I’d say you might have a point if you could show that the end result of this discussion in culture is likely to be that you can no longer accurately identify as “a male and a man.”
What does it even mean to "accurately identify as" something when that something has no definition against which to measure said accuracy?
Does it accurately identify the gender you consider yourself to be? Regardless of why you consider that to be your gender, that is.
Do you go to a dictionary and look up "man", then look at yourself and decide you meet the definition? Or are these things actually more complicated than that?
I’d say you might have a point if you could show that the end result of this discussion in culture is likely to be that you can no longer accurately identify as “a male and a man.”
What does it even mean to "accurately identify as" something when that something has no definition against which to measure said accuracy?
I wonder if it would help to think about some other definitions we use in normal life that are not clear cut but are understandable to everyone. For example I might describe my unmade bed as "art", but presuming I'm not Tracey Emin, not many other people will buy into my definition. Opinions about what is art can vary. But that doesn't one iota affect the fact that the Mona Lisa is art, and that everyone knows what "art" means even if it's sometimes hard to define the edge cases.
SSM was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between a man and a woman to being between two individuals regardless of their sex/gender.
Whereas I would say it's not the individuals involved, but the concept - union, commitment, publicity - that defines marriage.
Actually, I can't see how it does. I am male and a man and I can't see how trans input on those changes that.
It changes what the words "male" and "man" mean, and therefore changes that meaning for everybody.
No, it reveals the unspoken ‘cis’ and ‘het’ that go with your version of male. Sometimes people don’t notice these characteristics apply to them because they confuse normal-for-me with normative.
I'm no longer sure that there is a single characteristic or criterion that can be used to define "man" other than each individual's self-identification.
If that were the case, would it matter?
Let's say we all decided overnight that "man" and "woman" were categories based on absolutely nothing except how people identified themselves. What would actually change?
I suppose in the short run, quite a few things, because so much of our society is built around the gender binary and its connection to human biology. But in the long run, probably just as is currently the case, the vast majority of people would continue to identify and present as the gender that's normally associated with their reproductive organs, and a small percentage would identify the opposite way. I would think if self-ID somehow became accepted as the only way we define gender, we'd see a lot more people identifying as non-binary or agender, because they simply wouldn't feel the categories applied to them and would feel more free to say so. But would that be a bad thing? Would any of this be a bad thing?
At this point it's a question of who will control the narrative. Ideally a group of people with some identifiable or agreed-upon characteristic will get to decide for themselves what they want to be called.
But therein lies a problem, because we're talking about controlling the narrative around sex/gender - and that narrative applies to everyone.
With many EDI* issues the principle of a minority deciding what they should be called has no impact on anyone else: if Welsh people decide they should be called Cymraeg it makes no difference to whether French people are still French or English people are still English. But with transgender what's being changed is the very meaning of man/male and woman/female. That change of meaning perforce changes what everyone else calls themselves as well, which to me means it's not something that can or should be left entirely to the minority to define.
.
*= Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
Can't see it. If someone decides to call themselves a man or not, it has nothing to do with what I call myself. If they redefine "man" so that I'm no longer a man, I might cavill at that. But that's not what we're talking about.
SSM was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between a man and a woman to being between two individuals regardless of their sex/gender.
In the bad old days, slaves and commoners were not allowed to get married, only the rich/noble/royalty. Allowing slaves and commoners to marry was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between two important people to between two individuals regardless of their social standing.
SSM was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between a man and a woman to being between two individuals regardless of their sex/gender.
In the bad old days, slaves and commoners were not allowed to get married, only the rich/noble/royalty. Allowing slaves and commoners to marry was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between two important people to between two individuals regardless of their social standing.
Right?
I'm not sure commoners were forbidden to get married at any point, though serfs would have required permission from their feudal superior (something that continues to apply to the royal family, who need the Monarch's permission to marry).
I suppose: let's try an analogy. People in a certain society divide themselves at random into Confederate and Unionist, with a small but increasing number of neutrals. There's no actual difference, but historically Confederates passed laws making Unionists into second-class citizens and those attitudes still linger.
What is a member of that society saying when they identify as a Confederate?
