[Closed] Gender

I’m more shocked not only do you have one library in town but two.

Thanks, that's actually quite useful. (I've seen countless internet squabbles where there's heated debate but nobody ever seems to simply state the definitions they're using, nice to see a conclusive answer.)

I find it all quite confusing, especially with a younger generation now flooding the workforce at my place of work, whom I have a supervisory and pastoral responsibility for.

However, I’ve found that most of the time, Wheaton’s law serves me well.

However, I’ve found that most of the time, Wheaton’s law serves me well.

Don't be an unspecified genital?

Would you happily shop for curtains?

Yes...Female

No.....Male.

zippykona

Subscriber
Would you happily shop for curtains?

Yes…Female

No…..Male.

lol

Would you happily shop for curtains?

Yes…Female

No…..Male.

Finally the argument can be put to bed

Not so fast

I self-identity as curtain-curious

Pull yourself together......

I’m more shocked not only do you have one library in town but two.

Blame the systematic oppression of the provinces by the London centric government. Or in this case Dick Whittington as the big library was his legacy, something that the panto inexplicably skips over.

...and what about gender blinds?

(at least the OP got some healthy exercise walking round town. )

…and what about gender blinds?

Horizontal or vertical?

All about the slats.

Finally the argument can be put to bed

Are there scatter cushions on it?

Language evolves. Dictionaries are a record of how it is used, not a set of rules.

Pull yourself together……

Fly

Language evolves. Dictionaries are a record of how it is used, not a set of rules.

So?

So?

So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender is a misunderstanding of what dictionaries are.

So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender i

It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition. (Deliberately IMHO.) There may be other debates, of course.

the London centric government. Or in this case

Dick

Whittington

muuuust... resiiiiist....

It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition.

So thinking that some dictionary entries settles the debate on gender is a misunderstanding of what dictionaries and debates are.

The "gender debate" has the square root of **** all to do with linguistics, if that were the case we could just invent a new word and everyone could go away happy.

Rather the gender debate is one side going, "look, we'll try and explain, but it's kinda really complicated" and the other side going "cock = boy, fanny = girl, simple" (and something about toilets).

If it wasn't for blinds..

It'd be curtains for us all.

As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.

Lets try and keep this one a little more caring shall we?

Do people flounce on sweaty as **** mumsnet? Or is it just here?

It settles the debates I see, because they all involve one side arguing with one definition a other arguing using another definition.

Only if you think that the final answer on the meaning of words is what's in the dictionary currently.

to do with linguistics

It was, fairly obviously, in the other thread. There was even an explicit debate about the meaning of words.

one side going, “look, we’ll try and explain, but it’s kinda really complicated”

That is very much not what happened last time.

As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.

Nice guy but he didn't leave he was banned. He didn't break the rules, but he wrote several posts that didn't break the rules which were referred to as "drip drip".

Staggering.

I was thinking of a she actually?

The “gender debate” has the square root of **** all to do with linguistics

It really is! A feminist says "we should adopt the boilogical definition of gender for toilet entry" and the anti-feminist says "no, we should adport the social/cultural definition for toilet entry". Only neither state in plain english which definition they've chosen so they get to have a good old squabble.

You might be seeing different debates to me but the ones I see usually fit that template.

Rather the gender debate is one side going, “look, we’ll try and explain, but it’s kinda really complicated” and the other side going “cock = boy, fanny = girl, simple” (and something about toilets).

.,.and your example proves my point. One side picks one defintion, the other picks the other and it's game on for a squabble!

I was thinking of a she actually?

I'm pretty certain she was banned as well although I didn't see it first hand, but it wasn't specifically over gender debates, According to Cougar or Drac she effectively stalked Cougar or Drac.

It happens all the time, even on this thread

A word or phrase can have a particular meaning among certain specialist circles. It can have a different meaning to other specialist circles and another different meaning to a wider general audience. It doesn't follow that any of those meanings are incorrect.

So "gender" has several completely correct meanings as higlighted by ajaj in his original post (and thankyou for taking the time to do so - I thought it was interesting anyway).

There is no point getting flouncy if you use the phrase "gender debate" and someone misunderstands what you mean. A "gender debate" to a French linguist might mean something different to an America psychologist. The phrase is useless without context.

