Please help me untangle why gender is such an issue

[nomorecrumbs]

I see myself as an old-school feminist, I believe that people should have equal opportunities regardless of their sex, and if people do not want to conform to gender stereotypes then more power to them. In fact I reject a lot of gender stereotyping as it’s socially, not biologically, prescriptive to me and I don’t think gender scripting should be pandered to.

Where I get muddled is trying to understand why trans people seemingly want to change their gender. In doing so, aren’t they conforming to societal notions of what it means to be a “woman” or a “man”? Why isn’t this just biologically based rather than socially, as to me the social aspect can be a load of bollocks?

E.g. I would love to ask a M2F trans why they “feel like they are more female”. Is it because they prefer pink, long hair, feminine clothes, traditional womanly traits? If so, why not stay a biological man and do these social things anyway? Is it fear of peer rejection? I don’t see why they have to just conform to gender stereotyping, basically, and wish any sex could just wear and do what they want without being pigeonholed into “genders”.

I’m concerned all this talk over gender is just reinforcing potentially damaging social stereotypes of what it means to appear male or female.

“ I really try to understand, if I were to accept that sex is a spectrum, what the implications and results of this would be.

If it's all one spectrum then the implications are horribly offensive, because it results in fertile women being considered more female than infertile women.”

I was wondering whether it also included breast and penis sizes - the smaller they are, the nearer you are to the opposite sex or something. Which also doesn’t really make any sense, I’m sure smaller breasted woman have gotten pregnant and lesser endowed men have fathered children, although I’m not saying that you are less of a man or woman if you haven’t.

@OldCrone

Since gender identity only exists in the minds of some people, and can't be described or defined, it's obviously not something which should be used to make laws or even mentioned in legislation.

Nobody should be teaching children that they should have a gender identity, and definitely shouldn't be telling them that their bodies are wrong and need medicating because they have the wrong gender identity for their body.

Gender identity is like religion. If you believe you have a gender identity, that's fine. If you believe in God, that's fine. But some of us don't believe, and we have the right to not believe.

This x 100

I’m wondering whether this “feeling of being a woman” is like “feeling” your nationality, it has nothing distinct or any set definitions, you just presume that what you’re feeling is it, because you feel like you feel and you are that nationality. You don’t know if feels any different to be a different nationality and you can only approximate that feeling by living in another country and experiencing a different way of life/culture. You can even become a naturalised citizen of that country but you still won’t have the same feeling of those people and indeed, each one of the citizens of that country may have totally different feelings of being that nationality.

@RedToothBrush

I don't object to people being gender believers any more than believers in any other religion, at least on an individual basis. But they shouldn't be trying to force the rest of us to believe and push through laws which affect us all which are based on their beliefs.

Stereotypes affect us all even though they aren't law. If enough people believe in them on an individual level its problematic, especially if there are not laws to actively protect non-believers and these laws where they do exist are not enforced on behalf of the most vulnerable.

We know that fashion models for example had a significant influence back in the 90s over society as a whole in terms of how women were supposed to look. To the point that eventually the industry had to stop using models who were under a certain BMI because of how it was connected to promotion of anorexia.

If we are saying that we don't mind individual transgender beliefs we still may need to manage media representations and enact laws which protect non believers from things like workplace dismissal.

None of this would be 'anti-trans' but it sure as hell would be framed as such. It would be more like a secular thing.

I was thinking as I wrote that that there are problems with absolute freedom of belief, but I don't think that policing beliefs is going to help. I think freedom of belief is an important principle and that allowing others to hold beliefs which I disagree with protects my right to hold different beliefs.

Where this gets difficult is when one of two things happen.

One is when a religion turns into a cult, sucking in young and/or vulnerable people who are not given an opportunity to leave.

The other is when governments are captured by the belief system and it finds its way into law. Even more worrying when those governments don't seem to realise that they have unthinkingly adopted a belief system. This seems to be where we are now.

I don't mind splitting by sex in some cases at the moment, but I see trans woman as female, so that's not a problem for me.

That's quite a preposterous statement. You have an ideological worldview that's about as flexible as the average Jesuit priest. It doesn't make any sense, unless you believe in some kind of disembodied soul.

I've never read anything that has persuaded me that gender identity is any more solid a concept than a soul. It's a matter of belief, and like so many religious people there's a real resistance to anyone who says they don't share the belief.

