What category do trans people fall in according to the GC model?

[CloudyMoment]

I am trying to understand the following about the gender critical model:

If gender is something to be abolished or moved beyond, and if all there is, is the biological facts of sex, what category does it leave trans people in?

Do GC just want them to identify by the sex they are born in? Or do they want to create a separate legal / social category?

I mean.. gender abolition is not close to reality. There are still people who feel like they are the opposite sex or gender, or even "nonbinary", and I doubt this will vanish even if we abolish gender, because I've read so many accounts of trans people who say they feel the opposite sex since childhood. As much as I'd like to believe that this is will not be a problem in a society without gendering of children, I am not sure I can discount how trans people are telling me they feel now.

Personally I am close to adopting GC views - I feel somehow non-conforming or even "agender" or "nonbinary", but at the same time I feel that this doesn't make me any less of a woman- because just because I don't feel my gender as something tangible internally, doesn't imply that I am not that thing externally.

I am kind of stuck conceptually. I cannot view trans women and cis women as the same. I just don't feel it is right they inhabit the same category. At the same time, I don't feel it is right to force people into a category they feel is wrong for them - eg trans women into the male category, because it clearly causes them distress.

For all I've read about GC feminism I never see a clear answer for what category trans people should belong to, other than saying that males cannot be females.

Precisely. The statement "I know I am a woman" by a male is a metaphysical statement based on an ideological worldview. It presupposes there is not already a category within "men" as a class that includes them, and that being a man means they can't express their true selves. It's regressive and sexist.

Absolutely. I would also suggest that the behaviour we see frequently coming from people who identify as women is not typical behaviour that we generally display as women.

Therefore the concept of ‘being female’ for someone not born female is further distanced from the lived experience that women have of being female.

The most difficult thing about being a woman is not ‘choosing which outfit to wear’ (Caitlyn Jenner in Time Magazine).

Why do we have categories? For quickly assimilating information about a person.

I can’t imagine a situation in which a trans person’s “gender” is relevant to me, other than knowing what pronouns they want and avoiding certain conversations. So gender is not a relevant category to me, or really to anyone other than trans people themselves.

On the other hand, knowing someone’s sex is critically important, largely for trust/safety/safeguarding reasons. And it’s important information to almost all women and children. So sex is a relevant category on a societal and institutional level, because it matters to other people.

It’s absolutely crazy that our institutions are acting as if gender matters (and sex doesn’t.) A person’s “gender” carries no information about them.

It’s absolutely crazy that our institutions are acting as if gender matters (and sex doesn’t.) A person’s “gender” carries no information about them.

Yes.
Why does 'gender' matter? Is there anything, anything at all, which genuinely needs to be organised by some aspect of 'gender'?

If gender is something to be abolished

This is a bit overdramatic, I've never seen anything about wanting to abolish gender, or to impose anything on anyone. How on earth could gender be 'abolished'? And why would I want to forcibly redefine anyone to suit myself and my personal views and needs? I don't think that's acceptable or inclusive in any way.

I'll happily start with 'let's accept that many people define themselves by their sex, and have sex based needs, some people prefer to define themselves by gender and have gender based needs that need meeting, and that's all fine and provision can be made for everyone.'

And then look at adding more categories, more spaces, more diversity, a wider range. Instead of trying to erase sex and sex based needs and replace it forcibly with a political idea about gender that not everyone holds.

As with the religious tolerance example: The UK has many, many faiths. There are legal protections. Additional spaces such as prayer rooms must be provided. They all live happily alongside each other most of the time, accepting that some people believe x and others believe y, and there's room in it all for agnosticism and atheism too. You don't have to hold any belief at all. Historically this works fine until one faith reaches the 'one true faith' point and tries to enforce that belief - or conformity and compelled service of that belief- on those who don't hold it. That never ends well. I don't want to enforce a non gender belief on anyone else any more than I want a gender belief enforced on me.

Live and let live. Don't destroy sex based rights, spaces, language, those need to exist alongside additional provisions as wanted and needed. We can all respect and appreciate each other's differences instead of fighting for one set conformity.

I'd add to that in respect of gender: as far as I'm concerned every person is perfect as they are. Body dysphoria is a horrible, distressing condition and is one thing; but so many people who wish in essence there was some way to be the birth sex that they are not describe feeling that they cannot be, have or feel what they so much long for and have so much pain about because of a belief that those things are not for people of that sex. Or that society is intolerant of those things for people of that sex.

