Why do activists always say "sex and gender are different" in biology-based discussions? (and any other questions MNers have have about pro-trans talking points)

[singthing]

This really is a genuine question:

In any discussion where biological sex is the key factor in something*, someone always pops up with the "tell me you don't understand the difference between sex and gender" line.

I simply don't understand why this is always dropped in. Is it just someone picking from the list of approved activist comments, or is there actually some point I am missing? It never seems to actually add anything to the context of biological ability. It doesn't even function as a thought-terminating cliche....

(*It repeatedly came up in on social media this week about the IOC decision.)

I'm guessing a bit here, but one thing that often becomes apparent is that the gender advocates either don't really get - or affect not to get - who it is they're arguing with when they come here. They conflate two different groups who both understand that sex is real, but differ in their attitudes to gender expression.

Gender critical feminists recognise sex difference as a physical fact, but regard much of the gendered assumptions and expectations about what men and women are/should be like, as social baggage dumped on the sexes, not something that inevitably belongs to them. They'd say "you are a woman if you are of the female sex, but you don't have to be "feminine".

The other type of sex realists are the social conservatives who not only recognise the physical reality of sex difference but think that it entails - and ought to entail - the "gendered" stuff too. That women are and should be "feminine" as well as female.

So perhaps some of the insistence that gender and sex are different is because they assume they are arguing with that second group of people, who think the two things march together.

Oddly, the genderists are more like the conservatives in their idea that if you are "feminine" you must be in some way a woman.

I think one of the reasons is that the whole point of "gender" studies which queer activists got universities to set up to replace women's studies, is because sex is a biological fact. But queer activists want and wanted to undermine the concept of it being fixed.

By moving the word sex out of the description and inserting gender you immediately create a concept that what was the rigidity of 2 sexes becomes any number of permutations of gender, and better still not something that is determined. And is of course a challenge to the establishment.

The problem is, like many political movement, it is permeated with sexism and mysogeny.

So unlike the earlier and in fact more radical gender bender movement where no one claimed to change sex but did refuse the gender norms that society imposed on them by accepting their biology but by dressing, behaving, having interests that challenged the straight jacket of gender conformity.

In fact this generation's trans activism is highly reactionary, as they are too frightened to be gender benders (eg clearly male but dressing in a "female" way and still using the men's toilets) and of course gives them the "right" (in their minds) to intrude into and take over women only spaces and services.

So the need to go on pretending that the word gender is the same as sex is part of the mind game that the current (queer) version of trans is all about ie nothing to do with those with gender dysphoria that the GRC was intended for.

The use of the word gender symbolises the infiltration of queer politics into daily life. And it has been spread by the students who were first taught "gender" studies and have taken with them into the work place and politics this concept.

(It was never about not wanting to use the word sex because it was embarrassing or something. If it was we would never have had the sex discrimination act (1975), nor even sex as a protected characteristic in the EA (2010). I'm not that well educated about literature but am pretty sure there are instances of the word sex coming up in Victorian novels etc.. So if they weren't embarrassed find it hard to think of a time when it was. Would be interesting is someone had the time and energy to go through old newspapers, and novels to see when the word "gender" started to be used as though it meant someone's biological sex.)

I disagree with you about it “not wanting to use the word sex because it was embarrassing or something“. The fact that there is sex discrimination legislation is irrelevant. People really are squeamish about saying “sex”. They just don’t like saying it. “Gender” is regarded as a polite way of saying “sex”.

Apart from that, there is genuine confusion: many people think the words mean the same thing and are therefore interchangeable; given the choice, they’d rather use gender. I’ve said on here before that when I was booking in an animal for boarding, the form that I had to fill in asked what gender the animal was.

Yes but that is just a recent development.

And maybe is some very genteel families the word sex isn't use because they are embarrased by for centuries people have used the word sex when talking about men and women.

And only younger people who have come under the influence of of queer activism to think that sex and gender are the same, are confused.

All you are reporting is the sucess of the queer theorists to challenge the "estblishment" view of the world.

