Of course it is the basis of this “whole kerfuffle”. Because you and YWTF have been denying that gender identity has any meaning as a state of mind, an internal sense of self - as something distinct from biological sex; and in a minority of trans people not congruent with assigned sex at birth. And that it’s gender identity, not assigned sex at birth, that determines whether you “are” a man or a woman.
If there’s any confusion here, it’s in your unqualified use of the word “gender”, where it’s not clear what you’re referring to.
I really don’t think equating gender identity and racial identity is the rhetorical path you want to take me down. I don’t think you want me to go there.
But I guess I will.
Hstorically black women, at least in the US, have been treated like animals. “Woman” was a privilege granted only to white women. White women were put up on a pedestal. Black women were treated like trash. Like used toilet paper, to be used in private but then discarded hastily.
So a white women who doesn’t see a black woman as a woman is a racist monster. She’s not just denying a person’s gender identity. She’d denying that person of their humanity.
In contrast, a woman who doesn’t see a biological male as a woman is NOT necessarily a monster. Because she would not be necessarily denying that person’s humanity. She would be merely applying a different gender categorization–one that is no less valid than her own.
If you call me a nigger, there is no doubt in my mind what you consider me to be.
If you call me by a male pronoun, maybe you are doing it offensively because you don’t like how androgynous I am. Or maybe not. Maybe your gender programming is just fixated on a certain arrangement of visual cues that I lack. BIG RUBBER DEAL. If being properly assigned is such a big deal to me that being misgendered sends me into existential crisis mode, maybe I should work on on my gender expression so that it is more apparent.
I don’t mind analogizing gender to race, but if we do that, let’s be completely real and honest about it. Let’s not hold back any punches. No one expects us to treat racial self-identify as the end-all,be-all. We put much more weight on other metrics–things that we can talk about in concrete terms. If a white male were to show up at a black women-only space (an organization devoted to black women message board commentators, let’s say), they would not be socially obligated to be respectful of that white male’s black female identity. Everyone in that room would be allowed to say “No, you aren’t one of us.” And having an angry chorus of white males throwing tomatoes at us for being meanos wouldn’t be enough to make us change our minds.
I am not saying I want transwomen kicked out of the “woman” club in some broadsweeping categorical way. I just think it’s insane to say that anyone who says they are a woman IS a woman. I think that assessment should be left to individuals. We can at accommodate requests that are relatively easy, like pronouns. But let people have their own rubric over who and who gets to call themself a “woman”. If gender discrimination like this is such a bad evil thing, then we need to dismantle the structures that promote it. But as long as the discrimination is allowed, people are going to gatekeep by the criteria that make the most sense to them.
That last part? That’s an ideological statement that isn’t substantiated by fact or science.
When I call a person I do not know a “woman” or a “man”, am I referring to their gender? Or their sex? What images comes to mind in response to these terms?
When you call someone a “little girl” or a “little boy”? Or you referring to their gender? Or their sex?
Because in my mental dictionary, a “woman” is an adult human female. A “little girl” is an immature human female.
“Female” is a biological term describing an individual with certain biological parts.
So yes, I do believe I equate sex and gender.
But so does 99.9% of fucking humanity, including all the gender activists who insist that gender and sex are totally different things.
Now, you can maybe convince me that there’s two meanings to “woman”. One is consistent with my definition and the other refers to a gender identity–a mental state, if you will.
My question is how do you define that “woman” gender identity without referencing the first definition? If you can do that, then maybe I will agree with you that sex and gender are not same thing.
Sure. But let’s be clear that the converse transphobic position that it’s solely sex organs that determine whether you “are” a man or a woman is also not substantiated by fact or science, contra your claims. Biology makes brains just as much as it makes sex organs, and we don’t know exactly what’s going on in a trans person’s brain - but it’s perfectly scientifically plausible that a trans woman’s brain has some key sexually dimorphic characteristics that make her internal sense of self naturally much more similar to a typical cis woman’s sense of self than to a typical man’s.
We’re both taking an ideological stance, and I prefer mine, because it’s treats people with respect and dignity, accepting what people say about who they feel they are absent any compelling reason to do otherwise.
Transphobic or not, sex organs have dictated the social construct of gender since heck was a pup. That is actually is a fact.
You may think this social construct is oppressive and bigoted. But it is undeniable that sex tells which what gender box to put someone in. The existence of intersex individuals only proves that biology isn’t perfect. But it does not belie the very realness of sex to discussions of gender. Intersex folks do not disprove the realness of sex and never do transgender folks.
Exhausting but not unsatisfying. You have a unique POV so your voice needs to be heard. IMO, this is an issue because the science isnt clear people will stick to their guns and be less willing to find common ground. But its been an interesting conversation to follow.
I am sorry that you are getting frustrated. I hope you don’t get too burnt out on the conversation, as you form an interesting middle ground between the two diametrically-opposed viewpoints in this thread.
If I understand your question correctly - the definition of a female gender identity would be a mental configuration that includes sexually dimorphic aspects that are typically associated with a cis woman. But it’s really defined functionally in terms of someone’s internal sense of self, their subjective feeling that they are a woman. I don’t think a person can necessarily pin down exactly why they feel an identity.
From a biologists standpoint - I think the likely model would be that brains are sexually dimporphic to some degree, just as bodies are sexually dimorphic. And that some people develop quite literally with a typically “female” brain structure in a male body. With the caveat that I doubt this can be pinned down to something simple, there’s huge diversity and complexity in all aspect of human personality.
You’re really appealing to tradition as a good guide to how we should treat people?
