Why conflate 'Gender Critical' and belief in immutable sex?

[Beancounter1]

I'm confused about why the term 'gender critical' is conflated with the belief in immutable biological sex. To me they are not necessarily the same thing.

I believe it is not possible for someone to change their sex. Would you say this is a 'gender critical' stance? My belief in immutable sex doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe gender exists. Maybe someone can change their gender, if not their sex.

Sex seems a really clear-cut biological characteristic, but I am on the fence about gender - I am inclined to think it does actually exist and that it is not 'all society's influence', that some of gender is nature not nurture.
But I don't have a definition of gender.

The situation is not helped by the fact there is, in common usage, only one set of words, 'woman' or 'female', to signify both gender and sex. Language does not help here.

Please could someone who has put a lot more thought into this help me out here?

@MishyJDI

What we need is genital inspectors at the entrance to every male and female sex segregated venue. Everyone has to flash their genitals to ensure they are right to enter. You can never be too sure when someone who looks CIS is actually not and who looks trans is actually CIS.

The only answer, is genital inspections. Just to be safe!

You might not be able to tell, but generally most women can tell. It's like the old 'gaydar' concept. It is a kind of instinct. People very, very rarely 'pass' as the opposite sex after the first quick glance. Besides which, those who are genuinely trying to 'pass' are not the people causing all the furore. The aggressive "in-your-face look-at-me-I'm-a-real-woman" people often want to be noticed and identified.

@MidsomerMurmurs

Lots of sensible discussion here of “gender” as a set of sex-based social stereotypes. Just to point out the obvious, “critical” means something along the lines of “an analysis of the merits and faults of a particular idea”. It does not mean expressing disapproval. Being a film critic does not involve hating films.

Very helpful. I assumed it meant critical of the idea gender exists, which to be fair is how it seems to be used as a term. But it could mean 'interested in analysing gender'.

@MishyJDI

What we need is genital inspectors at the entrance to every male and female sex segregated venue. Everyone has to flash their genitals to ensure they are right to enter. You can never be too sure when someone who looks CIS is actually not and who looks trans is actually CIS.

The only answer, is genital inspections. Just to be safe!

I think that if you are being admitted to hospital / prison / refuges / other single sex accomodation then your records should reflect your sex. For your own safety and the safety of others. There are various ways this is important and can be used to ensure that discrimination doesn't occur.

The fact that documentation doesn't do this is the problematic bit.

No flashing would be necessary then.

I do agree with you op to an extent re nature and gender. I think nature has helped create some of the stereotypes of gender. Men and women evolved differently due to the skills that were of benefit to them. So the sex who bore children tended to raise and nurture the children meaning characteristics such as cooperation with others in the same role had an evolutionary advantage. Likewise the sex who did not bear young were in a position to protect and hunt so characteristics such as aggression were an evolutionary advantage.

What all that means is that women tended to have the more nurturing characteristics, men the more aggressive ones so stereotypes of what it means to be a man or a woman evolved. People were expected to fit into the appropriate stereotype which further reinforces the stereotypes.

So basically, nature contributes, nurture reinforces and power allows those with power to subjugate those without and further reinforces and expands the stereotypes.

I read an excellent book years ago called A Mind of Her Own about the evolutionary psychology of women. It had a lot of this stuff in it.

@lazylinguist

Maybe things related to hormones? Boys have more testosterone-fuelled agression/physicality, girls are better with language?

But sex hormones are about sex, not gender . And girls are better with language? I'm female and a linguist and I don't believe that's true. Well, not as any kind of inherent trait. Girls are certainly socialised in ways which might make them better with language.

I am yet to hear of any gender identity attributes that aren't either a) stereotypes or b) nonsense.

Hi lazy linguist, I don't have any references, I'm just a casual reader of all sorts of stuff, but I am sure there have been studies that show there are real sex differences between babies. They are not blank slates. Given that, the way those differences express themselves, typically and on average, give rise to what we call gender stereotypes. Yes, you could say that therefore these are sex differences, not gender differences, but I think it is useful to make the distinction. When the babies grow up into adults, the original sex differences have interacted with society and become gender differences. Is this a plausible explanation?

