My son can tell...

[allthevitamins]

Watching 'Inside the Factory' on BBC1 with DS, 10.

Cherry Healy was talking about lightbulbs with Dr Clara Barker, Materials Scientist.

Please note this is not personal in relation to Dr Baker.

Dr Barker is Transwoman.

DS says, 'is that a lady?'.

I say no, it's a man.

We left it at that.

I mean Dr Barker is quite feminine.

But unprompted, my DS knew that Dr Barker is not a woman.

Why should I have to lie to him about this?

Why would I try to tell my doctor what I weigh in Newton's? That is a unit of force.

I would use Kgs which is both mass and weight.

@JanesLittleGirl ,

In physics weight is a force measured in Newtons.

It is just that in normal English we use the word technically incorrectly.

I have already corrected myself for saying gender rather than sex, several times in fact.

You can interpret what I'm saying however you like, that's the joy and that downfall of discussion.

From a lot of what is being said, it seems somewhat some people are offended by the term cis gender because they disagree with the concept of a transgender person identifying as female.

So it's a difference of opinion, as I have no problem with that.

However, I also have no problem not referring to people as cis if they don't want either.

I am not wrong, I just believe something different from you.

Because, you must understand, in my opinion it is you that is wrong. So some of what you're saying, to my belief system would be nonsense.

And we can't both be right entirely.

There are things I could cynically parenthesize about your tone, but I chose to believe you are genuine, or what's the point.

In response to PP, my son wasn't sure whether he was looking at a woman or a man. He sought clarity from me. I told him it was a man. I need my son to be able to confidently identify a man when he sees one. He is, only 10 after all.

Regarding the feelings of transpeople/this transperson.

Well, in this case, we happened to be watching Dr Barker on TV, so it was actually quite a good opportunity to clarify the situation knowing we would not be hurting Dr Barker's feelings on a personal level. If Dr Barker is aware of this thread and is upset by it then I would suggest that Dr Barker, as a supposedly intelligent adult, needs to come to a place of acceptance that Dr Barker looks male. The name, pronouns, long hair, dress and makeup do not send the message 'female' when talking into account the overall presentation of Dr Barker's stature, voice, facial features and male-pattern hair loss. And general male-ness.

As far as I know, my DS hasn't encountered a trans- person in real life. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it I suppose.

We've actually no idea what that child had been taught. She could have realised fairly rapidly once she go in the car that she was in significant danger.

Exactly nothing screams 🎶 "man, I feel like a woman" 🎶like a todger between your legs in a dress

@allthevitamins the sentence about the overall presentation of Dr Barker I think goes to the crux of this issue.
There are interesting philosophical discussions to be had around what 'gender' is, words changing meaning, mores changing, kindness 'versus' truth etc.
But there is something elemental at the base of the trans 'discussion' which doesn't exist in any of the other analogies made.
And that is the fundamental ecology of sexual reproduction and characteristics in mammals (and obviously many other animals). All those of us alive now are the product of millions of years of evolution, all of which is fundamentally based on genetic selection via sexual reproduction. The words we use to describe the male and female individuals of our species are 'recent' in terms of geological time, but they are fundamental literally not just to who we are, but to how each of us comes to be here. That is why your DS just 'knows'. It's part of our DNA.

That's really interesting isn't it @soupycustard ? I mean people just are male or female, that's it, isn't it?

I've often wondered about this in terms of something my dad used to say about animals. He used to say that people got away with treating children very badly, in fact much worse than they would be allowed to treat an animal in some cases. (Case in point, I once knew a family whose animals were removed by the RSPCA but the children remained in the family home in awful conditions). He always said that this was because we could put a price on animals, that they could be bought and sold, but that sometimes human life was cheap and could be value-less and people could be worse off for it.

I see that here too... we don't talk about our dog or cat's gender, or the gender essence of a particular racehorse, or the gender identity of an animal in a zoo. These animals are clearly male or female. I believe that clarity remains, because animals have value in breeding either as pets, or for conservation programmes, and no-one disputes that you need male and female gametes to do that.

Human life is cheap however in comparison... Some man says he wants to be accepted as a woman? As a society we say yes sir! As long as that makes you feel good! We'd hate to upset you! Sod the real cost of this to women and girls, it's not measured in money terms anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I think we can really undervalue humans sometimes, and women and girls, and men who stand up for women in particular.

And I'm not being disingenuous to my son about what/who is a man!

That is interesting. There has been a lot of debate within the environmental movement over the past 15 or so years about whether we should monetize environmental 'goods' for the same reason. So for example, we destroy rainforest because we value soya/teak etc; would we save it instead of destroying it if we talked in monetary terms about its effect on weather stability, the water table, soil erosion etc rather than the more emotional way in which we talk about it at the moment.
(Sorry, that's not meant to be a derail!)

