yet everyone can see he is not a child; he is a grown, adult man. His mature, adult body is evidence that he is not a child. Yet he is demanding others accept that he is a child because he “feels” he is a child and should be treated as such.
Should he be accepted as a child due to him “feeling” he is a child or do we accept the scientific and biological evidence, as well as what others can clearly see; that he is NOT a child and cannot be allowed in to children’s spaces.

A person is what they are. They are free to act how they want provided they are not hurting anyone; just don’t claim to be something which you biologically and scientifically are not and can never and don’t demand that others accept what is not scientifically and biologically true and never will be true.

(.......And breathe!)

Now if you consider a adult with the mental capacity of a 7 year old cannot help the fact they have the capacity of a 7 year old, you could argue that for the majority of trans adults who spend their entire lives identifying as the opposite gender that they cannot help that they innately feel and identify with the gender opposite to that of their biological sex

I also find the disablist language used to describe the 25 year old deeply offensive.

But for argument's sake, that 25 year old would be protected by disability discrimination laws to ensure they aren't disadvantaged by being treated as an adult without learning disabilities. That protection would not extend to protecting them from the distress they might experience from not being able to share a tent with children by putting the children at risk.

If you're saying that being trans is a disability, then I would expect it to be treated in the same way. That disability should absolutely be protected in law, but no other vulnerable group should be sacrificed to accommodate it.

But using that logistic... a 25yo who has a learning disability which means they have the mental age of a 7yo. Should we then turn around and say.. but there 25 and therefore must act 25? Should be say they must go and get a full time job and remove all 24/7 support because they are BIOLOGICALLY 25?

This is an awful argument, not at all relevant or comparable to the op and I'm pretty sure it is offensive.

Dadaist so you're saying that the way I act and express is what causes me to experience sexual discrimination?

I would say fuck off to that.

I don't have a gender identity, but funnily enough still experience sexism, am vulnerable to assault, am disadvantaged in physical sports against males, am pigeonholed by regressive gender stereotypes.
OP I do like your point. Ageing does cause people a lot of mental distress, some might call it age dysphoria. If we were allowed to identify as a different age, and access the benefits of that age class, it may well help a lot of vulnerable people.
The WASPI campaign would be declared over!

the point is it isn’t a simple fact like how long you’ve been on the earth - it’s complex with regard to what counts as ‘male’ or ‘female’ when people may be both or neither.

For the vast majority of individuals, whether they are male or female is scientific fact. There may be many who identify as a different gender but I do follow the original argument as to how this is similar to identifying as being a different age to that you are biologically.

I think there is a paradox in feminism that both relies on biology and dismisses biology in different moments.

Historically feminism was at pains to deny that women were to be discriminated against because of their biology - and that traits identified with biology were in fact social constructs. While there are clearly biological differences - they had been exaggerated to justify patriarchy. Women could be engineers, doctors, firefighters etc etc and had rights and agency and reason and autonomy- discrimination was fuelled by a circular arguments.

But in order to defend and promote equality there is a need to define who are the victims of patriarchy-(ie girls and women) so that they could autonomously define their oppression and determine their liberation. Women deserved autonomy to fight patriarchy. Feminism could clearly not be led by men.

I strongly support both these biological and anti-biological approaches incidentally - but it is contradictory.

I think the problem for radical feminism comes with an attempt to use the Marxist dialectic of class struggle to apply to the struggle of women (proletariat hero’s ) against men (bourgeoisie villains). But this dialectic fails to see that patriarchy harms everyone, and that there has to be a synthesis - a resolution- there is no final victory of a sexless society as there might be a classless society.

The same can be said for anti-racism - if it simplifies the struggle from one of struggle against institutionalised racism to black people versus white people. There has to be Black autonomy- but what does final victory look like? Unless ‘racial’ differences are biologically abolished- (and even though this is possible over time) how else is victory obtained?

The problem is systemic racism, patriarchy, environmental destruction - all maintained by capitalism. I think BLM get it. I think Socialist feminists get it.

But clinging to biological determinism offers no way out. We either abolish sex differences (preventing the birth of one sex to create a sexless society, by reducing racial differences in the world as common genetic characteristics in populations reduce as populations become less isolated)- or we discover equality regardless of biology!

My sense is the radicalism of the younger generation get this also - but are running up against an old guard, who fear that the autonomy they have nurtured and mobilised to win progress is under threat. And younger people react with evangelist passion to take away what is perceived as a road block.

And of course it’s mostly notions of sex, sexual exploitation and power imbalance that interfere with non-biological narratives. And there is as much social construction around sex and sexuality, consent and abuse, as there is around gender.

