Trying to understand everyday views on sex and gender discussions

[Schallern]

Hi,

I hope this is the right place for this post.

I am a bisexual female and have been friends for years with a very liberal, LGBT crowd. Past “trans women are women”, I never questioned anything.

I’m in my mid to late 20s now and I’ve recently expanded my social circle. As a result of this and moving away from purely LGBT spaces, I’ve had a lot more exposure to a wider range of political and social opinions.

A big one of these is the realisation that my previously, narrower social circle was very much an echo chamber. We just accepted everyone. That is lovely in some senses, but I also understand the world isn’t that simple.

Thing is, I’m struggling to even work out my feelings.

I’ve been taught that anything less than fully accepting trans people as the gender they want to present as is transphobic.

I suppose in my mind the two sides are a) complete acceptance and b) complete denial and erasure of trans-people and outright transphobia.

I’m interested in what exists in the middle. What do normal, everyday, people believe? What is the most “common” view on trans issues? Outside of my own echo chamber, where does the line lie?

I understand this forum leans very heavily in one direction. However, that’s why I’m asking here. Do you discuss trans issues with your friends and own social circles? Does it even come up? What kind of conversations do you have?

I suppose I’m trying to get a gist for what “acceptable” opinions are outside of my own social scene. Like I said, it’s just “trans women are women.” Anything less is considered erasure and denial and would have an individual cast out!

Happy to answer any questions. I’m trying to think more critically and actually work out what my own opinions are. And please note that whilst I have obviously described myself as coming from a very liberal background, I’m very open to hearing views as I no longer know what mine are. It’s amazing how quickly things change once you’re in the “real world.”

As with many things where women's rights conflict with men's wants, the answer to that question will be n+1

Yes. This is true.

Quoting myself just to add, I do see that in your own post you're citing what others have said, not so much your own views now.

In a way, the predictability of what you'd been taught - what we're all taught - is a warning sign in itself that all is not entirely well. Where else do you get such uniformity of opinion and wording that most school kids, politicians etc. can recite it off pat? And do! Where else is it necessary?

Which then leads to - what makes it necessary?

1. A significant proportion are "saying they are the opposite sex or neither sex" - including some of the most prominent and influential.

There are two scientific frameworks for distinguishing males from females (biological sex) so it sounds like these people are referring to bi/multi modal sex (biological sex traits like chromosomes, hormones & morphology) rather than binary reproductive sex.

1. In any case, is "expressing a commonality with behaviours, expressions, and norms typically associated to males & females" so straightforwardly problem-free as you (appear to) imply above?

No. There's a conflict in the competing rights of cis women & trans women over how society should be structured. But conflicts in rights don't invalidate existence.

Andrea Long Chu's describes being female as: “any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another.” This is in a work called Females.*

Of course this is just another 're run' from Simone De Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Germaine Greer et al which I identify with as a cis woman. Common lived experience certainly is part & parcel of what distinguishes men from women for me but it's not the only thing. Where this analysis goes too far is dismissing biological differences entirely that also influenced behaviour. Modern science shows that sex traits do play a significant role in shaping human behaviour, cognitive traits and development. Identifying behaviour being purely influenced by social expectations ignores the very real physiological, hormonal, and evolutionary realities of sex.

Gender critical feminists are rigid about gender as they believe it to be purely a social construct which is anti science. Modern science shows that sex does play a significant role in shaping human behaviour ,cognitive traits, and development. Social constructionism ignores the very real physiological, hormonal, and evolutionary realities of sex.

Gender being a by product of both nature & nurture means that its flawed reasoning to assume people expressing typical gendered behaviours only do so because they are at the mercy of cultural influences.

Gender criticals often misunderstand an identification with common/typical behaviours associated to a sex as some sort of perpetuation of stereotyping. They can't understand the difference between typical (common) behaviours & stereotypical (expectations) because their whole world view relies on social constructionism which is patently only half of the story.

In all your months on this board, you continue to present the argument about behaviour and personality traits.Of course, there are commonalities between the two sexes in observed behaviour and personality traits.

