Do I care? not a fellow & have no time for the RACGP
Yes, you should care that Black women in labour aren't given the right pain relief because of doctors' biases. Yes, you should care about institutional racism.
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 guess I don't really understand what there is to have to understand. You thought your grandchild was a girl, turns out that he's actually a boy. It's only a big deal if you (general you) make it into a big deal. My only discomfort with your description would be the conflation of attractiveness with femininity - surely even as a girl your grandchild could have been both masculine and attractive?
Acceptance is the bare minimum - yes, it is enough, but I'm sure your grandson would really like it if you celebrated him as a man specifically (obviously he might identify as transmasculine rather than a trans man specifically but your wording makes me think it's the latter). Why don't you ask your grandson what terminology feels authentic and right to him? It isn't questioning your love and support to also suggest that caring about his transness also matters, because it's part of who he is.
When I thought about my babies' sex I was not thinking about their chromosomes, of which I had no idea and still have not idea and was of no importance to me, and was thinking about what shape of nappy to buy and which direction to wipe their bottoms after changing the nappies, which matter was of considerable practical importance.
When I thought about my babies' sex I was not thinking about their chromosomes, of which I had no idea and still have not idea and was of no importance to me, and was thinking about what shape of nappy to buy and which direction to wipe their bottoms after changing the nappies, which matter was of considerable practical importance.
I'm not a parent, but I thought nappies had generally been unisex until relatively recently, and even now many still are. And that wiping from front to back is recommended for everyone. When I worked in a special school a few years ago, where kids of all ages wore nappies, their sex didn't come into it - the nappies were categorised by size, not genitalia, and when we changed kids, we always cleaned from front to back. Was there a time when parents were advised to wipe from back to front if the baby was a certain sex?
My nappy days are long past, but if you are using terry nappies, as I did, then they are folded differently. I found folding the right shape much easier for my son, where the bulk is to the front, than for my daughter, where the bulk is underneath.
I can't really remember, but I think disposables were unisex.
We were advised to wipe back to front for boys. Dafling major is now eleven so this would have been eleven and a half years ago. There may be unisex nappies but you do not use them if you have a choice since you want to minimise the risk of nappy failure.
Similarly, when Dafling major stopped using nappies I asked the assistant in the book shop whether she had any unisex potty training manuals, realising as the words came out of my mouth quite why it was a silly question.
I've seen both disposable and cloth nappies pretty frequently (have a lot of friends who are into cloth nappies etc) and they are all unisex. The only non-unisex ones I've seen are night time pyjama pants aimed at older children struggling with bed wetting. Cloth nappies nowadays are very adjustable and can be used with extra inserts and so on so perhaps that's how different needs are addressed.
But also, this is sort of what I mean about gender being assigned rather than sex as such - because 'boy' is very much a gender and not a sex, it's just conflated with specific sex characteristics such as having a penis. Indeed I would say that 'boy' is a different gender to 'man' and have known transmasc people who identify specifically as boys rather than male generally.
On the subject of nappies, now that I think about it the actual situation was that while nappies were marketed as unisex one major brand fitted girls better than it fitted boys and the other vice versa.
we're not assigned a sex at birth, but assigned a gender.
Sorry for the delay, but it's taken me a couple of days to dig out my kids' birth certificates. On their birth certificates Box 1 is printed Surname / Name(s) and Box 2 is printed Sex.
In what way is sex not assigned at birth when every baby is issued with an official document stating "sex"? Am I being dense here?
I'm assuming Scottish birth certificates are no different to the rest of the U.K.
And in general, people ask about a newborn 'What sex is the baby' rather than 'What gender'. Of course, having been allocated a sex (rightly or wrongly) on the basis of genitalia, the baby is then treated in a gendered way.
we're not assigned a sex at birth, but assigned a gender.
Sorry for the delay, but it's taken me a couple of days to dig out my kids' birth certificates. On their birth certificates Box 1 is printed Surname / Name(s) and Box 2 is printed Sex.
In what way is sex not assigned at birth when every baby is issued with an official document stating "sex"? Am I being dense here?
I'm assuming Scottish birth certificates are no different to the rest of the U.K.
My birth certificate is English and says the same. I got the impression this is more about Pomona taking issue with the word 'sex' being used, as it could be an error, and that genitalia don't always match chromosomes. To me this would be about acknowledging this is assumption of binary sex based on genitalia, and errors being possible, since babies do not routinely have chromosome tests. I am not really seeing the logic of genitalia being moved to the category of gender, where gender is about societal expectations, not actual parts of one's body.
