Q&A thread for New Posters

[CharlieParley]

Welcome to the FWR board and welcome to the debate. If you're new here and have been told your questions might be better on their own thread, but you're not comfortable starting your own, then please feel free to ask your question here.

I'll try my best to answer and some of our other regulars might pop in too.

*Helen8220
My comment was in reply to your question about how to “refer” to others. I tend to refer to people I’ve met by their name. Works for me.

Where possible (as in some places I’ve worked) every toilet should be wholly separate with its own basin and mirror

That'd be ideal, of course. But it's not feasible to implement where the current facilities are sex segregated. It takes time to change things, build structures. Until then, we have to hope that people use the toilet that causes the least distress for the majority of other users. An obvious male TW in a women's toilet is a problem. They might also feel unsafe in the men's but that isn't a problem for women to solve. A lot of the claims that TW have been using women's toilets for years already is something I would take with a grain of salt. Either those TW pass well or the women present felt too intimidated to object. Men know this is how female socialization works.

I belong not to a group identity. I belong in a sex class and a race class.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me; I feel the same.

@Helen8220

Thanks for setting this up!

Here’s a question I was thinking about last night - I have met a few non-binary people who I can’t tell what their ‘biological sex’ is. I don’t think it’s my business to ask about their medical history/genitalia. I am happy to use the pronouns they ask me to use.

There will obviously be people in their lives who know what biological sex characteristics they have - those involved in their medical treatment, sexual partners. There will also be certain authorities that have the information, given the law currently requires people’s biological sex to be registered (but one could dispute if that should be the case).

In terms of how that person moves through their everyday life - how people refer to them, what spaces they’re allowed into - what do you think should happen?

Let's first of all pick apart the two different concepts you are throwing together here.

Non-binary people are typically (but not always) people who have been born either unambiguously male or female, but who feel they do not fit society's ideas of women and men, or they believe they fit both equally.

A few of those who identify as non-binary may naturally look androgynous or seek cosmetic surgeries to match their ideal body, but will typically (but not always) still be obviously male or female.

However, you mention medical history in this context, which suggests that you are conflating those born unambiguously male or female who later identify as non-binary with the exceptionally rare individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia.

These individuals belong to a group of patients variously called intersex people or people with Differences in Sex Development (DSDs). Both are umbrella terms for about 40 different conditions that always affect either male or female people.

They are not actually intersex in the sense of being hermaphrodites, that is functionally both male and female. Such creatures do exist in the animal world, but the human animal is not one of them.

Now to your question. You say "I can't tell". That is a matter of perception. And perception is of course subjective. We cannot base legislation and policies on people's perceptions because that differs from person to person. Some people are not at all perceptive, others exceptionally so. Have you heard of hypervigilance, for instance?

It's a survival instinct developed by survivors of violence which helps them identify potential predators. The most common form is that developed by female victims of male violence, who will recognise males as male even when others do not.

So, while you may not be able to tell what sex those individuals are, women who are hypervigilant most certainly will be.

Additionally, there's also empirical evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies showing that female people are better at recognising female faces than male people. So, we have evidence that there are both individual differences in perception based on personal history and general differences in perception based on our sex.

Moreover, pattern recognition is one of the first skills children learn. It's not just another survival skill, but a vital ability we need to successfully navigate our world. Children aged four can reliably tell male and female adults apart, and as you can see from what I said about hypervigilance, this isn't a skill we lose as we age but one that we depend on throughout life.

A good example to look at is age. Remember those signs everywhere you can buy alcohol? If you look under 25 we will ask for ID before you can buy alcohol.

But surely, once you are 18, you can legally buy alcohol. Why card anyone who looks under 25? Because perception does not always match material facts.

You may look 22, especially when dressed and styled accordingly, but only be 17. You may look 15 but actually be 19.

Normally that doesn't matter. But if you want to draw on the legal right to buy alcohol, perception means nothing. Only your actual age counts.

@YetAnotherSpartacus thank you for an honest and thoughtful answer. The example of sitting with legs apart/together is a good one. I often sit with my legs spread pretty wide in public and in private (assuming I’m wearing leggings or jeans, which I generally am) - and I like that it makes me feel a little bit defiant.

