For those who believe in Gender Identity over sex: why do you still need to believe in Men and Women at all?

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

One thing I do not get about Genderism is that they reject the belief that it's the physical body that makes a human a man or a woman, yet still believe some humans are men and some humans are women.

But if we hadn't had the example of two physical sexes, why would we have come up with the idea of Man-people and Woman-people in the first place?

I find it very weird that they can't or won't tell us what definition they use for Man, Woman etc ("it's a gotcha" , "blah blah blah" etc) yet demand such very specific provisions for Men and Women. How can they be so certain "trans women must use women's spaces/compete in women's sports" when without a definition of woman it's impossible to even explain why women need women only spaces or women only sports?

I fully accept that some people believe their gender identity is more important to them than their sex

What's the difference between a 'gender identity' and having a personality?

I'd also like to know, if gender isn't sex, why do transgenders need to change their sex marker on legal documents?

How can they identify as women when none of them can actually define 'woman'

'What's the difference between a 'gender identity' and having a personality?'

I have no idea. I don't have a gender identity and so I don't know if it's the same or different. I do accept that other people may believe they have or experience having both. Just as I don't want others to insist I have a gender identity, I don't feel the need to insist that they don't.

What I do insist on is the existence of sex, which is binary and exists independently of identity. Whether people are comfortable with their sex or not, it is what it is and is immutable and not a feeling or a 'treatment'.

I think that much of the time, we can be considered humans and diverse in many ways, but sometimes, are sex needs attending to and where this is the case, identity and feelings are irrelevant.

Very good point.

Let's imagine that the gender ideologists' position were true - that there really is a man identity/feeling, and a woman identity/feeling, and any person can have either of those, independent of biology. What on earth is the reasoning for segregating sports, prisons, changing facilities and so on according to which type of gender feeling a person has? Why would it matter? You might as well segregate by favorite color!

It's also not even about genitals. Male and female hormones so much more.

Because they desperately don't want to be like mum and dad, but have to believe most other people do want to be like mum and dad, else they won't feel they are special.

It is too dangerous to entertain the notion that perhaps mum and dad don't want to be entirely like mum and dad either, because that would mean questioning our capitalist and patriarchal society. And TRAs like buying stuff and leveraging male privilege too much to do that.

I used to make this argument sometimes on Twitter:

"OK, if being a woman is no longer connected to being female then female people should just rename themselves "femans" instead and let you keep the word "woman", Then we can have feman only spaces, sports etc, you can have places for women and we'll all be happy.".

Oddly enough, they seemed to hate this even though it seemed perfectly logical to me.

If "women" no longer means "biologically female people" and "men" no longer means "biologically male people" then both words just mean "some unspecified people". There is no difference between the two groups which can be defined by reference to objective criteria.

So, as you say, why have different provisions for men and women at all?

As a PP said, it then becomes necessary to re-examine the purpose of these things.

Take sports, for example. Why do we have two sporting categories? Answer: because humans come in two different types, one of which has a body which is, on average, much bigger and more powerful than that of the other type, to the point where if those two types of humans did not have their own categories, the type with the smaller, less powerful bodies would not be able to compete in sport at all because even the best of them are not competitive against the type with the bigger, more powerful bodies. Clearly these two body types relate to biology, not identity. This means that we need sporting categories classified according to these two biological types, and we also need clear vocabulary to name and describe those two biological types, so we know who is eligible to compete in which category.

If you essentially expunge the words "men" and "women" from the English language on the grounds that they now both mean "some people" and are therefore no longer useful to us in terms of differentiating between different types or humans, and then you identify all situations in which we formerly had separate provision for "men" and "women" and analyse the purpose of that separate provision, why it is needed and what it is based on, you will end up right back where we started. Which is here:

In all situations where western society has separate provision for men and women, the reason for that separate provision is based on biology, not identity. In order for this to work we need to have terms for people of each biological sex, and for those terms not to be used by members of the opposite biological sex to describe their subjectively experienced gender identity.

(I say western society because there are some cultures in which men and women are separated for reasons I do not think are legitimate, e.g. in Afghanistan.)

I wouldn't mind there being toilets, prisons and sporting categories for people with these different identities as well. As long as I wasn't considered to be part of any of those identities and there was separate provision for me and people like me on the basis of our female sex.

Anyone of the female sex who also considered that they shared an identity with trans women could of course choose to use either space.

This is my question too. I said on another thread that I must be a transman because I wear trousers and don't wear high heels and DH guffawed at the idea.

Why do we need to gender stereotype at all? Why do you need to be a woman because you want to do "womanly" things? Just wear the bloody dress and shut up about your "human rights". Take a female name if you want to. Nobody cares, stop being attention-seeking. I really am getting more and more fed up with the entire debate.

I say western society because there are some cultures in which men and women are separated for reasons I do not think are legitimate, e.g. in Afghanistan

And of course if the likes of India Willoughby ended up in Afghanistan, they'd TOTALLY keep their female identity. As if. They seriously think we're all stupid.

