Gender and sex

[Jellyeggs]

I am still thinking about these a lot and while I don’t accept TWAW I think I am starting to recognize gender identity as a function of a highly sexist society which I don’t enjoy but I have to recognise as existing. Therefore I don’t think I am actually gender critical, as I do acknowledge that it is unbearable for some people to be expected to behave and be treated as their sex stereotype. I expect it is a huge relief to claim you are the opposite gender and then just enjoy living the stereotypes of that sex. In this respect I think non binary gender is a smashing identity to assume.

However I also see the difference between male and female sexed bodies as being critically important. I also don’t really care about post-op transsexuals in women’s spaces, but I accept that many people are deeply uncomfortable with that too.

I’m so conflicted and dreading the kids going back to their super woke school where ‘anyone can be a boy or a girl’ and being taught that their sexed bodies are pretty much irrelevant.

So can I acknowledge both gender identity and female sex as distinct and equally important classes? And am I totally alone in this thinking?

I'm not really, OldCrone. People are saying they've never felt gendered pressure to wear certain things. I'm saying it's there in lots of circumstances. We aren't all that free to do as we wish unless we are very lucky.

I've had various trans apologists on Twitter saying "you must be c*s if you wear a skirt [etc.] because you are adhering to gender expectations so you must be happy with them because I never adhere to them because I don't like them". That's speaking from an immense place of privilege if you've never had to adhere to them to be safe, in employment, still speaking to your family that supports you financially while you are in mental health crisis, etc.

you must be c*s if you wear a skirt

How dare they assume your gender? You could be gender free, genderqueer or gender fluid.

Except conforming to social norms - appropriate dress for certain social situations - doesn't need to be secondarily structured in line with gender stereotypes. Same with socially appropriate behaviour say at a funeral or an interview, at work, with friends etc.

This is why it is still a problem to break gender stereotypes whilst conforming to social norms.

A lot of social rules are implicit. The Chicago school of sociologists used to make implicit rules explicit and therefore visible by breaking them.

You really can't say rules don't exist if you have never broken them. You can be naturally soft spoken but see what happens if you're not. You can always go back to being soft spoken after the experiment.

@OldCrone

Many people can't dress how they like - especially if their work requires a dress code. Or if their family expects a certain style of dress. If you are lucky enough to be impervious, you can turn up to a family wedding in DMs and paint splattered jeans like you wear every other day, but if you are sensitive to criticism, you probably won't, even if that's what you choose to wear every day.

You seem to be confusing two different things here. When at work, or going to a family wedding, it might not be the time to go for maximum self-expression. Sometimes you have to wear a 'uniform' or a costume, as expected for the occasion or environment: a dress or smart suit for a formal occasion or for work, or 'modest' dress when visiting countries or places of worship where that sort of dress is expected.

For leisure, people can wear what they like, within the limits of public decency (nudity in the streets is not normally acceptable).

Yes, OldCrone; I was just about to say that. I am quite happy to adapt to norms. Dressing as I please does not mean that I ignore standards. I would never, ever wear jeans or go scruffy to a wedding, and as I said above, I adapt to cultural expectations and norms in other countries and it doesn't bother me; it's just a costume, and it is respectful to do as the Romans do. Same at work; I always dressed appropriately, but never in tight skirts and heels and lipstick!

I don't think I've lived a charmed life at all; growing up mixed-race in a small, poor colony kind of rules that out. But coming from a radical family with a single divorced working mother, I do admit I took quite a lot of women's wins for granted, and have not gone down the usual routes. As a young woman I never thought that men had it better than me; rather, I thought white people had it better than me and if I could be trans in any way, I would have chosen to be trans-racial: white and blonde. That's the area where I felt inferior, felt society's censorship -- Luckily I got over that (the sense of inferiority) in my late teens. And I did manage without much hassle to carve out a life that was different from most people, and free from the usual norms and sanctions. But it was not an inborn privilege: I simple did things, took routes that were not normal and some would call risky and even reckless. Many times, I was so reckless I could easily have been raped; I wasn't. I was very lucky; you're right.

But I am not as blase as you seem to think. I do care desperately for women trapped in hopeless situations; and as for speaking out: I've championed poor disadvantaged women in India and in my own country, in my own way, which is not so much "speaking out" as much as "writing out".

But in my whole life, nothing has brought out the inner rage and the need to fight back as much as this whole transgender thing. It is ludicrous, and my mother must be turning in her grave! I feel I have to fight her battles all over again.

I think that all of us that arbitrarily through an accident of birth grew up occupying an exploited class experience a long moment of wanting not to belong to that group and want to be middle class or male or white because from an individual perspective being exploited sucks.