I’m acutely conscious of the ways that gender norms have affected me psychologically - I was very overweight between 8 and 13 and often felt completely worthless as a result, because I was a dainty, pretty little girl. I was (and am) pretty flat chested, and for years felt unsexy and unwomanly. When I first went out with my current partner, in my mid-twenties, having previously mostly dated men, it took some time to get used to the feeling of being with someone smaller and weaker than me. I’m pleased to say that as I approach 40 I am mostly at ease with my body, but I know how much those processes fed into making me who I am.

I think where we differ is on the definition of ‘woman’ - even if in theory it just denotes the class of people with xx chromosomes and accompanying sexual characteristics, the social meaning it carries is so much more complicated - if it was really as simple as biology, why would we have a system of naming and referring that meant that almost every person could immediately be identified as male or female, even without meeting them?

Until we have a social sphere in which people don’t have to declare the details of their biology simply to enter into interactions with other people, I think it’s entirely understandable that some people that don’t sit comfortably in the class they’ve been sorted into should want to present - and be recognised as - something other than a member of that class

'I believe a person’s gender identity is the part of their sense of self that results from growing up and living in a society where everyone is publicly labelled as male or female from birth, and subjected to a variety of powerful norms and expectations relating to that categorisation.'

I agree that someones 'gender' is made up of societies predujuices about their sex, internalised or not but if you also believe this how do you explain people who say their gender identity is the oposite of their sex

I suspect the FAQ idea is being slightly derailed. Apologies if I've contributed to that.
I think one of the more basic questions I've seen is why so many of us have a problem with being labelled 'cis'.
My answer to that one is that it is supposedly someone whose 'gender identity aligns with their sex'.
For me, I've fought against the idea that its natural for women to automatically align with gender stereotypes (long hair, manner of dress as mentioned upthread) so I have a real problem with being told that that's innate.
Being a woman isn't about how you dress or the level to which you perform femininity, and being a masculine, gender-non conforming woman doesn't make you male or less of a woman.

@CharlieParley “ However, you mention medical history in this context, which suggests that you are conflating those born unambiguously male or female who later identify as non-binary with the exceptionally rare individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia.”

Sorry, just to clarify, I wasn’t thinking of someone intersex here - I just meant medical history in terms of the biology they were born with - and whether they have had any medical interventions in relation to their sex (eg whether they have taken cross sex hormones)

“ fakenina

'I believe a person’s gender identity is the part of their sense of self that results from growing up and living in a society where everyone is publicly labelled as male or female from birth, and subjected to a variety of powerful norms and expectations relating to that categorisation.'

I agree that someones 'gender' is made up of societies predujuices about their sex, internalised or not but if you also believe this how do you explain people who say their gender identity is the oposite of their sex”

I think that some people who don’t conform to gender norms find the experience of being in a society that enforces those norms so rigidly so difficult and uncomfortable that they are happier being regarded as a different gender.

I have never believed that anyone is ‘born in the wrong body’ (though I accept many people powerfully feel that way)

“ Landlockedgirl

*Helen8220
My comment was in reply to your question about how to “refer” to others. I tend to refer to people I’ve met by their name. Works for me.”

But you do also sometimes need pronouns, it gets a bit unwieldy otherwise

Thank you to everyone who has engaged with my questions genuinely here, there are lots of discussions I want to continue, but right now I’m in danger of getting in serious trouble for spending Valentine’s Day on my phone so I will have to return later....

I think where we differ is on the definition of ‘woman’ - even if in theory it just denotes the class of people with xx chromosomes and accompanying sexual characteristics, the social meaning it carries is so much more complicated - if it was really as simple as biology, why would we have a system of naming and referring that meant that almost every person could immediately be identified as male or female, even without meeting them?

The social meaning is complicated because of (i) patriarchy and (ii) gender (which is a function and means of patriarchy).

My title is gender-neutral (Dr). I can and have played the 'neutrality game' before - giving only my initials and trying to write as neutrally as possible, or, even to write in a masculine (gendered) style. This is because of patriarchy, male power and gender - all of which combine to make it hard for women to me taken seriously.