If someone says to me that it doesn't matter whether I personally believe in a soul/gender identity I have one because they say so? Especially if they claim their theory is a fact but a belief (but fail to provide evidence. I have no time for that Your faith is personal to you, glad it helps you, but I don't want a part of it, and I definer don't want laws written and enforced based on it.

This. With bells on.

Knowing you're female when you are actually female is one thing. Knowing you're female when you're actually male is called something else entirely.

This is what is being conflated. As you say Datun, it's not the same thing at all. See also "autogynephilia in terms of males fantasising about themselves having sex as a woman doesn't exist because women fantasise about having sex as themselves".

if I were to be referred to as "he" for example it would make me very uncomfortable

It wouldn't me, I would assume they were on the wind up as I am very obviously female in terms of waist to hip ratio etc. Not a value judgement, just reality. I can understand how it might be uncomfortable, hurtful or offensive to a woman when it was in any way ambiguous what sex she was.

I absolutely agree with this:
“ What I do care about in relation to people I don't know from Adam is how much of a threat they are to me or my children in a given situation. There is plenty of objective, verifiable data showing that people of the male sex carry out violent and sexual crime at an astronomically higher rate than people of the female sex. There is plenty of objective, verifiable data showing that people of the male sex are on average much stronger than people of the female sex. These two facts alone put me, a female person, at greater physical risk from make people than from other female people. Without getting into concepts of privacy and dignity, these are two significant reasons why female people and male people have been and are offered separate facilities and services in certain situations.”

If however, it is unanimously agreed and proven that sex is a spectrum and that the dangerous people fall in a certain part of the spectrum, and can be identified and segregated from the rest, then perhaps generations of the future might be safe enough and not feel uneasy about foregoing their single sex spaces, then that might be ok at that time in the future, but for now, it’s not.

@Positrans I really appreciate you trying to explain and answering questions. Thank you.

I know others have already asked this, but it keeps coming back to me: you say you felt like ‘one of the girls’. Why? Because you shared similar interests? Because you didn’t identify with the temperaments of boys around you or their interests? Because you liked the way they played and interacted?

You said you realised that we were divided into Girls and Boys, and that you felt you were a Girl. But why? Perhaps it’s hard for you to explain, but any attempt would be gratefully received. I just don’t fully get it.

I hope you can explain more.

I suppose you’ll say that you had an inner sense of ‘being like them’? But how? If so, why did you think their inner lives were homogeneous and all the same? What was the element of ‘girlness’ you saw that you recognised in yourself?

I have been told by a transwomen poster on a previous thread that they identify with women's submissiveness.

Reminds me of my ex, who is a self-described agp and very definitely not trans (as I won't let him identify as a transterf ). Very much porn-inspired in his case.

But the reason I highlight this one is it's evidence that the tw in question and I categorically do not share a "gender identity" - because my identity in relation to gender has been that of a hardline-resister since I was seven. That's when I realised I did not have to submit, and started fighting back.

As for "feeling your nationality" - interesting parallel. Those who were around in the days of the Spartacus threads may remember that common consensus was we only feel like women (as opposed to people) when people are treating us as lesser/other because of our biology and the associated stereotypes.

Just the same for nationality: I only really feel English when I'm talking to people of other cultures (particularly Americans who don't get the English national character); I only really feel Yorkshire when I'm talking to southerners (or anyone from the wrong side of the Pennines).

if I were to be referred to as "he" for example it would make me very uncomfortable

I got referred to as "he" a lot as a young teenager. The act of being called he in itself didn't bother me, what did bother me was the obvious difference in treatment.

I remember going with my mum and brother to set up his first bank account, the man at the back was going on about how he'd enjoy being financially responsible and sensible like his big brother. Once he was told I was a big sister instead, suddenly the talk was about spending sprees in fashion shops. Because its silly little girls can't be trusted with money, we'll just spend it on makeup and shoes.

(I guess thank you to that man for setting me on the path to feminism?)

So what is it about being called he that would make you feel uncomfortable?

For me it clearly went down badly, but not because it didn't match my inner sense of self, it was that it made it apparent my worth was considered less when they knew my sex.

Indeed OldCrone.

Part of me thought about how it might improve things if gender was recognised in law as a belief/religion rather than what it is now. Thats still problematic though and doesn't resolve the issue of where you have sex / religion / gender / sexual orientation / disability / age / race as protected beliefs which have competing issues.

The fundamental problem is the failure to recognise the fact that there are conflicting interests and that they impact on each other, even if thats not malicious / does no harm.