I did ask this question once in a closed group and was told that biology was a concept, liked by three people, one of whom was a GP.

Ha ha, yes indeed!

There may of course be Taliban men who envy women their simple decision-free lives, and yearn to don the burqa.

This is the best point I've ever seen on the issue.

Well I would like to answer this, but there are so many layers of delusion here it's not really possible. It's like dealing with flat-earthers; the only reasonable response is to say "It doesn't work like that" and then, if they're not too stroppy, explain how it does work.

So, basic facts about how it does work: Being transgender is a biological condition with biological origins. Any attempt to explain the existance of transgender people while denying that fact is simply out of touch with reality.

I think that's enough to make a good start. If you can be reasonable about it just ask and I'll be happy to explain more. :)

So, basic facts about how it doeswork: Being transgender is a biological condition with biological origins. Any attempt to explain the existance of transgender people while denying that fact is simply out of touch with reality.

Do please explain this further and please include evidence of the 'facts'.

Being transgender is a biological condition with biological origins.

Wow, this is big! I too would love to hear more.

Hi ancuruadh

Thank you for the reply!

I will be honest, I have not seen any conclusive, or even convincing, evidence that being trans is biological. However, for now I'm happy to take your word for it.

What is, I think, unequivocal is that whatever this biological cause (should it exist) is, it manifests itself as a mental difference between a trans woman and a cis man rather than anything physical.

Based on that, can you explain to me exactly what makes this mental difference the "real" definition of men and women rather than the difference between male and female bodies? What would you expect in the mind of a "man" (of either sex) but not a "woman" (of either sex), and vice versa?

That's the thing I struggle with you see - not whether trans people feel as they do (I'm sure they do) but the jump from recogising this feeling exists to concluding this thing is "really" what makes a person a woman or a man and the body doesn't matter? Why does it seem possible that we would have determined correctly that "women" and "men" exist but be totally wrong about which people are which? And even if "woman" and "man" are types of mind, why does that mean we can't also have words that mean the two types of sex?

Do you have specific questions? I'm not going to spend hours giving you a free "Gender 101" just because you think you're entitled to my time. Bit presumptuous of you honestly...

EDIT: You'll have to excuse me, I'm still getting used to the forum... I hope you can tell who this is a response to by the content...

”Google is your friend.”

”Do your own research.”

As for “flat-earthers”, trying to converse with a gender ideologist is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.

Is that to me? Because I think have asked clear questions, and they aren't ones I've seen addressed elsewhere.

The reason I struggle with the anyone who "feels" like a woman is really simply because take for example two people who I'd say most people would agree are women - Jess Phillips and Diane Abbott, both women who have had very very different experiences of being a woman. I'd even go further than that and suggest that there are entire groups of women who actually pose a real danger and or threat to other women in ways which transwomen will simply never be able to.

Presumptuous? You offered to explain more, so we are asking, nicely, for you to do just that. However, this forum does require that you back up your claims with proper evidence.

"What would you expect in the mind of a "man" (of either sex) but not a "woman" (of either sex), and vice versa?"

The answer to that is something called the "body inventory." This is exactly what it sounds like; a part of the brain that keeps track of all the various bits that should be part of your body. If you're ever unfortunate to have an amputation you'll notice that it will feel like the amputated limb is still there, even when it's gone. This is cos your body inventory is telling you that the missing part should still be there. If you try imagining what it's like when your body inventory is telling you that your whole body should be a different shape and that you have bits attached that shouldn't be I'm sure you can see how serious it is.

"Based on that, can you explain to me exactly what makes this mental difference the "real" definition of men and women rather than the difference between male and female bodies?"

It's very simple really. We can't change the physical brain. It's simply not possible to change your body inventory from one gender to the other. It is, however, possible to change your body from one sex to the other, so that's what we do. It's simply a limitation of presently existing medical technology.

"That's the thing I struggle with you see - not whether trans people feel as they do (I'm sure they do) but the jump from recogising this feeling exists to concluding this thing is "really" what makes a person a woman or a man and the body doesn't matter? Why does it seem possible that we would have determined correctly that "women" and "men" exist but be totally wrong about which people are which? And even if "woman" and "man" are types of mind, why does that mean we can't also have words that mean the two types of sex?"

The problem here is that you simply aren't aware that it is possible to change sex. Once you realise that all of your objections are resolved. Of course bodies matter, that's why we want to change ours. You're not wrong about which physical characteristics are male and which are female, you simply didn't realise that they could be changed. And we don't need to identify sex separately from gender because we change our sex to match our gender. See? Once you understand biology it is actually quite simple. :)

I offered to answer reasonable questions. There is nothing reasonable about your attitude. You are doing exactly what misogynists always do and expecting a woman do do all the work for you just cos you feel entitled. If you want an idea of what a reasonable request looks like just look at FlirtsWithRinos response...

That wasn't addressed to you, sorry... Like I said, I'm still getting used to this forum... Sorry about that...