Biological Determinism?

[talkingdeadscot]

I'm GC, my H is TWAW, this isn't about our relationship, I'm already leaving him.

We had another discussion last night which started out about TW in women's prison. Several times he told me I'm just being a biological determinist.

For me I understand that my biology determines that I am female and that, in turn, determines my role in reproduction. It also means that certain stereotypes and expectations are 'given' to me because of my biology. It doesn't mean that I have to fulfil those expectations or act according to those stereotypes.

So what do TRA's mean the way they use this phrase? He clearly sees it as a way to tell me I'm a shit person in some way, like a gotcha but tbh I don't really understand. I know some of you will be able to help by explaining it to me. Thanks

I expect it's a way to make naturally left leaning feminists feel they've somehow strayed into conservative gender role territory.
I actually think the feminism from the 90s onwards has a lot to answer to. After years of being saturated with female characters who could beat all the boys in a fight, younger feminists think admitting any sort of difference or weakness is antifeminist.
On a personal note I hope you feel better after your split and it goes as stress free as these things can.

I don't know what they mean either. I'm reasonably certain they're not sure. Perhaps it sounds impressive on Twitter?
I don't think it means anything, really.

Your H is, like many others who TWAW, a sesquipedalian.

• uses big words that he has no idea what they mean but hopes they make him sound clever.

It rarely works.

Biological, or genetic, determinsim, is the belief that human behaviour is directly controlled by genes.

So your H, and all the other twats who throw the term around, is wrong, as having a vagina is not a behaviour, nor are genes.

Tell him to fuck off and be careful not to use words he can't explain - it makes him look and sound stupid!

They seem to believe that our position is that girls should behave like 'girls' and boys should behave like 'boys'. They can't seem to get their head around the fact that we want everyone to be free of gendered expectations.

If TWAW, that means acting out a female sex stereotype makes you a woman. (Your STBXH might say TW have to act it out, through some kind of psychological imperative.)

Seems to me he’s claiming that you believe biology makes human beings act out sex stereotypes. Because that’s the only way he can understand the distinction between men and women.

Whereas (I would say) in reality, you recognise that biology controls some things, eg menstruating etc, but it doesn’t control human behaviour, eg wearing make-up etc. But a TWAW believer would not recognise that as reality.

I hope that makes sense. It’s the best I can make of it. Best of luck with the divorce and in your new life talkingdeadscot.

They seem to believe that our position is that girls should behave like 'girls' and boys should behave like 'boys'. They can't seem to get their head around the fact that we want everyone to be free of gendered expectations.

This is it. They confuse feminism with being socially conservative.

I think you have a better understanding of "biological determinism" than your ex.

It means he has no fucking clue what life is like for biological women.

Probably thinks being able to slap a woman is fair play because 'we wanted equality didn't we?'

It means he doesn't understand reality.

It means he's a dick.

With such opposing views on something this important, plus the fact that you are both separating, I'd stop engaging with him on anything that wasnt pertinent to the running if the house.

I couldn't even be bothered to debate this with someone I loved. Your and his views are poles apart.

It's just such a head mash. I thought he was intelligent, he's certainly highly educated but I've seen him in a different light.

He agrees men are violent but says women are violent too and says it's society's issue to solve cleverly absolving men of any responsibility for their actions.

I actually think in this context it's really meant to mean the same thing as 'gender essentialist'. But if you actually used that term, it'd be clear that it makes no sense in context - GC feminists are pretty much the opposite of gender essentialists.

Biological essentialism = your sex determines your destiny. I.e. if you're female you'll be a mother (biological fact if you intend/are able to reproduce). You'll also have a lesser physical strength. This stuff's immutable

The sort of stuff that comes along with it, though, comes straight from socially-constructed stereotypes masquerading as 'essentialism'. Ie that you'll be emotional rather than rational, of lesser worth than men intellectually, be 'naturally' suited toward nurturing roles, and to taking on responsibility for elderly relatives, etc. This is the conservative position. It's also the one the gender ideologists have recently adopted under the disingenuous label of 'progressive'. In fact, it's the opposite.

I find this discussion interesting in the context of in Princess Charlene of Monaco. She was an independent woman and an Olympic swimmer, and I don't suppose it helps her case that she's outstandingly physically beautiful. But take a look at her recently.
She's sported a shaved, unconventional haircut in recent months: a thing surely any female is entitled to do without assumptions being made that she's now 'confused' about being a woman. Yet this is precisely the rumour that's swirling. Either that, or she's about to come out as a butch lesbian.

It's a short haircut. How regressive are these expectations?