The most basic principles of Human Rights Law is to a) recognise where these conflicts occur and to acknowledge this may cause an issue b) to identify situations or issues which may cause harm to particular groups c) to identity the most vulnerable / powerless group in that dynamic and to act to give them power / properly represent their real interests on their behalf d) to balance the interests of both whilst seeking primarily to do no harm (where this is possible, otherwise to do as little harm as possible). Basically your safeguarding 101 but under the 'Human Rights' tag. (I note here that 'safeguarding' as a phrase/movement is deeply unfashionable whilst Human Rights is something that everyone wants to get on the bandwagon of. The great irony being they are infact the same thing and can not be separated. Human Rights can not exist without proper safeguarding.)

Since both the left and right in this country have taken leave of their senses and forgotten these underlying principles, I think we are in a world of trouble whatever happens in the next 5 to 10 years. And probably a lot longer than that into the future. The path is already set.

We are already facing a review of the Human Rights Act. And we are likely to then see a review of our membership of the ECHR. This isn't a good thing.

As it stands the Equality Act 2010 already is failing in practice because its not being properly implimented due to the influence of various lobby groups and trying to get it properly enforced is prohibitive because of the cost of legal action and the fact that the most vulnerable are not really in much of a position to take up the charge with legal challenges anyway (for a number of reasons).

In reality it should be politicians who take the lead on protecting the most vulnerable in society and upholding safeguarding. What we are seeing, however, is either rather cowardly dodging of contensious issues because public image and party political lines are more important (because The Culture War) OR politicians actively forgetting the principles of human rights and in the process failing the most vulnerable in society.

That it takes a court ruling to get the fact recognised that we are experiementing on children with drugs and worst still without proper oversight and monitoring over a long time period, and WE STILL see people shouting and screaming about how the human rights of these children are being violated, is deeply disturbing. And rather illustrates the point.

Until we have a renaissance in thinking and support for human rights and what underpins them then we are going to have serious problems.

Its possible (though I think highly unlikely) that a review of the Human Rights Act will spark a proper adult debate on the subject (I think its more likely to pan out as people shouting abuse at each other and generally not being civilised human beings on either side).

Unfortunately though I think that the only thing that will properly spark the renaissance is multiple mass scandals / a major abuse of human rights in this country that outrages and shocks the majority into a state of true horror on a scale that blows your mind. (War and genecide has been the catalyst in the past so thats your bench mark).

None of this is pretty and its much more likely we will see 'low level' patterns of abuse being tolerated / facilitated / enabled for a very long time to come. With lots of 'well meaning' politicians and activists feigning deep regret and surprise (as if they haven't been warned of the possiblity of these abuses and the poor standard / lack of safeguarding) along the road.

I really don't see any meaningful level of countermovement at present coming from anywhere really. What exists is still very much fringe, and often framed in a negative manner by those with vested interests in power. Instead what we are getting is just a slow erosion of the underlying principles of human rights.

TBH it one of the things thats really getting me down about MN at the moment, because I can see it playing out across the board on just about every major political issue going - not just this section. People just don't get the complexity and difficulty in balancing competing interests and have no interest in doing so. They only see things through the echo chamber mentality and via very narrow thought processes.

Its very depressing that we seek so many simple solutions and explainations to everything. They do not exist. And thats what makes this a dangerous time, especially if you fall through the cracks in society.

As for "feeling your nationality" - interesting parallel. Those who were around in the days of the Spartacus threads may remember that common consensus was we only feel like women (as opposed to people) when people are treating us as lesser/other because of our biology and the associated stereotypes.

Those spartacus threads feel like a long time ago now!

But yes, this exactly. Plus there's an element of feeling like a woman when I am made aware that I am not seen as a default human, that moment of "oh yeah, that's not designed with people like me in mind". It's a similar sensation to being disabled, I can spend most of my time not feeling disabled (I'm just me living in my body) but I become very aware of my disability when I run into limitations or thoughtless design.

Not all women with beards do that, but most non-trans women are uncomfortable sporting a beard, and trans women are the same, except it's more than a beard.

That's the first time I've heard a poster on these boards call women non-trans women.

Oh, and the answer to the question "why is gender such an issue"...?

It is made up nonsense.

That's the first time I've heard a poster on these boards call women non-trans women.

Sadly not the first time I've seen it, and I think the previous use was by a trans person as well.

It highlights the problem with changing the meaning of words to fit an ideology. The reality behind the words doesn't change and sometimes still needs to be expressed even if the words to do so have gone.