I'd like to clarify that this is a thread where new posters can feel comfortable asking questions that have been asked and answered a thousand times already on other threads. When posters first take an interest in this debate, it can be overwhelming to delve into this issue, and a little uncomfortable to be told not to derail a specific thread with all those questions that inevitably arise from other posters' answers. I was in that position once and many regulars patiently answered my sometimes daft questions. This is a way to offer the same help to new posters.

So no question too big or small or clever or stupid here.

If you're tired of answering the same question for the 100s time, I hear you, I really do. Leave it to someone else for a bit, there are a lot of us and no one has to exhaust themselves on an internet message board in aid of strangers.

But if you do engage, let's assume good faith and answer in good faith.

I'd invite all here to read Marge Piercy's 'Woman on the Edge of Time' - it is an early anarcho-feminist attempt to explore what might happen in a world without gender (trigger warning - it might also trigger women who have been victims of men's violence, who have been exploited in prostitution or who have been institutionalised sue to mental illness).

*Helen8220
A colleague underwent a social and full medical sex change over a number of years. This was a learning experience for everyone. Our culture changed to using names and professional role as descriptors. This worked well and pronouns were rarely used. Minutes of meetings as well as team conversations used this format. It worked well for my colleague and those of us who had no personal understanding of the notion of internal gender,. As a lapsed Catholic it’s way too similar to the notion of having a soul, a concept I abandoned 50 years ago.

@Helen8220

“ JoodyBlue

I think I may have been guilty in the past of sealioning. Because in a discussion I kept bringing the conversation back to "what is a woman?" In discussion with a TRA the answer is "anyone who feels like woman" and the rejoiner is "what does a woman feel like?" etc. The question is foundational which is why I kept asking it. In the end the person I was "conversing" with called me a curious bigot and flounced off. Do you reckon I was sealioning there guys?”

I can’t answer the second question, but as someone you might well consider a ‘trans rights activist’, can I attempt to give an explanation of what I think gender identity is, other than ‘it’s just what you feel like’?

I believe a person’s gender identity is the part of their sense of self that results from growing up and living in a society where everyone is publicly labelled as male or female from birth, and subjected to a variety of powerful norms and expectations relating to that categorisation.

Regardless of the fact that my parents are pretty anti gender norms, and encouraged both me and my brother to wear/play with what we wanted regardless of whether they were typically for girls or boys, the influence of the media, other children, school etc inevitably played a big role in forming my sense of myself as a female. And I’m not trans, so I have accepted and incorporated all of that into my identity - I identify as a woman, and that means that I present myself in a way that causes others to automatically recognise me as a woman - I wear women’s clothes, I have long hair, i walk and talk in a certain way.

It’s complicated, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

You are right; being complicated does not entail it is not real. However, it could still be that it is not real, no?

This looks likely to be the case here.

"I feel like a ... " has the same sense as "I have a sense of myself as ... ". And 'female' is a cognate of 'woman'. So your purported explanation, though indeed a little more complicated, suffers from the same defect as the original: it is circular and so completely non-explanatory.

We are trying to get an explanation of what X is. It is clear that 'an X is anyone who feels like X' offers nothing towards understanding what X is. Equally, 'an X is anyone who has a sense of themselves as a defining-character-of-X ' suffers the same fate.

If that is the best on offer then it surely is not real.

And no, pointing out logico-semantic errors is not sea-lioning.

Also here to agree that this is a great idea for a thread. I also am not entirely new but in honesty am sometimes afraid to post because of the ‘are you visually impaired’ type comments. I feel like I shouldn’t be afraid of those but I am. This itself is so interesting as I know I’m caught up in a ‘I don’t like women getting angry’ socialisation thing, and I realise more and more how much anger I have at the experiences I/we have as women, that I need to work out what to do with. But nevertheless, I don’t want to have a discussion and get looked down at for what I think, amongst a group of women when I’ve had that enough from men.