But trans ideology is not anti-exploitation. You need to separate the ideology from individuals. Not all whites are encompassed within racist ideology, not all men etc.

why is there such a need to label and define and proclaim?
I noticed how very much more prevalent labels were becoming, some years ago.- my first step towards actively thinking about feminism, instead of just assuming I was one.

why is there such a need to label and define and proclaim?

I think social media is massively to blame. We bumbled our way through life trying various things on for size and discarding as appropriate.

But now you’ve got to have everything quantified on your social media and especially in online dating profiles. What’s your relationship status? What’s your sexuality? What’s your gender? What’s your Hogwarts House?

It reminds me of primary school when it was incredibly important to know what people’s favourite colour was. You had to have one.

I saw Rita Ora coming in for a kicking on twitter today because some people thought she was black and she’s not. Like she personally tricked them by not having a box ticked ‘white’ on her Instagram or something and they looked at her and guessed wrong.

Everything must be labelled and detailed, otherwise how would you even know someone?

@Jellyeggs

Sorry a few points - in my country self ID is legal and gender is protected, not sex. I know it’s different in the UK.

I know some people don’t understand that it’s unbearable to be gender nonconforming, but for some people it is. Just like some people are happy to have a male bodied person doing your smear and others find that unbearable.

I watched my own son figure out that if he wore a dress and held a doll in public people would laugh at him. I told him to do what he liked and not mind anyone else and he told me it was really unfair... and then he conformed. It wasn’t bearable for him to be non conforming and in the end he seems fairly comfortable with conforming “boy” stuff. So I accept that for some people things are unbearable that I might not understand.

I totally agree that social media telling kids they ought to be mortally offended by stuff like misgendering or questioning the official narrative is not at all helpful in learning how to “bear” things that we don’t like - and challenge them in a meaningful way.

I've not seen many examples of people actually telling boys who have dolls that they shouldn't have dolls. Maybe none.

It's true that boys wearing dresses might get some pushback from some. But here is the thing - is this seriously a big deal? It's just a bit of cloth, it's not inherently linked to your personality, you won't be invalidated if you'd like to wear a dress but it's not the social norm.

There is a real way I think where we have enabled the whole idea of "gender identity" as real by making far too big a deal of people's need to wear x, y, or z.

I have always thought saris were quite beautiful, but they aren't culturally normative where I live. They are also difficult to find, and not suitable to the climate, and I'd probably be accused of cultural appropriation if I wore one anyway (which IMO is dumb.) So I have never worn one.

That is ok, because it's just clothes.

If a boy wants to wear a dress, and thinks he will be made fun of, he has a choice. He can choose to wear pants (not a horrible thing.) Or he can wear the dress and put up with the possibility of a rude comment. Some boys might even wear the dress because they want to be counter-cultural, and that option is there too.

@KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain

Except conforming to social norms - appropriate dress for certain social situations - doesn't need to be secondarily structured in line with gender stereotypes. Same with socially appropriate behaviour say at a funeral or an interview, at work, with friends etc.

This is why it is still a problem to break gender stereotypes whilst conforming to social norms.

A lot of social rules are implicit. The Chicago school of sociologists used to make implicit rules explicit and therefore visible by breaking them.

You really can't say rules don't exist if you have never broken them. You can be naturally soft spoken but see what happens if you're not. You can always go back to being soft spoken after the experiment.

It doesn't need to be, but it's not actually important, as long as people have access to clothes that are reasonably practical. If men wear a suit, and women wear a pants suit or a skirt suit that is not really significant. There are practical and non-fussy options in every type of clothing environment.

If gendered customs about stuff like that really are irrelevant to being male or female, it's also the case that not wearing a skirt suit never hurt anyone. It's a purely stylistic thing. I couldn't wear a skirt to my daily work in the army, I dressed like everyone else in ugly camo pjs. It also doesn't hurt some male lawyer who doesn't have the option to wear a skirt suit unless he wants raised eyebrows. (Though my town for many years when I was growing up did have a male lawyer who was well known for wearing a skirt and heels to work every day. Though he did get raised eyebrows.)

People are saying they've never felt gendered pressure to wear certain things. I'm saying it's there in lots of circumstances. We aren't all that free to do as we wish unless we are very lucky.

Can you give some examples? I don't think I've ever felt 'gendered pressure' to wear certain things.

I can think of times in my life when there have been rules about what girls or boys were allowed to wear, like school uniform, which I tried (and failed) to get changed when I was at school.

Also a job I had where women weren't allowed to wear trousers, but this was outside the UK, and I accepted the restrictions imposed on my choice of clothing when I accepted the job (and it was so hot there most of the time that a loose cotton dress was much more comfortable than trousers would have been).

But even for formal occasions (at least the ones I attend) trousers are now acceptable for women. What am I missing?

But in the end, it's just clothes. You are not your clothes. (But I will admit to being someone who has very little interest in clothes.)

