I think we should use the word 'personality' more

[ThisIsJeopardy]

As the whole sex / gender discussion has had so much more public discussion lately, not least because of male athletes in women's sport, and because of JKR, I've found myself having conversations in real life which I've been wanting but have felt unable to have for years now. And in doing so, I've had to articulate my position on what I find objectionable about genderism, why I won't describe myself as 'cis' etc.

I just want to share the explanation that I have found to be most effective in helping people who are new to this discussion to grasp why it's so problematic to feminists.

I think we've adopted too much of the ideology's language, and we talk in terms of the difference between sex and 'gender identitiy'. People assume that gender identity means something true and proven and profound. I find it more helpful to talk in terms of bodies and personalities:

So, I have a body, and I have a personality (all my thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of humour and intelligence and aptitudes and weaknesses and attractions and aversions).

My body is female. My personality isn't male or female... It's just a human personality and it's unique to me. Sure, it's been shaped by my experiences and some of those experiences have been related to having a female body. But my personality itself isn't female, because 'female' isn't a type of personality. It's a reproductive sex class; a type of body. When people talk about 'gender identity', they're talking about having a male personality or a female personality, and whether the sex of their personality matches the sex of their body. And if they describe me as 'cis', they're saying I have a female personality to match my female body. I reject that description of myself.

I think back to all of the work and the struggles of feminists before me and I can't accept that we're sliding back into an acceptance that our personalities are either male or female, and we're supposed call that progress. That's the same assumption that was used to justify women not having positions of leadership or even the vote, and men not having caring responsibilities or being allowed to show emotion other than anger. Or that gay men and lesbians weren't 'proper' men and women respectively. It's so sexist and undermining of so much progress to assert that there are male personalities or personality traits and female ones. Calling it 'gender identity' instead of 'personality' doesn't change how regressive and sexist that is.

People who consider themselves non binary are saying that their personalities are neither male nor female, and that that's a condition specific to 'NB' people. But that just puts all the rest of us more firmly in the 'male personality' and 'female personality' boxes that feminist has been trying for hundreds of years to free us all from.

I fully accept and empathise with the fact that other people have different beliefs about their own bodies and personalities and they can describe themselves how they like. But the movement to enshrine in law and in education and in society, this idea that our personalities are male or female, is not something I can support or participate in.

This is the kind of framing that has helped the penny drop for a few people in my life. I would love to know what has worked for others.

❤ De-lurking to agree 100% with OP

The dictionary definition of gender identity is 'an individual's personal sense of having a particular gender'... So that clears up nothing, in terms of what makes one male or female (or both or neither).

What does it mean to have a female gender identity

From the book: Barbara M. Newman, Philip R. Newman, in Theories of Adolescent Development, 2020, Chapter 6 Psychosocial Theories.

“Gender identity refers to the set of beliefs, attitudes, and values about oneself as a man or a woman in many areas of social life, including intimate relations, family, work, community, and religion. The process of forming one’s gender identity involves integration and synthesis of three components of gender—its biological, psychological, and social meanings—into a view of oneself as a man or a woman entering the complex social world of adult life. Bussey and Bandura (1999) identified three components of gender: a personal component, including biological features, self-perception, and self-concept; a behavioral component, including roles and activities; and an environmental component, including cultural pressures and expectations, historical norms, social institutions, and specific settings.”

So if the integration and synthesis of the personal, behavioural and environmental components of ones gender identity predominately sum up to a woman, then ones gender identity realistically could be female or male & female or neither male or female but you’ve chosen that living as a woman is the closest option to your gender identity.

The problem with trying to match gender identity to sex is that the first is widely varied and can be fluid and the second, sex, is actually a biological binary and fixed. We don’t have a society that allows for people to do anything but pass as a man or a woman with all the baggage that entails of socially expected behaviours, dress and appearance. Gender identity is suppressed.

Of course, adolescents and young students have some freedom to be androgynous and express their gender identities other than male or female but as adults that freedom is not yet in existence. So today, people are forced to choose to live as a woman or as a man even if they feel like both or neither.

