A Woman's Place is Speaking Up in Wales

[Shechemite]

do you think people have any agency wr2 gender?

Depends what you mean.

I can (and do) defy the gendered expectations of me (eg I work in Early Years). I can’t choose for society not to have those gendered expectations society has of me (eg I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)

 

[Pickman's model]

Depends what you mean.

I can (and do) defy the gendered expectations of (eg I work in Early Years). I can’t choose for society not to have those gendered expectations of me (eg I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)

what i mean is, do you think that people have any control over their own gender, over how they 'play' male, female etc? after all, gender in the eighteenth century looked rather different from its twenty-first century counterpart. you seem to suggest you have some agency over how you 'play' your gender, but don't seem to believe that someone can decide to 'play' a different gender. i'm not sure it's the case either that you can't affect the expectations other people, i.e. society, have of you - you may not be able to control those expectations, but i think you can at least influence them.

 

[8ball]

...I have to put up with ‘jokes’/insinuations that I do my job to abuse children - coz why else would a man do a ‘woman’s’ job)

 

[Shechemite]

Well, a quick comment on my part about making complaints to management about it soon shuts them up, and it’s not on par with the oppression women face for being, well, women.

 

[Shechemite]

what i mean is, do you think that people have any control over their own gender, over how they 'play' male, female etc? after all, gender in the eighteenth century looked rather different from its twenty-first century counterpart. you seem to suggest you have some agency over how you 'play' your gender, but don't seem to believe that someone can decide to 'play' a different gender. i'm not sure it's the case either that you can't affect the expectations other people, i.e. society, have of you - you may not be able to control those expectations, but i think you can at least influence them.

I’d like to think that I do, in a small way, influence the expectations of others, and that is true for all of us. But on an inidividual level, none of us can make *that* much difference. It requires a social shift, achieved by social movements. Hence I don’t think that individuals ‘choosing’ their ‘gender indentity’ is of much revolutionary value. I’m more inclined to want to work towards getting rid of gender.

 

[Shechemite]

Which is not to say I’m dismissive of those with full on gender dysphoria, or of their identifying with the gender of their choice, but I don’t think it achieves much it terms of breaking down gendered expectations.

 

[Shechemite]

I’ve been (fairly) open about my own dysphoria, but I don’t make sense of it by reference to not being a man. Hence I find the CIS label both offensive and innacurate when describing myself.

 

[kabbes]

I’d like to think that I do, in a small way, influence the expectations of others, and that is true for all of us. But on an inidividual level, none of us can make *that* much difference. It requires a social shift, achieved by social movements. Hence I don’t think that individuals ‘choosing’ their ‘gender indentity’ is of much revolutionary value. I’m more inclined to want to work towards getting rid of gender.

To put it another way, identity is as much about the identity imposed on us by others as it is about the identity we choose for ourselves. It's the dialogue (and tension) between these that creates the identity we wear.

 

[Shechemite]

To put it another way, identity is as much about the identity imposed on us by others as it is about the identity we choose for ourselves. It's the dialogue (and tension) between these that creates the identity we wear.

Quite. Choosing ones own identity isn’t ‘bad’, but it is pretty futile.

 

[8ball]

Quite. Choosing ones own identity isn’t ‘bad’, but it is pretty futile.

If others choose your identity for you, though, then they need to take accountability for that. In this case, we’re talking about a group denying resources to another based on *their* view of identity, and who should mediate claims on identity.

It’s problematic from both perspectives imo.

 

[shygirl]

Has there been any attempts to have meetings where both sides put their worries forward and actual
conversations are had about solutions? In the real world I mean, not on bloody social media where all the idiots hide.

Yes, last September, but trans-activists seem to believe there is no debate and that anyone raising any kind of challenge to their thinking is a nazi, and mustn't be given a platform. The organisers of the meeting then, I believe, decided to get together at Speaker's Corner and this is where a 'rad-fem' was punched by two young, strong fully male-bodied transwomen. A month or two later, a woman was surrounded and abused by trans activists at the Anarchist Book Fair, for handing out leaflets setting out concerns about self-id. Helen Steel stepped in to protect the woman, then she too was subjected to the same abuse. The message to women was loud and clear, you're either with us or against us. Then you've got the whole, kill a terf, punch a terf, the only good terf is a dead terf, etc abuse on social media, none of which is conducive to debate.

