But do you think someone's genitals need to be a defining factor in how they see themselves - their own internal experience of themselves? And if so, why? And if for some people this isn't a defining factor, why is that something you personally struggle with? How does it affect you?
I think biology is important, because we’re not just spirits or souls or identities that happen to be occupying an otherwise unrelated and unimportant piece of meat. We’re not in our bodies, we are our bodies.
I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people? I mean people tend to have them, but I have hands too. I'm right handed. My partner is left handed. So is my mom for that matter and he has some things in common with her. Why don't we start basing gender on handedness? Maybe lefties are the real minority gender. It would make at least as much sense.
I'd say dicks and cunts have a good deal more to do with sex and gender than handedness. Humans reproduce sexually, and dicks and cunts are how we do it. Handedness is irrelevant to reproduction. And unless you want to say that sexuality has nothing to do with sex (the act), you seem to be arguing a step too far.
Dicks and cunts have to do with sex and reproduction, but neither of those is gender. Sexuality has to do with sex. Gender does not need to.
Further if dicks and cunts have nothing to do with it, why do people have alignment surgery?
Because they feel that is more right for them. Because they want to look the way they picture themselves. Because they have dysphoria. Because they have been taught that have to "look the part" before they can be treated as the gender they are. Probably a thousand other valid reasons. (And be very clear that though I do not love the the focus on defining people by those genitalia , I emphatically do support people having alignment surgeries at will. )
@Marvin the Martian I don't see how genitalia is any more indicative of who someone is than their elbows. They're just body parts. Everyone has different body parts so it doesn't seem like this specific variation is any more important than any other. I don't see what's dualistic about that.
It’s indicative of what sex someone is, which is in turn highly biologically relevant as it’s key to how the species (along with virtually all other animals) reproduces itself. And given how much of intraspecies interaction in animals, from the tiniest insect up to and including our own societies, is (for better or worse) built around that reproductive instinct I think it’s far more important biologically, evolutionarily and socially than a mere joint about halfway along the arm.
@Marvin the Martian I don't see how genitalia is any more indicative of who someone is than their elbows. They're just body parts. Everyone has different body parts so it doesn't seem like this specific variation is any more important than any other. I don't see what's dualistic about that.
It’s indicative of what sex someone is, which is in turn highly biologically relevant as it’s key to how the species (along with virtually all other animals) reproduces itself. And given how much of intraspecies interaction in animals, from the tiniest insect up to and including our own societies, is (for better or worse) built around that reproductive instinct I think it’s far more important biologically, evolutionarily and socially than a mere joint about halfway along the arm.
But as I said to mousethief, sex no longer has to have any relationship to reproduction and vice versa. Genitalia is also not necessarily indicative of what sex someone is given how many intersex people are not identified as intersex at birth.
I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people? I mean people tend to have them, but I have hands too. I'm right handed. My partner is left handed. So is my mom for that matter and he has some things in common with her. Why don't we start basing gender on handedness? Maybe lefties are the real minority gender. It would make at least as much sense.
I'd say dicks and cunts have a good deal more to do with sex and gender than handedness. Humans reproduce sexually, and dicks and cunts are how we do it. Handedness is irrelevant to reproduction. And unless you want to say that sexuality has nothing to do with sex (the act), you seem to be arguing a step too far. Further if dicks and cunts have nothing to do with it, why do people have alignment surgery?
This seems like a very reductive take on reproduction and sex, which also don't necessarily have anything to do with each other on an individual level. Contraception exists and so does adoption - it's perfectly possible to have kids and also never experience pregnancy for instance. Humans as a species may reproduce sexually as opposed to asexually, but that's very different to talking about how individuals may or may not create their families.
Surely you are aware that sexual behaviour on an individual level doesn't have to involve any potential reproduction at all? Genitalia isn't even necessary let alone crucial to certain types of sexual activity.
Seems you want to take my very general observation and make it apply to every single person, find it doesn't, and reject my observation wholesale.
But that's the point, your general observation is actually just....incorrect?
@fineline I think generally people try to avoid using AMAB and AFAB unless it's for very specific reasons, and I think it's falling out of favour in preference for TME/TMA (transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected respectively).
Really? I see AFAB in particular used a lot in FB groups, for the kinds of reasons I gave, where people are talking about things like periods, hormones and menopause, which to me are specific reasons, which do affect one's body, and so it is relevant. One does still live in one's body, and some aspects of it can affect a person significantly.
I've not seen TME/TMA, but those make sense for discussing the way society has treated you due to perception of your gender. I've seen that sort of thing discussed in terms of privilege. TMA feels potentially confusing, as this is the name the Open University gives their assignments!
But do you think someone's genitals need to be a defining factor in how they see themselves - their own internal experience of themselves? And if so, why? And if for some people this isn't a defining factor, why is that something you personally struggle with? How does it affect you?
I think biology is important, because we’re not just spirits or souls or identities that happen to be occupying an otherwise unrelated and unimportant piece of meat. We’re not in our bodies, we are our bodies.
Yes, body and soul are not separate, which is why gender dysphoria happens. Some people have a very strong sense of gender, and it doesn't always match their bodies. Not everyone does have a strong sense of gender though.
Our bodies have many aspects that affect us. I have blue eyes and small feet. According to the BMI chart, I used to be underweight when I was younger and now I'm slightly overweight. I am very myopic and I have astigmatism. I have a long nose, a long neck, and a vagina.
Different aspects of my body affect how I navigate the world. They don't necessarily affect my sense of identity. I choose shoes that are comfortable for my feet, and clothes that fit my body. I wear glasses to help me see. When I had periods, I used tampons.
However, my foot size, body size, vagina, and eye prescription are not part of my sense of self. If I had laser surgery on my eyes, it would have a positive impact on how I experience the world, but it wouldn't make me a different person, just as gaining weight hasn't made me a different person.
Of course, being perceived as being female influences how society treats you, as does being perceived as being white. So both those elements of my body have significantly impacted on my experience of the world, and I am conscious of this.
To be honest, I'm still not entirely sure what point you are making, so not sure if I am addressing it. Could you clarify exactly what question you are asking?
But do you think someone's genitals need to be a defining factor in how they see themselves - their own internal experience of themselves? And if so, why? And if for some people this isn't a defining factor, why is that something you personally struggle with? How does it affect you?
I think biology is important, because we’re not just spirits or souls or identities that happen to be occupying an otherwise unrelated and unimportant piece of meat. We’re not in our bodies, we are our bodies.
Yes, body and soul are not separate, which is why gender dysphoria happens. Some people have a very strong sense of gender, and it doesn't always match their bodies. Not everyone does have a strong sense of gender though.
Our bodies have many aspects that affect us. I have blue eyes and small feet. According to the BMI chart, I used to be underweight when I was younger and now I'm slightly overweight. I am very myopic and I have astigmatism. I have a long nose, a long neck, and a vagina.