The fact that the establishment recognises the fact of biology doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Anymore than the fact that it is mainly right wing papers that report of sex based rights.

It isn't an accident that the phrase is sex based rights or that a campaign group is called sex matters.

I'm really hoping my tone comes across as inquisitive and not accusing here. If it doesn't, please do know that I tried 😬❤️

On a previous thread, you and I were commenting on the subject of belief in "gendered souls":

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5501077-keira-bell-on-gmb-right-now?reply=151065404&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

From your comment in that thread:

I don't think the sense of self that rebelled against stereotyping was an 'inner soul'

And from above in this thread:

Unlike many posters, I believe I have a gender identity, it is strongly gender non-conforming and is a very distinctive element of who I am.

What you're describing in the second quoted text is (I think!) what I was referring to as a "gendered soul" in the other thread: a sense of self that has a "gender". That feeling of "gender" may match a person's sex or it may not. If it doesn't, their "gendered soul", their inner sense of gendered self, is "non-conforming".

I wonder if perhaps we were talking at cross purposes on the previous thread?

From other threads we've both been on, I'm pretty sure we both align on the idea that there is societal pressure to conform to sex-based stereotypes, where that pressure presents itself as a mix of limitations (e.g. girls can't do rugby at school in PE lessons, such as at my daughters' school) and expectations (e.g. parents of young girls tend to let their hair grow long from when they are babies and parents of boys tend to keep it short - any exceptions are generally seen as being out of the norm, particularly for a young girl to have short hair).

I think where we diverge is whether the net result of following or rejecting these limitations/expectations throughout our lives means we develop a sense of gender identity. On this point, you believe it does and I don't. Does that sound like a reasonable understanding of our different perspectives?

All you members of the fairer sex have the choice whether or not to conform to gender stereotypes,

... or ...

All you members of the fairer gender have the choice whether or not to conform to sex stereotypes.

The first of those sentences feels less jarring to me than the second (trying to ignore for a moment any inherent sexism of 'fairer sex'). The reason is that the words 'sex' and 'gender' are not only used in isolation, but also in common phrases. Language depends on associations and unconscious rules, for example adjective order is generally instinctive for a native speaker. Bright red not red bright, for example. So 'fairer sex' is an instinctive choice over 'fairer gender', and I am more familiar with 'gender stereotypes' than 'sex stereotypes'.

I believe queer theory manipulates our instinctive use of language, and plays games with it in order to 'queer' society. As a PP has said, there is often a 'bait and switch' by using the same word, often 'gender', in two senses in the same argument without clarifying the switch of meaning. This allows nonsense to sound plausible.

The use of well-defined words to mean something vaguer is also common. An example is 'spectrum'. A true spectrum is something that has a measurable variable – frequency (or wavelength) in the electromagnetic spectrum that includes the rainbow. Sex is not a spectrum at all; it does not have such a variable, though many different sex-affected characteristics, such as height, do. Gender, in its social meaning, is a pseudo-spectrum. Most of us have a concept of a gradation from feminine to masculine. But it is not measurable, and so it is not possible to precisely define anyone's place on it. A reason it is not measurable is that there are many factors, many gender stereotypes, which go to form an impression of someone's masculinity, but anyway each stereotype is usually unmeasurable. Even 'amount of makeup' has no simple variable to measure; and makeup is a good example of cultural dependency, as how 'feminine' it is to wear makeup depends on where one lives and whether we are thinking of the '80s or the '20s, and so on.

So whenever I am involved in a discussion on these matters, I try to spot the illogicalities. The genderbread person or the gender unicorn are great tools in understanding the obfuscation in gender identity and queer theory, as they imply that quite different concepts are directly comparable, and not-so-subtly imply that, for example, sexual orientation is just a matter of genital preference – and their advocates often have the cheek to berate us for 'lack of nuance'! They are all surface plausibility, which falls apart as soon as you look at it critically.

No problem at all with your post, BonfireLady, thank you for checking that it's not 'accusing' - not at all
However, it's only 10.17 and I've only had one cup of tea and your post has made my brain go 😮, so I've saved your post, I'll put the kettle on, have some more caffeine, and get back to answering the really interesting points you make.

