Believing in gender is a bit like believing in God

[Flowerypot]

New to this forum so apologies if I'm wording things clumsily.

I've been thinking about how to articulate how I feel about sex/gender without explicitly saying trans women aren't women, women don't have a penis etc. Lots of stuff has come up at work on this recently and we're a very 'be kind' organisation - lots of pride stuff, trans colleagues, colleagues with trans kids talking openly about that.

Does anyone else feel about gender how they feel about believing in God or religion? It's a concept not rooted in scientific fact - it's just something people believe in, right? And you can respect that but no religious beliefs trump protected characteristics etc

For example at work they're encouraging us to state our gender as well as race/ethnicity and there is no option to state 'none' like there would be with religion and I think there should be. The best option is 'other' but that doesn't really work for me.

Not sure what I'm asking really. Grateful for any thoughts!

There is a nuanced difference but it is an important one. For anyone who believes in God, God exists. For anyone who believes in gender identity, being transgender is real and trans people exist.

But objectively, it's ok to believe that they don't, isn't it? And objectively, when people start telling me I can't do this or that because of their god or their "gender identity" or their goat entrails interpretation, I'm within my rights to ask for some convincing evidence of the legitimacy of this view.

@tryingtobeagoodhuman
"no religious beliefs trump protected characteristics etc" - except religious belief isa protected characteristic...

Well quite. In fact religious belief is the protected characteristic that trumps all others, especially sex, sexuality and…religious belief. I’m sure it would trump race too, if it were not explicitly written into the EA that there are no exceptions to race as a PC. I struggle to believe that anyone brought up in Britain could have written the sentence quoted above.

The fervour that TRAs have for their belief is identical to the fervour that religionists have for theirs - that is a very good reason to fight it at every turn.

Not only do they believe it, but they want to alter civil society in such a way that you have no choice but to to go along with their beliefs, even if you think it’s all horseshit.

I think TRAs would argue that being GC is like a religion.

This is why it's so polarised. Both sides see themselves as seeing the truth as it is and the other side as being close minded and illogical. I'm not sure there can ever be a resolution unless something changes in the way both sides engage with each other.

For historical reasons, the majority of schools in rural areas of England are run by the CofE. The situation is more complicated in NI where schools are split along Catholic and Protestant lines (there are non-denominational schools but they are few in number). All these schools are permitted by law (the Equality Act in fact) to discriminate against children who are not of the correct religion by preferring children who are of the ‘correct’ religion preference in admissions, even if they do not live locally. All these schools are also permitted to teach religion as fact. In fact all non-denominational state schools in England and Wales are required to hold a daily assembly with “worship of a broadly Christian nature”. There is no such thing as a non-religious state school in England and Wales.

"I think TRAs would argue that being GC is like a religion."

I'd like to see how they might do that, given that I don't think I've ever come across a TRA that fully understands the feminist "GC" position. Either through being a bad faith debater, through deliberate ignorance or through lack of critical thinking ability.

I think the issue is, that they think that it is a real objective truth, and discrimination - by which they mean not treating people as their chosen gender - is the same as racial discrimination.

Which we would not class as a religious thing, we'd call it ethics I guess. Ethics is clearly something that is not purely private, or would not have a coherent. But it is very difficult to draw a line between personal worldview and ethics. A Christian thinks murder is wrong, or racism is wrong, because it is an offence against human dignity, which is rooted in the human as an image of the divine. That's not actually less logical or coherent than a secular humanists reasons for thinking those things. Both would argue for these to be written into law or otherwise be socially coded as unacceptable.

The idea that "religion" is wholly private and no beliefs can be imposed on others isn't as simple as people might like.

I think TRAs would argue that GC people don't understand their position. I actually don't think either side understands the other's position and, more crucially, doesn't want to.

I can't see how this issue will ever be resolved apart from perhaps climate crisis taking over and it being put firmly into perspective by that.

I think it's quite arrogant to dismiss everyone who doesn't agree with you as being lacking in critical thinking. It's not really that different from TRAs dismissing all who disagree with them as a bigot.