Different aspects of my body affect how I navigate the world. They don't necessarily affect my sense of identity. I choose shoes that are comfortable for my feet, and clothes that fit my body. I wear glasses to help me see. When I had periods, I used tampons.
However, my foot size, body size, vagina, and eye prescription are not part of my sense of self. If I had laser surgery on my eyes, it would have a positive impact on how I experience the world, but it wouldn't make me a different person, just as gaining weight hasn't made me a different person.
Of course, being perceived as being female influences how society treats you, as does being perceived as being white. So both those elements of my body have significantly impacted on my experience of the world, and I am conscious of this.
To be honest, I'm still not entirely sure what point you are making, so not sure if I am addressing it. Could you clarify exactly what question you are asking?
Would you say that having a vagina doesn't affect ANYONE'S sense of self? Or just a subset of humanity that happens to include you?
@mousethief - your initial comment was in reply to Gwai, who said 'I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people?' They weren't talking about sex, so you seem to be arguing with something they didn't say, and they addressed this.
Just as genitalia are relevant to sex, handed is relevant to writing, which is also a significant aspect of life. The point is surely that these are specific areas of our life, but there is no reason to make them a defining aspect of our personhood.
@mousethief - your initial comment was in reply to Gwai, who said 'I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people?' They weren't talking about sex, so you seem to be arguing with something they didn't say, and they addressed this.
Just as genitalia are relevant to sex, handed is relevant to writing, which is also a significant aspect of life. The point is surely that these are specific areas of our life, but there is no reason to make them a defining aspect of our personhood.
If that was surely the point, it surely wasn't clear to me.
The bit I struggle with isn’t the terminology, but the suggestion that someone’s biological sex is irrelevant to who they are. It’s all a bit too dualistic for me.
Marvin, am quoting this again to return to the question I initially asked you, which still applies to your amended version.
*Who* is suggesting that someone's biological sex is always irrelevant to who they are? I haven't seen anyone argue this, so you seem to be arguing with an argument that no one has made. You're turning this into something dualist rather than reading the nuances of what people are saying.
@mousethief - your initial comment was in reply to Gwai, who said 'I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people?' They weren't talking about sex, so you seem to be arguing with something they didn't say, and they addressed this.
Just as genitalia are relevant to sex, handed is relevant to writing, which is also a significant aspect of life. The point is surely that these are specific areas of our life, but there is no reason to make them a defining aspect of our personhood.
If that was surely the point, it surely wasn't clear to me.
Oh. I thought Gwai was very clear that they were challenging the idea of defining people by their genitalia. Maybe I missed something and they can clarify.
Originally posted by fineline: I just realised I used the wrong terminology here. Well, it was the British terminology 15 years ago, but we use the American terminology now.
British terminology used to be 'gender' for the bodily stuff (genitals, etc.) and 'gender identity' for the internal experience - which perhaps made the difference clearer, as it included the word 'identity.'
American terminology (which the UK have now adopted) is 'sex' for the bodily stuff, and 'gender' for the internal experience.
This is a minor point, but fifteen years ago, at least in Scottish universities, the terminology was "sex" for the bodily stuff, and "gender" for the experiencial stuff. I did an M Litt in Women, Culture and Society in 2006/7, and the terms used were "sex" and "gender."
It's possible that the terminology was different in England, and that Scottish and American usage was aligned.
Originally posted by fineline: I just realised I used the wrong terminology here. Well, it was the British terminology 15 years ago, but we use the American terminology now.
British terminology used to be 'gender' for the bodily stuff (genitals, etc.) and 'gender identity' for the internal experience - which perhaps made the difference clearer, as it included the word 'identity.'
American terminology (which the UK have now adopted) is 'sex' for the bodily stuff, and 'gender' for the internal experience.
This is a minor point, but fifteen years ago, at least in Scottish universities, the terminology was "sex" for the bodily stuff, and "gender" for the experiencial stuff. I did an M Litt in Women, Culture and Society in 2006/7, and the terms used were "sex" and "gender."
It's possible that the terminology was different in England, and that Scottish and American usage was aligned.
Ah, interesting. It may also have been different in different fields. The practical health care field (which was where I learnt it) versus more theoretical feminism studies. Particularly as a lot of the feminist theorists one studies are American (at least from what I remember of feminist literary theory, from when I studied literature), so it would make sense to stick to the same terminology, whereas in health care, Americans and Brits can remain at loggerheads over terminology for some time (I remember reading a book which talked about what an issue this was in disability studies).
I just remember at the time learning the terms gender and gender identity at uni, with regard to gender dysphoria and how this is addressed within healthcare. And then when chatting about these things online, I was 'corrected' by an American trans guy. And when I suggested British terminology may be different, he later returned to the conversation, having asked about it in trans groups, and said I was right, and Brits do say gender identity and gender where Americans say gender and sex.
Can I just remind cis people on this thread to listen to and centre the experience of the non binary people here and to ask their questions respectfully and not launch cross examinations? If non binary people keep telling you their focus isn't on genitals but you a cis person keep wanting to ask about them, maybe you should dial that back a bit and listen more to what they have to say?
That's interesting. Cutting edge feminist theory wasn't my area; the question I wanted to research was the reason why women are under represented in history books / the history curriculum, and sex and gender presentation (enforced or not) is hugely important. However, my focus of interest is mid- late Victorian, and I struggle to align it with current debates.
@fineline I think generally people try to avoid using AMAB and AFAB unless it's for very specific reasons, and I think it's falling out of favour in preference for TME/TMA (transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected respectively).
Really? I see AFAB in particular used a lot in FB groups, for the kinds of reasons I gave, where people are talking about things like periods, hormones and menopause, which to me are specific reasons, which do affect one's body, and so it is relevant. One does still live in one's body, and some aspects of it can affect a person significantly.
I've not seen TME/TMA, but those make sense for discussing the way society has treated you due to perception of your gender. I've seen that sort of thing discussed in terms of privilege. TMA feels potentially confusing, as this is the name the Open University gives their assignments!
Periods and so on would be the 'very specific reasons' I mentioned. The point is that those are generally exceptions, and the problems with AFAB/AMAB has been when people have used AFAB as a sort of code for women in a way that excludes trans women. The shift to TME/TMA is partly to affirm the particularly vulnerable position of trans women and transfeminine people, because a lot of discussions about non-binary people prioritise TME/AFAB people in a way that erases TMA non-binary experiences. Also, most trans and non-binary people don't want to have to constantly talk about the gender they were assigned at birth.
Also, I think that perhaps the sex/gender and gender/gender identity split is perhaps where part of the confusion lies for @Spike ?
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
@fineline I think generally people try to avoid using AMAB and AFAB unless it's for very specific reasons, and I think it's falling out of favour in preference for TME/TMA (transmisogyny exempt/transmisogyny affected respectively).