@MrsTerryPratchett

I don't think GC is thinking it doesn't exist! Rather thinking it's mostly sexist drivel designed to keep women (and to a certain extent non-conforming men) in their place socially.

I believe it exists and people have preferences. But that ultimately it's sexist shite. Also capitalist.

^This Except for the capitalist part. Gender has nothing to do with or any influence on what economic system is in place.

I think that is socialisation again. People treat baby girls differently to baby boys.

@BlueBrush

This helped me:

This is great - a succinct summary of the politics

There was also an interesting study where a baby was dressed in stereotypically girl clothes and again in stereotypically boy clothes and it found that the adults played with the baby in very different ways, even though it was the same baby. The only difference was the clothing.

The extent that stereotypes are woven into socialisation shouldn't be underestimated.

Gender critical is that sex is real and affects your life, but gender stereotypes aren't.
e.g. if you are female, you may lose an opportunity at a job if an employer doesn't want to hire someone who may become pregnant
Under gender critical thinking, this passes no value judgement on you and says nothing about your personality or whether you may be more masculine or feminine, but does recognise that female biology is often used as an justification for discrimination in a patriarchal society.
Curiously, I'm always fascinated by the prevalence of 'cis' as mentioned upthread, a term that effectively glues gender stereotypes to sex, and insists its natural for women to fit in into a 'female' gender box. Pure bloody sexism.

@Beancounter1

Hi Necessary,

"The gender critical stance can be summarised as:

• sex is immutable (in humans)
• sex matters
• gender identity (pink/blue souls) don't exist - that's a religious belief
• gender stereotypes are harmful

But the specific concept "gender critical" comes from the last two points, which build further on the first two."

This is really helpful - the concepts are related but are distinct. So for example it is possible to believe that gender doesn't exist whilst simultaneously thinking that sex doesn't matter, or vice-versa, or that sex is immutable and also gender stereotypes are harmless.
There isn't a classic logical chain here.

"But we still wouldn't say that men and women are the same, statistically. They're very much not. There are sex-correlated characteristics and behaviours, some of which are the grain of truth within gender stereotypes."

This is probably what I mean by believing gender exists, but what I actually mean is that gender is rooted in, and a consequence of, real sex differences.
Thanks

okay I'm requoting myself quoting poster 'Necessary' here because I wasn't intending to focus the thread on how or whether gender exists.

I'm more interested in how the four bullet points above relate to each other.
I agree with 1 and 2, probably disagree with 3, not sure about 4
Is this a consistent and defensible position?

@necessaryScene - can I just say, that's perhaps the most lucid and ordered exposition of the gender-critical position that I've ever seen. Thanks.

WRT nature Vs nurture I found "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine a fascinating and accessible read. "The Gendered Brain" by Gina Rippon is also a good read.

Ok, well let's deal with 4 first: "gender stereotypes are harmful". Two quick examples. There is a gender stereotype that women aren't good leaders, and this has the effect of making women less likely to be selected for senior roles. There is a gender stereotype that "boys don't cry", which I would argue has the effect of making it harder for boys to learn how to cope with their emotions. I think you would agree these are harmful?

probably disagree with 3,

Are you sure? I'm not saying there are not sex roles, or sex-related behaviour. I believe, like you, there are male and female character traits.

But a male exhibiting traits that normally appear in females is not evidence of that male having a "female soul". It's a statistical outlier.

Indeed, if that trait can occur in a male, it's not a female trait, is it?

If "gender identity" were a good model, it would be better applied to sexuality. Sex attraction is so strongly associated with sex, that it would make sense to say a gay man had a "female gender identity" and a lesbian had a "male gender identity". But that's a rubbish model, and it's demeaning.

They're just unusual men and women.

I think there are some people on the gender-critical side who would hold those 4 points, and also believe that there aren't sex-related traits - we're blank slates and it's all socialisation.