You lot should see some of the debates about whether "Anglo-Saxon" is a racist term among historians. The answer seems to be - it depends on the context.

Maybe better said as

A feminist says “we should adopt the biological definition of sex for toilet entry”...

...and “no, we should adopt the social/cultural definition of gender for toilet entry”

..is how I understand the position.

Paul

Edit 'Toilet entry' as a rather glib placeholder for a wide range of issues.

That is very much not what happened last time.

Other media are available.

According to Cougar or Drac she effectively stalked Cougar or Drac.

Dunno who you're referring to, but I'm pretty certain that wasn't me. It's been a good few years since I last had a stalker, I'm fairly sure I'd have remembered.

Dunno who you’re referring to, but I’m pretty certain that wasn’t me. It’s been a good few years since I last had a stalker, I’m fairly sure I’d have remembered.

Whoever it was they deffo remembered because they posted about it in the last couple of weeks. (Which is how I know.)

Dunno who you’re referring to,

I do and i'm pretty sure she's back under a new login but is, thus far, playing nicely with others.

It wasn't so much stalking as twitter-abusing and it was more of a race thing than a gender thing that kicked it off

As far as i am aware that last thread on the topic ended up in a regular user who contributed alot to many different topics leaving the forum.

Nice guy but he didn’t leave he was banned. He didn’t break the rules, but he wrote several posts that didn’t break the rules which were referred to as “drip drip”.

As I recall GeeTee flounced because he couldn't stand the heat of being called out for his views and in any case I believe it was Rachel (allthegear) who was actually being referred to in the first place. Weeshoes (who Perchy is referring to) was a completely different case.

It's not hard to actually speak their name, last I checked that wasn't against the rules. Neither seemingly is being a world class arse which is evidently why one of the more "popular" members is allowed to refer to trans folk as [url= https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/new-labour-leader-direction/page/38/ ]"Blokes in dresses"[/url]. This forum never fails to live down to expectations.

Can anybody explain the difference to me between a 'bloke in a dress' and a transwoman who has chosen not to have any surgery?

I mean, I'm quite happy to refer to the transwoman however they want to be referred to, and to some extent I'll go along with the pronouns thing - but what is the actual difference?

I'd say the difference is less to do with the subject matter as opposed to the person discussing it.

HTH

Thanks for replying squirrellking, but I have no idea what that means.

Do you mean that the difference between a bloke and a dress and a transwoman depends on the perception of the person discussing the subject? So transgender is subjective rather than objective?
I think I agree with that to some extent, but it still isn't an actual difference between the two.

No, I'd say it's a matter of respect.

If you can't see that referring to a trans person as a "bloke in a dress" is inherently offensive then I'm afraid there's not much more to discuss here.

Someone said something about "drip, drip"...

I didn't say I'd refer to a transwoman as a bloke in a dress. In fact I specifically said "I’m quite happy to refer to the transwoman however they want to be referred to".

My question was can anybody give me an actual, quantifiable difference between a 'bloke in a dress' and a transwoman. So far nobody can - they just tell me there's nothing to discuss, which to me is a cop-out.

The Stonewall definition of transgender includes 'crossdresser', by the way, which as I understand the term can mean a 'bloke in a dress'.

You've found the Stonewall glossary. Most of the answer is there. You are looking at "trans", which includes transvestite.

My question was can anybody give me an actual, quantifiable difference between a ‘bloke in a dress’ and a transwoman. So far nobody can – they just tell me there’s nothing to discuss, which to me is a cop-out.

I'm far from an expert, and not sure why I'm getting involved but I'll hazard a guess...

I think the main problem is that "Bloke in a dress" doesn't really mean anything without more context. It could be any of the following or something else I've not thought of/bothered to list;
- Transwoman who hasn't had surgery
- Transvestite/Cross-dresser
- David Beckham wore a skirt once IIRC but I doubt he'd be considered a transvestite
- Drag artist
- A disguise
- Straight man on a stag do/Fancy dress
- Dame Edna tribute act

Whereas I'd suspect that a basic definition of a "transwoman who hasn't had surgery" is a person born in a male body but who doesn't feel male/masculine, yet doesn't like the idea of going through surgery.