What you continue to ignore is the significant point that neither behaviour, nor personality traits can provide definable boundaries for the categorisation of human sex classes.

Making claims about being supported by modern science is a false call to authority, as has been pointed out on almost every thread that you post this argument on.

Single sex provisions are not segregated by personality traits and behaviours. Your points are not relevant to the discussion about who accesses single sex provisions.

You have also failed to present and link any evidence that supports personality types being accurately measured outside of self reported questionnaire style data collection tools. You have never addressed the significance issue of how those self reported questionnaires have filtered out aspirational answers about how the respondents wish to be perceived versus those character traits are observed. Until that can be done, the large polling studies of this particular field of study are not going to be useful for the purpose you attempt to use them for.

The reliability of your evidence is low. It will not be used to legally define which single sex provision a human will be able access. It fails because as a tool, because it misses a very large % of the population. If a huge % of female people are said to have an overall high rating of typical ‘male’ personality traits, it is meaningless for who lawfully accesses a single sex provision. So too any person who sits in the middle zone.

And your use of ‘gender criticals’ as a descriptor is dehumanising because it detaches the term ‘feminist’ from the term as it was in its original form. If any poster on the board used ‘transes’ in the same way you have used ‘gender criticals’ they would be rightfully deleted.

But they didn't get it wrong. They are children and should not have any knowledge of his sexual preferences or gender confusion. They were using a child's terminology correctly.

As a teacher he should have been professional enough to keep the two sides of his life separate or he shouldn't be teaching children.

I see where you are coming from but you are playing down the fundmentals of sex influencing behaviour to present people who are trans-critical rather than gender-critical as rigid thinkers.

The difference between males and females comes from the way that the body is organised regarding sexual reproduction. The difference in gender is the way that those sex differences are interpreted in society. For example a woman in 21st century London will have a very different expectation of life than a woman in 8th Century China but their bodies are still organised the same way. They still had to navigate society with the upper body strength of the average 12 year old boy, they will still a much higher risk of sexual violence and as a resulf forced pregancy.

Therefore when males discuss female behaviours in he context of gender they tell on themselves. They present female-dominant trans-critical people as "boiling it down to gametes or sterotypes" when not one transwomen - even the reasonable ones- ever say I feel like a woman because I feel like I am half the strength of 50% of the population, or because I am trying to avoid forced preganancy or when I went though puberty half the people in my class suddenly became along stronger than me. They always talk about clothing, make up and very shallow interpretations of what a woman is they never link it back to why women behave the way they do i.e fawn rather than fighting or dressing in a way that is to gain favour of men because you need protection from other men.

What you continue to ignore is the significant point that neither behaviour, nor personality traits can provide definable boundaries for the categorisation of human sex classes.

Pretty sure that's a feature, not a bug, @Helleofabore . This way, anyone can self-ID into any category they want, and nobody can say, "You're not enough this, or you're too much that, to qualify for this category." So I wouldn't say that Bailey is ignoring this point; on the contrary, Bailey depends on this point.

I reckon you are right, Seethlaw. It is like a never ending dance cycle, isn’t it?

The safeguarding gaps with using these personality traits as a definition would be too many to discuss.

Refer to yougov polling which makes clear distinctions between various different scenarios, a range of different % for support for these scenarios and shows up that only 11% of people believe that children under 16 should be given gender affirming drugs.

Refer to the fact that even activists cherry picking when someone is trans and someone is male/female. If TWAW they wouldn't need to do this.

Refer to the fact that all trans protections in law rest on the identification of birth sex to establish a state of trans and without this they have no protected status legally.

Trans is therefore by definition something that isnt innate and requires a reference point which is also key to other aspects of safeguarding.

We can't just 'be kind' when it comes to safeguarding. To do so is to be cruel to victims of failures of safeguarding. To lie about the realities of sex and how you can never change sex (see above points about reference and also being aware of biological reality) to children and young people is not kind, it's cruel.

Being adult enough to have difficult conversations about complex issues is important. We need to fully understand the implications of pretending that the reality of sex doesn't exist. This isn't a political argument. This is a point about material reality not matching what we would like idealistically.