I fully accept and empathise with the fact that other people have different beliefs about their own bodies and personalities and they can describe themselves how they like. But the movement to enshrine in law and in education and in society, this idea that our personalities are male or female, is not something I can support or participate in.

Beautifully put and pithy - thank you.

Of course, adolescents and young students have some freedom to be androgynous and express their gender identities other than male or female but as adults that freedom is not yet in existence. So today, people are forced to choose to live as a woman or as a man even if they feel like both or neither.

This freedom is something that feminists are agitating for - access to neutral space, freedom to dress as you like, to be attracted to any consenting adult. We don't have to categorise it in terms of gender. I do accept that we are not there yet but this is the real progressive stance.

“So today, people are forced to choose to live as a woman or as a man even if they feel like both or neither.”

Damned reality and its evil tervenness!

Personality is obviously a huge area of research in psychology, and although this may offer some additional ways of framing gender identity, personality is quite a strict criteria.

It is generally agreed in psychology that the Big 5 is the most reliable form of measuring personality - there are 5 traits that everyone has and they play out differently for everyone (male or female) . Openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion/introversion and agreeableness.

And the research is highly replicated in showing that there are sex differences in personality, cross culturally. So, women are higher in agreeableness (obviously this probably has evolutionary roots in that women need to 'keep the peace' when protecting children) and they are also higher in neuroticism (again, probably something to do with that having a good level of 'worry' tends to protect children better)

I think the general gist is right, but at population levels there is a propensity for certain personality traits in females and males, shown cross-culturally. So the statement "because 'female' isn't a type of personality" is somewhat problematic. Not fully problematic of course, but there annoyingly does seem to be a propensity to be more prone to certain personality characteristics if you are female.

I agree that many people seem to explain their gender identity in terms that relate to personality eg I liked ‘girly’ activities and playing with the girls when young so that makes me a girl/woman whereas I would say that just means your personality was the type that society has labelled female. That’s the behavioural component mentioned in the research quoted above. The idea of a cross cultural evolutionary aspect is interesting but couldn’t that just be explained in environmental terms as the oppressed class being socialised to be agreeable to their oppressors and exhibiting neuroticism as a result of oppression?

There are plenty of critiques of the 5 trait model in psychology (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Critique). But even if it is robust, accurate, reproducible and consistent despite any personal life experience such as health, employment status or religion, so what?

The fact I don't consider myself that agreeable or neurotic doesn't make me less of a woman, or make me a man. That's the great fallacy of gender theory - taking these population-wide theories and stereotypes and applying them to individuals, so that if you don't fit the boxes there's something wrong with you.

@JoodyBlue

Of course, adolescents and young students have some freedom to be androgynous and express their gender identities other than male or female but as adults that freedom is not yet in existence. So today, people are forced to choose to live as a woman or as a man even if they feel like both or neither.

Your response:
“This freedom is something that feminists are agitating for - access to neutral space, freedom to dress as you like, to be attracted to any consenting adult. We don't have to categorise it in terms of gender. I do accept that we are not there yet but this is the real progressive stance.”

Yes, I agree that feminists are fighting for this freedom. There is a lot of common ground when it comes to gender identity and the work to fight suppression of gender identities. Essentially any gender identity that is nonconforming to the persons sex is stigmatised. This is why some feminists, like myself, are transgender inclusive.

Sorry, I'm probably getting the wrong end of the stick but you seem to be agreeing that if someone has a gi that doesn't conform to sexist stereotype then they're in the wrong body. I don't agree that feminists of any stripe must be trans exclusive. Tm are still women and even if they, like some women, want to self exclude many feminists would still include them. I believe some feminists would also accept male, even tw, actual feminists. But not mra under a false flag.

@Discovereads I don't really agree. It is the tra ideology that is doing the stigmatising. Until very recently - last 5 years or so - it was perfectly acceptable to be whoever you are with having to have a label. Just look at 80s fashions and music if you need a reminder. The issue with accepting the ideology is it will change societal understanding very fast - as we have seen - with young people growing up incredibly confused and feeling they need to change their bodies.

