Gender critical or Gender reactionary?

[FifteenToes]

I found myself drawn to this board, despite being male and not previously particularly involved in feminist issues, because it was the only place I could find people actually talking sense about gender identity. Having read a number of threads, answered a few and followed a lot of links, I've come to the conclusion there are broadly three "camps" in this battle, not two:

1. Those who believe gender identity is a "thing" we are born with. That has its own discernible neurological reality (which science just hasn't quite caught up with yet); that most people are born with the one that matches their genitalia, but some with the opposite one. And some with one of any number of other possible genders.

2. Those who believe gender identity is a largely invented concept with no scientific evidence for its existence. That to the extent that it does exist it's largely just a result of social conditioning; that there's certainly no evidence of it being a neurological "thing" we are born with; and that the common discourse about transgender perpetuates and strengthens it to womens' disadvantage. (Broadly "gender critical" as I would consider myself).

3. Those who believe that of course there are only two genders, male and female. This worked perfectly well for millennia of human history so there's no reason it should stop working now. When people think they are the opposite gender from their sex it's usually just because of narrow outdated ideas about how girls should play with dolls etc, and all the stuff about other made-up genders is just millennial self-absorbed nonsense.

I call the last one "gender reactionary" because, while it at first appears to challenge a lot of the same things as gender critical thinking does, it actually rests on a reactionary assumption: that gender identity is real and everyone naturally "has" it. It doesn't reject gender per se, but only the idea that it is, or can be, separated from biological sex.

What concerns me is the blurring of lines between (2) and (3). I've seen comments, articles etc. that appear to start out apparently like (2) but then say something suggesting that they really just want everyone to accept their "natural" gender. I must admit that while gender critical and firmly (2) myself, I actually prefer (1) to (3). At least (1) opens up a degree of flexibility and choice about how people might live and behave, even if (IMO) it's overly reliant on definitions and categories.

Has anyone else found this? What does being gender critical mean to you? Are you critical of the very concept of gender, or just of recent attempts to broaden it and separate it from biological sex?

I didn’t wholly follow your argument but I don’t fall under any of the camps because while I don’t roll with the concept of gender identity I think it is a socially constructed concept that DOES have a neurological basis. In the same way that people who can play the flute may have in common a particular area of their brain that is well developed but that doesn’t mean that science confirms they are flute-O- sexual and must strip naked in front of oboe players in order to be affirmed.

I believe there are a small amount of people with gender dysphoria who mostly just want to quietly go about their lives trying to live as what they perceive is a woman. Many of these actuality agree with the GC viewpoint and are being harmed by the agenda. However, due to Stonewall's trans umbrella, there are many other people who trans for many different reasons including cross dressers and fetishists. And of course there will be predators who will take advantage of self ID and the wide umbrella. As to point 3, I would say they are only 2 sexes and there is nothing that can be done to change that. I do believe that gender is a social construct and is based on harmful stereotypes but I till have empathy for people with gender dysphoria.

These are interesting theoretical things I'll be happy to discuss when I've not got my hands full trying to prevent female sex based rights and spaces being removed for the betterment of a small percentage of male people. Because that's kind of the priority right now.

Yes, it's hard to follow your argument because you're using "gender" when I assume you mean "sex". There are only two sexes (position 3?) Why do you feel this is incompatible with believing "gender" is socially constructed (no 2), and instead it's better to believe that everyone has a gender identity and sometimes it's in the wrong body (no 1)?

Also the feminist concept of gender is about oppression, not just identity.

Yes I agree OP. It really irritates me that two very distinct categories that are clearly antagonistic are so regularly conflated.

Wait no ignore me I misread

I'm not following this. There literally are only two sexes. That's it. You can identify however you want, subject to how that affects others, but you can't change sex, and you haven't changed sex, and you were never the opposite sex.

I don't understand how anyone could have spent any time studying GC politics or this board and still confuse 'sex' and 'gender'.

Sex is biology, based in material reality.
Gender is sociology, a set of made up rules that has no grounding in reality.

Feminists say that women's needs and rights are based on our sex, not our gender. We need single sex toilets and changing rooms, prisons and domestic violence shelters; 'single gender' facilities are mixed sex.

If you would go back, proof read and sort out when you mean sex and when you mean gender, you could be onto something useful here.

@SpartacusAutisticus

Male and female aren't genders though.

This is the whole point.

What do you mean by 'gender' identity? You seem to conflate gender with sex. Male and female are sexes, not genders. Genders are things like 'masculinity' and 'femininity'. I don't see how 2 can blur into 3. 2 says that gender isn't real, and 3 says gender is real. Are you sure that people in camp 2 aren't really saying that people should just accept their natural SEX as opposed to gender?

I also don't see how you can prefer 1 to 3. Both are regressive. 3 says your gender IS the same as your sex. So males are masculine, females are feminine. 1 says your gender is the same as your sexed brain. Both want to put people in a gender box.