Thanks verses, that’s a very good reply.

ajaj
Unfortunately most of the Stonewall glossary seems like a load of tosh to me. I’m happy to explain why at more length but I don’t want to needlessly upset people.

doesn’t feel male/masculine

Which is where we require further definitions. What is it to feel male and/or masculine?

Which is where we require further definitions. What is it to feel male and/or masculine?

Are you looking for something more specific than an indifference to soft-furnishings? 🙂

 What is it to feel male and/or masculine?

We argue about the sizes of a wheel on a bicycle, and pyjamas.

I'm not sure we're best placed to answer.

You have wheels on your pyjamas?

All about the slats.

All that hoofing it around town...

Can anybody explain the difference to me between a ‘bloke in a dress’ and a transwoman who has chosen not to have any surgery?

I guess one simple way of looking at it is that there are some males who wear dresses, while still being male in all other ways, while a trans person will appear as much as possible as female. And I know that is probably being too simplistic, but it’s sometimes easier to parse the concept than it is to really explain, which is where things can get a little heated!
Not really certain, but I think the former are much less common, but tbh it’s not something I’ve ever given much thought to, being more than happy for people to go about their lives being who or what they want to be.

?

 a trans person will appear as much as possible as female

What does "female" look like?

What does “female” look like?

Using a biological definition of the female sex describing the process of sexual reproduction...
...I expect archeologists, pathologists, medics etc. will be able to ascertain the sex of an adult individual 99.99% of the time in seconds. Bone structure eg. plevis, elbows and hips.

Assuming you mean something more like 'femininity', this has varied with age, through the ages, across geographies, cultures, ethnicities, religions an so on.

Paul

I expect archeologists, ...... will be able to ascertain the sex of an adult individual 99.99% of the time in seconds.

Things may have moved on in the past 25 years but it used to be actually quite hard to quickly ascertain sex in the context of an archaeological grave. A lot of older excavation reports simpley assigned sex on the base of grave goods - e.g. if you were buried with a beads you were a woman, if with a spear you were a bloke. Where they had the time and money to do more detailed investigations, this assumption sometimes turned out to be wrong.

There was quiet a famous case of an anglo-saxon woman buried near Andover who turned out to be a "bloke wearing a dress".

Which brings us back to the whole (social) gender debate thing.

simpley assigned sex on the base of grave goods

I was writing about 'bodies' not graves. I do seem to remember a case where a Viking individual was deemed male based upon grave goods however, when the body was examined was female...

Things may have moved on in the past 25 years but it used to be actually quite hard to quickly ascertain sex in the context of an archaeological grave.

My understanding was that this was fairly easy, based on bone size/density and shape of pelvis? I could be wrong I am not an archeologist or doctor.

I do and i’m pretty sure she’s back under a new login but is, thus far, playing nicely with others.

It wasn’t so much stalking as twitter-abusing and it was more of a race thing than a gender thing that kicked it off

Oh, her. Yeah, that was a race issue. She took something I (foolishly) said completely out of context - I said something intentionally offensive to try and hold up a mirror to how offensive someone else was being - then she apologised to me privately via PM when I finally got it into her skull that she'd misread / misunderstood it, then persisted with her public smear campaign over on Twitter anyway.

which is evidently why one of the more “popular” members is allowed to refer to trans folk as ”Blokes in dresses”. This forum never fails to live down to expectations.

OK. Point the First, I hadn't seen that comment, just because it exists doesn't imply approval. I don't think I've read a single post in that particular thread even, certainly not for a while anyway. This is why the "Report post" link exists, in the time it took you to try and make a sensational post you could've done something about it instead.

Point the Second, it's pretty clear to me that comment was a joke that you've taken out of context. But if you disagree with me then see Point the First and it'll be reviewed by the moderation team rather than just me.

(And Point the Third, Eddie Izzard refers to himself as a "bloke in a dress" - he's TV rather than TG.)

My understanding was that this was fairly easy, based on bone size/density and shape of pelvis?