Now gender is different from that analogy. I think Marvin's question is how?
SSM was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between a man and a woman to being between two individuals regardless of their sex/gender.
In the bad old days, slaves and commoners were not allowed to get married, only the rich/noble/royalty. Allowing slaves and commoners to marry was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between two important people to between two individuals regardless of their social standing.
Right?
The definition of marriage is constantly changing and isn't the same from one culture to another anyway. I'd argue that by far the biggest change in the "definition of marriage" is the change to seeing marriage as a union between equals, rather than between a man and a subservient woman who may be seen as his property. This "changing the meaning of marriage" has had a lot more impact on me, as a woman in a heterosexual marriage, than the more recent development of allowing two people of the same sex to enter into the same kind of union between equals that my husband and I enjoy.
We are always changing our definitions of things, and there are always people uncomfortable with, and pushing back against, those changes. If we're now in the middle of a very messy and uneven process of changing how we define the concept of "gender," that should be no surprise.
The old (ie, when I was being taught family law close on 60 years ago) definition of marriage was "the union of a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others". That pretty easily updates to "the union of 2 people of sufficient age for life...."
Interesting and relevant piece in today's Guardian. 'About 1.7% of humans are intersex' - so my question to @Marvin the Martian is, how has the existence of millions of people who do not fit the binary model (though surgical violence has been used on them to enforce it) affected him? Why would their self-identity compromise his?
Let's say we all decided overnight that "man" and "woman" were categories based on absolutely nothing except how people identified themselves. What would actually change?
Once everything settled down, I suspect the main change would be that most things that warrant being designated "men only" or "women only" would become "people with penises only" and "people with vaginas only". That is to say, the categorisation of people based on human biology (or perhaps human morphology) would persist, but without using man/woman, male/female, etc as category names.
I'd like to think that such a change would reduce the number of unnecessarily-gendered items there are out there, but by making gender explicitly a choice made by each individual it would probably have the opposite effect.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
(Sport would do better to just organise people by percentage muscle mass and t level into classes, the way boxers are currently classed by weight - which would have the added benefit of making a fair few forms of doping pointless.)
AFAICS there always have been people who were intersex. There always have been people whose sense of self was at variance with the particular physique dealt them at birth. It is just that now, not unreasonably, they want the same rights to recognition and acceptance that the cis majority have taken for granted.
Extending the franchise to women didn't destroy the electoral system. The only thing inclusion does is make less certain the hegemony of certain privileged groups.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
(Sport would do better to just organise people by percentage muscle mass and t level into classes, the way boxers are currently classed by weight - which would have the added benefit of making a fair few forms of doping pointless.)
That sounds massively impractical to me, especially at amateur levels.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself. I don't think it applies on nudist beaches, or indeed in all saunas, or some medical contexts or various other things. It only just struck me how odd that assumption actually is. (Personally, I would run a mile from any situation that required me to take my clothes off in the presence of any other human being so my own opinion is irrelevant.)
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
I don’t expect people to stare at my body in changing rooms, regardless of sex, gender or morphology. I have used mixed sex changing facilities as an adult - personally I’d prefer cubicles as general rule rather than getting changed in front of other people.
Sex and dating, I’d think you just be specific in a tinder profile (if you were looking to hook up) or just date people you find attractive.
I suspect that sexual orientation labels will shift to specify to whom you are attracted, rather than carrying a connotation related to your own gender or morphology. I have seen, for example, androphllic used to describe attraction to masculine presenting people.
(Sport would do better to just organise people by percentage muscle mass and t level into classes, the way boxers are currently classed by weight - which would have the added benefit of making a fair few forms of doping pointless.)
That sounds massively impractical to me, especially at amateur levels.
Are you familiar with Paralympic sport ? They manage and have far more to juggle. You can literally get your body composition from a smart watch or by using a weighing machine in Boots for £2.
If people can learn to understand the offside rule, how test cricket works, what a welterwieght is or how tennis seeding works - they could learn to feed the relevant info into an algorithm. (You could leave adding in t levels until the competitive level at which you test for it.)