Well money talks, doesn't it (and I understand that there's a whole 'money talks' angle to trans- issues too...)?

I am enjoying this thread. Very constructive and enlightening!

It's also been remarkably polite! By this stage I've usually run away sobbing into my Pinot at the accusations and rudeness!

OK, @missshortie89, that's fair enough. Apologies for doubting your intent.

But look. When you say, "I'm not wrong, I just believe something different from you," what you say might suggest those two things are exclusive. They're not, as you probably realise. Thing is, if you think one thing and I think the opposite, one of us must be wrong. And you might believe something different from me and still be wrong, no? (Or, of course, vice-versa.)

So how do we find out who is right, supposing we want to know the truth of the matter? (which I do, for one.) One time-honoured manner of arriving at the truth when we disagree is to argue the case. This involves giving reasons and evidence. (Not always the same thing, but never mind that.) Care to try?

I'll start. When you correct yourself "for saying gender rather than sex", as you put it, do you include such as when you said earlier you wouldn't want your child "mis-gendering a trans person"? ...

'Mis-gendering': to mis-gender a person is - usually overtly - to mistake (deliberately or not) the gender that person is. Yes? I understand that, but only so long as 'gender' has the same sense as 'sex'. Otherwise, I am at a loss; I know of no sense of 'gender', non-contermonious with 'sex', in which a person may be a particular gender.

No-one has ever offered me any explanation of such a sense, either verbally or written. More: some (on an earlier thread on MN, for example) have opined that no-one will ever offer anything in this regard.

This is important because the whole basis for belief in a certain sort of trans - transgender - relies on there being a sense of 'gender', non-conterminous with 'sex', for which we can say someone is (or sometimes, has) a particular gender.

I think there is no such sense of 'gender': none, in particular, that satisfies the requirements of those who wish coherently to believe in that sort of trans. More than that, it seems to me these requirements are such that there could be no such sense. (Which would explain why no-one has ever offered an explanation thereof.) Of course I may be wrong.

So, is there a sense of 'gender', non-conterminous with 'sex', for which we can say someone is such-and-such gender? If so, can you explain what it is?

Of course you may simply agree that 'gender' just is conterminous with 'sex' when you talk of "mis-gendering". That's OK. Then I ask whether there is any context in which there is a requirement for a different sense of 'gender', in which gender can be something a person is or has? If not, you see, we'll be able to get along just with talking about what sex someone is and so on ... and all the problems of single sex toilets, prisons, and all the rest - including difficulties about 'trans' children - will melt away into air. Because we know, after all, that humans cannot change sex.

I think something to consider is that a lot of people will believe there isn't a notion of gender separate from sex.

For me, and I assume others including some members of trans communities, Gender is more an identity.

This has always been slightly the case when we would call more masculine girls 'tomboys' (which, interestingly I think used to mean naughty boys but now we use to mean less feminine girls)

You can be scientifically a sex, no one can argue what that sex is, and I don't really see how you could fully change that, even with hormones and surgery etc.

But gender; if gender is an identity, how you feel and behave and who you believe you are, that can be separate from sex.

As a society we have constructed gender norms and we all play in to them in one way or another, so if someone strongly doesn't feel that fits them and the opposite gender norms apply to them and makes them feel truly themselves why does that affect anyone else? (I understand that there are potential risk in criminal situations, but plenty on non trans people commit crimes and just as with race and other protected characteristics we can't make the rules for a whole group based on just the awful ones within it)

I'm not saying there aren't areas of the trans gender discussion that don't need to be looked at in greater detail, I just don't agree with dismissing it as playing dress up as a solution. (I'm not saying that's what you or anyone else is doing so please do not take offense)

I do, as stated, understand that with prison, hospital sports and other aspects we can't ignore biological differences and need to keep everyone safe, but that does extend to everyone. Not just people who identify as their sex assigned at birth, and not just members of the trans community.

If someone else feels like they are a woman, and truly lives that way and it harms them to pretend otherwise - it does not affect my identity as a woman, so I have no problem calling them 'her', inviting them to girls nights, hen dos, standing next to them at the hand dryer in the ladies bathroom, pretending I'm meeting up with them if they're getting unwanted male attention in a bar or club - just like I would any other woman.

Equally, if I didn't believe in the notion of marriage and a friend got married and took their husbands name, I wouldn't refuse to call them by their married name just because I don't believe in things.

