An inclusive way to be gender critical?

[pensivepigeon]

My thoughts on gender and sex are thus:

Gender is a social construct. It is how society and individuals view the presentation of the sexes - in fashion, interests and work roles. Whereas sex is biological, we cannot change it even though we might surgically change our appearance and take artificial hormones which affect our bodily functions.

However because gender is a social construct and we are part of society we can define it. I define gender as

Female = adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.
Male= adhering or not adhering to traditional stereotypes regarding names, fashion, interests and work roles.

If everyone took this on board it would mean safe single sex spaces could be preserved, as people could present themselves however they want, wear what they want but use the single sex space appropriate for their sex without conflict. Uniforms would offer everyone both traditional female and male options which either sex could wear. Ditto with sports, competing takes place within the appropriate sex classes but competitors can wear either the traditional male or female competition uniforms. There would be no confusion and need to agonise over language when providing medical care.

Taking this stance stance means I have no problem when it comes to saying I am of female sex with a female gender.

So am I gender critical? Is this inclusive?

[NonnyMouse1337]

I would be in favour of changing 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act to be 'gender identity'

How would that not conflict with sex-based rights?

By being very clear in legislation that no one can change sex or 'identify' into the sex-based rights of the opposite sex (including the pregnancy and maternity characteristics in the Equality Act).

I should also add that I would amend or abolish the GRA to avoid the anomaly of sex on birth certificates being changed, but that's a different discussion.

The term gender reassignment is meaningless. Gender can mean all sorts of things and how can you 'reassign' a gender when we know that no amount of medical or surgical alterations or wishful thinking can change your sex?

I think gender identity is a load of guff, like religion, but clearly there are people who believe in the concept and think it is significant. So maybe it is a better idea to replace gender reassignment with gender identity, while being explicit that it has nothing to do with sex and does not grant anyone sex-based rights and protections.

Gender identity can automatically cover types like non-binary or whatever people want to call themselves, including those who feel they have an internal feeling or identity of the opposite sex. Having it in the Equality Act means the usual protections from discrimination in employment, housing etc etc apply. It also enables people with the characteristic of 'gender identity' to do things like set up a club or service that caters specifically for people with a gender identity and maybe only employ people with a gender identity for certain key roles (like a mental health support helpline or whatever).

None of that has to impact on the protected characteristic of sex and sex-based rights.

Obviously I haven't worked out all of the details, but ultimately neither side is going to get their way 100%. Gender identity will need to be acknowledged in some way, while making it very clear that it is distinct from sex and doesn't infringe on the rights and protections that are based around sex.

[bourbonne]

By the way, as a heterosexual woman, I'm all in favour of masculinity and femininity. Not in an exaggerated or rigid way, just the little cues and differences and performance that create the dance of flirtation. I think it's completely normal to enjoy that to an extent. However, that's in a romantic or more social context. It should be irrelevant in the workplace, in education, the public sphere, and in the law.

I don't really get excited about smashing down barriers per se. Never have. I'm interested in understanding situations and thinking about solutions, be they boundaries or open spaces.

[MissBarbary]

@NonnyMouse1337

I would be in favour of changing 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act to be 'gender identity'. Sex should be left alone and we shouldn't pander to those wanting to deny its existence. Women's rights remain sex-based.
I would define gender identity as varying levels of personal adherence to cultural stereotypes around the two sexes, rather than some vague, subjective soul thing that some people claim to possess.

I personally don't think the idea of gender abolition is feasible or realistic. I don't mind if that doesn't make me a feminist. There has never been any human society / culture / civilization that functioned without gendered roles or stereotypes. In my view, 'gender' or gendered stereotypes will always develop in any human society, like music or language / dialects / accents.

