Do you feel that gender identity exists and is innate?

[FairHippopotama]

In progressive circles, there's the concept of 'gender identity' where everyone has a gender (not necessarily corresponding to their sex) that is unchangeable and inherent to them as a person. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

Don't be so ridiculous

You are oversimplifying the science to fit your viewpoint

Oh, the irony.......

Go to a nail salon. 99% of the customers are women. I don’t know many men with huge red extensions but if I got them I’d get complimented and no one would bat an eyelid

So if you get a manicure youre a girl? What if you don’t get a manicure? Are you then a man? Many men get manicures. And guess what…. Some men even wear make up!!

"There are trans-identifying women who have felt severe disgust and hatred of their bodies - their sex - from an incredibly young age, who have felt disassociation with the gender - that they are women - placed upon them, for no reason but e.g. prenatal hormonal exposure (a brain-body mismatch)."

It's this kind of casual sexism that absolutely infuriates me, as a woman who as a teenage girl found that I had a deep dislike of the changes to my body and a massive disassociation from the ideas of gender imposed on me. The idea that because of some purported "prenatal hormone exposure" or whatever similar suggestion that girls and women who feel this way have a "brain-body mismatch".... well, that can fuck right off. I am not some kind of defective mismatched woman because I don't conform to society's ideas about gender.

The issue is with society, not with my brain or the brains of other women who feel similarly.

I don't determine anyone's gender. I do perceive someone's sex; I can't personally guarantee I have always been right, indeed on a couple of occasions I have been uncertain, but I am sure that I am almost always right in my perception, particularly in real life encounters and if I have seen the person walking. I'm a man, and it may well be that women are better at this than men; they have more reason to have evolved highly accurate sex perception, given the relative dangerousness of men and women and the fact that women can become pregnant. Consider a woman walking late at night, and hearing footsteps behind her. A man in that situation might be nervous; for a woman that nervousness is typically (and reasonably) much greater.

Stereotypes are perhaps relevant to first impressions, but men wearing women's clothing are very often obvious at a second glance if not at first glance; this is also true of nearly all women in male coded clothing.

They don't usually pass; you're right. But that's the societal change that the gender-affirming movement asks for: that trans people are treated as the gender they see themselves as.

Adopting stereotypes doesn't make someone male or female, but my argument is that if a male 'passes' as female, then he is a woman; if society applies the stereotypes associated with females to you, then you are a woman. Whether you are a transgender woman or not is based on whether you are actually female or not.

You're right that we should move past these stereotypes, but they're here to stay at the moment. Throughout history and across many different cultures, various stereotypes - various roles, expectations, and norms - have been applied to men and women. Although I am a gender abolitionist - I agree with you that we all have 'individual interests, preferences and personalities' - I doubt these gendered stereotypes will just fade away.

Just to clarify, my point is not that we use stereotypes for a determination of gender, but for a determination of sex instead. What set of stereotypes we then apply to people reflects their gender.

For example, we use a woman's short height, feminine face, and dress to determine that she is female. Given we determine her to be female, we apply feminine stereotypes (stereotypes of women) to her. This means she is a woman. However, it could really be that 'society' was wrong, and that this woman is male.

What do you mean "gender dysphoria is a genuine neurological condition"?

No, it isn't. Are you going to talk about girl brains and boy brains and a boy brain in a girl body next? Because if we could sort "genuine" trans from opportunistic fetishist or mental unwell trans by a brain scan than would be handy, but we can't.

Also to be clear I don't think there are women transitioning because of fetishism, only men.

I did have a chuckle at that.

...........but my argument is that if a male 'passes' as female, then he is a woman

He absolutely fucking isn't a woman.

Your arrogance astounds me @FairHippopotama

Claiming you're not sexist, then making statements like the one above.

Adopting an attitude of faux innocence about the FWR board on here.

Aarrgghhhh

I don't think I'm sexist either

Don't ye, aye.

Again, this is another instance of simplifying the science. You said: [T]hey can tell the sex of the person walking.' Further motion experiments have found that the mean success rate for these point-light images is 63 per cent. When skeleton images are used, with the point lights interconnected, the success rate is higher at 70 per cent (https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.2.11). While this is clearly above random chance, it is definitely not foolproof like you imply. It aligns much more closely with my argument that, for example, there are masculine and feminine gaits. Some males have feminine gaits and some females have masculine gaits. (In this context, 'masculine' and 'feminine' just means ascribed to males or females respectively.)

You might be right about it passing. This could be linked to greater awareness about the dangers of validating any and all feelings that appear like gender dysphoria. I sincerely doubt the medical establishment will ever cease all gender-affirming care, given that some claims of gender dysphoria are 'true', unrelated to societal pressures or mental conditions like autism or ADHD and caused by e.g. prenatal hormonal exposure (a brain-body mismatch). ETA: These genuine cases of gender dysphoria are best treated through transitioning.