Really? I see AFAB in particular used a lot in FB groups, for the kinds of reasons I gave, where people are talking about things like periods, hormones and menopause, which to me are specific reasons, which do affect one's body, and so it is relevant. One does still live in one's body, and some aspects of it can affect a person significantly.
I've not seen TME/TMA, but those make sense for discussing the way society has treated you due to perception of your gender. I've seen that sort of thing discussed in terms of privilege. TMA feels potentially confusing, as this is the name the Open University gives their assignments!
Periods and so on would be the 'very specific reasons' I mentioned. The point is that those are generally exceptions, and the problems with AFAB/AMAB has been when people have used AFAB as a sort of code for women in a way that excludes trans women. The shift to TME/TMA is partly to affirm the particularly vulnerable position of trans women and transfeminine people, because a lot of discussions about non-binary people prioritise TME/AFAB people in a way that erases TMA non-binary experiences. Also, most trans and non-binary people don't want to have to constantly talk about the gender they were assigned at birth.
Ah, okay. I don't think we are disagreeing here, as when I first mentioned these terms, I talked specifically about the types of contexts in which they are used, and how it's when it is relevant only. I see them used particularly in groups where a lot of people are trans and autistic and are asking advice about situations where body is relevant.
My overall point, when I referred to these terms again, was that our bodies are relevant to us (as someone was suggesting we were saying they were never relevant, which of course no one was saying) and we mention these things when we need to. When it is relevant.
I was actually imagining TME and TMA the opposite way around from what you are saying - that someone who transitions to male has already had a lifetime of misogyny, while someone who transitions to female has had a lifetime of male privilege. And that they carry this experience with them. I have seen this discussed by trans people who have transitioned. But of course it makes sense that there is a different sort of treatment from others once one transitions.
Well, I will look out for those terms. I haven't seen them, and when I searched FB for them, I only found TMA used for OU assignments, whereas I found a lot of instances of people self defining as AFAB for relevant discussion reasons. On Reddit, I found a few discussions, and it seems quite a few trans people find the terms TMA and TME problematic, in terms of whether people want to be defining themselves by oppression, and also in terms of how comparing oppression can be oversimplifying (with an example given, which seems to be increasingly common, of cis-women being seen as trans women). But it's usual for people to question new terms. I suppose if they become more widely used, I will see them in FB groups.
Also, I think that perhaps the sex/gender and gender/gender identity split is perhaps where part of the confusion lies for @Spike ?
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
I think gender expression is yet another thing.
I say this for a couple of reasons. Firstly experiential - my daughter has a friend (AFAB) who is gender fluid, accepts all pronouns and has a boy name and a girl name which they alternate between. Their gender expression however - especially noticeable in clothing and hairstyle - is consistantly female. Secondly, I think it's worth distinguishing because of a particular line of attack on trans kids along the lines of "I was a tomboy as a girl and these people would have been telling me I might really be a boy..."
That's interesting. Cutting edge feminist theory wasn't my area; the question I wanted to research was the reason why women are under represented in history books / the history curriculum, and sex and gender presentation (enforced or not) is hugely important. However, my focus of interest is mid- late Victorian, and I struggle to align it with current debates.
That sounds like really interesting research. What did you discover?
Can I just say how helpful I'm finding this discussion. I have lovely trangender colleague and a grandaughter whose gender is definitely uncertain (but then Layla is uncertain about practically everything). Acceptance is all
A story from 40 years ago: A fellow member of staff at the college was undergoing hormone treatment and surgery. This went well and Paul became Paula without trauma. What I did notice (so help me) was I started to open doors for her .....
Also, I think that perhaps the sex/gender and gender/gender identity split is perhaps where part of the confusion lies for @Spike ?
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
I think this is bang on. In other words, I've been using such a tripartite distinction for years, partly because "gender" seems ambiguous, and the idea of identity clarifies it. I'm not sure about UK and US usage.
I agree, and it seems to be something talked about in trans spaces too.
Not sure about Pomona's distinction between gender and gender identity, as in my experience trans/non-binary people generally use 'gender' to mean the gender they identify with, rather than the gender assigned by society, and they wouldn't be happy for their assigned sex at birth to be called their gender. But I see the point that the assigned sex at birth may not match one's chromosomes. I had assumed this was why the terms AFAB and AMAB had replaced speaking in terms of 'biological sex,' and why I quite like those terms for accuracy. My chromosomes have never been checked, but my birth certificate says female, which was based, I assume, on people looking at my naked body and seeing that I didn't have a penis. Therefore, for medical purposes, I am AFAB.
Gender expression is an interesting one, with all sorts of factors involved. As an autistic person, I feel it's complicated by the fact that I naturally live inside my head, and what I look like is irrelevant to my sense of self, and only factors into my thinking in terms of how it affects how people treat me. I would say my gender expression is generally female, though these days most clothes I wear are gender neutral or from the 'menswear' section (not for gender reasons, but because I prefer the colours and choice and comfort and quality), and I never wear makeup (because I hate it for sensory reasons). I don't think I deliberately look female, but I also am quite aware that I have a lifetime of being conditioned to look female, and also I consciously don't want to have a look that makes people look again and wonder whether I'm male or female, because I'd rather not have any aggro or intrusive questions from strangers. If other people's reactions were completely taken out of the equation, I would shave my head, no question, but again, for sensory reasons. I suppose, logically, the fact that it's all totally unrelated to internal sense of gender is about the fact that I have no internal sense of gender. Whereas a non-binary person who has a sense of some kind of androgynous gender might want to express this in how they look, because it's part of who they are.
@fineline transmisogyny is not the same as misogyny in general, and is specifically something experienced by trans women and transfeminine people, because it's specifically experienced at the intersection of womanhood and transness - the term was coined after the term misogynoir, which is the specific experience of Black women at the intersection of anti-Black racism and misogyny. Like how the term misogynoir doesn't suggest that non-Black women don't experience misogyny, transmisogyny is merely being very specific about the particular form of misogyny that trans women experience. TME stands for 'transmisogyny exempt' so is useful for eg clarifying that you (general you) aren't a trans woman or transfeminine. It's not about comparing oppression or suggesting that other trans people can't experience misogyny, just that transmisogyny is a specific experience.
I think the issue is people using terms like AFAB/AMAB as general category terms rather than using them for specific reasons or examples. TME/TMA is used when talking specifically about transmisogyny, and likewise in most cases someone's AGAB isn't massively relevant except in a few specific cases.
Also, I think that perhaps the sex/gender and gender/gender identity split is perhaps where part of the confusion lies for @Spike ?
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
I think this is bang on. In other words, I've been using such a tripartite distinction for years, partly because "gender" seems ambiguous, and the idea of identity clarifies it. I'm not sure about UK and US usage.
It is also complicated because in UK law 'sex' and 'gender' are used interchangeably. You use a Gender Recognition Certificate to get a birth certificate listing a new sex, for instance.
Also, I think that perhaps the sex/gender and gender/gender identity split is perhaps where part of the confusion lies for @Spike ?
