Does this gender match this birth sex?

[CardinalLolzy]

Countless organisations, documents (such as the U of Essex report referenced in another thread) and several posters on here have given as a definition of transgender as 'where your gender doesn't match your birth sex' (or gender identity, or sex assigned at birth, etc).

As there are 2 sexes and countless genders I try to ask whenever this is claimed what the list of matching pairs of sexes and genders are but afaik it has not been answered directly. I was wondering if the following is transgender or not:

Sex - female
Gender - woman

Those are two different words. Does this mean they don't match?

Or do they because there is some inherent overlap between being a woman and being female? We are told birth sex (let's stick to the terms male and female, for clarity) is unrelated to gender, so in that case what exactly is the overlap?

Or a third option might be that 'woman' isn't a gender.

Would be interested to hear from people who have put forward this definition of trans, as it's something that niggles me and I can't quite get my head around the concept of separate conceptual things 'matching'. To give a rubbish metaphor, to me it's like asking if 'left' and 'west' match.

If you disagree with this definition of transgender and go by one that doesn't involve 'matching' I'd be interested to hear it.

I feel almost certain that gender used to mean exactly the the same as sex - as in the biological difference between men and women. It seems to have been swished into societal differences and then swished a bit more to mean whatever's in your head so it now means everything and nothing.

@UppityPuppity

Sex = female Woman = adult human female.

Woman = separates me from adult human males, known as men, and other forms of animals who are also adult females - sow, cow, hen, lioness, pen etc.

Gender = stereotypes that we should be abolishing, not entrenching.

Absolutely

Gender is a social construct.

Biological sex is decided by your chromosomes.
I have XY. I am a woman.

I can not feel like a man as I've never been a man so I don't know how it feels.

The main issue is some ppl cannot separate gender from biological sex.

There shouldn't be gender reveal parties. It's nothing to do with gender.

Ah, I see where you went wrong there. Your are trying to extrapolate logic.
But there is no logic in Gender Woo, its faith based.

Think Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Blind obedience.

We have always been at war with East Asia...

Either woman means female (which is apparently transphobic to believe) or woman doesn't mean female and the person described in the OP would be trans, or there is some other interpretation of 'woman'. I'm just trying to follow the logic.

I expect the gender identity extremists will argue that the matching comes about from whether your internal sense of self is congruent with an external label applied socially.
But, you’re right. They are using the convention that a woman is a female person. Then they are saying that because an internal sense can be incongruent with convention, the convention is flawed. But they still depend on the convention as a reference point.
They believe that by denying sex as a material referent and adopting an internal sense of gender, they will dismantle the concepts of male, female, man, woman. What this will also do, in time, is dismantle the concepts of trans and cis; so, as in your example, a female person who identifies as a woman could see herself as trans - cis and trans can also be applied conventionally and thus become as irrelevant as male and female, in their model.
I expect a book titled Beyond The Gender Binary: why words can have no meanings.

I have found myself agreeing with the BFG on this:
"Don't gobblethunk around with words"

It leads to chaos.

Gender has never meant the same as sex.

Gender until very recently referred to a grammatical classification of nouns into arbitrary groups. English does not gender nouns, French genders nouns arbitrarily as feminine or masculine, German genders nouns arbitrarily as feminine, masculine or neuter. There are languages with even more genders.

The word ‘sex’ has always referred to the biological classifications of female and male. Even the prudish Victorians used sex openly and accurately to refer specifically to either women or men.

Then women’s rights to be equal partners in society began to be realised, and data had to be gathered about who was accessing various services. “Sex?” began to appear on questionnaires, and hilariously witty men would answer “Yes, please!”. And words like ‘sexual intercourse’ came into common use, and were abbreviated to ‘sex’. So people started to be embarrassed by the word ‘sex’.

That is when the word ‘gender’ became a conveniently polite euphemism for ‘sex’.

Here's an example of sex used accurately and clearly:

Good question OP! My answer is no, regardless of whether woman is a gender or not.

Let's start with linguistics -

Woman is a noun used as a sex designator for adult individuals of the female sex in humans.

Vixen is a noun used as a sex designator for adult individuals of the female sex in foxes.

Empress is a noun used as a sex designator for adult individuals of the female sex in chimpanzees.

Angeline is a noun used as a sex designator for adult individuals of the female sex in wolverines.

And so on. Here the noun in question has no other function than to categorise an adult individual of its species as belonging to the female sex.