Even more worrying are suggestions that because she's spent months away from her husband - for reasons that are no one else's business - then the state of her mental health must somehow be in question.

Because she's not around her husband at present, and has cut her hair. It's even more worrying that society appears willing to accept these assumptions without question, given the long-standing history of trying to discredit or get rid of women by claiming they are 'hysterical'.

All these BS assumptions come from internalized notions of gender (a social construct) being presented as essentialist.

It's a crock. And so's your husband's position. If anyone's the essentialist here, he is.

Trans rights is a great cover for men’s rights. A lot of people (including many lib feminists) are heavily invested in the idea that women and men being equal means there is no difference in strength, biology, violence etc etc

I think it comes down to the question of "what is a woman"?

If a woman is an adult human female (no more no less), then yes - that is biologically determined.

If a woman is someone who identifies with a certain set of somethings which together constitute a female gender, then saying that you are only allowed to identify with those things if you happen to have a particular biology would be a very conservative position.

Thank you all, sanity is restored. It's disconcerting how my confidence in what I think can be shaken (only a bit). I guess he just knows how to chip away but I'm not doing it any more.

Thank you

If a woman is someone who identifies with a certain set of somethings which together constitute a female gender, then saying that you are only allowed to identify with those things if you happen to have a particular biology would be a very conservative position.

...and one I've never seen any feminist take, not either half of that proposition .

The accusation of biological determinism really irritates me. It's incredibly lazy thinking.
Saying that sexes exist is not the same as saying sex stereotypes do. If someone hears the former and thinks you're saying the latter, then the logical gap lies with them, not you.
On the other hand, the whole of the trans movement rests on an underlying belief in biological determinism. That's what leads to this whole 'wrong body'/'female brain' narrative or the insistence that being 'cisgender' is innate for most people.

Come here for a reality check anytime, OP!

Ooh, another gem. Apparently Feminism IS identity politics and worldwide socialism is the only answer.

I've refused to discuss it any further

I think I'd just say "What is words?" and leave the prat to trawl twitter for some more big words he doesn't understand.

I suppose feminism can be viewed as a particular 'identity politics' but as it's based on sex it's a function of fundamental immutable reality not 'choice'. Like race, or sexuality, I don't think that's something that we need to be apologetic about. Women are an oppressed class, we need specific 'politics' to deal with that.

It's one of the nasty tricks people use - make something sound like a problem that isn't.

It's incredibly lazy thinking. Yes, and based on some incredibly old science, just when men (go figure) were starting to work out that there might be determining factors for many human characteristics - but assuming it was all 'in your genes' and not yet knowing how much was nature or nurture.

Very complex thinking way back then, but utterly bonkers nowadays!

@ErrolTheDragon

If a woman is someone who identifies with a certain set of somethings which together constitute a female gender, then saying that you are only allowed to identify with those things if you happen to have a particular biology would be a very conservative position.

...and one I've never seen any feminist take, not either half of that proposition .

No, but if I rephrase:

The GC position is that no-one can call themselves a woman unless they are biologically a woman (well, they can, but they are wrong).

The other position is that "something" makes you a woman (that something not being biology). So now the GC statement that no-one can be a woman unless they are biologically female is regressive because it locks the "something" to biological females.

(whereas the GC position is that "something" is being biologically adult human female , so it's tautological. I think GC people do make the second half of the statement - but it means something completely different to what is heard when they say it.)

It's all in the definition of woman.

@Spindelina

All of which really does underline that OPs H didn't undertsand what he was talking about. As it is the genderist position that is based on biological determinism, if you squint hard at it and, absent a reliable gene test for it, reverse cause and effect.

That way, you see, they can assert they are female because their behaviours are 'female' that they must be biologically determined and, if there were but a test, they could show you the proof of their actual femaleness.

Utter balderdash!

Or is that another of those 'pesky wimmin with a relevent education things again

The GC position is that no-one can call themselves a woman unless they are biologically a woman (well, they can, but they are wrong).

The other position is that "something" makes you a woman (that something not being biology). So now the GC statement that no-one can be a woman unless they are biologically female is regressive because it locks the "something" to biological females.

(whereas the GC position is that "something" is being biologically adult human female , so it's tautological. I think GC people do make the second half of the statement - but it means something completely different to what is heard when they say it.)

Ah, that's an excellent breakdown. I've always found this argument so frustrating because you can say one thing and they hear something else. This makes a lot of sense as to where that disconnect comes in.

So GC people believe there is no 'something' attached to sex, whereas non-gc people are assuming there is only the 'something' so when we say sex is what makes a woman, they automatically assume we're talking about gluing that something to sex instead of it not existing at all.