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
I think gender expression is yet another thing.
I say this for a couple of reasons. Firstly experiential - my daughter has a friend (AFAB) who is gender fluid, accepts all pronouns and has a boy name and a girl name which they alternate between. Their gender expression however - especially noticeable in clothing and hairstyle - is consistantly female. Secondly, I think it's worth distinguishing because of a particular line of attack on trans kids along the lines of "I was a tomboy as a girl and these people would have been telling me I might really be a boy..."
Oh yes, I agree - I wasn't intentionally leaving gender expression out! This would also include pronouns, which actually don't necessarily 'match' gender. Think of gay men calling each other she or her for eg. Gender expression might overlap with gender identity, but it also might not.
@Pomona That makes sense. I don't really come across AFAB and AMAB being used more generally - only by trans people about themselves, in terms of bodily things and socialisation.
And yes, that makes sense that TMA and TME would also be used in very specific contexts, of discussing transmisogyny. The kind of thing I saw being discussed was that if a cis woman was seen to be a trans woman, even though she wasn't, she might be treated the same way as a trans woman is. So I would think in that case it would still be the experience of transmisogyny, in the same way that straight people can experience homophobia if people assume they are gay. I'm thinking it might also sometimes get complicated when people present as androgynous, and people speculate whether they are a trans woman or a trans man. So, for instance, if I were perceived to be a trans woman (I don't think I would be, as I'm quite petite, but if I had a larger frame, and a deeper voice, I can see how people might think it), then I would be TMA, with regard to that particular societal experience, but if I wanted to talk about general misogyny I have experienced and grew up with, then it would be more relevant to mention being AFAB.
@mousethief - your initial comment was in reply to Gwai, who said 'I just don't see what dicks and cunts have to do with people?' They weren't talking about sex, so you seem to be arguing with something they didn't say, and they addressed this.
Just as genitalia are relevant to sex, handed is relevant to writing, which is also a significant aspect of life. The point is surely that these are specific areas of our life, but there is no reason to make them a defining aspect of our personhood.
If that was surely the point, it surely wasn't clear to me.
Oh. I thought Gwai was very clear that they were challenging the idea of defining people by their genitalia. Maybe I missed something and they can clarify.
That was exactly where I was going with that. Thank you.
Speaking as a cis straight guy with some exposure...
When I was very young, there were males and females. These were categories of gender and sex, without distinction between what gender and sex were.
When I was in undergrad, I picked up the notion that sex and gender were separate categories. Sex was biological and gender was sociological. Sex is about your reproductive anatomy, very strictly speaking. Gender was about the kind of clothes you wore, the kind of hobbies you preferred, the kind of work you did, how you operated in society.
Later on, it seems like the two concepts have somewhat blurred together.
My sense of NB (which I somewhat relate to, enough that I sometimes joke that I'd be NB if I were more motivated a la "lazyqueer") is that they've decided that neither "gender" model suits them and so they're simply themselves. Trying to perform as "male" or "female" is like wearing an uncomfortable garment that restricts your movement unnaturally, and there's more dignity in simply walking around naked, so to speak.
Okay, identity is something you feel within yourself. Spike, you said you understand transgender - that is when a person's inner experience is different from their external gender. That inner experience of gender is gender identity.
So, for myself, when I was a kid, and people referred to me as a little girl, and called me 'she', and they referred to other kids as little boys and called them 'he,' I didn't understand this. I had no concept of what this meant, and I thought it was like as school when you are put into teams, like a red team and a yellow team, and I'd randomly been allocated 'girl.' And it literally never made sense to me. I came to understand that boys have something a bit different in their underpants, but this seemed quite a minor detail, like some people having different hair colours, or being fat or thin. I came to understand it was about reproduction, but I had no interest in this. When people refer to me as 'she,' though I have got used to it as the norm, it feels like a word alien to me. On the occasions that people have called me 'he,' thinking I was a boy/man, that feels like a refreshing change, to even things out a bit, but also still a word alien to me.
If I imagine waking up one morning and having magically acquired a male body, with a penis and balls, and hairy chest and stubble on my face, and this were to be me for the rest of my life, I don't feel this would be wrong, nor that it would be right. Some people feel quite repulsed by imagining this, because they are cisgender - they identify internally with the gender they are. Others feel a longing when they imagine this, because they have gender dysphoria and identify with the opposite gender and would like their body to change. All I think is about what different societal expectations there would be of me, and how I would adapt to these.
Because I have never had any sense of gender, I actually have no idea what it feels like inside to identify with a certain gender. But I see the evidence that it clearly happens, and so I accept this. I don't take myself and my experience to be the norm by which everything must be judged. In the same way that I can't imagine what it's like not to be autistic, and people who are not autistic can't imagine my sensory experiences or the way I process the world. But if they accept that these differences exist, it makes my life a lot easier than if they doubt them. And I think there comes a point where it is about accepting that other people do experience life differently from oneself in a way you cannot fully imagine.
Spike, it might be helpful to consider why you are asking this question. Why do you want to understand what non-binary means? Are there non-binary people in your life and you want to show support and empathy? If so, can you talk to them, and ask them open questions? Or is it more for in case you meet non-binary people in future? There's loads out there on how to show support to non-binary people, if you google that.
@fineline thank you for sharing this personal experience. It has been tremendously helpful to me.
FWIW, @fineline, this is me too. It's a great description.
I agree, and it seems to be something talked about in trans spaces too.
Not sure about Pomona's distinction between gender and gender identity, as in my experience trans/non-binary people generally use 'gender' to mean the gender they identify with, rather than the gender assigned by society, and they wouldn't be happy for their assigned sex at birth to be called their gender. But I see the point that the assigned sex at birth may not match one's chromosomes. I had assumed this was why the terms AFAB and AMAB had replaced speaking in terms of 'biological sex,' and why I quite like those terms for accuracy. My chromosomes have never been checked, but my birth certificate says female, which was based, I assume, on people looking at my naked body and seeing that I didn't have a penis. Therefore, for medical purposes, I am AFAB.
But the point I'm making is that we're not assigned a sex at birth, but assigned a gender. Your birth certificate says female because the midwife made a guess based on your body's appearance, but many AFAB people have turned out to be intersex later in life - this is why sports bodies don't do chromosone testing, because a lot of women athletes turn out to be intersex. You (general you) can be cis and intersex precisely because AGAB is *not* the same as sex - an intersex woman who is also AFAB is a cis intersex woman, with her sex being intersex and her gender and gender identity both being female.
AFAB and AMAB are used because eg cis women and trans men may both have periods. They're not terms used to describe intersex experiences, which are generally described as CAFAB/CAMAB or coercively assigned female/male at birth. This is because generally intersex children are not legally able to be recorded as intersex on their birth certificates - they are assigned a gender precisely because their sex cannot legally be recorded.