For example, take clothing - The male and female body are, overall, very different. This is because we are a sexually dimorphic species, so its rooted in evolution and biology, and it would be foolish to deny this. Men's bodies are generally more angular while women's bodies are generally more curvy due to breasts and body fat around hips. Yes, some men might be more curvy and some women might be quite lean, but they are exceptions not the norm.
Therefore in any human society, the clothing that each sex tends to wear will be based around the realities of the differences between women's and men's bodies. A woman's shirt is not the same as a man's shirt. One needs tailored to accommodate breasts while the other doesn't. No amount of activism will abolish this.
As time progresses, the evolution of culture and tradition means the clothing that each sex wears in any human society becomes more differentiated, with certain styles, fabrics and patterns associated more with one sex rather than the other. It's not a planned or conscious development, it's just how these things develop over time. Which is why each culture or nation ends up having distinct clothing for men vs women. It's not necessarily a negative thing per se. Yes there are some awful practices like corsets or foot binding that arise from sexist and patriarchal frameworks that blend into 'fashion'.

The problem, then, comes when society imposes these stereotypes with an iron fist - insisting that everyone must adhere to these unspoken 'rules', rather than accepting that while many people might be ok with the clothing practices that evolved for their sex, there will be many others who don't care much for such rules / stereotypes or who actively prefer the clothing and fashions associated with the opposite sex. The issue is with society labelling anyone who doesn't like the gendered clothing for their sex or who prefers the gendered clothing of the opposite sex as somehow weird or deviant, and other forms of stigmatisation.

I'm all for breaking down stereotypes or rigid rules around clothing, but I do think there will always be distinctions between clothing and fashions for the sexes. You can't stop humans from wanting to look different from each other and you can't stop humans from wanting to signal their difference to the opposite sex.
I'm also for challenging illogical or harmful rules around clothing - for example, a woman shouldn't be expected to wear a dress on a construction site; she should be allowed to wear trousers and jackets just like the men because it's practical and safe.

I have a similar approach to other types of gendered stereotypes and arbitrary rules - challenge the really regressive and harmful ones, allow people to conform to or reject stereotypes as they wish, and accept that these stereotypes will stick around because unless you engage in some form of totalitarian control, you will never get 100% compliance from a human population.

Sorry for rambling.

I'm not sure I'm following what the OP is saying but that's a very clear and realistic assessment.

[bourbonne]

@NonnyMouse1337 who would be the comparator? If I said I had a female gender identity, and then my brother said he also now had a female gender identity, and then my sister said she had no gender identity at all... Where does that leave us in relation to each other, and to what purpose? Genuine question.

[CoffeeTeaChocolate]

I think that gender identity ultimately needs to be on par with religion. Something only a limited amount of people (at least in the UK) believes in, but which cannot be forced onto other people.

There needs to be a respect for the people who do believe in it and they should not be discriminated against for believing in it. However, there should be no pressure for others to go further than to acknowledge that some people believe in gender.

Then is can be taught in schools along the same lines as religion is taught “this is what some people believe”. Very matter of fact that it is a belief and not presented as an actual fact.

[womaninatightspot]

It's so fustrating because it feels like much of it should be common sense. Please do embrace the identity you want to choose for yourself and I hope you find happiness in whatever that may be.

That said certain services should be divided by biological fact i.e. sex. Changing rooms, toilets, prisons, hospital wards the right to choose someone of the same sex to provide intimate care or perform an examination, domestic violence services. These are because the service users are vulnerable.

Sports should also be divided by sex as otherwise it's just not fair.

[Cwenthryth]

I personally don't think the idea of gender abolition is feasible or realistic. I don't mind if that doesn't make me a feminist. There has never been any human society / culture / civilization that functioned without gendered roles or stereotypes. In my view, 'gender' or gendered stereotypes will always develop in any human society, like music or language / dialects / accents.

I think that sometimes there is a fundamental misunderstanding that “gender abolition” would entail everyone having the same androgynous haircut/wearing grey boilersuits and enforcing everyone to share the same beliefs........ for me rejection of gender is not denial that gender is a cultural phenomenon that exists, that would be plainly stupid; it is - apologies for quoting Gwyneth Paltrow here - the conscious uncoupling of sex and gender - and not enforcing that in everybody’s private lives and personal beliefs, but when it comes to shared, agreed circumstances, laws, regulations etc. Does that make sense? I’m hungry and waiting for the toaster to toast....!