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
I’d argue that those practices had more to do with patriarchal assumptions about female sexuality, and an overpowering want to control their reproduction.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
"How virtually every society does things" can change. It has changed regarding slavery, women's rights and employment, children's rights and a whole range of other issues. It's not a clinching argument without a rationale to back it up. I'm pointing out the absence of a rationale.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
I’d argue that those practices had more to do with patriarchal assumptions about female sexuality, and an overpowering want to control their reproduction.
That's interesting, because my impression is that if you asked a random selection of people whether they would want to be exposed to the type of genitalia they don't have in a changing room then women would respond more negatively than men.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
I’d argue that those practices had more to do with patriarchal assumptions about female sexuality, and an overpowering want to control their reproduction.
That's interesting, because my impression is that if you asked a random selection of people whether they would want to be exposed to the type of genitalia they don't have in a changing room then women would respond more negatively than men.
I have to say, I can't recall since leaving school any occasion where I've actually been in a mutual or indeed one way Strangers' Genitalia Visibility situation. Unless you count urinals, but that really would require you to go out of your way to look.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
How large do you think that number is?
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
Trans people as a (pretended) danger in bathrooms is one of the very big hits of the transphobic side right now. We are NOT going to make trans people read about it here. I repeat, we are not going to discuss the imagined dangers of trans people in bathrooms. Yes, yes, cis people may find it a great topic. But trans people deserve better than reading transphobia here.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
How large do you think that number is?
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
I think Kinsey had a figure of 37% of straight men had had sex with a man. Much disputed.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
How large do you think that number is?
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
I think Kinsey had a figure of 37% of straight men had had sex with a man. Much disputed.
As I recall Kinsey's issue was having a non-representative sample.
I would add that the assumption of 'how virtually every society does things' is an assumption, and not reflective of reality. I mentioned earlier Jan Morris's book Conundrum, published in 1974, about her own transition. She did quite a bit of research (she was a historian and travel writer), and she talks about how both in her historical research and in her travels, she realised that the concept of non-binary genders had been around for a long time, described and understood in various ways throughout history and in different cultures. Plenty of people weren't fazed by her experience/presentation, but had their own culture's way of understanding it.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
How large do you think that number is?
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
I think Kinsey had a figure of 37% of straight men had had sex with a man. Much disputed.
As I recall Kinsey's issue was having a non-representative sample.
But he argued that many surveys underestimate this group, as they are too rushed. Also, many men lie.
So very few things then, basically medical tests - and some kinds of underwear.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself.
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
How large do you think that number is?
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
I think Kinsey had a figure of 37% of straight men had had sex with a man. Much disputed.
As I recall Kinsey's issue was having a non-representative sample.
But he argued that many surveys underestimate this group, as they are too rushed. Also, many men lie.
I'm sure he's right about that; that doesn't make his figure more plausible.
I would add that the assumption of 'how virtually every society does things' is an assumption, and not reflective of reality. I mentioned earlier Jan Morris's book Conundrum, published in 1974, about her own transition. She did quite a bit of research (she was a historian and travel writer), and she talks about how both in her historical research and in her travels, she realised that the concept of non-binary genders had been around for a long time, described and understood in various ways throughout history and in different cultures. Plenty of people weren't fazed by her experience/presentation, but had their own culture's way of understanding it.
Exactly. Why is it a problem here and now? When any group - immigrants, Jews, trans, whoever - become The Thing That is Wrong With Our Society, I look for the agenda. Who is pushing it and to what end. (The usual answer is the pursuit of power).
I don't get this "can you define a woman?" thing that gendercrits are obsessed with. Even if sex is strictly binary (and it isn't, except in a crude simplification for pre-GCSE biology purposes), then a woman is an adult human who is not a man, and conversely a man is an adult human who is not a woman. Quod non homo mulier est.
Since I was told often enough (by my father, PE teachers and others) that I wasn't a man, that I should be a man, and so on, it follows that I must be a woman. So suck it up, gendercrits!
I don't get this "can you define a woman?" thing that gendercrits are obsessed with.
Am I a man or a woman? Other than my personal choice, is there a single diagnostic or criterion that can validly determine the answer to that question? They can’t just be meaningless labels because if they were then it surely wouldn’t matter so much to people that they be labelled correctly.