This isn’t a question as such but somehow I don’t know how to separate out the facts/important bits around GC activism, from the anger, if that makes sense. And if I should? I want to always be respectful but that sits with such dissonance to my anger at things that men do. I find it hard to respect people that don’t convey respect. The people I respect the most in these boards are those that are very clear about boundaries, facts and why and how TRA agenda impinges on women’s rights, whilst having respect for the humanity of everyone involved. I don’t know if that makes sense and would be interested to hear what others think.

I have questions that are really important to me about what I do about my incredibly woke organisation. I feel like I need to do something and that I am going to be on the wrong side of history if I don’t, but I am scared. I’d love to talk to someone in the FWR community that I could trust about it, without outing myself and without the information being shared with others. So possibly my checking out the responses to my tone queries is about getting to the heart of how to do that.

I think that some people who don’t conform to gender norms find the experience of being in a society that enforces those norms so rigidly so difficult and uncomfortable that they are happier being regarded as a different gender.

Are you in the UK? In what respect do you believe that society 'enforces those norms' to such an extent that it makes life so difficult for people who don't conform that they are 'happier' and presumably find life easier by trying to convince other people that they have changed sex?

Do you think this applies equally to men and women? Although I have often found the expectations placed on girls and women to be unduly restrictive, it has never once occurred to me that I might find life easier if I tried to convince everyone that I was a man. Living a lie would be infinitely more challenging than trying to get people to accept the truth - that women don't have to fit into neat little gender boxes.

Changing oneself to suit other people (society) seems wrong. But this 'solution' also entails trying to force other people to believe that someone is something that they are not, so they are also trying to change society.

Would it not be easier to change society to accept that people shouldn't have to fit into neat little gender boxes? This seemed to be where we were going back in the 80s, but now we seem to have gone backwards.

Belated thank you Winesalot and Xanthangum

@CharlieParley

I'd like to clarify that this is a thread where new posters can feel comfortable asking questions that have been asked and answered a thousand times already on other threads. When posters first take an interest in this debate, it can be overwhelming to delve into this issue, and a little uncomfortable to be told not to derail a specific thread with all those questions that inevitably arise from other posters' answers. I was in that position once and many regulars patiently answered my sometimes daft questions. This is a way to offer the same help to new posters.

So no question too big or small or clever or stupid here.

If you're tired of answering the same question for the 100s time, I hear you, I really do. Leave it to someone else for a bit, there are a lot of us and no one has to exhaust themselves on an internet message board in aid of strangers.

But if you do engage, let's assume good faith and answer in good faith.

You're right, of course charlie. And perhaps sea lioning was a tricky subject to kick off with - given that the way to divine sea lioning from genuine questions is largely, I believe, down to experience.

When people ask well what are you going to do with this person whose sex you cant determine, or who looks exactly like a person of the opposite sex, I do see it as a derail.

Partly because if people are going out of their way to disguise their sex, there is no solution that doesn't involve a third space.

But mainly because it seems to afford TRAs an opportunity to criticise women for not fixing an ideology when it doesn't work for the TRAs, even tho they are the ones advocating for it and women are the ones who aren't.

It's like we want this thing to happen, but now it's suddenly not working, how are you going to fix the thing for us, that we want to happen and you don't?

Beating woman over the head with an ideology that has never worked for women, and now being beaten over the head because it's not working for trans people too.

I end up concluding but it's just another way to criticise women. Whether deliberate, or subconscious.

Why is it woman's job to find a solution? It doesn't, in any way whatsoever, add to an argument that says we shouldn't have sex segregation.

And, to me, it's disingenuous to say it does.

That's my long answer to the question!

I am very sorry that my flippant remark about visual impairment has gone down like a lead balloon and I apologise to anyone who felt it was beyond the pale. It was. I have asked the management to remove it.

And obviously to anyone who actually has a visual impairment I am doubly sorry. xx

I'll take a break.

That was a genuine question, btw about sealioning. I thought it was something to do with one poster bigging up another. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets' nest!

🤣

I suppose asking questions in bad faith was always going to come up on a thread about asking questions!

You didn't. I couldn't wrap head around what sea-lining is for ages. Especially since I always ask for people to back up claims that need evidence.