I only did archaeology to Masters level, and it was over 25 years ago, but sexing skeletal remains was a lot harder than they made it look on the telly. Things may have moved on since then

The point being it was often quicker and easier to assign biological sex on the basis of what someone was buried with, which meant making a lot of assumptions about gender identity. eg. If you were buried in a dress you must be a biological woman.

I just though it was interesting in the context of modern debates about gender and identity.

My grandparents were all a bit racist, not bad people, they just couldn't keep up with change

My parents are a bit homophobic, not bad people, they just didn't keep up with change

My kids roll their eyes at me when I cannot understand the different combinations of gender, identification or implication on sexuality. I do not struggle to accept it or judge anyone, I just don't understand it very well. For my kids though, it is all perfectly normal, everyday stuff.

I guess what I am saying is that every generation has to learn about changing culture and, generally speaking, we can trust the younger generation to work it out well.

My kids roll their eyes at me when I cannot understand the different combinations of gender, identification or implication on sexuality. I do not struggle to accept it or judge anyone, I just don’t understand it very well. For my kids though, it is all perfectly normal, everyday stuff.

I guess what I am saying is that every generation has to learn about changing culture and, generally speaking, we can trust the younger generation to work it out well.

Exactly. Unless you know you're right and want to get that into others' skulls.

OK. Point the First, I hadn’t seen that comment, just because it exists doesn’t imply approval. I don’t think I’ve read a single post in that particular thread even, certainly not for a while anyway. This is why the “Report post” link exists, in the time it took you to try and make a sensational post you could’ve done something about it instead.

Not wanting to get into a slinging match here but Binners has been scraping that barrel for the last 2 weeks. I also wasn't implying tacit approval amongst mods but a general acceptance amongst the membership of the forum as a whole.

Point the Second, it’s pretty clear to me that comment was a joke that you’ve taken out of context.

It's clear you haven't read it properly. Unless you think banging on about "blokes in dresses" in the context of trans rights and protections is amusing. Go back to page 34 on that thread if you want full context.

I just find it rather distasteful that whilst I've been banned for calling someone a c word and upsetting Mark for having an opinion about STW (filed as abuse of STW staff) someone can openly flaunt very clear forum rules, not to mention the limits of Rule 1 with barely a whimper. And again remember that a member who was a lot more respectful than either of us was hounded off of here by people like GeeTee and, latterly, Binners who gave zero ****s about their feelings or any sort of decency.

I'm not saying it's a simple case of just changing views but the utter lack of compassion given to the argument is disgusting.

we can just [trust?] the younger generation to work it out well

Can we? I hesitate to get involved in these things as people often seem to misunderstand something that I think is clear (see the example Cougar gave a couple of posts ago), but here goes.

The UK attitudes to race are undoubtably better than they were a few generations ago. Casual, overt racism was common - expected even - in a way I rarely experience now. More importantly it is challenged now, whereas when I was a kid it never was.
However, PoC still have worse unemployment, are paid less, have lower work positions whatever qualifications they earn, are arrested far more, are more likely to be attacked in the street, have lower life expectancy, have more problems accessing state services and aid, etc. We are much better at policing language but still have huge problems in other areas.At some point academics seemed to take over (colonise?) the racism debate and it moved from practical matters to theoretical.

In my limited experience the trans debate seems to be going the same way: there's a lot of talk about what language is appropriate but seems little about helping trans people lead good, fulfilling lives.

Clearly the two are linked, but I reckon we worry too much about a veneer of equality without bothering about structural, practical stuff such as access to health services or employment opportunities. Trans issues are more like race issues here, as it is not necessarily immediately obvious that someone is LGB, whereas it is usually noticeable if someone is a PoC or trans.

squirrelking

Member

No, I’d say it’s a matter of respect.

I think that is glossing over the problem a little bit.

Some trans people assert that e.g. transwomen are women, and that "some women have penises". Some think that biological women that are lesbians must consider transwomen with penises as partners (see: "cotton ceiling").

To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them, is to deny their identity.

Some women assert that only biological "cis" women are women, and that if you have a penis, you are absolutely and fundamentally not a true woman. In their opinion trans people can be a transwoman but never a "woman".

To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them is to deny their identity.