There are certain connotations closely connected with biology - reproduction, growth, size and behaviour common to that sex (both mating behaviour and otherwise). So this word tells us something about the sex class but not everything about the individual female if we know something about its species.

So, as woman is a word for the female sex in this sentence, the answer is no it doesn't match because it isn't a gender, even though the word does tell us something more about that individual than just her membership of the female sex. But it cannot tell us much beyond biology and what arises from it.

Now let's take the doctrine of gender identity -

Woman is a noun that describes everyone who feels like a woman.

Well, that won't do because it's a circular definition. Let's try this again:

Woman is a collective noun for the norms, expectations and stereotypes prescribed to and proscribed for the female members of any given society.

These norms, expectations and stereotypes change frequently across both time and space. What this means is that something a woman must or must not do in one society can be precisely the opposite of what she must or must not do in another society. I grew up in a society where all women were expected to work full time and be politically engaged. At the same time elsewhere on this planet women were barred from work and politics.

But let's ignore the changeable nature of gender as a socially constructed mechanism of categorising males and females. Let's assume it's fixed and consists of a whole range of pairs of behaviours and roles that divide into those imposed only on females and those imposed only on males.

For the gender of woman to actually match the female sex, in my view we would need to fulfill three conditions: 1) these behaviours and roles should be a natural consequence of being female. 2) Women as a class should conform to them. And 3) the vast majority should want to do so. Happily.

But the history of centuries of women first secretly rebelling and later openly fighting to throw off the shackles of "gender" already means we cannot meet 2 or 3. But if this mechanism of categorising male and female people was arising from within and not externally according to arbitrary notions of proper womaning, we would not be fighting against it. So condition 1 is not met either because of our ability to refuse to conform to any or all aspects of that mechanism.

By my reasoning then, woman as a gender is forced upon the female sex and not a natural consequence of it. Something that is forced cannot be thought of as matching. So, it's a no, again.

Let's go with Judith Butler and say gender is what we do (what we have learned to do) not who we are (what we were born to do).

By that reasoning, woman as a gender means we internalise gendered norms, expectations and stereotypes associated with the female sex in our society and we perform accordingly. It's not about whether we choose to do this or whether we're happy about it. We just do it, because we were socialised into it.

So does the Butler version of woman as a gender match the female sex? Not in my view.

1. Not all of us are socialised into the same behaviours and roles. And it isn't that hard to socialise children differently. (If it were, the norms, expectations and stereotypes would be fixed across both time and space).

1. Many of us can and have learned to unpick our socialisation as adults, and to "perform" differently.

1. For some of us the socialisation doesn't take at all. It chafes too much. It doesn't sit well with how we want to behave and what we want to do.

So, for reasons 1, 2 and 3 we've got a whole range of women from different backgrounds, upbringings and abilities not performing our society's version of woman as a gender. We don't do womaning right. But what is the word for us if it isn't women?

How can a category that an unknown quantity of the female sex does not fit into be thought of as matching the female sex? And what do those non-conforming females match with?

According to the doctrine of gender identity, if we as female individuals don't match the "woman gender" we should be classified as trans. Especially since gender dysphoria (being unhappy in the body we inhabit) is no longer a necessary condition for being trans.

But sorting us into the trans category without us having this as part of our personality (aka identity) would make a mockery of the concept of everyone being allowed to decide for themselves.

So, it's another no.

Maybe we could do other questions like this - "Does your race match your nationality?"

Good example. And great post Charlie, thanks.

Helen
I think “match” is being used here as meaning the correlation that is seen in the vast majority of cases, and that is seen as ‘natural’ or as the default by society. Most people who are born biologically female grow up to consider themselves to be women, and to conform in various ways with what is expected of women (in terms of aspects of appearance over which we have a degree of control).

I can accept to a point that it's purely a numbers thing - (same with when a pro-TWAW person on here called penises 'male physicalities' - because most men have them and most women don't) - but isn't that a) a bit dodgy to conclude unless everyone's questioned on their gender identity, using a consistent and measurable (to some extent) definition of gender?
and b) prone to change if X number of females stop identifying as women - and what if they identified as owmen or wmone or wemis or something? Would those genders need to be defined or could they still be female as well?
c) most females consider themselves to be women because that's literally the definition in our language - this is how most of us grew up with the English language and what it meant - yet this is being campaigned to be changed! So going back to potential transphobia of assuming 'women = adult human female' as a premise?