The whole premise of 'be kind' is set up on the idea that if you don't agree with something in full you are evil and uncaring. This is fundamentally flawed and really cynical and depressing. It creates a dark world where a huge percentage of the population is evil. This isn't real. Only a tiny number of people are like this - most people genuinely want to do the right thing but have different priorities and concerns all of which have real value. We may not agree with how important these points are but we have to acknowledge that all these issues do have some value and we just all prioritise in a different order. This isn't being 'bad'. It's just having different priorities and this is an important understanding and important in balancing interess. This isn't unkind. It's just different. Most people want to be kind in practice - regardless of their politics. A failure to understand this and work through it, alienates and creates backlashes due to a failure to recognise what other people see as important. This undermines your credibility and your overall goal if you fail to recognise problems and deal with them.

Silencing people because you think they are wrong, isn't healthy nor desirable in a democracy. It only sets up a situation where opposing views may try to do similar in future to the detriment of democracy.

Blind acceptance is blind. There are unintended consequences to everything and we are short sighted to ignore this.

Characterising the recognition that sex doesn't cease to exist as the erasure of trans people is a complete nonsense. Trans people rely on their sex for legal protection. Trans people need their sex recognising to receive appropriate medical care. Women and girls need the recognition of sex for their dignity, privacy and safety - as per their human rights. We can not get away from this reality. It's fuck all to do with kindness.

What you continue to ignore is the significant point that neither behaviour, nor personality traits can provide definable boundaries for the categorisation of human sex classes.

And what you continue to ignore is that your assertions are only an opinion because what we are actually talking about here is the personal perceptions of an individual based on their values/beliefs which everyone is entitled to. We aren't talking about outsiders perceptions & how they might conflict. That's a separate issue that you appear to need to divert to as a means of delegitimising the right to one's personal subjective beliefs.

Perhaps if you turned off the authoritarian impulses for a nano second that seems to dictate the personal autonomy of others as worthless you might understand this is not all about you & but rather how others perceive themselves. Of course you & others are entitled to your own self perception/ how that fits in social categories & as such are under no obligation to agree but what you aren't entitled to is to arbitrate values & beliefs on behalf of others.

Making claims about being supported by modern science is a false call to authority, as has been pointed out on almost every thread that you post this argument on.

You don't seem to understand when an an appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is perfectly valid to cite an expert as reliable evidence as long as there is a consensus among peers in that field and the claim is supported by empirical data rather than blind trust. That hormones influence behaviour is well researched & documented in the scientific community.

Single sex provisions are not segregated by personality traits and behaviours. Your points are not relevant to the discussion about who accesses single sex provisions.

False. A good many countries globally include gender identity in single sex provisions like toilets. And in any case, my claims are in reference to the legitimacy of a trans identity & not about conflicts of rights that you seem desperately attempting to distract with.

You have also failed to present and link any evidence that supports personality types being accurately measured outside of self reported questionnaire style data collection tools. You have never addressed the significance issue of how those self reported questionnaires have filtered out aspirational answers about how the respondents wish to be perceived versus those character traits are observed. Until that can be done, the large polling studies of this particular field of study are not going to be useful for the purpose you attempt to use them for.

A lot of psychology is speculative. Just like science can't 'prove' the existence of mental illness other than self reporting & behavioural expression the same goes for personality. Are you suggesting mental illness isn't worthy of social acknowledgment because it can't be 'proven'?

And your use of ‘gender criticals’ as a descriptor is dehumanising because it detaches the term ‘feminist’ from the term as it was in its original form.

As opposed to 'men in dresses' 'fetishists' & 'predators'? The shameless hypocrisy is breathtaking.

" when not one transwomen - even the reasonable ones- ever say I feel like a woman because I feel like I am half the strength of 50% of the population, or because I am trying to avoid forced preganancy or when I went though puberty half the people in my class suddenly became along stronger than me. They always talk about clothing, make up and very shallow interpretations of what a woman is they never link it back to why women behave the way they do i.e fawn rather than fighting or dressing in a way that is to gain favour of men because you need protection from other men."

Trans people just like cis people aren't a monolith so speaking on all their behalf is ludicrous.