I don't think I'm used to people paying so much detailed attention to what I say-
I just hope I haven't somehow accidentally admitted to having a 'gendered soul' and have been -shock horror! - inconsistent😬
L8r😄

Gender is a single word defining stereotypes based on sex, so 'gender stereotypes' is a bit confusing in itself and implies that there is gender separate from stereotypes.

I agree that gender is often used in place of sex to appear polite and genteel, such as 'gender reveals' 🤮

Too many people underestimate and downplay the importance of language. Many people also think that they are capable of thinking outside of language and see it as a tool to express their thoughts, rather than realising that anyone's thoughts are constrained by the limits of language.

We can see failure all around us where language has been incorrectly applied. Such as the 3 strikes rule in US justice. If the rules of baseball had been different, there would be a different number of chances.

The famous example is the 'War on Terror'. 'Terror' is not a nation state, there is no defined enemy, so how can you have a war on it. Until we can insist on a distinction between sex and gender, female humans can continue to be oppressed from all directions.

The interchanging of sex and gender (outside of gentility and prudishness) can only be to obfuscate.

As promised, BonfireLady, a few cups of strong tea later😄
I think where we diverge is whether the net result of following or rejecting these limitations/expectations throughout our lives means we develop a sense of gender identity. On this point, you believe it does and I don't. Does that sound like a reasonable understanding of our different perspectives?

I agree that we both agree about pressure to conform to gender stereotypes.
I think I didn't like the use of the term 'soul' as in 'gendered soul' because I associate 'soul' with the religious sense of something immortal, outside the realm of material life.

So to me, 'gendered soul' implies something that is already there when a child is born, and which will direct their future identity .

This fuels the trans claim that boys can be born with female 'souls' and vice versa.

Why did I develop such a strong rejection of the gender stereotypes that other women may have rejected in part, but accepted others? That's a difficult question, I'm not sure why.

Background: I was lucky to be brought up in an era/society where gender stereotypes were less strictly enforced than they are today: for instance, women did not normally wear make-up, some did on special occasions but the idea of going out without your face on was the norm!
Women in the rural area I lived in were expected to be strong and do physical work. If a family had a daughter who was 'not feminine' and liked doing heavy work, the extra pair of hands and the willingness to get up on the roof and fix a leak was a bonus.
I was the youngest in a family of girls, and as I was also the last child, there was never going to be a son, and I think I received some of the free-floating 'boy-stuff' that my sisters weren't interested in.
So I was the one who helped my father with DIY etc.

Now the next bit depends on whether or not homosexuality is innate - I'm not sure what the current science is on that. But I certainly knew from a very early age that I was romantically interested in girls not boys.

How does a little child know that? There's a lot of that kind of thing in popular culture: the moon/june love songs, the 'Isn't that sweet she's got a little boyfriend!' etc etc. I always identified with the boy in the love songs, pursuing girls, getting your hear broken by girls, I wish they all could be California girls..

That was a powerful reason to reject all the other aspects of femininity that I already wasn't particularly attracted to - many posters on here also didn't buy into the pink fluffy sparkly vibe and were tomboys, but grew up straight.

I realise that I've now substituted a 'lesbian soul' for a 'gendered soul' - I'm not doing a very good job of this, am I?😒

I think I'm saying that my relationship with the social construct of gender was influenced by a number of factors, mostly external but IF homosexuality is innate, that was a powerful added ingredient which pushed my rejection of feminine stereotypes further than other women's.

I call the result a 'gender identity'. I wouldn't call it a 'gendered soul' because that implies a pre-existent non-material essence, whereas I see elements of decision-making and choice in the formation and expression of my identity.

But I accept that not everybody believes they have a gender identity, lots of posters say 'I'm just me'.

That's fine, that's who they are, whereas for me it feels significant to exteriorise the identity I have developed for a variety of reasons.