Okay then help me out. Is there such a thing as sex, then? Is it a deprecated (no longer used in the relevant literature) term? Is every use of "sex" just a misnomer for "gender"?
I am biologically female. Another way of saying that is that I was Assigned Female At Birth (afab) because I have a body of a person that is normally called female. This does not particularly relate to my gender, which is nonbinary.
@Louise apologies if this is Beyond Your Remit but I'm interested in how your academic interests might be a fruitful thing to bring up here, because in my limited knowledge of eg High Medieval Northern Europe the way gender and sex were delineated was much more about ones public gender performance (and indeed what it meant to be un-public), and the relative abundance of Professional Virgins (at least compared to nowadays) meant that social anxieties about reproduction and its relationship with gender were quite different. But then again, recent headlines about birth rates might mean they're possibly less different than we might think.
It seems to me, that where people struggle to understand trans experience, the bit they are struggling with is not chromosomal sex. It is people having been born with secondary sexual characteristics that lead to them being assigned male or female at birth - and those individuals experience of their gender (or lack of gender) not matching that categorisation. The exact vocabulary is a bit of a red herring, as noted above it changes between ages, cultures and individuals etc.
The existence of chromosomal sex and intersex people etc, becomes relevant to the discussion at the point at which people starting throwing around ideas as to what is “natural”, which is usually based partly on a failure to realise such variations exist and have always existed.
I identify as female, and in that I am cis gender, but I have never had a particularly strong sense of my own gender. When I was at university I was in a psychology lecture where we were all asked to write 20 statements about ourselves, “I am booklover, I am British etc”. Almost everyone included their gender as one of their first statements - it didn’t occur to me to include it at all. On similar questionnaires where you endorsed “male” and “female” characteristics - I would come out as somewhere in the middle. Perhaps because of that, people switching genders doesn’t really seem that odd to me - or rather, I can see why one might not conform to a gender role but I do find it hard to imagine caring about it enough to go to effort of changing it.
In my offline life I know a number of trans people and I lost a trans friend to suicide. The latter experience has made me a lot less tolerant of other people’s prejudices about trans people.
When white doctors are taught in med school that Black women have fewer pain receptors than white women
Which medical schools is that taught in?
It used to be quite common, depressingly, and the bias persists. More recently, you still occasionally get this kind of thing.
Also FWIW I'm in the UK, and different LGBTQ+ people have different preferences regarding terminology. There isn't an official list somewhere!
If there’s no official list then why is it such a horrible thing when someone uses the “wrong” word?
Because dogwhistles: some people don’t consider/know the preferences of trans people and some people are trying to be deniably offensive instead of actually saying (CW slur)
@Marvin the Martian - what do you really want to understand about the trans experience and why?
It feels like you're picking somewhat irrelevant things to argue with. Within any large group of people, there will be a bit of variance as to vocabulary, and of course there is no 'official list,' because language doesn't work that way, but that doesn't mean there's not some shared understanding, and that certain words aren't generally hurtful, undermining a person's personhood. Applying some common sense, there is no 'official list' of terminology around race, but you know that it's not appropriate for you are a white guy to go throwing around the n word.
I am confused as to what your purpose is in this discussion. Are you genuinely wanting to understand and empathise with trans people, or are you wanting to declare that you personally don't understand how it's possible for a person's genitals not to be part of their personhood, and that, as a result, trans people need to defend their very being to you in a way that you understand, or else you won't accept it? Because it does feel like the latter, and honestly doesn't feel like you are asking with genuine openness.
This is an interesting discussion, though I confess to feeling out of my depth much of the time.
I am female, went to a girls’ school, married, have had children, sing soprano, but apart from that, it doesn’t matter to me what sex/ gender ( I am confused as to the correct word now) I am or others consider me. I wear what I want to wear, mostly trousers and trainers, I have no interest in fashion, make up, flower arranging or whatever many women seem to be interested in. I am me, with my own personality and interests, not a stereotype.
My oldest grandchild grew up as a girl, pretty dresses, very feminine and attractive. At 19 we learned of a relationship with another girl, at 21 my granddaughter became my grandson, changing names by deed poll. I have had no conversations with him about any of this. I just accept the person. I think his parents are accepting and supportive, but I/we don’t really understand. Sometimes we get the pronouns wrong when talking about him. No big deal, for us. Irrelevant when he is there because we talk to him not about him.
I struggle with all the new terminology. Do I really need to work harder to improve my vocabulary? I try not to cause offence or to judge. Isn’t acceptance of the person enough?
I'm cis-gendered, and have a strong gender identity. However, I think I formed my gender identity back-to-front.
I've always loved history; for my 9th birthday present I chose an encyclopaedia of "great lives." I read biographies voraciously and preferred reading biographies of women. In my teens I had a number of "heroines" whom I greatly admired. (I still have my "heroines"). They had qualities such as intelligence, tenacity, and bravery. I also admired my grandmother enormously. I think I formed my gender identity from the example of these women. Clothes / make-up / flower arranging simply didn't come into it.
Rosalind Marshall's Virgins and Viragos; A History of Women in Scotland 1080-1980 was published whilst I was at university and I knew that was the sort of history book which most resonated with me. I was also reading Spare Rib at university, and, when it appeared slightly later Harpies & Quines. (One of my nominations for the "Wanker of the Month" competition came third one month! ) My daughter partially owes her name to an inspiring woman who featured on the front cover of Harpies.
A lot of societal messaging about what girls should be like seems to have simply passed me by while I had my nose stuck in a book.
When white doctors are taught in med school that Black women have fewer pain receptors than white women
Which medical schools is that taught in?
It used to be quite common, depressingly, and the bias persists
Oh really?
Not in my experience ( graduated in Oz 1978)
(ETA fixed quote code, DT)
It's an American article, about treatment of African Americans, so not about Australia, though your experience wouldn't necessarily be representative of the entire of Australia anyway.
Though it's behind a paywall, so hard to read it all. I have to click and scroll very fast before it hides it! But I found another article about this sort of thing here. And if you google 'racial bias pain,' there are quite a few more links.
This made me think of the idea parodied in Cold Comfort Farm, that servant women can easily give birth with no help and no pain, and be up again and working immediately. I just googled to see if there is still a pain bias based on socioeconomic status, and found this article (the full article is behind a paywall, but this link includes the abstract and section snippets) which talks about current bias around a variety of factors, including race and gender:
A lot of societal messaging about what girls should be like seems to have simply passed me by while I had my nose stuck in a book.
It was the same for me, though I read novels rather than history books or biographies. But I read about authors' lives to some extent, and loved reading their diaries and letters. As a young kid, I sometimes read books where female characters wished they were boys, but it seemed purely about what their parents allowed them to do rather than any inner sense of gender.
I particularly liked that book where you don't know the main character's gender - The Turbulent Term of Tyke Tyler. You find out at the end, but it's irrelevant to who they are.