That's where I have issues with gender in society; anyone of any sex should be free and accepted to do, be, feel and present as they are, not made unhappy and made to feel limited because society has some rigid idea that their sex should be limited to. That's what I'd like to see much more strongly challenged, and sexism and the way females are treated in the UK at this time plays a large part in it.

I don't think that categories are always bad, they are useful in providing a sense of belonging to a group. if effeminate males wanted a special status and wanted to call themselves something like Hijra, I'd support that and do the same if gender non confirming females wanted their own category.

I gave that some serious thought a while ago Errol maybe on one of the medic threads.

The only answer is "when someone has started down the medical route" and that's common sense, for their own health protection.

Thank you for all your replies!

Well everything is a category, including sex. It is also a box.

It just happens that it is a very large box and a very fundamental category for social organisation.

Just as it doesn't make sense inventing more narrow, new categories for each flavour of gender expression, it also doesn't make sense to completely destroy the very fundamental category of sex, as it is currently done by trans ideologues.

Likening it to a religion is interesting and it makes sense.

However I feel that in this whole issue I've lost the ability to relate to trans people as people. It saddens me. I don't know how to unwind it.

I am confused. This whole debate is confusing. On the one hand I see people who don't claim they have changed sex. On the other hand I see people who insist that that are of the gender they have transitioned into - also internally and biologically, and to not accept it is transphobic.

Yes, I have seen arguments that they have been exposed to hormones in utero in a way that "gave them the other sexes brain". They deeply believe it and preach it as "science"
to those who are willing to believe.

Sigh.

And on the GC side I see "sex not gender", whilst simultaneously conflation of the two is endemic, because "woman" is used to mean "female" exclusively.

I want to do the ethical and fair thing and treat everyone respectfully, but it appears that this must include TWAW because without it, it doesn't count, but I don't even
know if it means that they claim that trans women = female. Because this is how I read it and I just can't bring myself to keep twisting my mind to believe this.

Do GC just want them to identify by the sex they are born in? Or do they want to create a separate legal / social category?

People need to get past the concept of “identifying as” (or by) anything and accept that there are certain facts in life that you may not like, but have to accept. If you don’t like what man means, because to you it means masculinity, then by all means try to stop man from being a box where masculinity is essential and open it up so man simply refers to sex, but implies nothing at all about what that looks like.

Sex should be a neutral statement of fact, not something to agonise over.

Male, Female

That's it's. Then get on with presenting and acting however you want, without hurting anyone and ignore any harmful gender stereotypes which were/are still associated with your sex.

So in that sense trans people are a n other societal grouping for me like goths, bikers, butch lesbians, airline pilots etc etc

And on the GC side I see "sex not gender", whilst simultaneously conflation of the two is endemic, because "woman" is used to mean "female" exclusively.

But woman = adult human female. It sets us apart from juvenile human females (girls) or adult horse females (mares) or adult human males (men).

If you don't accept that definition of 'woman' then you will have to come up with another one, something nobody coming to this board has been able to do - at least not a non-circular definition anyway: 'a woman is someone who feels like a woman'.

Replace that definition with another word: 'a vitibik is someone who feels like a vitibik'. It doesn't work.

What else can 'woman' mean?

Sex is male or female. In biology, this leads to physical characteristics like strength and height difference, and medical treatment requirements. Denying this is dangerous.

Aside from that, do, be and wear what you like. Gender is limiting and restrictive, noone is fully binary, and it doesn't benefit any of us to put limits on people.

Sex is a biological fact. It is in no way controversial. Without female and male sex gametes, the species cannot survive.

A person should be able to present as they wish and it is actually men, who need to be more accepting of transwomen and accept they are people of the male sex, who wish to be or appear female / feminine.

Society in certain instances is categorised by sex both to protect the weakest members of society and to treat them medically.

There are people, who do not fit into either male or female. They are intersex.

So am I right to understand if as "gender shouldn't be the basis of legislation, sex should"?

Yes.as the house of lords said and house of commons agreed and as the ONS were directed

On the other hand I see people who insist that that are of the gender they have transitioned into - also internally and biologically, and to not accept it is transphobic.