Body-based sex classes are real, observable, true of all humans and have a material impact on the lives of all humans. That reality doesn't change even if the words we use for it do.

when people are treating us as lesser/other because of our biology and the associated stereotypes.

Probably bad form to quote myself, but rereading this can see how a tw would say 'Yes, that was my experience too; we are the same' - but their experience was of being measured against masculine stereotypes and found wanting, whereas ours is of it simply being assumed that we conform to feminine stereotypes.

For them, the assumption of failed masculinity; for us, the assumption of successful femininity. Based on the body. So not the same at all.

but I become very aware of my disability when I run into limitations or thoughtless design

In much the same way, I'm not very aware of the size of my arse, until I try to squeeze out between pub tables and send someone's pint flying!

@TyroTerf

I have been told by a transwomen poster on a previous thread that they identify with women's submissiveness.

Reminds me of my ex, who is a self-described agp and very definitely not trans (as I won't let him identify as a transterf ). Very much porn-inspired in his case.

But the reason I highlight this one is it's evidence that the tw in question and I categorically do not share a "gender identity" - because my identity in relation to gender has been that of a hardline-resister since I was seven. That's when I realised I did not have to submit, and started fighting back.

As for "feeling your nationality" - interesting parallel. Those who were around in the days of the Spartacus threads may remember that common consensus was we only feel like women (as opposed to people) when people are treating us as lesser/other because of our biology and the associated stereotypes.

Just the same for nationality: I only really feel English when I'm talking to people of other cultures (particularly Americans who don't get the English national character); I only really feel Yorkshire when I'm talking to southerners (or anyone from the wrong side of the Pennines).

Worth pointing this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_formation

Identities are formed on many levels, namely: micro, meso, macro, and global. The micro-level is self-definition, relations with people, and issues as seen from a person or individual perspective. The meso level pertains to how identities are viewed, formed, and questioned by the immediate communities and/or families, whereas the macro level would be the connections among and between individuals, issues, from a national perspective. The global level, on the other hand, interrelates with the connections among and between individuals, issues, and groups from a worldwide perspective.

The real problem with gender identity is how it focuses on the self and perhaps on membership of a group of like minded individuals who share the same gender identity, to the complete exclusion of all other types of identity and identity formation.

So for example, its dismissive of how you grow up and identities within a family unit are so closely tied together. If a fundamental element in the identity of one member of the group changes suddenly or signicantly it ALWAYS has a massive psychological impact on the other members because of the relational nature of it. Instead it blames family members for rejection before considering how a change in identity is not a neutral thing and has consequences which need to be addressed in various ways and to different degrees. It seems to be the case that psychological breakdown in the transwidows is very common but unrecognised for example. Unfortunately no one is really looking at relational identity, and is only prioritising certain individual identities. This is why, in an era of neo-liberalism and ultra-self interest, trans identities have been able to take such a hold. Its not been possible in the same way in other societies or in different time periods - not because of prejudice - but because of the wider political forces of the age.

Gender identity goes further in not recognising the validity of other identities as being equal too. They tend to be seen as a collective threat through 'othering' rather than being framed as legitimate but different. The language of trans v cis sums this up nicely.

Its really interesting and I do wish that there was a lot more thought given to the concept of identity formation and where it comes from and how its not purely about individualism.

You can never truly escape where you come from. The idea that you can, is a rejection of how identity forms which is utter nonsense and a rejection of material reality whether we like it or not. Its how we deal with it and acknowledge that identity is multi faceted thats important.

Some one who is trans will ALWAYS be the same sex they were born. Its part of their fundamental identity and the clue is in the relational prefix 'trans'. Even if we moved past this, it would still be the same as your bodily experiences would be aligned with your sex. Again inescapable material reality.

That's going to be a rabbit hole of a link, isn't it, Red?

Its part of their fundamental identity and the clue is in the relational prefix 'trans'.

Yep. You know how some tw claim to be "cis women*? I always think 'no, mate, you've got an uncommon type of male-specific identity, and the more we accept you as an example of the male spectrum the more of a cis male you become.'

You can never truly escape where you come from.

Agreed; it was a hard realisation though, because when you've had a horrendous childhood you get all sorts of people telling you to move on and not let it define you etc etc. Which is pretty much impossible when you're talking early and ongoing horrors that have affected you on a fundamental level. The idea seems to be that you can just... become someone else, someone less broken, through sheer force of will.