So if for you, gender is synonymous, or inextricably linked to sex - then we do just hold different opinions and can both be a little bit wrong and/or a little bit right. Which is of course fine, I truly think the main issue comes from assuming one side is entirely right. Or assuming that we all need to agree, as long as everyone can live their lives safely - trans gender or not - then surely it doesn't matter? (of course, that's very idealistic, but hey, a gal can dream)

I also try to be really careful and open minded when I discuss things with my kids, because for all I know they could come to me one day and say 'I am (trans, religious, gay, don't want kids, non binary etc)' and I wouldn't want them worrying what I might say, or hiding it or dealing with it a lone because they were worried I wouldn't accept them. I am not saying anything about anyone on this thread, we all parent differently and think we're doing the best thing for our kids, that's just how I feel I can do right by mine.

In many situations 'gender' shouldn't matter in a liberal society such. Any more than any other religious belief matters. But once we start talking about a man's gender being female because he 'believes he's a woman and is living as one' we end up with meaningless, illogical and self-referential arguments. And any argument has to be dealt with through the lens that men are more powerful than women.

Most TRA arguments are based on obfuscation and the use of the word 'gender' where 'sex' ought to be used, (as well, of course, as bullying by the powerful - men - of the less powerful - women) we have ended up in a situation where they are being used interchangeably when it does matter, which is actually, as it turns out, most situations.
So eg men are saying they are women in order to do sport so they can beat women (which of course they can easily do because at population level men are bigger, stronger and faster) and that is affecting women and has been allowed to happen partly because women have been 'nice and polite'.
Or men are meant to be accepted in women's toilets because women should be nice an polite.
And of course niceness and politeness have to be seen through the lens of patriarchy because whilst men can more easily fight their way out of a problem, women (because, at population level, we are smaller, weaker and slower) tend to negotiate, charm or wheedle their way out.
So people are talking about gender as if it somehow doesn't matter (even where they accept that sex does matter) other than to the person stating that despite being a man, they 'feel' like a woman. But it does matter and in fact goes to the absolute heart of the unequal relationship between men and women.

@missshortie89 - 'I understand that there are potential risk in criminal situations, but plenty on non trans people commit crimes and just as with race and other protected characteristics we can't make the rules for a whole group based on just the awful ones within it)'

But we can and we do, all the time. Most drivers (a group) wouldn't dream of driving if incapacitated by drink or drugs, but some awful ones do, so we make a rule. Most men are not rapists, but some awful ones are and so we make a rule that rape is a crime committed by the possessor of a penis. When you obfuscate who is the possessor of a penis by pretending that some of them are women, you open the door for those unidentifiable-on-the-face-of-it awful ones to infiltrate spaces where women are more likely to be vulnerable. The boundary of women-only spaces is there for the very good reason that 98% of sexual assaults are committed by men.

But we don't stop all people driving because some drink drive?

Yes, toilets is one of the situations I agree needs further discussion to ensure its accessible a safe for everyone.

@soupycustard in some ways the discussion is highlighting how important gender is to so many people for so many different reasons.

Of course some people abuse the systems, as with your example of sports. But it's a shame that those incidences seem so over talked about vs all the trans gender people living their authentic lives.

But that's how news works I suppose you don't hear about all the teenagers not in gangs or politicians fulfilling their duties.

But we don't stop all people driving because some drink drive?

we do however stop people who aren’t qualified. Only drivers are allowed to drive, not people who wish they were drivers, think they are drivers, or think driving looks great.

We also recognise some categories of people are really high risk drivers and make them pay high premiums.

all the trans gender people living their authentic lives.

Erm, trans gender people live the complete opposite of authentic lives!

The issues with sport or indeed any of this stuff are easily solved. No males in women's sport and women's spaces.
People can do what they like in their own social life, but if they're in the world with others they need to abide by the rules that are there for very good reason: that reason being that men are, at population level, faster, stronger, bigger, more violent, more criminal and more powerful.

Yes, some of the issues are easily solved and are beginning to be sorted out.

However there remains a large number of less obvious but very important questions to be asked and debates to be had.

For example, the Dept for Education has issued draft guidance for dealing with children who want to pretend to be the opposite sex.

There is no mention of dealing with teachers who are pretending to be the opposite sex in the classroom and compelling children to affirm their delusion.

My view is that these adults are not suitable to work with children. But this will not be an easy one to sort out.

Yes @Leafstamp I agree with you. I was just making the point that most of this shouldn't even need any thought whatsoever. And if the 'easy' stuff were dealt with, the 'harder' stuff just follows naturally. Because if we accept that a man shouldn't pretend to be a woman in sport, then for exactly the same reasons (the balance of power between the sexes and consequent safeguarding), he shouldn't pretend to be a woman in a classroom.
I'm new to these boards and trying to put things into words without writing a dissertation can be difficult. I'm finding the whataboutery of the TRAs/allies etc hard because it's like trying to fight fog. There's always a 'but surely...' when in fact there is only one salient point, which is that men and women are different and men are more powerful.