I used and use 'stereotypes' if the person I'm replying to calls them stereotypes. I think that's a fair approach. If I did correct someone, I would probably get called pedantic, so it's either you accusing me of not recognising the education and research of other users or other users accusing me of nitpicking.

I know and then we slap a gender label on them like metrosexual or agender or non-binary, wonder why?

my argument is that if a male 'passes' as female, then he is a woman

If you make statement like this I'm more likely to accuse you of being hard of thinking.

A male person is not, cannot and will never be a woman. At all.

There are as many ways of being a woman as their are women across the world. The only thing that unites us is our biological sex. It unites wealthy western women with women freezing to death in menstrual huts n Nepal. It unites Noor Inayat Khan with Jade Goody.

Biology. That's what makes us women, nothing else.

My point there was that anything we use to determine sex forms part of gender. 'Males are on average taller than females' -> 'men are taller than women'. If you see someone who's tall, you're more likely to determine that person to be male than female.

Other people on this post have frequently requested data from me; do you have any data on women identifying people's sexes and men being 'rubbish' at telling the difference? I don't dispute that men are likely slightly worse, but I doubt the difference is as large as you claim.

There is so much on this thread - not least males mansplaining why pronouns don't matter - that upsets me.

I've had lots of conversations with very middle liberal class men who think women now have equality. It's bullshit and it's patronising.

If man and woman are gender terms, would you have to come to the conclusion that spannasaurus is a man? But what about the long hair, and the information that spannasuarus mostly wears trousers? Could be a woman, or a Scotsman who hasn't had a haircut in ages, or a transwoman, no? Gender indeterminate on the evidence, so perhaps spannasaurus is non-binary?

My guess is that spannasaurus is a woman, as the majority of people posting on Mumsnet are women, and the user name has connotations of 'gender critical' feminism. The point is that none of the information given proves which sex, and all of the information given is ambiguous as to gender, because gender is such a nebulous slippery concept. Most (I would say all) of us are a mixture of 'feminine' and 'masculine' characteristics, and those characteristics can only be labelled 'masculine' or 'feminine' by reference to stereotypes or frequency of occurrence in men and women.

Given how difficult it is to determine whether spannasaurus is a man or a woman, is gender a useful way of categorising? For practical purposes, isn't sex far more useful, not least because it can be empirically determined when it matters, such as in women's sport or in who a lesbian couple need in order to obtain sperm? The same applies in law, when it comes to ensuring that women's spaces are for women. Law based on gender, as Stonewall tried to make the Equality Act, means that a transman who became pregnant would have no maternity rights. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court recognised that gender-based women's rights would be nonsensical, and applied the legal principle that law must be interpreted in a coherent way, so the Equality Act must be based on men and women being sex-based terms.

@FairHippopotama can I just say, you keep on saying "we" when you mean "I" or you mean, "I am asserting that people".... Your assertions are frequently worded as a matter of agreed fact, when they are not. It is a very irritating argument style.

my argument is that if a male 'passes' as female, then he is a woman

What do you mean 'passes'?

If a man isn't trying to pass but does, does he need to be offered a prostate exam or a smear? Which does he have the rights to?

I didn't say teenage girls. I said 'incredibly young' - infants, primary school or below, definitely pre-pubescence.

You're right that many teenage girls experience something which seems like gender dysphoria, but this is not what I was talking about. Literally just before the part which you quote, I said: 'The young women you mention, those with mental health difficulties, those with certain fetishes, the elderly who transition and don't seem to have a gender identity - they are not genuinely dysphoric and should be treated with therapy (e.g. CBT).'

What I'm talking about has been proven - the ideas of prenatal hormonal exposure resulting in brain-body mismatch have been investigated and do exist, resulting in true gender dysphoria. (For illustration, another example of something prenatal hormonal exposure affects is sexual orientation.)

Young women who experience body dysmorphia or dislike the confines of their gender are not 'defective' or 'mismatched' (calling people with gender dysphoria 'defective' is quite the statement, by the by). I've already acknowledged what you're saying.

"'Males are on average taller than females' -> 'men are taller than women'.

Firstly, this is just obvious nonsense though. The second does not follow from the first, and it is a mistake to suggest that it does.

If you see someone who's tall, you're more likely to determine that person to be male than female."

Secondly, if I see someone who is tall, I see someone who is tall. I may think that makes them very slightly more likely to be male, but at the same time I will also be seeing many other things about them which will be indicators of their sex, like their hand and feet size, their gait, their build, etc etc. All of which go towards my guess as to whether they are male or female.

Thirdly, none of that is relevant to what sex they actually are. Otherwise, someone's sex depends on other people's perceptions, which is logically a non-starter.