I'm critical of the concept of gender in that I recognise it is a social construct that isn't natural or innate in any sense - we aren't born with feminine brains.As far as I'm concerned gender was ALWAYS separate from biological sex.

I don’t understand the difference between 2 and 3

From what I’ve read people who experienced PTSD, autism, rape and abuse are more likely to feel uncomfortable in their body and see changing sex as the remedy. There’s also the sexual element where men like to dress like women as it turns them on

I think I know roughly what the OP is driving at - there's a Venn diagram I've seen on here which might be relevant, does anyone know the one I mean and have a link?

This one Errol?

Ah the conservative/radfem/genderism Venn diagram?

X post

That's the one, thanks.

Is the OP a plopped? Is this an exam question?

Do your own work, dude.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell - gender means about 10 different things.

Most people (like OP I guess) think gender is just a polite euphemism for sex. seriously, it’s like 95% of the population, including educated liberals.

Feminists defined gender as the Different stereotypes imposed on people on the basis of their sex. Eg women expected/forced to exhibit certain behaviors and not others.

Sexist male psychologists (eg John Money and those who did the first Modern SRS ops) defined someone’s “gender” as the extent to which an individual Psychologically desired to perform masculinity or femininity. Modern trans / queer activism has latched on to this concept, mostly forgetting the feminist POV.

Whenever anyone has a conversation about gender It’s really a conversation about the confusion between these concepts.

No one has, in my estimation, been able to adequately define gender. Sex is very simply defined. There are two biological sexes in our species (and throughout the animal/plant world). One is designed to make large gametes (ova) and one is designed to make small gametes (sperm). English speakers use the term 'female' and 'male' to distinguish these two sexes. English then clarifies the sexes w/ regard to age as woman/girl, man/boy, etc. There are only two sexes. Every human created needed these two sexes to exist. (In very rare cases, the DNA creates conditions in a person to make the ability to determine male vs. female difficult from a quick observation. Often these conditions are called Intersex and may involve other physical health issues. They do not denote a third sex). The definitions of sex are universally understood, with languages using their own names to clarify ages (e.g. German has Frau/Madchen, Mann/Junge).

Within the female sex, there are endless variations of personality, physical appearance, etc. that are often subject to cultural expectations and stereotypes. I think that might mean why people debate gender categories.

Within the male sex, there are endless variations of personality, physical appearance, etc. that are often subject to cultural expectations and stereotypes. I think that might mean why people debate gender categories.

Two and three are an interesting split. DP is definitely more in camp 3, so while he and I agree on a lot of things to do with gender identity, we’re coming at it from very different standpoints. He very much buys into gender as a concept, (which makes for some challenging conversations!) but very much attaches it to biological sex.

Obviously, neither of us being neuroscientists, I have no idea how much of it is actually rooted in physiological differences or innate/learned behaviour, but either way, I definitely believe that the concept of gender is harmful to women, whereas he wouldn’t agree that, funnily enough, not having any skin in the game as it were.

Yes, it's hard to follow your argument because you're using "gender" when I assume you mean "sex". There are only two sexes (position 3?) Why do you feel this is incompatible with believing "gender" is socially constructed (no 2), and instead it's better to believe that everyone has a gender identity and sometimes it's in the wrong body (no 1)?

No, I very definitely meant gender, every time I wrote it.

There are only two sexes. Everybody in (2) and (3) agrees with that, and I'd say actually that even most people in (1) do. It's only a very small fringe group of them that have taken it as far as rejecting biological sex altogether.

But people in (3) seem to believe that there is also a whole bunch of other, innate, psychological "stuff" that "makes" somebody male or female. They just don't believe it's easily separable from sex, or wide ranging enough to justify new and weird categories. Whereas people in (2) question whether it's there at all.

Consider how you would react to somebody telling you: "I may have a man's body, but I don't have a male gender identity or even a female one. I identify as a radioactive potato from the Xantuba galaxy".

Would you say something like: "That's ridiculous. You're biologically male so your gender is male, unless you're really, genuinely trans in which case it's female" (3).

Or would you say something like: "I don't understand what you mean by male and female gender identity. I don't have that either, and I've not seen any evidence that most people do" (2).

Would you say something like: "That's ridiculous. You're biologically male so your gender is male, unless you're really, genuinely trans in which case it's female" (3).

Or would you say something like: "I don't understand what you mean by male and female gender identity. I don't have that either, and I've not seen any evidence that most people do" (2).

Neither. Male and female are not gender descriptions but words that define the sex of a person. To your alien-vegetable-identified man I would say simply, fine, you do you, but why should an expression of your personality matter to me?

The he is a man matters to me in specific circumstances only, to wit when he demands access to female-only legal set asides.

That's where transgender ideology enters into the fray. As your alien-vegetable-identified friend does not lay claim to a gender identity, his declaration holds little interest to me.