Something which made me more conscious of gender was switching from an all-girls' school to a mixed school for sixth form, and discovering that if I talked to the boys the way I talked to girls, the boys became awkward and people thought I had a crush on them. And I found this odd, because I didn't know another way of speaking to people, and in my mind I didn't really have a way of separating boys and girls, other than what they looked like.
It occurs to me I probably looked quite gender neutral then, as, no longer needing to be wearing school uniform in the sixth form, I wore only trousers/jeans and shirts, nothing feminine - not as a conscious choice, but it was just what I found comfortable. When a friend had a disco for her 18th though, all the girls were talking about buying dresses, so I knew I was expected to buy and wear a dress, and I did, seeing it as a kind of disco uniform.
The main gender-related thing I noticed was division of A level subjects. I was the only girl in the top group for A level maths - and I say 'girl', despite that word feeling wrong for me, because this was the category I saw myself as being placed in. It was clearly seen as significant, as in it was commented on, that girls aren't usually in the top maths group, that it's a male subject, and there was even a boy in the class who expressed jokey resentment that it was embarrassing that I was better at maths than him, younger than him, and a girl. And I really didn't get it - I vaguely understood that being a girl meant I had a smooth face, breasts (albeit small ones - apparently I was supposed to feel shame about their smallness too), a vagina, and periods, but I had no idea why this was seen as hindering mathematical abilities, and making it embarrassing for a boy that I understood calculus better than he did!
The joy of an all girls’ school is that girls are encouraged to reach their full potential and study Maths, Chemistry and Physics or Music, English Literature and Biology, as they wish and as my two granddaughters did.
Comments
Sorry, thought I’d been quick enough.
I think biology is important, because we’re not just spirits or souls or identities that happen to be occupying an otherwise unrelated and unimportant piece of meat. We’re not in our bodies, we are our bodies.
Dicks and cunts have to do with sex and reproduction, but neither of those is gender. Sexuality has to do with sex. Gender does not need to.
Because they feel that is more right for them. Because they want to look the way they picture themselves. Because they have dysphoria. Because they have been taught that have to "look the part" before they can be treated as the gender they are. Probably a thousand other valid reasons. (And be very clear that though I do not love the the focus on defining people by those genitalia , I emphatically do support people having alignment surgeries at will. )
It’s indicative of what sex someone is, which is in turn highly biologically relevant as it’s key to how the species (along with virtually all other animals) reproduces itself. And given how much of intraspecies interaction in animals, from the tiniest insect up to and including our own societies, is (for better or worse) built around that reproductive instinct I think it’s far more important biologically, evolutionarily and socially than a mere joint about halfway along the arm.
But as I said to mousethief, sex no longer has to have any relationship to reproduction and vice versa. Genitalia is also not necessarily indicative of what sex someone is given how many intersex people are not identified as intersex at birth.
But that's the point, your general observation is actually just....incorrect?
Really? I see AFAB in particular used a lot in FB groups, for the kinds of reasons I gave, where people are talking about things like periods, hormones and menopause, which to me are specific reasons, which do affect one's body, and so it is relevant. One does still live in one's body, and some aspects of it can affect a person significantly.
I've not seen TME/TMA, but those make sense for discussing the way society has treated you due to perception of your gender. I've seen that sort of thing discussed in terms of privilege. TMA feels potentially confusing, as this is the name the Open University gives their assignments!
Yes, body and soul are not separate, which is why gender dysphoria happens. Some people have a very strong sense of gender, and it doesn't always match their bodies. Not everyone does have a strong sense of gender though.
Our bodies have many aspects that affect us. I have blue eyes and small feet. According to the BMI chart, I used to be underweight when I was younger and now I'm slightly overweight. I am very myopic and I have astigmatism. I have a long nose, a long neck, and a vagina.
Different aspects of my body affect how I navigate the world. They don't necessarily affect my sense of identity. I choose shoes that are comfortable for my feet, and clothes that fit my body. I wear glasses to help me see. When I had periods, I used tampons.
However, my foot size, body size, vagina, and eye prescription are not part of my sense of self. If I had laser surgery on my eyes, it would have a positive impact on how I experience the world, but it wouldn't make me a different person, just as gaining weight hasn't made me a different person.
Of course, being perceived as being female influences how society treats you, as does being perceived as being white. So both those elements of my body have significantly impacted on my experience of the world, and I am conscious of this.
To be honest, I'm still not entirely sure what point you are making, so not sure if I am addressing it. Could you clarify exactly what question you are asking?
Please explain which of the sentences I wrote are incorrect and how.
Would you say that having a vagina doesn't affect ANYONE'S sense of self? Or just a subset of humanity that happens to include you?
Just as genitalia are relevant to sex, handed is relevant to writing, which is also a significant aspect of life. The point is surely that these are specific areas of our life, but there is no reason to make them a defining aspect of our personhood.
If that was surely the point, it surely wasn't clear to me.
Marvin, am quoting this again to return to the question I initially asked you, which still applies to your amended version.
*Who* is suggesting that someone's biological sex is always irrelevant to who they are? I haven't seen anyone argue this, so you seem to be arguing with an argument that no one has made. You're turning this into something dualist rather than reading the nuances of what people are saying.
Oh. I thought Gwai was very clear that they were challenging the idea of defining people by their genitalia. Maybe I missed something and they can clarify.
I just realised I used the wrong terminology here. Well, it was the British terminology 15 years ago, but we use the American terminology now.
British terminology used to be 'gender' for the bodily stuff (genitals, etc.) and 'gender identity' for the internal experience - which perhaps made the difference clearer, as it included the word 'identity.'
American terminology (which the UK have now adopted) is 'sex' for the bodily stuff, and 'gender' for the internal experience.
This is a minor point, but fifteen years ago, at least in Scottish universities, the terminology was "sex" for the bodily stuff, and "gender" for the experiencial stuff. I did an M Litt in Women, Culture and Society in 2006/7, and the terms used were "sex" and "gender."
It's possible that the terminology was different in England, and that Scottish and American usage was aligned.
Ah, interesting. It may also have been different in different fields. The practical health care field (which was where I learnt it) versus more theoretical feminism studies. Particularly as a lot of the feminist theorists one studies are American (at least from what I remember of feminist literary theory, from when I studied literature), so it would make sense to stick to the same terminology, whereas in health care, Americans and Brits can remain at loggerheads over terminology for some time (I remember reading a book which talked about what an issue this was in disability studies).
I just remember at the time learning the terms gender and gender identity at uni, with regard to gender dysphoria and how this is addressed within healthcare. And then when chatting about these things online, I was 'corrected' by an American trans guy. And when I suggested British terminology may be different, he later returned to the conversation, having asked about it in trans groups, and said I was right, and Brits do say gender identity and gender where Americans say gender and sex.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I already addressed all these points in my previous reply to you.