 

[shygirl]

Naomi Hersi, 36, was found stabbed to death at Heathrow Palace in London at 10:30 on Sunday 18 March 2018

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/26/transgender-woman-naomi-hersi-murdered-london-in-hotel-room/

That's tragic.

 

[Edie]

Yes

There was even a whole thread (‘transgender/perplexed’) where the nature and function of gender was discussed.

I recall stating the view that gender operates as a social process assigning obligations/roles/‘sins’ to people based on their sex, and that men get a somewhat better deal out of this process.

I can’t claim it to be a novel idea.

That’s pretty much my understanding of it too.

Being female in our society has many advantages. As generalisations, you aren’t expected so much to be protector and provider (and that can be a heavy burden on men), you can show your emotions more, you enjoy close emotionally intimate friendships more than men, you more frequently are the main carer to your children or the elderly or your neighbours. All of these can be double edged swords of course, burdens even, but on the whole I see them as gifts.

There are disadvantages too. Loss of social and economic power when caring. Periods and hormonal nonsense. Pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and childbirth aren’t to be sniffed at. And the vulnerability that comes with those, and then having small children and maybe having no job. Men who find themselves in that position are also vulnerable imo, as it’s hard raising kids and providing for them single handed.

I’m not trans gender, so I say this with caution. But maybe ‘feeling’ the wrong gender is feeling you are better suited to that position in society? Maybe hormones in utero, or the structure of your brain, or your natural disposition, or just a choice. No mind why, other than from scientific curiosity.

But I think I’m more like MadeInBedlam when I think that maybe the better solution is to allow people to cherry pick the parts of gender roles that fit and sod the rest. A gentle loving boy like my younger son who cares for people and likes to sometimes wear nail varnish and make up, is just a lad who happens to like those things and be naturally inclined that way. More power to him. And good for you MadeInBedlam for taking on the important role of caring for the most littlies, and good for people like weepiper who are good with their hands and engineering and fix bikes for a living and no matter she’s a woman.

 

[Shechemite]

That’s pretty much my understanding of it too.

Being female in our society has many advantages. As generalisations, you aren’t expected so much to be protector and provider (and that can be a heavy burden on men), you can show your emotions more, you enjoy close emotionally intimate friendships more than men, you more frequently are the main carer to your children or the elderly or your neighbours. All of these can be double edged swords of course, burdens even, but on the whole I see them as gifts.

There are disadvantages too. Loss of social and economic power when caring. Periods and hormonal nonsense. Pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and childbirth aren’t to be sniffed at. And the vulnerability that comes with those, and then having small children and maybe having no job. Men who find themselves in that position are also vulnerable imo, as it’s hard raising kids and providing for them single handed.

I’m not trans gender, so I say this with caution. But maybe ‘feeling’ the wrong gender is feeling you are better suited to that position in society? Maybe hormones in utero, or the structure of your brain, or your natural disposition, or just a choice. No mind why, other than from scientific curiosity.

But I think I’m more like MadeInBedlam when I think that maybe the better solution is to allow people to cherry pick the parts of gender roles that fit and sod the rest. A gentle loving boy like my younger son who cares for people and likes to sometimes wear nail varnish and make up, is just a lad who happens to like those things and be naturally inclined that way. More power to him. And good for you MadeInBedlam for taking on the important role of caring for the most littlies, and good for people like weepiper who are good with their hands and engineering and fix bikes for a living and no matter she’s a woman.

I’d be fucked if I had to make my living from fixing bikes/cars/anything mechanical tbf

 

[Edie]

Yes, last September, but trans-activists seem to believe there is no debate and that anyone raising any kind of challenge to their thinking is a nazi, and mustn't be given a platform. The organisers of the meeting then, I believe, decided to get together at Speaker's Corner and this is where a 'rad-fem' was punched by two young, strong fully male-bodied transwomen. A month or two later, a woman was surrounded and abused by trans activists at the Anarchist Book Fair, for handing out leaflets setting out concerns about self-id. Helen Steel stepped in to protect the woman, then she too was subjected to the same abuse. The message to women was loud and clear, you're either with us or against us. Then you've got the whole, kill a terf, punch a terf, the only good terf is a dead terf, etc abuse on social media, none of which is conducive to debate.

