Identity Politics, Feminism and Nationalism

[Nepsotic]

Just reiterating a summary of this thread.

Women have problems, and women should probably try and fix them.

WOMEN HAVE NO PROBLEMS MEN DON'T HAVE. WOMEN ARE EQUAL. AHHHHH.

Jesus fucking Christ

Jesus


Fucking











Christ.

What's the point?

I'm asking myself that very same question.

[Manco]

Oh, look at this. Turns out women's healthcare received 4 times the funding that men's does despite men dying from it much more often.

That’s a sizeable difference, I didn’t know about this before. Men’s health is something that isn’t talked about or looked at enough, and while there’s been some successful campaigns to change this it’s obvious there’s still more work to be done. Men seem to be much worse than women at talking about health problems or seeking support, and I think that’s likely a contributing factor to the disparity, and the funding difference here isn’t going to help solve that.

(Bonus: while reading up on the topic I came across statistics from Harvard Health describing health disparities in men and women, this article from the Daily Mail which describes how women have to spend more money during their lifetime partly for reasons related to healthcare and social expectations, and this bulletin from the WHO which concludes with the need to close the men’s health gap.)

As for the abortion thing, it's hardly sexism, it's religion. I don't understand why you'd want a feminist movement to fix issues like this when you could have an egalitarian movement to fix the issues of both sexes.

OK, not much to say here as I see the point you’re making, but consider:

1. Sexism and religion are not mutually exclusive – many religious organizations have long histories, and much of that history involves inequality of gender. Hell, there are still churches around today that don’t allow women to hold positions of authority.
2. You can have an egalitarian movement to fix these issues, but this does not preclude a feminist movement also working on these issues. Again, these aren’t mutually exclusive movements, and they can work together or separately toward the same goals.

For example, how men are generally sentenced to, on average 63% longer prison terms than women for the same crime.

This is an interesting disparity, and not one that I was previously aware of. You won’t hear any disagreement from me that it’s an issue that should be addressed.

There’s a line in the article that I think is particularly interesting: “A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because ‘judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility.’” I think that the reference to an assumption of “greater caretaking responsibility” is an indicator of a deeper problem which could be a contributor to this disparity, which I’ll address below in the point about custody rights.

Or what about how more men are raped anually than women when counting prison rape?

This actually isn’t true; the Daily Mail fudges the numbers in that article. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the situation (and a second source).

This of course is not to say that rape and sexual assault in prison isn’t a problem, nor that rape and sexual assault of men isn’t a problem. These are both issues that need to be addressed, but manipulating statistics to try and disprove feminists ultimately isn’t helpful to that end.

OR how about how child custody rights are skewed massively in women's favour? (I know this article shows that there's statistics showing this isn't true, but fathers being unable to see their children except over Skype should hardly count in my eyes).

In the article, the writer highlights that the reports findings of 88% of fathers “being awarded some kind of access” doesn’t account for how many of the fathers in question were only given very limited contact – but the summary of the report points out the reasons why this would be the case:

The County Courts actively promoted as much contact as possible even in cases of proven domestic violence, which was often combined with welfare concerns or strong opposition from older children.
o Without any legislative presumption, the normal process of the County Courts in 2011 was to increase the level of contact with the non-resident parent until both parents were happy with the child staying overnight.
o Half of all cases involving parents ended in regular overnight contact.
o Near equal shared care arrangements were rarely sought, logistically difficult to manage for both
parents and children, and often precluded by practicalities.
o ‘No contact’ orders were extremely rare and a last resort in difficult cases where there was a real and serious risk to children’s safety.

This would indicate that father being given limited access are being given this because that’s what they apply for, not because the system is necessarily biased against them.

The writer does have a solid point when he says “our expectation of the role a separated father should play in his children’s lives is so low, that when half of dads who win “access” to their kids can’t even sleep under the same roof as their offspring, academics declare this to be an overwhelming success.” To my eye, this should have been his biggest point – that societal expectations of a divorced father are the likely contributors to this imbalance of custody rights.

This article from the Huffington Post explores some of the statistics around custody settlements. The conclusions to be drawn from the stats are that fathers in many cases don’t care equally for the child during the marriage, don’t seek custody during the divorce, and that most settlements are agreed without going to court – meaning mutual agreement between the parents.