The point I'm trying and probably failing to make is even trying to be 100% respectful, is still likely to cause offence on one or other side of the argument because it regards such deeply seated beliefs that are integral to somebody's sense of self.

At some point academics seemed to take over (colonise?) the racism debate and it moved from practical matters to theoretical.

Academics did the research that helped to identify all the ongoing problems you remind us of, it is journalists and people seeking to make money or gain political advantage that focus on the PC/nonPC side of things.

I’m not going near the main point of this thread though, people in general are no where near ready to accept trans people (sadly), and are being manipulated by nefarious actors as well as showing support for those with genuine fears about (rare but very real) dangerous people.

I also wasn’t implying tacit approval amongst mods but a general acceptance amongst the membership of the forum as a whole.

Well, it's not.

It’s clear you haven’t read it properly. Unless you think banging on about “blokes in dresses” in the context of trans rights is amusing. Go back to page 34 on that thread if you want full context.

I read the post you referred to. The thread was about Labour leadership, you made no mention of previous pages or context and I'm not telepathic. I'll review it in a bit when I get chance.

GT was banned for his conduct. In retrospect, That thread should've resulted in a few more hammers than it did. But here we are.

I've said this before though, it's a very fine line between maintaining decorum and outright censorship. I'd love to delete posts from anyone whose views I disagreed with, but the forum would be a worse place for it if I did. Effective, fair moderation is difficult. I see posts from some people complaining that we don't moderate enough and others complaining that we're too draconian (if you'll pardon the pun), so this makes me think / hope that we're somewhere in the right ballpark.

I expect archeologists, pathologists, medics etc. will be able to ascertain the sex of an adult individual 99.99% of the time in seconds. Bone structure eg. plevis, elbows and hips.

No, you can identify certain gender dimorphic traits, but AIUI none of them can definitively point to a biological sex because the individual could be inter-sex in a variety of obvious and not obvious ways. They could have female (or even neutral) physical characteristics and a Y chromosome for instance.

Anyway, we have a long way to go in the UK but at least many of us are making an effort. We don't burn effigies of gay men in the street, for example, and I suspect if someone tried it would be frowned upon quite severely.

The point I’m trying and probably failing to make is even trying to be 100% respectful, is still likely to cause offence on one or other side of the argument because it regards such deeply seated beliefs that are integral to somebody’s sense of self.

I think the loophole here is that not all opinions and beliefs are equally valid. Would you defend a racist's right to be racist, lest you offend them?

I guess a better rule of thumb might be, if you feel the need to stick your oar in about someone who's different from you, you might want to consider winding your neck in and getting a hobby. That should about cover it off. (-:

I just find it rather distasteful that whilst I’ve been banned for calling someone a c word and upsetting Mark for having an opinion about STW (filed as abuse of STW staff)

Yeah, I also made the error of having an opinion about STW. It seems that dissent isn't tolerated.

Mark is very protective of his volunteer moderators, yes.

I would rather suspect that your "having an opinion" may be a cheeky understatement though. I can't imagine that meriting a ban, calling us all ****s on the other hand would likely net you a lengthy one.

Would you defend a racist’s right to be racist, lest you offend them?

I'd defend a racists right to say racist things, yes. I'm very much of the opinion that it's better to have Nick Griffin on Question Time - where we can all see what an ignorant **** he is - than try to suppress him.

Of course this can backfire, but generally I prefer to get things into the light. I agree that STW might not be the ideal place to do this, and it makes the job of a mod extremely difficult

No, you can identify certain gender dimorphic traits, but AIUI none of them can definitively point to a biological sex because the individual could be inter-sex in a variety of obvious and not obvious ways. They could have female (or even neutral) physical characteristics and a Y chromosome for instance.

I did not state all...and was also trying to be specific in the definition of *sex* not gender. I do not conflate the two. This definition copes with issues such as chromosomal variants e.g. XXY (male with two XX chromosomes) and differences in sexual development e.g. athletes competing in womens sports who were thought to be female at birth, and subsequently had male puberty.

Cougar

I think the loophole here is that not all opinions and beliefs are equally valid. Would you defend a racist’s right to be racist, lest you offend them?