I don’t know what the answer is - can we only let go of biology at the final moment of liberation-or is it gradually let go as progress is made?

Either way - simplistic biological dialectic narratives of men v women, (or black v white, gay v straight, able v disabled) - offer no actual way out, just perpetual biological conflict.
But I have always listened to younger people’s perspectives because there is often wisdom in progress that is dreamt by less mature minds.
I don’t have any answers - and I’m not here to defend people with dicks in female toilets.

But I think these questions are not simple - and statements that women are women and men are men can harm people - including people born female - and it’s where patriarchy starts - not just feminist autonomy.

Oh I see, you like talking bollocks.

Gosh these mansplainy types love to think they're so altruistic, edumacating the silly wims about their silly feminist notions.

There are biological differences between the sexes.

Females produce eggs and bear young, males sperm.

The only thing a male can do that a female cant, is produce sperm.

The rest is just sexist BS by angry little men.

Feminism could clearly not be led by men

No shit - some of them don't even know the difference between sex and gender so they wouldn't get very far, would they?

Dadaist, instead of explaining feminism to people who teach it, would you care to expand on your comments about those who "live as women?"

What specifically did you mean when you said some people "lived as women?"

Can you describe a day "living as a woman?"

And of course it’s mostly notions of sex, sexual exploitation and power imbalance that interfere with non-biological narratives.

So.... you want to change laws in hopes that society will miraculously become more like the utopian ideal? And you think the current ideology that allows men to identify as women because of their feelings (which also might be driven by a sexual fetish) is progressive? And no need to safeguard.

I think there is a paradox in feminism that both relies on biology and dismisses biology in different moments.

Head on desk moment.

I think you have just discovered direct and indirect discrimination. This has been recognised in law for a while.

Keep thinking. You might get somewhere eventually.

I don’t know what the answer is - can we only let go of biology at the final moment of liberation-or is it gradually let go as progress is made?

This is the kind of thing you say if you have never really thought what your life would be like without the 1974 Family Planning Act, and how easily services can be withdrawn and laws changed.

we discover equality regardless of biology!

This movement to believe people can and should change sex is not happening to equalize the differences in sexes in society. Because, the reality is that there are differences.

do you mean that we should not make reasonable allowances for biology when you say ‘regardless of biology’?

If biological differences are not allowed for even in the basic manual labour job descriptions, you end up with women being injured and having more time off work.

If biological differences are not allowed for, women’s sports are now unsafe as well as unfair to women. Because there are insurmountable differences in male puberty that leave women injured and well, if 15 yr old boys can still beat Olympic women champions at some events, blatantly unfair.

In your world, how do we account for the time women take to gestate a baby and recover while looking after that baby? Or are you saying that you believe a man should have an implanted uterus and be filled with drugs to stop the rejection, while pushing artificial drugs to do all the things a female body is programmed to do so that they can have babies too and even up the ‘biological’ gap. Oh, and you know women are told not to even drink alcohol, a drug, while pregnant as it can harm the baby. So what effect on that.baby?

Or shall we go full utopian and have perfect babies gestated in incubators and androids to bring up children so no one has to take time off or even use the biology we have to have children. Because those scenarios never seem to end well?

But is this what you mean by regardless of biology? Because denying biological differences between sexes has ramifications.

or do you just mean put in reasonable allowances into law and making sure the people who need those protections Have them and keep tweaking them until the equality gap is acceptable?? Like we have now but it is being diluted to accommodate some people’s feelings?

Trying to think how spending today “living as a woman” would differ in any way from “living as a man”. Get up, eat breakfast, get dressed (jeans, T-shirt, jumper), do some work from home, go shopping...Nope, can’t think of anything apart from putting up with the cramps caused by my Mirena coil. The one I have because I have a problematic menopause and I have it to supply the progesterone I need to stop the lining of my uterus thickening too much. The menopause I’m coping with because I’m a woman, because my genitals and the rest of my reproductive system are those of a woman. Oh, and I’ll catch up with my children later, as their mother who gave birth to them. (DD is also a woman, though she has no uterus. She had a hysterectomy for medical reasons, and will never have children. But she had to have the hysterectomy because she is a woman, and is still a woman.)
Living as a woman is all about the genitals and reproductive system. Everything else is performance.

you could argue that for the majority of trans adults who spend their entire lives identifying as the opposite gender that they cannot help that they innately feel and identify with the gender opposite to that of their biological sex.

They may feel as if they feel like the opposite sex.

I might feel as if I feel like a cat.

But as I am not a cat, and they are not the opposite sex, those feelings are unlikely to be accurate.