It in no way diminishes my woman-ness or my feminism, something I share with the proud butch lesbian Faika El-Nagashi who is one of the very rare gender critical voices defending women's rights in the EU.
Faika El-Nagashi “there is no human right to be a woman… it is just reality” | Mumsnet

OP, you're doing that functional person thing of expecting there to be a logical argument proving the point, so that you can follow it and assess the conclusion.

It's a different ball game. This isn't a rational and replicable sequence of ideas leading to an obvious conclusion; this is about a pre determined end solution (the end of women's sex based rights and spaces, and absolute right of men with trans identities to use women's spaces, resources and women at will) that is flailing around trying to find justifiable reasons that get people to that end solution. Hence the many confused, mad lines and theories that don't stand up, the frequent switching between them when one isn't working, and sometimes claiming one thing while sometimes claiming the other. It isn't about the argument, it's about trying to get you to the end point.

Add into that the elements of social dysfunctional thinking that feelings create reality and not objective facts, so it doesn't matter if what you say now totally contradicts what you said five minutes ago, so long as both served your emotions in the moment - and the chaos gremlining that goes with high anxiety and needs met through conflict, confusion etc, so everything becomes split to hairs and muddled. And the belief that lies can be believed if they are repeated loudly and frequently enough. A well known TiM wrote a thesis on why no one needed to know what they were talking about; they only needed to be passionate and convincing. This is rooted in a belief system that is based on not coping well with reality or the social world.

I read somewhere that Ruth Bader Ginsberg started using gender as an synonym for sex because it didn't get the men on the Supreme Court all flustered when they were discussing equal pay.
It then sort of stuck and became a 'polite' way of saying sex.
Then the activists got involved and used it to muddy the waters on sex-based rights and promote their cult of the special.

"You must lie upon the daisies
And discourse in novel phrases
Of your complicated state of mind.
The meaning doesn't matter
If it's only idle chatter
Of a TRANScendental kind.
And everyone will say
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself
in terms too deep for me,
Why what a very singularly deep young man
This deep young man must be."

Gilbert and Sullivan would have loved the gender wars! They'd have had a lot of fun with "nuance" and clownfish and Judith Butler.

Sex and gender are different? Lots of people use them incorrectly and it confuses matters.

Almost all transactivist “arguments” are designed to obfuscate. The very first TRA I exchanged words with on Twitter was someone I had known years ago, and so naively assumed we could have a rational discussion.

She almost won on that occasion, because she tried a tactic that I almost failed to recognize, because I wasn’t expecting it, but it was exactly the tactic my ex husband used on me, which was to twist everything I said, imply I had said something that I actually hadn’t said, then attack me for it in order to avoid answering the important and valid point I’d just made.

“Tell me you don’t understand the difference between sex and gender,” is just such an argument. Presumably someone was pressing them on the importance of sex and categories in sport. They can’t answer that, because they’d have to admit the point was valid and reasonable. So they throw in the implication you said something you didn’t (referring suddenly to sex and gender, when nobody had mentioned gender) alongside an attack - you don’t understand = you’re ignorant.

The way to deal with the tactic (learned after many years of marriage) is, point out you were not talking about gender, ask why they are trying to deflect and repeat the original question.

Continue to ask the question, while pointing out they are procrastinating and trying hard not to answer. Carry on until (assuming you’re on Twix) they block you.

I was quite addicted to this for a while as it pleased me to finally be able to better what I considered to be a narcissistic debating technique and refusing to be gaslighted, which is what they were attempting. I have now given it up as (as with other addictions) it left me feeling empty.

But that is what they are doing with that statement. It means you are getting too close to the truth and have to be pushed away from driving your point home, because that would reveal the truth, which is that they have not one single valid point to argue with.

This is such a great response. Thank you for taking the time (and the tea 😊 ☕) to come back with your thoughts on it all.