Missed that as not been on here. That sounds alarming though.

 

[Edie]

I’d be fucked if I had to make my living from fixing bikes/cars/anything mechanical tbf

Weeps is a fucking legend and no mistake. But then I haven’t the patience for a room full of small ones, and anyone who works with kids (of any age) is a hero in my eyes anyway. I’d go spare.

 

[Shechemite]

Weeps is a fucking legend and no mistake. But then I haven’t the patience for a room full of small ones, and anyone who works with kids (of any age) is a hero in my eyes anyway. I’d go spare.

Ha tbh it’s the staff that drive me mental.

 

[kabbes]

If others choose your identity for you, though, then they need to take accountability for that. In this case, we’re talking about a group denying resources to another based on *their* view of identity, and who should mediate claims on identity.

It’s problematic from both perspectives imo.

It's not about accountability or blame. It's just about how the process of identity works, and what consequences flow from it. You can only choose the identity you present, you cannot choose the identity that is imposed. It's been studied a lot, going back at least 30 years.

One of the seminal pieces of research was this one concerning the identity that comes with being homeless, written way back in 1987, and it's well worth a read. If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, I suggest focusing on the conclusion that starts on p29 of the pdf (which is p1363 of the journal). That's where he discusses the implications of his ethnographic research for our understanding of the wider model of identity. On p1367 he starts getting into tension between imposed (i.e. "social") and adopted (i.e. "personal") identity:

The theoretical implications of these observations for understanding the relationships among role, self, and identity are several. The first and most basic pertains to the conditions under which role-based social identities and personal identities are likely to be congruent, as in embracement, or incongruent, as in distancing. Our findings suggest a set of two propositions, the first consistent with the role-identity model's structural emphasis, the second highlighting the importance of improvisation and negotiation

In his concluding paragraph, he sums up the central question:

The central question is not whether structurally based roles and personal identities are congruent or incongruent but under what conditions they are one or the other.

This basic idea gets missed a lot when debates solely concentrate on the identities people claim for themselves. It's like one half of 30 years of research has been totally ignored or, more realistically, that people are using concepts like "identity" without understanding that although this is straightforward on the surface, there's actually a lot of depth to it that goes beyond what you can fit into a twitter soundbite.

 

[8ball]

It's not about accountability or blame. It's just about how the process of identity works, and what consequences flow from it. You can only choose the identity you present, you cannot choose the identity that is imposed.

No, but if moving as part of a group to impose conditions of identities on others, then you bear a burden of proof (which is what I meant by accountability, not “blame”).

 

[kabbes]

No, but if moving as part of a group to impose conditions of identities on others, then you bear a burden of proof (which is what I meant by accountability, not “blame”).

A burden of what proof? There is nothing to prove. You live in a society, that society has roles, those roles are associated with identities, you thus have a social identity. What are you asking here, that every person you ever come into contact with be asked to explain what identity they think you have and justify themselves for it?

Did you read anything from what I linked, or did I lay it out for you for nothing?

 

[8ball]

Handy tip: if you don’t understand a post, it’s not a good look to come over as quite the pompous, overbearing prick.

I may have time for this later. I don’t right now.

 

[Shechemite]

Handy tip: if you don’t understand a post, it’s not a good look to come over as quite the pompous, overbearing prick.

My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.

 

[Pickman's model]

My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.

always with the binaries

 

[Shechemite]

always with the binaries

Can you post that basil brush picture to indicate my appreciation/disdain for your witty pun?

 

[8ball]

My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.

I think your calling may be more in the area of being a conduit for irony, rather than an appreciator of it.

 

[kabbes]

My irony radar may be faulty here, but I’m not sure if 8balls comment is directed at Kabbes or himself.