And I agree with you – this is wrong. In a society with equal expectations, custody stats would not be skewed towards mothers in this way. The reason that this happens is not because of court or institutional bias towards mothers, but because of societal expectations that the mother is the primary carer and the father is not.

This is an example of how patriarchal structures hurts men as well as women. And that does make this a feminist issue, because obviously feminism opposes patriarchal structures.

Feminsim doesn't care about these things, despite claiming they do. I've looked.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that feminism doesn’t care about these issues – but the fact is that feminism is principally a movement that advocates for women’s rights as a means to bring about gender equality.

It is wrong to assume that a feminist cannot also be concerned about issues affecting men, or any other group for that matter – but as a movement it has a specific goal and works towards that. So when you reply to a discussion concerning feminism with “why aren’t feminists doing anything about men’s rights?”, it’s just as pointless as saying “why aren’t psychologists doing anything about physical health issues?” – they’re groups with different areas of focus.

And this is where I think Sybil’s frustration with this thread is coming from – in almost any discussion of feminism, there are always people jumping in to argue about why feminists don’t support men’s rights, or aren’t doing anything about them, and it becomes a competition to find out who has it worse. It creates the appearance that men’s issues are only ever talked about in competition to women’s issues – that there’s never discussion about men’s issues on their own merits. This then makes it look like the people arguing about this don’t actually care about men’s issues, and are just seeking to criticize feminists – it looks so incredibly insincere that it becomes hard to take seriously. And when this is seen over and over and over again in any discussion on feminism, it becomes difficult to earnestly engage with an insincere critic.

Some of the points you’ve raised here are new to me, and I was surprised to hear about them. But points like these so often only get brought up when people are using them to criticize or discredit feminism. I think that’s the wrong approach to take, and it’s ultimately harmful to the cause for men’s rights. A better solution would be to seek to bring these topics to public attention on their own terms, not as rebuttals to feminists.

[Xorlidyr]

God, Manco. It takes a very passionate person (probably of Italian descent) to read your masterwork.

[moxco]

I forgot about this thread.

I'm going to address the two of Manco's points that jumped out to me at first..

Critics of assigning sex at birth argue that doing so is a conflation of sex and gender – once a baby’s sex is known, its gender is also presumed from that point on. This perpetuates the current attitude of conflating sex with gender, and sets up the situation where someone who feels their gender doesn’t match the way society perceives and categorizes them might feel they have the ‘wrong’ body.

A lot of the language you’re using here (e.g. “magical brain identity”, “let the sufferer present as a woman”, “otherwise real women”) strongly implies that you have a problem with trans people. For example, “otherwise real women” implies that you perceive a trans woman as fake; a man pretending to be a woman. That’s a misunderstanding of what a trans person is striving for – they’re not trying to fake, they are trying to be. For someone who does not consider themselves to be a man and does not wish to be perceived as a man, the implication that they’re fake is little better than explicitly denying their gender identity.

Right so you make a point about assigning sex at birth conflates sex and gender. Except the concept of gender as peddled by trans people and their enablers only exists to justify why transwomen are actually real women. It otherwise has no usefulness. If you were to ask Joe Bloggs on the street for a definition of gender it would almost certainly have something to do with biology. So asserting that assigning sex conflates sex and gender is wrong because a vast majority of the population has no concept of gender; the doctor is simply making a factual biological observation. The idea that womanhood has a basis in anything other than biological reality is sexist and reactionary; the notion of gender implies that there is a proper and improper way for males and females to behave. People should be free to behave regardless of sexist cultural pressures, to say that a man acting in a way traditionally seen as feminine must therefore be a woman reduces womanhood to sexist stereotypes. So yes, I do see transwomen as men pretending to be women.

You are going to say that's a mean and bigoted thing to say, and that is your right. But I feel many trans advocates are guilty of projecting their contradictory ideology onto others. It's almost like you believe that everyone has a concept of this magical gender identity and believe that males and females are simply people who identity as such, but there is some conspiracy wherein we must identify with whatever the birthing doctor chose for us. If I say a woman is an adult female human and therefore someone who is biologically male can not by definition be a woman, I fail to see how I am being bigoted; I'm just recognising the reality of sex. I'm not trying to force any particular behaviours onto him, he should live out his life as he wills. Yet no matter how much lipstick and dresses he wears he will never be a woman and that is alright because it doesn't change anything; it is only a word.