Periods and so on would be the 'very specific reasons' I mentioned. The point is that those are generally exceptions, and the problems with AFAB/AMAB has been when people have used AFAB as a sort of code for women in a way that excludes trans women. The shift to TME/TMA is partly to affirm the particularly vulnerable position of trans women and transfeminine people, because a lot of discussions about non-binary people prioritise TME/AFAB people in a way that erases TMA non-binary experiences. Also, most trans and non-binary people don't want to have to constantly talk about the gender they were assigned at birth.
The difficulty in talking about someone else's sex is that unless you're karyotyping them, you don't actually know their sex for certain. You might be able to guess, but even their assigned gender at birth doesn't necessarily reflect their sex since many intersex people don't discover that they're intersex until later in life.
I would say that sex, gender, and gender identity are actually three separate things. Sex is your chromosonal sex (genitalia can vary wildly even within one sex so not necessarily the most reliable indicator) of which there are more than two. Gender is the gender assigned to you by society, generally at birth or increasingly before birth. Gender identity is your actual gender, which might be different to that assigned to you by society.
Ah, okay. I don't think we are disagreeing here, as when I first mentioned these terms, I talked specifically about the types of contexts in which they are used, and how it's when it is relevant only. I see them used particularly in groups where a lot of people are trans and autistic and are asking advice about situations where body is relevant.
My overall point, when I referred to these terms again, was that our bodies are relevant to us (as someone was suggesting we were saying they were never relevant, which of course no one was saying) and we mention these things when we need to. When it is relevant.
I was actually imagining TME and TMA the opposite way around from what you are saying - that someone who transitions to male has already had a lifetime of misogyny, while someone who transitions to female has had a lifetime of male privilege. And that they carry this experience with them. I have seen this discussed by trans people who have transitioned. But of course it makes sense that there is a different sort of treatment from others once one transitions.
Well, I will look out for those terms. I haven't seen them, and when I searched FB for them, I only found TMA used for OU assignments, whereas I found a lot of instances of people self defining as AFAB for relevant discussion reasons. On Reddit, I found a few discussions, and it seems quite a few trans people find the terms TMA and TME problematic, in terms of whether people want to be defining themselves by oppression, and also in terms of how comparing oppression can be oversimplifying (with an example given, which seems to be increasingly common, of cis-women being seen as trans women). But it's usual for people to question new terms. I suppose if they become more widely used, I will see them in FB groups.
I think gender expression is yet another thing.
I say this for a couple of reasons. Firstly experiential - my daughter has a friend (AFAB) who is gender fluid, accepts all pronouns and has a boy name and a girl name which they alternate between. Their gender expression however - especially noticeable in clothing and hairstyle - is consistantly female. Secondly, I think it's worth distinguishing because of a particular line of attack on trans kids along the lines of "I was a tomboy as a girl and these people would have been telling me I might really be a boy..."
That sounds like really interesting research. What did you discover?
A story from 40 years ago: A fellow member of staff at the college was undergoing hormone treatment and surgery. This went well and Paul became Paula without trauma. What I did notice (so help me) was I started to open doors for her .....
Long live Human Diversity!
I think this is bang on. In other words, I've been using such a tripartite distinction for years, partly because "gender" seems ambiguous, and the idea of identity clarifies it. I'm not sure about UK and US usage.
I agree, and it seems to be something talked about in trans spaces too.
Not sure about Pomona's distinction between gender and gender identity, as in my experience trans/non-binary people generally use 'gender' to mean the gender they identify with, rather than the gender assigned by society, and they wouldn't be happy for their assigned sex at birth to be called their gender. But I see the point that the assigned sex at birth may not match one's chromosomes. I had assumed this was why the terms AFAB and AMAB had replaced speaking in terms of 'biological sex,' and why I quite like those terms for accuracy. My chromosomes have never been checked, but my birth certificate says female, which was based, I assume, on people looking at my naked body and seeing that I didn't have a penis. Therefore, for medical purposes, I am AFAB.
Gender expression is an interesting one, with all sorts of factors involved. As an autistic person, I feel it's complicated by the fact that I naturally live inside my head, and what I look like is irrelevant to my sense of self, and only factors into my thinking in terms of how it affects how people treat me. I would say my gender expression is generally female, though these days most clothes I wear are gender neutral or from the 'menswear' section (not for gender reasons, but because I prefer the colours and choice and comfort and quality), and I never wear makeup (because I hate it for sensory reasons). I don't think I deliberately look female, but I also am quite aware that I have a lifetime of being conditioned to look female, and also I consciously don't want to have a look that makes people look again and wonder whether I'm male or female, because I'd rather not have any aggro or intrusive questions from strangers. If other people's reactions were completely taken out of the equation, I would shave my head, no question, but again, for sensory reasons. I suppose, logically, the fact that it's all totally unrelated to internal sense of gender is about the fact that I have no internal sense of gender. Whereas a non-binary person who has a sense of some kind of androgynous gender might want to express this in how they look, because it's part of who they are.
I think the issue is people using terms like AFAB/AMAB as general category terms rather than using them for specific reasons or examples. TME/TMA is used when talking specifically about transmisogyny, and likewise in most cases someone's AGAB isn't massively relevant except in a few specific cases.
It is also complicated because in UK law 'sex' and 'gender' are used interchangeably. You use a Gender Recognition Certificate to get a birth certificate listing a new sex, for instance.
Oh yes, I agree - I wasn't intentionally leaving gender expression out! This would also include pronouns, which actually don't necessarily 'match' gender. Think of gay men calling each other she or her for eg. Gender expression might overlap with gender identity, but it also might not.
And yes, that makes sense that TMA and TME would also be used in very specific contexts, of discussing transmisogyny. The kind of thing I saw being discussed was that if a cis woman was seen to be a trans woman, even though she wasn't, she might be treated the same way as a trans woman is. So I would think in that case it would still be the experience of transmisogyny, in the same way that straight people can experience homophobia if people assume they are gay. I'm thinking it might also sometimes get complicated when people present as androgynous, and people speculate whether they are a trans woman or a trans man. So, for instance, if I were perceived to be a trans woman (I don't think I would be, as I'm quite petite, but if I had a larger frame, and a deeper voice, I can see how people might think it), then I would be TMA, with regard to that particular societal experience, but if I wanted to talk about general misogyny I have experienced and grew up with, then it would be more relevant to mention being AFAB.
That was exactly where I was going with that. Thank you.
When I was very young, there were males and females. These were categories of gender and sex, without distinction between what gender and sex were.
When I was in undergrad, I picked up the notion that sex and gender were separate categories. Sex was biological and gender was sociological. Sex is about your reproductive anatomy, very strictly speaking. Gender was about the kind of clothes you wore, the kind of hobbies you preferred, the kind of work you did, how you operated in society.
Later on, it seems like the two concepts have somewhat blurred together.
My sense of NB (which I somewhat relate to, enough that I sometimes joke that I'd be NB if I were more motivated a la "lazyqueer") is that they've decided that neither "gender" model suits them and so they're simply themselves. Trying to perform as "male" or "female" is like wearing an uncomfortable garment that restricts your movement unnaturally, and there's more dignity in simply walking around naked, so to speak.
