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!

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.

It is, but as someone who believes that sex stereotypes are regressive and harmful, I can't support this belief, and I'm allowed to challenge its legitimacy. You are seeing it in the same way Joyce was describing, IMO. A belief that's been constructed to reify sex stereotypes, that you think has legitimacy by the fact that people believe in it.

And not just a belief, but an industry and a political ideology.

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.

Ah, but what if people decided that Madrid is now called Paris? It's the modifying of language I find terrifying. It's more than a religion. It's a cult.

Yep. I'm with you. I think we're saying the same thing, just expressed slightly differently.

One key change I've made since starting this whole exploration is that I don't use the word gender to describe sex-based expectations or stereotypes. I used to talk about "gender stereotypes" but I've realised that by doing so, I'm implicitly signing up to the idea that I believe in gender as a concept. I don't.

I too challenge sex-based inequalities in expectations, law, sports and so on. It has permeated all of these because gender and gender identity have been presented as fact. Much as the early laws based on religion were in the UK - and still are in Iran, where it is unlawful for a woman to have her hair uncovered.

Ah, but what if people decided that Madrid is now called Paris? It's the modifying of language I find terrifying.

Yes, exactly this. Good analogy.

I'm unclear then @BonfireLady why you don't think challenging the foundation of gender identity ideology is a good thing to do? Besides it not being "kind", of course? To which I would say that lying to people isn't always the kindest thing to do.

Just to add another thought...

There will always be bad apples who claim to hold a belief just so they can have access to feed their needs. We read about these people all the time... In the gender identity world it's the "it will never happen" threads. In the religious world it's the awful stories about child abuse in the church.

There will be GAP (rearrange letters) men who claim they have a gender identity but in reality they don't believe in it. Just as there will be clergy who claim to believe in God but don't really believe in Him.

Perhaps some of these bad apples do believe, who knows. But I suspect the majority just see an easy way in.

Obviously I'm not saying that all transwomen or all clergy fit this description. Unfortunately, there seem to be some very influential ones in the world of gender identity who are having their voices amplified and enabled
Thankfully the security church has more of a handle on shutting these voices down.

*thankfully the church

No idea how the word "security" crept in. Crazy phone.

It's simply just I see no value in a conversation that challenges someone's core belief. Scroll up..

God exists.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.

Each side can offer and demand "evidence" to support/challenge their respective position but it won't go anywhere.

I saw a great video from a philosopher (Rebecca... Can't remember the surname) on this board where she looked at whether gender identity is proven as scientific fact or is a belief. She concluded it was a belief. No further probing needed. The more important conversation is the impact of that belief.

We live in a secular society. We are allowed to say that god doesn't exist. To be able for us to essentially say that gender identity ideology is nonsense and not be sacked for it a brave woman had to go through a gruelling series of court cases. And yes evidence was presented that biological sex is a thing. In the first tribunal the Twitter sophistry around disorders of sex development was part of what was considered enough to declare that gender critical belief wasn't a legitimate belief.

Also as a pp said, it's an incoherent belief. Ask a true believer to define what a woman is and watch them either use a circular argument or shut the conversation down because they don't want to admit it's entirely based on outdated sex stereotypes. It's incredibly relevant to the whole question. I don't want sexism and misogyny legitimised.

I can't speak for them @Ereshkigalangcleg but an example I can think of that is that there is a feeling among some GC people that the aim of TRAs is to erase womanhood and that they believe that biological sex doesn't exist. I think a lot of TRAs would describe that as a misunderstanding of their position.

some GC people that the aim of TRAs is to erase womanhood and that they believe that biological sex doesn't exist. I think a lot of TRAs would describe that as a misunderstanding of their position.

I can tell you that there are TRAs who for all intents and purposes believe that biological sex is not relevant in any way, because "intersex". It underpins most of their more "rational" arguments.

I don't agree that the GC belief is about "erasing womanhood" in any other way than including the opposite sex within it, thereby making it meaningless. Would you disagree that is a core belief of TRAs, that trans "women" are women?

Interesting, thanks @NotMyBagButCrackOn . I'd still love to hear/read her original words

@BonfireLady sadly I watched on YouTube a while ago and I can't remember who she was talking to. I remember it was a middle aged man in a room with lots of books in it but that isn't very helpful in finding it!

I think it very much is a natural variation of what humans are. Humans who react to their environment.
All humans react to their environment in different ways. I think there is a tendency to react in a conformist way with who see as our peers. We sometimes confuse with being non conformist critical thinkers if who we see as peers aren't the "mainstream". I don't think anyone is immune to this.

Remember that people often behave religiously without there being a religion involved.

It is more comparable to a fashion cult or social trend.

Seems about accurate. I would suggest astrology seems to be on a par, roughly, with genderism - a system that is open to ever increasing complexity and 'rules', based vaguely on something observable (constellations/biology) with a system of invented 'rules' overlaid (starsigns/genders).

Human group behaviour often includes cult like behaviour. Some of this is benign, some less so, but it's very very common.

I wish we did live in a secular society!

https://www.secularism.org.uk/

Would you disagree that is a core belief of TRAs, that trans "women" are women?

I would think so but in all honesty I think there's a bit of a false lumping together of people into two sides with every person within a side believing the same thing.

I think there are a lot of people who find themselves between being GC and TRA but neither side acknowledges the existence of a middle ground. It's very "you are with us or against us".

This attitude means that many people just don't engage in the subject at all because they get hostility from both sides which is one of the reasons things have been able to reach a point where we have TW winning weight lifting competitions.

I think it's a big problem that the belief is not allowed to be debated, in terms of whether it's reasonable to take from women to validate these people.

It is the trans side that coined "no debate" as I am sure you are aware. Women have been trying to discuss these issues since the beginning of the topic entering mainstream politics.

I agree with this. It has lead to further polarisation and made things worse for trans people as well as GC women who now feel they can't raise their concerns.

It is the trans side that coined "no debate" as I am sure you are aware.

But miss, he started it! 😂

Sorry, I couldn't resust.

It's a completely silly non point, given that at no point have the gender critical side not wanted to debate any of this.

Have you not seen what happens to posters who try to debate you on this forum?

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this? Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

Would you say you were open to changing your views on this? Do you actually want to debate or do you want to get the other side to see the light?

Yes I do want to debate, and I have debated people I disagree with literally hundreds of times on here.

But you decided to sneer at what I said about the trans lobby clamming up behind the "no debate" slogan, as if it was a both sides issue, the lack of debate. It is not, as I said.

It has made things extraordinarily difficult.