[Manco]

Right so you make a point about assigning sex at birth conflates sex and gender. Except the concept of gender as peddled by trans people and their enablers only exists to justify why transwomen are actually real women. It otherwise has no usefulness.

The concept of gender as separate from sex is generally the currently accepted model, you act as though it’s just some crackpot conspiracy. It also exists to help us examine gender roles, societal expectations of gender, etc – it does more than just explain the existence of trans people, although that’s also useful.

Besides, the existence of trans people challenges our outdated concepts of gender; we shouldn't stick to old models just because we’re more familiar with them, we have a duty to re-examine and update where necessary.

If you were to ask Joe Bloggs on the street for a definition of gender it would almost certainly have something to do with biology. So asserting that assigning sex conflates sex and gender is wrong because a vast majority of the population has no concept of gender; the doctor is simply making a factual biological observation.

Firstly, Joe Bloggs on the street is not going to be an expert in psychology, biology or gender roles in society, so his definition on gender isn’t going to help us. Appealing to how the vast majority of the population defines gender as proof of how gender should be defined is unhelpful; this isn’t a topic that can be settled just by popular opinion.

Second, if Joe Bloggs’ idea of gender is based only on biology then that would indicate that our society does conflate gender with sex.

Yes, the doctor is simply making a factual observation, I wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case; but what happens after is that gender is assigned based on that doctor’s observation, and many decisions about a child’s life are made based on that. This isn’t any fault of the doctors’, this is just how societal expectations work. For most people, this is fine; but for the minority who go on to experience a mismatch between assigned and experienced gender, it can cause problems.

I’m not someone with strong opinions about this topic, and I’m not arguing for anything like ignoring a child’s sex or gender until they grow up or anything like that at all. I am just pointing out how conflating sex with gender can cause problems.

The idea that womanhood has a basis in anything other than biological reality is sexist and reactionary; the notion of gender implies that there is a proper and improper way for males and females to behave.

If something comes along to challenge our existing understanding of something then it is right to study and to adjust our understanding based on the new information; that is not reactionary, it is sensible adaptation.

The concept of gender as separate from sex does not imply what you say it does, it merely recognizes that our society typically assigns certain behaviors to different genders and there are expectations of conformity. It is not sexist to recognize those expectations.

Now, many trans people work to conform to those expectations; I’d argue that this is largely due to societal pressure, the need to be accepted by the Joe Bloggs of the world who will judge them by their conformity. It is not sexist for someone to want to conform to those expectations; however we can acknowledge that the expectations themselves may have sexist roots.

And, as I explained in my last post on the topic, the “biological reality” is far from clear-cut – pretty much all of the biological identifiers for sex (including genitals) can deviate from the “biological reality”.

People should be free to behave regardless of sexist cultural pressures, to say that a man acting in a way traditionally seen as feminine must therefore be a woman reduces womanhood to sexist stereotypes.

Yes, people should be free to live outside of sexist cultural pressures, I’m not arguing against this and you’ll find a lot of LGBTI+ people would also agree with you. But that does also include the freedom to identify as the appropriate gender.

Gender identity is not a categorization system in the way you describe it as, where people are arbitrarily assigned an identity based on how they act; it comes from the individuals’ decisions and how they choose to identify based on an internal understanding of their gender. No one is going around saying “this guy has watched too many chick-flicks and is therefore being reassigned”.

No one is arguing that a man acting in a way traditionally seen as feminine must therefore be a woman; the way a person acts is simply their personal expression of themselves. Gender identity can inform that expression – if someone identifies as a woman then they may be motivated to express that by acting in a traditionally feminine manner; but of course they should not be obligated to.

So yes, I do see transwomen as men pretending to be women.


You are going to say that's a mean and bigoted thing to say, and that is your right. But I feel many trans advocates are guilty of projecting their contradictory ideology onto others. It's almost like you believe that everyone has a concept of this magical gender identity and believe that males and females are simply people who identity as such, but there is some conspiracy wherein we must identify with whatever the birthing doctor chose for us.

Yes, I do believe everyone has an innate concept of gender, but that’s not a magical fairy story, it’s generally accepted theory. After all, the very existence of trans people is living proof that gender exists outside of physical anatomy.

Gender identity is determined by the brain – most people simply don’t notice because their identity matches their physical anatomy, and thus they conform to societal expectations. They never have to go through the gauntlet that trans people do; maybe they have some traits that don’t conform to traditional masculine or feminine roles, but nothing too far out of the ordinary.