[BreatheAndFocus]

@pensivepigeon

To me it’s like being ‘colourblind’: ie if we just ignore people’s race, racism will magically disappear.

It's not ignoring though so doesn't compare. It's reflective and promoting discussion rather than shutting it down

I’ve not seen any GC people shutting discussion about gender down. It’s discussed a lot here and elsewhere.

I thought I understood what you were saying, but I obviously don’t. What are we going to discuss? That’s a genuine question not a rhetorical one.

Inclusive of people who believe in gender identity? Well, I think most people are - they just don’t share that belief.

[bourbonne]

I suppose (sorry to keep posting as I think) I don't see that people can be discriminated against for their "gender identity". If I were discriminated against for, er, feminine-related reasons, it would in fact be sex discrimination, for I am indeed a woman, and an employer can't compare me to Philip in Finance who wears a dress on alternate days. Whereas if they discriminate against Philip for his frock-wearing, it is on the basis of gender reassignment and there'd be no point comparing him to me and my office frocks.

Does it just boil down to wanting a better term than "gender reassignment"? I think it would need to be specific that it refers only to cross-gender identification.

Then the next question is, what other modes of personal expression would there be calls to protect in law... Some perhaps less savoury than others. But I think I get what you're saying, @NonnyMouse1337 - that since we have gender reassignment in there already, we should tidy up the definition?

Not sure I agree, but interesting to mull over.

[CoffeeTeaChocolate]

I absolutely think that you can be discriminated against for gender identity. There is a massive downside for men to not do performing masculinity. A biological male who shows up in a dress and make-up may definitely me discriminated against or steered away from certain roles.

But this discrimination is different from the one women face. A trans woman will never be passed over for promotion because her boss thinks she might get pregnant.

The issues are different and should be dealt with separately.

[RagzReturnsRebooted]

@pensivepigeon

That's basically the same as abolishing it.

It's not because it engages rather than shuts down discussion. (The shut down happens later when gender ceases to matter to people.)

I see what you're getting at OP. You're looking for a middle ground on the way to abolishing gender as a way to get people on board with it? Because big change is rarely successful but small incremental changes can be. I get it, I'm not saying I agree but I understand where you're coming from and feel you're being a little unfairly picked on for not just going straight for the ideal and ignoring that it may be more culturally acceptable to make small steps.

[Biscuitsanddoombar]

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

I think many people confuse feminism with a movement which fights for equality and fairness for all.

It's not. It's for women.

Sure, many of us will of course be fighting many other battles but they will be different to feminism.

This ☝️

[bourbonne]

@CoffeeTeaChocolate

I absolutely think that you can be discriminated against for gender identity. There is a massive downside for men to not do performing masculinity. A biological male who shows up in a dress and make-up may definitely me discriminated against or steered away from certain roles.

But this discrimination is different from the one women face. A trans woman will never be passed over for promotion because her boss thinks she might get pregnant.

The issues are different and should be dealt with separately.

I see what you mean in your first para, but that's cross-gender identity, if you like. I don't think we can say the same about a man who's really macho, or a woman who's super feminine. Or if we did, where does it end?

I think it muddies the waters. Basically, it seems to mean "showing characteristics typical of another protected characteristic, but not convincingly enough to make discrimination by perception a possibility".

[NonnyMouse1337]

[quote bourbonne]@NonnyMouse1337 who would be the comparator? If I said I had a female gender identity, and then my brother said he also now had a female gender identity, and then my sister said she had no gender identity at all... Where does that leave us in relation to each other, and to what purpose? Genuine question.[/quote]
Hmmm I don't know. 🤔🤔

Maybe the comparator is a person who professes to have a gender identity vs someone who makes no such claim?

If a person claims to be gender fluid or has a gender identity of female/woman, for example, and they find their employer has avoided giving them a promotion (because the employer has some sort of prejudice towards non-binary/trans people) and has instead favoured someone who doesn't profess to have a gender identity, then that's discrimination.