I don't get this "can you define a woman?" thing that gendercrits are obsessed with.
Am I a man or a woman? Other than my personal choice, is there a single diagnostic or criterion that can validly determine the answer to that question? They can’t just be meaningless labels because if they were then it surely wouldn’t matter so much to people that they be labelled correctly.
I would go back to @HelenEva 's Art illustration. Is there a single criterion or diagnostic that defines an artwork? Does that mean that the label "Art" is meaningless?
Does it irritate you if people get your name wrong ?
Occasionally, perhaps. There’s one guy at the football who’s been calling me Paul for years, no idea why. I just go with it now. Of course, most people at the football know me by the nickname I have there rather than my real name - it wouldn’t surprise me to learn half of them don’t even know my real name. In a similar vein I’m also pretty sure there are people who’ve met me at Shipmeets who think my real name is Marvin, given that’s what I invariably answer to at them.
So you have several self identifiers you recognise fit you, and notice when they are wrong.
So are you birthname, nickname, Paul or Marvin ? How do I tell which is really you ? Are they meaningless labels, or do they have meaning in the different contexts for which they are used ?
(FWIW the law says, you are what people know you as, providing it isn’t for the purpose of evading criminal liability.)
So are you birthname, nickname, Paul or Marvin ? How do I tell which is really you ?
You check the name on my official documentation (birth certificate, passport, drivers license, etc).
Are they meaningless labels, or do they have meaning in the different contexts for which they are used ?
Names don’t have any meaning or significance other than to identify specific individuals. Nobody is only attracted to Steves, or thinks Rebecca-only public spaces are a good idea. Nobody talks about the role of Veras in society, or whether the level of representation of Daniels in positions of power is appropriate.
Oh but they do, because they proxy names for race and class. And you apparently missed the bit about the law recognising any of these names as you.
Indeed. There have been numerous experiments in submitting applications for jobs with the same qualifications but one with "white" sounding names and the other with "ethnic" sounding names. The results are exactly what you would expect. And it's a hard prejudice to avoid. If your main exposure to African American names is The Wire then it's a conscious effort to suppress the image that comes to mind if you see the name (say) D'Angelo. One of the interesting things about moving from England to Scotland as a teacher is the different class connotations of names. Calum or Connor on a register in England comes with a different subconscious expectation from the same names in Scotland.
Additional question - if the name on your birth certificate is Philippa but you only answer to Pippa and use the latter all the time, hating the full form - which is your actual name?
I promise you - in the UK you can call yourself whatever you want on legal documentation, providing it is not for illegal purposes. If you can get someone to sign a photo saying they have known you under that name - you can get your passport in that name.
I promise you - in the UK you can call yourself whatever you want on legal documentation, providing it is not for illegal purposes. If you can get someone to sign a photo saying they have known you under that name - you can get your passport in that name.
Much the same here. There is a pretty easy procedure to execute a deed evidencing a change of name and registering it at the Registrar-General's office. Important to note that deed evidences the change but does not effect it.
Comments
Does it accurately identify the gender you consider yourself to be? Regardless of why you consider that to be your gender, that is.
Do you go to a dictionary and look up "man", then look at yourself and decide you meet the definition? Or are these things actually more complicated than that?
I wonder if it would help to think about some other definitions we use in normal life that are not clear cut but are understandable to everyone. For example I might describe my unmade bed as "art", but presuming I'm not Tracey Emin, not many other people will buy into my definition. Opinions about what is art can vary. But that doesn't one iota affect the fact that the Mona Lisa is art, and that everyone knows what "art" means even if it's sometimes hard to define the edge cases.
Whereas I would say it's not the individuals involved, but the concept - union, commitment, publicity - that defines marriage.
No, it reveals the unspoken ‘cis’ and ‘het’ that go with your version of male. Sometimes people don’t notice these characteristics apply to them because they confuse normal-for-me with normative.
If that were the case, would it matter?
Let's say we all decided overnight that "man" and "woman" were categories based on absolutely nothing except how people identified themselves. What would actually change?