BTW the reason I remembered your other post was because it got me thinking about my daughter. She and her sister both think I'm mad for not believing I have a gender identity, so I had assumed belief in gender identity (as a gendered soul) was a starting point for anyone who then goes on to believe that theirs doesn't match their sex. I found the challenge to my thinking helpful.. and then got very confused when I saw your post on this thread ☺️

I think you've struck on something really interesting about whether this identity is perceived to be an essence in and of itself, separate from the body and inextricably linked to the mind (a soul, albeit nothing to do with religion), or a manifestation of choice and expression/performance. By "performance" I mean that we all perform aspects of our own personalities outwardly e.g. how we walk and carry ourselves, our mannerisms, how we speak etc etc. I'm not philosopher or psychologist, but in layman's terms, I suspect this outward "performance" is a mix of subconsciousness and choice.

The reason I think of it in "soul" terms is because I do believe I have a soul. I'm not religious, I don't believe in god. However, I do believe in ghosts and I think that we have a part of ourselves that doesn't go away after we die - our soul.

I call the result a 'gender identity'. I wouldn't call it a 'gendered soul' because that implies a pre-existent non-material essence, whereas I see elements of decision-making and choice in the formation and expression of my identity.

Although I don't see it the same way, this makes a lot of sense as a summary explanation (of everything you said above) for why you see yourself as having a gender identity. One key difference between your and my experience of navigating the world as a female is that I have never had to opt out (declare myself "different" in some way) of the expectation that I will be attracted to boys. I did once have a period during my teenage years where I thought I might be a lesbian (I experienced an overwhelming urge to passionately kiss my friend while playing a game of cards together, didn't say or do anything and felt rather confused for quite a long time afterwards) but other than that, I've tracked along in the societally-expected pathway, as it were. How boringly heteronormative 🙃

As I grew up in the 80s and 90s, that pathway involved me being bombarded with messages that I wanted to be picked by a boy and that the way to achieve this was to be an attractive California girl etc. Sadly for me (or so I thought at the time) I was a gangly geek, so that didn't quite work out. Not sure how old you are compared to me but although I think you're right that we were able to challenge sex-based stereotypes more freely in recent years, there was a LOT of messaging in books and films that the purpose of being a girl was to be chosen by a man. It was all portrayed as very romantic and lovely.

As per your thoughts above, I wonder if you being a lesbian is a core part of how and why you see yourself having a gender identity? Before I get piled on, I should probably also say that there are obviously plenty of lesbian women who don't believe they have a gender identity. However, sexual orientation is such a core part of how we navigate the world as adolescents and older adults and it's a reasonable premise for the idea of an identity that is associated with sex-based stereotypes. Unfortunately for children, it's also a huge Trojan horse opportunity for adults to wedge in the idea that they might have a gendered soul that differs from their sex - as a child it's impossible to disentangle a leaning towards preferences that are stereotypically associated with the opposite sex from potentially being the opposite sex. The fact that some people are gay, lesbian and bi is the perfect vehicle to round off this messaging, making something deeply homophobic and sexist seem like a positive and inclusive way to understand an emerging same-sex attraction. My older (autistic, nearly 17) daughter says she doesn't have any sexual orientation at all. I suspect she's just yet to experience what hers will eventually be, which would tie in with her overall lack of emotional maturity compared to others her age. My other daughter (15) talks a bit about fancying boys but generally finds the ones her own age annoying - a classic and stereotypical pathway through adolescence as a teenage girl, if you like.

The Trojan horse potential (of a non-aligned gendered soul) continues into adulthood because people like me, who've effectively adopted a reasonable number of sex-based stereotypes within their own personality, are told that the reason I might not have realised I have a gender identity is because mine aligns with my sex. In other words, I'm just not aware of it. Whilst I can sort of see that point (and your post gave me pause for thought again), I still reject this idea. I still don't believe that anyone has a gender identity. However, much as I also don't believe in god (and am sometimes told that it doesn't matter as he will be waiting for me when I'm ready) I am totally OK with the idea that some people do believe we all have a gender identity.

Where I think both your and my views align is that, gender identity or not, it's spectacularly unhelpful and ultimately dangerous to lead children and young adults towards this concept when it is predicated on the idea that a) it is an inner essence that is more important than your actual sex for lots of things, including sports and changing rooms etc and b) it being so important means it's a good idea to chop off body parts and/or realign your endochrine system in an irreversible way without any credible evidence base of benefit and a growing evidence base of harm.