So we're not unified on that, and I'm not including either view in the bullet points. We're just saying that either way (blank slate or sex-related statistical trends), you don't have gendered souls, or "brains in the wrong body".

@BlueBrush

Ok, well let's deal with 4 first: "gender stereotypes are harmful". Two quick examples. There is a gender stereotype that women aren't good leaders, and this has the effect of making women less likely to be selected for senior roles. There is a gender stereotype that "boys don't cry", which I would argue has the effect of making it harder for boys to learn how to cope with their emotions. I think you would agree these are harmful?

When you put it like that - yes, gender stereotypes are absolutely harmful as they cause/allow/enable/encourage sexism, against males and females. If there was no sexism, gender would be just dressing up/down and role-play and harmless. So we are back to sexism is the problem. Which probably falls under point 2 above but this is not clear.

Indeed, if that trait can occur in a male, it's not a female trait, is it?

Actually I don't like that. You could still say something is a "female trait". Something that is 98% true is a reasonable thing to say, even if there are exceptions.

Females are attracted to males. That is true at the 95%+ level. If you were David Attenborough, you would be quite happy saying something 95% true about an animal you were describing without qualifying it.

Finding 5% of the population are an exception just means your original statement was not 100% true. Being attracted to males is a female trait, but not all females have it, and a few males do have it.

A male having this female trait does not make them a female though. They're a gay male.

@NecessaryScene

probably disagree with 3,

Are you sure? I'm not saying there are not sex roles, or sex-related behaviour. I believe, like you, there are male and female character traits.

But a male exhibiting traits that normally appear in females is not evidence of that male having a "female soul". It's a statistical outlier.

Indeed, if that trait can occur in a male, it's not a female trait, is it?

If "gender identity" were a good model, it would be better applied to sexuality. Sex attraction is so strongly associated with sex, that it would make sense to say a gay man had a "female gender identity" and a lesbian had a "male gender identity". But that's a rubbish model, and it's demeaning.

They're just unusual men and women.

I think there are some people on the gender-critical side who would hold those 4 points, and also believe that there aren't sex-related traits - we're blank slates and it's all socialisation.

So we're not unified on that, and I'm not including either view in the bullet points. We're just saying that either way (blank slate or sex-related statistical trends), you don't have gendered souls, or "brains in the wrong body".

Hi, I wasn't taking into account your actual wording "gender identity (pink/blue souls) don't exist - that's a religious belief". I think the reference to souls and religion is a bit irrelevant. Not all deeply held convictions have to be framed in religious terms.

You have a good point that if a trait CAN appear in a male it is therefore not a female trait. So there are no exclusively male or female traits. But I think gender (unlike sex) is not binary, it is a matter of averages and stereotypes and tendencies and a whole soup of possibilities and factors.

I'm inclined to disagree with the proposition that gender doesn't exist. I think gender does exist. But this is different to 'gender identity'; words and definitions are so crucial to unpick all this. It can be so confusing.
'Gender identity' to me implies someone picking a few bits and pieces out of the soup and claiming 'this is me, this is who I am'. Gender is not a limited number of options from which you select/discover/are born with/adopt one particular one, like a pre-defined package of traits. In this way, it makes no sense to have a 'gender identity' any more than you have a 'viewing identity'. Do people say "I'm a BBC person", "I'm a Netflix person", "I'm non-binary, I like You-tube and ITV"?
(It's not a good analogy but the best I can do.)
To me having a gender identity is self-limiting. But then people do self-limit in hundreds of ways and thinking of oneself as having a particular set of gender characteristics and no others ("I'm a girly-girl", "I'm a tom-boy", "I identify as a man") is just what people do.
But its not inevitable; gender identity 'exists' in as much as people adopt all sorts of identities, but it is not actually a real thing.

Whereas 'gender' is a real phenomenon?
Or am I just tying myself in knots with words?

Whereas 'gender' is a real phenomenon?
Or am I just tying myself in knots with words?