Add to that the fact that any man who can still be identified as male from his appearance, can believe people are responding to him as they would a woman, but they are not. They respond to him as male. Those responses are deeply fixed and cannot be wished away.

I’m going to apologise for late night pontificating - which is I think on a par with drunk texting.

But I think people are extrapolating far too much from what I posed. I wasn’t explaining anything - framing questions without answer really! I don’t think I have all the answers.

As a few have leapt on what I meant as ‘live life as a woman’ - I think people are trying to smoke out something like ‘if you take on a female persona then you know what it is to be a woman’ sort of thing. I meant nothing of the sort. I was clumsily posing that gender is lived, not determined, and influences how we are treated and who we become.

Of course biology is intertwined with experience and socialisation. But everyone’s biology is also unique, and there are as many differences between people with the same biology and similarities between people with different biology, to say that there is more going on, and that biology (sex, genetics, race, ability) is as relevant as society makes it.

But I’m struck by @borntobequiet - that life is driven by the biology of your sex, and ‘everything else is performance’. I don’t know if it is possible to live an authentic life as a woman (or as a man) - but I hope it’s something to strive for?

But everyone’s biology is also unique, and there are as many differences between people with the same biology and similarities between people with different biology,

When it comes to sex category, it is easy. Every person is either male or female. It really is that simple.

Those who are not female but ‘live as a woman’, live as their interpretation of what a woman is. That is pretty simple to understand too when you listen to Alex Drummond tell how they love to feel they are broadening the bandwidth by tinkering with their car and then putting on a dress. Fuck that. I was doing that at 16, decades ago. Maybe the difference was that I never thought it was unusual for me to do it, or play rugby and cricket. But that is not fucking ‘gender’. That was me simply being me.

I don’t believe in ‘gender’ and I want to abolish it completely.

As an old girl I'm astonished that this is even considered to be material for an argument. Evidently, it is. Bloody hell.

@Dadaist I’ve not read the whole thread so it may have been pointed out already. The sex of my children was recorded well before and had nothing to do with their external genitalia.

Blood tests, CVS and amniocentesis don’t take any notice of external appearance...

*well before birth

I was clumsily posing that gender is lived, not determined, and influences how we are treated and who we become.

I think you are confused about gender too. Here is the definition of gender from the WHO:

Gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, attributes and opportunities that any society considers appropriate for girls and boys, and women and men. Gender interacts with, but is different from, the binary categories of biological sex.

Gender is what society considers appropriate. It is defined by other people's expectations. Women and men are limited by gender expectations regardless of how they actually behave and regardless of their own personal sense of identity. 'Gender' is the thing that prevents a man from wearing a skirt in the UK, unless it's specifically a kilt.

Conversely, while it has been socially acceptable for decades for a woman to wear clothes that are entirely 'male', this does not allow women to escape gender expectations, and they still need sex based rights.

But everyone’s biology is also unique, and there are as many differences between people with the same biology and similarities between people with different biology, to say that there is more going on, and that biology (sex, genetics, race, ability) is as relevant as society makes it.

I'm not sure how you are viewing this site, but look at the top of the page - can you see the menus for conception and pregnancy? My personality, views and interests might be more similar to 90% of men than to 90% of women, but I cannot escape the consequences of a female reproductive system. I need sex based rights. How is this so difficult for you to grasp?

I don’t know if it is possible to live an authentic life as a woman (or as a man) - but I hope it’s something to strive for?

Why not just live an authentic life as a human being?

Perhaps an analogy might help you. Somebody with hearing loss may suffer direct discrimination, and they may suffer indirect discrimination because e.g. at the moment they find communication difficult because people are wearing masks.

None of this has anything to do with their identity, validity, value or authenticity.

If you are really interested in this subject, you should read 'Invisible Women' by Caroline Criado Perez. It is study of all the ways that women suffer indirect discrimination, because it is assumed that sex is irrelevant.

aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

This essay might be helpful.

OP, I've considered this question too. Here is what I've come up with:

So, sex is a biological state, male or female as defined by genitalia at birth. Ditto age, also a biological state albeit one which changes over time. As mentioned elsewhere, yes, you could feel like a twenty year old in terms of your interests, outlook etc but the physical age of your body can never be changed to match your emotional age and there will come a point where no matter how much you'd like to continue behaving like a twenty year old, you will just have to accept that it's not physically possible.
WRT adults with learning disabilities, I think that's a different matter. This is a case of mental development not keeping pace with physical development due to neurological issues. I think the point is that age has both a biological and developmental aspect whereas sex is (for the vast majority of humans) simply a defintive biological state.
I'm sure that what I've said can be pulled apart and discussed further, but that's my initial thoughts on the subect!