To me, it makes more sense to have the chromosomal definition as a separate, more specific category, as most people don't have this tested. And for sex to be the binary label assigned based on genitalia. With two separate terms for physical aspects, separate from cultural expectations of behaviour, people's attention would be surely more directly drawn to the limitations of physical binary assumption.
Someone showed me this webpage, which shows quite a straightforward way of depicting sex, gender and gender identity, as three separate concepts. And all three are societal concepts here, sex being a label, rather than an intrinsic thing.
Some people have intersex genitalia. It used to be the case that they were sometimes surgically "normalised" after birth. I should hope the practice is discontinued.
Some people have intersex genitalia. It used to be the case that they were sometimes surgically "normalised" after birth. I should hope the practice is discontinued.
Pomona mentioned earlier that they are assigned a binary sex regardless (so their birth certificate will say either male or female, rather than intersex), which of course is not ideal.
I think we are getting somewhat off topic with this, the thread is supposed to be about understanding what people mean when they state they identify as non-binary. Folk have been very generous with their personal experience to support that, so please respect that generosity by not haring off down tangents.
I think we are getting somewhat off topic with this, the thread is supposed to be about understanding what people mean when they state they identify as non-binary. Folk have been very generous with their personal experience to support that, so please respect that generosity by not haring off down tangents.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting
I assume that was a fairly epic crosspost @Pomona.
That said Is I’ll see if I can split the tangent off to its own thread.
Comments
Yes, you should care that Black women in labour aren't given the right pain relief because of doctors' biases. Yes, you should care about institutional racism.
I guess I don't really understand what there is to have to understand. You thought your grandchild was a girl, turns out that he's actually a boy. It's only a big deal if you (general you) make it into a big deal. My only discomfort with your description would be the conflation of attractiveness with femininity - surely even as a girl your grandchild could have been both masculine and attractive?
Acceptance is the bare minimum - yes, it is enough, but I'm sure your grandson would really like it if you celebrated him as a man specifically (obviously he might identify as transmasculine rather than a trans man specifically but your wording makes me think it's the latter). Why don't you ask your grandson what terminology feels authentic and right to him? It isn't questioning your love and support to also suggest that caring about his transness also matters, because it's part of who he is.
I'm not a parent, but I thought nappies had generally been unisex until relatively recently, and even now many still are. And that wiping from front to back is recommended for everyone. When I worked in a special school a few years ago, where kids of all ages wore nappies, their sex didn't come into it - the nappies were categorised by size, not genitalia, and when we changed kids, we always cleaned from front to back. Was there a time when parents were advised to wipe from back to front if the baby was a certain sex?
I can't really remember, but I think disposables were unisex.
Similarly, when Dafling major stopped using nappies I asked the assistant in the book shop whether she had any unisex potty training manuals, realising as the words came out of my mouth quite why it was a silly question.
But also, this is sort of what I mean about gender being assigned rather than sex as such - because 'boy' is very much a gender and not a sex, it's just conflated with specific sex characteristics such as having a penis. Indeed I would say that 'boy' is a different gender to 'man' and have known transmasc people who identify specifically as boys rather than male generally.
we're not assigned a sex at birth, but assigned a gender.
Sorry for the delay, but it's taken me a couple of days to dig out my kids' birth certificates. On their birth certificates Box 1 is printed Surname / Name(s) and Box 2 is printed Sex.
In what way is sex not assigned at birth when every baby is issued with an official document stating "sex"? Am I being dense here?
I'm assuming Scottish birth certificates are no different to the rest of the U.K.
My birth certificate is English and says the same. I got the impression this is more about Pomona taking issue with the word 'sex' being used, as it could be an error, and that genitalia don't always match chromosomes. To me this would be about acknowledging this is assumption of binary sex based on genitalia, and errors being possible, since babies do not routinely have chromosome tests. I am not really seeing the logic of genitalia being moved to the category of gender, where gender is about societal expectations, not actual parts of one's body.
To me, it makes more sense to have the chromosomal definition as a separate, more specific category, as most people don't have this tested. And for sex to be the binary label assigned based on genitalia. With two separate terms for physical aspects, separate from cultural expectations of behaviour, people's attention would be surely more directly drawn to the limitations of physical binary assumption.
Someone showed me this webpage, which shows quite a straightforward way of depicting sex, gender and gender identity, as three separate concepts. And all three are societal concepts here, sex being a label, rather than an intrinsic thing.
Pomona mentioned earlier that they are assigned a binary sex regardless (so their birth certificate will say either male or female, rather than intersex), which of course is not ideal.
As for surgery, you can read about it here.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting
I assume that was a fairly epic crosspost @Pomona.
That said Is I’ll see if I can split the tangent off to its own thread.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting.