Gender theory seems completely illogical? Or is it me?

[Elsiebear90]

I feel like I’m living in some bizarre twilight zone where most people just blindly accept and believe in something which to me appears to be completely illogical, and no one (other than a small minority of people) is talking about this, does anyone feel the same? It’s making me think maybe there’s something I’m missing or maybe I’m the wrong one?

So up until coming onto mumsnet a few years ago I blindly believed in gender theory and would defend it to the hilt. Looking back I think it’s because as a lesbian I believed it was the same as homosexuality and that it was just the right thing to do and didn’t really question any of it or think about it too deeply.

I came onto mumsnet and saw a lot of debate around the topic and started to realise that there are huge holes and contradictions in gender theory and that the science behind it is weak at best and non existent at worse. I then started to really challenge my beliefs and do more research into the topic and have now come to the point where I don’t believe in gender at all, beyond it being a social construct.

What is bizarre is that despite there being to me huge contradictions within gender theory, no one really talks about them, the whole world minus a few people labelled as bigots or T*RFs seems to have just hopped on board and is now blindly preaching this and condemning anyone who merely questions the ideology.

For anyone wondering what I mean by it being illogical, to summarise:

• If being a woman is adhering to gender “norms” for women then how do women like butch lesbians fit into this?
• If the criteria for being a woman is “identifying as one” and anyone can identify as a woman for any reason then the term woman is now meaningless
• If no one can define what it means to be a woman why is it so important for men to identify as one and have this validated?
• If being non-binary means not adhering to gender stereotypes does this not just reinforce gender stereotypes? Because we are essentially saying if you don’t follow the gender stereotypes for women it’s because you aren’t a woman, isn’t this harmful and regressive?

All this applies to trans men too, but I just refer to trans women as they seem to be the most vocal.

In attempt to see what I was not understanding I went onto some trans boards across the internet to see how they addressed these questions and what I found was shocking. In regards to “what is a woman” the general consensus was “anyone who identifies as one”, when people pushed further and replied that this doesn’t answer the question the general response was to not engage in any debate with anyone asking as it was a trap or trick question posed by T*RFs and bigots. How on earth is this a trick question? Surely it is the most important question to ask given the whole debate centres around it? If the people pushing so hard to be labelled as a woman and “treated as a woman” don’t even know what a woman is does this not just show how crazy gender theory really is?

Sorry for the ramblings, but I’m just having a WTF moment really and doubting myself as I seem to be the only person in my circle who thinks like this and I don’t feel comfortable discussing this with anyone outside my circle for fear or being labelled a bigot or T*RF.

This is what I struggle with. Because I think the vast majority of women, in one way or another, reject historical gender norms in one way or another. Not just 'butch lesbians'.

It also suggests that these women are less of a woman because they are 'butch' - which to me is ridiculous. Women don't have to present as feminine and conform to stereotypes to be women. It's as illogical as saying that any woman that doesn't fully lean into that femininity must be a lesbian.

That's the power of #NODEBATE. If you insist that anyone who speaks the truth is a bigot and a nazi, then people keep quiet and dangerous lies prevail.

It's why we're starting to see the labour party, the NHS, government, Ofsted, teaching unions and all sorts reverse ferreting painfully slowly as the enormity of the charade they've promoted is being revealed. So much harm done - especially to children - and they're all trying to pretend they had nothing to do with it.

reverse ferreting painfully slowly

This requires a gif. Actual footage here of Keir Starmer backed into a tight spot and pretending he's always thought a woman was an Adult Female.

”The other thing that really pisses me off about it all is the way TRAs disingenuously equate racism and GC, as if segregation of men and women in certain spaces is some kind of civil rights barrier that needs to be broken down, equivalent to apartheid.”

But the most illogical part of the “it’s like apartheid” argument is that they don’t actually want to remove segregation. They just want the freedom to choose which space they want to use.

And of course there’s the vexed question of who is the oppressor. Men demanding access to women’s spaces is roughly the equivalent of white people claiming they are black and demanding use of black people’s spaces, despite the fact that some of the black people are distressed that they’re there.

You are completely right. And the reason they resort to name calling is a tacit, unconscious admission that they have no arguments. If they did they would use to respond to you.

Yes it is not you, it is them. They used 'no debate/transphobia' because the ideology defies scrutiny and logic. Once you see this, you cannot unsee it so no one is likely to move back the other way. Also why is it a good thing to encourage children to be dissatisfied with their perfect bodies, grown inside a woman in every single case? How can unnecessary drugs and surgery be for the good?

Trans people aren't all born philosophers, able to clearly explain their position, so it's no surprise that there's a lot of incoherent or contradictory explanations out there.

I feel like the arguments wouldn't be so vitriolic if only trans men existed— as they often pass a lot easier and the safeguarding arguments don't work. I've never met a man who one cares if a person with both a uterus and a full beard uses the men's changing rooms.

The line I don't really gel with is when people say you're "debating their existence". It conflates two things: their physical existence, and the existence of their understanding of gender. It's relying on lexical ambiguity of the word "existence". You can doubt whether someone has a coherent position, without doubting that that person exists or wanting them to disappear.

That's fabulous!

It’s like saying that my atheism means genocide for people of faith, and that I’m debating their existence.

@StillPerplexed I think that activists and politicians that say they support those activists should be able to explain their position cogently and succinctly. And to be able to have counter points to hand, to the main objections raised by those who disagree with them. But really all that ever happens is repetition of stock phrases (TWAW!) or claims that people who disagree are hateful, transphobic, far-right, nazis, bigots, deserve to be punched/stomped/die in a fire, etc etc.

Any one individual transperson responding for themselves alone, well I can agree that they may potentially not have thought out any coherent responses.

Arabella what an excellent gif 🤣

I tend not to get ideological about it anymore the question for me is: where do we draw the line? Are all self-identified transpeople allowed to use the facilities for the opposite sex at all times? Are there to be any controls? Are the rules the same for sports as for toilets? Same rules for toilets as prisons? How do we manage the data on people who have switched gender?

Whatever the ideology behind it all, how should society be organised in real life to manage transpeople alongside everyone else? (Because I don't think the answers are easy or simple)

I came across a book today called "Investigating gender: contemporary perspectives in education", published in 2001. I have just been reading the first couple of chapters, and it provides an absolutely fascinating window onto the 'before times', with some ominous foreshadowing of what is to come.
It was interesting, for example, to see 'gender identity' used in relation to forms of masculinity and femininity and the different ways that individuals relate to them, with no suggestion that this could be decoupled from sex. But you can also see some antecedents to modern gender identity theory:
"...Such work, it was argued, was entrenched in middle class values and narrowly defined visions of the category 'female'. As such, it was ill-equiped to address questions about issues of identity, culture and women's differences. For this reason, the study of identity began to emerge as central to a reconfiguration of the field"
and
"While still concerned to a degree with gender equity, curriculum and gender reform policies, these newer questions settle their key problematic upon a philosophical concern about the nature of gender identity and the ways in which educational discourses shape the modern individual"
I'm left with the impression that some interesting and quite subtle ideas about the ways in which individuals understand themselves, and are understood by others have fallen into the wrong hands, and people who really don't understand the theoretical underpinnings have run with them with disastrous consequences.

Here's another thing you will learn about this topic OP, it is heavily moderated and you will get deleted (as I did), even on MN for talking about completely factual and truthful things. It's all a bit ridiculous.

I have a question for you OP - why did you believe so vehemently in gender woo originally? Surely you could see - as we all can - that a biological man can't change his sex, no matter how much he may want to?

I'm not being critical of you at all, and I hope that translates here! It would just be interesting to hear why you were so supportive of it, even though it very clearly isn't actually true? You say you "didn't think about it too deeply" - but surely it doesn't take any thought at all to see that trans women are still men, no matter how they choose to lead their lives?

Was it a case of thinking that maybe people weren't ACTUALLY suggesting that trans women really are truly women? Or was it a case of just wanting to provide support to your community (which weirdly includes T with the LGB)?

It would just be interesting if you were able to expand a little more on what you did believe, because it might be helpful to hear it. I can't even begin to fathom why anyone might truly believe it other than the whole #BeKind mindset.