I suppose in the short run, quite a few things, because so much of our society is built around the gender binary and its connection to human biology. But in the long run, probably just as is currently the case, the vast majority of people would continue to identify and present as the gender that's normally associated with their reproductive organs, and a small percentage would identify the opposite way. I would think if self-ID somehow became accepted as the only way we define gender, we'd see a lot more people identifying as non-binary or agender, because they simply wouldn't feel the categories applied to them and would feel more free to say so. But would that be a bad thing? Would any of this be a bad thing?
Can't see it. If someone decides to call themselves a man or not, it has nothing to do with what I call myself. If they redefine "man" so that I'm no longer a man, I might cavill at that. But that's not what we're talking about.
In the bad old days, slaves and commoners were not allowed to get married, only the rich/noble/royalty. Allowing slaves and commoners to marry was unarguably a change to the concept of marriage, from being between two important people to between two individuals regardless of their social standing.
Right?
I'm not sure commoners were forbidden to get married at any point, though serfs would have required permission from their feudal superior (something that continues to apply to the royal family, who need the Monarch's permission to marry).
What is a member of that society saying when they identify as a Confederate?
Now gender is different from that analogy. I think Marvin's question is how?
The definition of marriage is constantly changing and isn't the same from one culture to another anyway. I'd argue that by far the biggest change in the "definition of marriage" is the change to seeing marriage as a union between equals, rather than between a man and a subservient woman who may be seen as his property. This "changing the meaning of marriage" has had a lot more impact on me, as a woman in a heterosexual marriage, than the more recent development of allowing two people of the same sex to enter into the same kind of union between equals that my husband and I enjoy.
We are always changing our definitions of things, and there are always people uncomfortable with, and pushing back against, those changes. If we're now in the middle of a very messy and uneven process of changing how we define the concept of "gender," that should be no surprise.
Once everything settled down, I suspect the main change would be that most things that warrant being designated "men only" or "women only" would become "people with penises only" and "people with vaginas only". That is to say, the categorisation of people based on human biology (or perhaps human morphology) would persist, but without using man/woman, male/female, etc as category names.
I'd like to think that such a change would reduce the number of unnecessarily-gendered items there are out there, but by making gender explicitly a choice made by each individual it would probably have the opposite effect.
(Sport would do better to just organise people by percentage muscle mass and t level into classes, the way boxers are currently classed by weight - which would have the added benefit of making a fair few forms of doping pointless.)
Extending the franchise to women didn't destroy the electoral system. The only thing inclusion does is make less certain the hegemony of certain privileged groups.
I would add communal areas where nudity can be expected (changing rooms, some saunas, etc) and the biggest issue of them all - sexuality and dating.
That sounds massively impractical to me, especially at amateur levels.
There's an assumption there that nudity can only take place in the presence of those who have the same sexual organs as oneself. I don't think it applies on nudist beaches, or indeed in all saunas, or some medical contexts or various other things. It only just struck me how odd that assumption actually is. (Personally, I would run a mile from any situation that required me to take my clothes off in the presence of any other human being so my own opinion is irrelevant.)
As to sexuality and dating, I don't have lived experience but from reading it seems increasing numbers of people don't regard which set of sexual organs potential partners have as a deciding factor (bisexuals, pansexuals etc) so I'm not sure that stands up either.
I don’t expect people to stare at my body in changing rooms, regardless of sex, gender or morphology. I have used mixed sex changing facilities as an adult - personally I’d prefer cubicles as general rule rather than getting changed in front of other people.
Sex and dating, I’d think you just be specific in a tinder profile (if you were looking to hook up) or just date people you find attractive.
I suspect that sexual orientation labels will shift to specify to whom you are attracted, rather than carrying a connotation related to your own gender or morphology. I have seen, for example, androphllic used to describe attraction to masculine presenting people.
Are you familiar with Paralympic sport ? They manage and have far more to juggle. You can literally get your body composition from a smart watch or by using a weighing machine in Boots for £2.
If people can learn to understand the offside rule, how test cricket works, what a welterwieght is or how tennis seeding works - they could learn to feed the relevant info into an algorithm. (You could leave adding in t levels until the competitive level at which you test for it.)