It’s not “some conspiracy”, just societal expectations.

If I say a woman is an adult female human and therefore someone who is biologically male can not by definition be a woman, I fail to see how I am being bigoted; I'm just recognising the reality of sex.

You are being bigoted in two ways: first by using an outdated definition of gender to decide who qualifies to be a man or woman, and then by refusing to respect the gender identity of a person who has chosen to transition.

If someone wants to be identified by a certain gender, it is not difficult to respect that – using the right name, the right pronouns, etc is not difficult, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. To intentionally ignore that and use a person’s birth sex as justification to do so despite the advances in our understanding of gender identity is bigoted.

I'm not trying to force any particular behaviours onto him, he should live out his life as he wills. Yet no matter how much lipstick and dresses he wears he will never be a woman and that is alright because it doesn't change anything; it is only a word.

Of course you’re not trying to force any particular behaviors onto her, you’re just … asserting that her identity isn’t valid and that she is and will always be a man, no matter what?

It may just be a word to you, but it has deep connotations – especially to a trans person who is seeking acceptance in a society that often disrespects, marginalizes or attacks them.

[moxco]

The concept of gender as separate from sex is generally the currently accepted model, you act as though it’s just some crackpot conspiracy. It also exists to help us examine gender roles, societal expectations of gender, etc – it does more than just explain the existence of trans people, although that’s also useful.

Literally what other use does "gender" (as defined as not a synonym for sex, nor sex stereotyping) have other than being able to explain how transwomen are actually women? Please give an example.

Besides, the existence of trans people challenges our outdated concepts of gender; we shouldn't stick to old models just because we’re more familiar with them, we have a duty to re-examine and update where necessary.

Can you give me an example of an outdated concept of gender?

Firstly, Joe Bloggs on the street is not going to be an expert in psychology, biology or gender roles in society, so his definition on gender isn’t going to help us. Appealing to how the vast majority of the population defines gender as proof of how gender should be defined is unhelpful; this isn’t a topic that can be settled just by popular opinion.

Second, if Joe Bloggs’ idea of gender is based only on biology then that would indicate that our society does conflate gender with sex.

See, you say that gender is separate from biology, and then say that gender exists regardless of most people conflating it with sex. If it's not biological, and its not sociological (because a vast majority of society treats gender as a synonym for sex) then what is it?

Yes, the doctor is simply making a factual observation, I wasn’t arguing that this wasn’t the case; but what happens after is that gender is assigned based on that doctor’s observation, and many decisions about a child’s life are made based on that. This isn’t any fault of the doctors’, this is just how societal expectations work. For most people, this is fine; but for the minority who go on to experience a mismatch between assigned and experienced gender, it can cause problems.

When is "gender assigned"? Who assigns gender? Can you explain this process? Is what you call "assigning gender" really just projecting sexual expectations onto a child?

I’m not someone with strong opinions about this topic, and I’m not arguing for anything like ignoring a child’s sex or gender until they grow up or anything like that at all. I am just pointing out how conflating sex with gender can cause problems.

How can people conflate sex and gender when they have no concept of (what you call) gender?

If something comes along to challenge our existing understanding of something then it is right to study and to adjust our understanding based on the new information; that is not reactionary, it is sensible adaptation.


The concept of gender as separate from sex does not imply what you say it does, it merely recognizes that our society typically assigns certain behaviors to different genders and there are expectations of conformity. It is not sexist to recognize those expectations.

No, our society assigns certain behaviours to different sexes. People who have sexist expectations of women see women as a sex and not an identity.

Now, many trans people work to conform to those expectations; I’d argue that this is largely due to societal pressure, the need to be accepted by the Joe Bloggs of the world who will judge them by their conformity. It is not sexist for someone to want to conform to those expectations; however we can acknowledge that the expectations themselves may have sexist roots.

And, as I explained in my last post on the topic, the “biological reality” is far from clear-cut – pretty much all of the biological identifiers for sex (including genitals) can deviate from the “biological reality”.

Yes, people should be free to live outside of sexist cultural pressures, I’m not arguing against this and you’ll find a lot of LGBTI+ people would also agree with you. But that does also include the freedom to identify as the appropriate gender.

So we're back to gender isn't sex and gender also isn't gender roles. Then what is it?