Again, I hope this doesn't sound aggro as I promise that's not the intention! I applaud you for taking the time and effort to dig deeper. Lots of us started with the whole "eh, does it really matter - live and let live" sort of mindset, and gradually we've seen the extent of what's going on.

Also, just to add a bit more context to my questions above....

I've got a very close gay friend. I know for a fact that he wouldn't date a trans man - either pre or post op. But he's just had a huge row with my DP and my friend is very vehemently now in the TWAW camp, and bollocked my DP when my DP pointed out women's safety, women's sports, and women's language were all being eroded. He has told my DP that saying publicly "trans women are not women and biology is real" is - and I quote - "dangerous and harmful".

It's caused an enormous fall out that I'm not sure me and my friend can come back from - which I'm gutted about quite honestly as he's a very close, long-standing friend. But if he doesn't care about my rights as a woman, and my safety, while simultaneously expecting me to be an ally of the gay community - which I am and continue to be, vociferously - then I don't know how we can continue. DP even pointed out to him the rampant homophobia inherent in trans logic ie/refusing to accept same sex attraction is real, and he just skipped past it. I don't think he sees it, and I don't think he believed DP when he said many gay men oppose trans indoctrination too. It's not just women (gay, straight, or otherwise).

So it would be interesting for me to hear more about how the other side thinks - because I've not met a TRA yet that can do anything other than chuck insults at me, and mock me for believing "outdated" science.

My friend just kept drawing parallels with what the gay community have been through - DP pointed out that the gay community weren't seeking to take away anyone else's rights or disregard their safety and wellbeing, they were just trying to achieve parity and that's not the case here with the trans rights movement, ~DP just got more of the #BeKind and "they should be allowed to lead their lives". My friend also kept spouting lots of "women's language and identity isn't being eroded - it doesn't matter what words are used about women" blah blah. DP asked him if words were so unimportant, then did it matter what words were used about him as a gay man - so my friend has gone off in a huff without answering.

It's bizarre. I know for a FACT that he wouldn't ever date a trans man, and he doesn't accept trans men as men. But women? We have to move over.

Your points are all valid and similar to what got me thinking about this issue.

I think the problem is that people don’t give this much thought or just have a basic understanding. It would be interesting to see proper surveys on this to what the average person thinks transwoman or non-binary actually mean.

I’ve noticed lots just have an attitude of people can do and believe what they want etc and that would be a reasonable argument if they weren’t imposing it on everyone and crying witch at those who don’t follow them.

@SpidersAreShitheads your DP really gets it which is awesome.

There's two arguments I usually see, regarding gender and changing sex:

1. Trans people functionally do "change sex" by taking sex hormones (and maybe through surgery)
2. They might not change biological sex (though there is the Butlerian position that sex is also constructed) but gender is a social construct that is somewhat informed by, but not fully tethered to, biological sex, and that's what can change through changing external signifiers of gender (names, dress, voice, body hair, face-shape, pronouns etc.)

Now, 1. is obviously untenable and no one can really take it seriously. A weaker version of this argument is just to say that there are some sports where a trans-woman on HRT for a sufficient time may not have the same edge as they once did.

While 2 invites the follow up argument that there's no reason to think it's always gender presentation that is the important or the overriding thing in all situations.

The other problem with the argument, especially for certain trans-women, is that even if we accept 2., they can fail to be successful in changing these external signifiers. They can fail to pass. And so then the argument becomes about a desire to be treated as if they pass, which is where all the questions in the OP come in.

I know there are way more critical theory style arguments I don't really understand yet around gender, and there must be other positions I haven't seen. So who knows, maybe there's a great answer to all this out there.

I have a question for you OP - why did you believe so vehemently in gender woo originally? Surely you could see - as we all can - that a biological man can't change his sex, no matter how much he may want to?

Yes, I would like to know the answer to this too OP, as I have never believed that simply calling yourself a different sex actually turns you into a different sex.

People went along with it out of fear. No one wanted to lose their job or be branded a bigot. It's a very clever tactic and #nodebate worked well for several years.

The ideology is so illogical that it really is quite glorious to see it played out in courts recently and there will be many more cases to come yet.