Do you think there can be a notion of 'gender' as distinct from 'sex'? I'd find it would make more sense if 'gender' was just defined as 'masculinity' or 'femininity' - despite changing across cultures and times, it's something I have a vague understanding of. Yet that never seems to be a satisfactory definition?

Years ago, probably 10+ years there was a guardian article talking about this. I think it was Paris Lees and I've never been able to find it since.

Lees was explaining the 'logic' of using 'whatever someone identifies as'. My recollection was that Lees was basically saying that trans can't be matching stereotypes as that would be sexist and offensive and therefore self identification was the only thing possible. I remember reading it and thinking it did not make much sense but I guess like many people did not think any more about it. I have wondered if it was taken down quietly afterwards or whether I just did not go far enough back to look for it as I haven't found it since.

I don’t think that in order to be meaningful or useful a word needs to have a single, concrete definition where you can say without doubt in every case whether a thing or person falls within or outside the definition.

Take for example the word ‘bisexual’. There are clearly some people in relation to whom there would be little doubt the term applies - eg someone who is romantically and sexually attracted to men and to women, and who has had romantic and sexually intimate relationships with both men and women. Then there are some less clear, ‘edge’ cases - a person who has only ever had romantic, sexually intimate relationships with men, but has had sex with women a couple of times when drunk, and enjoyed it. Or a person who used to be sexually attracted to both men and women, and for many years has been in a close romantic relationship with a woman, which is not sexually intimate, and they only now experience sexual attraction towards men (though they do nothing about it).

Clearly - if we are going to categorise people on the basis of whether they are attracted to, and/or sexually intimate with, people whose sex or gender is the same as or different from their own - we need a concept and term for people whose attraction is not limited to one sex/gender. However, when it comes to edge cases, you ultimately have to allow people to decide for themselves whether they consider the particular label to apply to them, because there is no one concrete universal definition.

I’m not saying this is the same as the concept of a man or a woman, just that terms and concepts aren’t rendered meaningless or useless just because there isn’t one clear definition, or because ultimately it comes down to the individual to decide whether they ‘identify’ with the term. In relation to the term ‘man’, clearly the vast majority of people in relation to whom we use that term are solid, unambiguous cases - they have XY chromosomes, were born with a penis, still have a penis, have a ‘male’ name, a deep voice, wear ‘men’s’ clothes and consider themselves to be a man. But then you have some more difficult, edge cases. For example, a person with XX chromosomes and born with a vagina and ovaries, who has (for whatever reason) always felt uncomfortable with their anatomy and felt like they were ‘actually’ a boy (whether because they identified more with the men and boys in their life than the women and girls, or because the way they wanted to act and dress, and the things they were interested in, did not align with what others thought was appropriate for a girl) and therefore has taken hormones and undergone surgery so that they appear in such a way that everyone they come across in life (other than intimate sexual partners) believes them to have XY chromosomes and to have been born with a penis.

On your approach presumably there is no question that the person is a woman and not a man, because that can never be altered. But if everyone they come across believes they are a man, and they consider themselves to be a man, does that really leave us with more clearly coherent and useful concepts of ‘man’ or ‘woman’?

On your approach presumably there is no question that the person is a woman and not a man, because that can never be altered. But if everyone they come across believes they are a man, and they consider themselves to be a man, does that really leave us with more clearly coherent and useful concepts of ‘man’ or ‘woman’?

This person is quite simply a transman . The concept of man or woman doesn't change because they are nouns used to describe male and female humans and human beings cannot change their sex.

But if everyone they come across believes they are a man, and they consider themselves to be a man, does that really leave us with more clearly coherent and useful concepts of ‘man’ or ‘woman’?

Yes, in situations where it is appropriate to distinguish between male and female bodied people.

All we are asking is to keep that definition for when it is appropriate and relevant.

Trying to say that the meaning of "girl" also and always includes "aligns with what others think is appropriate for a girl" is nonsensical in plenty of situations.

I don't know why we don't use "female" and "feminine" respectively or any of the other words that more accurately describe the aspect being described. "Female" shouldn't have to mean feminine just because sometimes, or even often, female and feminine overlap.

I don’t think that in order to be meaningful or useful a word needs to have a single, concrete definition where you can say without doubt in every case whether a thing or person falls within or outside the definition.
Not always, no, which is why we have poetry, prose, etc.
But sometimes, yes which is why we have science, law, medical data, physics and physical reality. X being like Y doesn't mean X is Y. It's important not to conflate the concept of something being something with... Well, with anything really.