Maybe. Try expressing what you want to say without using the word "gender". It's too overloaded. Particularly on its own, but even with other words attached, you rapidly enter circular definitions.

Possible substitutes - "sex stereotypes", "sex roles", "sexual signalling", "sex-typical characteristics"...

You seem keen. I suggest this video:

Rebecca Reilly-Cooper really digs into this - into the laws and documents and academic texts talking about gender, and finding all the circularities.

(This is one of the two videos that transwoman Debbie Hayton credits for a conversion to being gender critical.)

I find myself talking about gender again!

I guess I'm trying to articulate a position where sex and sexism matter, sex is binary and immutable, but gender traits are real and people have real (to them) identification with sets of gender traits that they call 'gender identity'. Not everyone does this so not everyone has a gender identity, but everyone has some or other gender traits, as it is part of being human.

I see from this conversation that it is practically impossible to discuss a political position on sex without discussing gender. But I think we should be wary of lack of nuance, that lumping disparate beliefs together as 'gender critical' can be unhelpful.

Except for the capitalist part. Gender has nothing to do with or any influence on what economic system is in place.

Theoretically maybe not, but in practice our supposedly capitalist society (goods and labour exchanged for money) is underpinned by a huge amount of unpaid labour that is done disproportionately by women due to their reproductive role (sex) and socialisation as support humans (gender).

If women just stopped that unpaid labour - the childcare, the domestic labour, the caring - capitalism would sure as hell notice.

@NecessaryScene

Whereas 'gender' is a real phenomenon? Or am I just tying myself in knots with words?

Maybe. Try expressing what you want to say without using the word "gender". It's too overloaded. Particularly on its own, but even with other words attached, you rapidly enter circular definitions.

Possible substitutes - "sex stereotypes", "sex roles", "sexual signalling", "sex-typical characteristics"...

You seem keen. I suggest this video:

Rebecca Reilly-Cooper really digs into this - into the laws and documents and academic texts talking about gender, and finding all the circularities.

(This is one of the two videos that transwoman Debbie Hayton credits for a conversion to being gender critical.)

Thanks for this link. What I mean by gender (which this conversation helped me clarify), is the characteristics and traits that arise from the interaction of in-born sex-based differences and the societies in which we live. The mix of nature and nurture. This are real phenomena.

In this sense I am not 'gender critical', because I recognise and don't deny the existence of these characteristics, but I am critical of the belief that everyone has a 'gender identity'.

but gender traits are real and people have real (to them) identification with sets of gender traits that they call 'gender identity'. Not everyone does this so not everyone has a gender identity, but everyone has some or other gender traits, as it is part of being human.

Hmm. It's true that despite broad equality, men and women do behave in typical ways, and there is certainly male-typical and female-typical dress patterns. (Some of which arise in part from body shape, some is sexual signalling, some is pretty arbitrary).

And people have different levels of interest in how much they follow society-typical sexual signalling. Some conform by default, some take pleasure in conforming, some don't want to conform, some want to conform to the stereotypical opposite sex, and be treated as the opposite sex by sufficient opposite-sex signalling

But, and it's a big but, those who want to not conform, or want to conform to the opposite, are often seeming to follow rather odd stereotyped views.

Both transwomen (particularly heterosexual) and transmen often tend to dress in ways which really aren't very typical of the opposite sex in reality, but actually signal "too hard" in a rather stereotyped way. It's not really conventional "gender expression" of the opposite sex.

And that then distorts things, particularly for women. "Woman" as role-played by heterosexual transwomen is not something most actual women are going to relate to. Which seems to quite naturally be leading young women to decide that well, they're not "women" as per that characterisation, so they must be "non-binary".

But regardless of this "gender expression" - which may be excessively opposite-sex stereotypical, the actual behaviour patterns of transmen and transwomen remain very sex-typical. Transwomen are more violent, aggressive and overbearing, transmen are more self-concious. Behaviour remains very sex-typical, suggesting that this inner "gender identity" thing they claim to have - something in the brain - is not related to any sort of "innate biological sex role", nor does it show signs of matching the "gender identity" that the opposite sex is supposed to have.