It's not really an assumption, more an observation of how virtually every society does things. If it wasn't a near-universal expectation then we wouldn't even have sex/gender-specific changing rooms etc. in the first place.
The latest UK census says that bisexual and pansexual orientations add up to 1.63% of the population (figure adjusted to discount those who didn't answer the question - the actual figure in the census is 1.51%).
Which means that for over 98% of the population, which sexual organs their partner has is very much a deciding factor.
The flaw in that theory is the large number of men-who-have-sex-with-men who identify as straight.
I’d argue that those practices had more to do with patriarchal assumptions about female sexuality, and an overpowering want to control their reproduction.
Also, counter-example: https://blog.lingoda.com/en/german-sauna-guide/
"How virtually every society does things" can change. It has changed regarding slavery, women's rights and employment, children's rights and a whole range of other issues. It's not a clinching argument without a rationale to back it up. I'm pointing out the absence of a rationale.
How large do you think that number is?
That's interesting, because my impression is that if you asked a random selection of people whether they would want to be exposed to the type of genitalia they don't have in a changing room then women would respond more negatively than men.
I have to say, I can't recall since leaving school any occasion where I've actually been in a mutual or indeed one way Strangers' Genitalia Visibility situation. Unless you count urinals, but that really would require you to go out of your way to look.
Probably larger than the number of men who identify as gay or bi.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
I think Kinsey had a figure of 37% of straight men had had sex with a man. Much disputed.
As I recall Kinsey's issue was having a non-representative sample.
But he argued that many surveys underestimate this group, as they are too rushed. Also, many men lie.
I'm sure he's right about that; that doesn't make his figure more plausible.
Exactly. Why is it a problem here and now? When any group - immigrants, Jews, trans, whoever - become The Thing That is Wrong With Our Society, I look for the agenda. Who is pushing it and to what end. (The usual answer is the pursuit of power).
Since I was told often enough (by my father, PE teachers and others) that I wasn't a man, that I should be a man, and so on, it follows that I must be a woman. So suck it up, gendercrits!
Am I a man or a woman? Other than my personal choice, is there a single diagnostic or criterion that can validly determine the answer to that question? They can’t just be meaningless labels because if they were then it surely wouldn’t matter so much to people that they be labelled correctly.
I would go back to @HelenEva 's Art illustration. Is there a single criterion or diagnostic that defines an artwork? Does that mean that the label "Art" is meaningless?
Occasionally, perhaps. There’s one guy at the football who’s been calling me Paul for years, no idea why. I just go with it now. Of course, most people at the football know me by the nickname I have there rather than my real name - it wouldn’t surprise me to learn half of them don’t even know my real name. In a similar vein I’m also pretty sure there are people who’ve met me at Shipmeets who think my real name is Marvin, given that’s what I invariably answer to at them.
So are you birthname, nickname, Paul or Marvin ? How do I tell which is really you ? Are they meaningless labels, or do they have meaning in the different contexts for which they are used ?
(FWIW the law says, you are what people know you as, providing it isn’t for the purpose of evading criminal liability.)
You check the name on my official documentation (birth certificate, passport, drivers license, etc).
Names don’t have any meaning or significance other than to identify specific individuals. Nobody is only attracted to Steves, or thinks Rebecca-only public spaces are a good idea. Nobody talks about the role of Veras in society, or whether the level of representation of Daniels in positions of power is appropriate.
Indeed. There have been numerous experiments in submitting applications for jobs with the same qualifications but one with "white" sounding names and the other with "ethnic" sounding names. The results are exactly what you would expect. And it's a hard prejudice to avoid. If your main exposure to African American names is The Wire then it's a conscious effort to suppress the image that comes to mind if you see the name (say) D'Angelo. One of the interesting things about moving from England to Scotland as a teacher is the different class connotations of names. Calum or Connor on a register in England comes with a different subconscious expectation from the same names in Scotland.
Much the same here. There is a pretty easy procedure to execute a deed evidencing a change of name and registering it at the Registrar-General's office. Important to note that deed evidences the change but does not effect it.
Yes, of course they do. I'd reducing it to the gendercrits view.
I am who I am, of course. I like watching rugby league and knitting while I do it. I like my beer but I don't care for laddish pubs.