[quote drspouse]@Lamahaha have you seriously never, ever had anyone comment that you should be "less abrasive" or "don't tell people they are wrong" or "you'll catch more flies with honey" or "I didn't think you really wanted that work opportunity" or "I'm sure he didn't mean it like that, don't be so sensitive" or "girls can't run" or "girls aren't as good at science" or "I guess he just doesn't see dirt" or ANYTHING EVER that suggests that you should behave in a "womanly" way?

If you aren't affected by all the million and one messages about appearance around you - good for you. But being stereotypically "womanly" isn't just about appearance.[/quote]
Who was it who said these appalling sexist things to you? The only one which I have had directed at me is 'don't be so sensitive' (from my mother, who was forever telling me to 'grow a thicker skin'). But she also told me not to listen to people who told me I couldn't do something just because I was a girl, and to stand up for myself.

I don't think anyone's ever suggested to me that I should behave in a 'womanly' way (if you met me you'd quickly see that I'm a lost cause there).

Here's my problem with your premise, OP. What is a man? What is a woman? There are reasons why certain protections are in place for women as historically oppressed people, and as people with certain differences than men. On what basis should someone be considered a woman in those categories? I am including such things as competitive sports, women's shelters and rape crisis centers, bathrooms and shower rooms, university scholarships, etc. What criteria should the people meet? It seems to me there are two choices: They can either be: 1. Female, or 2. Feminine, as that is the gender form of woman. To say that the category of Feminine should be used would include men who identify as women, but would not necessarily include females, who, while remaining female, may have any any kind of personality.

I find "non-binaries" offensive tbh. By declaring they don't fit stereotypes they're implying the rest of us do.

The what is a woman question is really the crux. We see it as a sex class, others see it as a collection of feelings and behaviours. (Except that sounds so sexist that they call it identity). Instead of just screaming I’m right! No I’M right! I think we all need to say hold on, we need to say OK, you believe Jesus saved your soul and I don’t. Where do we go from here?

@FloralBunting

SheWho, I think that interchangeability arose because of a prim need to avoid saying sex, tbh, because sex obviously also means shagging. That was certainly my experience. Like a parent telling you to say 'pardon?' not 'what?'.

And because of this very British prudishness, a whole generation grew up primed for confusion, which has been expertly exploited by those with poor reality perception and/or a questionable agenda to push. My generation, force-fed Latin, grew up relating gender to nouns such as tables and agricultural implements. I now realise how protective that was. Oh and even the idea of non-binary is bullshit. It’s just someone saying in an attention seeking way that they’re different, even when they’re not.

@noblegiraffe

Here’s the problem with respecting gender identity:

Start with ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as gender identities. What is a ‘man’? Well, they . What is a ‘woman’?

Oh. Well I don’t conform to those stereotypes.

Ok, we’ll create the category ‘non-binary’ for you as you don’t identify with either.

Well sometimes I feel like a man when I’m solving a maths problem but then I feel like a woman when I’m shaving my pits and wearing heels (thanks for the empowerment, Emma).

Ok, we will create the category ‘gender fluid’ for you.

Hmm, well I don’t like being in the middle or switching between the two, what does that even mean? I want to challenge gender.

Ok, you are ‘genderqueer’

I feel like the oppposite gender to my sex.

Ok you are ‘transgender’.

And on and on it goes just like Tumblr until we have 7 billion genders because people are mistaking personality for gender identity.

I've thought for a while this reminds me of pre-Coppernican Western astronomy.

No really, bear with me...

For a long time we in the West believed everything went round the Earth. Astronomers (who at that stage were also astrologers) believed the planets had very complicated, wandering paths that sometimes looped back on themselves, because that's what they observed based on where they were looking from. In reality planets' paths are far simpler. The complexity was entirely coming from trying to understand observed reality through a flawed model.

Abstracting from this, any time you think you know the "truth" about something but find you have to add more and more exceptions/clarifications to the basic premise to account for different scenarios, it's worth considering whether it's the "truth" itself that's wrong.

It's not a 100% rule - sometimes things really are just damn complicated - but it's certainly an indicator to take another look at the core assumptions.

So that's what the proliferation of gender identities feel like to me. The genderists are not fundamentally wrong - the planets do move relative to the stars and each other, gendered behaviours and preferences are not innate expression of biological sex - but they've drawn the wrong conclusion and now try and fit what they see into it.

You’re right, Blibby, they keep adding epicycles to account for the new info that doesn’t fit their original hypothesis instead of coming to the realisation that their original hypothesis isn’t correct.

The harmful bit is that what I said about gender identity is fairly innocuous on its own (like discovering your personality type and going about saying I’m an INTJ or whatever those things are), but there has been a conflation between transgender and transsexual, which as far as I can tell is a completely different kettle of fish.