Edited for typos

That's interesting, BonfireLady. May I just add that boys often have a distaste for girls that rapidly changes with the onset of puberty. The distaste for girls is quite different from being gay – it is before most of the stirrings of sexuality. In my opinion, it is however a matter of identity, a tribalistic identification with those who are the same sex.

My sense of being male is tied up with my sense of my body, when I am aware of my physicality. It has very little to do with "gender" as in masculinity, except as an awareness of my physical capabilities. It seems quite plausible that women can have a very similar experience of their physical capabilities, for example in an athletic context. I have not felt any less male or masculine though when I have been weak from illness or trauma. And I'm aware that I'm talking in stereotypical terms here, despite rejecting stereotypes at an intellectual level. It's difficult to avoid waffling about all this!

That really interesting BonfireLady, you are bringing a lot of depth to things I haven't really thought of all that deeply, and I really appreciate that, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

You've expressed really well and succinctly the imposition of 'transness' onto young people who, left to their own devices would be gay not trans
'leaning towards preferences that are stereotypically associated with the opposite sex ..from potentially being the opposite sex'.
That's what makes gender ideology homophobic as well as sexist.

You still don't believe you have a 'gender identity', and that might be because, as you say, your possible 'gender identity' 'aligns with my sex.'

Maybe I think I have a gender ID because it doesn't align with [the stereotypes associated with] my sex - when the shoe doesn't fit perfectly it rubs and you are constantly aware of it; you forget you're wearing shoes that fit perfectly
All my life it has been brought to my attention, intentionally or not, sometimes harshly, occasionally with threats of violence, that I am not like other women - including the classic being challenged in women's toilets, and no it's not a big deal, a pleasant 'No it's OK, I am in the right place!' , a second look from the women there, and all's well.

Maybe that's why I feel I have a gender ID.
You don't think you have one, and that's you, different person, different perceptions, different opinions - that's grand.

I only have to deal with myself and my own 'stuff', I acknowledge that you have two dear daughters and their feelings and experiences around their own identities are something you have to deal with too.

Hopefully they make their own ways forwards, no tram-tracks, no expectations, just becoming their own kind of women, whether that aligns with their sex, does not align with their sex, or is a bit of a mix-and-match.
They are off to a good start because they have a mother who is thoughtful and open and perceptive.

That's interesting ROGC - that transition from 'Girls yeughhhh😝' to 'Girls mmmmmm😍'
Or as Cliff Richard put it: 'Goodbye Sam, Hello Samantha'😁

Because I had gender dysphoria-if-it-exists, and didn't ID as a girl, I had that 'Girls are soppy, yeughhhh' feeling, which was bad because I was of course hating myself as well.

Even when I moved on to 'Girls mmmmmm' ,it was still bad because I was fancying girls, but still not liking or respecting who they [we] were. I had acquired misogynistic attitudes to women along with other more acceptable male stereotypes, like DIY and opening jars
Fortunately for me and for my future girlfriends, I discovered feminism, and understood that although I was different from other women, I was not separate from them, we're all in it together regardless, and becoming a feminist meant that I got back self-respect as well as respect for the women I loved.

I have absolutely no idea why my 10.59 post was hidden and still is, in case 'y'all' are thinking I said something controversial... it's a complete mystery -what could possibly be questionable about what I wrote??
But don't worry, you aren't missing much, it didn't say anything very important, so don't feel cheated out of some earth-shattering revelation. It wasn't😄

I don't even know if we're allowed to post to Defend our Honour like this when a previous post is being 'looked at' - guess I'll soon find out if this one is hidden too!

It's just another way they coopt gender critical and sex realist phrases. I've noticed that if you push back they always end up talking gender stereotypes, even when talking about sex. I think it's in part because they think it sounds like they know what they are talking about, and partly because by encroaching on 'our' language it makes it harder to argue with them.

Thanks to all for taking the time to share some really intelligent points and rationale.