Gender identity is not a categorization system in the way you describe it as, where people are arbitrarily assigned an identity based on how they act; it comes from the individuals’ decisions and how they choose to identify based on an internal understanding of their gender. No one is going around saying “this guy has watched too many chick-flicks and is therefore being reassigned”.

I suppose that makes a majority of society (myself included) agender since most of us have no internal understanding of gender.

Gender identity is determined by the brain – most people simply don’t notice because their identity matches their physical anatomy, and thus they conform to societal expectations. They never have to go through the gauntlet that trans people do; maybe they have some traits that don’t conform to traditional masculine or feminine roles, but nothing too far out of the ordinary.

But I thought it was wrong to conflate gender with anatomy.

You are being bigoted in two ways: first by using an outdated definition of gender to decide who qualifies to be a man or woman, and then by refusing to respect the gender identity of a person who has chosen to transition.

If someone wants to be identified by a certain gender, it is not difficult to respect that – using the right name, the right pronouns, etc is not difficult, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. To intentionally ignore that and use a person’s birth sex as justification to do so despite the advances in our understanding of gender identity is bigoted.

Of course you’re not trying to force any particular behaviors onto her, you’re just … asserting that her identity isn’t valid and that she is and will always be a man, no matter what?

It may just be a word to you, but it has deep connotations – especially to a trans person who is seeking acceptance in a society that often disrespects, marginalizes or attacks them.

What makes a woman a woman is that she is female. If you are not female you cannot be a woman. A woman is not something you can dress up as. It is not something you can identify into. If it were then there would have to be some sort of criteria for what makes one a woman.

So what does it mean to you to be a woman? If you think someone can simply identify as a woman then I want to know what defining qualities women have that someone can identify with or as. In fact you can pretty much ignore most of the the rest of my post because I'm pretty sure this is the root of our disagreement.

Also I did say earlier that I am perfectly fine using someones preferred name/pronouns but that is simply a matter of courtesy and not because I've drunk the transgender kool-aid.

[Varrok]

Manco, in the first paragraph you're defending by saying the concept of gender is currently accepted, then, in the second one you're saying the general population does not even recognize its existence. Among whom it's currently accepted, then?

[Sybil Ant]

Can we just take two moments to realise gender is a literal construct, and people can be whatever the fuck they want to be.

[Varrok]

Can we just take two moments to agree with my statements? I mean, just because.

[Sybil Ant]

Varrok, a goat with a penis doesn't know it's 'male', all it knows is that it has a penis. We proscribed genders to simplify things.

I suggest you read a book called Sapiens: a Brief History of Mankind. There are some interesting parts on human constructs in there and it will probably make gender as a construct clear to you.

[Manco]

Literally what other use does "gender" (as defined as not a synonym for sex, nor sex stereotyping) have other than being able to explain how transwomen are actually women? Please give an example.

Well it also explains who trans men and non-binary people are, if that helps you.

Having an understanding of gender as separate from sex gives us the ability to talk about gender roles, stereotypes, and expectations for each gender and how these are not defined by a person’s physical sex – if we accept that the roles and expectations of men and women are not defined by their physical sex then must therefore conclude they are defined by something else; the logical answer to this is societal expectations.

Can you give me an example of an outdated concept of gender?

Sex as the sole determinant of gender.

See, you say that gender is separate from biology, and then say that gender exists regardless of most people conflating it with sex. If it's not biological, and its not sociological (because a vast majority of society treats gender as a synonym for sex) then what is it?

Hold on, you can’t say gender is not sociological because society treats gender and sex as synonymous – all that means is that society has a sociological understanding of gender which treats the two as one.

Gender is a social construct – just because our society’s general understanding of the construct they have created is poor, this does not mean it is not sociological; our society has indeed created the concept of gender, it is just poorly recognized and not properly separated on a wider scale.

When is "gender assigned"? Who assigns gender? Can you explain this process? Is what you call "assigning gender" really just projecting sexual expectations onto a child?

A simple description of the process would be: doctor identifies sex via baby’s anatomy, people around baby from then on will describe baby with gender-specific terms based on the identified sex (male as a boy, he/him/his; female as a girl, she/her/hers), baby is henceforth identified with a gendered given name, clothes, toys, and as they become older they will be taught and subjected to attitudes, behaviors, societal expectations that reinforce gender.