Not dismissing everyone who has a different opinion to me as lacking in critical thinking! Quite clearly I'm talking about a specific set of TRAs who clearly don't understand even the basics of what a "gender critical" position might be. And then I'm only talking about those who aren't deliberately taking that position as bad faith actors, or who deliberately choose not to find out more than what is being told to them from their preferred information sources.

I think that's probably right.
Similarly, I don't think there's an English language, peer-reviewed philosophy journal in which you could publish a paper that opened with,
"We take as our starting point the existence of God. God's existence is not to be debated."
Whereas Hypatia and other respected journals are publishing articles by people like Robin Dembroff that open with things like,
"We take as our starting point that trans women are women. The gender identity of trans women is not to be debated."

I agree, for example most genderists seem to dismiss JKR's essay as "wanting to exterminate trans people etc etc" but have never actually read it.
It's infuriating, and is in fact ignorance in action.

You can't reason with people like this.

Belief in gender identities is just a belief. Like a belief in star signs, or gods.
I wouldn't doggedly insist that St John from page 3587 of the Bible "wanted to exterminate all horses" unless I'd actually read that part of the Bible in curiosity. Genderists don't seem capable of being that inquisitive in understanding what people are actually saying.

People - like Helen Joyce - who say transwomen don't exist only mean no-one exists who has changed sex or who has a gender identity of the Stonewall kind.

For me, this is where it starts to get tricky. My natural "be kind" instincts kick back in, for which I make no apology, because it's very easy for a trans person to interpret this as literal i.e. denying their existence as a person. Personally, I wouldn't say anything that could be interpreted so ambiguously when it's likely that a vulnerable person (and by vulnerable I mean someone who needs mental health support to understand why they think their body is not "right") will interpret it as denying their right to exist. There was a really interesting discussion thread some time ago where a poster brought up the concept of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. There was a great discussion about why trans people are fearful and the kind of behaviours (and interpretation of what they hear) this leads to. Obviously there could also then be plenty of people amplifying the "trans genocide" message just to stoke things up, as well as those motivated by a genuine fear.

Does anyone have a copy of video of the exact words that Helen Joyce said? I heard her talk recently about how she needs to be careful because she has been misquoted. Is this the kind of thing she is referring to?

That’s really interesting and I often think that as well. For full disclosure I’m religious myself and believe in God. However, I was having a discussion with someone the other day about how we are now in a ‘post Christian’ society ie far far fewer people believe in God and religion now that previously, but humans naturally need a ‘belief’ or some ideology to follow. Things like trans ideology step in to fill that gap…just a theory!

*copy or video
i.e. her exact written words (written by her) or a video of her saying them

I agree, for example most genderists seem to dismiss JKR's essay as "wanting to exterminate trans people etc etc" but have never actually read it.
It's infuriating, and is in fact ignorance in action.

This is definitely true. However I wouldn't be surprised if this was also true of some people who claim to agree with her essay.

@BonfireLady I heard an interview with Helen Joyce where she said that and what I understood was that she thinks that being trans exists because of the society we live in rather than it being something that occurs as part of the natural variation of what humans are. I don't agree with her on this point but I think some on here will.

I tend to see things like what Helen Joyce says as reflecting medical issues. Is there some kind of medical diagnosis that corresponds to a real physiological thing called transgenderism? I take her position to be "no".

The same way we know there are other medical categories that turn out to be misunderstood, or sometimes entirely wrongheaded. And especially with psychologically based illnesses or mental illnesses, there is plenty of disagreement about how many of them operate, what they really represent, how to categorize them, whether they are one thing or sets of unrelated things, or what.

You do see people get quite upset when there are discussions of whether, say, autism, or PTSD, or ADHD, exist in the way they are typically understood. I've seen people react quite strongly to a suggestion that ADHD is largely a condition created by inappropriate school environments for young kids.

but none of that means those discussions are illegitimate, quite the contrary. It does suggest some interesting things though about how people depend on labels.

I think TRAs would argue that being GC is like a religion.