Apologies my previous post was addressed to @Disco.....

@JoodyBlue
I think you may be slightly confusing things. Gender nonconformance has always been and still is labelled and stigmatised. It’s not a recent change to society. As a reminder gender conforming in the past included things like women only being allowed to wear skirts, be a wife/mother, and their hobbies were limited to feminine assigned activities like sewing and cooking. The list was endless…proper women don’t smoke, don’t read literature, have no head for science or maths. Women who did not conform were harshly stigmatised. It is still present today in terms of how women who wear heels and makeup to work are viewed as more professional than women who do not. There is still stigma against mothers putting infants into nursery to return to work, because the gender roles dictate they should be home with baby. The same sort of stigmas exist for men, men cannot wear skirts and makeup and be considered hireable in any job. Any man who chooses to be a stay at home dad is stigmatised and called a “cocklodger” and other derogatory terms.

Its never (yet) been perfectly acceptable to be who you are gender identity wise without a label unless you are naturally gender conforming….it’s just that the labels then were derogatory. “tomboy” is a derogatory term with its male counterpart being “sissyboy”. For adults “butch” and “Nancy” also derogatory terms to reference women who are not conforming to feminine gender expression and roles and men who are not conforming to masculine gender expression roles.

Part of the gender movement is about getting rid of the derogatory labels for nonconformance by creating labels for different gender identities that are neutral in connotation and can be a source of pride instead of shame. That’s real progress imho.

Surely there are two things: 1. Knowing what sex you are, and 2. Whether you feel at ease with that knowledge. We all know that feelings of unease may stem from social expectations, trauma and other factors. The only sustainable answer to that is for the person to accept that they are whatever sex they are, that there's nothing more to it than that, and that they can go ahead and live as they please. By that, I mean dress as they please, study and work and conduct relationships as they see fit, go by a nickname, etc. I don't mean develop a morbid obsession with their body being "wrong" and in need of medical intervention, or demand entry to facilities reserved for the protection and privacy of the opposite sex. This latter route is where a belief in "gender identity" is leading the young and impressionable. It's a belief I really think we could all do without. It makes me want to copy those annoying posters the New Atheists put up a few years ago "There's probably no
This is a sincere "thought experiment" question for those who believe: is there also a species identity? Is it a happy coincidence that as well as being biologically human, I also know and accept that I am human? If I became convinced that I was truly a giraffe, would that be indicative of poor mental health or not? If this is different to the idea of gender identity.... Honestly, why?

@Discovereads so real progress is accepting the relabelled labels and labelling people who don't want to be labelled. Everyone into your boxes!

Just get rid of the labels, don't lean into them.

Oh God, editing fail - the strike through button didn't work for me! My sentence about the New Atheist posters was supposed to end "There's probably no [begin strike through] God [end strike through] gender identity - now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

(I hated those posters, but seem to feel the same way about gender ideology as Dawkins and co feel about organised religion)

Yes - this!

But it is more than that. There is a stigmatising of anyone who will not accept a label. It is unacceptable!! Pardon pun. I need to get off mumsnet and do some work, so may come back later.

Yes you may have wrong end of the stick as you’re putting words in my mouth.

Gender identity is only one factor contributing to whether a trans person may decide to have cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance or not. I don’t personally categorise or consider anyone as in the “wrong body” for their gender identity, whether they need gender confirming surgery or not is for each trans individual to determine.

I stated that some feminists like myself are trans inclusive so no idea where you got the idea I think feminists are trans exclusive from but appears we agree on that issue.

@JoodyBlue ,@IcakethereforeIam and @SpringBadger

sorry to reply to you all at once, but you’ve individually raised a good point which I will sum up as best I think I understood. It is why have any gender identities at all. Get rid of them and the gender labels and we all just live as unique humans, free to be ourselves.