But no, I don’t agree that gender is simply a social construct. Again, “gender” when unqualified is an unclear term. Gender expression is largely a social construct, sure. But as I said above, the very existence of trans people, some of whom persistently and insistently assert a trans identity despite immense social pressure to conform to a cis identity, strongly implies that that there is some component to gender identity that is refractory to social pressure - either inborn, or firmly established early in life.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you believe that female brains are different from male brains such that the deciding factor on whether someone is a woman and isn’t a fraudster lies solely in her brain. Not anything below the waist?
Is that right?
I’ve heard this position before. I think the first hundred times, I bought it. But there’s an assumption embedded in there that I don’t think rests on solid evidence. While I can imagine that people who feel their gender identity very strongly will have a brain that indicates this tendency, I can also imagine individuals (like myself) who don’t really feel gender that strongly, but nonetheless have a gender identity. Should I expect my brain to be structured any differently than a man who feels just as “meh” as I do about gender? I don’t think so. And I don’t think I’m some rare exception. I think a lot of people feel “meh” about gender, but we play the part because it is very hard to resist a social construct (just like I sometimes feel “meh” about my black identity, but I’m not fixing to bail out of it any time soon.)
If I woke up tomorrow and decided to give the man identity a try, I don’t think my brain structure has tell-tale signs that this was bound to happen. Nor do I think my brain structure would adjust with my new identity–not anymore than it would shift if I decided to become a Buddhist.
I think we’re in agreement that you can’t argue someone out of a feeling. How can any subjective experience be wrong? It’s impossible.
I just think that there’s a difference between not arguing with someone about their feelings and not automatically adopting the perception that they have of themselves.
No, I’m appealing to our social programming and not trying to divorce that from gender–which is a social descriptor.
The frustration is surging again.
What is gender, Riemann? It’s obvious you don’t think it’s sex. So what is it?
Yes, I agree that the existence of transgender folks signals that gender isn’t solely about socialization.
But you seem to be still saying there’s a biological reality to gender. It just isn’t tied to organs. I’m not in opposition to this view, but can you understand how it is hard to reconcile with the nonbinary concept of 58 genders? Do you think we can be classified into 58 mental states?
Is the existence of people who believe in 58 genders evidence that we actually have 58 biological realities? Or is it more reasonable to say that there’s a huge amount of social constructedness to this thing called gender, and we’ve settled on two for much of humanity because they neatly correspond to sex parts? (And ain’t no one got time to learn 58 gender pronouns!)
I hate to throw the genderqueer/nonbinary folks under the bus, but I really do think they are to blame for much of the pushback on gender ideology.
Well, the former is a scientific claim that I think is biological plausible; the latter, as you have already noted, is an ideological position.
So there is variation and complexity in gender identity. I’m not sure why you think that is a problem.
What is your definition of “wrong” here, and why are you seeking to demonstrate that someone’s subjective experience is “wrong”?
If you’re going toward the attempted reductio ad absurdum of “I identify as a giraffe” or something - well, if somebody genuinely believed that, I would have no hesitation in saying that they are mistaken, because building a giraffe brain requires giraffe genes and a giraffe womb. That’s the critical point here - it is perfectly biologically plausible that somebody who looks like a human male at birth really does have a female human brain. There is no slippery slope here.
That would be great. The problem I see is when it is not seen as fluid enough, and someone like my older kids’ stepsister feels it’s so important to make a declaration of having changed gender, and then another one when changing back again. I hope in those coming decades, this is seen as a kind of quaint confusion.
Do you think it would it be reasonable to use the ‘sex organs’ definition when we’re talking about biological differences? That way we can avoid having to talk about ‘menstruators’ and ‘penis havers’. And use the gender identity definition when talking about the social aspects of gender. It would be ambiguous, but so is most of language.
My question is how do you define that “woman” gender identity without referencing the first definition?
Notice how far in we are in this discussion and still, no one has offered a workable definition for “woman” that covers both adult human females and trans women. It’s because it can’t be done without being ridiculously circular or embarrassingly sexist and regressive. It was after coming to this realization myself that I started feeling comfortable rejecting the central tenets of gender ideology and not looking back.
You said earlier you can learn about someone’s mental state by talking to them. You can also learn about their personality, interests, inclinations… things that would be indicators of their hypothetical brain sex. I could believe someone is genuinely convinced they are a woman, and also think they don’t talk or act like someone with a female brain. I don’t know what @Monstro’s answer is going to be, but that is I could believe someone’s subjective experience is wrong.
What you notice is a rejection of your position that a pure black-and-white definition of “woman” exists.
I am a straight, white male. I don’t want any other person on this planet to be able to tell me I am not. That’s what I am. And I don’t feel that I have the right to attach a label to any person that they don’t want. It is really that simple. I don’t want to have my identity subject to the whims of any other person, and no other person should have their identity subject to my own whims.
The frustration is likely to continue so long as you persist with using “gender” unqualified, since it’s not clear what aspect of gender you are referring to. I think I’m using perfectly standard terminology in “gender identity” and “gender expression”.
Once again, gender identity is a mental state, the subjective internal sense of who you are as male or female (I won’t keep qualifying this - but “or nonbinary, fluid, etc” is always implied). And the conventional modern view is that this is what determines whether you “are” a man or a woman, not your sex organs or your sex assigned at birth.
I’ve just skimmed the Wikipedia article, and it seems excellent. I believe everything that I’ve said is consistent with what’s there, and I’m sure it’s more coherently written, so it’s well worth reading.