This is why it's so polarised. Both sides see themselves as seeing the truth as it is and the other side as being close minded and illogical. I'm not sure there can ever be a resolution unless something changes in the way both sides engage with each other.

Yes, that's what we call a DARVO. Believing in the reality of biological sex rather than someone's imagined "gendered" soul is founded in reality. Any political position is a belief, but only theirs of the two has a metaphysical belief attached.

As I've said many times on this issue, a belief that Paris is the capital of Spain is a belief. And you're free to believe it, but you're wrong.

For me, this is where it starts to get tricky. My natural "be kind" instincts kick back in, for which I make no apology, because it's very easy for a trans person to interpret this as literal i.e. denying their existence as a person.

You don't have to apologise for your "be kind instinct". And I don't have to apologise that I see it as misguided, and think it's not always kind to lie to people.

Things like trans ideology step in to fill that gap…just a theory!

It's an interesting theory. Also, as I understand it belief in things like alternative medicine and astrology are going up, not down, so that speaks to it too.

@Ereshkigalangcleg absolutely, along with many other things I could list - climate change denying being another one. It’s as if one section of society has rejected religion on the basis of it being at odds with science (I don’t think it is but that’s a whole other thread) but then replaced it with other belief systems popping up everywhere. Like we are a bit lost now with what to believe and what moral code we should be following..

I understood was that she thinks that being trans exists because of the society we live in rather than it being something that occurs as part of the natural variation of what humans are.

Interesting, thanks @NotMyBagButCrackOn . I'd still love to hear/read her original words but building on your understanding of what she said, it breaks down in to two parts for me.

Being trans exists because of the society we live in

Having read her book, I can understand this viewpoint. Believing that gender identity is real feels like a very understandable reaction in some ways, considering most societies have sex-based expectations. Also, like all stereotypes, there is a degree of truth that there are female and male stereotype behaviours. However, not everyone has every stereotype, whether that's sex-based or anything else. I'm very tall - not stereotypical for my sex. But I'm still a woman.
Also, many societies reject "feminine" men, having decided as a collective what is considered male and female. Matt Walsh is a great example of such a gatekeeper.

rather than it being something that occurs as part of the natural variation of what humans are

I think it very much is a natural variation of what humans are. Humans who react to their environment.

Not too dissimilar from religion...
From my viewpoint, religion came to exist thousands of years ago to help people make sense of the world (how did I get here? How was the earth formed?) and have a moral compass.

I agree with a PP who says that as a collective, we are predisposed to want to have a core belief that is deep within our soul/psyche. Religion or gender identity both give this. Personally, I spent a very long time feeling religiously agnostic (approx 10 years) because there were some things that logic couldn't explain. There still are but I'm OK with that not being explained by a deity. However, I totally understand why a belief in God does explain the bits that I can't explain through science and fact. Likewise, a belief in gender identity will feel very real to people as an explanation why sex-based stereotypes exist.

I think TRAs would argue that GC people don't understand their position.

What do you think they think we're missing exactly, @NotMyBagButCrackOn? If you know.

I think it very much is a natural variation of what humans are. Humans who react to their environment.

Could you explain further what you mean by this @BonfireLady? I'm not clear.

Most people don't actually think. They don't have reasoned, balanced arguments for picking one side over the other. It's clear from some of the responses on this thread, for example, that some people have some very odd conceptions of what mainstream Christian beliefs actually are.

No probs, I will try but it's testing the limits of my head for philosophy. The thoughts are very much there in my head but getting them out clearly is the challenge 😁

This is where it gets ambiguous.

Assuming these were Helen Joyce's words, this could mean either:
a) rather than a variation of a reality about the human body e.g. a person has the "wrong body", so is inclined to "correct" it
Or b) rather than a variation of how humans react to their environment e.g. a man who is told that what he does is "feminine" comes to believe he is actually a woman

For me, it's b. So it all becomes a circular argument (I don't think she's expressing two alternatives, just the same thing through a different lens), underpinned by the fact that gender, gender identity and being trans are all very real to someone who believes in gender (identity). Just as God is very real to people who believe in God.

i think you're right!