I'd assumed it was directed at himself, in a moment of self-deprecation. If it was aimed at me, I don't know what it is I was supposed to have misunderstood. Also, I'm a pompous prick all the time, not just when I don't understand things.

 

[Shechemite]

I think your calling may be more in the area of being a conduit for irony, rather than an appreciator of it.

Haha

 

[8ball]

I'd assumed it was directed at himself, in a moment of self-deprecation. If it was aimed at me, I don't know what it is I was supposed to have misunderstood. Also, I'm a pompous prick all the time, not just when I don't understand things.

You do seem to have become more generally combative recently, it's true. Anyway, my point was about the attribution of identity in order to exercise authority (what follows below is just my opinion).

Because society generally, as well as both sides in this group, agree on certain basic principles* and how they should be applied to particular groups and their rights, the battle has moved to who gets control of the labels and definitions (and who goes in which box). The labels are a proxy to control of certain resources so imv any authority exercised has a duty to demonstrate legitimacy as with any resource dispute. Although this is particularly messy and complicated case, it is nothing new.

I have no particular quarrels with what you're saying about the mediated nature of identity, though your apparent view of power relations as something more like the weather than something with any moral dimension doesn't sit well.

* - for example - neither side in this dispute, nor society in general, would agree with the proposition "men should have unfettered access to women-only spaces"

 

[spanglechick]

One of the things that has been a learning curve for me with this debate was the realisation that not everyone has a gender identity beyond the societal roles and biological sex. I've tried to explain it, but I haven't convinced the skeptics. I don't know if it's innate or learned, but I do know that I could not feel more passionately "team woman" despite my serious and deliberate nonconforming to many social expectations and my not having had babies and so being a "fully-potentiated" bio woman.

The best was I can explain, is that if I woke up tomorrow with a male body and fulfilling male social expectations, I am certain that I would still feel like a woman.

And I honestly thought, my whole life, that everybody had this. Or almost everyone. But it turns out lots of people don't. Women I love and admire have talked about the "gender prison" of being born female - and it fills me with sadness. Society can get to fuck, misogyny is terrible - the patriarch is vile, and having periods is fully, fully shit - but being a woman is wonderful, despite that I'd change all the crap stuff if I could.


So if gender identity exists for me, why wouldn't it exist for others - even if we are a minority? And if that's the case, why is it so hard to see that some of those people's gender identity is different from their biological sex?

 

[Athos]

One of the things that has been a learning curve for me with this debate was the realisation that not everyone has a gender identity beyond the societal roles and biological sex. I've tried to explain it, but I haven't convinced the skeptics. I don't know if it's innate or learned, but I do know that I could feel more passionately "team woman" despite my serious and deliberate nonconforming to many social expectations and my not having had babies and so being a "fully-potentiated" bio woman.

The best was I can explain, is that if I woke up tomorrow with a male body and fulfilling male social expectations, I am certain that I would still feel like a woman.

And I honestly thought, my whole life, that everybody had this. Or almost everyone. But it turns out lots of people don't. Women I love and admire have talked about the "gender prison" of being born female - and it fills me with sadness. Society can get to fuck, misogyny is terrible - the patriarch is vile, and having periods is fully, fully shit - but being a woman is wonderful, despite that I'd change all the crap stuff if I could.


So if gender identity exists for me, why wouldn't it exist for others - even if we are a minority? And if that's the case, why is it so hard to see that some of those people's gender identity is different from their biological sex?

If 'gender identity' is just 'how you see yourself', then it's not hard to see that some others may have their own 'gender identity', or that it could be at odds with their sex (in fact, unless you think every trans person is lying, it's pretty undeniable). But, so what? Why is how people see themselves determinative of what they are? Some people think they're the reincarnation of Napoleon, or that they're God's messenger. Why should an individualistic conception of gender trump a socially constructed one? Particularly for feminists? After all, historically, women have been oppressed as a result of the material reality of their (as a class) biology, not because of how they saw themselves; and that oppresssion has been enacted upon them by society, not from within the individual. All of which is a different question from whether or not we should treat people compassionately, although it becomes blurred where they overlap - the philosphical question of 'what is a woman', and the moral question of how a society should treat trans people.