This would not be best described as “sexual expectations” – sexual expectations would be expectations based upon their physical sex, e.g. an expectation to reproduce, expectation of body shape, sex-related illnesses, etc. It would be more useful to describe gender-related expectations with separate terminology, such as “gender roles” or “gender expectations”, as this would allow us to separately discuss the physical and social aspects of the equation.

How can people conflate sex and gender when they have no concept of (what you call) gender?

I am not saying that they have no concept of gender, I am saying that their concept of gender is strongly tied to sex – as you said, they see sex and gender as one and the same, i.e. they conflate them.

No, our society assigns certain behaviours to different sexes. People who have sexist expectations of women see women as a sex and not an identity.

This is another conflation of sex and gender – it is equally valid to say that people who have sexist expectations of women see women as an identity, but an identity that they value as lesser.

Our society assigns behaviors to different genders, but for the most part those genders are conflated with sex.

So we're back to gender isn't sex and gender also isn't gender roles. Then what is it?

As I’ve said previously, gender is difficult to define as there are many things tied into it. I would personally say it can be best understood as a social construct, an identity system created over millions of years of human development and refined and nuanced in the human psyche as society has developed.

We have an internal understanding of our gender identity. This is built out of the societal expectations that we experience from birth, and everything from sex, brain structure, physical anatomy, hormones, mannerisms and behaviors, fashions and tastes, roles in the workplace and community, and many more.

Gender is not sex, but sex can be an aspect of gender; gender is not gender roles, but roles can be an aspect of gender. Is that helpful to you?

I suppose that makes a majority of society (myself included) agender since most of us have no internal understanding of gender.

No, you’re misunderstanding – the majority of society has an internal understanding of gender that matches the body they are born with. That does not equate to a lack of gender.

But I thought it was wrong to conflate gender with anatomy.

I don’t see how what I said would contradict that? Let me repeat: “Gender identity is determined by the brain – most people simply don’t notice because their identity matches their physical anatomy, and thus they conform to societal expectations.”

Saying that for most people the internal understanding of their gender identity matches their physical anatomy is not a conflation of sex and gender – it merely recognizes that sex is one way in which gender identity is judged and perceived by society. As I’ve said in a previous post, this can differ for the individual; many trans people experience dysphoria related to their physical anatomy and seek to change it, while others do not.

What makes a woman a woman is that she is female. If you are not female you cannot be a woman. A woman is not something you can dress up as. It is not something you can identify into. If it were then there would have to be some sort of criteria for what makes one a woman.

So what does it mean to you to be a woman? If you think someone can simply identify as a woman then I want to know what defining qualities women have that someone can identify with or as. In fact you can pretty much ignore most of the the rest of my post because I'm pretty sure this is the root of our disagreement.

As I explained above, I think that gender is a social construct, and that each person’s understanding of their gender identity is internal and is separate from their physical sex at birth.

For most people, their understanding of their gender matches their physical sex at birth – physical sex plays a role in how we identify ourselves, and research even suggests similarities between trans people’s brain structure and function and those of non-trans people of the same gender identity. But physical attributes are not the sole determinant of that identity, and we cannot and should not base that identity on one single determinant when it can greatly vary from the perceived identity.

And as I have pointed out, physical identifiers are never going to be set in stone either – genes can vary, chromosomes can vary, brain structure/activity can vary, hormone levels can vary, body shape can vary, genitals can vary.

So, ultimately I would define “being a woman” as someone who intrinsically identifies as a woman. And because I’m sure it will be brought out as a counterargument – no, I don’t think it’s acceptable for people to abuse self-identity to, say, pretend to be trans to sexually harass people in bathrooms. People who try to do this are committing a crime; their abuse does not invalidate the identities of actual trans people who just want to use the correct bathroom, nor does it imply that trans people would inherently pose a threat to anyone in a bathroom.

Manco, in the first paragraph you're defending by saying the concept of gender is currently accepted, then, in the second one you're saying the general population does not even recognize its existence. Among whom it's currently accepted, then?

In my research for this thread, I’ve generally found that most respectable medical and psychology organizations make distinctions between sex and gender – for example the World Health Organization, American Psychological Association, and much of the research published on transgender-related subjects; the UN even refers to “gender identity” rather than sex. There appears to be consensus at the expert level, although there is still a lot of uncertainty and ongoing research to expand our understanding of the topic.

So when I refer to the concept of gender and sex as distinct as currently accepted, I don’t mean by a majority of the population; I refer to expert knowledge of the subject.