Yes, this is a faith based ideological position. "I am whatever I say I am" is not a great basis for policy, when it is policy around safeguarding.

But woman = adult human female. It sets us apart from juvenile human females (girls) or adult horse females (mares) or adult human males (men).

If you don't accept that definition of 'woman' then you will have to come up with another one, something nobody coming to this board has been able to do - at least not a non-circular definition anyway: 'a woman is someone who feels like a woman'.

Replace that definition with another word: 'a vitibik is someone who feels like a vitibik'. It doesn't work.

What else can 'woman' mean?

Perfectly put. I'm genuinely not sure exactly what you're confused about, OP.

Basically you have to decide whether or not human beings can change sex. That when someone says I have transitioned that means their entire biological make up has changed, on their say so alone.

god, people lose sight of things don't they?

we don't have much legislation that specifically mentions sex. in fact it's something I would be keen to avoid as much as possible

but no man has ever lost his job because he got pregnant, no matter how many blouses he wears.

do you think the sexist pay gap exists because women wear make up?

Another way to look at it:

Can I, as a person born female, be a transwoman? If I identify as a transwoman can I become one?

Or would this be a most unfair and offensive appropriation of something I can never possibly be, or truly understand enough to claim it, no matter how much I may want to?

And what is the sole barrier to my joining this group? It's not unkind gatekeeping on the part of transwomen: it's just simply the fact of my sex.

do you think the sexist pay gap exists because women wear make up

[off-topic] I believe it's been shown that women who wear make up earn more than women who don't. I imagine it's the other way round with men (but don't suppose many studies have been done on it).

[further off topic] I recently found out that a woman who had recebtly left the company I work at was being paid nearly £10k less than her male counterparts, despite being in a slightly more responsible position.

when she found out and left, the men who manage that area blamed....not themselves for allowing such a shameful state of affairs, but the person who told her

sexism: it's a thing innit?

@EdgeOfACoin

do you think the sexist pay gap exists because women wear make up

[off-topic] I believe it's been shown that women who wear make up earn more than women who don't. I imagine it's the other way round with men (but don't suppose many studies have been done on it).

That was certainly the case a decade or two ago but now I suspect the link is much less strong.

Both men and women in business if not politics are expected to be "well turned out"
but as more women are getting higher up in accountancy and law and business, and pointing out that we are hired for our brains not our mascara skills, its improving.
BUT
Insecure men are lashing out in new ways

There are two sexes, everything else is personality.

There are certain times when it is vital that sex is recognised and provision provided accordingly, eg. Prisons, refuges, medical settings, any space where women may be vulnerable, sports etc.

The rest of the time it really doesn't matter how someone presents.

And I agree with others. No male can ever 'feel like a woman' - you can't 'feel like' something you are not or have ever experienced. The only thing you can do is take your outside perception of what it would be like to have that experience, and then apply your own feelings to that. Obviously gender dysphoria is a thing and there are people who are desperately unhappy with their own sexes body, but that doesn't mean you are 'actually the opposite sex' or that you know what it is like to be the opposite sex.

A small point -

"... I've read so many accounts of trans people who say they feel the opposite sex since childhood."

Well maybe two small points.

'Since childhood' - to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, 'Well they would say that, wouldn't they?' And they might even believe it themselves, because they've said it to themselves so often. But that doesn't make it true. These accounts are written for a purpose, and even if the stated purpose is to explain, in reality they are often to justify. So of course they'll be written in as cohesive a narrative as possible, saying they've always felt that way.

What does it mean, 'to feel [like they are] the opposite sex'? How can anyone possibly feel like something they're not? They have no idea what being the opposite sex feels like. Reword it with a different characteristic - is it possible for a short person to feel tall? Is it possible for an able-bodies person to feel like a wheelchair user? It really isn't. You can try to imagine what it feels like, but you can't actually feel it. You can only ever be on the outside looking in, imagining what it is like. But you can never actually FEEL it. I can never feel tall. I hope to god I never know what it feels like to be a wheelchair user. And I will never feel like a man, because it's just not possible.

An interesting expirement would be to have a legal definition of gender categories (not biological sex) and then ask people to label themselves. Not sure what the government would do with that info, but I for one would like to see how many women would put themselves in the 'feminine' box as opposed to how many men would tick 'masculine' for themselves.