How do we know who has genuine dysphoria?
The elderly with dementia who thought they had it and now don't understand their bodies can't do CBT now, can they? Do we only know when we treat with transition and find out of it worked or not? If so that's one hell of a gamble.

"What I'm talking about has been proven - the ideas of prenatal hormonal exposure resulting in brain-body mismatch have been investigated and do exist, resulting in true gender dysphoria. (For illustration, another example of something prenatal hormonal exposure affects is sexual orientation.)"

No it has not. You are talking to us here as if we know nothing at all about this topic, where in fact you are patronising us.

They don't usually pass; you're right. But that's the societal change that the gender-affirming movement asks for: that trans people are treated as the gender they see themselves as.

But how can I treat someone "as the gender they see themselves as" when you have already acknowledged that gender isn't a thing, it's just a bunch of stereotypes? What you're actually asking me to do is to treat them as the sex that they are pretending to be. In other words, to collude with them in their delusion.

Adopting stereotypes doesn't make someone male or female, but my argument is that if a male 'passes' as female, then he is a woman; if society applies the stereotypes associated with females to you, then you are a woman. Whether you are a transgender woman or not is based on whether you are actually female or not.

I understand that this is your argument, but I fundamentally disagree with it. You are effectively trying to reduce the meaning of the terms man and woman to a bunch of deeply flawed stereotypes and to divorce them from their biological reality. A woman is a female adult human. No more, no less. And a man is a male adult human. If you aren't willing to accept that, then we may as well dispense with the terms man and woman altogether because your argument renders the words utterly meaningless.

You're right that we should move past these stereotypes, but they're here to stay at the moment. Throughout history and across many different cultures, various stereotypes - various roles, expectations, and norms - have been applied to men and women. Although I am a gender abolitionist - I agree with you that we all have 'individual interests, preferences and personalities' - I doubt these gendered stereotypes will just fade away.

You're contradicting yourself here, I'm afraid. You can't claim to be a "gender abolitionist" and say that you want to move away from the old stereotypes while simultaneously seeking to perpetuate them by arguing that we should recognise gender and gender identity as a thing. The concept of gender emphasises stereotypes, and it doesn't move us away from them at all. And those stereotypes are only here to stay if we collectively choose to make them stay - they are by no means universal or consistent across different cultures. Asking people to accept that the adoption of certain stereotypes "makes you a man" or "makes you a woman" works in a manner that is diametrically opposed to tackling stereotypes. If a man likes wearing dresses and we pretend that this makes him a woman, that merely strengthens the stereotype that dresses are for women. Wouldn't it be much better instead if we were to say that some men like dresses and that dresses can be for them too if they like them? Perhaps if we all did that, then the stereotypes really would begin to fade away over time, and that would be so much better for everybody.

Just to clarify, my point is not that we use stereotypes for a determination of gender, but for a determination of sex instead. What set of stereotypes we then apply to people reflects their gender.

With regard to the first sentence here, no, I fundamentally disagree that we use stereotypes for a determination of sex. Sex is determined by biology, and most of us are easily capable of recognising biological sex regardless of "gender" markers which might be intended to persuade us otherwise. I don't understand your second sentence in this paragraph, it appears to be tautological.

For example, we use a woman's short height, feminine face, and dress to determine that she is female. Given we determine her to be female, we apply feminine stereotypes (stereotypes of women) to her. This means she is a woman. However, it could really be that 'society' was wrong, and that this woman is male.

Again, I don't really know what you're getting at here. A woman cannot be male. I think you are saying that a short trans woman with a feminine face could be mistaken for a woman, and that we would therefore make other assumptions about her because we would mistakenly believe her to be a woman? But that argument is flawed, a)because it's highly unlikely that even a short trans woman would actually be mistaken for a female and b) those of us who reject sex-based stereotypes tend not to make loads of other assumptions about people based on their sex in any case.

So: I am female but identify as a man and I change my appearance so successfully that everyone in my small town and workplace is fooled and "treats me as a man" (what exactly does that entail?). You say that makes me a man.

Then I get a new workmate, who due to a history of sexual abuse is extremely alert to sex differences. She clocks me as a natal woman straight away. Do I cease to be a man then? Or when she says "she" about me to a colleague and they realise too? Or when the whole workforce knows? What's the tipping point?

And do they just have to "treat me" as a man to make me a man, or do they actually have to believe I am one? Would I have been a man if they had never been fooled and had just been "kind"?

Incidentally, this thought experiment has brought home to me just how very destabilising the dependence on affirmation by others of one's "felt" identity must be. Not a healthy way to live and I'm not convinced it is kind to encourage it at all, because it leads to seeing anyone who doesn't (or even might not) toe the line, as a threat.