This is the core belief of gender abolitionists and I think it is a good point. Gender has been used for millennium as a tool of oppression on both sexes, but almost exclusively to oppress the female sex. So the gender abolitionist likens it to a sort of forced indenturehood to gender stereotypes and expectations that for society to progress, we must abolish gender entirely.

It is a very attractive idea, but I think at core it is utopian and thus impossible to actually implement. Why? Because humanity is divided into two sexes. Gender is the social result of this biological reality, which cannot be changed. If we only had one sex, then there would be no such thing as gender.

No man has ever been called a cocklodger for deciding to become a sahd. That word is used for a man who stays at home but does none of the work of a sahd.

I've never particularly thought some of the labels were derogatory - tomboy has always been a bit of an aspirational thing among some girls; so has the ability to break away from cooking/sewing/childcare etc. Yes in decades gone by, it might have been more stigmatised, but I'm not sure it has particularly for the past 50 years. Expectations might have been there that you should do those things (possibly as well as whatever else you might choose to do), but there hasn't been that much stigma as before, and even admiration for some aspects of it.

I don't recall feeling pressure to put a label on gender identity really. I was good at science and maths, but also at some stereotypically feminine things. It seemed fine to have a mix, and in fact I was very much encouraged not to just do feminine things.

I agree that we should get rid of the labels for non-conformance, and just let people be - but we can still use lables for sex, without confusing things. Yes it's not a situation that is easy to do yet, but I think aiming for that is a better aim than aiming to just get rid of the concept of two sexes instead. Personalities could be a perfectly neutral way of describing people, and a source of pride instead of shame as well.

Yes they have. I know several SAHDs and they have been called “deadbeat dad” “cocklodger” “sugar baby” “waster” “kept man” etc.

Are you seriously suggesting there is no social stigma towards stay at home dads?

The word cocklodger is also used for a male partner who doesn’t have a job and contributes zero £ to the family finances regardless of how much child care and household work he does.

Some of these examples are just bizarre to me - like the expectation that women should sew as a hobby. Sewing has had a revival of interest in maybe the last 15 years as a hobby with things like the sewing bee. Growing up in the 90s there was no way an expectation - that feels more like something from the 1950s which was 70 years ago so not exact a current thing.

This is so full of holes, though. Social roles have sprung from biological reality, agreed. Obviously, in a technologically-advanced modern country, where most jobs are not physically demanding and reproduction can be controlled, we are less tethered to these social roles, but they won't disappear overnight. Also, most people fancy the opposite sex, and therefore there will always be the urge to play up the differences between the sexes to kindle attraction. i.e. if I were to go out on the pull, I (personally) would be accentuating my feminity and womanliness, to a degree. I personally have no desire for androgyny - sometimes I revel in the feminine, mostly I just wear something fairly neutral and get on with my day (sadly going on the pull doesn't actually feature, work, errands and parenting do).

So where I depart from you is - why does claiming affinity to a sex-derived social role make someone, in any real sense, a man or a woman? Basically, so what if a man is a SAHD or a woman does whatever it is that is considered unwomanly?

And furthermore - is that what is actually going on with trans people? Because none of the SAHDs or Domestic Gods that I know have the slightest desire to be women. They tend to be utterly uninterested in their "identity" or aesthetic presentation - they are too busy looking after their kids and the house! Yet we see TW who enjoy typically male pursuits, careers, and (dare I say it) personalities - other than wishing to dress to the nines with miniskirt, manicure and high heels in a way that most women over the age of 23 don't.

And likewise, the "trans boys" - are they typically out there playing rugby, hanging around grunting in a pack of lads, drinking beer? Are they more likely than any girl to enter male-dominated fields of study or work? Not as far as I'm aware (do correct me if I'm wrong). The pattern seems to be that they start playing with masculinity after they've been convinced by social media that their feelings of difference stem from being trans. The TM I'm aware of all seem to be going into the caring professions, in fact. So, what does this have to do with traditional social roles based on the two sexes?