I find it quite peculiar that with all the new gender labels and pronouns, they are reluctant to have a word for the two sex classes (or just one of them) and instead use odious phrases like “humans with vaginas” “people with a cervix” “menstruators” etc

@CharlieParley just won the internet today.

Bracpva.

For example, a person with XX chromosomes and born with a vagina and ovaries, who has (for whatever reason) always felt uncomfortable with their anatomy and felt like they were ‘actually’ a boy (whether because they identified more with the men and boys in their life than the women and girls, or because the way they wanted to act and dress, and the things they were interested in, did not align with what others thought was appropriate for a girl) and therefore has taken hormones and undergone surgery so that they appear in such a way that everyone they come across in life (other than intimate sexual partners) believes them to have XY chromosomes and to have been born with a penis.

But for this example to be meaningful, we need to have a concept of what it means to be a boy, a girl, a man, a woman.

What does this person actually 'feel' if they 'feel like they are actually a boy'? How does feeling like a girl differ from feeling like a boy and what are they basing this on? You suggest that it is to do with stereotypes around the usual presentation and behaviour of boys vs. girls. Are you really suggesting that people are making radical changes to their bodies simply because they don't like the stereotypes for their sex?

Are you really suggesting that people are making radical changes to their bodies simply because they don't like the stereotypes for their sex?

Is that not exactly what is happening for many teenage transboys?

Jelly slice, I think it is exactly that, sadly. As a former "tomboy", second-wave feminist and mother of mixed-sex twins I have basically spent my whole life ignoring, rejecting and battling the influence of gender rôlesand expectation in my own and others' lives.

It saddens me to see all this tatty, glittery, pink stereotyping being dredged out of whatever swamp I thought it had at last sunk into and being used to sort children and young people into rigid categories and even to justify harmful behaviours.

I suspect - I don't know - that the motivation of many teenage girls is simply to escape the male gaze and unwanted attention fomented by the pornification of boys and young men.

It seems to me that the whole trans lobby is tackling the problem - judgemental attitudes, harmful assumptions and adherence to narrow stereotypes - from the wrong end.

Why the compulsion to have everyone labelled and categorised like jars of jam or pickle? Why not finish the work of erasing gendered stereotypes and leave people to dress and present as they see fit and feel comfortable without demanding that they identify with some group or sub-group with its own flag and pronoun list and harrowing stories of painful surgeries?

Let's tell children and young people that they are fine and acceptable just as they are, and mean it. Let's give them room and breathing space to grow and explore who they are and what they want to do with their one, wild, precious life without setting up false ideals for them to compare themselves unfavourably with. Let's make sure everyone understands that the changes puberty brings are normal and healthy and should never expose anyone to street harassment or abuse of any kind.

I can only imagine what a girl who has been exposed to horrendous porn, or the comments and attitudes of boys who have, goes through when she realises she is turning into one of the class of people who are treated vilely in porn and shrinks from becoming one of those people.

She needs to know that sort of porn is a warped male fantasy, not a picture of her future, and so do the boys!

Isn't it perfectly rational for a teenage girl to decide she's sick of hearing sleazy personal comments about her breasts or genitalia, that she doesn't fancy being urinated on or having male ejaculate in her eyes and mouth, that she dreads the idea of being strangled by a man and struggling for breath or even just that she thinks her time could be better spent than in ruthlessly and repeatedly hunting down and removing every body hair that signifies her adult status?

Who can blame her for deciding to put the whole process on hold and never become a participant in behaviours that exploit, degrade and injure her?

It doesn't have to mean she feels like a boy; just that she doesn't feel like being the sort of person boys want to subject to that sort of attention.

There's no point teaching young people about consent when that's what they think is being consented to, is there? The reports of those who lead RSE lessons reveal that the majority of girls have no idea that sex is potentially pleasurable for girls and women. It hasn't crossed their minds. Sex is dominance and pleasure for men and boys only; humiliation and pain for girls and women.

There's that story that came out in court of boy who charged with rape who, when he was asked why he didn't stop when his victim was crying and screaming, looked blank and said he thought that was what was supposed to happen.

I think what they are getting at is that people have a sex (male or female), a gender identity (thousands to choose from apparently) and an innate sense of gender (male or female or non-binary). Of course this presupposes that everyone actually has an innate sense of gender that could align or not with one's sex. This is a big leap and seeing as this sense of gender cannot be seen or measured and a lot of people claim not to have one, it doesn't really make sense to use it in a definition that has to apply to all of humankind (and other mammals??)