Absolutely @soupycustard, the obvious stuff (like allowing men in women’s sports) should never have happened and it’s made the stuff that should also be be easy (men displaying their fetish in school and making children participate by calling them’Miss’) seem hard.

Five minutes ago we all knew that this type of person shouldn’t be working with children.

@missshortie89: "For me, and I assume others including some members of trans communities, Gender is more an identity."

But gender can't be "an identity" if it's not something anyone can be, can it? I notice you didn't try to answer my question as to what sense of 'gender' (non-coterminous with 'sex') might allow us coherently to talk of someone being a certain gender. Given the lack of such a sense (I assume there isn't one, since you haven't offered one), you can type or say the words "Gender is an identity", but you can't mean anything by it, can you?

[Perhaps I should emphasise this. When I say you can't mean anything, I mean it literally: you might as well write "For me, and I assume others including some members of trans communities, jabberbollox trendylax.". What you write means precisely as much as that. And please don't think, "Well, I know what I mean!" ... Unless you can explain to yourself what you mean, you don't know what you mean (even though you may think you do). And if you can explain to yourself what you mean, you can explain to others (particularly in cases like this). But you don't ... so we must assume you can't.]

I know it may be disconcerting to have it explained you're not actually making any sense, especially when you think you are. But just have a think, @missshortie89. What do you mean by "Gender is an identity", if 'gender' isn't conterminous with 'sex'?

One more thing.
@missshortie89: "If someone else feels like they are a woman, and truly lives that way and it harms them to pretend otherwise - it does not affect my identity as a woman, so I have no problem calling them 'her', inviting them to girls nights, hen dos, standing next to them at the hand dryer in the ladies bathroom, pretending I'm meeting up with them if they're getting unwanted male attention in a bar or club - just like I would any other woman."

-- When you write, "... like I would any other woman", you tacitly assume your reader agrees trans women are women. (Or, perhaps, you do it to tease? -No, I decided already to take you at face value.) But you know many (most, I suspect) people disagree with you about that, since they realise humans can't change sex. So writing that as you do is at best disrespectful, and possibly offensive to your readers.

[It's also a pretty decent example of a famous fallacious method of arguing known as petititio principii. (You might want to look that up if you didn't know and would like seriously to discuss things with other people.)]

Overall, @missshortie89, it does seem we don't understand each other. I'm claiming you're talking nonsense, and you for your part show no indication of having understood anything I've said at all. There are many other things I could challenge you with, but, well, life's short and everything. Do keep trying to think about things ... let's leave it at that?

If gender means something different to sex then the only thing it can mean is stereotypes associated with sex.

(Sex being male or female).

No one can no what it feels like to be anyone else, let alone what it feels like to be someone of the opposite sex.

It’s all absolute nonsense.

Yes, and there's lots of other identities that we don't perceive as 'protected' characteristics...

Emos, football fans, muscleheads, people who have a particular ethical stance on things, animal lovers, influencers... I could go on. I think that these are all 'identities'?

For example... what does 'living as an Arsenal fan' involve? Is this satisfied by watching them on TV? Buying a replica shirt? Holding a season ticket? Or giving their latest place in the premier league a mere passing thought from time to time? Or something else... Is there a degree to which we could say someone is definitely an Arsenal fan? Does it matter? Because if it would be difficult, should/is it any more difficult to define what 'living as a womanI' entails? Well basically it's impossible, because you can't 'acquire' womanhood... you simply are it, or you're not. And actually I don't think a lot of football fans would be happy with 'blow-ins' self-identifying as 'one of them'. Where I live, 'plastic' football fans are seriously disliked, with good reason!!

We do protect certain religious beliefs, which for me are similar, but I think (?) that that's fairly limited to established world religions.

The barriers to entry for being trans- anything are far too low in my view, it's basically 'because I say so'... and I don't like any of the escalations of that either... e.g. those who dress a certain way, take certain medications, have certain surgery.

Sex is binary are there are NO possible entry points from one to the other... people just 'are'. Sex is something that you are, not something that you can have. We need to be very careful of our verbs here, never mind or pronouns.

And are there times when it doesn't matter? Well if someone wants to pretend to be the other sex whilst they walk down the street, watch a football match, wait in a traffic jam, watch Eastenders in their front room, or do that in privacy of an intimate moment with another consenting adult, that's fine by me.

But it's nothing but very unfair, highly unethical, and unsafe in some circumstances, to draw anyone else, including children, into this charade.