FWIW, @fineline, this is me too. It's a great description.
Okay then help me out. Is there such a thing as sex, then? Is it a deprecated (no longer used in the relevant literature) term? Is every use of "sex" just a misnomer for "gender"?
The existence of chromosomal sex and intersex people etc, becomes relevant to the discussion at the point at which people starting throwing around ideas as to what is “natural”, which is usually based partly on a failure to realise such variations exist and have always existed.
I identify as female, and in that I am cis gender, but I have never had a particularly strong sense of my own gender. When I was at university I was in a psychology lecture where we were all asked to write 20 statements about ourselves, “I am booklover, I am British etc”. Almost everyone included their gender as one of their first statements - it didn’t occur to me to include it at all. On similar questionnaires where you endorsed “male” and “female” characteristics - I would come out as somewhere in the middle. Perhaps because of that, people switching genders doesn’t really seem that odd to me - or rather, I can see why one might not conform to a gender role but I do find it hard to imagine caring about it enough to go to effort of changing it.
In my offline life I know a number of trans people and I lost a trans friend to suicide. The latter experience has made me a lot less tolerant of other people’s prejudices about trans people.
Which medical schools is that taught in?
If there’s no official list then why is it such a horrible thing when someone uses the “wrong” word?
It used to be quite common, depressingly, and the bias persists. More recently, you still occasionally get this kind of thing.
Because dogwhistles: some people don’t consider/know the preferences of trans people and some people are trying to be deniably offensive instead of actually saying (CW slur)
It feels like you're picking somewhat irrelevant things to argue with. Within any large group of people, there will be a bit of variance as to vocabulary, and of course there is no 'official list,' because language doesn't work that way, but that doesn't mean there's not some shared understanding, and that certain words aren't generally hurtful, undermining a person's personhood. Applying some common sense, there is no 'official list' of terminology around race, but you know that it's not appropriate for you are a white guy to go throwing around the n word.
I am confused as to what your purpose is in this discussion. Are you genuinely wanting to understand and empathise with trans people, or are you wanting to declare that you personally don't understand how it's possible for a person's genitals not to be part of their personhood, and that, as a result, trans people need to defend their very being to you in a way that you understand, or else you won't accept it? Because it does feel like the latter, and honestly doesn't feel like you are asking with genuine openness.
I am female, went to a girls’ school, married, have had children, sing soprano, but apart from that, it doesn’t matter to me what sex/ gender ( I am confused as to the correct word now) I am or others consider me. I wear what I want to wear, mostly trousers and trainers, I have no interest in fashion, make up, flower arranging or whatever many women seem to be interested in. I am me, with my own personality and interests, not a stereotype.
My oldest grandchild grew up as a girl, pretty dresses, very feminine and attractive. At 19 we learned of a relationship with another girl, at 21 my granddaughter became my grandson, changing names by deed poll. I have had no conversations with him about any of this. I just accept the person. I think his parents are accepting and supportive, but I/we don’t really understand. Sometimes we get the pronouns wrong when talking about him. No big deal, for us. Irrelevant when he is there because we talk to him not about him.
I struggle with all the new terminology. Do I really need to work harder to improve my vocabulary? I try not to cause offence or to judge. Isn’t acceptance of the person enough?
Oh really?
Not in my experience ( graduated in Oz 1978)
(ETA fixed quote code, DT)
I've always loved history; for my 9th birthday present I chose an encyclopaedia of "great lives." I read biographies voraciously and preferred reading biographies of women. In my teens I had a number of "heroines" whom I greatly admired. (I still have my "heroines"). They had qualities such as intelligence, tenacity, and bravery. I also admired my grandmother enormously. I think I formed my gender identity from the example of these women. Clothes / make-up / flower arranging simply didn't come into it.
Rosalind Marshall's Virgins and Viragos; A History of Women in Scotland 1080-1980 was published whilst I was at university and I knew that was the sort of history book which most resonated with me. I was also reading Spare Rib at university, and, when it appeared slightly later Harpies & Quines. (One of my nominations for the "Wanker of the Month" competition came third one month! ) My daughter partially owes her name to an inspiring woman who featured on the front cover of Harpies.
A lot of societal messaging about what girls should be like seems to have simply passed me by while I had my nose stuck in a book.
It's an American article, about treatment of African Americans, so not about Australia, though your experience wouldn't necessarily be representative of the entire of Australia anyway.
Though it's behind a paywall, so hard to read it all. I have to click and scroll very fast before it hides it! But I found another article about this sort of thing here. And if you google 'racial bias pain,' there are quite a few more links.
This made me think of the idea parodied in Cold Comfort Farm, that servant women can easily give birth with no help and no pain, and be up again and working immediately. I just googled to see if there is still a pain bias based on socioeconomic status, and found this article (the full article is behind a paywall, but this link includes the abstract and section snippets) which talks about current bias around a variety of factors, including race and gender:
Poverty and pain: Low-SES people are believed to be insensitive to pain
It was the same for me, though I read novels rather than history books or biographies. But I read about authors' lives to some extent, and loved reading their diaries and letters. As a young kid, I sometimes read books where female characters wished they were boys, but it seemed purely about what their parents allowed them to do rather than any inner sense of gender.
I particularly liked that book where you don't know the main character's gender - The Turbulent Term of Tyke Tyler. You find out at the end, but it's irrelevant to who they are.
Something which made me more conscious of gender was switching from an all-girls' school to a mixed school for sixth form, and discovering that if I talked to the boys the way I talked to girls, the boys became awkward and people thought I had a crush on them. And I found this odd, because I didn't know another way of speaking to people, and in my mind I didn't really have a way of separating boys and girls, other than what they looked like.
It occurs to me I probably looked quite gender neutral then, as, no longer needing to be wearing school uniform in the sixth form, I wore only trousers/jeans and shirts, nothing feminine - not as a conscious choice, but it was just what I found comfortable. When a friend had a disco for her 18th though, all the girls were talking about buying dresses, so I knew I was expected to buy and wear a dress, and I did, seeing it as a kind of disco uniform.
The main gender-related thing I noticed was division of A level subjects. I was the only girl in the top group for A level maths - and I say 'girl', despite that word feeling wrong for me, because this was the category I saw myself as being placed in. It was clearly seen as significant, as in it was commented on, that girls aren't usually in the top maths group, that it's a male subject, and there was even a boy in the class who expressed jokey resentment that it was embarrassing that I was better at maths than him, younger than him, and a girl. And I really didn't get it - I vaguely understood that being a girl meant I had a smooth face, breasts (albeit small ones - apparently I was supposed to feel shame about their smallness too), a vagina, and periods, but I had no idea why this was seen as hindering mathematical abilities, and making it embarrassing for a boy that I understood calculus better than he did!