Can we just take two moments to realise gender is a literal construct, and people can be whatever the fuck they want to be.

but genitals???

[Sybil Ant]

I mean, even purely down genital, gonadial and chromosonal lines there are like, six or seven genders.

Also we've known about third sex in western society since at least the 1800s (haven't done any intensive research to see if there's stuff going back further because I'm lazy), much much earlier in Vedic/Indian society.

[Xorlidyr]

I am intersex. Now talk about gonadial sex.

[moxco]

So, ultimately I would define “being a woman” as someone who intrinsically identifies as a woman.

lmao, where'd you get that definition from, the ministry of truth? "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" is a pretty blatant logical fallacy. Like so blatantly so I don't believe you really even think that's true. And anyone who (somehow) misses the obvious flaw can only make sense of the statement because they have some preconcieved notion of what a woman is. hmmmmm, i wonder what that could be?

woman
noun
1 An adult human female:
'a jury of seven women and five men'

yeah it's probably that.


Futhermore you earlier said this:

It may just be a word to you, but it has deep connotations – especially to a trans person who is seeking acceptance in a society that often disrespects, marginalizes or attacks them.

What deep connotations can "man" and "woman" have when by your own defintion the only prerequisite is identifying with the mere words themselves? Why should anyone care about being "misgendered" when your definition of woman is inclusive to potentially anyone? You go on to talk about bathrooms. By your definitions, what is the point of sex segregated spaces when men and women are reduced to utterly meaningless concepts? Should women be expected to share their changing rooms and toilets with Danielle Muscato just because she identifies as a woman (whatever that even means)?



See this is why transgender ideology is inherently conservative and sexist. There's no way social justice warriors would ever champion Danielle, because that would freak people out. Only men who become some sort of carictature of women and wear makeup and feminine clothing and reinforce every other sexist expectation of women get to use women's spaces.

Hold on, you can’t say gender is not sociological because society treats gender and sex as synonymous – all that means is that society has a sociological understanding of gender which treats the two as one.

Gender is a social construct – just because our society’s general understanding of the construct they have created is poor, this does not mean it is not sociological; our society has indeed created the concept of gender, it is just poorly recognized and not properly separated on a wider scale.

Either people subscribe to the social construct of gender as an identity or they do not. You can't say "someone is a woman because they fall within socially constructed definition of a woman" despite society largely not acknowledging this definition. That's how social constructs (as oppossed to physical ones) work; they require social acceptance.

Ultimately if you do not subscribe to the idea of "gender as an identity" then you are incapable of misgendering anyone.

but genitals???

eww, eww, yucky vaginas! o wait. its almost like we are a sexual species. It's almost like the existence of the two sexes has had tremendous social implications across every society that ever existed, hmmmmm maybe we should acknowledge they exist then? I find the insinuation that non-trans people are obsessed with genitals particularly annoying when sex-reassignment surgery exists.

[Sybil Ant]

Wow, you are one bigoted arse hole, aren't you?

[moxco]

Am I? I don't treat anyone cruelly, nor is this something i'm at all passionate about. But you started this thread and I thought I'd bring up the one aspect of progressive politics that I can't pretend makes any sense to me.

edit
okay, my description of sex reassignment surgery was unnecessary and harsh, i apologise for that and have removed it.

[Varrok]

Moxco disagreed with your views, Sybil Ant, how does that make him a bigoted arse hole, exactly?

EDIT: I've been caught inbetween or after edits, I see. Well, @Sybil Ant, do you still stand by your opinion, after the edit?

[Manco]

lmao, where'd you get that definition from, the ministry of truth? "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" is a pretty blatant logical fallacy. Like so blatantly so I don't believe you really even think that's true. And anyone who (somehow) misses the obvious flaw can only make sense of the statement because they have some preconcieved notion of what a woman is. hmmmmm, i wonder what that could be?

Sure, sure, ignore the whole section where I broke down that gender is an identity system and that a woman would be someone whose internal perception of themselves matches that identity, constructed by society.

But of course, because the psychological concept of identity is harder to understand than “penis or vagina?”, you ignore it and pretend I’m just being circular.

Once again, and I’ll bold it this time: biological sex can be an aspect of gender identity, but it does not necessarily define it. We know biology plays an aspect in how people identify themselves; most people are fine with the sex they are born as, and studies show there may be biological factors at play with trans people. But the social construct of gender brings far more into play than just biology, and it affects non-trans people as much as it affects trans people. This is the basis of gender equality: that men and women are equal, and that inequality comes not from biology but from society. The differences in identities are a result of social expectations, and are therefore socially constructed, not a result of biology.