I see no statistical common behaviour between transmen and men, and transwomen and women. No evidence of an "opposite-sex brain". Trans people generally behave like non-trans people of the same sex with the same sexual orientation.

So my rejection of it is not just really on philosophical grounds - I genuinely cannot see the behaviour difference you would expect to see if there was this "gender identity" commonality.

@Blibbyblobby

Except for the capitalist part. Gender has nothing to do with or any influence on what economic system is in place.

Theoretically maybe not, but in practice our supposedly capitalist society (goods and labour exchanged for money) is underpinned by a huge amount of unpaid labour that is done disproportionately by women due to their reproductive role (sex) and socialisation as support humans (gender).

If women just stopped that unpaid labour - the childcare, the domestic labour, the caring - capitalism would sure as hell notice.

Yep. As much as society is underpinned by the fact there is two sexes, it is also underpinned by economic relations between social classes. Class affects everything, just as sex (and race?) does.

Wouldn't it be great if the equalities act had the protected characteristic of 'social or economic class'. Of course you can't define it, but that doesn't seem to matter with 'gender reassignment'.

A bit off-topic perhaps?

@NecessaryScene

but gender traits are real and people have real (to them) identification with sets of gender traits that they call 'gender identity'. Not everyone does this so not everyone has a gender identity, but everyone has some or other gender traits, as it is part of being human.

Hmm. It's true that despite broad equality, men and women do behave in typical ways, and there is certainly male-typical and female-typical dress patterns. (Some of which arise in part from body shape, some is sexual signalling, some is pretty arbitrary).

And people have different levels of interest in how much they follow society-typical sexual signalling. Some conform by default, some take pleasure in conforming, some don't want to conform, some want to conform to the stereotypical opposite sex, and be treated as the opposite sex by sufficient opposite-sex signalling

But, and it's a big but, those who want to not conform, or want to conform to the opposite, are often seeming to follow rather odd stereotyped views.

Both transwomen (particularly heterosexual) and transmen often tend to dress in ways which really aren't very typical of the opposite sex in reality, but actually signal "too hard" in a rather stereotyped way. It's not really conventional "gender expression" of the opposite sex.

And that then distorts things, particularly for women. "Woman" as role-played by heterosexual transwomen is not something most actual women are going to relate to. Which seems to quite naturally be leading young women to decide that well, they're not "women" as per that characterisation, so they must be "non-binary".

But regardless of this "gender expression" - which may be excessively opposite-sex stereotypical, the actual behaviour patterns of transmen and transwomen remain very sex-typical. Transwomen are more violent, aggressive and overbearing, transmen are more self-concious. Behaviour remains very sex-typical, suggesting that this inner "gender identity" thing they claim to have - something in the brain - is not related to any sort of "innate biological sex role", nor does it show signs of matching the "gender identity" that the opposite sex is supposed to have.

I see no statistical common behaviour between transmen and men, and transwomen and women. No evidence of an "opposite-sex brain". Trans people generally behave like non-trans people of the same sex with the same sexual orientation.

So my rejection of it is not just really on philosophical grounds - I genuinely cannot see the behaviour difference you would expect to see if there was this "gender identity" commonality.

Totally agree with all of this. Which possibly leads to the conclusion that a person can no more change their gender (result of nature + nurture) than they can change their sex! Maybe - not quite.

Trans people on average tend to have the same gender traits that are typical of their sex.
Of course some people are less typical, so they may choose to change their sex-signalling (such as the way they dress) and adopt a new 'identity' to better align their personality with society's boxes, but they are not changing their gender traits - they already had those.

It seems that it must be a hard to change 'gender' as it is to change any other aspect of your personality - ask anyone who has struggled to control a bad temper or sarcastic streak or shyness.
Maybe what I am calling gender is just the sex-based aspects of personality.
But I still don't find the label 'gender critical' particularly useful or self-explanatory.