Never got that impression from therapists, mind. Only from the general public. It's less than helpful.

Excellent post on Human Rights and Safeguarding Red, if a bit depressing! I fear the same.

The transplant metaphor doesn't work for one simple reason: there can be no distinction between body and soul/psyche.

Your body is the interface to the world. Now trans activists understand this in terms of how the world perceives their "psyche", but, in actuality, the body is the method by which the "psyche" perceives the world.

The body is eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, skin, muscles, nerves, bones, tendons -- all these senses and physicalities affect how an individual experiences reality. You change one of them, and the way you perceive the world will change, and that, in turn, will change your psyche.

Think of it this way. Say we all went to bed tonight and woke up tomorrow morning a foot taller. For me, I'd wake up 6'3.

That additional foot would radically change every moment of my life from that point. In the first hour alone, I'd have to navigate a world where everything was lower. I'd have to learn how to move appropriately, sit and rise, pick things up, how to dress and wash a body that was longer, I might find I needed to breath, eat, drink and sleep differently.

Everything that I am programmed to navigate in my life is based on being a 5'3 adult. You change that and all that programming, over years, goes out the window because it no longer works -- and that would change my psyche.

Because if I were taller, the world would be a far easier place to live in: driving, furniture heights, physical capabilities ... I'd be able to reach more, see more, move greater distances in shorter times. And that ease would percolate into my psyche, my personality. I'd probably feel a greater sense of "dominion" over the world.

And before you know it, I'm not Packing anymore. I'm a "Master of the Universe" Packing, who finds life easy, fairly safe (because who really wants to attack a 6'3 Amazonian? ), and can dominate any environment purely by virtue of my tallness.

And that's just with an extra foot of height.

So now imagine waking up in a male body. It's not just the average extra height; it's the lung capacity, the heart capacity, the upper body strength, the body density, the muscle mass, the shift in my centre of gravity -- all the messages my body sends me about the world would change dramatically overnight, and all that would affect my psyche in an enormous way. I would become a different Packing very quickly.

To do it the other way, from male to female ... I doubt many males would cope with it because, lets be honest here, women got the biology shit card, and most men have no idea just how shit it is.

This is where trans-ideology that fixates about transition falls down. You change the body, you change the interface you have with the world, which, in turn, changes the psyche through changing the messaging you receive about the world.

There is no "femaleness" without a female body because "femaleness" is built on the experience of reality delivered through the medium of the female body.

@berrygirlie

Right yep, but there are people on here who are suggesting no one has ingrained gender identity. *@Datun*

That's because if you delve even slightly into feminism, you will come up against the irrefutable argument that women are socialised from birth, and often before birth, into a certain set of stereotypical behaviour.

Indeed, even before birth, females are routinely aborted. Because they're female. 'Lesser than'.

A boy baby kicking in the womb will draw comments like he's going to be a footballer, whereas a girl baby comments like I bet she's going to be trouble, or she's feisty.

All of us, every man and woman is growing up in a sexist society. And we are all subject to the sexism. It's impossible for an individual to escape the socialisation.

So, you can't effectively separate what has socialised you into 'feeling like a woman', from the biological facts that actually make you a woman.

However, a bit of analysis as to why you feel like a woman, will often produce an answer that you realise is very likely due to socialisation.

Realising that 'the way you are' is due to a lifetime of being shaped that way often comes as a huge revelation.

And, of course, this is where transgenderism comes in. Unfortunately, deciding that these behaviours are completely innate to one sex or the other, is what perpetuates the sexism that causes the conflict in the first place.

I'm sure there are some behaviours that might be specific to a certain sex. Depending on hormones, and other physical differences.

I believe that eyesight is different in women for instance. Which is why I can critically judge the aesthetic of cushions that are ecru, bisque or oatmeal, whilst DH will roundly dismiss them as 'all beige'.

So now imagine waking up in a male body. It's not just the average extra height; it's the lung capacity, the heart capacity, the upper body strength, the body density, the muscle mass, the shift in my centre of gravity -- all the messages my body sends me about the world would change dramatically overnight, and all that would affect my psyche in an enormous way. I would become a different Packing very quickly.

Can you imagine?!

It was brought home to me a few years ago when DH was telling someone that I was afraid of the dark. I said I'm not afraid of the dark. And he said well why you won't walk the dog in the woods after dusk...

Just inserting how much Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender has influenced my thinking on gender and how much socialisation is key to the trouble we are in.