What deep connotations can "man" and "woman" have when by your own defintion the only prerequisite is identifying with the mere words themselves? Why should anyone care about being "misgendered" when your definition of woman is inclusive to potentially anyone?

“Man” and “woman” are identity descriptors. They help us inform one another about who we perceive ourselves to be, in context of shared social understandings. Refusal to acknowledge how another perceives themselves and wishes to be perceived by others is a refusal of their identity; and therefore a refusal of them as a person. This rejection can and does have deep connotations, and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that it does not.

We live in a society that has a concept of gender, and it informs a large part of social attitudes and our core identities. Until such a time as society discards that concept (which may never even happen), then it will remain an important way for people to describe their identity.

You go on to talk about bathrooms. By your definitions, what is the point of sex segregated spaces when men and women are reduced to utterly meaningless concepts? Should women be expected to share their changing rooms and toilets with Danielle Muscato just because she identifies as a woman (whatever that even means)?

Men and women are not meaningless concepts, nor am I implying them to be.

But ignoring that, sex-segregated spaces exist to segregate – and as our understanding of gender and our work towards gender equality progresses, I see those spaces as becoming less important. Historically, men and women were segregated in all kinds of public spaces — women-only libraries and train cars, for instance — and before then women were often completely excluded from public life. Bathrooms and changing rooms are the last holdout to those attitudes, largely due to the aspects of privacy we associate with them.

Let’s face some truths here – gender-neutral facilities already exist in many places, not least as the bathrooms in most people’s homes. Gender-neutral facilities can be made which still respect occupants’ privacy. And sexual predators are not waiting for an invitation to attack people in bathrooms – they already can and do, and segregated bathrooms do not stop them.

See this is why transgender ideology is inherently conservative and sexist. There's no way social justice warriors would ever champion Danielle, because that would freak people out. Only men who become some sort of carictature of women and wear makeup and feminine clothing and reinforce every other sexist expectation of women get to use women's spaces.

Ooor maybe it’s just pragmatic, since people like you seem to freak out at any challenge to the established gender norm in the first place? When society still has trouble accepting ideas about gender equality, let alone gender identity, then perhaps it doesn’t yet make sense to directly challenge gender norms in a way that most people would find difficult to accept? Win the small battles, and build.

I challenge you: if Danielle Muscato looked exactly the same way as she does now, but was born with female genitalia, would you still be bringing her up here? Would you be worried about her sharing bathrooms with women? What about other masculine-appearing women, are they a threat? Perhaps the one being conservative and sexist … is you?

(and as an aside, Muscato no longer looks as she does in your image, and has also stated that she is limited in how far she can transition)

Either people subscribe to the social construct of gender as an identity or they do not. You can't say "someone is a woman because they fall within socially constructed definition of a woman" despite society largely not acknowledging this definition. That's how social constructs (as oppossed to physical ones) work; they require social acceptance.

People subscribe to gender as an identity; the difference here is that for many sex is still considered the core of those identities, while modern studies suggest that the social construct of gender evolved from attitudes segregating sex, and developed over the thousands of years of human society into the complex identity systems we observe today. Sex is now just one possible informer of that identity system, but it is not necessarily recognized as such by all of society.

Ultimately if you do not subscribe to the idea of "gender as an identity" then you are incapable of misgendering anyone.

So, if we ignore someone’s identity then we can’t misidentify them? I think there’s a flaw in your logic…

eww, eww, yucky vaginas! o wait. its almost like we are a sexual species. It's almost like the existence of the two sexes has had tremendous social implications across every society that ever existed, hmmmmm maybe we should acknowledge they exist then? I find the insinuation that non-trans people are obsessed with genitals particularly annoying when sex-reassignment surgery exists.

Yes, we are a sexual species, yes sex has had a tremendous impact on how our society developed the social construct of gender, and yes we should acknowledge its existence. But we do not have to define gender with it, as our understanding of gender identity has progressed beyond it.

Sorry, but the obsession with genitals exists – trans people are constantly asked about their genitals when that information is not needed to understand the identity they are presenting. Hell, you’ve spent how many posts now trying to stress the importance of genitals?