'Different but of equal value' and gender

[soupycustard]

I'm interested in how many posters say they don't consider they have a gender. I am very GC and of course the 'genderwoo' is utter nonsense, and the misuse of language by TRAs has been cynical and deliberate, which makes this a difficult question/issue to put into words. But to try... :
Aside from physical sex characteristics, I wonder (but I'm doubting myself now!) whether at population level, women are different from men in their attitude to and approach to things,and I'm not sure that's 100% down to nurture rather than nature.
I studied feminism in the 90s and at that time, it was all about the sexes being 'different but of equal value' so I think that is what I'm influenced by. Because that seemed to encompass different behaviours, eg would females, at population level, be more interested in looking after children than males (irrespective of educational attainment/pay etc), and if so is that something to do with 'gender'?
I would also add that even if I do wonder about 'gender' and whether I have such a thing, that does not make any difference to my GC position, in that to me it's yet another reason why a man wouldn't know what a woman feels like!

I'm female - I have a sex.

Gender is regressive bollocks that has taken us back decades and encouraged people to mutilate their or their children's bodies.

I think looking after children may not be the best example.
Women carry children for 9 months, then breastfeed and are only fertile at certain times for a fixed number of years anyway.
From a biological point of view therefore we are surely far more invested in their safe upbringing than a man who can potentially procreate with any woman who will let him.
So I think your example is biology not 'gender'.

Thank you for the responses.
Already slightly clarifying my debate with myself...
'Gender' as used now, and especially by TRAs, is indeed regressive and offensive.
But I think the 'different but of equal value' school of feminism in the 90s was wanting a female within a ' gender stereotype' to be respected/paid as much etc as a male. Ie the argument was not that gender didn't exist, but that gender differences should be respected as much as sex differences.

I think that to argue this you need to find non biological things that are universally true across all the world and all time and not accountable for by patriarchal society.

So, say you wanted to say that women are programmed to be worse at science. If we could find one example of a society where women were equally good at science then that would disprove. Some countries are better at promoting women in science than others.

Yes I accept that the childcare example is difficult. I chose it because I (although a mother) have never considered myself at all 'maternal' but looking at mums' groups I've been in or mothers at the school gates, I have felt in a minority in terms of attitude towards children and so it just struck me that whilst there will be many exceptions (me being one), at population level women have a different attitude from men.
I'm starting to wonder though if the very fact that I'm havo g difficulty putting my thoughts into words mean that my thoughts don't make sense...

I don't think we need the word gender at all tbh. The sexes are different of course, but not because ladies wear dresses and like pink and men wear trousers and like football - which to me is what gender is all about. The sexes can be different without needing a word to label some differences that may or may not occur between people of different sexes. Gender is completely regressive IMO.

The problem is things may be genuinely true "at population level" but people are tempted to assume every man /woman is a miniature replica of that population's mix of characteristics.

This doesn't allow for the huge variation within a sex class, that's far greater than any average variation between them.

I think it makes things clearer as well if you use "sex-role stereotypes" rather than "gender", because that's an increasingly nebulously defined word

Gender = sexist stereotypes.

Try and define it WITHOUT using sexist stereotypes.

Go on. Try.

If you studied feminism in the 90s this shouldn't be hard to resolve.

@CantHoldMeDown that sounds very much like me - my DH is only useful in a 'manly way' because he's taller and stronger. In all other ways I'm definitely the one 'wearing the trousers' (to coin a exist expression!)

The longer I live the more I see rigid enforcement of gender rules through socialisation. We can never know if anything is truly innate unless we abolish gender first.

It's because you are trying to see gender as something which exists outside sexist stereotypes because you are trying to be kind and sympathise etc.

The problem is, that you can't define gender without sexism. And if you are against sexism you can't be nice about gender because you know it's discriminatory cobblers.

(Following on from my previous post...) So, say that women, as a class, were "naturally" (I don't know how you'd measure this) 18% more polite than men.

Do you therefore assume each woman is politer than each man? If not, in what situations would you use that knowledge?

Do you also therefore assume that every polite person is "really" a woman, somehow, regardless of sex?

This is, broadly, how we got to where we are, isn't it?

Or does it mean you have been socialised to not be a dickhead or to be a doormat because you have been repeatedly told you are lesser value?

What's nature and what's nuture?

Yeah, I was assuming in my hypothetical example there was a way to eliminate confounding factors like socialisation, which obviously you can't. But even if you could, you'd still have the issue that knowing broad generalisations wouldn't help in many real-life situations - and can be actually harmful.

Gender is just stereotypes.

Women can break stereotypes without changing sex.

Certain people don't want to admit this.

I believe that biology is expressed and some expressions have lead to what is now thought of as ‘gender’.

Then, some aspects of what being male or female means have become socially expected or conventional. That’s where society goes wrong.

But I think it is difficult to separate biology from gender.

I think there is clear evidence of sex based differences. Sexual offending is an obvious one. I think it’s hard to parse whats socialisation and whats innate differences. There was an interesting stuff where mothers of boy who were beginning to walk thought their kids were advanced compared to the mothers of girls who thought they were doing ok or behind. It starts young doesn’t it. I’ll see if I can find a link to the study.

@RedToothBrush
There's no need for the 'tone'! I know it's difficult on this board and we're all very tired of the silly posts (I lurk even though I don't post often).
It's very difficult to put into words... How about this as an example of what I'm getting at:
Gender stereotype: girls tend to like arts subjects and boys tend to like STEM.
Possible misuses of that stereotype: (a) arts are a 'soft' subject and (b) more girls should do STEM.
Possible 'different but of equal value' take: more girls may like arts versus STEM and that is fine. Do we laud STEM because it is valued as a 'male' subject?
Again, to emphasise, I am not saying 'this is true'. I am asking a question because it interests me when people who are fundamentally on the same page as me think differently.

But see, is it not exactly this kind of thinking (that you felt 'different' to other women) that leads to people thinking that perhaps they're not women after all...? We are all different, and whilst there might well be similarities at a population level, I would also say the very fact that some of those similarities differ depending on where in the world you are suggests that its societal...

New here.

I prefer woodwork to needlework, I used to have my hair cut (short back & sides) by a men's barber, and the last time I wore a dress (or a skirt) was at my sister-in-law's wedding 20 years ago. If gender is a spectrum, I'm edging towards the middle.

But I've had two wake-up calls in my life. The first was at 19, when I found out (the hard way) that my university had an embedded rape culture. The second was around 40, when my youngest (of 3) was starting Reception, and it dawned on me that my career was already dead and my socioeconomic prospects were screwed. Both epiphanies were due to biology. That's how I learned what it means to be a woman.

It’s impossible to untangle, hormones may well play a part , but it’s clear that nurture has a huge impact

However the effects attributed to “gender” would then be effects attributed to “sex” because I don’t see those transowmen rocking up to take on childcare and clearing up peoples sick

and I think a male nurse might be rightly offended if you suggested their career choice showed their transgenderism and femininity rtaher than their strength to go against the norms of society

You sound amazing.

What tone?!

I'm not being snarky. If you've read it like that, that's just you being touchy.

As I say, try and define gender without resorting to stereotypes.

The real problem we have here is trying to be nice and understanding when we were taught this was irrelevant in the 90s.

Whereas my husband is 3 inches shorter than me, currently 6 stone lighter and it's definitely me you want to have your back in a fight as he's useless and I'm experienced 💪