When I read @PriOn1 comment about "the tactic my ex husband used on me, which was to twist everything I said, imply I had said something that I actually hadn’t said, then attack me for it in order to avoid answering the important and valid point I’d just made", my mind went immediately to activists immediately accusing people of being interested in what is inside children's underwear.

And also the tactic of telling a thousand lies so your interlocutor has to spend time picking each one apart to get back to the main point. And it is always done with such extraordinary confidence too - "puberty blockers are reversible!", "basic biology says there are more than 2 sexes!", "we have always been at war with eastasia!", and so on....

Yet another great post @MarieDeGournay

This bit...

You still don't believe you have a 'gender identity', and that might be because, as you say, your possible 'gender identity' 'aligns with my sex.'

... says to me that you think I do have a gender identity, but I'm just not aware of it. As you're someone who believes we all have a gender identity, it makes sense that you would think this. Very much like it would make sense that to a Christian, god loves me even if I don't think he exists.

That kind of thing will never annoy me because where my lack of belief (i.e. for me gender identity/god doesn't exist) directly contradicts someone else's belief (i.e. for them gender identity/god does exist) there is no middle ground to be found except for acceptance that the other holds the position they do. My lack of belief doesn't stop them believing. Or to put it another way:

different person, different perceptions, different opinions - that's grand.

(When I read that in your post, my head voice did the best appriximation of an Irish accent. I hope I did you justice 😁)

And thank you for your lovely words. I'm definitely not a perfect mum (not sure any such thing exists though TBF.. every parent is winging it to some degree or another) but I'm doing my best to be open and also to think critically. It's fair to say the topic of gender identity introduced an absolutely mad curve ball into all of that!

As for your mysteriously hidden post... You were on fire after all that tea ☕ Perhaps you had one cup too many and whatever you said was just too insightful for one of our regular lurking scolders to leave on the thread?!?

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic your post was also really interesting. Can I ask for clarification on this point..

May I just add that boys often have a distaste for girls that rapidly changes with the onset of puberty

Do you mean they didn't have the distate before puberty or that they did? Which way round is the change? In my recollection, boys went from being peers (and seeing me as a peer) to suddenly leering after all the girls (except gangly, geeky, flat-chested me.. which made me sad at the time.. I do wish I could give teenage me a head wobble!!).. but perhaps you're describing something different and/or the other way round from that i.e. a new emerging distate?

Maybe the clue is here ⬇️?

In my opinion, it is however a matter of identity, a tribalistic identification with those who are the same sex.

Do you mean a distate for girls as peers maybe? If so, do you think that the sexual awakening that you describe coming later might be related to objectifying girls? I guess that could also link in well to some girls identifying as boys who want to be a part of that male camaraderie as well as escaping male attention.

Maybe I can add something asaman

Young lads are typically busy trying to establish themselves laddily with their male peers, including getting kudos from older lads. Being seen as a girl or like a girl is minus kudos and there's a time when girls are just a thing it's insulting to be compared with or associated with. Then hormones kick in and you're suddenly fascinated by girls and wish they liked you. It's very weird at first having just spent the last years professing your disgust, to now having err other feelings!

@BonfireLady
I don't suppose it's the same for all boys, but pre-puberty I've often seen an "ugh, girls" attitude, which disappears when quite rapidly girls go from being those different beings that we don't want to be seen with, to the very people we want to hang out with. Where lads had seen respect for women modelled, the tribal "othering" of girls tended to disappear and be replaced with liking their company. I personally found it easy to play with my female cousins, who I really knew as people, but I didn't have much time for girls in general, at school for example, until I grew up a bit.

Unfortunately there is also the aspect of poorly controlled sexual desire, so yes, as a teenager I knew lads who saw girls just as sexual objects to be stared at and used. Some older lads tended to act with bravado, making unlikely boasts about their prowess and "success with girls". So I suppose those ones had not (yet?) grown out of their tribalism – they wanted to look good to their male friends and were in macho competition with them, but that was still the group they identified with.

BezMills has put what I meant much more simply and clearly.