I agree with your subsequent post that we already have the category of gender reassignment, which is a strange term, but we can rename it if needed and tidy up the definition without impacting the characteristic of sex.

[bourbonne]

@NonnyMouse1337 I started to wonder "but how would an employer know who has professed a gender identity?" and then I had a brainwave... pronouns in email signatures!

How brilliant - a get-out-of-jail-free card in case I'm ever discriminated against for not having professed my gender identity in this way!

Seriously, though - could this fit better under the "beliefs" protected characteristic? Fingers crossed for Maya's appeal?

[NonnyMouse1337]

bourbonne yes I think gender identity is better served under beliefs, but some people do undergo extreme body modification, surgery, hormone treatment etc to drastically alter their physical appearance. So it seems a bit odd to place such people under 'beliefs' I guess? Unless we place gender identity under beliefs, but class people who have drastically altered their physical appearance under gender reassignment but defining it better so it is clear no one is changing or reassigning sex?

[pensivepigeon]

@RagzReturnsRebooted

I see* what you're getting at OP. You're looking for a middle ground on the way to abolishing gender as a way to get people on board with it? Because big change is rarely successful but small incremental changes can be.*

Exactly this! There is discussion going on currently regarding gender because for whatever reason people want it. To just say they need to stop 'navel gazing' and that gender shouldn't matter to them because it is cultural just disengages from them. I think there is a time for more extreme action, in order to protect someone from immediate harm, for example. However, apart from the TRAs, there is a huge moderate majority who are talking about this and who want to be inclusive to different forms of gender expression and these are the people who need to realise the implications of eroding protected characteristic status for women. Arguing with them too aggressively, (even if it is only hyperbole) will only serve to make them feel demonised and turn them away from the gender critical cause.

[bourbonne]

@NonnyMouse1337

bourbonne yes I think gender identity is better served under beliefs, but some people do undergo extreme body modification, surgery, hormone treatment etc to drastically alter their physical appearance. So it seems a bit odd to place such people under 'beliefs' I guess? Unless we place gender identity under beliefs, but class people who have drastically altered their physical appearance under gender reassignment but defining it better so it is clear no one is changing or reassigning sex?

I can get on board with the latter, but am not sure I really do want to see people's self-perceptions given legal status as a belief, as it could be a very slippery slope (I feel like I bring up Rachel Dolezal a lot, but... Rachel Dolezal).

I don't know, really. Does a man need to wear lipstick to work more than a Goth needs to wear all-black to work? Where do we draw the line and say this is a matter for individuals to negotiate between themselves?

[bourbonne]

Ooh ooh ooh! If a man is discriminated against for wearing lipstick to work, isn't that simply sex discrimination?

Would that not go for all instances of someone being discriminated against for doing something commonly done by their opposite-sex colleagues?

[Gerla]

Arguing with them too aggressively, (even if it is only hyperbole) will only serve to make them feel demonised and turn them away from the gender critical cause.

So what do you actually propose? Currently any statement of fact regarding sex as a binary (to take one example) is branded as transphobia. Where are you suggestion the concessions are made?

[Gerla]

*suggesting

[pensivepigeon]

So what do you actually propose? Currently any statement of fact regarding sex as a binary (to take one example) is branded as transphobia. Where are you suggestion the concessions are made?

Branded by whom though? I wold think a lot of moderate people acknowledge biological sex and the importance of protected characteristic status for women. The concessions are simply made by allowing and even celebrating gender diversity. The more the diverse and fluid nature of gender is accepted then the more gender as a concept becomes meaningless, fragmented and less talked about. There will be no non conformity when there are no norms to conform to.

[Floisme]

Oh op, how disappointing. There was I wondering if you were on to some clever theory that was sailing over our heads. But basically it seems to boil down to yet another telling off for arguing too aggressively.

[pensivepigeon]

Feel free to roll your eyes and have a sulk about it @Floisme ...

[pensivepigeon]

Let me ask you this Floisme, if gender diversity is the norm what will trans people be transitioning from and to?