I guess a better rule of thumb might be, if you feel the need to stick your oar in about someone who’s different from you, you might want to consider winding your neck in and getting a hobby. That should about cover it off. (-:

I can't agree there.
So only trans people can discuss these issues? The people on the second link in my post should "wind their neck in and get a hobby"? Their views on the word "woman" are not valid?

eta: i'm talking in the wider context rather than on STW who are of course well within their rights to delete threads/ban people who talk about such things.

I would rather suspect that your “having an opinion” may be litotes though. I can’t imagine that meriting a ban, calling us all ****s on the other hand would likely net you a lengthy one.

I think you're wrong and the real reason is Mark's over-sensitivity regarding any criticism of how the forum works. I've never abused a moderator and it's instructive that I never received a reply (other than a general reference to forum rules) when I asked for the post or posts that were deemed to be abusive.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge. It'd probably be better though if it was made clear in the rules that criticism of STW is prohibited, to avoid confusion and to keep people subscribing 😉

Well, I've no idea what posts or messages you're referring to either so you may well be right. In my experience though, most often when people complain in public about unfair treatment the truth is somewhat closer to what I just said than is claimed.

So only trans people can discuss these issues?

That isn't what I said. Or at least, isn't what I meant - we're discussing it right now, aren't we?

Rather that if your "opinion" is one which is likely to cause upset to someone different from yourself, perhaps someone for whom that difference has caused them great difficulties in their life, perhaps you could consider that the most positive thing you can bring to the debate is silence. Because, frankly, it's none of your business.

TL;DR - someone else's mental wellbeing trumps your right to run your mouth off. Remember the title of Rachel's thread? "It hurts." Some folk would do well to remember that.

(To avoid any confusion I don't mean "you" personally here, I'm generalising.)

I think the loophole here is that not all opinions and beliefs are equally valid.

Fine, so which is the least valid belief in the post you're claiming that about:

Some trans people assert that e.g. transwomen are women, and that “some women have penises”. Some think that biological women that are lesbians must consider transwomen with penises as partners (see: “cotton ceiling”).

To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them, is to deny their identity.

Some women assert that only biological “cis” women are women, and that if you have a penis, you are absolutely and fundamentally not a true woman. In their opinion trans people can be a transwoman but never a “woman”.

To disagree with those statements is fundamentally offensive to the people making them, because to deny them is to deny their identity.

Cougar seems to me to be biased towards the biologically male but "Psychologically and sociologically" female and against the cis women who are "Psychologically and sociologically" female and biologically female. Perhaps because Cougar is biologically male himself. So I'm gonna guess Cougar thinks the biological males' belief is more 'valid' than the boiological female's. Wonder if he'll suprise me.

I have kept away from this thread for a number of reasons.

I have learnt from discussions with trans people that I do not know enough to have a strong opinion based on anything other than my own ill informed views

Many folk on here feel / felt able to express views that clearly were not based on anything but ill informed views even when those vies are seen as very hurtful by those they are affecting

People I respect saw my actions on the thread were GT flounced / was banned as bullying - something I do not want to be seen as even tho I saw it as standing up for what I thought was right and expressed forcefully in the face of abhorrent abusive views

Thus what I learnt was that multiplicity of views are out there and the vast majority of them based on ignorance and prejudice and its hard to unpick the two. In the light of my own lack of knowledge its best to attempt to be respectful and to ignore the ignorant and predjudiced

I'd like to think I'm not biased against anyone, aside from bigots who deserve being biased against.

I believe people have the fundamental right to be whoever they are without being given grief for it, and I fail to see what business it is of anyone else to dictate to someone whom they should 'consider' dating.

As a biological male, I believe that in the context of discussing gender issues and inequality my "belief" in respect to trans women, or indeed women generally, is worth the square root of **** all next to what they believe.

Does that answer your question?

I suppose what I am saying is that given the lack of comprehension among the general population and the ease with which offense is caused than step lightly and listen to those directly affected seems a decent attitude to take

Well said TJ.

I do not believe that anyone has a divine right not to be offended. To paraphrase Steve Hughes, "boy bands offend me." However, I strongly believe that this does not give someone carte blanche to be offensive. People sometimes hide behind this argument but the latter is not a corollary of the former.