In terms of masculine or feminine presentation expression it might help if you think about them in terms of inclinations & interests that largely distinguish typical male & female behaviour which a trans person identifies with. To say inclinations & interests are a shallow commonality is to dismiss how biological & evolutionary pressures influence behaviour.

I've rarely heard cis women link their behaviour to evolutionary pressures so I don't really understand where the critique of trans women not acknowledging the basis for their inclinations comes from.

And around we go again.

The discussion about sex and gender identity becomes relevant when discussing access to single sex provisions and usage of language. Your attempts are to falsely widen the use of female language to then normalise male people’s access to female single sex provisions because, as we have already seen, activists then declare that if someone has been called woman, and she/her, it would be cruel to exclude them from the word ‘female’ for the purposes of access to single sex provisions.

Sure, “in some countries”, we are a UK forum and I refer to the UK. And many other countries do not include male people in their single sex provisions for female.

I am suggesting that your claims about personality traits rely on self reported questionnaires on mass with no further verification of whether that self reported answer was an accurate observation. You have tried repeatedly to make these collection devices more accurate than they are. Plus you are attempting to use them for a purpose they were not designed for. By all means, please keep attempting to defend your misuse of them. Luckily this is a public forum and others will point out the flaws in your arguments.

I don't give a fuck what other countries are doing when we are discussing British law.

It's irrelevant.

This is nothing but a straw man argument. It's a very clear straw man.

The reason that you haven't heard women talk about their behaviour is because everytime they bring it up to a male, it is shut down. As a result they only talk about these issues when there is no risk they will be overheard by men, even if they have expressed an opposite view in public. The way that women act when no males are present is different from when males - even gay males are present because men hold most of the power physcial and politically. Thats one of the reasons that transwomen are so easy to spot, because their "femininty" can only reflection of the way that women act when they are around men.

Sex is biological and cannot be changed.

You can identify as another gender, but it doesn’t make you that gender.

“As opposed to 'men in dresses' 'fetishists' & 'predators'? The shameless hypocrisy is breathtaking.”

You are describing behaviours of people rather than detaching a term from an established phrase in order to dehumanise the group it described. You do it constantly to destruct the original group ‘gender critical feminists’ to the include many groups who are not even critical of gender stereotypes and who might share a very broadly described outcome which then is not aligned due to motivation and detail.

It is not dehumanising to point out the behaviour of some people within a group. There are fetishists and predators in the group described as people with a transgender identity. It is relevant and legitimate to safeguarding discussions to refer to this sub group of people within the broader group.

I would like to clearly state to all the lurkers that the claim that sex is bimodal is false. There are only two gamete types: large immobile gametes and small mobile gametes. In humans, they are called eggs and sperm. As there are no intermediate types, sex cannot be bimodal.

Many people in my circles are TWAW and use wrong-sex pronouns, declare that they don’t care where people pee, etc.
Personally, I see trans beliefs as the same as religious beliefs; people have a right to express and present themselves however they like without being bullied or assaulted for it, or otherwise discriminated against. The line is when their rights impact on other people’s eg if a man presenting as a woman wants to use a women’s changing room, or a woman presenting as a man wants someone to refer to her as ‘he’.
I think this is a moderate and quite common view.

It is good to remind people that posters who use terms like ‘modal’ to make their posts seem to be supported by established and proven science are making false claims when it comes to defining sex categories.

All humans born can, through testing, be classified as being one sex class or the other. The definition is based on body formation around the production of either large or small gametes, regardless of whether those gametes have, are or will ever be produced by that body.

Any attempt to broaden the definition of sex category by introducing factors of personality and behaviour traits cannot be reliably done. Hence no single sex provision is based on personality or behaviour groups.

What are these common or typical behaviours?

Eh? Doesn't 'two and no intermediate types' mean it IS bimodal?

Bimodal is where there are a range of types with two distinct peaks. Sex has two values, male or female, so is binary not bimodal

Thanks @spannasaurus
It is easy to see how people who may not be familiar with the meanings of binary and bimodal are led astray by false TRA arguments.